Does money help?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/1d6f9852-4a2f-11db-8738-0000779e2340.html

In the Article that I read, it talks about how you can increase your chances of getting into Oxford or Cambridge. It also discusses the chances of someone wealthy getting accepted as opposed to the less wealthy getting accepted. Oxford makes a point to keep it as equal as possible, by not taking into account how rich someone is, everyone is considered equal whether they come from a prestigious background or not. Unfortunately those from wealthier backgrounds are able to not only afford better schooling in private schools but also are able to give they children special classes in preparing for the interviews.
I think that this alters greatly who gets in or not, because it helps a lot to be prepared for an interview and know how to handle the situation, but on the other hand the interviewers are able to tell if you’re answers are rehearsed. Here are some excerpts from the article:

Also, not everyone is convinced of the benefits of intensive interview preparation. Martin Stephens, high master of St Paul’s, one of the country’s leading academic private schools, does not believe dons are looking for a highly polished performance. “I think the interviewers want to see some rough edges on the candidates,” he says. “If you do too much preparation, you end up trying to work out what you think the interviewer wants to hear, rather than just answering the questions. Nothing shows up more than insincerity.”

Parks also recommends putting down anything that shows enthusiasm for the subject. “Genuine hobbies that illustrate an interest in a subject are also useful, so helping out in your local animal shelter will look good if you are applying for veterinary medicine. Helping at local archaeological digs or visiting historical sites is something that should be a natural thing for someone applying to study history to want to do.”

Whether or not the emphasis swings away from performance in a don’s study and towards performance in the examination hall, it seems likely that wealthy and ambitious parents will still be able to give their children an advantage.
As Whittow puts it: “What the university is trying very hard indeed to do is to create a level playing field where it doesn’t matter what your background is and what school you have been to. But we have to face up to a brute fact, and that is that education works. We all know that if you have more intensive teaching and more stimulating teachers, bright people will respond to it. You can’t ultimately get round that fact.”
While some parents believe specialist coaching is necessary, it seems that a good education, some intelligence and a passion for your subject are the three essentials for cracking Oxbridge.
I think that now days, it is getting tougher and tougher to get into these universities since so many people are preparing for it. It takes more than just good grades to get into a university now, you need to go above and beyond it with extra-curriculars, showing interesting in the field you want to go into and lots and lots of prep. I think that it is unfair on those who are just as gifted but aren’t able to provide themselves with the extra prep, because acceptance into a university shouldn’t be based or influenced by wealth. This is the next huge step that we will be taking soon, and it is scary, there is so much to think about and to consider. Enjoy high school while it lasts I guess!

Boy buys car

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/26/baby.car.ap/index.html

Yesterday in London England, a three year old boy purchased a car on eBay. Not just any car, but a Barbie-pink Nissan Figaro for approximatly $16,000. He clicked on it while is mother's back was turned. He didn't just randomly click buy on anything, according to the article he liked cars - he went and found the page and clicked (they believe) the buy it now button. Luckily the owner of the car found it humourous and didn't hold them to the purchase.
Personally I think it is kind of bizarre that a three year old is able to by a car that quickly while his mother's back is turned. What happened to the good old days when they drew pink cars on the table? I guess I'm just old fashioned that way, I don't know, but I don't like the fact that children that young are able to work computers so easily. This means that they will only become that more dependent on computers than we already are. That and they will only know how to use computers, so so long are the days that someone will draw something by hand, nope now it will be done on the computer. Their eyes will be different, because they will be used to looking at a screen since birth. They will watch nature on the screen instead of going outside to experience it. I just think that computers are taking over and this is another prime example, yes they have their benefits, but when a three year old is already using it, that is when I find it just depressing.

Freakonomics

So I read the hand out, and basically it talks about what factors contribute to a childs test scores and what doesn't. Some of the things I can understand how they contribute, but others I dont see how it makes a difference. Such as having books in the house as opposed to parents who read to their child. It says that just the presence of books in your house means you will do better in school. I don't understand how that could work, because wouldn't reading them benifit you more than just walking past them? Also it says how television can help a child in school where as constant computer use doesn't help. I found this one interesting because our school is requiring us to have these laptops, although they may have some benefits, this article says that they won't help us get furthur than someone who doesn't have a laptop. Another thing which I don't know if I agree with is in the end of the booklet it says that what influences a childs school grades is more who a parent is than what they do for the child. This is really hard to see how that would work - I think it truely depends on everyone's individual situation. You can't say that just because the parent was smart that their child will be smart and vice versa. Yes these things help, but ultimatly it is the child who choses how much they care about school, or anything else for that matter, but those desicions are made through the influence of their parents and the environment that they grow up in.

Someone's helping out

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aLRlXBPxSvTM&refer=uk


Today Richard Branson has said that he will donate 3 billion dollars through out 10 years towards research to fight global warming. In the middle of the article it says:
Virgin is working to power its Virgin Air planes using renewable energy, Branson said. Earlier this month, he announced the creation of Virgin Fuels and said he would invest as much as $400 million to fund renewable-energy projects to reduce dependence on traditional fuels.
Virgin's fuel prices have risen $1 billion over the past three years because of the rising cost of oil, he said.
``High oil prices is what has been needed to wake the world up to deal with this problem,'' he said. ``The only way global warming will be whipped is if we can come up with alternatives to oil that are affordable.''
I think it is very good that someone of power and known on a global scale is finally taking a stance towards fighting global warming. Global warming is a serious problem that many people are in denial about, especially the United States. Now I am not saying anything bad towards the individual American, or saying that they are the only ones out there like this, but collectively, and by that I mean mostly the government, they seem to not want to do much to help combat global warming – although I do have to give kudos to those states where the individual state has decided to agree to the Kyoto accord, congratulations you are making a difference.
I think that everyone should be aware of this problem because it WILL affect you, it will affect EVERYONE. It is not something that you can escape, and it is not something that will go away if we ignore it. More people like Richard Branson need to get in the action, although I am very glad that he has done this, it helps raise awareness about this problem. If the United States were to agree to the Kyoto accord, then other countries would sign on, such as China – then would there start to be a notable change since these are two primary countries which emit so many toxins and gases into our atmosphere. Not only that but the countries who are already signed on to it need to uphold their agreement. This is a problem that we need to act upon now, before it becomes an even greater problem.
I was also listening to Richard Branson talking on CNN, he wasn’t given much time, but he was saying that he wanted to give it a chance, to try and help stop global warming “Just incase 98% of those scientists are right” he said – George Bush has stated that they are wrong. Hmm……

Some people may say that this is just for publicity and to gain more fame or power, but even if it is that, which I do not fully believe, he is still doing a huge favour to our environment. So I say thank you, and I also say stop being so lazy people and actually start doing something! Every little thing helps, don’ be so close minded and selfish to say that you aren’t making a difference – If everyone thinks that way then nothing will ever get done and we will all suffer the consequences of you being indifferent and lazy.

New Kids Toys

I don't know if I can do a blog entry on an advertisment or not, but here it goes:
I saw this add on Teletoon at around 6:40 pm on September 19th 2006

I was watching tv and there was an advertisment for a new Barbie doll. She comes with a dog, the exciting part of this toy is that you are able to take the dog for "walks" and then pick up it after is has gone to the bathroom.
The second advertisment I saw, along the same lines as the last, was for a doll which is supposed to be extremely real, so real that she goes to the bathroom and then you can change her diaper.
I don't know about you, but I find this really weird. I do not see the appeal in having a toy where you can clean up after it. Maybe this is a ploy to teach children responsability or maybe they are running out of ideas for new toys, I don't know. I guess it is sort of impressive that they can build toys now that can eat and then dispense of their waste in a realistic way, but honestly, who wants to "play" at cleaning up diapers and dog poo for fun!? Not me!

I want Timbits!

How shall I divide the Timbits?
I will assume that we can buy however many we want, but obviously not an extreme amount, so how I think they should be divided, is buy a minimum of three timbits per person and have extras if anyone wants. I chose three as a minimum because I figure that this would be a fair amount that would let us satisfy our timbit craving. Only one per person wouldn't be enough because you eat one and then you get a craving for another.
If we do have a limited amount, then I would chose to divide the amount of timbits by the number of people who want them.

More Mysterious Writing

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/15/earliest.writing.ap/index.html

Proof that The Olmecs, an ancient civilisation much like the Myans, had writing has been found. A green slab of rock was found and carved on it were many symbols of insects, fish and ears of corn, some even repeated a couple times. They are arranged in lines, and the block of stone's dimensions are pretty much identical to those of a standard legal pad. They believe it might have been descirbing a ritual; because of the way to surface is worn down it definitly wasn't a public document but rather something to be read over and over and to be carried around. It is believe that this stone is around 2900 years old (this was determined by the other artifacts found around it).
In the article it says:
"To me, this find really does bring us back to this idea that at least writing and a lot of the things we associate with Mesoamerican culture really did have their origin in this region," Stuart said.

I think that it is pretty cool that even now we are still discovering more and more artifacts from thousands of years ago. Not only that, but our knowledge is so limited to what we know about these people and their civilisation. There are probably SO many more of these types of slabs with ancient writing on them, not only where these were found (in Veracruz in Mexico, in 1999 - it has taken a while for the discovery to be known to the public), but all over the world. It is fascinating that there is so much knowledge and wisdom that these people knew and that we will only discover and understand so much of it. Who knows, they might have known stuff that we don't even know now, or there are things that happened then that have affected us but we don't know about it. There is a lot out there and we will just keep discovering it, and then in another thousand years people will be discovering stuff out us. It's pretty weird and interesting to think about.

No more women?

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2006/09/11/quebec-alcohol.html

okay, so second attempt at writing this since my first one disappeared.

I read this article on the Quebec alcohol industry group. They are trying to get advertisers to "abide by a more conservative code of ethics". In the last couple of years there have been many many complaints about the use of women in alcohol advertsiments. Women have been used over and over again as the primary advertising technique in these ads. These ads have relied purely on women and their sex appeal to sell alcohol. For all the work that women have done over the years concerning womens rights, I would say that this is quite a step backwards. It is wrong to degrade women inorder to sell beer. It is a very unimaginative advertising technique and should definitly be changed.
"The group is asking the industry to voluntarily adopt the new code, which forbids sexism or the association of products with sexual performance, sexual attraction or popularity." Not only is this degrading towards women, the fact that their breasts are used to make people want to buy alcohol, but also it affects all the younger girls out there too. They see these ads and it influences them, maybe not to go and buy beer, but on how they look. The media, be it an advertisement, a movie or a television show, is a huge influence on people whether they want it to be or not.

Not only are they trying to ban that, but they are also not allowing them to use women who look under 25 in the ads or are they allowing them to make alcohol look especially appealing to those under 18. I think that this will be extremely hard to do (the under 18 part). Teens are naturally curious people. Whether or not the advertisments make alcohol look appealing to them, they will still be tempted to try it anyways. There are so many different influences in a teen's world that to completly rule out the curiosity towards alcohol, i think, is virtually impossible. I'm not saying that this is a bad idea, to make it seem less appealing, I'm just saying it will be a hard thing to accomplish.
All in all, I think this is a very good idea, and that it is about time that something other than a woman's body be used to sell a product. I don't think it will end soon, or die out quickly, unfortunatly it is an effective technique, whether we like it or not, but thankfully we are attempting to stop it.

Who Has What in Canada

I read the handout given out in economics, basically it talks about Canada's wealthy and poor and what causes one to settle into the class that they are. After reading it I think that the government should make a greater effort when it comes to education because if you are able to educate people and provide them with a high school education, then they are able to move forward. Also, if they are taught about the possibilities out there, and shown how they can change their situation, then they might be more likely to succeed. I feel that the government should make more of an effort to provide the less fortunate with more scholarships and opportunities, because that way everyone has an equal chance and then it is up to you how you choose to use it.

Steve Irwin

So, I'm sure you've all heard, Steve Irwin passed away recently. I read an article about him from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/obituaries/05irwin.html?ex=1173067200&en=499e93d8458470ed&ei=5087&excamp=GGGNsteveirwin
(there's the link). The article talks about his accopmlishments, his TV series, which I remember watching when I was young. It says; “He was knowledgeable and seemed to care passionately about wildlife,” Dr. Smith said. “He took a very outgoing approach that made people less fearful of sharks and other mean things out there.” He will definitly be missed. He starred in multiple movies and tv shows, he left behind a wife and two kids (one son and one daughter) and tons of fans world wide.
He was killed by a sting ray. He swam overtop of it, and must have frightened it because the sting ray shot a venomous barb into his chest. He died moments later by cardiac arrest. When I first heard this, it was shocking, you don't expect this type of thing to happen. First of all, deaths by sting rays are rare and secondly you never expect someone like him, or anyone "young" to die so suddenly and randomly. It is hard to understand why some people make it and others don't. Lots of times I guess it's just luck, which is difficult to accept. He was definitly entertaining to watch and listen to; he was someone who was deply passionate about his work. Crikey! We'll miss ya.

test

this is a test