It’s not like aliens put up a welcome banner or anything, but scientists now have newly identified at least one planet that could potentially sustain life.
This is an intuitive look into an accidental stumble, by a former financial analyst, into something that has become quite possibly the future of classroom interaction. He points out various flaws in the teaching of math and various other subjects ranging from the “human-less” classroom to the child left behind. This to me is a very fundamental problem being solved, yet teachers and school systems won’t try it. This is most likely the only time, as a Republican, that I’ll admit that democratic education has its benefit. However, it most likely will never catch on in the US. Khan’s software is even a free service. This is by far a very interesting talk, demonstration, and interview from TEDTalks. Check it out.
I stumbled across this documentary the other day and it truly caught my eye. A lot of what is being said in it, if you get a chance to watch it fully somehow (below is just the trailer), is something I have believed for quite a while. I’ll get this out first thing, they do advocate a fully vegetarian diet. This is something that I’m not 100% in favor of personally because I see eating meat as healthy and naturally. Does it mean there is a point where too much is bad? Of course, too much of anything can be harmful. However, the benefits of healthy eating is a human body that protects itself. (i.e. orthomedical, look it up)
Food Matters™ talks about the failure of modern medicine to notice, as one of the commentators says, “the rhino in the room” (i.e. nutrition). This seems like a simple thing, however, the statistics show that only 6% of MDs have any background, or training for that matter, in nutrition. This documentary will explain that a majority of problems are caused by malnutrition. Even the need for herbicides and pesticides for plants, something I never considered. One commentator made the statement that the recommended dosage in Australia for Vitamin C “is the minimal amount necessary to prevent scurvy, and yet we still have scurvy.” It seems to me that the doctors are missing a piece of the puzzle. Or have we all forgotten, in this world of fast food, the statement “you are what you eat?”
An important piece of information in this documentary, which I had never heard but largely makes sense, is that cooking your food actually forces nutrients out. This means when you steam your vegetables your actually robbing your body of vital nutrients. I’m not one to advocate super raw foods, or even vegetarian diets (as stated above). Those that truly know me, know that I love food. It doesn’t matter what it is, if it smells good I’ll eat it. Italian, Mexican, Japanese, Chinese, Malaysian, Paraguayan, Germany, British, Irish, American you name it I’ve probably eaten it. The point in the documentary is not to turn everyone into vegetarians. They understand meat lovers, like myself, will never fully turn. However, its important to note that the human body needs about 51% of its diet to be raw unprocessed foods (i.e. salads, vegetables, herbs, etc). This is a very simple process of eating a salad for lunch and one at dinner. Not a small side salad, but about 50% portion of your meal.
How does this pertain to me? First, as a child I was diagnosed with ADHD. My parents researched everything to find a means to control my over-hyperactivity. They did so by controlling my diet. I ate largely non-processed, non-dairy, and non-soy. Why non-soy? Soy was the worst of my reactions, and is quite possibly in everything under the sun in North America. I’d start with my ears clocking up and end with me scratching my body like a drug addict. My body, and anyone with ADHD, are drug addicted to foods that cause our reactions. I’ve virtually controlled it by maintain this very diet my parents raised me on. This is something many folks can learn from, instead of turning to Ritalin (i.e. drugs) change your nutrient.
This video, and my philosophy in general on most modern things, does not attack drugs or pharmaceutical companies as being “bad”. Drugs are a great invention of the industrial age. The problem, in the nuclear age, is that we’ve become taught that drugs are always the answer. Your fat, take this pill. You can’t fall asleep, take this pill. Etc, etc, etc. You’ve forgotten a very simple equation. One of my roommates in Washington put it very plainly, “food is meant to recharge, to replenish.” When did we forget this? I’m not quite sure, but an issue of a post-industrial society is that we think the more processed the better for us. Drugs are not bad for us, vaccines for various diseases are a great advancement in human health. But, there comes a point when it is too much. My personal philosophy on drugs is don’t take it if you don’t have to. The body is a natural healer, and I see drugs as inhibiting that process (I’ll say occasionally). Anti-bacterial, anti-viral, and, of course, pain pills are drugs you should take. However, a little muscle soreness from exercise does not merit taking an Advil.
Take it from a guy that loves his meat and potatoes. Check this video out you’ll never look at fast food again.
Google is known for its smart and creative holiday graphics, or as many call them “doodle.” This past Father’s day, yesterday, Google’s doodle was a simple design with a tie instead of the letter “l”. (shown on the left). However, as the article “Google Offends Sons and Daughters with Father’s Day Doodle” from Maximum PC, shows that people have apparently been offended by the doodle.
The article largely states a position by the International Business Times stated that the doodle was a “failure”. They saw no offense in the doodle itself, but rather the plug for Google Voice. As the mouse-over reads, shown on the right, “Dad. Father. Pops. No matter what you call him, call your dad from Gmail.” IBT cited this as offensive because it “shamelessly hawking Google Voice… If Google now wants to exploit holidays for financial gain, it can expect to lose coolness points in the eyes of the public.” There are two interesting facts about this comment by IBT that shows a large disconnect between their knowledge of the holiday and of Google’s services. First point, Google Voice is a free service. It costs users nothing to call there dad’s on Father’s Day, and Google is really only providing a link. Showcasing Google’s mastery of the non-invasive advertising. Second point, Father’s Day was created not for honoring your father, but to sell merchandise that you buy for your dad.
So a very short recap on IBT’s so-called “failure” announcement. IBT accused Google of advertising, for financial gain, a free service on their own website that they offer. And second, the point of Father’s Day (and most holidays for that matter in the 21st century) are for the sell of merchandise. Therefore, accusing a company of using a holiday for financial gain is similar to saying Macy exploits Thanksgiving with the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade (hmmm shocker?).
Now on to the comments that Maximum PC reports about the criticism towards the doodle’s. These complaints are well, childish at best. This is the snipped from the article:
“Is there a way to get rid of this reminder to call a relative who, to me, doesn’t exist beyond the basic biological level?,” one user complained. “I very recently lost my dad and while I understand the sentiment, having that ‘reminder’ there is incredibly mocking,” wrote another.
IBT argues that since Google is the most popular website in the U.S., it must be sensitive to as many people as possible. That’s true, but what’s your take on the Father’s Day doodle? Did Google do anything wrong, or are people overreacting?
I see an epic blockbuster trailer announcer saying, “In a world where political correctness and nazy pansies run rampant.” Okay, besides the comedy on to my point. As IBT stated, Google should be more “sensitive to as many people as possible.” I understand this statement, Google should appeal to the masses on sensitive issues and guarder restraint towards that sensitivity. The lacking point here, again from IBT, is that the majority of people celebrate Father’s Day, and did not find the Google Voice advertisement offensive. After all Google is a company out to make a profit.
As for the comments that the doodle was offensive because it reminded them that they had lost a father, or reminded them that their real father was less than dirt (so to speak). Is the internet ruled by an aristocracy in which the sensitivity of the few, merit changing everything? I think no. To end this I leave with a comment left on Maximum PC by “jorleans”, which sums up my feelings on the matter.
You recently lost your father? It’s a personal tragedy. I’ve lost family members and I feel for you. But don’t expect a National Day of Mourning. You had to know Father’s Day was coming and that people would be taking their fathers to brunch or corporations were going to advertise their products as a great Father’s Day gift. For the vast number of people out there who still have living fathers, Google simply provided a link so that one could call from his or her computer. Trust me, they did not do it just to insult you.
This is fascinating and alarming documentary about Lyme disease. It pinpoints that fact that Lyme disease is often misdiagnosed by doctors and/or simply ignored with many patients being told to seek psychiatric help for delusions. Research is showing that the disease has been around far longer than previously known, and in areas once considered to never have it. For example, there is a woman they showcase from Tennessee that was misdiagnosed because “Tennessee doesn’t have Lyme disease.” As one doctor in the film points out, this is the same treatment that AIDS received. However, the Center for Disease Control states that reported cases are far higher in Lyme disease (65,000) than AIDS (1,400). This is just among those reported the documentary states that the CDC feels the real cases, due to a number of reasons, is far higher. An estimated 400,000 per year greater than AIDS and West Nile combined.
The reason for such misdiagnosis is simply that doctors have Lyme disease as causing a skin rash, and without it there is no Lyme disease. When in actuality there are several different symptoms ranging from chills, headaches, fevers, muscle pains, stiff neck, lethargy, body-wide itching, to unusual or strange behavior. The reason is that its a neurological disease that attacks the nervous system. In addition, the disease is spread simply by deer ticks. Something often unknown until it’s too late, which is what this documentary is attempting to say. If its caught early their are no life debilitating effects, where if left untreated has sever consequences (i.e., bed ridden). Another strong point the documentary is attempting to voice is that this is a chronic disease. Not something that once treated goes away, it must be treated (like AIDS) for the rest of your life.
This is the issue of post-modernist society in which research and licenses is defined by grants. It only moves based upon if there is money involved, and unfortunately as the documentary shows insurance companies don’t want to pay. So the scientific community ignores it simply because in a post-modern society it costs too much, and no one will fund it.
* For more on this argument look at my undergraduate paper “What is the nature of Postmodernism?”
Anyways below is the cover art and a trailer for the documentary. I hope you leave informed.
Washington-based tech policy groups send a letter, linked below, to the FCC asking them to investigate AT&T’s data caps for possible monopolizing. This is not the only company (i.e., Comcast), but the group decided to use AT&T as an example because it charges extra for overage.
AT&T spokesman were stated “it is narrowly tailored to ensure that only those who use the most bandwidth pay for it.”
However, I think AT&T is missing the concern from consumers. Consumers, I think, understand that if you use more you pay more. It is the basic principle of cell phone companies. For internet, the issue is that network capabilities have increased and that company plans have not. In the sources below they site 250GB as the cap for Comcast, this is the same plan that most cell phone companies use. Do they really believe that cell phones and desktop-based usage are the same? Of course not, it’s a matter of whether they can get away with it. 250GB is small in comparison to the amount of information someone, like myself, can go through in the matter of a day or even 12 hours.
As a comment on The Hill article says, “We’re at a tipping point between an exclusively commercial internet, and the historically free and open internet dedicated to the spread of ideas and the meeting of minds. If we let it slip now, we may not be able to get it back.”
I think this statement is true. Granted, as consumers, we all want to pay less. However, these are in a way censorships or blocked access to something that was designed to be the idea of democracy. Freedom of information and the free exchange of ideas. This is what the internet is based upon. I’m not against paying more for usage, but the plans have to be realistic. 250GB is not a realistic plan for desktop or even cell phone based internet.