published by Jonathan on Sat, 03/04/2006 - 23:13    
  
  
     Today the chick flick film series continued with Sense and Sensibility (1995,PG). I'm sure I must have seen it in the theaters, but I guess 10 years was enough to erase all memories. Or maybe it was so bland that no memories were ever made. This is the kind of movie that I often like, but somehow this one never grabbed me. I give it 3 out of 5. From wikipedia:
Today the chick flick film series continued with Sense and Sensibility (1995,PG). I'm sure I must have seen it in the theaters, but I guess 10 years was enough to erase all memories. Or maybe it was so bland that no memories were ever made. This is the kind of movie that I often like, but somehow this one never grabbed me. I give it 3 out of 5. From wikipedia:
Jane Austen's novel Sense and Sensibility (1811) was adapted into a 1995 film by Emma Thompson, for which she received general acclaim as well as the 1996 Academy Award. The film was directed by Ang Lee. It is faithful to the book, although some liberties are taken. Like all of Jane Austen's novels, Sense and Sensibility is as much a commentary on 18th Century society as a romance. The film captures the plight of genteel ladies "of no fortune" during that period.
 
  
  
 
        
    
      
            published by Jonathan on Sat, 03/04/2006 - 22:38    
  
  
    From an AP story on abcnews.com:
Pope Benedict XVI said Thursday he will consider increasing women's "institutional" role in the church but reiterated that they would remain barred from the priesthood, Italian news agencies reported. Benedict said he would begin reflecting on the possibility of giving "institutional" recognition to women after noting that women's "charisma" had always played an important role in the church, the agencies said. He mentioned Mother Teresa and Saint Catherine of Siena, among others, and did not say what type of institutional roles he had in mind.
 
  
  
 
        
    
      
            published by Jonathan on Sat, 03/04/2006 - 22:29    
  
  
    It's 4th and goal in the first quarter of a football game. Should you go for it or kick a field goal? From a story by Robert Roy Britt on MSNBC:
...the decision is consistently botched, according to a new study by David Romer of the University of California at Berkeley. In a series of case studies, Romer found coaches to be overly conservative, opting for field goals in situations where, on average, choosing to go for a first down or a touchdown would up the odds of winning by 3 percent. In particular, Romer found that when faced with fourth-and-goal on the 2-yard line early in the game, going for a touchdown is the much wiser choice. While the field goal is a near certainty, getting a touchdown in that situation has about a 43 percent chance of success, he calculates. And failing to score a TD at least leaves the opponent deep in its own territory. But in nine case studies of this situation, the teams booted against the odds. After doing a whole bunch of complex math, and considering things like momentum and field position in more than 700 real NFL game situations, Romer concludes that whenever the chance of a touchdown is statistically 18 percent, that's the better choice.
 
  
  
 
        
    
      
            published by Jonathan on Sat, 03/04/2006 - 22:14    
  
  
    Good thing Lisa and I never argue. From a Reuters story on MSNBC:
The manner in which husbands and wives argue over such hot-button topics such as money, in-laws, and children, may be a factor in their risk of developing coronary atherosclerosis, or hardening of the arteries of the heart. In a study of 150 couples, mostly in their 60s, researchers found that women who behaved in a hostile manner during marital disputes were more likely to have atherosclerosis, especially if their husbands were also hostile. In men, hostility -- their own or their wives -- was not related to atherosclerosis. However, men who behaved in a dominating or controlling manner -- or whose wives behaved in that way -- were more likely to have clogged coronary arteries.
But if you fight, at least make sure you lift weights. From an AP story in USA Today:
By just lifting weights twice a week for an hour, women can battle the buildup of tummy fat that often takes hold with aging, a new study suggests. And they didn't even diet. The study focused on intra-abdominal fat, the deep fat that wraps itself around organs and is the most unhealthy because it's linked with heart disease. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and is being presented Friday at an American Heart Association conference in Phoenix. In it, 164 overweight and obese Minnesota women ages 24 to 44 were divided evenly into two groups. One group participated in a two-year weight-training program and the other was simply given a brochure recommending exercise of 30 minutes to an hour most days of the week. Both groups were told not to change their diets in a way that might lead to weight changes. Women who did the weight-training for two years had only a 7% increase in intra-abdominal fat, compared to a 21% increase in the group given exercise advice. The strength-training group also decreased body fat percentage by almost 4%, while the group just given advice remained the same. Using both free weights and machines, the women in the strength-training group worked out for about an hour and were encouraged to gradually increase the weights they lifted. "This is not a program you could do in your home, unless you can afford to have a full gym in your basement," Schmitz said. Schmitz said the focus was on chest, back, shoulders, biceps, triceps, lower back, buttocks and thighs. She noted that adding muscle mass can help overweight women move faster so they burn more calories.
 
  
  
 
        
    
      
            published by Jonathan on Sat, 03/04/2006 - 22:04    
  
  
    From an article in the BBC News:
Americans know more about The Simpsons TV show than the US Constitution's First Amendment, an opinion poll says. Only one in four could name more than one of the five freedoms it upholds but more than half could name at least two members of the cartoon family. About one in five thought the right to own a pet was one of the freedoms. A new museum dedicated to the First Amendment said the findings showed there was a pressing need to explain one of America's basic laws better. "We have our job cut out for us," said Joe Madeira, director of exhibitions at the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum. Another finding from the poll, a telephone survey of 1,000 random adults with an error margin of 3%, was that 22% of Americans could name all five Simpson characters. By comparison, just one in 1,000 people could name all five First Amendment freedoms. The names of American Idol TV show judges and popular advertising slogans also proved more memorable than the five freedoms - speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.
For the record and your education, from wikipedia's article on the first ammendment, it forbids laws that:
- Establish a state religion or prefer certain religion (the "Establishment Clause")
- Prohibit the free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause")
- Infringe the freedom of speech
- Infringe the freedom of the press
- Limit the right to assemble peaceably
- Limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
 
  
  
 
Pages