| Tessa Liang Yun Ru LOVES Ng Soo Ling |
| 22013 4214 635 98 |
| Love Level: 98% |
Saturday, March 31, 2007
aha! i love this article hahahx now you can't make me sit until super straight corrine, hahahax it's not wrong:) check it out here, taken from Reader's Digest April 2007
"Lean Back and Save Your Back"
Radiologists have confirmed what ergonomists have long suspected - that sitting upright is bad for your back. New 'positional' Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans of patients sitting and standing can demonstrat how gravity acts on the spine, says Dr Waseem Bashir of Scotland, who led the study. The scans show that a 90-degree sitting position - which most people consider normal - places unnecessary strain on the lower back curvature, causing discs to become squashed. "A 135-degree body-thigh position like that of an adjustable recliner - shows the least strain," says Bashir.
For those who spend all day sitting in office chairs, Bashir says the hips need to be higher than the knees and the feet should be flat on the floor. "Opening up the angle between your body and thighs is what's important," he says.
another article again from Reader's Digest Aprill 2007:
"Fewer Shocks Better for Cardiac Victims"
New thinking on cardiac arrest resuscitation is saving more lives by recommending less use of the defibrillator and longer stretches of CPR. Researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle have found that a single shock from a defibrillator followed by two minutes of CPR improves survival rates by 13 per cent. "A shock is needed to restore heart rhythm, but CPR helps the muscular beating of the heart and pushes blood into circulation," says study author Dr Thomas Rea.
i found an article in Reader's Digest April 2007 which can be of use to those who go to work, hahax
"Top Ten Fake Excuses for Work"
1. I dreamt that I had been fired, so i didn't bother to get out of bed.
2. I had to take my cat to the dentist.
3. I got all the way to the office and realised I was still in my pyjamas and had to go home to change.
4. I saw that you weren't in the office, so I went out looking for you.
5. I couldn't find the right tie, so I had to wait for the shops to open to buy one.
6. My son tried to flush our ferret down the toilet and I needed to tend to it
7. I ran over a goat. (this sounds really lame, cos Singapore has no goats roaming around the streets)
8. I stopped for a muffin, the shop was robbed and the police required everyone to stay for questioning.
9. A bee flew in my car and attacked me and I had to pull over. (ok this is really for a lousy person afraid of bees)
10. I wet my pants and went home to change.
One in five employees admit to making up fake excuses. But if they think they're putting one over on the boss, they're probably right. Only 35 per cent of employers say they don't believe the excuses.
an article here from Reader's Digest April 2007, really interesting and helpful:) :
"Bye-Bye Bruises"
People who bruise easily could try eating more pineapple. It's rich in an enzyme called bromelain, which is used by some to lessen swelling after injury. Only a ripe pineapple will produce bromelain - look for one with a fresh, tropical smell. But don't eat more than half a day; too much can cause stomachache and diarrhoea.
here are the 7 things that you can do now to keep your brain sharp in old age:)
1. Drink alcohol
In moderation that is. A US study of older women found that those who reportedly have one or two drinks a day had a 40%
lower risk of cognitive decline than those who claimed to drink nothing.
2. Eat apples
Fresh apples have high concentrations of quercetin, an antioxidant that, lab studies suggest, may fight the damage done by
free radicals to brain cells.
3. Broccoli
A study of men aged 50 to 85 in Boston found that those with more folate in their blood showed less decline in verbal
fluency. Folate turns up in leafy green vegetables such as spinach, Brussels sprouts and broccoli.
4. Eat less
It's generally considered that obese people are at greater risk. And another mouse study found that animals who have their
food restricted by 40%, compared with mice who can eat all they want, again have a reduced level of blood plaque.
5. Try exercise
It doesn't take much: a Hawaiian study found that elderly men who walked more than 3km a day halved their risk of
dementia compared with men who walked less than a half of kilometre.
6. Look after your ticker
High LDL cholesterol, high blood pressure, smoking and diabetes are all known to be risk factors for heart disease, but a
study of 9000 people found that they also raised the risk of dementia - by 46% for diabetes, 42% for high cholesterol, 26% for smoking and 24% for hypertension. These are cumulative; if you've got all four then your risk is boosted by 237%.
Hope that after reading these tips will encourage you guys to live a healthier life:) hahax start by today:)
here's an article from Reader's Digest April 2007 which i found very enriching, read on:)
"Cool Off With Tea"
Drink any kind of tea to reduce stress. That's the message from researchers at University College London, who found that people who drank normal black tea destressed more quickly and had lower levels of cortisol (a stress hormone) in their blood after a harrowing event.
And a recent report in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition reveals evidence that drinking three cups of tea a day reduces the risk of coronary heart disease because the water in the tea can help replenish fluids in the body. Dietitian Frankie Phillips says it makes no difference if you drink tea made using a bag or loose leaves. But the brewing time will have an effect. "The stronger the tea, the higher the content of polyphenols, which act as antioxidants in the body," she says.
But what could affect the health benefits is taking your tea with milk. A recent German study at the Charite Hospital in Berlin found that the protective effect that tea has on the cardiovascular system is tottally wiped out by adding milk.
Friday, March 30, 2007
here's another one of the mysteries that we may have in our lives:) taken from Reader's Digest again April 2007:
"Do ducks have ears?"
According to Dr David Bird, professor of wildlifebiology and director of the Avian Science and Conservation Centre of McGill University in Montreal, ducks, like all vertebrates, do indeed have ears, although they don't look much like the human version.
"As can readily be seen," Bird says, "the avian ear is missing those fleshy flaps, called pinnae, that stick out on either side of the head. Instead, ducks have smallish holes just behind their eyes that are covered by small, stiff feathers."
These feathers help to minimise turbulence during flight, even enhance sound collection by forming a funnel that directs sounds.
Although structurally simple, duck's ears are also remarkably sensitive. As Bird points out:"A duck's hearing is thought to be at least as sensitive as that of mammals in terms of sharpness, frequency discrimination and sound location. And as in all birds, the semi-circular canals of the inner ear, which essentially help maintain a keen sense of balance, are very well developed."
here's some facts of life that i took from Reader's Digest April 2007:
"Do the living now outnumber the dead?"
If the world's population had always grown at its present rate, the answer would be yes. But there have been long periods where there've been many deaths but virtually no increase in population.
Since 40,000BC - the dawn of modern man - an estimated 58 billion people have died, according to a study by the Netherlands-based International Statistics Institute. The current world population now stands at less than six billion, so the dead outnumber the living by about ten to one.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
here's another article from Newsweek:
Newsweek 26 February 2007
"Now Comes The Hard Part"
The ink was barely dry on the nuclear deal signed February 13 by North Korea and the other members of the Six Party Talks before pundits began to blast the agreement. The arrangement - under which North Korea promised to seal and then disable core parts of its nuclear-weapons programs in exchange for energy aid and gradual relief from international sanctions - has been attacked by hawks, including former Bush staffers, as a reward for bad behavior. Former Clinton asides, meanwhile, say it's nothing more than what they negotiated in the 1994 Agreed Framework - which would still be in effect had Bush stuck with the plan. As happens so often these days, the left and the right are converging to attack the president. But while the deal may not be perfect, both sides have got it wrong.
To start, the new accord goes way beyond the 1994 agreement, which promised North Korea two light-water nuclear reactors woth more than $5 billion and hundreds of millions of dollars of heavy fuel oil in exchange for its freezing and eventually dismanding its nuclear programs. There was no deadline built into the deal, and enforcement fell to Washington alone.
This time, North Korea is being offered no light-water reactors and is being given a very strict deadline - 60 days - within which it must begin sealing its nuclear facility at Yongbyon and detail all its nuclear-weapons programs. After that Pyongyang must start identifying and dismantling its nuclear programs. China and North Korea's other neighbors are now parties to the arrangement and have agreed to strict benchmarks.
The involvement of these outside parties helps explain why the deal finally came together now. China was far less co-operative in 2002, when the United States caught North Korea cheating on the Agreed Framework by running a highly enriched uranium (HEU) weapons program; Beijing refused to get involved. The Bush administration eventually managed to convince the Chinese to host the Six Party Talks, however. Beijing continued to support Pyongyang's demands for light-water reactors and avoided putting pressure on Kim Jong Il. But China now had its own reputation on the line.
When North Korea defiantly tested a nuclear device last year against Beijing's wishes, China's President Hu Jintao was reportedly furious at the loss of face. He began squeezing North Korea in ways once unimaginable, supporting U.N. sanctions and helping freeze North Korean bank accounts. It was this Chinese pressure that proved decisive this year, forcing the North Koreans to return to the table and accept a deal that fell well short of their initial demands.
All this goes to prove the critics wrong. It does not, however, mean that the deal is guaranteed to work. There are worrisome signs that North Korea is still not serious about fulfilling its obligations. The nukes are Kim Jong Il's only trump card; his decrepit nation is forced to depend on China for half its food and most of its oil supplies. In Kim's paranoid worldview, a few nuclear bombs are the only thing that preserves his rule and prevents his country's absorption by his neighbors.
It bodes ill that the North Korean media has already started describing the Six Party Talks as "arms control" negotiations among fellow nuclear-weapons states. Pyongyang has still refused to acknowledge the existence of its HEU program, which violates all previous commitments and could produce dozens of bombs once operational. If North Korea does not include the program on its list of nuclear facilities to be dismantled, the deal cannot move forward. Pyongyang could also reintroduce old demands for light-water reactors or the unconditional lifting of sanctions in order to stall the process and avoid implementing the agreement. If it does, there is a real risk Seoul and Beijing will be tempted to tolerate the delay; even Washington, preoccupied with Iraq, might go along. If they do, North Korea will continue working on its weapons programs, and possibly even stage another test to eke out still more concessions.
Fortunately, because of its built-in deadlines, the new deal makes it easy to tell if North Korea is faking it - much easier than the Agreed Framework did. The real challenge for Washington now is to avoid declaring victory and turning its attention elsewhere. Instead, it must work to keep its partners onboard and to muster the will to punish Pyongyang (by cutting energy assistance and imposing financial sanctions) if North Korea proves intransigent. The United States has never had more leverage on North Korea than it does at the moment. If it allows the international coalition to dissolve and its determination to dissipate before North Korea shows any results, Washington will then truly risk repeating history in a dangerous way.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
ere's another article in Newsweek :
Newsweek 26 February 2007
"The Dawn of the Next Cold War"
The 32-minute blast Vladimir Putin delivered at a recent security conference in Munich will go down as a classic. America's "uncontained" militarism, the Russian president declared, has created a world where 'no one feels safe anymore,' and where other nations feel almost forced to develop nuclear weapons in their own defense. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates tried to laugh it off, joking that 'as an old cold warrior' the speech had 'almost filled me with nostalgia for a less complex time' - and went on to tout Washington's preference for partnership and good relations.
Make no mistake, though. Putin delivered a message, and the White House heard it loud and clear. It goes something like this: in the 1990s, America pushed us around. On NATO expansion, we asked you to consider our national interests. You answered with an advance into former Soviet territory in Eastern Europe. You spoke of energy partnership yet built new pipelines to bypass our territory. Western companies took advantage of our economic troubles to buy access to our natural resources at cut-rate prices.
We asked you to respect the antiballistic-missile treaty; you destroyed it. You expect us to sit quietly while you make trouble in Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus and Central Asia - lands that existed within the Russian sphere before America was a nation. You ask our help in the war on terror but condemn our fight against the Chechen terrorists. Now you want to deploy missile-defense systems in Central Europe. Yes, we hope for friendship with America. But ours is a new Russia. If you treat us without respect, you will discover that we can say no.
All this built-up resentment was clear in Putin's speech. A decade or so ago, the United States didn't really have to take Russia into account. The cash-strapped Kremlin was preoccupied with rebellious provincial governors, grasping oligarchs, embittered communists and Chechen separatists. The erratic and alcoholic Boris Yeltsin inspired little confidence, the Russian economy even less so. Today, all that has changed. Putin has cowed the oligarchs and tamed all political rivals, including the once independent Duma. Oil prices tripled between 2002 and 2006, filling Russia's coffers with cash and powering growth of 7 percent annually. Putin's approval ratings hover around 75 percent.
Russia's willingness to demonstrate its newfound strength has prompted some to speculate that we're looking at a new cold war. Certainly, U.S.-Russian relations have deteriorated. BUt a new cold war? The picture is more complicated. Yes, the Soviet Union and its nuclear arsenal occupy a special place in the dark corners of the American imagination. But this time around, Russia enjoys competitive advantages the Soviet Union lacked. It has shed its sclerotic Soviet political and economic system. It has no burdensome empire to manage. And Putin, unlike Soviet leaders, has a popular mandate, not just at home but, increasingly, abroad. The Russian leader is now welcomed warmly in many places where public attitudes toward America have soured, if not turned hostile.
During his speech in Germany, Putin offered this on the cold war: "It was a fragile peace, a scary peace, but it was fairly reliable. Today, it is less reliable." In a growing number of ways, he's right - and increasingly widely recognized as right. Putin didn't bang his shoe on the podium; he didn't seek to counter America's move to set up anti-missile defenses in Eastern Europe with empty threats to install missiles in Cuba. But if the Bush administration hopes, for example, to successfully pressure Iran to renounce its nuclear ambitions, it will need Russian help. And in this, Putin signaled, the Kremlin has probably gone as far as it's going to.
In Munich, Putin alluded to an 'asymmetric' response to American hyperpower. Iran offers one clue to what that means. The logic is no longer chiefly commercial, as it once might have been. Nowadays, the Kremlin wants to carve off some of America's regional influence. It's also telling that Putin went from Munich to the gulf. To Saudi Arabia, he offered help with development of a civilian nuclear program; in Qatar he spoke about the formation of a natural-gas cartel. In Jordan he pressed for development of new political and economic ties. Days later, he dispatched Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to meet his Indian and Chinese counterparts to discuss ways of counterbalancing U.S. power in, as Putin sees it, a newly multipolar world.
Russia is entering an election cycle, and it's unclear who will replace Putin at the end of next year. But note: within the Kremlin, Putin counts among the most pro-Western Russian leaders. Others around him are viscerally anti-American. No, this isn't a new cold war. It's far more complex - and that might be worse.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Here's an article on Apple in Newsweek:
Newsweek 26 February 2007
"Freedom Song"
One of the breakthroughs of Apple's iTunes music store is its relative lack of restrictions. The store's digital-rights-management(DRM)sofware, folded into each music file, protects against piracy but allows users some leeway in making copies for their own use. One aspect of Apple's system has continued to rankle, however. Its DRM program, called Fairplay, doesn't play with others. A song from the iTunes store only plays on iTunes, and songs from competitors like Napster or Rhapsody won't play on your iPod. This is a classic "lock-in" that binds a customer to the products of one company, with no benefit in return.
For years, Job's public stance was that customers were happy with the situation. But now Apple's lack of interoperability is becoming a problem. The record labels are grousing about Apple's power in the industry. More pressing is a series of legislative and regulatory challenges from Europe, specifically in France and Norway, which threaten to mandate iTunes interoperability. Job's response was a sort of blog posting from atop Olympus - an essay, posted recently on Apple's Web site, called "Thoughts on Music".
The essay explains why it is infeasible to do what his critics are asking - to fix iTunes so that when you buy something from his store it will play on other systems, and vice versa. The reason, he says, is that "a DRM system employs secrets." By refusing to share Fairplay with others, Apple can protect those secrets. If hackers manage to unlock the secrets, then Apple can fix the broken lock in the next version of iTunes. By sharing its secrets, he claims, they'd be more easily discovered. By contrast, dropping DRM altogether would open up a musical paradise in which songs would be "playable on all players" and trigger an explosion of start-ups eager to exploit the new freedom.
The idea may work in the long run. But for now, many people in the record industry see DRM as the future, and you'd have to pry it from their cold dead hands before they'd release their digital tunes without it. And some of them see Jobs as a parasite getting fat by selling iPods while the music industry itself is mired in hard times. Significantly, the Recording Industry Association of America has ignored Jobs's call to drop DRM. Instead it congratulated him for offering to license Fairplay to other technology companies - an offer issued nowhere in Jobs's statement. Who needs the Grammys when we've got a catfight like this?
let me give you a nice review on Harry Potter's latest new and last book which i got from an article from Newsweek:
Newsweek 26 February 2007
"Watch Very Carefully"
Even obsessive "Harry Potter" fans have barely noticed that Hogwarts has had a makeover from the first two films. Oscar-winning art director Stuart Craig, who has designed all five "Potter" movies (including this summer's "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix"), agreed to share a few of those changes with NEWSWEEK:
- Hagrid's house was an octagonal one-room hut in the first film, but Craig added a bedroom in the back
- The main entrance to Hogwarts is new. The first movie used a real location, Christ Church College at Oxford. For the second film, it was replaced with a built set.
- Hogsmeade Station has been reconceived for "Phoenix". It had been an actual location in the North Yorkshire moors. For this film, Craig created a new set in the woods near Pinewood Studios.
- The trees in the Forbidden Forest are bigger. And speaking of growth, the beds in the Gryffindor dormitory have been extended - ditto the classroom desks - to keep pace with actors who've become teens.
Craig is now designing sets for the sixth film, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince". But he's anxious for J.K. Rowling's seventh, and final, book in the series, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows", due in stores July 21. "We need to know which sets to retain for the last film," he says. Not that he'll get an early peek. "I just have to go to the bookshop" - like every other fan.
hi i'm so bored now hahax in the computer lab once again haahx cos at home can't use computer since got password. need to access heymath and asknlearn, except the internet is now super duper slow cos the computer lab is CROWDED, every single computer is occupied can't believe it right hahax haiz someone's playing Phil Collins song in Tarzan, oh no it's not Tarzan it's Brother Bear hahax there's no privacy la so many people around haiz so squashed but what to do? hahax no choice sadded hahax
‚Start of Something NeW
1:39:00 PM
COMMENTS