Showing posts with label Mickey Virus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mickey Virus. Show all posts
Saturday, February 1, 2014
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
What’s the Deal With the Iran Nuclear Deal?
What just happened?
Over the weekend, a meeting in Geneva between Iranian officials and representatives from the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia, China) and Germany reached what amounts to a temporary deal on Iran’s controversial nuclear program. For the next six months, the Iranians have agreed to halt any activity that could boost their ability to build a nuclear weapon and agreed as well to what seems to be rigorous new international inspections. In return, the U.S. and its allies will afford Iran some relief — though the roughly $7 billion on offer is not much — to the crippling regime of international sanctions that has hobbled the Iranian economy in recent years.
Why is Iran’s nuclear program considered such a threat?
Iran’s nuclear program launched in the late 1950s with considerable American aid — at the time, the country’s ruling monarchy was firmly in Washington’s geopolitical camp. That all ended when the 1979 revolution toppled the Shah and ushered in the Islamic Republic. Thereafter, successive Iranian governments have insisted their nuclear program is intended entirely for peaceful, civilian purposes and that they have no interest in building a bomb. The West, chiefly the U.S. and Israel, looks upon this claim with great skepticism.
(MORE: Not Everyone’s Happy: Hard-Liners in Iran Criticize Geneva Nuclear Deal)
In the past decade, tensions have deepened, with former U.S. President George W. Bush lumping Iran into the “axis of evil” and Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earning notoriety for his bellicose rhetoric, particularly when aimed at Israel. Critics of Tehran see it as a destabilizing force with unsavory friends, propping up Syrian President Bashar Assad and the powerful Lebanese militant organization Hizballah. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed repeatedly that an Iranian nuclear weapon poses an existential threat to his country. Israel is believed to have waged a covert war against Iran’s nuclear interests, ranging from stealth-missile strikes to computer viruses to the assassination of Iranian scientists. NATO justifies its own long-running plan to build a European missile shield on the existence of an Iranian nuclear threat. Finally, an Iranian nuclear weapon, some analysts fear, would spur an arms race in the Middle East, leading regional rivals like Saudi Arabia to pursue their own nuclear deterrents.
Have other budding nuclear powers faced this scrutiny?
No, not really. It’s an open secret that Israel already has nukes. Like Israel, India and Pakistan are not signatories to the U.N.’s Non-Proliferation Treaty on nuclear weapons (Iran is). When the two South Asian archrivals tested their own nuclear bombs in quick succession in 1998, it triggered a fair amount of international outrage and hand-wringing. But that didn’t last too long — most glaringly, the U.S. inked a potentially lucrative nuclear-energy deal with India in 2005. The spotlight shined on Iran’s nuclear program has little to do with upholding international norms and much more with the realpolitik of the fractious Middle East.
We keep hearing about uranium enrichment. What’s that all about?
You have to enrich uranium for both reactors and bombs because natural uranium is mostly U-238, which means the atoms have three extra neutrons in their nuclei. But U-238 nuclei don’t break apart (or fission, to use the technical term) very easily. That means they can’t generate a self-sustaining nuclear reaction. To make that happen, you need atoms of U-235, which are more fissionable but also much rarer — less than 1% of a chunk of natural uranium, by weight. The most efficient way to boost the percentage of U-235 is with a series of centrifuges that whirl uranium gas around at very high speeds. Some of the heavier U-238 atoms are whipped out to the edges, leaving the gas in the core slightly enriched with U-235. Then take out the enriched gas, put it in another centrifuge, and repeat the process until you get the purity you need.
(MORE: Israel Renews Warnings of Military Action After Iran Nuclear Deal)
So what does the deal do to Iran’s nuclear capabilities?
At least for the next six months, Iran will cease enrichment of uranium beyond 5%, will not install new centrifuges in its facilities and will have to keep some of its existing centrifuges inactive. Iran has also agreed to dilute or convert into oxide its existing stockpile of uranium enriched at 20%. The deal also puts a freeze on work at the heavy water reactor at Arak. And Iran has agreed to a strict, new regime of monitoring by the U.N.’s atomic energy agency that will make it much harder for the international community to be taken by surprise should the Iranians attempt what is known as nuclear breakout.
What’s the difference between 5% or 20% or 90% enriched uranium?
Uranium that’s been enriched to 5% is pure enough to be used in many types of power-generating reactors. Some power reactors, and some research reactors used to make radioactive isotopes for medical treatments, need uranium enriched to 20%. An atomic bomb requires much purer U-235 — up to 90% enriched, although some crude bombs can be made with slightly lower-enriched uranium. (This all applies to a conventional atomic bomb, like the one dropped on Hiroshima in 1945; a hydrogen bomb uses an atomic bomb as a trigger to ignite a much more powerful thermonuclear explosion, a fusion not a fission reaction.) It’s important to note that it’s much more difficult to get from 1% U-235 up to 20% than it is to get from 20% to 90%.
Is it easy to dispose of enriched uranium stockpiles?
It’s laborious, but not complicated. You thoroughly mix enriched uranium with U-238 until the percentage drops back down to natural levels. Once you’ve done that, it’s just as tough to purify the uranium as it was the first time around.
What is plutonium, then, and is the process to use it different?
Plutonium is an entirely different element from uranium, but it’s radioactive as well, and, like U-235, it’s fissionable, so you can use it in bombs or reactors. The bomb that the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima used uranium; the one that destroyed Nagasaki used plutonium. Plutonium bombs are technically more difficult to manufacture. The reason why the facility at Arak concerns those who want to halt Iran’s nuclear program is that it uses plutonium, which is even more dangerous and toxic than uranium, and an air strike on the Arak plant would lead to unconscionable, deadly fallout.
(MORE: Iranians Celebrate Nuclear Deal)
So what does Iran get in return for its concessions and cooperation?
Some $4.2 billion of the less than $7 billion of sanction relief tendered to Iran comes from the country’s own assets frozen in foreign banks. Moreover, the grinding sanctions on Iran’s oil exports and banking sector put into place by the E.U. remain almost totally intact (the concessions involve loosening commercial restrictions on gold, automobiles and pharmaceuticals). As London-based analyst Shashank Joshi puts it: “Iran will still be forfeiting over three times as much in foregone oil revenue as it will gain in relief.” But what Iran does come away with from Geneva is an implicit recognition of its right to enrich uranium — a sticking point for a nation that stressed repeatedly ahead of the Geneva talks the importance of recognizing Iranian dignity and sovereignty. Given the celebrations that greeted the returning Iranian negotiating team, it’s clear many Iranians welcome what is an important step away from the isolationist drift of the Ahmadinejad years.
Who’s unhappy with the deal?
Not long after the deal was brokered late Saturday night, Israel’s hawkish Netanyahu deemed it a “historic mistake” (the stock market in his own country seemed to disagree). Though far less outspoken, the largely Sunni Gulf states, chiefly Saudi Arabia, are wary of American rapprochement with Iran, a Shi‘ite theocracy and main regional rival. Some reports suggest the Saudis are poised to kick-start their own nuclear program, perhaps with Pakistani help. Congressional Republicans have criticized the Obama Administration for being supposedly soft on an untrustworthy regime. Some hard-liners in Iran have also found cause to complain: opposition factions in both Tehran and Washington could yet scuttle the whole process.
What changed in U.S.-Iran relations for the deal to happen?
The surprise election of the moderate cleric Hassan Rouhani as President of Iran earlier this year did much to dispel the bad odor left behind by eight years of Ahmadinejad. Rouhani’s historic overtures to the U.S. that followed were received by a cautious, yet willing Obama Administration. And Rouhani’s appointment of the suave former Iranian ambassador to the U.N., Mohammad Javad Zarif, as the country’s Foreign Minister and lead nuclear negotiator proved crucial. So too, it seems, were secret, back-channel meetings between American and Iranian officials in Oman. For the moment, diplomacy and dialogue have won the day, but the talks will have to continue — and trust between Iran and its Western interlocutors will have to deepen — before a lasting deal can be reached.
Over the weekend, a meeting in Geneva between Iranian officials and representatives from the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia, China) and Germany reached what amounts to a temporary deal on Iran’s controversial nuclear program. For the next six months, the Iranians have agreed to halt any activity that could boost their ability to build a nuclear weapon and agreed as well to what seems to be rigorous new international inspections. In return, the U.S. and its allies will afford Iran some relief — though the roughly $7 billion on offer is not much — to the crippling regime of international sanctions that has hobbled the Iranian economy in recent years.
Why is Iran’s nuclear program considered such a threat?
Iran’s nuclear program launched in the late 1950s with considerable American aid — at the time, the country’s ruling monarchy was firmly in Washington’s geopolitical camp. That all ended when the 1979 revolution toppled the Shah and ushered in the Islamic Republic. Thereafter, successive Iranian governments have insisted their nuclear program is intended entirely for peaceful, civilian purposes and that they have no interest in building a bomb. The West, chiefly the U.S. and Israel, looks upon this claim with great skepticism.
(MORE: Not Everyone’s Happy: Hard-Liners in Iran Criticize Geneva Nuclear Deal)
In the past decade, tensions have deepened, with former U.S. President George W. Bush lumping Iran into the “axis of evil” and Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earning notoriety for his bellicose rhetoric, particularly when aimed at Israel. Critics of Tehran see it as a destabilizing force with unsavory friends, propping up Syrian President Bashar Assad and the powerful Lebanese militant organization Hizballah. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed repeatedly that an Iranian nuclear weapon poses an existential threat to his country. Israel is believed to have waged a covert war against Iran’s nuclear interests, ranging from stealth-missile strikes to computer viruses to the assassination of Iranian scientists. NATO justifies its own long-running plan to build a European missile shield on the existence of an Iranian nuclear threat. Finally, an Iranian nuclear weapon, some analysts fear, would spur an arms race in the Middle East, leading regional rivals like Saudi Arabia to pursue their own nuclear deterrents.
Have other budding nuclear powers faced this scrutiny?
No, not really. It’s an open secret that Israel already has nukes. Like Israel, India and Pakistan are not signatories to the U.N.’s Non-Proliferation Treaty on nuclear weapons (Iran is). When the two South Asian archrivals tested their own nuclear bombs in quick succession in 1998, it triggered a fair amount of international outrage and hand-wringing. But that didn’t last too long — most glaringly, the U.S. inked a potentially lucrative nuclear-energy deal with India in 2005. The spotlight shined on Iran’s nuclear program has little to do with upholding international norms and much more with the realpolitik of the fractious Middle East.
We keep hearing about uranium enrichment. What’s that all about?
You have to enrich uranium for both reactors and bombs because natural uranium is mostly U-238, which means the atoms have three extra neutrons in their nuclei. But U-238 nuclei don’t break apart (or fission, to use the technical term) very easily. That means they can’t generate a self-sustaining nuclear reaction. To make that happen, you need atoms of U-235, which are more fissionable but also much rarer — less than 1% of a chunk of natural uranium, by weight. The most efficient way to boost the percentage of U-235 is with a series of centrifuges that whirl uranium gas around at very high speeds. Some of the heavier U-238 atoms are whipped out to the edges, leaving the gas in the core slightly enriched with U-235. Then take out the enriched gas, put it in another centrifuge, and repeat the process until you get the purity you need.
(MORE: Israel Renews Warnings of Military Action After Iran Nuclear Deal)
So what does the deal do to Iran’s nuclear capabilities?
At least for the next six months, Iran will cease enrichment of uranium beyond 5%, will not install new centrifuges in its facilities and will have to keep some of its existing centrifuges inactive. Iran has also agreed to dilute or convert into oxide its existing stockpile of uranium enriched at 20%. The deal also puts a freeze on work at the heavy water reactor at Arak. And Iran has agreed to a strict, new regime of monitoring by the U.N.’s atomic energy agency that will make it much harder for the international community to be taken by surprise should the Iranians attempt what is known as nuclear breakout.
What’s the difference between 5% or 20% or 90% enriched uranium?
Uranium that’s been enriched to 5% is pure enough to be used in many types of power-generating reactors. Some power reactors, and some research reactors used to make radioactive isotopes for medical treatments, need uranium enriched to 20%. An atomic bomb requires much purer U-235 — up to 90% enriched, although some crude bombs can be made with slightly lower-enriched uranium. (This all applies to a conventional atomic bomb, like the one dropped on Hiroshima in 1945; a hydrogen bomb uses an atomic bomb as a trigger to ignite a much more powerful thermonuclear explosion, a fusion not a fission reaction.) It’s important to note that it’s much more difficult to get from 1% U-235 up to 20% than it is to get from 20% to 90%.
Is it easy to dispose of enriched uranium stockpiles?
It’s laborious, but not complicated. You thoroughly mix enriched uranium with U-238 until the percentage drops back down to natural levels. Once you’ve done that, it’s just as tough to purify the uranium as it was the first time around.
What is plutonium, then, and is the process to use it different?
Plutonium is an entirely different element from uranium, but it’s radioactive as well, and, like U-235, it’s fissionable, so you can use it in bombs or reactors. The bomb that the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima used uranium; the one that destroyed Nagasaki used plutonium. Plutonium bombs are technically more difficult to manufacture. The reason why the facility at Arak concerns those who want to halt Iran’s nuclear program is that it uses plutonium, which is even more dangerous and toxic than uranium, and an air strike on the Arak plant would lead to unconscionable, deadly fallout.
(MORE: Iranians Celebrate Nuclear Deal)
So what does Iran get in return for its concessions and cooperation?
Some $4.2 billion of the less than $7 billion of sanction relief tendered to Iran comes from the country’s own assets frozen in foreign banks. Moreover, the grinding sanctions on Iran’s oil exports and banking sector put into place by the E.U. remain almost totally intact (the concessions involve loosening commercial restrictions on gold, automobiles and pharmaceuticals). As London-based analyst Shashank Joshi puts it: “Iran will still be forfeiting over three times as much in foregone oil revenue as it will gain in relief.” But what Iran does come away with from Geneva is an implicit recognition of its right to enrich uranium — a sticking point for a nation that stressed repeatedly ahead of the Geneva talks the importance of recognizing Iranian dignity and sovereignty. Given the celebrations that greeted the returning Iranian negotiating team, it’s clear many Iranians welcome what is an important step away from the isolationist drift of the Ahmadinejad years.
Who’s unhappy with the deal?
Not long after the deal was brokered late Saturday night, Israel’s hawkish Netanyahu deemed it a “historic mistake” (the stock market in his own country seemed to disagree). Though far less outspoken, the largely Sunni Gulf states, chiefly Saudi Arabia, are wary of American rapprochement with Iran, a Shi‘ite theocracy and main regional rival. Some reports suggest the Saudis are poised to kick-start their own nuclear program, perhaps with Pakistani help. Congressional Republicans have criticized the Obama Administration for being supposedly soft on an untrustworthy regime. Some hard-liners in Iran have also found cause to complain: opposition factions in both Tehran and Washington could yet scuttle the whole process.
What changed in U.S.-Iran relations for the deal to happen?
The surprise election of the moderate cleric Hassan Rouhani as President of Iran earlier this year did much to dispel the bad odor left behind by eight years of Ahmadinejad. Rouhani’s historic overtures to the U.S. that followed were received by a cautious, yet willing Obama Administration. And Rouhani’s appointment of the suave former Iranian ambassador to the U.N., Mohammad Javad Zarif, as the country’s Foreign Minister and lead nuclear negotiator proved crucial. So too, it seems, were secret, back-channel meetings between American and Iranian officials in Oman. For the moment, diplomacy and dialogue have won the day, but the talks will have to continue — and trust between Iran and its Western interlocutors will have to deepen — before a lasting deal can be reached.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Living in fear as crime rate rises
NEW DELHI: The capital is not a safe place, residents feel, and the perception has become entrenched after the Nirbhaya gang rape last December . The Delhi Human Development Report 2013 released by Vice-President M Hamid Ansari
on Saturday notes: "There...appears to be an issue with regard to
public safety for the citizens in the state" . At the release function ,
Ansari himself said the government must restore people's faith in
police and the justice delivery system.
The findings are based on a perception survey involving around 8,000 households across the city. The chapter on public safety reveals that nearly 38% of the respondents rated personal safety as unsatisfactory. The feeling is shared by rich and poor alike. In the New Delhi area, populated by the city's rich and powerful, 56.3% of the respondents rated personal safety as poor or very poor. South Delhi followed with 49.7%, Northwest District with 41.2%, Central District with 39.4% and West District with 38.6%.
In upscale colonies, 46.2% of the respondents rated public safety as poor or very poor. This was followed by 41.9% in the Walled City, 40% in slum clusters, 39.9% in authorized colonies, 36.9% in resettlement colonies, 34.9% in urban villages and 31% in unauthorized colonies.
The report reveals marked differences between the perceptions of men and women. As compared to men (31.8%), far fewer women (26.8%) think the level of personal safety is good or very good. The respondents generally feel that crime is on the rise, with 95% saying all kinds of crimes have increased . Also, 9.3% of the respondents said they or a family member had been victims of some crime during the past three years.
The report states that Delhi has comparatively higher rates of violent crimes such as murder and kidnapping. The overall rate of crimes against women increased from 16.8 to 20.7 per lakh women from 2004-6 to 2010-12 . Rape cases went up to four per lakh women during 2010-12 compared to 3.2 during 2004-6.
The rates of kidnapping and abduction of children in Delhi are also highlighted in the report that shows a significant increase from 4.5 per lakh population in 2004-6 to 18.3 per lakh in 2012. Moreover, the report points out that the residents in general did not report satisfaction with the performance of the police.
The findings are based on a perception survey involving around 8,000 households across the city. The chapter on public safety reveals that nearly 38% of the respondents rated personal safety as unsatisfactory. The feeling is shared by rich and poor alike. In the New Delhi area, populated by the city's rich and powerful, 56.3% of the respondents rated personal safety as poor or very poor. South Delhi followed with 49.7%, Northwest District with 41.2%, Central District with 39.4% and West District with 38.6%.
In upscale colonies, 46.2% of the respondents rated public safety as poor or very poor. This was followed by 41.9% in the Walled City, 40% in slum clusters, 39.9% in authorized colonies, 36.9% in resettlement colonies, 34.9% in urban villages and 31% in unauthorized colonies.
The report reveals marked differences between the perceptions of men and women. As compared to men (31.8%), far fewer women (26.8%) think the level of personal safety is good or very good. The respondents generally feel that crime is on the rise, with 95% saying all kinds of crimes have increased . Also, 9.3% of the respondents said they or a family member had been victims of some crime during the past three years.
The report states that Delhi has comparatively higher rates of violent crimes such as murder and kidnapping. The overall rate of crimes against women increased from 16.8 to 20.7 per lakh women from 2004-6 to 2010-12 . Rape cases went up to four per lakh women during 2010-12 compared to 3.2 during 2004-6.
The rates of kidnapping and abduction of children in Delhi are also highlighted in the report that shows a significant increase from 4.5 per lakh population in 2004-6 to 18.3 per lakh in 2012. Moreover, the report points out that the residents in general did not report satisfaction with the performance of the police.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
In Pictures: Hollywood's Sexiest Celebrities
Follow:
#1. Salma Hayek
E-Score: 65%
Age: 40
Though anything but ugly herself, Hayek scored big with ABC’s freshman dramedy Ugly Betty. In addition to her role as the show’s executive producer, she won over audiences as Daniel Meade’s love interest and women’s magazine editor Sofia Reyes. Off-screen, Hayek is carrying the baby of billionaire fiancé Francois-Henri Pinault.
#2. Jessica Alba (tie)
E-Score: 64%
Age: 26
Playboy got it right when it named Alba among its 25 Sexiest Celebrities last year. Where the magazine went wrong, at least according to Alba: Sticking her on the cover without her permission (the A-lister has since dropped the lawsuit). This summer, Alba returns as Sue Storm in the Fox blockbuster Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. And still to come: a leading role in sequel Sin City 2.
#2. Carmen Electra (tie)
E-Score: 64%
Age: 35
Though the bombshell got the world’s attention as a Playboy model, she has been able to maintain her fame with roles on the big and small screen. Most recently, the former Baywatch cast member could be seen in big-screen laughers Epic Movie and Scary Movie 4.
#4. Shakira
E-Score: 63%
Age: 30
Shakira has won over fans with her beauty and music alike. A two-time Grammy winner, the Columbian songstress has sold some 50 million albums over the course of her career. Next up, her songs will reportedly appear in Love in the Time of Cholera, a silver-screen adaptation of Columbian author Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s novel, hitting theaters later this year.
#5. Halle Berry (tie)
E-Score: 59%
Age: 40
The former Bond girl has more to offer than good looks, as evidenced by her Oscar, Emmy and Golden Globe wins. Earlier this year, Berry could be seen as a journalist undercover in Perfect Stranger. Next, she’ll play opposite Benicio Del Toro in the Dreamworks tearjerker Things We Lost in the Fire, slated for release later this year.
#5. Beyonce Knowles (tie)
E-Score: 59%
Age: 25
She may have risen to fame as a member of girl group Destiny’s Child, but Beyonce has shown she can make music and fans all by herself. Most recently, she wowed the latter with her beauty and skill in the holiday blockbuster Dreamgirls, for which she received acting and singing Golden Globe nods. The songstress is currently belting out tunes on her lengthy “The Beyonce Experience” tour.
#5. Eva Longoria (tie)
E-Score: 59%
Age: 32
She may play former model Gabrielle Solis on ABC hit Desperate Housewives, but Longoria has no trouble turning heads off of Wysteria Lane as well. Later this year, the petite actress will appear on screen in Universal Pictures’ Over My Dead Body. Off-screen, Longoria recently tied the knot with NBA all-star Tony Parker.
#8. Catherine Zeta-Jones
E-Score: 57%
Age: 37
Zeta-Jones’ resume boasts a slew of big-budget flicks, including The Mask of Zorro, America’s Sweethearts and Ocean’s Twelve. And in 2003, the Welsh actress took home an Oscar for her supporting role in the film adaptation of Chicago. Later this summer, she’ll play opposite Aaron Eckhart in the Warner Brothers romantic comedy No Reservations. Off-screen, she’s married to Michael Douglas.
VIA FORBS#9. Elizabeth Hurley (tie)
E-Score: 56%
Age: 42
On screen, Hurley is still best known for her role as Vanessa Kensington in the Austin Powers series. But off screen, the beauty, who once dated Hugh Grant, has launched a fashion line and played spokesmodel for Estee Lauder. Earlier this year, she wed Indian businessman Arun Nayar in a lavish eight-day ceremony.
Forbes 2013 list of sexy female models with the highest paycheck (10 Photos)
Follow:
- Calvin Klein model Lara Stone, $3.2 million
- Victoria’s Secret model Candice Swanepoel, $3.3 million
- Joan Smalls, $3.5 million
- ‘Project Runway: All Stars’ host and Estee Lauder model Carolyn Murphy, $3.6 million
- Estee Lauder model Hilary Rhoda, $4 million
- China’s first supermodel Liu Wen, $4.3 million
- Kate Moss, $5.7 million
- Victoria’s Secret model Adriana Lima, $6 million
- Victoria’s Secret Angel Miranda Kerr, $7.2 million
- Gisele Bündchen takes top honors with $42 million, thanks to contracts with H&M and Chanel, among others.
- Via Forbs
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Historic Center of the Middle Kingdom
The third largest city square in the world, Tiananmen Square has great
cultural significance as the site of seminal events in China’s
history. The 109-acre expanse is named after Tiananmen Gate, or the Gate
of Heavenly Peace, that separates it from the Imperial Forbidden City
to the north. Tiananmen Square was originally designed and built in
1651, but has been enlarged four times since; its current size dates
from the 1950s when Chairman Mao Zedong started renovations with the aim
of making the space capable of accommodating half-a-million people.
North Koreans Splash in New Water Park
Spectators watch people use The Munsu Water Park in Pyongyang in this
undated photo released by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency on
October 16, 2013.
Why We Don’t Trust Online-Dating Sites — but Use Them Anyway
According to the latest surveys, 11% of Americans say they have
looked online for love. But that doesn’t mean that daters are happy with
what they find.
In the latest Pew Research Center’s online-dating and relationships
poll — the group’s first look at digital dating since its last survey in
2005 — people’s mistrust about their online partners emerged as their
biggest
“One guy I went on a date with used pictures of himself that were
from about seven years ago,” Maggie Klimentova, a New Yorker who used
(and eventually met her boyfriend on) OkCupid, says of her online-dating experience. “When I actually met him, he was 4 inches shorter than me and balding.”
And yet despite rampant misinformation, more people than ever are
logging onto dating sites, thanks to a decline in the stigma of digital
dating over the past eight years. Now, 38% of singles who are “looking
for a partner” use a dating site or app.
And, according to the Pew poll, more daters expect that the people
they meet on the site will lie about themselves. Faking any part of an
online-dating profile, however, may be a shortsighted strategy. Sure,
you may get the attention you want initially, but eventually a match is
bound to discover your lies. And even if the lies aren’t immediately
discoverable — such as not being truthful about previous marriages or a
desire to have children, for example — those types of lies can do
long-term damage to a relationship, says clinical psychologist and
relationship expert Michelle Golland. “People think that it’s something
they won’t have to worry about, but it is a huge problem that’s harder
to overcome later in the relationship,” she says.
So why do people do it? And more important, if so many online-dating
users assume people are garnishing their profiles in some way, why do
they continue to look for relationships on these sites? Golland says
it’s easy to understand why people fib online: “Unless you’re a
sociopath, it’s generally easier to lie on a profile than it is to lie
to someone’s face.”
For some, lying may also seem like the only option for finding dates.
“People who lie on their profiles fear that they’re not worthy and may
never have a relationship because of their job or how they look,” she
says.
That can lead to a desperation with serious consequences; 42% of
women who used online dating felt that they were harassed or contacted
in a way that made them feel uncomfortable, according to the
poll. Klimentova says her bad date harassed her online for weeks.
Understanding why people still find digital dating appealing, despite
its shortcomings, is a little more complicated. For one, having more
options may be a benefit when it comes to finding a match. “I think
having a lot of options is a good thing,” says Golland. Some studies
have found that the plethora of candidates online skews relationships
toward the shallow side, since people have an instinctive tendency to
shop around and not invest time or effort into each choice when there
are so many to consider. And 32% of Internet users agreed that “online
dating keeps people from settling down because they always have options
for people to date.”
But Golland believes that people will stop dating if they feel they
have found the one for them. “When you do, you’ll stop. You won’t want
to keep dating,” she says. And you certainly won’t want the other person
to keep dating.” She could be right. As the poll showed, people are
starting to believe that the hazards of online dating are worth the
trouble: 5% of married and serious couples in the U.S., and 11% of
couples who started dating in the past 10 years, met through online
dating.
Your Kid Is Probably Wearing the Wrong Helmet to Prevent Concussions
With more than 40,000 concussions occurring each year among U.S. high
school students, researchers decided to test how well the different
helmet brands protected against head injuries.
Presenting their data at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
National Conference and Exhibition in Orlando, the scientists reported
no significant differences in concussion risk among the most popular
brands.
The study involved 1,332 football players from 36 U.S. high schools
during the 2012 football season. Before the season, the players answered
questions about their behaviors and their history of injuries. During
the season, athletic trainers at the high schools tracked the number and
severity of sports-related concussions, recording which brands of
helmet and mouth guard the players used.
The majority of students — 52% — wore Riddell helmets, 35% wore
Schutt and 13% used Xenith. Sixty one percent of the players wore
generic mouth guards provided by their schools, and 39% wore mouth
guards that were custom-made by their dentist, or specially branded to
reduce concussion risk.
By the end of the season, 115 players had sustained 116 sports
related concussions, and there were no notable differences in the
likelihood of getting concussions between the different brands.
Surprisingly, players who used custom-fitted mouth guards had a higher
risk of concussions than those who used standard varieties, leading the
researchers to conclude that a hefty price tag doesn’t lead to more
protection.
Using a properly fitted helmet is critical to preventing skull
fractures, but the scientists say that the nature of concussions may
make it impossible to develop a helmet that completely protects against
internal injuries to the brain. Since the brain floats freely in the
skull, a helmet that sits on the outside of the skull does little to
cushion the violent movement that delicate brain tissue and nerve
networks feel during a tackle. So any helmet, regardless of how it’s
made, say the researchers, can only go so far in preventing the side
effects of concussions.
The Good Wife Watch: This Means War
A civil war breaks out in the office, and "Hitting the Fan" proves, if
there was any doubt, why The Good Wife is currently the best thing on TV
outside cable..
Monday, October 28, 2013
Movie Review: Mickey Virus
Meet Mickey Arora (Manish Paul), a skilled hacker who prances around in
bright T-shirts with quirky slogans, brighter sneakers and a spiky
hairdo. He is a lazy lad, who likes to access restricted or guarded
systems and thinks it's funny to install viruses into computers. He does
by writing very little programming code. A smooth operator of the
virtual world, he hits a rough patch when he is caught in a predicament
which requires him to turn into an investigator overnight. Back to Mega Review
Mickey Virus tries too hard to be cool. There is fun typography and graphics, characters dressed like they are models for the T-shirt brand Threadless and a sound design which draws from the sounds often heard on computers. But in director Saurabh Varma's obsession with making the computer world fun and up-to-date, he forgets the need to tell a story well. As a result, the supporting characters only have interesting names -
As the eponymous hero of the film, Paul gets to do everything in the film but dance. (Though there's a little jig in the opening song.) But Mickey Virus isn't the launch pad that showcases his comic timing or his good screen presence. Paul is let down by a poor script which is bereft of humour and a sense of genuine thrill. Elli Avram, currently stuck in the Bigg Boss house in Lonavala, has even little to do here other than be the object of Mickey's desire. So little that her voice is dubbed and she does a bizarre dance in a mini skirt as part of a dream sequence.
As a viewer, the only time we were moved was when an iPad was destroyed in a fight sequence. That's not a good sign for a film in which the humans are the real heroes.
Floppy, Chutney and Pancho - and nothing else. There's a whodunit about which viewers couldn't care less and a long climax in which the criminal conspiracy is explained much like a drab computer lesson
