|
[29 Jun 2008|02:58pm] |
<a href="http://www.nataliedee.com/"
|
|
|
[16 Aug 2007|02:55pm] |
i have been meaning to post this article for awhile, pretty much since i saw it at the noimpactman blog.
http://johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=863
interesting goings on in Africa, eh.
here are some of the best quotes for those who don't have time to read the whole thing.
The only change over the decades has been the particular resource snatched for Western consumption – rubber under the Belgians, diamonds under Mobutu, coltan and cassiterite today. There is an official story about the war in Congo, and then there is the reality, uncovered by a trilogy of bomb-blast reports from the UN Panel of Experts on the DRC. The official story is convoluted and hard to follow, because it does not ultimately make sense. Once the Congo was drenched in death, the UN commissioned a panel of international statesmen to travel the country and uncover the reasons behind the war. They found that the Rwandan government’s story hid a much darker truth. The Rwandans had one motive, right from the beginning: to seize Congo’s massive mineral wealth, to grab the coltan mine I am standing in now and thousands like it, and to sell it on to us, the waiting world, as we quickly flicked the channel away from the news of this war with our coltan-filled remote control. Kids in Congo were being sent down mines to die so that kids in Europe and America could kill imaginary aliens in their living rooms.” Oh, and the reason why this invasion was so profitable? Global demand for coltan was soaring throughout the war because of the massive popularity of coltan-filled Sony Playstations. “They killed my father, my grandfather and my little sister. So I decided to join Mai-Mai [a Congolese militia]. I can’t count how many people I killed. I did it for six years.” "We are the most unhappy people in the world.”
Think about it next time you want a new electronic gadget because you think you can't possibly live without it.
|
|
| Invasion interestingness |
[28 Jun 2007|04:34pm] |
So I have been working out in HMF, and there are a ton of invasive plants there (as some of you may know). Lonicera japonica, Japanese honeysuckle, is a pretty big pest there (along with a ton of other things, but im not getting into that right now). Normally the leaves are round and opposite, growing along the vine. however when the plant is young, the first leaves will mimic those of white oak!
Why and how on earth can it do that? I don't believe it is an anti-grazing mechanism, because i don't know of anything that eats it (besides birds eating the berries), and if it IS anti-grazing, then that means that the grazing animals know what oak leaves (which in real oaks are full of bad tasting tannins, so....) look like, which is amazing in and of itself.
Anyone have another theory?
|
|
|
[26 Jun 2007|11:12am] |
|
A picture of a woman looking at an optical illusion. It isn't moving but your brain thinks it is. it's scary how you can't stop your brain from thinking without your consent, isn't it? if you concentrate on them, you can get them to stop spinning.
|
|
| continuation |
[21 Jun 2007|06:26pm] |
|
I got the following as a response to a previous post and decided to just go ahead and make another journal entry on it...
hmm I agree.
I can say that there is a way around the diamond thing. There are some pretty good "lab created" diamonds that are molecularly speaking, diamonds, though they will have 0 florescence which a small amount can be neat. One could go with a sapphire (corundum), did you know they come in all colors including clear (though clear doesn't have the fire of a diamond, I could bore you with the details on why) and they are a hell of a lot cheaper than a diamond. and they rank in # 2 on the hardness scale. Ruby is also considered corundum and is sorta at the same level with hardness as sapphires :) But the hardness scale is a little tricky. It isnt quite as cut and dry as one would think. So technically corundum is much weaker than a real diamond. Also created diamonds are not suitable for tension settings because they are more brittle than a sapphire, ruby or a real diamond, and will crack under pressure, yet they still are just as "hard" yet more brittle, not perfect..hmmm.....
ALSO there are recycled diamonds, still a bit pricey but they are not adding to the mining and all the conflict over in africa and the such. If conflict diamonds bother you. Worry not, almost all places now are "conflict diamond free" though I have my doubts on this.
But what about the gold? Mining gold is awful too. Lucky for us now, you can use recycled gold :) here are some neat-o links for you to peruse.
http://www.greenkarat.com/
http://www.artisanweddingrings.com/about-reflective-images.php
http://www.sumiche.com/platinum.html
I also agree that the guy should wear some sort of engagement ring. And most aren't going to go for the diamond thing. BUT titanium or stainless steel rings are pretty cool-ella and you can engrave stuff on them...Like "taken" or "your name" or "your and his name" or what ever the heck you want including symbols for love and the like :) http://www.titaniumera.com/catalog/list?cid=692 well thanks, whoever (Sarah? Jess? Kim?). G and I have researched lab created diamonds a lot, and many true "created" diamonds are not colorless they are yellow or pink - not just tinged but strongly colored. Which is cool but just not good enough, and although natural canary diamonds are highly sought after, my brain screams "IMPURITY!!!!!!". the ones that are colorless are diamond simulant, which is not true diamond. Yeah, i have seen clear sapphire, and i know that conundrum is just below diamond in hardness and that clear conundrum doesn't have the brilliance of diamond. I just don't like colored stones on engagement rings, even as sidestones. I'm picky about sapphire colors that i actually like and i have always hated ruby (which is my birthstone, ugh) except for the "pigeon's blood" ones which are deep deep red almost purple, and of course, extremely rare and expensive. I don't believe that there are conflict free mined diamonds, because though they may be socially conflict free, harming the earth is still a MAJOR conflict in my mind, so any diamond taken from the earth = conflict. I love the rings on titaniumera.com, i've had that site bookmared for awhile. Many men also liketungsten-carbide for their rings because it's extremely durable and manly, but it can be brittle and can never be resized. I like stuff on greenkarat.com, etc, but don't love it. And when it comes down to it, in the back of my mind, i am always thinking its JUST A RING. it's a symbol, not the marriage itself - which should be infinitely more important. so that bothers me, and the fact that through it ALL, despite everything, including my own reservations, i am so brainwashed that i STILL WANT ONE.
|
|
|
[18 Jun 2007|11:58am] |
oh i found it! the manta tube!!
i already watched it like 98578937692387459237489040327587 times
soooo awesome.
|
|
| 2 things |
[18 Jun 2007|07:34am] |
|
ok so one, i was reading some headlines and i came across a story that a baby Manta ray had been born in a Japanese aquarium. The story said that a Manta has never been born in captivity and that the mother Manta's pregnancy lasted 374 days. the baby is more than 6 feet across and was born rolled up like a tube! i don't know why, but i think that a rolled up baby Manta tube is pretty much the cutest thing I've ever heard.
here is the story if anyone wants to look at it. the video wasn't linked in the article and it doesn't seem to be on youtube. If anyone finds it for me, I will srsly love you forever. I really want to see a tube manta.
ok number 2, a bit more serious.
I came across this slate.com article on engagement rings. i agree with a lot of the article but i also have to disagree as well. Basically the article talks about the history of women receiving engagement rings.
ok yeah, virginity and ownership aren't the best sentiments to put behind a ring. however, i'm really not into history at all, and I don't believe that engagement rings still carry these connotations. I think today they are just a symbol that a woman is engaged to be married. If women want diamond engagement rings, well that is a personal choice, likely having nothing to do with the history behind why e-rings were traditionally given. and that's OK. many traditions have lost their meanings through the years. Do we still dress up in costumes on halloween to celebrate Samhain and tell fortunes? no, we do it to get candy. but it is still a tradition with origins different from today's meaning. and people still enjoy doing it. So I think just because in the past the ring signified ownership and virginity (read the article, I don't feel like explaining the virginity part), we don't really believe that women are property anymore.
But I do agree with slate's point about only the woman having one. If you know me, you know that i am a pretty big feminist, and that i am all about gender equality. I've often wondered why women have to wear a big ol' "I'm spoken for" sign for the entirety of the engagement, while men only get one after the marriage occurs. A woman isn't engaged to her fiance, they are engaged to *each other* marriage by definition requires two people. So, I've often thought that if/when I get engaged I would buy my fiance a ring as well. Now, the majority of men (who are marrying women) don't really have any desire to prance around with a big shiny diamond on their fingers. Fair enough, but the man should have SOMEthing to show that he is engaged.
Another point brought up by the article is about financial commitment. They sort of denounce that. but I disagree. Money is very important in a marriage. Not that I'm saying you HAVE to be rich to have a successful marriage, or that the engagement ring has to reflect financial status (some women WANT small rings, which is fine). But given that the number one reason for divorce is money issues, I'm going to go ahead and say that being financially stable is a pretty important prerequisite to being married. and seriously, a man who can afford (and not put a down payment on, then pay off for 10 years) a nice ring must be financially stable. You could argue, "well, the woman could be the breadwinner in the relationship, so the man might not have the funds to buy a nice ring" but i don't believe that one partner should have to support the other. Ok then, the woman should be able to buy an equally nice ring for her man.
the more i think about it, the more difficult it is for me to reconcile wanting a big ol' diamond ring. And this isn't even touching on the environmental and social impacts of diamond mining (which are probably my biggest sources of guilt over liking diamonds, all this history BS aside),and my loathing of the DeBeers evil empire telling us what we should want. Many women also get a stone other than diamond in their engagement ring, which is cool but I just don't really like any other gems that much. and when i do get engaged i want there to be no question that it is an engagement ring. As in solitaire diamond, left hand ring finger.
Ok, that's enough of that. If you do end up reading the article (which is a quick, light read), be sure to click on the links to the parodies of DeBeers commercials, because they are just hilarious.
|
|
|
[04 Jun 2007|03:39pm] |
here are some of the highlights of my trip to Colorado for my brother's graduation last week.
Of course, we did some hiking too....
So that was my trip in a nutshell. I took over 500 pics, so really only a small fraction is shown here. As you can see, my nature photos are MUCH better than my people portraits. Gotta work on that...
Anyways, there are a few more at my flickr page, and more will go up on flickr as well. (Most of my flickr photos are private though, so you will only see a few photos).
|
|
|
[20 May 2007|08:13pm] |
I have been meaning to post this
i lurve it.
watch watch!
|
|
|
[18 May 2007|04:54pm] |
Stolen from www.jessicaek.com (which you should all check out if you haven't already from my past pimping of it)
Quoted from slate.com: He was a bigot, a reactionary, a liar, and a fool. Herewith, a Falwell sampler. On Sept. 11: "The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.' " On AIDS: "AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals." On homosexuality: "I believe that all of us are born heterosexual, physically created with a plumbing that's heterosexual, and created with the instincts and desires that are basically, fundamentally, heterosexual. But I believe that we have the ability to experiment in every direction. Experimentation can lead to habitual practice, and then to a lifestyle. But I don't believe anyone begins a homosexual." On public education: "I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again, and Christians will be running them." On feminists: "I listen to feminists and all these radical gals. ... These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men; that's their problem." On global warming: "I can tell you, our grandchildren will laugh at those who predicted global warming. We'll be in global cooling by then, if the Lord hasn't returned. I don't believe a moment of it. The whole thing is created to destroy America's free enterprise system and our economic stability."
ok, the stuff about Sept 11 floors me and the rest appalls me. and it makes me sick that people like him are considered visionaries.
BUT global warming?
I know that people dismiss it as junk science, hippie dippy environmentalism, etc, but why does Jerry Falwell have an opinion on it?? when did it become a moral issue? are all super conservative right wingers in disbelief of global waming? is it because ...i don't know....because liberals are generally in support of reducing global warming? it just seems out of place...climate change and morals? i honestly don't see how they are linked....(and i can't go more than four posts without mention of global warming, you know, as long as the Lord hasn't yet returned, i'm not really doing anything else).
your opinions please.
|
|
|
[12 May 2007|09:41am] |
ha. so evidently i can't stop posting idiocy.
|
|
|
[10 May 2007|08:32pm] |
|
what gives, people?
I try to post intelligent stuff, but it seems people only want to comment if it's some survey. so here:
the world's least exciting survey.
|
|
|
[06 May 2007|09:22am] |
|
People often come to me with some strange animal they have found. “What is it?” they ask. “Oh,” I say brightly, “that is a swallowtail butterfly, Papilio cresphontes.” It is curious how happy people are to have a name for something…But other questions follow, “Where does it live?” and “What does it do?” I explain that it is a tropical butterfly, common in Florida, which sometimes gets quite far north in the United States…Almost inevitably there will come another question, “What good is it?” I have never learned how to deal with this question. I am appalled by the point of view that makes it possible… Often my reaction is to ask in turn, “What good are you?”
--Marston Bates, The Forest and the Sea (1960)
|
|
|
[02 May 2007|11:31am] |
it MUST be the end of the semester because i am living in the library and eating every meal (whenever i actually get a chance for that) from dunkin donuts. great.
it smells like pizza in here. i think i am gonna go get some dd now.
|
|
| NOT doom |
[29 Apr 2007|09:06am] |
|
I bet you're all tired of hearing about how the world is ending... so i give you this instead.
Stolen from jess
Comment and I'll:
1. Tell you why I friended you.
2. Associate you with something - a song, a color, a photo, etc.
3. Tell you something I like about you.
4. Tell you a memory I have of you.
5. Associate you with a character.
6. Ask something I've always wanted to know about you.
7. Tell you my favorite user picture of yours.
8. In return, you must post this in your LJ (or not, I mean, free world and all that).
|
|
| what do you know? doom. |
[25 Apr 2007|09:26pm] |
i am writing a review on pollination in fragmented habitats, and i came across this great quote by Janzen (one of the world experts on mutualistic interactions):
"What escapes the eye, however, is a much more insidious kind of extinction: the extinction of ecological interactions."
|
|
| more DOOOOOOMMMM |
[22 Apr 2007|01:07pm] |
"If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man.”
~Albert Einstein
Recently some scientists at a German University found that the navigational capabilities of bees may be affected by radiation from cell phones. They placed phones near hives and observed that this caused bees to avoid the hives. They also suspect that the wiggle dance of bees to tell other bees about nectar sources could be affected by cell phone radiation.
Bees are amazing creatures in their own right. Combine this with all the other ecosystem services they provide - including billions of dollars worth of crop pollination for humans to eat - and that is reason to protect them from anthropogenic insult.
sadly, though.... if not even *I* am even considering getting rid of my cell phone, I'm willing to bet that very very few will.
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
oilbird's journal
