Monday, November 10, 2014
Friday, November 7, 2014
Paws off! Two brown bears get into vicious fight over perfect fishing spot as they try to catch dinner
Fishermen can be very protective over their favourite spot as these brown bears showed when they got into a fight over salmon.
These images were taken by 15-year-old schoolgirl Elizaveta Tischenko as she watched the animals attempting to catch their dinner in Katmai National Park, in southern Alaska.
Elizaveta said one bear was catching a steady stream of fish when the other grew jealous after hardly catching any and tried to muscle his way in.
While the newcomer was tolerated for a while, eventually he began to treat on the claws of the other bear, which is when the fighting started.
Elizaveta, who was watching from a grassy verge said: 'I had been watching the bear fish from a safe distance when I noticed another bear wander in.
'The first bear was not happy about the other bear being there and began to get more agitated as it began to try to catch fish in the water.
'It wasn't long before the two approached one another and began roaring ferociously to try and scare each other away. Neither one would back down for quite a while and they began to grapple with each other in the water.
'Eventually, the new bear on the scene decided to cut its loses and sulked off out of sight. When they are fishing they look quite cute and innocent but when they fight you get to see the true nature of the animals.'
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Saturday, July 19, 2014
Thursday, May 1, 2014
Why Google Glass Sucks for the Outdoors
A Few weekends ago, I was about to go fishing on a beautiful canyon stream. My rod was packed, I had snacks and fruit for the hike down the canyon and back, plus plenty of water. There was just one more thing on my packing list: Google Glass.
I’d had Glass for three weeks. I’d used it to travel from New Mexico to Argentina, I’d worn it in a raft and around the house, and I’d regularly commuted with it. I thought of the ways I could use it on this trip—to shoot videos of fish or photos of the canyon—then I grabbed my pack and left Glass behind.
When I first got my Google Glass Explorer invitation in early March, I had dreams of it completely streamlining my life. It could replace my phone, so I didn’t have to pull it out at every notification. It could take photos with a wink. I could send texts or make calls while I was in the yard or cooking dinner.
The future was upon me, and it was glorious. So I decided to run it through theOutside life. Plenty of tech writers have taken Glass for a spin, but I wanted to see how it held up while traveling, rafting, fishing, riding, and running. Here’s what I found.
How it Works
First, a quick primer. Glass displays an image through a little square piece of glass above your right eye. When you stare at it, you look like you’re about to do an exaggerated eye roll. People stare. You get used to it.
There’s a touch pad that runs between your right eye and your right ear. You swipe forward or backward to see different screens, downward to dismiss a notification or turn Glass off, and tap to select. You wink to take a picture (a feature my wife found incredibly creepy), and start a whole host of actions by saying “Okay, Glass.” As in “Okay, Glass, take a video.” Or “Okay Glass, call Mom."
To do this, Glass has to be tethered to your phone (and your phone has to have an app called MyGlass). Consider the phone the base station for Glass. It’s where you activate a limited list of apps—from games to Twitter, Facebook, and Strava—that function on Glass. The app selection isn’t nearly as robust as with an Android phone, but then Glass is still in beta.
Travel
You’re less conspicuous using Glass in an airport than, say, running a river, and I found the tech to be most useful in this scenario. I checked and dismissed a few emails, sent my mom a text saying we were about to leave, accidentally took a photo of the gate area when my eyes were dry and I winked them together, and checked that my gate hadn’t changed while I was walking around buying magazines, food, and water. Never once did I have to pull my phone out to do any of that.
Then I flew out of the country—meaning no more 4G for me. (I don’t have an international data plan.) Instead, I used WiFi at airports. But I could only use Glass when I actually knew the WiFi password, so it was useless (for me) at the airports in Buenos Aires.
I was able to use it at our hotel. One app, called World Lens, actually translated a menu from Spanish into English. I just said “Okay, Glass, translate this,” held the menu out, and it appeared in English above my eye. Pretty cool. It could have been useful as I walked around Buenos Aires, but I was on vacation—I didn’t want to wear Glass everywhere.
I did wear it on one afternoon as my wife and I walked around Palermo Viejo in Buenos Aires. We found a cool corner with a couple great restaurants, so I winked to take a photo. But here’s the kicker. Because Glass is almost impossible to see in the sun, I couldn’t tell whether I got the shot or not. So I took a shotgun approach—I winked several times, hoping I got the picture I wanted. You can judge the results for yourself:
Rafting
While in Argentina, my wife and I spent a few days in Los Alerces National Park in Argentina, a beautiful place where massive alpine lakes connect via gin-clear rivers filled with mammoth trout.
On our first day, we floated the Rivadavia. I stripped out fishing line, put Glass on, and looked down to make sure the line wasn’t tangled at my feet. Glass fell off. Thankfully, there was no water in the raft (and I wasn’t leaning over the side), but I tucked the non-waterproof gadget back in my pack and never put it on again. I wasn’t ready to lose $1,500 just for a photo.
Riding
I was probably most excited to ride my bike with Glass. I just commute a mile or so between work and home, but I wanted to get directions and track how much I actually rode.
Using the tech was simple enough. I just said “Okay, Glass, start a ride.” And boom, it started the Strava app and tracking commenced. (Except for the one time when it didn’t. It might have just been because of a brief disconnect, because other than that, it was easy to use.)
The directions were less accurate. The first time I used them, I made sure I was on 4G and asked for directions home (“Okay, Glass, navigate to home”). I saw the map pop up, started riding, and then heard nothing. (Possibly due to a stiff New Mexican spring wind.) I looked up at the screen to see the directions, but it had shut off. I had to tap the screen at (shady) stoplights to see the map.
I was willing to live without directions—I know where I’m going in Santa Fe—especially because I could track my rides on Strava. But then one day I was at a major-ish intersection in town, leaning forward on my bike, and Glass prevented me from seeing whether the Subaru was coming straight toward me or turning. I had to tilt my head up and to the right to see the car with both eyes. After that, I kept Glass in my messenger bag on the ride home. I’d rather use the Strava app on my phone and be able to see than get hit by car, no matter how good the voice-activated controls are.
Running
I don’t run. But I asked Meaghen Brown, an ultrarunner and my colleague here atOutside, to take Glass around the block. Here’s what she had to say:
“The first thing I had trouble with (apart from another co-worker walking by before I left the building and remarking, ‘Wow, those are unflattering,’) was getting the map of my route to load correctly. I was able to load it the same way you’d load Google Maps on your iPhone, but I never managed to figure out where the voice in my ear was telling me to go. She just kept saying “Turn right,” when I knew any right turn would have taken me right back to the office.
"I stopped listening about a minute into the run. Because the map is impossible to see in sunlight, she was supposedly all the direction I had. By the end, I’d concluded that for most runners, using Google Glass is a waste time. Most of the functions already exist on a smartphone, which you have to carry anyway because the Glass doesn’t work without Bluetooth. I spent so much time trying to make sense of what was going on in my ear that the run mostly ended up being a bust. Unless you’re incapable of functioning without 1,440-minute connectivity to the digital world, don’t bother with Glass. Plus, I never could get Strava to load."
Around the Office
Like many people, I work at a desk in front of my computer for about nine hours a day. I already see emails in my inbox and hear the notification on my phone and tablet if I happen to be away from the computer for a moment. So instead of having a fourth place to get a notification, I left Glass on my desk. It gave it a chance to charge.
At Home
The first Saturday I had Glass, I really enjoyed it. I got an email from my brother and responded. I took a picture of my sleeping dog and sent it to my wife. I checked the weather. I couldn’t use it outside (remember the full-sun issue), but indoors it worked well.
But after one long day at work, I walked in the door and Glass notified me of what must have been my 500th email of the day. And that was it. I’d spent all day responding to email and I didn’t want it in my face at home. I put Glass on the table, and walked away.
Bottom Line
I’m sure there are plenty of reasons to have Glass. I just didn’t find many of them. If I were a very important person dashing from meeting to meeting, I could see the advantage of being able to dismiss alerts immediately without having to open a computer or pull out a phone.
But that’s not me. I don’t want to be constantly notified of every email, game score, text, or call. I’d rather make dinner with my wife, go have beers with a friend, or take my dog on a walk.
In other words, my ideal evenings and weekends are ones where I disconnect. And Glass is another step closer to constant connectivity. The people who will find it most useful are those who think that sounds like a great idea. But it’s not for me.
There were things I enjoyed—like taking an impromptu photo or video (of mediocre quality) without pulling out my phone. And it’s possible that if I had spent months working with it, I could have figured out how to make it work for me (or just work better). But mostly I found it annoying—and totally impractical in the sun. If there was one overall positive of using Glass, it was that I realized I was too connected. In that spirit, I’ve stopped getting work email on my phone and tablet. Sorry, boss.
Thanks : http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-gear/gear-shed/tech-talk/Why-Google-Glass-Sucks-for-the-Outdoors.html
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Too Much Running Tied to Shorter Lifespan, Studies Find
Running regularly has long been linked to a host of health benefits, including weight control, stress reduction, better blood pressure and cholesterol.
However, recent research suggests there may a point of diminishing returns with running.
A number of studies have suggested that a "moderate" running regimen -- a total of two to three hours per week, according to one expert -- appears best for longevity, refuting the typical "more is better" mantra for physical activity.
The researchers behind the newest study on the issue say people who get either no exercise or high-mileage runners both tend to have shorter lifespans than moderate runners. But the reasons why remain unclear, they added.
The new study seems to rule out cardiac risk or the use of certain medications as factors.
"Our study didn't find any differences that could explain these longevity differences," said Dr. Martin Matsumura, co-director of the Cardiovascular Research Institute at the Lehigh Valley Health Network in Allentown, Pa.
Matsumura presented the findings Sunday at the American College of Cardiology's annual meeting in Washington, D.C. Studies presented at medical meetings are typically viewed as preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Matsumura and his colleagues evaluated data from more than 3,800 men and women runners, average age 46. They were involved in the Masters Running Study, a web-based study of training and health information on runners aged 35 and above. Nearly 70 percent reported running more than 20 miles a week.
The runners supplied information on their use of common painkillers called NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications such as ibuprofen and naproxen/Aleve), which have been linked with heart problems, as well as aspirin, known to be heart-protective. The runners also reported on known heart risk factors such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, family history of heart disease and smoking history.
None of these factors explained the shorter lives of high-mileage runners, the researchers said. Use of NSAIDs was actually more common in runners who ran less than 20 miles weekly, Matsumura's team noted. "The study negates the theory that excessive use of NSAIDs may be causing this loss of longevity among high-mileage runners," Matsumura said.
So what's the advice to fitness-oriented Americans?
"I certainly don't tell patients 'Don't run,' " Matsumura said. But, he does tell high-mileage runners to stay informed about new research into the mileage-lifespan link as more becomes known.
"What we still don't understand is defining the optimal dose of running for health and longevity," he said.
Even though the heart disease risk factors couldn't explain the shorter longevity of high-mileage runners, there do seem to be potentially life-shortening ill effects from that amount of running, said Dr. James O'Keefe, director of preventive cardiology at the Mid-American Heart Institute in Kansas City.
O'Keefe, who reviewed the findings, believes there may simply be "too much wear and tear" on the bodies of high-mileage runners. He has researched the issue and is an advocate of moderate running for the best health benefits. Chronic extreme exercise, O'Keefe said, may induce a "remodeling" of the heart, and that could undermine some of the benefits that moderate activity provides.
In O'Keefe's view, the "sweet spot" for jogging for health benefits is a slow to moderate pace, about two or three times per week, for a total of one to 2.5 hours.
"If you want to run a marathon," he said, "run one and cross it off your bucket list." But as a general rule, O'Keefe advises runners to avoid strenuous exercise for more than an hour at a time.
Thanks: http://consumer.healthday.com/fitness-information-14/misc-health-news-265/too-much-running-linked-to-shorter-lifespan-studies-find-686310.html
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Three Powerful Ways to Stop Wasting Time
Since the whole point of this article is to help you make the most of your time and career, I won’t waste words here. All three of these techniques work well, but you should pick the one that best fits your personality and personal situation:
1. The Repeat Test
Take a piece of paper or a spreadsheet, and make a column of numbers representing the hours of the day that you are awake. Mine goes 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12… and all the way back to 11. Leave enough room for a wider column to the right of the first one.
At the top of every hour, stop for one minute and consider how you spent the past hour. Was it useful or a waste of time? Would you repeat the same action again, or are you frustrated that it was an incredible waste of time?
Now jot a few words next to the number that represents that hour. You might write: ran six miles, feel fantastic. On the other hand, you could observe: dept. meeting accomplished nothing… 30 people in one room is far too many.
Be careful not to let this exercise transform you into a selfish jerk; sometimes wonderful uses of your time are inefficient and require patience and/or generosity. For example, after I met with a young assistant, I wrote: it took three tries, but was worth it; Dave gets it now.
You can use this technique to improve your own performance. If you make the mistake of dominating a meeting and offending others, you might write: I need to listen a LOT more.
Try this for a couple of days, and see how it works. At the very least, you will gain immediate insight into the ways that you use your time.
If you keep at this, The Repeat Test will give you a valuable record of how you spent your week, month or year. In my experience, it is much more useful to have a What I Did list than a To Do list. The former is based in reality, while the latter is often a pipe dream.
2. Take 10 at the Hour
For some, The Repeat Test is too judgmental; they don’t feel comfortable evaluating every meeting and personal interaction. If this describes you, try this technique that is utterly non-judgmental.
At the top of every hour, take 10 long, slow deep breaths. While you do this, clear your mind of everything. Don’t analyze your day, and don’t start spinning your plans about what you are going to do three minutes from now. Just stop.
The benefits of Take 10 don’t occur while you are pausing, so don’t expect immediate miracles. But I find that after such a break, my stress level shrinks and good ideas tend to pop into my head.
And, yes, sometimes it becomes clear to me that I am using entirely the wrong tactics to get what I want.
3. Go Slower
This may be the most counter-intuitive advice you have ever received: by going slower, you can save time.
This may be the most counter-intuitive advice you have ever received: by going slower, you can save time.
Instead of rushing to send a cryptic email that results in three or four back-and-forth exchanges before the other person understands your intent… go slower and compose a clear and complete message that the other person understands the first time.
Instead of rushing out a report that triggers alarm bells across your business… go slower and “socialize” your conclusions before you release the report, giving others the opportunity to influence – and understand – your conclusions.
Instead of rushing to furnish your apartment, buy a new house or plan a vacation… go slower and figure out what will really make you happy over the long run.
It takes far less time to do something right the first time, than to suffer through countless rushed efforts.
Treat time as the most precious of all gifts, because it is.
Thanks: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucekasanoff/2014/03/20/three-powerful-ways-to-stop-wasting-time/
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Why did the AK-47 become so popular?
MIKHAIL KALASHNIKOV died on December 23rd, aged 94. But his 66-year-old invention, theAvtomat Kalashnikova, has plenty more shots left to fire. Developed in 1947 and first used by Soviet forces in 1949, the AK-47 assault rifle and its many derivatives are now used by the armed forces of more than 80 countries, and by freelancers in many more. No-one knows quite how many are in circulation: 100m is a reasonable guess. As a proportion of all the guns in the world—another number no-one can be quite sure about—Kalashnikovs probably make up more than one in ten of all firearms. Why does an ageing Soviet invention still dominate modern warfare?
The cultural impact of the AK is felt all over the world. Quentin Tarantino’s villains celebrate its appropriateness for “when you've absolutely, positively got to kill every [enemy combatant] in the room”. Mexican outlaws boast about their cuernos de chivo, or “goat horns”, the nickname given to the rifle because of its curved magazine. In some parts of Africa, where the gun is seen as a symbol of the ousting of colonial rulers, Kalash is a popular name for boys. Mozambique displays the gun on its flag. In Lebanon, a model nicknamed the “Bin Laden” sells for twice the price of the standard AK-47, because it is the type that al-Qaeda’s former boss was seen toting in some of his videos.
The gun is nothing special. Its controls are unsophisticated; it is not even particularly accurate. But this simplicity is a reason for its success. Compared with other assault rifles, the AK-47 has generous clearance between its moving parts. That is bad for accuracy, but it means that the mechanism is unlikely to jam, no matter how clogged it gets with Sudanese sand or Nicaraguan mud. Designed to be operated by Soviet soldiers wearing thick winter gloves, it is simple enough for untrained recruits (including children) to use. These features explain why the gun has remained in demand. But its success is also down to supply. The Soviet Union wanted to standardise military equipment among its allies, and so shipped giant caches of the weapons to friendly states, where it also established factories to churn out the rifles by the hundreds of thousand. (The USSR was unconcerned with copyright, too, meaning that knock-offs proliferated.) The gun has spread all over the world. But where the Soviet Union had less influence, the AK-47 was less popular. To this day, bandits in the Philippines are more likely to use variants on the M16, an American-made assault rifle supplied to the Philippine army by the United States.
With the AK’s dominance firmly established, it has proved hard to displace. In Syria, some fighters were pictured using FAL assault rifles, which by some accounts are superior. But they didn’t last long because it proved hard to find ammunition: the FAL takes 51mm-long cartridges, which are thinner on the ground in conflict zones than the 39mm-long cartridges used in the older types of AK-47, according to Nicolas Florquin of the Small Arms Survey, a Swiss research-organisation. Perhaps most fundamentally, the basics of warfare haven’t changed all that much since the second world war. Drones and smart weapons are revolutionising rich-world armies. But elsewhere, much of today's bloodletting follows a similar pattern to that seen in the 1940s. Until warfare evolves, the AK-47 will remain as devastatingly useful as it was half a century ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)