2019-07-14 - DID YOU KNOW?


How Much Water Do You Really Need?

7/20/2019 08:27:00 PM 0
How Much Water Do You Really Need?

How Much Water Do You Really Need To Drink?

You are what you eat — but if you want to get literal about it, you are mostly what you drink. So, how much of that should be water?
About 60 percent of the average adult human body is made of water, according to a National Institutes of Health report. 

This includes most of your brain, heart, lungs, muscles and skin, and even about 30 percent of your bones. Besides being one of the main ingredients in the recipe for humankind, water helps us regulate our internal temperature, transports nutrients throughout our bodies, flushes waste, forms saliva, lubricates joints and even serves as a protective shock absorber for vital organs and growing fetuses.  [How Long Can A Person Survive Without Water?]

There's no dispute that water is crucial to a healthy life (or any life at all, for that matter). And yet, there's little scientific consensus about the exact amount of the stuff an individual should consume each day. So how much water do you actually need to drink to be healthy?

You may have heard that you should drink eight 8-ounce (237 milliliters) glasses of water a day (totaling 64 ounces, or about 1.9 liters). That's the wrong answer. Despite the pervasiveness of this easily remembered rule, there is no scientific evidence to back it up, according to a 2002 review of studies. In fact, numerous studies suggest that this is far more actual drinking water than is necessary for most healthy adults.

The problem with this rule, researchers say, is that drinking water by the glass is not the only way that humans hydrate. Yes, it's true that guzzling H2O is an inexpensive and calorie-free way to whet your whistle, but the "8 x 8" rule crucially overlooks two big sources of daily water consumption.

Food and drink
One such source is food. Everything you eat contains some water. Raw fruits and vegetables have a lot; fruits such as watermelons and strawberries, for example, are more than 90 percent water by weight, according to the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture. Different diets naturally contain different amounts of water, but it adds up. According to a 2004 report by the National Academies of Sciences, the average North American gets about 20 percent of his or her daily water intake through food, and that counts toward healthy hydration.

The other key water sources that the "8 x 8" rule overlooks are other beverages. Non-alcoholic drinks such as coffee, tea, milk, juice and soda contain mostly water, and all contribute to your hydration. Contrary to another popular myth, studies show that coffee does not dehydrate youand is a suitable form of H2O intake. (Just remember that there can be adverse side effects of drinking too much caffeine, including headaches and disrupted sleep.)

So, between all the food, water, and other fluids you consume in a day, how much water should you aim to imbibe? The National Academies of Sciences suggests that women consume a total of approximately 2.7 liters (91 ounces) of water from all beverages and foods each day and that men get approximately 3.7 liters (125 ounces) daily.

But these are just general guidelines and are not supported by firm scientific studies.

The truth is, there is no magic formula for hydration — everyone's needs vary depending on their age, weight, level of physical activity, general health and even the climate they live in. The more water you lose to sweating, the more water you'll need to replace with food and drink.

So, naturally, a person doing strenuous physical work in a hot, tropical climate would need to drink more water than a person of identical weight and height who spent the day sitting in an air-conditioned office.

If you are looking for concrete advice, though, the best place to look is within.

"The vast majority of healthy people adequately meet their daily hydration needs by letting thirst be their guide," according to the National Academies of Sciences.

Your body naturally feels thirsty when your hydration levels are dropping, and water is the best medicine. (On the other end of the digestive spectrum, your urine can also tell you whether you're getting enough to drink — dark yellow or orange urine usually indicates dehydration, while well-hydrated urine should look pale yellow or colorless.)

The bottom line: Drink up when you're thirsty, and drink more when you sweat more. Your body will take it from there.

keyword : 

The King Arthur

7/20/2019 07:56:00 PM 0
The King Arthur

The King Arthur

King Arthur, the mythological figure associated with Camelot, may have been based on a 5th to 6th century British warrior who staved off invading Saxons.


King Arthur is a medieval, mythological figure who was the head of the kingdom Camelot and the Knights of the Round Table. 
It is not known if there was a real Arthur, though it is believed he may have been a Roman-affiliated military leader who successfully staved off a Saxon invasion during the 5th to 6th centuries. His legend has been popularized by many writers, including Geoffrey of Monmouth.

A Historical Mystery

Little is known about the possible figure who inspired the story of King Arthur, a heroic monarch who has been a popular mythological and literary character for some time.

 It has been suggested that the real-life "Arthur" may have been a warrior/officer of Roman affiliation who led a British military force against incoming Saxon forces during the 5th to 6th centuries A.D. Still, Celtic monk Gildas wrote of the Saxon invasion in his work The Ruin and Conquest of Britain, citing the conflict at Badon Hills, and no warrior named Arthur is mentioned.

In contrast, the 6th century bard Aneirin crafted the Welsh collection of poems The Gododdin in which a heroic Arthur is spoken of. Yet with the work originally shared orally as opposed to being written down, it is impossible to ascertain if Arthur was part of the original story. Another poet, Teliesin, mentions a valiant Arthur in his work as well.

There has also been another suggestion circulated that references to Arthur were actually a way of honoring via myth a Celtic bear deity with a similar name.

Becomes Heroic Figure

During the 800s, Nennius of Wales wrote History of the Britons, which became a core Arthurian text in that it listed a dozen battles in which the warrior fought, though it would have been logistically impossible for him to have done so.

 Nonetheless, Nennius's work positions Arthur as a valiant, praiseworthy persona; this was later expounded upon in the 12th century Latin writings of Geoffrey of Monmouth, who told the story of the mystical figure of Merlin and joined his life with that of Arthur's, also giving the king/warrior a birth story and an overall trajectory in widely-read text.

Due to cultural intermingling in Europe, political influences and writers' imagination, the Arthurian story developed into a full-fledged legend and complex story, with an emphasis on a noble kingdom called Camelot, the Knights of the Round Table and the queen, Guinevere, who has an affair with the knight Lancelot. Other aspects of the tale include the king's deadly conflict with his nephew or son, Mordred, and the knights' quest for the Holy Grail.

Arthur in Literature...

Thomas Malory was the first to provide an English prose retelling of the legend in his Le Morte D'Arthur, published in 1485. Centuries later, Alfred Tennyson published his Idylls of the King throughout the latter half of the 1800s, telling the story of Camelot in the form of an epic poem.
The story of Arthur has continued to be interpreted by a variety of writers, including children's authors, comic-book scribes and novelists such as Marion Zimmer Bradley, whose Mists of Avalon (1982) looks at the legend from the female characters' perspectives.

...And on the Screen

In the 20th century, King Arthur also found his way to stage and screen. During the '60s, the myth found a home on Broadway with the musical Camelot, which starred Richard Burton as Arthur. Later revivals would see Richard Harris—who starred in the 1967 movie version as well—and Robert Goulet portray the monarch. A more serious, grim take on Camelot was seen in the 1981 film Excalibur, with Helen Mirren in the role of Morgana, half-sister to the king. Fast forward to the next millennium where Antoine Fuqua directed King Arthur (2004), whose still fantastic plot relied more heavily on the idea that Arthur, here portrayed by Clive Owen, was a military leader against the Saxons.

Aiming to properly contextualize the array of tales presented, documentarian and writer Michael Wood has looked at the cultural and geographic origins of the King Arthur story in his PBS series In Search of Myths and Heroes.

The Lion King (2019 film)

7/20/2019 03:05:00 PM 0
The Lion King (2019 film)

The Lion King (2019 film)

The Lion King is a 2019 American musical film directed and produced by Jon Favreau, written by Jeff Nathanson, and produced by Walt Disney Pictures. It is a photorealistic computer-animated remake of Disney's traditionally animated 1994 film of the same name. The film stars the voices of Donald Glover, Seth Rogen, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Alfre Woodard, Billy Eichner, John Kani, John Oliver and Beyoncé Knowles-Carter, as well as James Earl Jones reprising his role from the original film. The plot follows Simba, a young lion who must embrace his role as the rightful king of his native land following the murder of his father, Mufasa, at the hands of his uncle, Scar.
Plans for a remake of The Lion King were confirmed in September 2016 following the success of Disney's The Jungle Book, also directed by Favreau. Much of the main cast signed in early 2017 and principal productionbegan in mid-2017 on a blue screen stage in Los Angeles.
The film was theatrically released in the United States on July 19, 2019. It received mixed reviews, with praise for its visual effects, musical score and vocal performances, but criticism for the lack of originality and emotion in the characters.


Cast overview, first billed only:
Chiwetel EjioforChiwetel Ejiofor...Scar (voice)
John OliverJohn Oliver...Zazu (voice)
James Earl JonesJames Earl Jones...Mufasa (voice)
John KaniJohn Kani...Rafiki (voice)
Alfre WoodardAlfre Woodard...Sarabi (voice)
JD McCraryJD McCrary...Young Simba (voice)
Shahadi Wright JosephShahadi Wright Joseph...Young Nala (voice)
Penny Johnson JeraldPenny Johnson Jerald...Sarafina (voice)
Keegan-Michael KeyKeegan-Michael Key...Kamari (voice)
Eric AndréEric André...Azizi (voice)
Florence KasumbaFlorence Kasumba...Shenzi (voice)
Seth RogenSeth Rogen...Pumbaa (voice)
Billy EichnerBilly Eichner...Timon (voice)
Amy SedarisAmy Sedaris...Guinea Fowl (voice)
Chance the RapperChance the Rapper...Bush Baby (voice) (as Chance Bennett)

keyword :  death of father   lioness  africa   animal in title king pumbaa character   lion                                            celebrity voices    redemption    father son relationship    comic relief                                                 coming of age   grief live action remake  africa                                                                                       disney live action remake of animated    film  murder of father


Best NEWS OPPO Announces Beste New Reno 10X Zoom FC Barcelona Edition

7/17/2019 04:42:00 PM 0
Best NEWS OPPO Announces Beste New Reno 10X Zoom FC Barcelona Edition

Best NEWS OPPO Announces Beste New Reno 10X Zoom FC Barcelona Edition  

OPPO Reno 10X Zoom FC Barcelona Edition announced. It comes with a blue and red colour scheme with heat-press technology backed with FC Barcelona theme, icons and ringtones.

OPPO has announced the Reno 10X Zoom FC Barcelona Edition. The device comes with a blue and red colour scheme that comes with heat-press technology that creates a unique gradient colour effect along with a gold plated club insignia on the back. The phone also comes with FC Barcelona themed UI along with a similar design case. Other than that the phone comes with FC Barcelona theme, icons and ringtones.

OPPO Reno 10X Zoom FC Barcelona Edition specifications

As far as the specifications are concerned the Reno 10X zoom comes with a 6.6 inch Full HD+ AMOLED display with narrow bezels and 93.1 per cent screen to body ratio. The phone is powered by the Snapdragon 855 processor with 8GB RAM and runs on ColorOS 6 on top of Android 9 Pie. It gets a 48 Megapixel primary rear camera featuring a Sony IMX586 sensor along with a 13 Megapixel periscope telephoto camera with 10x loss-less zoom and an 8 Megapixel 120-degree ultra-wide lens. For selfies, the phone comes with a 16 Megapixel Sharkfin rising camera and houses a 4064mAh battery with VOOC 3.0 fast charging.

OPPO Reno 10X Zoom FC Barcelona Edition price

The OPPO Reno 10X Zoom FC Barcelona Edition is priced at 899 Euros (Rs 69,250 approx.) for 8GB RAM with 256GB storage. The phone will start rolling out from July 26th and will be available in France, Spain, Netherlands and other parts of Europe.

What is Durian?

7/17/2019 02:35:00 AM 0
What is Durian?

What is Durian?

An oval spiky shaped fruit found in South East Asia. Proudly named the King of Fruits and mostly known for being the stinkiest.
The stank causes its banishment on public transportation and hotels throughout South East Asia. Contrasting to the spiky outside, the inside has 5 cavities, each filled with soft pods (the edible part). The texture of the pods have been described as creamy custard, silky and smooth.
The word durian is partly derived from the Malay term ‘duri’, meaning thorn. This fossil looking fruit can weigh between 2-8 lbs and there are over 30 different varieties (only a few are edible). The variety is divided into 2 main categories – bitter or sweet.

  • Why is Durian the King of Fruits?

At first sight, it clearly has a ring (crown) of thorns encircling the stem, but the nomenclature doesn’t stop there. Countries in South East Asia recognize Durian as the King of Fruits. Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore (city-state), Indonesia and Vietnam.

The countries also have recognized its murderous streak. 
Kings like murder. More on this below (Can Durian Kill You – section).
It’s noted that jungle cats of all sizes eat durian. In Asian mythology the protectors and kings of the jungle are tigers. There are reports from Sumatran durian farmers who have sighted tigers in their orchards devouring their crop. Thus, durian picking can be dangerous AF.

So, who is the Queen of Fruits? Durian is considered to be heaty, meaning rich and heavy in flavor. Which can make it a meal in itself. The mangosteen is its’ counterpart. Having cooling properties, sweet in flavor and simultaneously comes in-season. These traits award the mangosteen the Queen crown of jewels.

  • What to know about durian before try

7 Durian Dos and Don’ts

Don’t judge durian by the smell (blue cheese smells like hot garbage, but it taste good). In other words, don’t be nose blind. Do try it to form your own opinion.

Don’t go in blindly choosing durian. If you don’t know how to pick or eat durian, ask a friend or the vendor to show you the ropes. This will decrease the chance of eating unripe, bad durian or pre-frozen durian. Freezing the fruit changes the texture and ruins the flavor.

Do ask a local or find good reviews for suggestions on a reputable vendor. Going to a bad vendor could sabotage the experience.

Do know that there are different types of durians and within the different types there’s a choice of bitter or sweet.

Don’t eat with milk, soda and alcohol. Any of the three can cause indigestion and or bloating.

Don’t buy durian that is missing their stalks.

Don’t think eating durian tart, ice cream, pizza etc is equal to eating the fruit. It’s not the same.


Did Humans Tamed Themselves?

7/16/2019 03:35:00 PM 0
Did Humans Tamed Themselves?

Did Humans Tamed Themselves? 

When i was studying for my doctorate, in the late 1960s, we budding anthropologists read a book called Ideas on Human Evolution, a collection of then-recent papers in the field. 

With typical graduate-student arrogance, I pronounced it “too many ideas chasing too little data.” Half a century and thousands of fossil finds later, we have a far more complete—and also more puzzling—view of the human past.

The ever-growing fossil record fills in one missing link in the quest for evidence of protohumans, only to expose another. 

Meanwhile, no single line emerges to connect these antecedents to Homo sapiens, whose origins date back about 300,000 years. Instead, parallel and divergent lines reveal a variety of now-extinct hominids that display traits once considered distinctive to our lineage. 

For example, traces of little “Hobbits” found in Indonesia in 2003 show that they walked upright and made tools; less than four feet tall, with brains about a third the size of ours, they may have persisted until modern humans arrived in the area some 50,000 years ago.

As data pile up, so do surprises. Microscopic methods indicate that certain marks on 2.5-million-year-old bones were probably made by sharp stone tools; scientists had previously assumed that such tools came later. The dental tartar caked on the teeth of Neanderthals suggests that the brawny, thick-boned people (almost-humans on one of the parallel lines) probably ate cooked barley along with their meat; these famously carnivorous folks were really omnivores, like us. DNA from tiny fragments of bone—for instance, the tip of a pinkie many thousands of years old—has brought to light a whole new humanlike species that once interbred with us, as Neanderthals did. Charles Darwin drew evolution as a bush, not a tree, for a reason.

The study of human evolution is by now about much more than bones and stones. In 1965 a remarkable book—Irven DeVore’s collection Primate Behavior(which led me to study with DeVore)—made what then seemed a radical claim: We will never understand our origins without intensive study of the wild world of our nonhuman relatives.

 A handful of scientists, including Jane Goodall, set up tents in distant jungles and savannas. Following monkeys, apes, and other creatures in their habitats, these scientists turned their notes and observations into voluminous, quantitative data.

 DeVore and others devoted themselves just as rigorously to the remaining human hunter-gatherers, found on every habitable continent except Europe—our biological twins, living under conditions resembling the ones we evolved in.

The multifaceted effort was new and ambitious, but the idea was old. DeVore had hanging in his office an 1838 quote from Darwin’s notebook: “Origin of man now proved … He who understands baboon would do more towards metaphysics than Locke.” It’s an aphorism that calls to mind one of my favorite characterizations of anthropology—philosophizing with data—and serves as a perfect introduction to the latest work of Richard Wrangham, who has come up with some of the boldest and best new ideas about human evolution.

In his third book, The Goodness Paradox: The Strange Relationship Between Virtue and Violence in Human Evolution, he deploys fascinating facts of natural history and genetics as he enters a debate staked out centuries ago by Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (among other philosophers), and still very much alive today: how to understand the conjunction of fierce aggression and cooperative behavior in humans. Why are we so much less violent day-to-day within our communities (in pretty much all cultures) than our closest primate relatives, chimpanzees, are within theirs? At the same time, how is it that human violence directed toward perceived enemy groups has been so destructive?

Wrangham, who teaches biological anthropology at Harvard, was mentored by both Goodall and DeVore. He was in a sense working toward this latest venture in his two previous books, which explore the opposing poles of behavior. Renowned for his meticulous fieldwork, especially with chimps in Uganda’s Kibale National Park, Wrangham showed just how common chimp brutality is. 

Goodall had acknowledged with frank regret that her beloved chimpanzees could be quite violent. One mother and daughter killed the infants of other females in their group. Males often coerced and beat females, and would sometimes gang up and attack a chimp from another group.

At Kibale, large groups of chimps range together, and aggression escalates accordingly.

 Wrangham observed as these bigger parties of males got excited and went out on “patrol” in what looked like an organized way: They walked along their territorial border, attacking lone chimps from neighboring communities when they came across them en route.

 In his 1996 book, Demonic Males, co-authored with Dale Peterson, Wrangham recapped this and other evidence to draw a dire portrait of humanity (the male version) as inherently violent by evolutionary legacy.

Here was vivid support for a Hobbesian view of human nature, rooted in genetics.

Wrangham’s 2009 book, Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human, pursued a very different hypothesis. Based on archaeological evidence, he made the case that our ancestors mastered fire much earlier than most of us had believed—perhaps closer to 2 million rather than 800,000 years ago—which changed everything for them. In particular, cooking made possible a much more diverse diet, by allowing the consumption of fruits, leaves, and other plant foods with toxic potential when eaten raw. It made meat, too, safer and easier to digest. As a major bonus, fire extended the day into the night. Given how important we know conversations and stories told around the fire are to human hunter-gatherers, it’s easy to see how this process could have accelerated the evolution of language—an essential ingredient for less physically aggressive interactions.

In his new bookWrangham grapples fully for the first time with the paradox of the title. Over the decades during which he has focused mostly on the dark side of human nature, evidence has steadily accumulated that humans, from early on in their development, are the most cooperative species in the primate world. 

Put apes and humans in situations that demand collaboration between two individuals to achieve a goal, as a variety of experimenters have done, and even young children perform better than apes. 

Meanwhile, classic work on chimps has been complemented by new studies of bonobos, our other close relative. No more removed from us genetically than chimps are, they are a radical contrast to them, often called the “make love, not war” species. Some of our nonhuman kin, such fieldwork has revealed, can live and evolve almost without violence.

Wrangham draws on this trove of material as he pursues yet another ambitious hypothesis: “Reduced reactive aggression must feature alongside intelligence, cooperation, and social learning as a key contributor to the emergence and success of our species.” (By reactive aggression, he means attacking when another individual gets too close, as opposed to tolerating contact long enough to allow for a possible friendly interaction.) He also applies his evolutionary logic to studies of a wider array of animals. He dwells in particular on some marvelous experiments that explore the taming of wild foxes, minks, and other species by human-directed artificial selection over many generations.

Such breeding efforts, Wrangham notes, have produced “the domestication syndrome”: a change in a suite of traits, not just the low reactive aggression that breeders have deliberately singled out. 

For instance, in a fox study begun in Russia in the early 1950s, the pups in each litter least likely to bite when approached by humans were bred forward.

 Yet a variety of other features appeared in tandem with docility, among them a smaller face with a shortened snout and more frequent (less seasonally circumscribed) fertile periods, as in some other similarly domesticated species.

Enter the bonobos, to whom Wrangham turns as he considers how diminished aggression may have been selected for in the evolution of humans. Once thought to be a type of chimpanzee, bonobos are now known to be a different species. The standard view holds that they separated from chimps 1 to 2 million years ago, and were isolated south of a bend in the Congo River.

 Female bonobos form strong coalitions—partly based on sex with each other—that keep a lid on male violence. The “trust hormone” oxytocin is released during female sex: You could say that the partners are high, in both senses of the word, on trust. Because females run things, males don’t attack them, and even male-on-male violence is extremely limited. 

Bonobos also display the other traits common to the domestication syndrome, which suggests—as in the case of the foxes—a broad genetic dynamic at work.

Wrangham accepts the consensus that the difference between bonobos and chimps is fundamental, genetic, and evolutionary. 

His distinctive explanation of the divergence reflects his training in ecology: He has learned that over many generations, ecological realities create species-specific behavior. 

In the case of bonobos, he suggests, a lush habitat in which they were protected from competition with either chimps or gorillas gave them the luxury of decreasing their own reactive aggression. 

Other examples of nonhuman self-domestication in the wild exist—for instance, the Zanzibar red colobus monkey diverged from the mainland African red colobus in similar ways during its island isolation—but bonobos are the closest and most relevant to us.

In fact, wrangham’s notion of human evolution powered by self-domestication has an ancient lineage: The basic idea was first proposed by a disciple of Aristotle’s named Theophrastus and has been debated several times since the 18th century. 

This latest version, too, is bound to provoke controversy, but that’s what bold theorizing is supposed to do. 
And Wrangham is nothing if not bold as he puts the paradox in his title to use. In his telling, the dark side of protohuman nature was enlisted in the evolution of communal harmony.

Central to his argument is the idea that cooperative killing of incurably violent individuals played a central role in our self-domestication.

Much as the Russian scientists eliminated the fierce fox pups from the breeding pool, our ancestors killed men who were guilty of repeated acts of violence. Certainly all-male raiding parties have operated in some groups of humans, seeking out and killing victims in neighboring villages (which recalls the patrolling chimps that Wrangham reported on earlier in his career). The twist in his current theory is that such ambushes are turned inward, to protect the group from one of its own: They serve as a form of capital punishment. Wrangham cites a number of examples of anthropologists witnessing a group of men collaborating to kill a violent man in their midst.

The idea is intriguing, and it is indeed true that human hunter-gatherers, whose societies exist without governments, sometimes collectively eliminate bad actors. 

But such actions are rare, as the Canadian anthropologist Richard Lee emphasized in his extensive studies of the !Kung, which include the report of an unusual case: After a certain man killed at least two people, several other men ambushed and killed him. 

My own two years with the !Kung point to a more robust possible selection process for winnowing out aggression: female choice. 

Women in most hunter-gatherer groups, as I learned in the course of my experience in the field, are closer to equality with men than are women in many other societies. 

Evolutionary logic suggests that young women and their parents, in choosing less violent mates through the generations, could provide steady selection pressure toward lower reactive aggression—steadier pressure than infrequent dramas of capital punishment could. (Female bonobo coalitions would seem primed to serve a similar taming function.)

Although he downplays such a comparatively domestic story of self-domestication, Wrangham has nonetheless highlighted a puzzle at the core of human evolution, and delivered a reminder of the double-edged nature of our virtues and vices. “Human nature is a chimera,” he concludes, evoking both the hybrid monster of mythic lore and the biological phenomenon of genetically hybrid organisms. 

In a closing meditation on a 2017 visit to Poland, he writes, “I walked around Auschwitz. I could feel the chimera at its best and worst.” Violence and virtue, he recognizes, are not opposites but powerful, not always reliable allies. “So much cooperation,” he notes of the smoothly operating human machinery of mass murder—“it can be for good or bad.” To protect us from danger, which now arises mainly from our own inclinations and actions, clear-eyed wisdom like that is surely what we need.