Saturday, July 19, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Lab humour:)
Who knew scientists had such a sense of humour? Well, I guess it's more the advertising company than the scientists but anyway ....
Just imagine yourself monotonously pipetting reagents and other scientific um, thingies hour after hour....when all of a sudden EP motion comes to your rescue with an appropriately corny boy band offering to automate this entire process for you. What could be better?
Just imagine yourself monotonously pipetting reagents and other scientific um, thingies hour after hour....when all of a sudden EP motion comes to your rescue with an appropriately corny boy band offering to automate this entire process for you. What could be better?
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
So anyway,
for more information on the summit (which actually is an excellent idea and still promotes a lot of good things for the world), check out this site:
http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/
http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/
G8 Summit
Every year eight of the most influential powers in the world meet with top economic and financial analysts to assemble plans that will address the most pressing matters affecting our world today. On the top of this list of issues are: disease and poverty in Africa, global warming and humanitarian violations such as the election in Zimbabwe.
Just in case demonstrators become too zealous in the expression of their frustrations and need to be contained, the summit is well prepared with numerous officers and the perimeters of the buildings are heavily barricaded. This year demonstrators were kept 2 miles from the actual meetings sites. Protesters are always reliable fixture at this event, their presence conveying their disappointment with nations who have the wealth and clout stop millions of peoples' suffering and yet every year, fail to do so.
The summit is essentially groups of a few wealthy people sitting around, determining the fate of everybody else. Most often, it results in empty promises and provisions for the distribution of less than inadequate funds.
It goes without saying that being the leader of the free world, the United States should set an ideological standard: it should be a role model for developing nations willing to sign on to the plans proposed during the summit. So, when the United States only promised to cut its current emissions by 50% by the year 2050, a goal that is much lower than could be accomplished, the rest of the world was a tad irritated.
This promise, however, was indeed quite ground breaking for our dear president who until recently, has failed to even acknowledge the effects of global warming. Scientists at the summit said that this was a missed opportunity and we will have to wait for the next president to commit to making substantial cuts in global warming pollution. Until we have a leader who is willing to take the necessary strides for humanitarian and environmental causes, the arctic will melt, animals will drift into extinction and millions of children will die while diseases eat away at their bodies and their parents are slaughtered by their own governments.
South Africa also had higher expectations:
The South African environment minister, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, called the long-term goal expressed by the G-8 to be an "empty slogan" and seemed to take a shot at the United States.
"We know very well that there are many countries in the G-8 grouping that share our ambitious expectations, and therefore it is regrettable that the lowest common denominator in the G-8 determined the level of ambition" in the declaration, van Schalkwyk said. (Washington Post).
By imposing sanctions on South Africa for the apartheid regime in the 1980's the United States caused the suffering and starvation of thousands of South Africans (black and white) who had little to do with the Apartheid government. This example merely illustrates how easy it is for the U.S to remain sanctimonious about their actions while the rest of the world suffers as a result. Perhaps those over zealous activists are partly correct in calling the leaders at the G8 hypocrites.
Although Bush doesn't believe in evolution he sure seems to believe in survival of the of the fittest. Born into privilege, he only looks out for himself and thoughtlessly destroys everyone in his path. One would hope that he would have used his privilege to help those less fortunate countries who so desperately need it. But then... we would be assuming that he himself has fully evolved. And we all know that's not true.
Just in case demonstrators become too zealous in the expression of their frustrations and need to be contained, the summit is well prepared with numerous officers and the perimeters of the buildings are heavily barricaded. This year demonstrators were kept 2 miles from the actual meetings sites. Protesters are always reliable fixture at this event, their presence conveying their disappointment with nations who have the wealth and clout stop millions of peoples' suffering and yet every year, fail to do so.
The summit is essentially groups of a few wealthy people sitting around, determining the fate of everybody else. Most often, it results in empty promises and provisions for the distribution of less than inadequate funds.
It goes without saying that being the leader of the free world, the United States should set an ideological standard: it should be a role model for developing nations willing to sign on to the plans proposed during the summit. So, when the United States only promised to cut its current emissions by 50% by the year 2050, a goal that is much lower than could be accomplished, the rest of the world was a tad irritated.
This promise, however, was indeed quite ground breaking for our dear president who until recently, has failed to even acknowledge the effects of global warming. Scientists at the summit said that this was a missed opportunity and we will have to wait for the next president to commit to making substantial cuts in global warming pollution. Until we have a leader who is willing to take the necessary strides for humanitarian and environmental causes, the arctic will melt, animals will drift into extinction and millions of children will die while diseases eat away at their bodies and their parents are slaughtered by their own governments.
South Africa also had higher expectations:
The South African environment minister, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, called the long-term goal expressed by the G-8 to be an "empty slogan" and seemed to take a shot at the United States.
"We know very well that there are many countries in the G-8 grouping that share our ambitious expectations, and therefore it is regrettable that the lowest common denominator in the G-8 determined the level of ambition" in the declaration, van Schalkwyk said. (Washington Post).
By imposing sanctions on South Africa for the apartheid regime in the 1980's the United States caused the suffering and starvation of thousands of South Africans (black and white) who had little to do with the Apartheid government. This example merely illustrates how easy it is for the U.S to remain sanctimonious about their actions while the rest of the world suffers as a result. Perhaps those over zealous activists are partly correct in calling the leaders at the G8 hypocrites.
Although Bush doesn't believe in evolution he sure seems to believe in survival of the of the fittest. Born into privilege, he only looks out for himself and thoughtlessly destroys everyone in his path. One would hope that he would have used his privilege to help those less fortunate countries who so desperately need it. But then... we would be assuming that he himself has fully evolved. And we all know that's not true.
Monday, July 7, 2008
You've got the Wright stuff baby
I know this is old news but I stumbled upon this video today and thought it was funny.
Whose line is it anyway?
That catchy comedy show's title is pulled together by one very important word that many people mix up: when to use who's vs. when to use whose. It's one of those things that you don't think about until you have to use it correctly.
The confusion here is due to the apostrophe, which on 99% of English words indicates possession, but here simply indicates a contraction. If you can replace the word with who is or who has, use who's. If not, use whose.
When researching this, I thought that it seemed to be the same rule that applies to it's vs. its. Many students write it's thinking that the apostrophe shows possession when in fact it indicates a contraction of it is. Similarly, Who's=who is.
A simple explanation of this idea can be found at a blog called check grammar .
EXAMPLES
Who's
Who's watching TV?
Do you know who's going to speak?
Who's ready to go?
Who's in the kitchen?
Who's this?
Who's already eaten?
Whose
Whose is the possessive of who or, somewhat controversially, which.
Whose book is this?
Do you know whose car this is?
I know a woman whose kids study there.
Whose side are you on?
An idea whose time has come.
For those desiring more practice, this page provides some examples:
practice
Although I often use it in this way, using whose as the possessive of which is somewhat controversial with some professors.
The confusion here is due to the apostrophe, which on 99% of English words indicates possession, but here simply indicates a contraction. If you can replace the word with who is or who has, use who's. If not, use whose.
When researching this, I thought that it seemed to be the same rule that applies to it's vs. its. Many students write it's thinking that the apostrophe shows possession when in fact it indicates a contraction of it is. Similarly, Who's=who is.
A simple explanation of this idea can be found at a blog called check grammar .
EXAMPLES
Who's
Who's watching TV?
Do you know who's going to speak?
Who's ready to go?
Who's in the kitchen?
Who's this?
Who's already eaten?
Whose
Whose is the possessive of who or, somewhat controversially, which.
Whose book is this?
Do you know whose car this is?
I know a woman whose kids study there.
Whose side are you on?
An idea whose time has come.
For those desiring more practice, this page provides some examples:
practice
Although I often use it in this way, using whose as the possessive of which is somewhat controversial with some professors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)