Story by Doyle Rice
Unless you've been living under a rock, you've probably heard about the solar eclipse on Aug. 21. So what is a solar eclipse, anyway?
A total solar eclipse occurs when the moon passes between the sun and the Earth. The moon appears to completely cover the disk of the sun. By blocking the sun's light, the moon casts a shadow that turns day into an eerie twilight here on Earth.
Eclipses occur because of the special coincidence of the moon and the sun being the same size to our eyes. The sun is 400 times wider than the moon, but it is also 400 times farther away, so they appear to be the same size in the sky
If you live in the "path of totality" — the 67-mile-wide area in which the moon's shadow sweeps across the Earth's surface — you'll see a total solar eclipse, weather permitting.
That path will cross parts of 12 states, all the way from Oregon to South Carolina.
If you're not in that path and skies are clear, you're still guaranteed to see a partial eclipse, in which only part of the sun will be blocked by the moon.
A partial eclipse will be visible in all of North America, parts of South America, western Europe and Africa. While a partial eclipse is still cool, you won’t notice your surroundings getting dark.
When the moon does eclipse the sun, it produces two types of shadows on Earth: The umbral and penumbral shadows. The umbral shadow is the relatively small point on Earth where you'll see a total eclipse.
The penumbral shadow is the much larger area on Earth, where a partial eclipse will be visible.
In addition to total and partial eclipses, sometimes annular eclipses occur. An annular eclipse happens when the moon covers the sun's center, leaving the sun's visible outer edge to form a “ring of fire” or "annulus" around the moon.
reference from wiseGeek
In one respect, there really is no difference between an AD/BC and BCE/CE system when it comes to historical dates. The year 23 AD is exactly the same as the year 23 CE, and 4004 BC is also 4004 BCE. References to historical dates under either classification shouldn't create confusion in a researcher's mind. Major historical dates such as 1492 AD, 1776 AD or 1941 AD would still be rendered as 1492 CE, 1776 CE and 1941 CE.
The AD/BC method of identifying historical dates can be traced back to Catholic historians working in the early Middle Ages. Identifying historical dates until that point was often a complicated proposition, since different historians worked under different calendars. A Roman historian would have used the Roman AUD notation, in which Year Zero was the largely symbolic founding of Rome. Converting historical dates to the standard Gregorian calendar would not have been easy. Using the birth of Jesus Christ as a central point made more sense to the religious historians.
Story by: Ronnie Koenig
When I met my husband, Paul*, we were both waiting tables in LA. I was 23 and he was 28, and we were both trying to get our acting careers off the ground. I knew from the start that he identified as bisexual—in fact, the first night we hooked up he was in a relationship with a man.I was extremely skeptical at first. I figured that if a guy was with another guy, that meant he was gay. My friends told me I was crazy to think otherwise, but the way Paul kissed me and handled my body that night in my apartment, I knew for sure that even if he liked guys, he was very much into women too—and really into me.As things heated up between us, Paul broke up with his then-boyfriend, and we started dating exclusively. He was upfront about the fact that being with men was something he didn't want to give up, though, and I was okay with it. In fact, having these open discussions about sex led me to admit out loud for the first time that I was curious about what it would be like to be with a woman.
We were dating for just three months when we moved in together, and after six months, we agreed to an open relationship with certain rules. Primarily, we had to always tell the other person where we were going and who we would be with. There was a lot of freedom but no secrets—and our devotion was to each other first and foremost.
After three years of fun and exploration, Paul surprised me with a ring. We decided we were done being with other people and wanted to give a traditional monogamous relationship a go. I knew it might be hard going from so much openness to a "regular" relationship, but we were moving to a new city (New York) and decided it was time to settle down.
The first two years of our marriage were pretty uneventful: We worked, traveled together, and continued to have great sex—only with each other.
Then I met Oscar.
Oscar and I were doing an off-off-Broadway show together in the Village. He was funny and very flirtatious. We almost crossed the line and kissed one night while out for drinks after the show. I told Paul about Oscar and he said that if I wanted to go for it, he would be okay with it. What I didn't anticipate was that Paul and Oscar would go on to have their own relationship—both sexual and emotional.
After Oscar and I had sex on our own for the first time, it was actually my idea for him to go on a "date" with Paul and me. The first time they met, I could see that there was chemistry between them. We had a threesome, and it was both enjoyable and extremely weird for me. When Paul and Oscar kissed I could immediately tell that it was intense, and that it might be more than just a hookup.
After that night, I felt really insecure. What if Paul liked Oscar better than me? The three of us started hanging out a lot, and it wasn't always just about sex. We saw movies, had picnics in the park, and started to develop our own rhythm of being together. After a few months, we started introducing Oscar to friends as "our boyfriend."
A lot of people wonder what our life is like, and for the most part it's normal. Paul and I go to work, come home, and eat dinner together when we can. We do a lot of things with Oscar, like go drinking or to parties on the weekend, but sometimes it's just Paul and me, and sometimes Paul and Oscar go out together. Oscar and I are usually intimate only when Paul is there.
I don't feel like I'm sharing my husband—in fact, I feel like I have two times the love and friendship. These two great guys worship me, and none of us feel like we have to sneak around or cheat to keep our sex lives exciting. I could hook up with other people if I wanted to, but right now I'm just enjoying things the way they are. As for Oscar, he sometimes dates other people too, and we're totally okay with that.
Of course I sometimes still feel insecure, like last week when I came home from a trip and found Paul and Oscar in bed together watching Netflix. I wasn't jealous about the sex but rather the intimacy. But then Paul and I still have a lot of our own special moments, and so do the three of us. It's not a traditional marriage by any means, but it works for us. As long as we are all happy, Paul and I have no plans to stop seeing Oscar. We're not sure if we want to have kids yet, but if we ever do, Oscar would be an amazing uncle!
Beatles John Lennon's Psychedelic Rolls-Royce Phantom V Comes Home For Great Eight Phantoms Event
By: Mark Ewing
While filming “How I Won The War” in 1966 and early ‘67, John Lennon racked up thousands of miles on his black Rolls-Royce Phantom V limousine, taking a toll on its original black paintwork. Home in London in the spring of 1967, Lennon commissioned a fresh paint scheme with J.P. Fallon Ltd., a coach builder in Surrey. There’s some magical mystery about genesis of the concept, but it seems that Marijke Koger of the artist’s collective The Fool suggested a Romany theme similar to the refurbished gypsy caravan in Lennon’s home garden. Fallon commissioned local artist Steve Weaver, and the work was completed six weeks later. The Romany designs were executed in common house paint, which has required considerable maintenance over the years. The car, however, still runs.
Lennon and Yoko Ono took the car to the U.S. in 1970. The Phantom was frequently loaned to other rock bands of the era to serve as a shuttle. Due to tax issues, Lennon donated it to the Cooper Hewett Museum in 1974. Sotheby’s sold the car at auction in 1985 to British Columbia billionaire entrepreneur James “Jimmy” Pattison for his chain of Ripley’s “Believe It or Not” Museums for $2.29 million. Pattison donated the car in 1987 for museum exhibit. In 2014, it was displayed in Vancouver for “Magical Mystery Tour: A Beatles Memorabilia Exhibition.”
Lennon’s Phantom returns to London for the gathering, Great Eight Phantoms, to celebrate arrival of the new Phantom VIII, where it will exemplify the eccentric side of Rolls-Royce.
Antarctica Sheds Trillion-Ton Iceberg, But Scientists Aren't Blaming Climate Change
By: Eric Mack
A trillion-ton iceberg the size of Delaware has calved off of Antarctica, permanently reshaping the Antarctic Peninsula.
A 5,800 square km section of the Larsen C ice shelf split off the continent sometime between Monday and Wednesday, according to a release from Project Midas, which has been keeping an eye on it. The iceberg's split has been expected for quite some time, and although it's certainly a big chunk, it doesn't set the record for biggest 'berg to break free from Antarctica – an 11,000 square km block seen calving from the Ross Ice Shelf by satellites in 2000 holds that title.
The newly liberated chunk of ice, which will probably be known as A68, has volume equal to two Lake Eries, but was already floating in the ocean and will have no immediate impact on sea levels worldwide. However, last month Dr. Thomas Wagner, a NASA scientist who studies the cryosphere explained to my colleague Marshall Shepherd that loss of ice shelves can lead to a sort of domino effect:
"Ice shelves buttress glaciers around Antarctica. Their break up causes the rapid flow of glacial ice into the sea. This process is considered the number one potential trigger of rapid sea level rise."
Wagner adds that Larsen C does not look to be in a position to trigger the loss of glacial ice itself, but could provide scientists an opportunity to study the process.
Updated #Sentinel1 InSAR sequence shows final branching at the rift tip as it reaches within 4.5 km (2.8 miles) of breaking through to calve pic.twitter.com/6F1Bs8Zmkv
— Adrian Luckman (@adrian_luckman) July 6, 2017
However, according to Project Midas, this week's calving event reduces the size of Larsen C by 12%, and there was research published in 2015 that shows the newly reduced ice shelf could be less stable. The neighboring Larsen B shelf disintegrated in 2002 following a similar rift in 1995 and Adrian Luckman, a Swansea University researcher and lead investigator for Project Midas, says it's worth keeping a close eye on Larsen C.
“In the ensuing months and years, the ice shelf could either gradually regrow, or may suffer further calving events which may eventually lead to collapse – opinions in the scientific community are divided. Our models say it will be less stable, but any future collapse remains years or decades away.”
He says this week's calving event can't simply be blamed on climate change, as he explained in a separate editorial on Wednesday:
"...in satellite images from the 1980s, the rift was already clearly a long-established feature, and there is no direct evidence to link its recent growth to either atmospheric warming, which is not felt deep enough within the ice shelf, or ocean warming, which is an unlikely source of change given that most of Larsen C has recently been thickening. It is probably too early to blame this event directly on human-generated climate change."
As for the new iceberg itself, Luckman says it is likely to break into fragments and some of the ice could hang around its origin, while other parts could drift to warmer waters to the north.
As a representative of irate consumers across the country, the Haggler often toils on behalf of people who want nothing more than to find executives and scream in their faces. But that opportunity is rare. Corporate leaders are usually insulated by underlings, which makes their faces difficult to find.
So for anyone who has ever wanted to confront an antagonist about a transaction gone wrong but didn’t get the chance, the Haggler has a spectacle for you. He now takes you to a room in a courthouse in Manchester, N.H. It is March 21 and it is quite a scene, if a recording of the event captures the mood.
Imagine a room packed with people who consigned their vintage vehicles to a company called Dusty Old Cars. Remember this operation? In a column in February, the Haggler wrote about the many consignors who said that Dusty Old Cars charged them for repairs that were unnecessary or never performed. Worse, many said that they hadn’t received a penny of the proceeds from the sale of their cars.
Just before the column was published, the owner of Dusty Old Cars, the ever-defiant and reliably info-taining Stephan Condodemetraky, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Soon after, a court appointed a trustee who said, in effect, that this company instead needed to be liquidated. (That’s Chapter 7.) And as part of such liquidations, creditors have an opportunity to show up and ask questions of the debtor, in this case Mr. Condodemetraky.
Let’s just say there was a lot of rage in the room. Listening to a recording of the chaotic conversation, you hear cross talk, befuddlement, imprecations, pleas for quiet, heckling and a few unprintable phrases. It is a quintessentially American scene in a quintessentially American setting. It’s what Norman Rockwell would have painted if he had hated people.
A number of consignors said that signatures on certain documents, such as bills of sale, looked nothing like their own.
“Reminding you that you are under oath, I’m going to ask you again,” says Ann Marie Dirsa of the Office of the United States Trustee. “Have you ever signed Mrs. Sletten’s name to any documents?”
Mr. Condodemetraky: “Any signatures that I made on any document ——”
Ms. Dirsa: “Uh-uh! It’s a yes or no question.”
Mr. Condodemetraky: “Yes, I signed documents to transfer vehicles. Absolutely, yes.”
Ms. Dirsa: “In a name other than your own?”
Mr. Condodemetraky: “Only with authorization.”
This produces what could be described only as widespread, skeptical hooting.
Later, Mr. Condodemetraky is asked if he could produce a list of all the cars he’d sold in the last year, to whom and for what price.
“Possibly, possibly,” he says.
“Possibly? Possibly?” the crowd shouts, in a lather, nearly in unison.
Very few people receive satisfying answers. One gentleman starts by describing a phone call in July. “We had a nice conversation,” he tells Mr. Condodemetraky. But recently, he noticed that his cars weren’t on theDusty Old Cars website. “And I just want to know, where are my cars?”
“I have no idea, sir,” Mr. Condodemetraky replies, as though he’s just been asked for the square root of a 20-digit number. “I don’t know how to answer that question.”
There was a brief silence, then someone in a position of authority says, “Ma’am, you’re next.”
At this, the crowd goes a little nuts.
“You accept an answer like that?” a man howls. “That he has no idea where the guy’s cars are? You’re under oath!”
“You’re the owner of the company,” someone else chimes in. “You don’t know where the cars are?”
“Good Lord!” howling man adds.
The Haggler stopped listening after a couple of men exited cursing Mr. Condodemetraky. One referred, with an obscenity, to Mr. Condodemetraky’s ethnic background. He got the country wrong.
It is safe to say that the man of the hour — who, according to a Superior Court ruling in a case filed a few years ago, had “attained a level of rascality that would raise an eyebrow of someone inured to the rough and tumble of the world of commerce” — retreated not one inch. He never admitted to so much as a clerical error. He suggested that if fault were to be apportioned, some should fall on the consignors, who didn’t understand the contract they’d signed, as well as the New Hampshire attorney general’s office, whose investigation, which started last year, forced him to spend money on lawyers.
A few weeks ago, the Haggler called Mr. Condodemetraky and asked if there was anything — one single thing — he wishes he’d done differently in recent years.
Nope. The Haggler tried the same question three different ways. Nope. Nope. Nope. So he tried again. “You’re asking me an open-ended question,” Mr. Condodemetraky finally responded, “and while I respect your journalistic panache, I stand by what I said on the record.”
In an email the next day, he wrote that he was “very sorry about what has happened to a very small number of my customers.”
Not long ago, the trustee in the case charged in court that Mr. Condodemetraky had computers wiped clean to thwart a full accounting of Dusty Old Cars’ inventory and history. (“The trustee’s opinion,” Mr. Condodemetraky said. “I don’t share the trustee’s opinion.”) The fate of the company is now in the hands of a bankruptcy judge, but Mr. Condodemetraky’s travails may just be starting.
James Boffetti of the New Hampshire attorney general’s office said that his office was investigating Dusty Old Cars and Mr. Condodemetraky. In particular, he is focused on cases in which consignors were charged for repairs that were not performed.
“That’s a potential fraud,” Mr. Boffetti said, “and something that we’d want to look at closely.”
Forbes 2017 Billionaires List: Meet The Richest People On The Planet
By Luisa Kroll and Kerry A. Dolan
It was a record year for the richest people on earth, as the number of billionaires jumped 13% to 2,043 from 1,810 last year, the first time ever that Forbes has pinned down more than 2,000 ten-figure-fortunes. Their total net worth rose by 18% to $7.67 trillion, also a record. The change in the number of billionaires -- up 233 since the 2016 list -- was the biggest in the 31 years that Forbes has been tracking billionaires globally. Gainers since last year’s list outnumbered losers by more than three to one.
Read more: The Full List of The World's Billionaires
Bill Gates is the number one richest for the fourth year in a row, and the richest person in the world for 18 out of the past 23 years. He has a fortune of $86 billion, up from $75 billion last year. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos had the best year of any person on the planet, adding $27.6 billion to his fortune; now worth $72.8 billion, he moved into the top three in the world for the first time, up from number five a year ago.
Warren Buffett had the second-best year, and the biggest gain since Donald Trump was elected president in November 2016. His $14.8 billion jump in 12 months was enough for him to grab back the number two spot from Amancio Ortega, founder of Spanish clothing chain Zara. Ortega’s fortune was up $4.3 billion since last year, but he still fell to fourth in the world, unable to keep up with the outsize gains of others.
Another year has passed and here we are as the citizens of this Earth celebrating another Earths Day. This years theme for Earth Day is "Environment & Climate Literacy". Honestly it seems like very big words for I even to comprehend so I am going to focus on the part of being a green voter for a simple individual and how we can do our small parts.
"Environment & Climate Literacy" is an engine not only for creating green voters and advancing environment and climate laws and policies but also for accelerating green technologies and jobs. Courtesy of Earth Day.Org
This years theme could not be more perfect and I have a feeling that when they were coming with this years theme, they were thinking of South Dakota and the Mayhem that occurred. This decade did start with few events that we need to really think of our environemnt. To remind you all from March 2011, the disaster in Fukushima Japan and The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in 2010 still has their lasting effects on our beautiful Earth where we reside and to add to this problem, the growing population of our world. Many nations around the world is coming together and educating our citizens the importance of being Green as these disasters are irreversible. Without educating, our citizens we will be clueless on what to do and more importantly how to do. Slowly once all is on board we will have many green voters.
What is Green Voters? This is turning that part that focuses on you and the whole population around the world to understand the importance of being green and what products or what certain technologies will help us in the future to be more conscious and benefit the environment. Every product that is manufactured today has some sort of effect on our environment. Either when it is getting created or when it is getting used or even the way the product is getting disposed. In all those three stages we hold the power of deciding on to using or not using a certain product. Yes, this is when I would like you to make a "smart" decision and say, "no, due to all the hazard that it will cause in our environment, I will not use this product". At the end, you decided to be green. Your deciding factor of being green is a vote for being green. Hence you are a "Green Voter"
However, the statement that was provided with the Earth.Org states a little more in depth going into Laws and Policies. For years, we have a certain group of people that have dedicated themselves and they are considered as activist. They fight with our government who sometimes gets blind sighted with money or short term goals when they pass certain bills that might harm our environment and this is when we want you to do your part. Many say, how can we take our time out of our day and go fight with the government.
Don't worry, if we decide not to use a product, the manufacturer will be forced to invest more into another product that will be more environment friendly which will help to create jobs. Remember the saying , "out with old and in with the new". In order to roll these new ideas, we have to start manufacturing those products that are less hazardous and once you as a green voter stop buying the old products that are harming our environment, it will create a need for the newer products and we will be able to boost our manufacturing industry with jobs and also their investments might help other industries to become more efficient in producing products that are environment friendly.
Finally, for Laws and Bills. There is two ways you can do your part. The first way to do your part is very simple. I hate talking about money but your donation matters. Whenever someone is asking for donation, usually it is a non profit organization that is raising money to cause an awareness and money is used for the general good.
Secondly you can help by not supporting the bill. You can partake in petitions, talk to people and educate them on the bills that are about to be or has been passed and how can we change the bills. Donate your time in helping with the people that are helping these causes. Use any form of social medias, ask your local city councils on what they are doing to advance the city you live in to be green or even in the company you work for.
Remember that your actions speaks louder than words. If you cant go out there and fight with the senate or set up a tent outside your city council, the easiest thing you can do to be green is when you are shopping. Your purchasing power determines one to be green.
Happy Earth Day 2017
Here are some links where you can donate a dollar and it will help our Earth:
If you believe the class genius is a loner because he’s an arrogant know-it-all, or because he’s socially awkward, that’s not (necessarily) the case. Instead, it might be because he or she is honestly happier without the incessant inane prattling of mere mortals like you, or I.
New research published by the British Journal of Psychology in February, authored by evolutionary psychologists Norman Li from the Singapore Management University and Satoshi Kanazawa from the London School of Economics, suggests that smarter people may be happier going it alone.
According to them our roots in ancient hunter-gatherer society, in what they call”the savanna theory of happiness,” explains our current perception of happiness. They use the theory to explain the outcome of a survey of 15,000 adults between the ages of 18 and 28.
Analyzing the statistics and demographics of the survey, they found that (unsurprisingly) people who lived in areas with more people per unit area were less happy. On the other hand, people with more social interactions (again no surprises here) said that they were happier.
Here’s the shocker though: smarter people were not as strongly affected by the above two factors. In fact, they might even be happier living in denser areas with less interaction with others.
“The effect of population density on life satisfaction was therefore more than twice as large for low-IQ individuals than for high-IQ individuals. More intelligent individuals were actually less satisfied with life if they socialized with their friends more frequently.”
Yes, you heard that right.
“Residents of rural areas and small towns are happier than those in suburbs, who in turn are happier than those in small central cities, who in turn are happier than those in large central cities,” they explain the obvious part 1 of their findings. “Our ancestors lived as hunter–gatherers in small bands of about 150 individuals. In such settings, having frequent contact with lifelong friends and allies was likely necessary for survival and reproduction for both sexes.”
So we are instinctively wired to work together and to thrive in relatively small communities. However, times have changed significantly since then… and according to the researchers, smarter people may have simply become more adapt at dealing with the new normal.
“More intelligent individuals, who possess higher levels of general intelligence and thus greater ability to solve evolutionarily novel problems, may face less difficulty in comprehending and dealing with evolutionarily novel entities and situations.”
Remember, this conclusion was reached by individuals who are probably above-average in terms of intelligence to begin with. It is also just a theory, and not a reason to avoid that guy who keeps dropping random factoids (he’s probably not really that bright anyway). Then there’s another possibility: maybe some people just can’t stand conversations that consistently revolve around celebrity worship?
Sources: The Washington Post, Live Science
What is logical? How does one think Logically? Is being logical, is being right? The logical answer will be a solution but is it being used? Is our government logically inclined to make decision that's favors all humans? Do all humans think logically? If I have one logic thought, is the other person thinking the same?
Logically, I was suppose to... but instead I ....
I guess I am not a logical thinker.
I think of unicorns and rainbows with rabbits popping from a hole and if I go down the rabbit hole, I will meet the mad hatter and the evil queen. The evil queen will fetch my heart out and imprison my soul. She will leave my soul without knowing the word "love". How does one survive in a cruel world without knowing the word "love".
If you are a logical thinker, then how come ...
Love & Respect
Writing on Walls or we could say, "WOW". For those who don't know, it is all writings either from me or columns/books/articles, that is interesting and does not pertain or has anything to do with me. I had started this website for few reasons. One of the main reasons, I felt that I had so much to offer and the world was showing the side that is just a percent of me and unfortunately, that is what some people thought was all of me. Trust me, I can validate my last argument after working for Vail. In addition, please forgive me for doing things that is uncalled for. Secondly, I don't have a law/journalism degree "yet" though I believe, if we combine all our powers together we can have rainbows everyday.
*An Utopia is for a bright mind and for those who say it is unattainable, then you are a fool.
*You cant pick and choose what rights to fight. You have to fight for all or fight for none.
*One does not do good for recognition but to earn respect.
*Fight for your Rights to Free Speech
Love & Respect,