Eurekasaurus! Pterry here. I was getting ready for the big 4th of July party this Sunday when I came across this magnificent new finding! In the modern age, most animals you see are miniature compared to ancient creatures. Even modern day birds don’t even come close to my size and wingspan! With the exception of the blue whale, the largest animal ever known, ancient animals were beasts.
The latest find by paleontologists is no exception. Recently they uncovered the remains of Leviathan melvillei, one of the biggest predators ever measuring over 50 ft (15.2 cm) long! Their teeth alone were about 15 inches (36 cm) long and 5 in (12.7 cm) thick. My, those are giant teeth. They were situated perfectly to grab prey and rip the flesh right from their bodies with powerful jaw muscles. Not to mention that the mouth itself was 9 feet (2.7 m) long and 7 feet (2.1 m) wide. Yes, it could swallow you humans in one bite.
These giants beasts were the ancestors of the modern day killer whale, living about 12 to 13 million years ago in the Neogene time period. This means they likely would have competed with the ferocious Megalodon. There is no fossil evidence to support this, but I’m sure they did battle from time to time. What do you think?
EUREKASAURUS! It’s time again for another edition of Pterry’s True Science!
As we learned a few months back, the debate over the cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs has finally come to a close. A group of 41 paleontologists and scientists concluded that a giant asteroid slamming into the Earth is now the universally accepted explanation.
However, new evidence has come to light that suggests that two asteroid crashes may have been responsible for the extinction. The Chicxulub Crater in the Gulf of Mexico was the site of the originally discovered asteroid crash. A second site, the newly discovered Boltysh Crater in Ukraine, may prove that multiple asteroids crashes led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Yikes!
The impacts at the Chicxulub Crater and Boltysh Crater took place thousands of years apart from one another, but still close enough together to raise some questions. Some scientists speculate that an entire shower of asteroids may have struck Earth around 65 million years ago. If that’s the case, expect to hear about more impact sites in the future!
Such a fascinating discovery, but now it’s time for me to get back to my research!
Planning an unmanned spacecraft to the solar system’s outer fringes has always been a cumbersome job for the astronauts - be it money, time or labor. What if the scientists are given a welcome break for these extensive planning, without failing with their target date and mission?
No, it is no just providing hopes to the space explorers. But, it’s MIT’s real engineering venture — it’s an efficient and highly sophisticated mathematical algorithm! Implemented as software, the algorithm can help chalk out the most efficient path a spacecraft can make for journeying from one point to its destination!
Back in the day, the North American Space Agency(NASA) launched a spacecraft for it’s Deep Impact mission. At that time the goal was to study a comet. The same spacecraftstill has plenty of juice left in it. So, the NASA officials are going to put the spacecraft from Deep Impact to yet another mission. This time the goal would be to study the comet Boethin.
However, there’s one problem: the comet is missing. Experts believe that the subject of study has broken up into several pieces at some point. But, NASA staff is not going to give up this easy. They are hot on the trail of the comet. They are going to send a spacecraft in the trajectory of the comet. I hope that they can come up with something.Deep Impact, an ongoing NASA space mission has been given the green signal to continue its mission to research Comet Hartley 2. Already the mission has got much publicity with it ejected material from a comet surface. And now this has given a much needed pat in the back for the scientists from the University of Maryland. This would help the scientists learn better about how the solar system evolves and a research can be made on whether any other planet like earth exists. The mission takes a low cost budget of $40 million by taking advantage of the existing space craft. This two and a half year journey to Comet Hartley 2 will consist of two missions Extrasolar Planet Observations and Characterization (EPOCh) and Deep Impact extended Investigation (DIXI). This visit to a never before visited comet has raised expectations among scientists all over the world. Everyone is expecting more rewards to come by at the end of the journey as they explore into an unknown world
The Vice Chancellor of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Prof Kwesi Andam, has taken a swipe at the technological inventions of the leader of the Kristo Asafo Mission, Apostle Dr Kwadwo Safo, describing them as “nonsensical”.
He said the nation’s priority should be to use science and technology to advance development and not the manufacturing of helicopters and machines to produce cement blocks.
Prof Andam said this in apparent reference to the latest technological claims by Apostle Safo that he has manufactured helicopter, television and roofing tiles mahine among others.
According to Prof Andam, even freshmen of the KNUST could manufacture helicopters within some few months but said that was not the priority of the university.
“The university should be allowed to do what it is supposed to do and not the kind of nonsensical things going on”, he said.
Prof Andam was responding to a comment by a participant after delivering a lecture on the topic; “Science and Technology for National Development”, at the 57th Annual New Year School at the University of Ghana, Legon, yesterday.
A participant suggested that the authorities at the KNUST should liaise with Apostle Dr Safo to tap into his expertise and, if possible, invite him to give lectures at the university.
Prof Andam reacted angrily to that suggestion and appeared emotional at certain stages as he used the words “nonsense” and “nonsensical” in a stern voice in reference to Apostle Dr Safo’s claims.
There were mixed reactions to the ViceChancellor’s response. While some people applauded him, others expressed disapproval, especially at his use of the words “nonsense” and “nonsensical”.
Apostle Safo has gained popularity for his technological inventions. In recognition of that the University of Ghana awarded him an honorary doctorate degree, while the University of Education, Winneba, has offered to document all his inventions.
Recently, there has been some media exchanges between Apostle Dr Safo and the authorities of KNUST. The Apostle was reported to have criticised some graduates of the university who worked with him for not being able to cope with the practical aspect of his technologal works but the university authorities reacted to the Apostle’s criticism, describing it as false.
Prof Andam said it was important for the nation to understand that KNUST was established to train a core of highly skilled technical professionals who would work in key sectors to advance the development of the nation.
He said about 95 per cent of engineers at the Volta River Authority (VRA), as well as majority of the engineers at the Ghana Water Company Limited (GWCL) and the Volta Aluminium Company (VALCO), were all products of KNUST and wondered what would happen to the nation if the Akosombo Dam, for instance, was shut for a few days.
Prof Andam said there was no need to engage in a debate over the inventions of Apostle Dr Safo and the capabilities of graduates from the university, adding that the priority of the university was not re-engineering but engineering.
Moving away from Apostle Safo’s inventions, the KNUST ViceChancellor announced that the university would introduce distance education programmes in Mathematics, Building Technology and Computer Engineering, next academic year.
He noted that distance education in science and technology programmes was very expensive and so there was the need to establish laboratories and other facilities for such purposes.
Delivering the main lecture, Prof Andam underlined the need for the nation to invest more in science and technology education, which, he said, was the key to development.
He said there was also the need to increase access to education, especially at the higher level, since there was a corrrlation between education and wealth creation.
The Chief Executive Officer of the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital, Prof Kwabena Frimpong-Boateng, who chaired the function, said it was unfortunate that African countries spent about $40 billion annually to pay about 100,000 expatriates, although there were many Africans with the same qualification who worked abroad.
“Many years ago, the Chinese built the Great Wall of China without any help from the World Bank. But we can’t build a drainage without World Bank support”, he remarked.
Prof Frimpong-Boateng said development projects were not the construction of roads but projects that would ensure less dependence on foreign capital and influence.
He said he was startled by statistics on the dropout rate, particularly at the basic education level, pointing out that, “We are at the point of doom. We are committing suicide”.
PESHAWAR, Pakistan – American unmanned planes fired two missiles at a house in a Pakistani tribal region close to the Afghan border on Thursday, killing seven alleged militants, the latest in a barrage of such attacks, intelligence officials said.
The strike in North Waziristan was the third attack there in the past 24 hours.
The region is home to hundreds of Pakistan and foreign Islamist militants, many belonging to or allied with al-Qaida and the Taliban. It is also the base of a powerful insurgent group that U.S. officials say is behind many of the attacks just across the border in Afghanistan.
Thursday’s strike in the Datta Khel area killed five unidentified “foreign” and two local militants, three intelligence officials said. They did not give their names in line with the policy of the agency they work for.
It is all but impossible to independently verify the accounts of intelligence officials. The region is too dangerous for outsiders to visit the scene of the attacks and U.S. officials do not acknowledge firing the missiles, much less discuss who they are targeting.
Two other attacks Wednesday killed seven suspected militants.
There have now been at least 20 suspected U.S. missile strikes in Pakistan this month, many of them in North Waziristan. There were 21 such attacks in September, nearly double the previous monthly record.
Washington is under pressure to beat back the insurgency in Afghanistan and bring its troops there back home.
Many of the missile strikes are reported to hit at militants focused on fighting in Afghanistan and using North Waziristan as a safe haven. The Pakistan army has so far resisted U.S. pressure to launch an offensive in the region, as it has in other border areas.
Pakistani officials often publicly criticize the strikes, but the surge over the last two months has not led to increased protests, suggesting the army does not object to them. The silence over the drones contrast with the outcry over incursions into Pakistani territory by NATO helicopters earlier this month that led to Islamabad blocking a key supply route for U.S. and allied force.
The army is widely believed to provide intelligence information for the drone attacks and even allows drones to take off from a base inside Pakistan. Human rights groups have raised concerns of civilian casualties and questioned the legality of what they sometimes term “extrajudicial killings.”
It's very important for you, dear reader, to understand that I don't review lenses and cameras in the analytical way that scientists do. I'm interested in how sharp an optic is but I'm also interested in how it handles. What the ancient greeks called "haptics". What modern culture refers to as ergonomics. On another level I'm constantly trying to figure out where an lens fits into the way I see the world and how I would use it. I put the lens on an appropriate (and sometimes also inappropriate) camera and go out and shoot and shoot. I make a mental notes of the things I like and the things I don't. I look at the final photographs. I even pixel peep. But here's the deal in 2010: We have to look at the whole system, we can't really assess the lens on it's own.
If every lens could be fitted to a very high resolution camera such as a Nikon D3x we could designate that camera as our test camera and make some sort of objective appraisals. But there's no way Leica M lens or Olympus SHG lens would work on the majority of cameras that have deeper distance between lens flange and sensor. In the days of film testing was easier because the tester could choose one kind of film and use it in every camera. It afforded a good objective measure. Now we have to evaluate a given lens in the context of its intended "system". That would include the body and sensor as well as the firmware and, finally, the RAW conversion software.
Finally, FTC housekeeping: 1. I am not an employee or subcontractor of Leica. 2. I have not been given or promised any product of consideration in exchange for writing this review. 3. I have been loaned the lens being reviewed directly from Leica and they expect me to return it promptly. 4. They are not holding my family hostage in order to leverage positive comments. 5. I borrowed the M9 body from Precision Camera in Austin, Texas in order to test the system. Points 1, 2, and 4. pertain to Precision Camera, as well. In the spirit of total honesty I have, over the years, walked out with at least a dozen of their promotional, ball point pens. I asked the staff if I could take the pens. I think they were just being polite when they told me it was okay.......
What I am ostensibly reviewing is the brand new, best in the universe, 35mm Summilux f1.4 lens that was just released by Leica in July of 2010. What I am in reality reviewing is my long term, on and off again, affair with Leica M series rangefinders, and the confusing and perhaps ultimately useless pursuit of perfection. The question at the heart of every recent Leica discussion, if distilled down to its core, is: "Does it make sense to spend a small fortune in order to get the last 5% difference in ultimate performance?" It's not a logical exercise. I will presume I just lost all the people with accounting and business degrees. And yet, there are people in the world who are sensitive to the last 5% of anything. You see it in quarter million dollar Bentley cars, half million dollar home sound systems and in any number of pursuits where craftsmanship, art and technology become intertwined. We could just as easily be talking about shotguns or yachts. But, as the world expands the opportunity to have brushes with perfection seem to be shrinking. And where does the Leica M system fit into the whole mix?
I am not new to Leica M cameras and lenses by any stretch of the imagination. I wrote an article for Photo.net back in 2001 that sparked nearly a decade of comments and, for me, hundreds of e-mails from Leica lovers and haters around the world. You can read it here:
I was asked to review the M8 and three Summarit lenses back in 2008 and you can read that here: In the 1990's and the early years of this century I shot many of my corporate event photographs with a system that consisted of several variants of the Leica M6 ttl and a bag of M lenses that included: 21 Elmarit, 28 Elmarit, 35mm Summilux 1.4 (two versions ago) 50 Summicron, 50 Summilux, 75mm Summilux and a 90 Summicron. Over the years I probably shot somewhere near 100,000 frames through various Leicas. I started out with an M3 and a dual range Summicron and have owned most of the models between that and the M7. Once I started shooting digital for clients it became harder and harder to justify shooting and developing film. But handling the Leica M's is like riding a bicycle
we could designate that camera as our test camera and make some sort of objective appraisals. But there's no way Leica M lens or Olympus SHG lens would work on the majority of cameras that have deeper distance between lens flange and sensor. In the days of film testing was easier because the tester could choose one kind of film and use it in every camera. It afforded a good objective measure. Now we have to evaluate a given lens in the context of its intended "system". That would include the body and sensor as well as the firmware and, finally, the RAW conversion software.