Thanks to Ben Spoerl for this one:
http://www.livescience.com/19039-human-species-china-cave.html
Back in 2006 the anthropological world was truly stunned by remains of Homo floresiencis (popularly known as "The Hobbit") from Indonesia. Last year we heard of a new species, contemporary with neandertals and modern humans but genetically distinct from both, in the Danisova cave in Sibera. This find is, interestingly enough, contemporaneous with floresiensis, and it gives us more evidence that something not well-understood was happening in Asia, despite all the focus that is given to African fossil finds.
Welcome to the Anthropocene!
Many of you know that geologically, the time since the end of the last ice has has been known as the the "holocene." This is the cenozoic (newest life) era, setting us off from the mesozoic ("middle life"- also known as the age of the dinosaurs) and the paleocene ("old life"- the time before the dinosaurs when al other forms of life evolved). The cenozoic era is made up of various epochs, and before the holocene ("entirely recent life") there was, for example, the "pleistocene" (meaning "most recent," even though it isn't, actually) which is also known as the ice age, or, more properly, "ice ages." Now geologists are arguing that humans have so drastically altered the earth in such a short time that we have, in effect, stomped a giant footprint on the geological record, which will be evidenced in such things as core samples taken from polar ice fields, the sediments of rock and dirt that are being laid down currently, and the specimens that will eventually make their way in the fossil record, which will show a mass extinction event that was caused by a natural disaster: the industrial/capitalist global system that humanity has dreamed up. Welcome to the newest epoch: The "anthropocene."
GEO: Natural Increase Rate gets a nod from Time Magazine
There's a recent article that discusses the decrease in NIR worldwide. Weren't we just talking about this?!
GEO and ANTHRO: Funny Money Matters
Counterfeiting has been in the news recently, and while we often think about it terms of money, increasingly the practice translates to consumer goods as well as the tender we trade to buy them with. Indeed, apart from the odd Canadian penny that convenience store clerks sneak into our handfull of change, we are not likely to run into funny money all that much (unless you pay for everything in Grants and Franklins like a ganster) but we increasingly find fake goods, especially if you buy things off ebay. That awesome deal you found online that was too good to be true? Guess what- it's not true.
But even though Time magazine has declared "conspicuous consumption" as yesterday's fashion fad, counterfeit goods are increasingly becoming low-end:
And, it appears, North Korea is running off "SuperNotes" just in time for the death of cash as a medium of exchange:
How the U.S. Could Pressure North Korea Tomorrow: Quit the $100 Bill
But even though Time magazine has declared "conspicuous consumption" as yesterday's fashion fad, counterfeit goods are increasingly becoming low-end:
Even Counterfeiters Are Trading Down These Days
And, it appears, North Korea is running off "SuperNotes" just in time for the death of cash as a medium of exchange:
How the U.S. Could Pressure North Korea Tomorrow: Quit the $100 Bill
GEO: Syria- the latest country Americans discover they ignore at their peril
I heard this the other day: "Syria schmeeria. Who cares? What has that got to do with me? I can't pay attention to EVERY country in the world."
In the immortal words of Gob Bluth- "Come On!" There are only 196 countries in the world (although you can quibble with the definition and add a couple or kick a few off the list). That's like saying "I can't possibly watch 400 channels on cable TV, so I won't bother with it." There are much better reasons not to bother with cable television than bullshit arguments like that. There are 122 professional sports teams in the USA and Canada, counting only baseball, basketball, football and hockey (sorry soccer and WNBA fans- I'm trying not to pad the numbers). If you follow only ONE of them, you have to understand something about all the teams apart from your particular favorite, more about the ones in the same division, something about the history of the game, both in long term and short term, who are the current and past stars, what are the rules, what strategyies do you use to win, etc. If you put half as much effort paying attention to the world around you that most people do with following a basketball team or keeping up with Bradjolina and the other faces that grace People magazine and the like, we'd be living in a country that had public conversations about things that mattered a whole lot more than Janet Jackson's nipples.
So pay attention to Syria because you CAN. Then it will become abundantly clear why you SHOULD.
Here are two NPR stories to get you started:
In the immortal words of Gob Bluth- "Come On!" There are only 196 countries in the world (although you can quibble with the definition and add a couple or kick a few off the list). That's like saying "I can't possibly watch 400 channels on cable TV, so I won't bother with it." There are much better reasons not to bother with cable television than bullshit arguments like that. There are 122 professional sports teams in the USA and Canada, counting only baseball, basketball, football and hockey (sorry soccer and WNBA fans- I'm trying not to pad the numbers). If you follow only ONE of them, you have to understand something about all the teams apart from your particular favorite, more about the ones in the same division, something about the history of the game, both in long term and short term, who are the current and past stars, what are the rules, what strategyies do you use to win, etc. If you put half as much effort paying attention to the world around you that most people do with following a basketball team or keeping up with Bradjolina and the other faces that grace People magazine and the like, we'd be living in a country that had public conversations about things that mattered a whole lot more than Janet Jackson's nipples.
So pay attention to Syria because you CAN. Then it will become abundantly clear why you SHOULD.
Here are two NPR stories to get you started:
Death Toll Rises As Syrian Troops Bombard Homs
GEO and ANTHRO: The 5 hardest languages to learn. REALLY!?
This from a website called "ThirdAge.com": The five hardest languages to learn
http://ww.thirdage.com/slideshow.php?sid=2647409&utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=outbrain_wwsub
Warning: This site, though it seems harmless enough, will start a video from the right sidebar that you will have to turn off if it annoys you as much as it did me.
I post this list more to generate some thought than to vouch for its veracity. First of all, the list SHOULD say "for Europeans" or "people who speak Indo-European languages," to be more precise. Which begs the question (I love to hate saying that- ask me sometime and I'll explain) if (spoiler alert) Japanese is so dang hard for English speakers to learn, shouldn't English be equally as difficult for the Japanese? And there are far more English speakers than Japanese speakers, so why shouldn't English be on the list? And (more spoiler) if Hungarian is on there, why not Finish or Estonian? Or Basque, for that matter?
Frankly, from what I've read, Pidahao seems to be a lot more difficult than any of these languages, but it's spoken by a couple of hundred souls in the middle of the Amazon, so I guess they don't count.
Interesting question, but I think it invites a discussion as to why this is a bad question to begin with let alone an impossible one to answer.
http://ww.thirdage.com/slideshow.php?sid=2647409&utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=outbrain_wwsub
Warning: This site, though it seems harmless enough, will start a video from the right sidebar that you will have to turn off if it annoys you as much as it did me.
I post this list more to generate some thought than to vouch for its veracity. First of all, the list SHOULD say "for Europeans" or "people who speak Indo-European languages," to be more precise. Which begs the question (I love to hate saying that- ask me sometime and I'll explain) if (spoiler alert) Japanese is so dang hard for English speakers to learn, shouldn't English be equally as difficult for the Japanese? And there are far more English speakers than Japanese speakers, so why shouldn't English be on the list? And (more spoiler) if Hungarian is on there, why not Finish or Estonian? Or Basque, for that matter?
Frankly, from what I've read, Pidahao seems to be a lot more difficult than any of these languages, but it's spoken by a couple of hundred souls in the middle of the Amazon, so I guess they don't count.
Interesting question, but I think it invites a discussion as to why this is a bad question to begin with let alone an impossible one to answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)