Doug Gross, CNN
By Doug Gross, CNN
May 16, 2012 — Updated 1735 GMT (0135 HKT) | Filed under: Web
(CNN) — So, let’s say you’re doing a Google search for “Kings.” Did you mean the L.A. hockey team or the Sacramento basketball team? Maybe the TV show? Or maybe you actually wanted to know something about monarchs.
Google on Wednesday announced Knowledge Graph, a significant change to how search results are delivered that the company believes will make their search engine think more like a human.
“The web pages we [currently] return for the search ‘kings,’ they’re all good,” Jack Menzel, director of product management at Google, told CNN in an interview. “You, as a human, associate those words with their real-world meaning but, for a computer, they’re just a random string of characters.”
With Knowledge Graph, which will begin rolling out to some users immediately, results will be arranged according to categories with which the search term has been associated. So, in the above example, boxes will appear with separate results for the hockey team, basketball team and TV show.
The user can then click on one of those boxes to only get results for the specific topic they were searching.
“It hones your search results right in on the task that you’re after,” Menzel said.
More specific searches, say for the name of a celebrity, will render boxes with basic information, as well as links to what Google believes are possibly related searches.
Menzel says the initial version of Knowledge Graph has information on 500 million people, places and things and uses 3.5 billion defining attributes and connections to create categories for them.
The feature will begin rolling out as early as Wednesday afternoon for some users in the United States and eventually be available on desktop, mobile and tablet searches. It will first become available in English, then in other languages, Menzel said.
Reposted from CNN
By Kristen Philipkoski
You’ve seen the reports that individuals with a lower economic and social status suffer from poor health more often than folks in higher tax brackets. Now, thanks to a multi-year study of rhesus macaques monkeys, researchers have found genetic changes caused by stressful environments are likely contributing to that poor health.
On the bright side, the results also show your genetic fate isn’t permanent when you hit a rough patch. We have the power to change our genes as we manage our stress or improve our situation.
Researchers took 49 female macaques out of their family units and placed them in 10 newly-constructed groups. They used females because they almost always stay in the same group while males tend to travel. They isolated white blood cells from samples taken from the female monkeys at various points after the transition. They found lower-ranking monkeys had lower levels of a T cell that fights pathogens. They also had high levels of stress hormones in their blood.
The scientists then looked for changes in the monkeys’ DNA, and found that their dominance correlated with the presence of “methyl groups,” which are things that turn genes on and off.
Jenny Tung, the study’s lead author and a visiting assistant professor of evolutionary anthropology at Duke University told me in an email:
“Because all the study subjects had been middle ranking in their original groups, we can infer that it was the new dominance ranks they adopted that explained rank-related gene expression. We think that social stress explains these effects because a great deal of research has linked lower rank to increased social stress in captive female macaques (and for primates in some other settings as well), and in fact we were able to measure stress hormone dysregulation in our study subjects indicative of chronic stress.”
Tung and her team published their work the April 9 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The good news is that while rapid genetic changes happened when females found themselves at a lower status, they quickly changed again when their ranks improved. Their immune systems responded quickly when they moved from a lower social rank to a higher one—formerly low-ranking animals looked genetically like high-ranking ones in short time
So it appears that genetic changes are fluid and definitely not permanent. What does this likely mean for humans? Says Tung:
“I think that this study suggests that our physiology—at least as captured by gene expression in our blood cells—may be fairly plastic in response to changes in our social environment. In other words, if you can improve your social environment (or alleviate social stress), your gene expression profile will rapidly reflect that improvement.”
Of course all of the work was performed in females. It might remain to me seen whether males could handle stress as efficiently. [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]
Images: Shutterstock/stevenku
Tumblr Finally Wants To Make Some Money, Launches Its First Ads
posted 3 hours ago
Tumblr, the immensely popular but profitless blogging platform, just turned on its first set of paid “sponsor products” (Tumblr doesn’t like to call them “ads”). Even though the company resisted running ads on its network for a long time, it announced that it would launch this platform about two weeks ago at Ad Age’s Digital Conference in New York. For the most part, the new ads don’t intrude on Tumblr’s users blogs. Instead, the company is using its Radar and Spotlight features to highlight content from its advertisers/sponsors.
Tumblr Radar, the company says, gets about 120 million daily impressions. The feature is meant to showcase “the most creative and interesting media” on the Tumblr network and advertisers will “get a dedicated share of attention, with the opportunity to gain thousands of new followers, likes and reblogs.” Spotlight, says Tumblr, “drives tens of millions of follows each week.” Content from sponsors will now be “featured front-and-center” here.
Less than a month ago, Tumblr’s CEO David Karp still told AdAge that he would rather sell the company’s desks than put regular ads in the site. Instead, he said, Tumblr was more interested in finding ways to make some of its users attention available to brands.
It’s worth noting that Tumblr’s president John Maloney left the company yesterday. It’s unclear if his move had anything to do with today’s launch.
Reposted from Techcrunch.com Read full article with infographic here
By MG Siegler
Five years ago, Microsoft reported revenue of $14.398 billion. They reported a profit of $6.589 billion. Last week, for the same quarter, Microsoft’s revenue was $17.407 billion. Their profit was $6.374 billion. The company is still growing, but not fast. And they’re actually making less money.
Compare that with Apple. Five years ago, revenue was $7.1 billion. Profit was $1.0 billion — the first quarter with a billion dollar profit in company history. Last quarter, the company reported $47 billion in revenue. And they recorded $13 billion in profit.
On the surface, an apples-to-oranges comparison, perhaps. But it points to something that has happened. Apple has completely taken over the consumer market, while most of Microsoft’s growth these days comes from the enterprise side of things. Apple has destroyed Microsoft as a consumer technology company.
Sure, Microsoft is still making plenty of money — billions — off of their consumer goods. But the decent quarterly numbers they reported last week in some ways mask what is really happening: Microsoft is slowing morphing into a full-on enterprise company.
Everyone got all excited that the Windows division actually managed to grow last quarter. Because the broader PC market has been stagnant and Windows 8 is in testing mode, expectations were extremely low. 4 percent growth was considered a big win.
But Microsoft as a whole saw 6 percent growth year-to-year when it came to revenue. It wasn’t Windows driving it, it was the Business Division (9 percent growth) and the Servers & Tools Division (14 percent growth). Again, the enterprise side of things.
The Business Division is now by far the largest Microsoft division in terms of revenue. Meanwhile, Servers & Tools almost surpassed the Windows Division this past quarter. The last time that happened was the tail end of the Vista nightmare. It’s going to happen again. Microsoft’s two biggest businesses will be their enterprise businesses.
Even on the Windows side of the equation, this was the key statement in the earnings release:
Strong Windows 7 adoption continued with enterprise desktops on Windows 7 now up to 40% worldwide.
Nothing about the consumer side of Windows, just the enterprise side. That’s what led to the 4 percent growth surprise.
Windows 8 is due out at the end of the year, and I’m sure the Windows Division revenue numbers will jump as a result. But as these charts by Horace Dediu show, the jump is likely to be short-lived. Microsoft saw a huge revenue (and profit) spike when Windows 7 was released, then it immediately dropped and plateaued. It was back to the revenue grind and the profit stagnation.
Windows 8 could be better for the company, or it could be worse. The world is drastically different than it was even just three years ago. The iPad exists, for one. While Microsoft is going all-in (or at least half-in) on their tablet strategy with Windows 8, there’s no indication it will actually work. If it doesn’t that could significantly hurt the Windows Divisions’ numbers.
Another key difference over the past five years is, of course, the iPhone. Five years ago, no consumer had one. Microsoft controlled nearly 35 percent of the U.S. smartphone market. It was going to be a huge business for them. Today, that percentage stands at roughly 5. And even with Windows Phone, it’s shrinking, as Dan Frommer points out today.
Microsoft’s last-ditch attempt insert themselves into the mobile picture isn’t working. At least not yet.
Consider this: Apple’s iPhone business alone is bigger than all of Microsoft’s businesses combined.
And that matters because again, that’s where consumers are today. Smartphones. Tablets. The PC business is going nowhere. Let’s just admit it: that’s not going to change.
The wildcard is the living room. This is the one consumer space where Microsoft has done better than Apple over the past 5 years. The Xbox 360 has been a big hit, and accessories like the Kinect have moved the market forward. Apple’s first Apple TV was largely a dud. The second one is much better and seems to be selling well, but it’s not a consumer hit in the same way the Xbox is.
But last quarter, a funny thing happened: Microsoft’s Entertainment and Devices Division actually lost money. That had not happened since 2009. And it was the worst loss since 2007 — again, five years ago.
Since Microsoft reports Windows Phone numbers under E&D, some assumed the poor numbers were a result of things like Microsoft’s Nokia payout dragging the division down. But Microsoft themselves noted that the 16 percent decrease in revenue was the result of “a soft gaming console market”. This was later backed up by more numbers. The drop in revenue and the swing to a loss was all about Xbox demand evaporating.
Now, obviously, the Xbox is old — some may say “ancient” by gaming console standards. And a new one isn’t due until next year. That device will undoubtedly do well, but you have to wonder if Microsoft wasn’t surprised by this swift drop to a loss for the division. If they weren’t, why not aim for a new console this year? It sure seems like they were counting on things like the Kinect to extend the life of the device, and that worked for a while, then collapsed.
Meanwhile, gaming on iOS continues to grow. Anyone who doesn’t view the iPad as a legitimate living room gaming contender now is simply fooling themselves. And it’s a device that’s refreshed with the lastest hardware once a year. The Xbox is coming in three, four, or even five year intervals. That simply cannot compete given the rate of change we’re seeing.
Microsoft is smart to move more into the broader entertainment space, securing content deals for the Xbox. But again, Apple will be there as well. At first through the existing Apple TV (with a killer assist from the AirPlay functionality). Down the road, perhaps with their own actual television.
And then there’s the Online Service Division. Despite their “operating loss improvement“, they lost another $479 million last quarter. The total losses for the division over time are approaching $10 billion as they chase Google down a rabbit hole to claim a consumer market they’re never going to win.
To me right now, Microsoft’s consumer business feels like Nokia’s smartphone business a few years ago: the numbers look fine, and in some cases even good, but the world is quickly changing. If you just look at the past five years of what Apple has done versus what Microsoft has done, it’s not hard to imagine Microsoft’s business being completely dominated by the enterprise side of the equation in another five years. That will still make for a great business, but it’s not the Microsoft that many of us have known.
Everyone you know goes away in the end, I suppose.
- Reposted from Techcrunch
About Pinterest (Infographic)
Wednesday, March 14th, 2012
Oh, Pinterest…
Over the course of the past few months, what was once a colorful haven for Midwestern mothersand Mormons is now an even more colorful haven for even more pin-tastic peeps. The growth has been staggering, even in what many would call an overly social era. But surrounded by Facebook, Twitter, Google+, etc., Pinterest has really made a name for itself.
And while many are scurrying to set up their pinboards for FOMO‘s sake, we in the tech world are curious as to what’s going on behind the scenes. What’s the growth rate? What does the demographic data look like? Referral traffic? Marketing? How does Pinterest really stack up against the big guys?
The questions never end, mainly because Pinterest kind of came out of left field and threw the entire model on its head. It’s not for women, but it is mainly women. It’s not overbearing in terms of rules or policies (at least not more so than its competitors), but still seems to be a very “white-bread”, niceplace to be compared to the deep black hole of nasty awfulness that is the Internet. The epicenter of its popularity is in the Midwest — that’s not to say that Midwesterners aren’t tech savvy, but they’re usually not the early adopters of anything.
It’s this big question mark, Pinterest, and we all want to better understand it, especially considering that the network is still building itself out. Just recently, Pinterest founder Ben Silbermann teased an iPad app and revamped profile pages at SXSW this week.
Luckily, the folks over at Internet Marketing Inc. took all the data we have on Pinterest, like thatcomScore study and the Shareaholic referral traffic study, and whipped up a comprehensive guide to “The Power of Pinterest”.
These are the tidbits I found most interesting:
- The number of Pinterest users to visit the site daily has gone up 145 percent since the beginning of 2012
- Pinterest content is very different in the UK, and more centered around venture capital, blogging resources, web analytics and the like
- Over 80 percent of pins are actually re-pins rather than brand new content
- Pinterest user growth is better than that of Facebook and Twitter at the same point in their history
- As expected, 80 percent of Pinterest’s user base is female
- Brands are having a helluva time leveraging Pinterest — Better Homes & Gardens has 25,000+ followers on Pinterest, compared to 21,000 on Twitter
Check out the full infographic below*:
*none of the data in this infographic is directly from Pinterest, but rather assembled by third-party sources like comScore.
CRUNCHBASE
Company:Pinterest
Website:pinterest.com
Launch Date:2008
Funding:$37.5M
Pinterest is a social networking site with a visually-pleasing “virtual pinboard” interface. Users collect photos and link to products they love, creating their own pinboards and following the pinboards of other people whom they find interesting. The site is currently invite-only, and it has experienced rapid growth in recent months.
Reposted from techcrunch.com 20th April 2012
It’s flashy, it’s trashy and unashamedly touristy but there’s always something new to love about the Gold Coast, writes Angie Kelly.
Yes, the meter maids in heels and gold skimpy shorts are there. And the cheeky touts luring young ones into nightclubs. The bogans, buskers and off-colour slogan T-shirts still mix it up with bikies and busty postcards.
‘Twas always a strange mix of dirt-cheap souvenirs and high-end designer flash; of kebab takeaways and pricey hotels; statement sunnies and designer prams – tribes of every description have holidayed here, all drawn to the magic of boogie boards, bare feet and beach hair, all the while embracing the rough edges of Australia’s favourite holiday town.
But things are changing: in the past year, big money has been spent on new hotels, shopping precincts, tourist attractions, restaurants and updated public facilities. The style files will improve even more when the Gold Coast City Council’s $6.9 million cash injection into Cavill Mall transforms the town centre from the scruffy, screaming-for-a-facelift plaza it has become into a shiny new modern space due to open in October.
With so much to see and do – plus 70 kilometres of uninterrupted sand stretching from Beenleigh to Coolangatta – it’s no wonder holidaymakers can’t stay away.
Play
Once you cross over the main seaside drag and hit the sensational new beachfront boardwalk, the flash and trash of nearby streets is behind you. This months-old, three-kilometre-long foreshore walk has wow factor (we loved the ultra-mod day-bed-style chairs) and, at 20 metres wide, is big enough for scooters, bikes, joggers and strollers going in both directions.
Arts-and-crafts markets every Wednesday and Friday evening bring added energy, while a series of huge vintage photographs showing back-in-the-day bikinis, Holdens and holiday street life punctuate the length of the walk and make amusing conversation starters. New barbecues, beach shelters and picnic areas top off the area’s $25 million update.
The allure of the “worlds” is hard to beat, with reviews of various new attractions a daily topic of conversation among the under- 12s chatting to each other around our hotel pool. This year’s SpongeBob invasion of Sea World was the big drawcard for our seven-year-old fan of the popular cartoon character, informing us that the new parade and panto-style show was “awesome”. A new Dora the Explorer show is on offer for younger ones. Be prepared for the pestering onslaught after the show – strategically placed gift shops bulge with a dizzying array of expensive plastic trinkets that kids seem to find irresistible.
A new on-water stunt show where indestructible-looking blokes perform aerial tricks on jet-skis is an enjoyable, thrill-packed spectacle. The riders, apparently famous in the world of freestyle extreme jet-skiing, provide entertaining commentary when they’re not pushing their luck flinging themselves into the air.
Last Sunday, Dreamworld unveiled its new DreamWorks experience whereby fans of the Madagascar and Shrek movies will be in Hollywood heaven with a host of new themed rides and attractions.
The terrifying new Green Lantern roller-coaster ride at Movie World proved too much for our normally game teen, who decided not to give it a whirl. Plenty of others did, though, with long queues outside it all day, proving we’re not a nation of wimps. Taunting riders to take on what is supposedly the steepest drop in the southern hemisphere, it has multiple hairpin bends and plenty of upside-down action at speeds of 66km/h.
You’ll also have to be the game type to step out on to Australia’s highest external building climb, a three-month-old experience at the top of the Q1 tower on Surfers Paradise Boulevard. The SkyPoint Climb takes you 270 metres above the ground and provides a spectacular – if dizzying – perspective on the coastal strip and hinterland. The 90-minute, full body-harnessed guided climb involves going up 298 stairs to get to the summit, so this is not one for couch potatoes.
One guide told us that in good weather some groups have been able to see so far they spotted the Byron Bay lighthouse, 74 kilometres away (we were also told extreme thrill seekers like to scare their fellow climbers by leaning back over the edge of the building for extra adrenalin).
Chickens can still get the idea while safely inside on the level-77 circular observation deck (where there is also a bar and cafe), which is chock-full of touchscreen technology and opportunities to learn the history of the area as well as interesting facts and figures on the landmarks of the strip below. skypoint.com.au.
Stay
With the space and amenities of an apartment and the service and facilities of a hotel, the new Hilton residences in Orchid Avenue are a great option for families who want to self-cater at times but call room service at others. Offering one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments, the hotel also has a Food Store deli and cafe on the ground floor, making self-catering easy with a range of no-fuss yet sophisticated dinner options available to buy.
Providing the coast’s only beach valet service, the hotel will also set up your own fancy, sandy playground with a hire-pack containing sunshade, deckchairs, beach toys and an esky full of your choice of drinks, fruit or snacks. (This needs to be booked at least 24 hours ahead).
And with smooth tunes being piped across a 1500-square-metre four-pool space, The Deck makes for a funky place to catch rays. With its array of hot-right-now wicker, pool pods and sun loungers, cocktails and chill music, this space seems to work as a destination for couples and the under-25s as well as families.
A toddler-friendly pool keeps the teeny tots separate and an adults-only pool does the same for grown-ups. Just be quick, as the inevitable competition for day beds and pods starts early.
The Sheraton Mirage Resort & Spa – a name that has long been associated with ’80s excess and pink marble – has recently had a $20 million makeover, transforming it into a space where a palette of modern neutral colours allows the deep, magical blue of the ocean to do the talking.
The project has involved all 293 rooms and suites being updated (all have new beds, TVs and wireless comms), while 20 per cent of accommodation has so-close-you-could-almost-feel-the-sea-spray views. Art for sale in common spaces is an attractive touch but best new feature by far is the huge sliding windows, in all rooms, which not only open wide for air but also let that irresistible Queensland sunshine pour in.
As the only luxury accommodation option on the coast where you can walk straight on to the beach from the property (don’t miss walking the seaside path all the way into Surfers), the low-rise hotel is also conveniently located opposite the Marina Mirage shopping and restaurant precinc
Reposted from Optusnet.com.au 17th April 2012
This is a guest post by Greg Voakes.
Few consumers realize the true cost that their consumer goods and electronics possess outside of the store. It’s easy to rationalize the number on a price tag. Can we put a price on the damage caused to the environment and undeveloped nations in order to have access to our apps, text message threads, or mobile navigation systems?
There are a few things you can do as a consumer to minimize the overall costs of your electronics. Perhaps you could stand to skip a generation or two? As a business practice, launching newer phones with minor feature updates forces users to renew contracts, and paying out of pocket for the latest and greatest piece of technology. If you, like many of us, prefer to have the most current releases of our favorite gadgets — consider your options by reusing and recycling.
The infographic below, developed by Madeline Harris, outlines some of the real costs of the iPhone.
Created by MBAonline.com
Reposted from Techrepublic.com
From the makers of computer chips to creators of smartphones and designers of videogames, rivalries have spread from marketplaces to courtrooms with combatants warring over rights to use technology.
“For many years, there was basically a stalemate in the patents arms race with an understanding that companies wouldn’t sue each other,” said Colleen Chien, a law professor at Santa Clara University in Silicon Valley.
“That was disrupted by a new business model of patent assertion,” she continued. “It has become acceptable to violate the gentlemen’s agreement of not suing and now it is the new norm.”
The break in the unofficial truce was inspired in part by “patent trolls,” entities that buy or file patents with the sole intent of some day suing entrepreneurs who use the ideas.
Ranks of patent trolls are growing, as is the number of large companies turning to patent litigation not just to cash-in but to gain or protect market terrain, according to Chien.
“What do you call an AOL or a dying company that turns to patent lawsuits?” she asked rhetorically. “Do they become corporate trolls?”
Struggling Internet pioneer Yahoo! last month filed a lawsuit against Facebook accusing the social networking star of infringing on 10 of its patents.
The suit claimed that “Facebook’s entire social network model, which allows users to create profiles and connect with, among other things, persons and businesses, is based on Yahoo!’s patented social networking technology.”
Facebook returned fire with a countersuit accusing Sunnyvale, California-based Yahoo! of being the one infringing on patents, and not the other way around.
Even business software giant Oracle has weighed in. A trial will get underway on Monday in a patent case Oracle filed against Google based on software used in Android operating systems.
As patent suits proliferate, Internet firms with ample war chests are spending small fortunes to arm themselves with portfolios purchased from technology companies selling off intellectual assets.
AOL this week announced plans to sell more than 800 patents to Microsoft in a $1.056 billion deal giving the faded Internet star a needed cash injection.
Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith said that the software giant is getting “a valuable portfolio that we have been following for years.”
Facebook in March confirmed that it bought 750 software and networking patents from IBM to beef up it arsenal on an increasingly lawsuit-strewn technology battlefield.
Early this year, Google bought 188 patents and 29 patent applications related to mobile phones from IBM but did not disclose how much it paid.
Last year, IBM sold Google 2,000 or so patents ranging from mobile software to computer hardware and processors.
Google has been strengthening its patent portfolio as the fight for dominance in the booming smartphone and tablet computer markets increasingly involves patent lawsuits – with Apple a prime litigator.
The Mountain View, California, technology titan behind Android mobile device software last year transferred patents to smartphone giant HTC Corp. to help the Taiwan-based company in an intellectual property clash with iPhone maker Apple.
Apple has accused HTC and other smartphone makers using Google’s Android mobile operating system of infringing on Apple-held patents.
Some of the patents that HTC got from Google had belonged to Motorola Mobility, which Google is buying for $12.5 billion in cash in a quest for precious patents.
“Our acquisition of Motorola will increase competition by strengthening Google’s patent portfolio, which will enable us to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies,” Google chief executive Larry Page said when the Motorola Mobility buy was announced.
Motorola Mobility chief executive Sanjay Jha told financial analysts the US maker of smartphones and touchscreen tablet computers has over 17,000 issued patents and another 7,500 pending.
Meanwhile, Apple and Microsoft allied in a consortium that outbid Google to buy thousands of patents from bankrupt Nortel Corp. in what was branded the largest transfer of intellectual property of the Internet Age.
“The reality is, there is more and more liability in making a product,” Chien said. “Companies like Google and Facebook with few patents but big roles in the marketplace have the most to lose.”
Patent suits in hot Internet markets are not necessarily bad news for consumers, provided that companies cashing in use windfalls to develop even more innovative products, according to Chien.
Managing patents could also become a potential source of competitive advantage for startups.
“The Facebook example shows that you can go out and buy patent protection,” Chien said. “It is only when you are making money that you become interesting as a target, and when you are making money you can afford to buy patents.”
Reposted from Ninemsn April 16, 2012
North Korea’s $850 million rocket failure
The cost of Friday’s failed rocket launch by North Korea is estimated by South Korean intelligence officials at $850 million – nearly enough to feed about 80% of the population of the impoverished nation for a year.
The launch site cost $400 million and the rocket and payload cost an additional $450 million, a military official told Yonhap, South Korea’s state-affiliated news agency. Yonhap says the cash could feed 19 million for a year. North Korea has a population of 24.3 million in 2010, according to the World Bank.
“North Korea has suffered a deficit of 400,000 tons of food every year. So, the money could resolve the problem of food shortages for six years,” the official said.
Documents reviewed by Britain’s Telegraph also placed the cost at $850 million, enough to buy 2.5 million tons of corn and 1.4 million tons of rice. The U.N. estimates North Korea’s entire 2011 harvest at 5.4 million tons.
“North Korea has suffered a deficit of 400,000 tons of food every year. So, the money could resolve the problem of food shortages for six years,” an unnamed official told Yonhap.
CNN’s Ramy Inocencio spoke with Cheong Wook-sik at the Peace Network in Seoul who thinks the $850 million cost estimate is likely too high, accounting for the lower cost of North Korean labor and technology.
For comparison, Cheong says South Korea’s satellite launch in 2009 cost $500 million. He added that the highest-paid technical laborers in North Korea – at the Kaesong Industrial Complex – get paid less than $60 per month. Their counterparts in South Korea – engineers and computer programmers – make about $5,000 a month. That’s more than an 8200% salary difference.
Whatever the cost of the failed rocket, the world community agrees that North Koreans are going hungry. The U.N. World Food Programme estimates that in North Korea “one in every three children remains chronically malnourished or ‘stunted’, meaning they are too short for their age.” North Korea recently had to reduce the minimum height of soldiers to 1.45 meters (4 feet, 9 inches), the Los Angeles Times reported.
Moreover, the nation faces more sanctions as a result of the launch. The U.S. has already stopped planned shipments of 240,000 metric tons of food after North Korean announced its rocket plans.
Reposted from CNN April 13th
Brought to you by Good Health magazine 
Do you know yourself better than anyone? Is unconditional praise a good thing? Julie Beun examines some theories of popular psychology.
Do you know yourself better than anyone? Is unconditional praise a good thing? Julie Beun examines some theories of popular psychology.
Trust a woman’s intuition. Opposites attract. You know yourself best. Repeated so often they must be true, those tidbits of psychological insight are as familiar to us as our own names. But it turns out that when it comes to pop psychology theories, many of them are not true, says Scott Lilienfeld, a professor of psychology at Georgia’s Emory University and co-author of 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology (Wiley, $120). “We love these ideas, we think they’re valid truths,” he says. “We live in a very psychological society… People do think they know more than they do about psychology. Because it’s so familiar, we make the mistake of thinking we understand it. Some of the things we believe are innocuous, some are not.” Here are some of the biggest pop psychology myths busted.
‘Venting anger is good for you’
It may feel good to yell out your frustration, but it isn’t all that healthy. While you shouldn’t suppress your anger, neither is it helpful to chuck a tanty, says Lilienfeld. “There is some good evidence that when one is angry, merely punching something can make people angrier. It’s scary for others and for the person losing their temper.”
Rather, he says, find ways to deal with anger constructively. “If the other person is totally in the wrong, you have to confront them. Or maybe you’re overreacting or it’s a bit of both. That’s a different approach from pop psychology that tells us to hit a wall or a pillow or yell.
‘We use 10 per cent of our brains’
“I’m sure we all feel that way sometimes,” says Lilienfeld, “but it’s clearly false. We use all of our brain all of the time and it’s confirmed by brain-imaging studies.”
So where did the myth originate? According to Lilienfeld, early neurologists discovered what they called the ‘silent cortex’, which helps create associations between events, memories and feelings. Yet, because people with some types of brain injuries continue to function — albeit with limits, he says — we’ve come to believe that we only use 10 per cent of our brain, and the so-called silent cortex was actually 90 per cent of the brain that was unused.
‘Bullies have small egos’
It may be comforting to believe that your bullying boss really suffers from a small ego, among other things, but the opposite is often true. “Some bullies do have small egos, but for many, their self-esteem is too high. One reason they lash out aggressively is that they’re just sadistic. Often, bullies don’t like being criticised. We know that if people with high, unstable or brittle self-esteem are challenged or receive an ego threat, they’ll lash out,” he says. “If they even perceive that you’ve inflicted a deep wound, they figure the only way to remedy that is to respond in kind.”
‘People go crazy at the full moon’
Lilienfeld names this as his favourite pop psychology myth, mostly because it “gets more hate mail than anything”. While people are convinced it’s true, “40 or 50 studies have looked at this issue, relating crime to a full moon and the evidence is unsupportive”.
So what is happening?
A little something called the ‘confirmation bias’. Lilienfield says we tend to look for evidence that is consistent with what we want to believe, but when an event occurs that doesn’t support our beliefs, we come up with an explanation.
For the full story, see the May issue of Good Health. Subscribe to 12 issues of Good Health for $49.95 and go into the draw to WIN a trip of a lifetime to Tahiti and Los Angeles, valued at $26,000!
Reposted from NineMsn
