Thanks to the efforts of Dr. Edward O. Wilson, a Harvard biologist who spearheaded this project, a website cataloging all of the known species in the world will soon become available as early as February 28, 2008.
It has been attempted before and failed, but that was due to the lack of the availability of the technological setup in the past; we do not have such a dilema today.
This Book of All Species collection, or the Encyclopedia of Life as it is often referred to, will have the capability of condensing one page of information about each species know to man (right now that count is up to 1.8 million species, ranging from the blue-footed booby to the oyster mushroom.)
There will also be room for the list to grow the already 30, 000 pages to make room for the other 1.77 million species still left to be discovered.
Even though some biologist (like Daniel Brooks of the University of Toronto) have their doubts, other biologist remain hopeful that this will become a success.
The experts working on the project are streamlining the options on the website that might help scientists and nonscientists with pinpointing research on a particular species, or even different areas of the world that contain species you need to watch out for.
I think that it is an excellent tool of knowledge for anyone. This system will help to simply, and dare I say it, revolutionize the way that we gather necessary information for travel to foreign countries, among other things.
If there is a danger of any vermin in a particular location of the world, one would be able to streamline the necessary information through a personalized field guide on the website. You put in the location in which you are visiting, and out the vital knowledge comes.
What a brilliant idea. I truly hope that they are successful in their efforts to bring our world that much closer to the public.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The Show Must Go On...Maybe?
The unfortunate and untimely death of Heath Ledger has fortified bonds between some of Hollywood's top talent.
Johnny Depp, Collin Farrell and Jude Law are stepping forward to offer their assistance in finishing the last film that Ledger will ever appear in...well, maybe.
Ledger, who died from an accidental overdose of prescription drugs, was in the midst of filming a Terry Gilliam fantasy film, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus.
The film's future has been in limbo since Ledger's unfortunate demise in late January. The trio of Hollywood's elite (Depp, Farrell and Law) are banding together with the three musketeer ethos, "all for one". They are tag-teaming together in an effort to play alternate versions (incarnations, if you will) of Ledger's character, "Tony".
There has not been a solution decided upon for the dilema of whether to recast, shoot around Ledger's absence, or cancel the movie altogether.
The whole reason that the independent film was able to secure a $30 million budget was strictly based upon the fact that Ledger's name was attached to it.
Depp feels an obligation to Gilliam to get this film completed due to his experience in 2000; the film that the two were working on had to be scrapped because of extenuating circumstances. Depp doesn't want to see a repeat of this occurence.
Normally, I wouldn't pay heed to the hype of Hollywood; however, I think that the character shown by three random Hollywood pseudo-icons is noteworthy.
It is refreshing to see genuine concern for the well-being and prosperity of a fellow peer. I am not talking about a financial prosperity, but one that belongs to the humanity of the situation.
The "three musketeers" want to help with a project they know was of importance to their fallen friend, Ledger. They also want to ensure that the integrity of what was important to him remains in tact.
The fact that Depp felt an obligation to stand up for an independent film maker (who most likely doesn't have the deep pockets of other incorporated film makers) makes me feel that maybe Tinseltown does have a heart, after all.
Johnny Depp, Collin Farrell and Jude Law are stepping forward to offer their assistance in finishing the last film that Ledger will ever appear in...well, maybe.
Ledger, who died from an accidental overdose of prescription drugs, was in the midst of filming a Terry Gilliam fantasy film, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus.
The film's future has been in limbo since Ledger's unfortunate demise in late January. The trio of Hollywood's elite (Depp, Farrell and Law) are banding together with the three musketeer ethos, "all for one". They are tag-teaming together in an effort to play alternate versions (incarnations, if you will) of Ledger's character, "Tony".
There has not been a solution decided upon for the dilema of whether to recast, shoot around Ledger's absence, or cancel the movie altogether.
The whole reason that the independent film was able to secure a $30 million budget was strictly based upon the fact that Ledger's name was attached to it.
Depp feels an obligation to Gilliam to get this film completed due to his experience in 2000; the film that the two were working on had to be scrapped because of extenuating circumstances. Depp doesn't want to see a repeat of this occurence.
Normally, I wouldn't pay heed to the hype of Hollywood; however, I think that the character shown by three random Hollywood pseudo-icons is noteworthy.
It is refreshing to see genuine concern for the well-being and prosperity of a fellow peer. I am not talking about a financial prosperity, but one that belongs to the humanity of the situation.
The "three musketeers" want to help with a project they know was of importance to their fallen friend, Ledger. They also want to ensure that the integrity of what was important to him remains in tact.
The fact that Depp felt an obligation to stand up for an independent film maker (who most likely doesn't have the deep pockets of other incorporated film makers) makes me feel that maybe Tinseltown does have a heart, after all.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
With the emergence of off-air reporters (young reporters that do not appear on television) growing daily, politicians are finding it hard to get a break, since almost every candid moment is caught on video. Medias like YouTube allow for instantaneous feeds and updates that are making every moment of this years presidential campaign a public affair.
These off-air reporters, or embeds, are hired as a cost-efficient alternative to expensive media team operations. They are hired by networks to follow candidates across the country filing video and blog posts as they go.
As a result, it has changed the dynamics of this year's election by holding candidates accountable for all of the unplugged and unscripted moments of folly and faux pas. These moments have become part of the narrative of the election. The campaigns are well aware of just how much these moments caught on video can magnify a mistake or attach a permanent stigma to canidate.
Networks are increasingly going to this type of journalism because there is an expanded coverage with little cost. The information gathered that would have ended up on the news floor years ago, due to too much content, is now available in the form of blogs and video clips making it a more informative form of media.
Due to the imbiquitous camcorders and immediate Internet access, the candidates are facing potential pitfalls. In years past (without the presence of video cameras or cell phones that record), if an off-comment was said by a candidate, it might have taken up a sentence or two in the newspaper; but now with our instant access and blogs, the same scenario (if caught in front of video cameras) can be seen in its entirity over and over again.
All I can say is that I will never run for president. God knows that I embarass myself enough when I'm aware people are looking at me; who knows what I am capable of without that awareness.
It kind of reminds me of a "Big Brother is watching" scenario that so many people claim to be against. I suppose, though, that if you are putting yourself in the public eye (to become our president, no less) ,you should expect extreme scrutiny. I do feel bad for them because it seems they get crucified for being human. After all, no one is innocent of all things.
Like I said, I will never run for president. I am way too human to do it.
These off-air reporters, or embeds, are hired as a cost-efficient alternative to expensive media team operations. They are hired by networks to follow candidates across the country filing video and blog posts as they go.
As a result, it has changed the dynamics of this year's election by holding candidates accountable for all of the unplugged and unscripted moments of folly and faux pas. These moments have become part of the narrative of the election. The campaigns are well aware of just how much these moments caught on video can magnify a mistake or attach a permanent stigma to canidate.
Networks are increasingly going to this type of journalism because there is an expanded coverage with little cost. The information gathered that would have ended up on the news floor years ago, due to too much content, is now available in the form of blogs and video clips making it a more informative form of media.
Due to the imbiquitous camcorders and immediate Internet access, the candidates are facing potential pitfalls. In years past (without the presence of video cameras or cell phones that record), if an off-comment was said by a candidate, it might have taken up a sentence or two in the newspaper; but now with our instant access and blogs, the same scenario (if caught in front of video cameras) can be seen in its entirity over and over again.
All I can say is that I will never run for president. God knows that I embarass myself enough when I'm aware people are looking at me; who knows what I am capable of without that awareness.
It kind of reminds me of a "Big Brother is watching" scenario that so many people claim to be against. I suppose, though, that if you are putting yourself in the public eye (to become our president, no less) ,you should expect extreme scrutiny. I do feel bad for them because it seems they get crucified for being human. After all, no one is innocent of all things.
Like I said, I will never run for president. I am way too human to do it.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Does Media Dictate Biased Views?
The topic of media bias has become one of the hottest topics these days, according to reporter Steven D. Levitt.
According to his research, studies have been performed to see just how media bias operates, and if it rings true. Levitt found two men, Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo, who estimated how left-wing or right-wing media outlets are based upon what research by think tanks they identify with or mention in their stories.
Groseclose and Milyo came to the conclusion that most of the media has a liberal bias, the exception being Fox News, which they cast right of center.
The terminology and descriptions used by the different media sources tend to show what side of politics the source is on. For example, phrases that Democrats use to describe an issue like the "Estate Tax" or "War on Iraq" are different than the "Death Tax" or "War on Terror" phrases used by Republicans.
If attention is paid to these details, then the reader can see which slant a media source gravitates towards.
The research of Groseclose and Milyo also pointed out that this slant is mostly dependent upon what type of audience the media is catering to (northern or southern states, democratic or republican.)
I agree 100 percent with Levitt. There has been, is, and always will be bias in the media. As long as people are allowed to think for themselves, differences of opinion will exist.
I believe a large part of this stems from the way this country was first set up.
In the south, plantations and farms were supported by a completely different functioning economy, never mind the slavery issue. There was typically only the extrememly wealthy or the very poor that made up the economy, and who do you think made political decisions? If your answer was the rich, you are correct. The south's views slanted toward a conservative view, and tends to remain so to this day.
In the north, a diamond-shaped economy thrived (the majority of the communities were middle class; the top narrowed with the wealthy, as did the bottom with the lower income families.) There was no need for slavery, and their economy was supported by and relied upon a great many people in the middle class. It was this majority that formed the structure of government and rule. They were progressive thinkers which made them more liberal in political structure.
In my opinion, it is this very reason for our current political diversity today. Traditions drive convictions, and emotion is a powerful catalyst in deciding political futures.
Media sources might want to remain fair and unbiased, but a person would be hard-pressed to find one that truly was.
According to his research, studies have been performed to see just how media bias operates, and if it rings true. Levitt found two men, Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo, who estimated how left-wing or right-wing media outlets are based upon what research by think tanks they identify with or mention in their stories.
Groseclose and Milyo came to the conclusion that most of the media has a liberal bias, the exception being Fox News, which they cast right of center.
The terminology and descriptions used by the different media sources tend to show what side of politics the source is on. For example, phrases that Democrats use to describe an issue like the "Estate Tax" or "War on Iraq" are different than the "Death Tax" or "War on Terror" phrases used by Republicans.
If attention is paid to these details, then the reader can see which slant a media source gravitates towards.
The research of Groseclose and Milyo also pointed out that this slant is mostly dependent upon what type of audience the media is catering to (northern or southern states, democratic or republican.)
I agree 100 percent with Levitt. There has been, is, and always will be bias in the media. As long as people are allowed to think for themselves, differences of opinion will exist.
I believe a large part of this stems from the way this country was first set up.
In the south, plantations and farms were supported by a completely different functioning economy, never mind the slavery issue. There was typically only the extrememly wealthy or the very poor that made up the economy, and who do you think made political decisions? If your answer was the rich, you are correct. The south's views slanted toward a conservative view, and tends to remain so to this day.
In the north, a diamond-shaped economy thrived (the majority of the communities were middle class; the top narrowed with the wealthy, as did the bottom with the lower income families.) There was no need for slavery, and their economy was supported by and relied upon a great many people in the middle class. It was this majority that formed the structure of government and rule. They were progressive thinkers which made them more liberal in political structure.
In my opinion, it is this very reason for our current political diversity today. Traditions drive convictions, and emotion is a powerful catalyst in deciding political futures.
Media sources might want to remain fair and unbiased, but a person would be hard-pressed to find one that truly was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)