La culture, c'est ce qui reste quand on a tout oublié.
La culture, c'est ce qui reste quand on a tout oublié.
Mrs Wong: So if there's intercourse on Day 11, the sperms will live for 2 days. If the egg comes out by then - Day 13 - then there will be fertilisation. If not, then the sperms will die. But it's not that bad; the couple can always try again on Day 12.PE, started on football module! Well basically we kicked the volleyball around for the entire period. And we had a little "match" in the last 15 minutes, and our team (Rachel Teo, Sharon, Xin Suen and I) called ourselves Spain (there were 8 teams in total and Mr Ong made us name them after the Euro thingy countries). It was -ugh- tiring and after all of that I was panting like a Labrador, which makes me wonder how the pro footballers can play on a much larger field for like... more than an hour??
401: -loud laughter-
Mrs Wong: But of course they can't do it everyday; it's too tiring.
401: -dies-
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning, "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.I sort of get what Miss Teng means.
In modern use, "science" more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is "often treated as synonymous with 'natural and physical science', and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use." This narrower sense of "science" developed as scientists such as Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton began formulating laws of nature such as Newton's laws of motion. In this period it became more common to refer to natural philosophy as "natural science".
Over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with scientific method, a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. The Oxford English Dictionary dates the origin of the word "scientist" to 1834. This sometimes left the study of human thought and society in a linguistic limbo, which was resolved by classifying these areas of academic study as social science. Similarly, several other major areas of disciplined study and knowledge exist today under the general rubric of "science", such as formal science and applied science.
What is Science?A question so simple that we overlook and never ever think about, but yet so complex once you get deep down into it.
The "figurative system of human knowledge", sometimes known as the tree of Diderot and d'Alembert, was a tree developed to represent the structure of knowledge itself, produced for the Encyclopédie by Jean le Rond d'Alembert and Denis Diderot.Isn't it strange how Science means "knowledge", but the branches of knowledge are Memory, Reason and Imagination? (I was, btw, really psyched to find out that Imagination is a branch of knowledge)
The tree was a taxonomy of human knowledge, inspired by Francis Bacon's The Advancement of Learning. The three main branches of knowledge in the tree are: "Memory"/History, "Reason"/Philosophy, and "Imagination"/Poetry.
In the course of my reading I had come across a case where, many years ago, some hunters on our Great Plains organized a buffalo hunt for the entertainment of an English earl. They had charming sport. They killed seventy-two of those great animals; and ate part of one of them and left the seventy-one to rot.-
In order to determine the difference between an anaconda and an earl (if any) I caused seven yougn calves to be turned into the anaconda's cage. The grateful reptile immediately crushed one of them and swallowed it, then lay back satisfied. It showed no further interest in the calves, and no disposition to harm them. I tried this experiment with other anacondas; always with the same result.
The fact stood proven that the difference between an earl and an anaconda is that the earl is cruel and the anaconda isn't; and that the earl wantonly destroys what he has no use for, but the anaconda doesn't. This seemed to suggest that the anaconda was not descended from the earl. It also seemed to suggest that the earl was descended from the anaconda, and had lost a good deal in the transition.
At the head of this article we see how three monks were burnt to death a few days ago, and a prior put to death with atrocious cruelty. Do we inquire into the details? No; or we should find out that the prior was subjected to unprintable mutilations.-
Man (when is a North American Indian) gouges out his prisoner's eyes; when he is King John, with a nephew to render untroublesome, he uses a red-hot iron; when he is a religious zealot dealing with heretics in the Middle Ages, he skins his captive alive and scatters salt on his back; in the first Richard's time he shuts up a multitude of Jew families in a tower and sets fire to it; in Columbus's time he captures a family of Spanish Jews and (but that is not printable; in our day in England a man is fined ten shillings for beating his mother nearly to death with a chair, and another man is fined forty shillings for having four pheasant eggs in his possession without being able to satisfactorily explain how he got them).
Of all the animals, man is the only one that is cruel. He is the only one that inflicts pain for the pleasure of doing it. It is a trait that is not known to the higher animals. The cat plays with the frightened mouse; but she has this excuse, that she does not know that the mouse is suffering. The cat is moderate (unhumanly moderate: she only scares the mouse, she does not hurt it; she doesn't dig out its eyes, or tear off its skin, or drive splinters under its nails) man-fashion; when she is done playing with it she makes a sudden meal of it and puts it out of its trouble. Man is the Cruel Animal. He is alone in that distinction.
The higher animals engage in individual fights, but never in organized masses. Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and with calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out, as the Hessians did in our Revolution, and as the boyish Prince Napolean did in the Zulu war, and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel.-
Man is the only animal that robs his helpless fellow of his country, takes possession of it and drives him out of it or destroys him. Man has done this in all ages. There is not an acre of ground on the globe that is in possession of its rightful owner, or that has not been taken away from owner after owner, cycle after cycle, by force and bloodshed.-
Man is the Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion, several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself, and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brothers' path to happiness and heaven.-
He was at it in the time of the Caesars, he was at it in Mahomet's time, he was at it in the time of the Inquisition, he was at it in France a couple of centuries, he was at it in England in Mary's day, he has been at it ever since he first saw the light, he is at it today in Crete (as per the telegrams quoted above), he will be at it somehwere else tomorrow.
The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out, in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.
Man is the Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. Indeed, my experiments have proven to me that he is the Unreasoning Animal. Note his history, as sketched above. It seems plain to me that whatever he is he is not a reasoning animal. His record is the fantastic record of a maniac. I condiser that the strongest count against his intelligence is the fact that with the record back of him he blandly sets himself up as the head animal of the lot: whereas by his own standards he is the bottom one.-
In truth, man is incurably foolish. Simple things which the other animals easily learn, he is incapable of learning. Among my experiments was this. In an hour, I taught a cat and a dog to be friends. I put them in a cage. In another our, I taught them to be friends with a rabbit. In the course of two days, I was able to add a fox, a goose, a squirrel and some doves. Finally a monkey. They lived together in peace; even affectionately.I have no idea how he managed to carry out this experiment (if he did), but I still like it. Hah.
Next, in another cage, I confined an Irish Catholic from Tipperary, and as soon as he seemed tame, I added a Scotch Presbyterian from Aberdeen. Next a Turk from Constantinople; a Greek Christian from Crete; an Armenian; a Methodist from the wilds of Arkansas; a Buddhist from China; a Brahman from Benares. Finally, a Salvation Army Colonel from Wapping. Then I stayed away two whole days. When I came back to note results, the cage of Higher Animals was all right, but in the other there was but a chaos of gory odds and ends of turbans and fezzes and plaids and bones and fleshnot a specimen left alive. These Reasoning Animals had disagreed on a theological detail and carried the matter to a Higher Court.
One of the few exceptions was Jeremy Bentham, the philosopher who 200 years ago also advocated for women's rights, gay rights and prison reform. He responded to Kant's lack of interest in animals by saying: "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"I love that quote. I really love that quote.
In recent years, the issue has entered the mainstream, but even for those who accept that we should try to reduce the suffering of animals, the question remains where to draw lines. I eagerly pushed Mr. [Peter] Singer to find his boundaries. "Do you have any compunctions about swatting a cockroach?" I asked him.
"Not much," he replied, citing reasons to doubt that insects are capable of much suffering. Mr. Singer is somewhat unsure about shellfish, although he mostly gives them the benefit of the doubt and tends to avoid eating them.
The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor, 'Can they talk?' but, 'Can they suffer?'- Jeremy Bentham
I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.- Albert Einstein
Uhg stuff like this makes me so mad. People have NO appreciation for the arts and that pisses me off. My friend is going to MICA which is often listed as one of the best art schools in the country (I’m from the US) and gets this “oh…you’re going to art school” look every time she says anything about it. If you tell people you’re majoring in drama or creative writing or music or dance or art or anything that involves a single spit of creativity, you’ll get asked if you have a “back up plan.” Yes, the artistic community is very competitive. Do you know what else is competitive? BUSINESS. LAW. THE MEDICAL FIELD. SPORTS. Hell, I’m pretty sure business is even MORE competitive than theatre is. But nobody asks you what your “back up” is if you want to be a business man. Nobody looks at you twice if you want to be a pro-athlete.
What people don’t understand is that the arts are emotionally, mentally, and physically taxing. When I act well, it feels like I’m tearing out my heart and putting it on display for everyone to see. With writing I just stare at the page until I start to bleed. THAT is what makes art; pure, raw emotion, channeled into something beautiful. The fact that nobody can appreciate that, the fact that people who can throw balls or sell cars are looked up to more than people who can create masterpieces, makes me sick. But it never makes me want to give up.
Other opponents say the fetus has the potential to become a person, that is, a thinking, rational being, like ourselves, and the dog or chimpanzee do not have that potential. But why should mere potential give a being a right to life?
...
In fact, with modern medical technology, the argument from potential rapidly leads to absurdity.
Scientists have shown, in many different species, including monkeys, that it is possible to clone an animal by taking the nucleus of an ordinary cell, and implanting it in an egg from which the nucleus of an ordinary cell, and implanting it in an egg from which the nucleus has been removed.
There is no biological reason to suppose that this would not work for human beings. This means that billions of our cells have the potential to become an actual person.
Yet no one thinks that we have an obligation to "save" all these cells and turn them into people.
Florence and the Machine recorded this song for the soundtrack to the Hollywood film Snow White And The Huntsman. After frontwoman Florence Welch was given the opportunity to watch a few scenes from the movie, she drew inspiration from the character of the evil Queen Ravenna, played by Charlize Theron. The song is sung from the perspective of the Queen herself and Welch told MTV News: "The Queen is just this incredible character; so hungry for life but so dead inside. She's sort of eternal, but inside there's nothing. She's kind of like charcoal or something. She has this thirst for youth and for life, but for what kind of life? This darkness, but she's so beautiful, so it's this kind of juxtaposition between beauty and, ultimately, death."Anyway, Snow White And The Huntsman. I feel that it was really… dramatic. I was joking how Ravenna was definitely the queen of one thing hands down without needing to resort to any schemes: drama. Besides that… well… I mean yeah I just found it really dramatic. I saw sources which wrote how the plot wasn’t really there? Like it was just rambling on and on with the really good CGIs and Charlize Theron’s portrayal of the evil Queen.
DECEMBER 1983. Hungry for the latest Sherlock Holmes instalment, Londoners ripped open their Strand magazines, only to reel in horror. Holmes’s creator, Arthur Conan Doyle, had killed their hero off. London crowds demanded an explanation, but the cryptic author said nothing. Eight years later, Conan Doyle abruptly brought Holmes back for a new series of adventures. Again, the author said nothing. After his death, the diary that would have shed light on his mysterious reasons went missing. Since then it has never been found. Or has it?Can't wait to get started on it... (: But I've to get past blocks first and that is... a major headache. It's not like I haven't started revising or anything, but whenever I take a break and look back at what I have done so far, it just doesn't seem enough. Like I'm missing out on something (which is a lot), and I am extremely forgetful.
JANUARY 2010. Inducted into the society of the Baker Street Irregulars, Harold White never imagined he would hunt for the holy grail of Holmesophiles: the missing diary. But after the world’s leading Doylean scholar is murdered, it is Harold, using wisdom gleamed from countless detective stories, who must take up the search for the diary—and the killer. Now, in a journey from New York to London, from the present day into the historical milieu of Conan Doyle, Harold delves into the arcane history of Sherlock Holmes and his creator—discovering a secret that proves to be anything but “elementary”.
40112 Belle Janice Kellynn Rachel Loh Shin Yee Wyin | Ares Hui Ting Jolene Michelle Rachel Wu Shu Ting Xuan Li |
Blog host: Your blog host here
Image host: Your image host here
Web-counter: Your counter code here
Best viewed in: Mozilla Firefox 2.0 ↑ (Size: 1024x268)