The ancient king and the prophet

And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him. -Daniel 2:1

Some time ago, an ancient king had a vision, and he could not tell the meaning. The only one who could interpret this dream was God, as it was from God, and it would take a man of God to explain it to the king, as this…. would reveal the future of this world. My future, your future.

19 Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven. 20 Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: 21 And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding: 22 He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him. 23 I thank thee, and praise thee, O thou God of my fathers, who hast given me wisdom and might, and hast made known unto me now what we desired of thee: for thou hastnow made known unto us the king’s matter. -Daniel 2:19-23

The king finally got to understand where he was, in history. Now, its time for us, to realize where we fit.

The Vision

Daniel answered in the presence of the king, and said, The secret which the king hath demanded cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, shew unto the king; 28 But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these; 29 As for thee, O king, thy thoughts camef into thy mind upon thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter: and he that revealeth secrets maketh known to thee what shall come to pass. -Daniel 2:27-29

31 Thou, O king, sawesth, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. 32 This image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighsi of brass, 33 His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. 34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out withoutj hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. 35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth. 36 This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king. 37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. 38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold. 39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. 40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. 41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. 42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly brokenk. 43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave onel to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. 44 And in the daysm of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. 45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain withoutn hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure. -Daniel 2:31-45

Who? When?

37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. 38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold -Daniel 2:37,38

There is out starting point.

Babylon

• head of gold
• 606-539  BC

Media Persia

• Chest of silver
• 539-331 BC
• Lead by Cyrus, in the conquering of Babylon whom you’ll find mentioned before he was even born, in the book of Isaiah.

Greece

• Thighs of brass
• 331-168 BC

Rome

• Legs of iron
• 168 BC- AD 476

Divided Rome

• Feet of a mixture of iron with clay
• AD 476- the second coming of Jesus
• 10 toes= 10 kingdoms, or nations
• iron does not mix with clay, these may try to unite again, but it will never happen

Briefly

It is interesting to notice that these nations did rise and fall in that order. Another blog will get into the details of those nations. What is also interesting to see is that…. every single one of those is now, past tense. Meaning.. whats next? Do you not get the feeling we are close to the second coming? I encourage you to read all of Daniel 2, which shows the same events of Daniel 7, in a different manner. Now, I will add that when you look at Revelation 13, you see that the mortal wound the beast had received in the vision of Daniel is healed, and that all marvel after the beast. That there is a new beast, or nation. Briefly, one beast is a combo beast of the book of Daniel, the other a new one. One beast is undeniably the same as the last one of Daniel, Rome, the other.. what nation was rising around the time frame Rome was falling? None other, than the United States of America.  This is it, no other rises after. This will be covered in another blog.

Conclusion

Returning to Daniel 2…

44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. 45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain withoutn hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure. -Daniel 2:44,45

Thats how it ends. We can be sure of it, Jesus IS coming back soon to bring His people back to heaven with Him. And indeed we are, at the very tips of the toes.

___________________________

Stay tuned, more perspectives from the Bible concerning this coming soon.

It’s been a fucked up a confusing time of my life…like really fucked up.

So my girlfriend that i think i love, cause these fucking butterflies in my stomach that make me lose my appetite as pathetic as it may sound, that must be love, i’m not sure what love is.After serious fucked up relationships, i tought this time i’m lucky, this time i matter to someone for fuck sake(yeah i said fuck 1000 times i know), i was glad to find out i don`t …yeah i don’t matter to her.

I have read in her blog that the only person that matters is her friend that is in a coma; now i have nothing against the man, but se said he loves him the most in her blog, she doesn’t know i read it.

She never said to me those words…those god damned words : I love you. I know she loves the guy as a friend, plus the guy lives 100000 miles away,but se said he was there for her to her worts times.Ok you love the guy…but i don’t matter, you don`t love me? You make me feel like you do, in a genuine way and thats whats fucked up.

Shit, life is not a happy song, listening to happy song make things worse for me in situations like this.

I know what’s true and what’s not, but without sounding emo`ish , do i matter or not…now i feel like i don`t

reminder: never let your guard down cause it’s a fucked up lil world.

The trending topic at the moment seems to be Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh’s visit to the United States of America.

The key reports of The Times of India seem to be this and this.

The Hindu however reports this. Even the party scene was described this way…

Well, I find it amusing that The Times of India still considers itself a newspaper….

Even BBC, a British broadcasting network has a better coverage here and here.

Time for off topic.  I’ve said all I want to, or anyone could read, about fiscal timing.

I am an obsessive user of the iPod, eternally grateful to leave behind those barbaric days of  mix tapes and minidiscs . As well as podcasts (Guardian, BBC comedy, that sort of sad middle-aged stuff), I am always looking for the Next Favourite Track, that wonderful uplifting moment when you realise you are going to love a 2-15 minute piece for ever. (except, of course, you won’t).

From my point of view, the trade-off is worth it if I listen to 10 pieces of rubbish for every hit.   I probably buy 10 tracks every other day, most of them classical, on the strictly impartial advice of the InterWeb and its Lists.  It is well worth ploughing through half of this for example to find that sublime slow movement from the Beethoven’s 5th piano concerto.

So I was deeply, sadly excited to see that the Times was adding to its 100 best books (for which read, novels) of the decade, and 100 films, with the 100 best albums of the Noughties.  This is seriously useful: posterity is a wonderful filter.  Thanks to posterity, most of us would not have heard of a mediocrity like Salieri (without that movie).  A lot of pointless ploughing through anonymous works is thereby saved.

But I don’t like the Times list.  Instant posterity is clearly nowhere near as reliable.   My first, most obnoxious reason, is this.  There are too many old people on it.   Here they are:

Neil Diamond Paul Simon Johnny Cash Paul Weller Paul McCartney David Bowie Brian Wilson Bob Dylan Madonna Bruce Springsteen Richard Hawley

Now, before you get cross (whoever YOU is), hear me out.  I loved some of the defining work of the people above.  I thought Dylan the equal of any other poet – until I read some other poetry.  But now I have to admit that I don’t like anything he has done since 1974.  And it’s because Pop is different from those other arts where the practitioner becomes better with age.  Shakespeare, clearly, got better.   His thoughts became more complex, his range of references wider, and so on.  So too can classical composers grow.  Beethoven’s last symphony is generally rated the best, as are his wonderful late string quartets. And in many professions – I would offer politics – I seriously doubt the ability of the early practitioner to make judgements as fine as in later life.

Now look at the history of pop.  Would anyone honestly have heard of Paul McCartney if he had started in 1985, with “Spies like Us”?  Or the Rolling Stones, with that dreadful song about rocks and a hard place?  No, of course no.  Ditto all the names up there.  Pop is overwhelmingly about adolescence.  Its lyrics, for what they are worth, are pathetically adolescent. When pop tries to be profound or clever, it is embarassing.  It is not meant for that.  It is meant to be overthetop, vainglorious, pretentious, and not worth 20 minutes of a university course.

The people who compiled the Times list clearly take it too seriously, because they want to to be so much more.  This is their life, after all.  Part of this need is a desire to think that pop talent exhibits some sort of continuity, an ability to mellow and deepen with age and experience – like the other great Arts.  But it obviously is not so.  Great pop bands mature incredibly quickly, and then suffer an embarassing long afterlife, an endless second-act-angst.  It’s like someone who makes everyone laugh once at a dinner party, and then launches into longer and windier anecdotes.  Get your coat.

Of course, they never get their coat.  The Arctic Monkey’s last album was full of painfully obscure and dark lyrics, lots of poetical preachiness: ‘a more experimental, darker sound and even bleaker subject matter.’.  Sorry, but that is not what got us buying those wonderful early songs, so honest and witty about chippy underachieving mid adolescence.   The same has happened to my favourite band, Gomez.

I don’t know much about the Times’ more obscure choices, at least 30 of which I had not heard of.  I can’t rate rap, and had always hoped Ali G or the Conchords would do for it what I had hoped Spinal Tap would do for heavy metal.  I am not pretending I have more knowledge than the Times’ experts.  This is their life after all.  But one thing that is certain is that their combination of obscure and old has pushed away some amazing bands:

• Noah and the Whale – just that first album
• Gomez
• Razorlight, again the first album, if only for the gloriously pretentious “in the City”
• The Fratellis, again the first album. Chelsea Dagger must have been the most used track on the telly
• Florence and the Machine
• Dirty Pretty Things, both albums.  Barat is clearly the genius of that combination.
• The Killers, for God’s Sake.  All three albums, but they clearly deserve some recognition for writing the best song of the decade. (scandalously used by David Cameron).
• Badly Drawn Boy – the first 3 albums at least deserved a place.  Like Nick Hornby I am affected by A Minor Incident.

I am sure I could go on.  So could you.  I would like to add one more.  It is easily my favourite album of the decade, from one of the best TV shows, and just about the only one I am (currently) sure I’ll still listen to in 10 years’ time.   Because pop is meant to be like that.

By taking pop too seriously, the Times have missed the point of it entirely.

Sometimes you just have to smile at the small things in life that tickle you… admist the oblique and harrowing times that small slice of light that is offered to you. Im thankful for the people I happen to chance upon who manage this. Producing proper belly-tingling chuckles, sometimes even without the slightest intention of being funny. And in my less generous moments, that ability to be dense that manages to momentarily startle you, and you’re aware you’re treading a fine line between laughing with them…. and well, you fill in the rest.

  I was speaking to a good friend yesterday, bemoaning the joys of the male species and one particular specimen, questioning what on earth we had in common, to which she looked at me deadpan and without missing a beat replied: “Well, you are both human”… and for this, I have to applaud her.

The ability to simplify the most complex and puzzling down to its more organic matter… little wonder that she’s a scientist perhaps. More relevant and impressive though, was the fact that she managed to interrupt my slightly-over-dramatic-rantings (yes, occasionally they do exist and utterances get delivered in a less than an eloquent repose, who’d have thought?!) and stop me in my tracks for a good minute. I hope everyone has someone in their daily lives that manages to bring a little bit of asininence and undiluted daftness to their preceedings.

Because sometimes life can just get just a little bit too serious and you get just that little bit too focused and fraught in spinning plates and juggling, you feel like you might forget the ‘enjoyment’ bit that should be centre field. And in those times I wish I had a pocketfull of that mirth to help keep me in the right direction and break it down to what it should all be about.

And in the words of Winnie the Pooh…

“It is more fun to talk with someone who doesn’t use long, difficult words but rather short, easy words like “What about lunch?””

Posted by Audiegrl

Duo join forces to bring series to screen

Variety/Cynthia Littleton—It’s a potent combination: Stephen + Steven

Stephen King and Steven Spielberg are joining forces to develop a limited series based on King’s just-released supernatural thriller “Under the Dome.” DreamWorks TV has optioned the book and is looking to set it up as an event series, likely for cable. DreamWorks principal Stacey Snider was key in bringing the project to the company. Spielberg, King and Snider will exec produce along with DreamWorks TV chiefs Darryl Frank and Justin Falvey. The book, which has earned strong reviews as a return to form for the prolific author, revolves around the drama that unfolds after an invisible force field suddenly descends on a small vacation town in Maine. As the locals fight for their survival, the town descends into warring factions led by enigmatic characters.

DreamWorks is starting to meet with writers for the project. The plan is to set a writer before shopping the skein to prospective buyers.

Spielberg and King have worked together in the past, developing a screen adaptation of King’s 1984 novel “The Talisman,” on which Spielberg has had the option for more than 20 years. That project has been developed as a feature, and it came close to being done as a mini for TNT a few years ago until it was tabled for budgetary reasons.

The “Dome” deal continues a burst of activity on the smallscreen side for Spielberg and DreamWorks TV. Among the high-profile projects in the works is a series about the development of a fictional Broadway tuner for Showtime. Another Showtime contender is a costume-drama revolving around the Borgia clan, penned by Neil Jordan and with Robert Zemeckis also producing.

More @

Visit: stephenking.com

Related Articles

44-D’s Book Diaries: Stephen King’s Under the Dome

XD es que no puedo dejar de recordar las declaraciones de la sexy Megan, alegando que TODAS las mujeres piensan que es una zorra solo porque es bonita y por el cuerpo de tentacion que tiene, pues para que vean que ella es una actriz seria y dama de sociedad, salieron a la luz las fotos que realizo para el New York Times Magazine, abriendo las piernas como es su costumbre y dejando ver un poco de su vajay yay!! claro Megan, despues de esto NADIE creera que eres una puta… bitch please!

click en las pics para agrandar

]]> http://thomasryan100.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/moving-forward/ Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:45:14 +0000 thomasryan100 http://thomasryan100.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/moving-forward/

There was a time when standing still was considered dangerous and that has created the incredible urge for man to keep moving forward – regardless of what is in the future – man wants to reach it, with little to no regard for the rewards or consequences of such behaviour.  It is in these times of utter desperation that man finds themselves in the grip of eternal yearning and desire that was considered too dangerous to venture very close to, and therefore, we are on the verge of the total destruction of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness we once knew.

Equipe 01

Equipe 02

Equipe 01

Equipe 02

Aos olhos da TIME ai estão os 50 melhores sites do ano de 2009.

(Clique na imagem abaixo)

Låt er inte luras av textens titel eftersom det är en slutsats som skribenten aldrig kommer fram till i artikeln men de återger händelseförloppet väldigt bra och fler sådana här texter behövs i Times.

>Länk<

Op-ed by Frank Rich

Frank Rich/The New York Times

New York Times/Frank Rich—AT last the American right and left have one issue they unequivocally agree on: You don’t actually have to read Sarah Palin’s book to have an opinion about it. Last Sunday Liz Cheney praised “Going Rogue” as “well-written” on Fox News even though, by her own account, she had sampled only “parts” of it. On Tuesday, Ana Marie Cox, a correspondent for Air America, belittled the book in The Washington Post while confessing that she couldn’t claim to have “completely” read it.

“Going Rogue” will hardly be the first best seller embraced by millions for talismanic rather than literary ends. And I am not recommending that others follow my example and slog through its 400-plus pages, especially since its supposed revelations have been picked through 24/7 for a week. But sometimes I wonder if anyone has read all of what Palin would call the “dang” thing. Some of the book’s most illuminating tics have been mentioned barely — if at all — by either its fans or foes. Palin is far and away the most important brand in American politics after Barack Obama, and attention must be paid. Those who wishfully think her 15 minutes are up are deluding themselves.

The book’s biggest surprise is Palin’s wide-eyed infatuation with show-business celebrities. You get nearly as much face time with Tina Fey and the cast of “Saturday Night Live” in “Going Rogue” as you do with John McCain. We learn how happy Palin was to receive calls from Bono and Warren Beatty “to share ideas and insights.” We wade through star-struck lists of campaign cameos by Robert Duvall, Jon Voight (who “blew us away”), Naomi Judd, Gary Sinise and Kelsey Grammer, among many others. Then there are the acknowledgments at the book’s end, where Palin reveals that her intimacy with media stars is such that she can air-kiss them on a first-name basis, from Greta to Laura to Rush.

Equally revealing is the one boldfaced name conspicuously left unmentioned in the book: Levi Johnston, the father of Palin’s grandchild. Though Palin and McCain milked him for photo ops at the Republican convention, he is persona non grata now that he’s taking off his campaign wardrobe. Is Johnston’s fledgling porn career the problem, or is it his public threats to strip bare Palin family secrets as well? “She knows what I got on her” is how he put it. In Palin’s interview with Oprah last week, it was questioning about Johnston, not Katie Couric, that made her nervous.

The book’s most frequently dropped names, predictably enough, are the Lord and Ronald Reagan (though not necessarily in that order). Easily the most startling passage in “Going Rogue,” running more than two pages, collates extended excerpts from a prayerful letter Palin wrote to mark the birth of Trig, her child with Down syndrome. This missive’s understandable goal was to reassert Palin’s faith and trust in God. But Palin did not write her letter to God; she wrote the letter from God, assuming His role and voice herself and signing it “Trig’s Creator, Your Heavenly Father.” If I may say so — Oy!

More @

La banda británica Blur regaló ayer en el diario The Sunday Times un cd con 10 de sus canciones. Se convirtió en el tercer grupo musical en hacer esto, detrás de Prince y Sigur Rós.

Las canciones que decidieron poner en el disco fueron grabadas durante varios shows que realizaron en el verano europeo.

La lista es la siguiente:

1- She’s So High

2- Girls & Boys

3- Badhead

4- Beetlebum

5- Parklife

6- Out of Time

7- Song 2

8- Pop Scene

9- Tender

10- The Universal

Además, el 29 de noviembre la banda lanzará cinco canciones más para que puedan descargarse desde iTunes.

Hacé click en la tapa del diario y lee la nota completa (en inglés).

I know I need You. I need to love You. I love to see You, but it’s been so long. I long to feel You. I feel this need for You. And I need to hear You, is that so wrong? Now You pull me near You. When we’re close, I fear You. Still I’m afraid to tell You, all that I’ve done. Are You done forgiving? Oh can You look past my pretending? Lord, I’m so tired of defending, what I’ve become. What have I become?

I hear You say, ”My love is over. It’s underneath. It’s inside. It’s in between. The times you doubt Me, when you can’t feel. The times that you question, ‘Is this for real? ‘The times you’re broken. The times that you mend. The times that you hate Me, and the times that you bend. Well, My love is over, it’s underneath. It’s inside, it’s in between. These times you’re healing, and when your heart breaks. The times that you feel like you’re falling from grace. The times you’re hurting. The times that you heal. The times you go hungry, and are tempted to steal. The times of confusion, in chaos and pain. I’m there in your sorrow, under the weight of your shame. I’m there through your heartache. I’m there in the storm. My love I will keep you, by My pow’r alone. I don’t care where you fall, where you have been. I’ll never forsake you, My love never ends. It never ends.”

End of the year will come again. So, what will most of Malaysian thinking about? Of course Big Sales! Here is the information that I gathered about big sales in KL and Putrajaya, so that we won’t waste our time to find where the big sales are.

1. Times Bookstore Christmas Promotion

Sale: 13-Nov-2009 To 03-Jan-2010

Look out for 20% off sticker.

Location:

1. Bangsar Shopping Centre

2. KLCC

3. Hartamas Shopping Centre

4. CapSquare Centre

times bookstore @ Capsquare centre

2. Pedro Shoes End of Season SALE

Sale : 21-Nov-2009  To 30-Nov-2009

Save up to 50%

Location: KLCC only

3. Sasa year end Sale

Sale : 21-Nov-2009  To 03-Jan-2010

Click the image to enlarge the image

Location:

1. Sungei Wang Plaza

2. Suria KLCC

3. Cheras Leisure Mall

4. MidValley Megamall

5. Berjaya Times Square

6. Pavillion

7. Alamanda Shopping Centre

Simply sedated.
Not even sedated, I’ve just been around and trying to get out of certain things the best way I can…but it’s all to get the better part of the sandwich. Last week I kept telling people that I was waiting for something to hit me, then I ended up throwing up into a trash can in the middle of China Town. It wasn’t exactly what I was looking for but it did help me realize something:
don’t drink tea from Mcdonalds!
No, there has to be a more substantial reason as to why you haven’t been writing in your blog!
There’s really not, though.
For the past week I’ve been really tired and really thirsty.
Thanksgiving is coming up.
I think this is one of the most dull blogs I’ve written by far…
probably because I am writing to fill up space.
Most defiantly cause I am writing to fill up space.
I am going to pretend like there is no more space and write at a time where I am not even thinking about the space.
Does that even make sense to you?
Pause.
Don’t answer.
Replay.

Chivalry

By REQUEST, I will begin to express my dearest opinions towards this topic.

A dead, well, dying stereotypical characteristic… It mainly depends on how you interpret what the notion of ‘chivalry’ actually is. It can be seen through a person living in the 18th, 19th or 20th century OR even back in the ancient society.

Ill express these different classifications of the ways people express the attitude, ‘chivalry’ through chronological order of events in history.

But I’ll start with modern day. In this contemporary age, the basic definition of ‘chivalry’ is ‘a courtesy towards women’. In relation, when one opens a door for a woman, it is classified as a characteristic of ‘chivalry’. This is not the case in this day and age. I may not speak for the whole of society as interpretations differ, the minds of every person is unique and so, I cannot clarify a general interpretation of ‘chivalry’, however, I can clarify for you, ‘MY’ interpretation of chivalry.

I believe that idea that to call someone ‘mistress’ is a dying custom and that only very few continue to use it. I also believe that sliding out a chair for a girl is ‘pussy’ and only gives a feeling for ‘awkwanoia’ (conrad’s made up word) between the two. However, I certainly believe that chivalry has developed to become accustomed to today’s traditions. Now, the characteristics of chivalry are to tend to a girl if they request for assistance, to compliment and to even buy a drink for.

I also should not deny the fact that modern feminism has influenced that notion of chivalry.

Sadly, chivalry is a topic too broad to clarify, but that does not mean I cannot compare it to past societies.

In the ancient society, chivalry was to call the women, ‘mistress, provide them with first serves of food, gifts for special events (marriage)’ this information can been gathered from archaeological evidence. In the 18th century, chivalry was to open the door for a woman, bow, hold their hand to walk. In the 19th century, chivalry was to basically to provide them with more equality, to allow them better education, job opportunities.

Ill end with my comment, ‘Chivalry is a characteristic that is influenced throughout the times, it is not uniform and will vary between different cultures, minds, ages and genders. Hence, it is a topic too broad too comprehend as vast amounts of information is required to clarify its notions’. I do not have time to write a book about it, but I will leave it as a definition that is undefinable due to its inability to be uniform.

I repeat, this was a request. From now on, I will only post opinions that will definitely be answered.

Sorry, but there are no pictures as i have no primary resources for this concept.

From, Rawk the World.

‘We will Rawk and Rawk until the whole world hears us’

-Conrad & Vanessa

1. It is too risky. Yes, there’s sincere gamble associated with pedalling. Riders do collide and get bashed by vehicles. But how parlous is biking in comparison with other forms of transit and with our understanding of the hazard? A lot less than you might reckon.

Think on the calculations of a company that undertakes safety and failure testing, once called the Failure Group and now called Exponent. The company reviewed a range of past-times and determined that the number of fatal accidents per 1million hrs of exposure was 0.26 for biking, 0.47 for driving, 1.53 for living (all causes of death), and 8.80 for motorcycling. To put it another way, they discovered that the hazards of biking were about 50% that connected with driving and a sixth of that connected with simply with living.

Disappointingly, the precise methods Exponent used are proprietary, and the total report is not available to the public, but rest assured that this isn’t a fly-by-night cyclists’ advocacy organization that is cooking the numbers. As Exponent reasons on its website, it has been relied on to consider high-profile misfortunes such as the sabotage of the federal building in Oklahoma City.

So, for the effect of argument, let’s assume that Exponents analysis is an underestimation and debate another detailed study that measures the risks using a minutely different yardstick—the number of kills per billions of kilometres travelled rather than per hour of activity. Rutgers University researchers who actioned this study concluded that, per kilometre travelled, cycling kills are eleven times as high as car occupant fatalities. Looks rather grim for cycling until you examine what the same study discovered about walking. Walking kills per kilometre walked were 36 times as high as driving fatalities, implying that walking is more than 3 times as risky as pedalling.

However, there is still more that riders could do to take responsibility for our protection. A disturbing 24 percent of deadly bike accidents involve an drunken cyclist. Research shows that cyclists get into many smaller accidents that could be prevented. Various studies have shown that the failure to wear lights in the dark or a helmet hugely increases a biker’s risk. Finally, riders starting out must be really careful about cars opening doors and making turns, and about pedalling on the sidewalks.

The bottom line: Its not that cycling doesn’t have risk, but some consideration is in order, more so when you begin to factor in the many health advantages that cycling provides.

2. Its too far. The ride may well take too long or take too much out of you if you live further than, say, 10 miles from work. But consider ways to expand your potential distance. Many commuters, for example, use foldable bikes so they can go half way on a morning train.

3. Bikes are expensive. Not true. You should be able to buy a new or used bike perfect for simple commuting for less than $500. Find a great, close bike shop with a knowledgeable staff, discuss the route and length of commute you’re thinking of, and they’ll help you select the proper frame and number of gears you’ll need.

If you’re just beginning, you may want to search for a functional, commuter bicycle that has fenders to save your clothes, a kickstand, and a comfy saddle. And, if you’re really looking for a comfortable ride, take a gander at the new class of coasting bikes that are designed to reconnect people with worry free recollections of cycling as a child. They have pedal brakes called coaster brakes instead of hand brakes and an automatic shifter, and while they are not designed for quickness, they’re a great way to get back into the saddle, says Doyne.

4. Its not possible to transport the kit I require. If this is what you think, you are toting far more than the normal person to work or you do not own the proper bag or features on your bicycle. A sturdy basket or touring panniers will mean you can easily carry a computer, spares clothes, snacks, a few books, a handful of folders, and whatever other gadgets you usually take with you.

5. There isn’t anywhere to scrub up. Jeff Peel of the League of American Bicyclists states that lots cyclists do worry over this, but that there are many other solutions beyond simply showing up at work stinky and sweaty. First, check to ensure that your office doesn’t have a full bathrooms somewhere. If it doesn’t, check nearby gyms or fitness clubs. They often offer shower-only memberships for bike or running types.

6. Cycling will turn me sterile. This is an accusation that has circulated since the late 1990s, and there’s a tiny amount of fact to it. There is studies that serious bicycle riders can suffer temporary and even long-lasting problems if they log many hours on a racing saddle that isn’t fitted well. But there are now plenty of seats with ergonomically designed cutaway grooves that take the pressure off the key blood vessels and nerves. As long as your saddle fits properly and you don’t ride as much as a professional rider training for the Tour de France, cycling is much more apt to reduce your odds of erectile dysfunction than increase them, since cycling will assist keep cardiovascular disease a large cause of erectile dysfunction.

23 czerwca 2007

Nowy traktat europejski, na ktory Polska zgodzila sie dzis na ranem, przywrocil najwazniejsze punkty odrzuconego wczesniej projektu unijnej konstytucji. Projekt autorstwa Niemiec nie uzywa w nazwie slowa “konstytucja”, dzieki czemu moze byc ratyfikowany przez panstwa czlonkowskie bez referendow. Ustanawia on m.in. urzedy prezydenta Rady Europy i ministra spraw zagranicznych z wlasnym budzetem i prawem dzialania na arenie miedzynarodowej w imieniu wszystkich czlonkow Unii oraz ogranicznie zakresu prawa weta do spraw zwiazanych z podatkami, bezpieczenstwem i imigracja. System podwojnej wiekszosci wejdzie prawie tak, jak planowano, stopniowo od 2014r, z zakonczeniem jego wdrazania w 2017r. Dla Polski nowy traktat oznacza kolejna erozje mozliwosci decydowania o wlasnych sprawach, i to w bardzo powaznym stopniu. Interesy polskich rolnikow i rybakow nie beda mogly byc wiecej chronione wetem polskich ministrow. System podwojnej wiekszosci pozbawi polskie przedsiebiorstwa mozliwosci ochrony ze strony wlasnego rzadu. Polska nieoczekiwania zrezygnowala ze swego postulatu, by zasade podwojnej wiekszosci zastapic sprawiedliwszym systemem pierwiastkowym Penrose’a. W zamian za to ustepstwo nie uzyskala, niestety, nic. Z kolei inny wielki oponent nowego traktatu, Wielka Brytania, godzac sie na projekt Angeli Merkel zawarowala dla siebie kilka bardzo istotnych ustepstw. BBC cytuje dzis rano slowa Blaira, w ktorym wyraza on zadowolenie, ze nowy traktat pozostawia Brytanii suwerennosc we wlasnej polityce zagranicznej, systemie sprawiedliwosci i sprawach wewnetrznych. Niejedna brytyjska brew uniesie sie dzis w zdziwieniu na wiadomosc o tak latwym poddaniu sie Polski. Dzisiejszy The Times informuje w artykule redakcyjnym: “Poland caved in after a threat from Germany to conclude an agreement without them and to move on in the next six months to formal treaty negotiations.”. (Polska poddala sie po tym, jak Niemcy zagrozily uzgodnieniem tekstu dokumentu bez niej i przystapieniem w ciagu najblizszych 6 miesiecy do formalnych negocjacji traktatu). A wszak jeszcze trzy dni temu komentarz Camilli Cavendish w tym samym Times’ie zatytulowany byl: “Uczmy sie od nieustepliwych Polakow – Brytania musi trzymac sie twardo na berlinskim szczycie”.

Tomasz J Kazmierski Southampton