VELVET DONK

Introductions

Preface

to top

Archives

Issue 1
Issue 2
Issue 3
Issue 4
Issue 5
Issue 6

to top

Contributers

to top

Tid Bit

(The Spin: 1) Christian Scientists are wrong; because 2) these diseases exist; 3) never put yourslef at risk for these dieases; 4) just read the symptoms again; yet 5) their names are fun to say; and 6) doesn't cholera look a lot like sperm?)

Downloads

Must Haves

(The Spin: 1) Record companies are seriously miffed about MP3 distribution; 2) of course, MP3 distribution will occur anyways; 3) besides, there is no way that the record companies are losing any significant amount of money on MP3 distribution; 4) because people who listen to MP3s don't have the money to buy all the real CDs anyways; 5) also MP3s take up too much space for the average listener to get all of the songs off every cd they like; 6) not to mention all of the songs aren't even out there to get; and 7) if someone really wants a whole CD, they will go buy it so that they can listen to it anywhere.)

Wallpaper

Lead

Untitled

by Dan

The moments of living are so scarce, so far and few between. Those times when an exhilaration beyond the unrefined bounds of roller-coasters and fist-fights manifests itself and vanquishes, at least for a moment, the dead hollowness of existence--those times are far too infrequent. There must be a focus; there must be the moments of subsistence. And picking up girls and popping Prozac just aren't the answers.

It's not about a high. And it's not about smiling. Power is not adrenaline; magnificence is not contentment; overwhelming sensory perception is not on one side of either right or wrong. The moments of true living, of acute awareness, where the so few beautiful parts of existence crack the darkness and soothe with divine liniment and elixir, neither good nor evil, are those where the hair stands up on the back of the neck, blood shimmers in its veins, extremities transcend warm and cold, and as if in a reprieve from imprisonment, the vise-grip on the brain loosens.

For me, it seems, those times are growing further and further apart, but when they come, they are proportionally more intense. Such is the nature of growing cynicism. I find it so more difficult to reconcile anything to myself, so when it happens, when there is symmetry and understanding and wonderfully warped perception, then it is as if all the angels of God were embracing me.

Once, in Freeport, around eleven o'clock at night, after the gulls had given up on sea minnows and sardines and winged off towards clutters of rocks strewn on hill-peaks and the dark water was lit up by the flashes of passing pike, I found myself sitting on the deck of a diving boat about seven-hundred-fifty yards from the nearest shore.

Night in the Caribbean is quite different from anything in the States. The absence of streetlights or high-rises results in a sky so glutted and overwhelmed with stars that even Orion obscures and blends. The moon glows larger than any Southern harvest-moon I've known, and during the summer, the wind that blows in from God-knows-where is warm, immolating.

Where I was, to my left cliffs climbed in a jig-saw pattern like some pleasing mockery of the Tower of Babel, and on all other sides: nothing-- nothing but black on black, sky on sea with no horizon line but where the heavenly bodies suddenly stopped and were replaced by the haze of phosphorescent algae. And what I saw was definitely beautiful, and I was content enough that I was not old enough to join the other divers beneath the surface, but contentment, as I said, is not magnificent. No, magnificent was what happened in the sky. On the sea, with nothing blocking line-of-sight, there always seems some storm miles away flashing lightning and lighting up the sky a moment or two. But the night was thicker, heavier, and the cloud formation and the make-up of the atmosphere made the lightning glow in not just hues, but shades of deep, deep colors. Thick blue to the west would be followed by neon green to the north, and southward, pink and gold flickered on and off--all random in pattern and appearance, but unquestionably perfect. And what I thought was only to last for a few moments soared through an entire hour, past the return of the divers, and followed me as I sat on the boat facing backward towards what I was convinced were the gates of heaven. Flash after flash, illumination past comprehension, emotion transcended to immortal proportions. . . . That is beauty, when something is so enrapturing that a thirteen year-old is unable to blink, much less not pay attention. I was surrounded by all glory, and--no matter what degree of agnosticism I would return to later--that night God existed. He flashed divine jewels before my eyes and sent the wind to rail even stronger than I understood. He screamed to me in the lapping of waves and rocks toppling off the cliffs. Such is humility, when convictions shudder and crumble, when awe awakens once again.

F. Scott Fitzgerald understood such awe. He defined life and the moments of living in between. He created a Gatsby whose images of heaven were so much larger than possible that their existence made him something great and their destruction meant his death. With the end of Gatsby's belief in magic, in a green-light across the sound, in something beyond the absurd human sphere, came the end of life.

There is a vacuum that slopes the shoulders and makes the eyelids heavy at night. But, as Toni Morrison so sweetly put it, "There is a loneliness that can be rocked." I'm convinced that if a similar display returned every night, I would never sleep. But there is no consistency, so there is no relief, and the exoskeleton of human callus grows thicker and thicker, until. . .

Three years later I wandered through the square of Marietta around eleven at night and happened to glance upward, and seeing what I thought impossible to repeat within the greater influences of man, I clambered to the roof of a brick building and greeted God once again.

Feature

Science: The Endless Frontier

by Dax

Parody

The extrapolation of present scientific theory affords sensible predictions for future scientific advancements within the coming century. Ignoring serendipity (which has historically spurred exceptional contributions to scientific progression), these predictions are: a quantitative unification of the fundamental forces of physics; a thorough understanding of the chemical and biological mechanisms of life; vast and controlled manipulations of genetic code; thorough comprehension of the mechanisms of evolution; continued geometric progression of Moore's Law; advancements in mass transference; and more tangible artificial intelligence. Then, after these predictions, who knows? A whole other set of forecasts could be formulated to anticipate the future of a future age. Thus, science manifests an endless frontier.

Reality

An essay contest titled "Science: the Endless Frontier" undoubtedly produces an aura of science-fictionesque predictions supplemented by overemotional depictions of an unfolding utopia. These predictions surely delineate a future age in which present scientific controversies and struggles have been decided and won. Yet we know from history that scientific advancement is not particularly synonymous with utopian advancement and that predicting even the general direction science proceeds proves an arduous task.

However, what other paths can science meander beyond (or around) grand unification theory and the manipulation of life? I meet with extreme difficulty when trying to predict viable scientific substance beyond these most universal inquiries of our present age.

Perhaps I am simply blinded by today's reality, or perhaps we truly exist at a bridge between far-reaching questioning and true scientific knowledge. Certainly the scientific frontier proves finite in the uncovering of physical laws; nevertheless, science seems no doubt endless in creating and improving upon the manifestations those laws have in the real world. After all, we will never run out of ways to need energy and space.

Inquiry

For any scientific prediction that I could muster, there exists a manifold of scientists who are equipped with the knowledge and experience to make it more conceivable and accurate. Therefore, I would be wasting precious time (both yours and mine) if I pretended to know as much as these scientists and composed an essay based on some fabricated seemingly feasible predictions.

Still, there are other circumstances that affect the scientific frontier (besides actual science): for instance, the stratification that exists between scientists and the general populace; the false dichotomy between science and religion; and the need for new scientists.

I once believed that these societal conditions would definitely form an extreme negative reaction towards the scientific community, rendering the state of science precarious and its scientists suspicious. I am now circumspect if such a reaction will ever materialize since 1) you can never predict historical responses, and 2) human cognizance is structured such that contradictory beliefs are not always rejected by the mind.

Despite these reservations, I find the possibility intriguing enough to indulge into speculation with this essay. Besides, there is some truth in the cliché of the aloof scientist who is so blind to a fire in his own lab that he is burned to death.

History

With the exception of the ancient Greeks, application of the scientific method (the science that we deem SCIENCE) began only half a millennia ago in the era of Galileo and Sir Francis Bacon. Before that time science was somewhat synonymous with philosophy: if you wanted to corroborate the geocentric universe, you considered the idea, rationalized the concept to a point of self-satisfaction, and then decreed that the earth was indeed the center of the universe. After the Renaissance, however, (although beginning to exist in a reproducible and more cerebral form) science was at most a hobby for rich aristocrats and their patrons. A direly small percentage of these scientists were actually educated in scientific theory (mostly because no such education was available), and any advancements that they happened to make were commonly accomplished in their homes and in their spare time.

An important actuality to recognize is that the religious hold on the world overwhelmed the general mindset of these scientists. They believed that a god had created nature for man's sole benefit. Consequently chemists ordinarily worked without physical protection in their bedrooms—leading to an astounding number of premature deaths as they uncovered nature's poisons, explosives and volatile substances that impact human sensory organs.

As time elapsed, science formed the basic role it has today: a more prestigious and stereotyped discipline, commonly interpreted as antithetical to common religion. Furthermore, science plays a paradoxical role in society. Creations of science bolster and are intertwined inextricably in society, yet the average member of society does not understand the basic principles of the science he/she utilizes, nor even cares to.

Moreover, as scientists adapt their world-views to include the progression of scientific theory, the general public maintains a religiously dominant¹ world-view that conflicts with many proven scientific laws. This disparity between the masses and scientists has subsisted through time without much tangible difficulty. Only a few minor conflicts have ever ensued: most notably, these are the reaction to the Copernican theory in the 16th century, the Luddite movement in the 19th century and most recently the controversy between evolution and creationism.

Friction

People do not generally defend or actively create idealism; instead, people generally respond only to direct attacks on their personal freedoms or beliefs. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, defended themselves against a misconstrued Copernican attack on common religious beliefs, which they embodied. This same type of response occurs in the present day religious reaction to evolutionary theory. These skirmishes attest that society reacts, for one, to causes that threaten majority opinion.

The Luddites, however, reacted to a different cause: their unemployment. The Luddites became angered when England's new industrial powerhouses constructed machines that could perform their jobs more quickly and efficiently. Whether simply unemployment or also a jealousy of science's creations and a loss of self-worth incited the often violent Luddite reaction, their movement elucidates a second (economic rather than mental) affliction that science can originate.

Although desecrating worldview and abating economic freedom seem like remarkable afflictions, advances in technology that have spurred such adversity have historically created only minor conflicts. Hence, if science were to create a future conflict that is extensive enough to warrant this essay, the cause of the conflict will most likely undermine both belief and economics to an utmost degree. Yet what scientific advancements could threaten belief more than evolution and disrupt economics more than the computer? Actually I foresee many such possible advancements such as genetic engineering, medical research that extends human life (overpopulation) and the manufacture of tangible artificial intelligence. However, I believe that the latter is the most probable advancement that could spur such a conflict, and thus I will use the remainder of the essay to explore the possibility.

Resources

Foremost, I conceive that amazing technological increases in artificial intelligence will not be needed to produce societal conflict. Such increases will only speed possible reactions and increase their amplitude. Nevertheless, we must not underestimate science's ability to progress.

Moore's law conjectures that computer capacity and speed will double every eighteen months. The twentieth century corroborated this hypothesis to remarkable accuracy, and microchip developers have declared that they can easily maintain the pace for at least another twenty years, just using conventional manufacturing techniques. If this steady geometric increase were to occur as predicted, the thousand-dollar personal computer of two thousand twenty will have computing power and storage capacity that exceeds the human brain. Plus, these projections ignore the real frontier of microchip technology; that is, revolutionary computing techniques such as the utilization of quantum mechanics and DNA, and the expected move to three-dimensional chip production.

Backlash

Artificial intelligence experts are quick to mention that computing power does not instantly materialize the robots that frequent Asimov short stories. Nevertheless, the cheap raw computing power that will be available in the coming years will easily be able to automate common mundane tasks. This atomization will essentially eliminate the blue-collar worker, which undoubtedly will create a future Luddite movement in an analogous future Industrial Revolution.

A theory exists in the social sciences that refutes this foretelling. The supposition is elucidated through a ladder metaphor where each rung represents a different level of skilled labor (e.g., construction near the bottom, scientist at the top). Proponents of the theory suggest that as technology progresses, the bottom rungs of the ladder will disappear and those who stood there will be educated and made able to stand further up on the ladder. The theory concludes that as time elapses, the ladder becomes shorter and wider, rising the average education level of the average citizen, without increasing societal unemployment levels.

I believe that this hypothesis has serious flaws. As atomization increases, I agree that the bottom rungs of the skill-ladder disappear. Yet the people who once stood on those rungs do not move further up the ladder, but simply fall off. Just because blue-collar jobs are replaced by more efficient mechanical techniques does not mean that society needs more people to labor at more technical pursuits. If anything, the increase in atomization will enable more computers to maintain themselves, decreasing the need for more technical workers. Furthermore, who for certain can claim those blue-collar workers will want to be scientifically educated, or even have the adequacy.

Additionally, atomization will eliminate more than just blue-collar jobs. Perhaps the economic middleman will be expunged even before the blue-collar worker—after all, the advance of more efficient mediums of communication have already begun the process. As it becomes easier to buy goods from home and directly from manufactures, all of the workers who comprise the economic assembly line from the manufacturer to the retail store are out of a job.

The reaction to widespread unemployment has historically been violent and vast, and this future unemployment may prove no exception; but let us assume the best-case scenario. Let us say that the decline in the work force is very gradual and is coupled with an increase in economic stability and government benefits (created by the want and need of society). In other words, the people that society has discharged due to technological advancement are now being supported through surpluses brought about by the same cause. If you extrapolate this process to a maximum exaggeration, the outcome is a society existing in a state of pure leisure.

The pitfall of this scenario is that leisure is misconstrued; retirement is not in itself self-satisfying. The monotonous job, although monotonous, provides fulfillment through focus and time filling. I find that most retired people that I meet are essentially bored: either groping at new activities as if they might contain some clue to their existence or in a state of perpetual couch-potatoness. Thus, I believe that there would eventually be a negative reaction to such a leisure-laden environment, which atomization could theoretically produce.

Moreover, widespread atomization might incite a reaction by the general populace to a decrease in self-worth. The current religious hold on the masses generally elevates the human view of being human. Religions instruct that we are god's ultimate creation; that we have been created in an omniscient being's image. If so, then the existence of a machine that can outperform and out think us becomes disheartening and abating: a blasphemy of the beliefs of the masses.

So far, we have assumed that increases in computing power will only lead to various forms of automation. Yet we know that this peculiarity will not occur. Surely computers will not be utilized for only one task at a time, especially in light of the general trend of technology to integrate. Clearly computing power will be used to try to imitate human behavior: strong artificial intelligence. After all, the most productive computer software of today attempts to interact with us in ways that hint at being human.

Since the dawn of philosophy, humans have been discussing the meaning of life, religion and consciousness. Of course, we have really failed to discover any wide-sweeping conclusions on the true meanings of these indefinable conceptions. Actually, answers to philosophical questions historically seem to occur only with the dawn of scientific progress. A case in point, philosophers argued that the earth was the center of universe until science proved that it was not. When science induces answers to philosophical questions that contradict majority belief, then conflict classically results. The evolution vs. creationism debate is the most recent conflict in the historical series of such science vs. religion controversies.

However, science, although often accused of offensively assaulting religion, has never overtly challenged the core of religious dogma (i.e., the existence of god and the superiority of humans). Even evolution, which indirectly destroys the notion of creationism, does not deny that humans are the showboats of evolution. Notwithstanding, the advent of artificial intelligence that either is or seems strong will create an overt contradiction to the superiority of humans. The condition of human existence as ruler of earth and its lower life-forms is stated explicitly in the Bible²—perhaps the most influential work of literature in a world where ninety-five percent of people claim to subscribe to a major religion, the bulk of which is Christianity.

Strong AI would produce another being which could think and possibly emote like a human, but which is not human. This machine might even do these tasks better than humans, thus shattering the general religious belief of the preeminence and distinctness of the human form.

Actuality

That even strong AI can exist is highly debatable. There are well defined arguments on both sides of the issue, with plenty of scientists that defend them. For instance, many believe that increasing MRI resolution will enable the complete reverse-engineering of the brain, thus empowering the manufacture of artificial but real human thought. Opposing this theory, some claim that simply connecting neural patterns will not create thought. Both opinions can be backed by current scientific theory and hence the question is unanswerable, yet I believe that it is nevertheless irrelevant.

Perhaps the most striking real-world example to elucidate this triviality is Deep Blue. Kasparov, a highly intelligent man, is definitely aware that Deep Blue simply runs millions of calculations—a pure machine. Yet this knowledge of Deep Blue's mechanistic nature did not stop Kasporov for one millisecond to become embarrassed, irrational and angered by Deep Blue's ability to organize its calculations effectively. His reaction was possibly a foreshadowing of a possible future trend in common reactions to artificial intelligence.

The point is, whether future machinery will actually be able to think or not, is immaterial to our discussion. I have already mentioned the stratification between scientists and the general populace—the common man does not understand the organization of his own brain, and definitely has never heard of the Turing test. Perhaps this unawareness will be advantageous, enabling the man to write off AI as mechanistic. Yet ignorance could also have an opposite effect: weak AI appears just the same as strong AI in the eyes of an unknowledgeable observer.

Of course, the real question is: will people personally feel afflicted by the existence of seemingly human actions or thoughts that are not human? Humans often assume that other people think in the same mindset as them; i.e., we believe, as scientific thinkers, that proven theory outweighs tradition. Yet the general public believes the opposite. Yes, people seem interested in science (e.g., dinner conversation), but only when it does not conflict with their other realms of thought, Religion truly involves a very immense proportion of general human thought and time. A case in point, in a gallop poll in 1995, an astounding twenty-nine percent of those surveyed answered that "an act of creation by God, broadly as described in the book of Genesis in the Bible" was the most accurate picture of the creation of the universe.

Judgement

Of course, I have no idea what the general societal reaction will be towards artificial intelligence in the coming years. I did not intend in this essay to declare that some brash reaction will ever occur, or oppositely, that people will ever learn to accept possible redefinitions of being human. I simply present that a reaction of some sort has the possibility to materialize.

Extremes always inspire discussion. If an immense societal backlash is to be created, then the scientific frontier may be severely dampened. Yet if strong artificial intelligence is truly attained, its use may lead to a utopian society with thinking machines as efficient and far-reaching as Asimov can render.

However, there exists more reason to speculate the first possibility then await the latter. The full range of possible human responses to advances in all sorts of potentially conflict-rising scientific theory should be examined (i.e., genetic engineering, biological extension of life, Extropianism, etc.). If the course of history is aimed at a burgeoning conflict between science and the masses, then we must do whatever we can to thwart such negativity. To do so, I envision only one path: education.

The endless scientific frontier will only remain endless in terms of human discovery, if we continue to discover. This a is trivial point because there have always been those who wished to indulge into scientific endeavors. Yet an extensive conflict with societal inertia could destroy this historical trend. However, if we uniformly educate our children, teaching them to think scientifically and with reason, then not only will we have all of our future scientists, but any future conflict will be thwarted—for the young will soon be the old leaders.

¹ I am of course taking the common usage of a religion person, and ignoring the possibilities of science as a religion itself and of the uncommon rendering of strictly religious scientists.
² "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Poetry

While it is Day

by Dan

And I pray that I may forget
These matters that with myself I too much discuss
Too much explain
Because I do not hope to turn again
--T.S. Eliot

to top

about cars

by Yaron

to top

Perfection is Hypocrisy

by Abby

to top

The Prodigal Son Returns

by Joseph

to top

Humor

Biology Class

"That's correct", responded the prof, going on to add statistical info.

Raising her hand again, the girl asked, "Then why doesn't it taste sweet?"

After a stunned silence, the whole class burst out laughing, the poor girl's face turned bright red, and as she realized exactly what she had inadvertently said (or rather implied), she picked up her books without a word and walked out of class...never to return.

However, as she was going out the door, the Professor replied (totally straight-faced):

"It doesn't taste sweet because the taste-buds for sweetness are on the tip of your tongue and not the back of your throat."

Civil Disobedience

by The New York Times

The 1997 Darwin Awards

5th Runner-up

4th Runner-up

3rd Runner-up

2nd Runner-up

1st Runner-up

1996 Winner

1997 Winner

News

Sleeping Together, Sleeping Better

by E.J. Mundell

The sleepless in Seattle (or anywhere) may want to get hitched, according to a new study. It found that marriage encourages restful, regular sleep patterns.

"Married persons reported lower daytime sleepiness than single persons," say researchers at the Sleep Disorder Center at Henry Ford Health Sciences Center in Detroit, Michigan.

Their findings appear in the current issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

The investigators interviewed over 1,000 young adults (aged 26 to 35) over a five-year period beginning in 1989. Each participant was questioned as to their employment, marital status, psychiatric history, and patterns of nightly sleep and daily drowsiness.

The results? First of all, the researchers say most young adult Americans just aren't getting enough sleep. "The average number of hours of sleep was 6.7 on weekdays and 7.4 on weekends," they say, much less than the 8 and 9 hours of nightly sleep experts believe this age group needs to function properly.

Certain factors may collude to discourage healthy sleep. "Being single and being employed full time were associated with shorter nocturnal sleep and higher daytime sleepiness," the study authors found.

They speculate that single people may run greater risks of "engaging in health-compromising behaviors" which delay or interrupt sleep. Marriage, on the other hand, helps in "shaping lifestyle and maintaining orderly patterns of living" -- reining in the 'wilder' behaviors of youth.

And full-time employment, with its 9-to-5 time restrictions, may not give young adults the flexibility they need to 'catch up' on lost sleep -- thus increasing overall daytime drowsiness.

The Detroit researchers also found that snoring, as well as major depression, had a negative impact on sleeplessness and daytime drowsiness.

Drooping eyelids during daytime hours can have "grave consequences," the experts warn, "including motor vehicle and industrial accidents, decreased productivity, and interpersonal problems."

SOURCE: American Journal of Public Health
(1997;87(10):1649-1653)

Church Going Boosts Immune System

by Reuters

Older people who regularly attend religious services appear to have healthier immune systems than those who do not, new research shows.

A study at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, found that those who attend services at least once a week were about half as likely as non-attendees to have elevated blood levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), a protein that signals inflammation.

This effect persisted, albeit to a lesser degree, even when the researchers accounted for factors such as depression, chronic illness, and negative life events -- all of which they say are likely to affect immune status.

Earlier findings in the elderly by Duke researchers showed a link between high levels of IL-6 and poor functional ability -- a phrase used to describe routine tasks of daily living, such as bathing, dressing, and cooking. Still other studies by University of California researchers showed increased IL-6 levels in diseases such as cancer, heart disease, and high blood pressure in older adults.

The Duke researchers theorize that the aging process itself may cause the body to lose its ability to regulate IL-6, thus the higher levels in certain diseases.

According to Dr. Harold Koenig, lead author of the study and associate professor of psychiatry at Duke, the findings suggest that religion may affect immune function through better coping skills, psychosocial factors, and the mechanisms by which organized religion promotes positive thoughts and behaviors.

"Perhaps religious participation enhances immune functioning by yet unknown mechanisms, such as through feelings of belonging, togetherness, even perhaps the experience of worship and adoration," he says. "Such positive feelings may counteract stress and convey health effects that go far beyond simply the prevention of other negative emotions."

Data for the study were gathered by Koenig and his colleagues from a group of 1,718 adults over age 65. The group is a subset of more than 4,000 North Carolinians participating in the largest national study ever conducted on aging in America, called the Establishment of Populations for Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly (EPESE), a 10-year project sponsored by the National Institute on Aging. About 95% of the sample studied were Christians of many denominations.

Previously, the Duke team found a similar effect between religion and good health, but those findings relied on personal interviews to gauge health status and feelings of well-being.

In the new study, when participants were interviewed, the researchers measured blood samples for levels of IL-6 and other substances which regulate immune and inflammatory responses in the body.

"We found that high IL-6 levels were significantly more common among people who did not attend church. That's the basic finding," Koenig says. "High IL-6 levels were about 30% to 40% more likely in those who did not attend church."

But Koenig cautions that the results of this study "do not prove that church attendance leads to better immune system functioning. It's an association. But the results are consistent with previous work in this area."

He says when the findings are taken in the context of the previous research, "it makes more sense to explain that it is the religious nature of the participation that seems to be a very important factor."

SOURCE: The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine
(1997;27(3\):233-250)

Greater Risks of Secondhand Smoke

by Reuters

The risks of heart disease and lung cancer are both increased by about 25% in nonsmokers who live with a smoker, according to research reports in this week's issue of the British Medical Journal.

The new findings strengthen the case for preventing smoking in public places.

The Londonresearcher also affirm that even at home, people should be encouraged to avoid exposing others to their tobacco smoke.

Writing in the journal, researchers from St. Bartholomew's and the Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry in London, England, report a "dose-effect" associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the home.

Their findings reveal that the risk of lung cancer in a non-smoker living with a smoker increases with the number of cigarettes smoked by the smoker and with the number of years they have lived together.

The findings on heart disease suggest that a small exposure to tobacco smoke can have a large effect, with further exposures having a relatively small additional effect.

The researchers note that, on average, the increased risk of heart disease in a smoker is 80% and in nonsmokers who breathe other people's smoke it is as high as 25% -- even though their tobacco smoke intake is only 1% that of a smoker. According to the study authors, this effect may be due to the sensitivity of the body's blood clotting system to small amounts of tobacco smoke.

The findings are based on a detailed analysis of 19 studies involving 6,600 cases of heart disease and 37 studies that included 4,600 cases of lung cancer -- all of which were studies involving nonsmokers living with smokers.

An editorial in the journal argues that a total ban on smoking is now the best course of action because it protects nonsmokers, avoids exposing smokers to extremely high levels of ETS in designated smoking areas, and it avoids the construction costs for building separately ventilated smoking areas.

SOURCE: The British Medical Journal
(1997:315:978-988)

Lyrics

Everything to Everyone

by Everclear

(The Spin: 1) These lyrics must
have personal motivation;
2) Everclear's tracks instantly
embed deep within your brain;
meaning 3) I don't think they're through.)

to top

No Rain

by Blind Melon

(The Spin: 1) Ex post facto,
suicide signs can be found everywhere.)

to top

Paritcle Man

by They Might Be Giants

(The Spin: 1) Good songs never die;
2) The church (triangle man = trinity)
will not beat science forever
(particle man = quantum mechanics);
3) Person man needs to get out of his
depression in the "garbage can"
and start fighting "triangle man;"
and 4) we need more intelligent bands like TMBG.)

to top

Expository

Wheelchair

by Abby

It's (convenient) that I learned the "life is not fair" lesson vicariously. Somebody eventually helped him up. In fact, the first person that stopped on his side of the red light jumped out of the car and did so. But for that minute, I watched with tears streaking down my cheeks a man rolling down the sidewalk next to a busy street try to jump one of the daily barriers that separates his legs from healthy legs. I felt his humiliation and misery. For the first time, I couldn't make it better.

The Genius of Sting

by Yaron

Does this cross-genre popularity attest to Sting's mastery of many idioms? Or is it more a reflection of the universality of beauty in music? I would place my vote on the former, although I could see good arguments either way. In any case, these accomplishments really leave no doubt as to Sting's stature as a songwriter par excellence. You would be well advised to go out and listen to much of the music that he has written, if you haven't done so already.

My personal favorites:
Album: The Soul Cages
Song: "The Lazarus Heart"

Out of Control

MP3s

by Geffen Records

However, because we oppose censorship in all its forms, Geffen, together with the rest of the recording industry, intends to stop those who take the work of our artists and redistribute it without permission. If you decide to substitute your judgment for that of our artists and distribute their full-length songs without so much as asking, we will take appropriate steps to stop you. Universities and Internet Service Providers everywhere share our desire to ensure respect for intellectual property rights, and we will work closely with them, along with law enforcement authorities where necessary, to achieve respect for our artists' rights.

Taking an artist's work over their objection and using it for your own purposes is as wrong or worse than silencing an artist; both are illegal, immoral and repugnant to any free society, and the recent strengthening of copyright laws reflects these basic principles.

Please don't assume we can't or won't take the time to identify you (traceroute and whois are wonderful tools) and enforce the law -- it insults us and only serves to ensure that if you are a student you will face severe sanctions from your school, or that if you operate a site it will be shut down by an angry internet service provider, or worse (if the problem persists, we will see the law enforced). Please don't assume we are ignorant to the possibilities of digital audio -- we have the same profit motive we've always had, and we want and need exposure for our artists and can imagine as well as you can the possibilities for selling and marketing music on-line.

Clearly there will be a transition, but it will happen only when artists' rights are respected and there is some order to digital commerce in intellectual property. Any other expectation is unrealistic and prolongs the delay as we wait for a future that promises a renaissance of creative expression fostered by an unlimited lifespan for art, and a world where new art can come to life that might not otherwise have seen the light of day.

to top

Ally Sheedy

• Autumn Heart (1998)
• Amnesia (1997)
• Buried Alive 2 (1997) (TV)
• Country Justice (1997)
• Crossroads of Destiny (1997)
• Groupies (1997)
• Hijacked: Flight 285 (1996) (TV)
• One Night Stand (1995)
• Tin Soldier (1995) (TV)
• Haunting of Seacliff Inn, The (1994) (TV)
• Ultimate Betrayal (1994) (TV)
• Parallel Lives (1994)
• Chantilly Lace (1993) (TV)
• Lethal Exposure (1993) (TV)
• Man's Best Friend (1993)
• Pickle, The (1993)
• Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992)
• Tattle Tale (1992)
• Only the Lonely (1991)
• Betsy's Wedding (1990)
• Lost Capone, The (1990) (TV)
• Fear (1990) (TV)
• Heart of Dixie (1989)
• She's Having a Baby (1988)
• We Are the Children (1987) (TV)
• Maid to Order (1987)
• Short Circuit (1986)
• Blue City (1986)
• St. Elmo's Fire (1985)
• Breakfast Club, The (1985)
• Twice in a Lifetime (1985)
• Oxford Blues (1984)
• WarGames (1983)
• Bad Boys (1983)
• Deadly Lessons (1983) (TV)
• Best Little Girl in the World, The (1981) (TV)
• Day the Loving Stopped, The (1981) (TV)
• Splendor in the Grass (1981) (TV)
• Violation of Sarah McDavid, The (1981) (TV)

Judd Nelson

• Steel (1997)
• Suddenly Susan" (1996) (TV)
• Blackwater Trail (1996)
• For a Few Lousy Dollars (1996)
• Circumstances Unknown (1995) (TV)
• Airheads (1994)
• Blindfold: Acts of Obsession (1994) (TV)
• Caroline at Midnight (1994)
• Flinch (1994)
• Hail Caesar (1994)
• Conflict of Interest (1993)
• Entangled (1993)
• Every Breath (1993)
• Primary Motive (1992)
• New Jack City (1991)
• Dark Backward, The (1991)
• Hiroshima: Out of the Ashes (1990) (TV)
• Far Out Man (1990)
• Relentless (1989)
• Never on Tuesday (1988)
• Billionaire Boys Club (1987) (TV)
• From the Hip (1987)
• Blue City (1986)
• Transformers: The Movie, The (1986)
• St. Elmo's Fire (1985)
• Breakfast Club, The (1985)
• Fandango (1985)
• Making the Grade (1984)

Anthony Michael Hall

• Cold Night Into Dawn (1997)
• Exit in Red (1996)
• Grave, The (1996)
• Hijacked: Flight 285 (1996) (TV)
• Bucket of Blood (1995) (TV)
• Gnome Named Gnorm, A (1994)
• Hail Caesar (1994)
• Texas (1994) (TV)
• Six Degrees of Separation (1993)
• Into the Sun (1992)
• Who Do I Gotta Kill? (1992)
• Edward Scissorhands (1990)
• Johnny Be Good (1988)
• Out of Bounds (1986)
• Weird Science (1985)
• Breakfast Club, The (1985)
• Sixteen Candles (1984)
• National Lampoon's Vacation (1983)
• Running Out (1983) (TV)
• Rascals and Robbers - The Secret Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn (1982) (TV)
• Six Pack (1982)
• Gold Bug, The (1981) (TV)
• "Saturday Night Live" (1975) (TV)

Molly Ringwald

• Since You've Been Gone (1998)
• Office Killer (1997)
• "Townies" (1996) TV Series
• Enfants de salaud (1996)
• Baja (1995)
• Malicious (1995)
• "Stand, The" (1994) (TV)
• Seven Sundays (1994)
• Face the Music (1993)
• Some Folks Call It a Sling Blade (1993)
• Something to Live For: The Alison Gertz Story (1992) (TV)
• Betsy's Wedding (1990)
• Strike It Rich (1990)
• Women and Men: Stories of Seduction (1990) (TV)
• For Keeps (1988)
• Fresh Horses (1988)
• Pick-up Artist, The (1987)
• King Lear (1987)
• Pretty in Pink (1986)
• Breakfast Club, The (1985)
• Surviving (1985) (TV)
• Sixteen Candles (1984)
• Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone (1983)
• Packin' It In (1983) (TV)
• P.K. and the Kid (1982)
• Tempest (1982)
• "Facts of Life, The" (1979) (TV)

Emilio Estevez

• Big Bang Club, The (1998)
• D3: The Mighty Ducks (1996)
• Mission: Impossible (1996)
• War at Home, The (1996)
• D2: The Mighty Ducks (1994)
• Another Stakeout (1993)
• National Lampoon's Loaded Weapon 1 (1993)
• Judgment Night (1993)
• Mighty Ducks, The (1992)
• Freejack (1992)
• Men at Work (1990)
• Young Guns II (1990)
• Nightbreaker (1989) (TV)
• Never on Tuesday (1988)
• Young Guns (1988)
• Stakeout (1987)
• Maximum Overdrive (1986)
• Wisdom (1986)
• St. Elmo's Fire (1985)
• Breakfast Club, The (1985)
• That Was Then... This Is Now (1985)
• Repo Man (1984)
• Outsiders, The (1983)
• Nightmares (1983)
• In the Custody of Strangers (1982) (TV)
• Tex (1982)
• To Climb a Mountain (1981)
• Seventeen Going on Nowhere (1980)

Paul Gleason

• No Code of Conduct (1998)
• Money Talks (1997)
• Shadow Conspiracy (1997)
• Looking for Richard (1996)
• Digital Man (1995)
• "One West Waikiki" (1994) TV Series
• I Love Trouble (1994)
• Revenge of the Nerds IV: Nerds in Love (1994) (TV)
• Nothing to Lose (1994)
• National Lampoon's Loaded Weapon 1 (1993)
• Boiling Point (1993)
• Running Cool (1993)
• There Goes My Baby (1993)
• Wild Cactus (1993)
• Majority Rule (1992) (TV)
• Maniac Cop 3: Badge of Silence (1992)
• False Arrest (1991) (TV)
• Fourth Story (1991) (TV)
• Wishman (1991)
• Miami Blues (1990)
• Rich Girl (1990)
• Night Game (1989)
• Spooner (1989) (TV)
• Die Hard (1988)
• Johnny Be Good (1988)
• Nightmare Beach (1988)
• She's Having a Baby (1988)
• Supercarrier (1988) (TV)
• Forever, Lulu (1987)
• Hollywood-Monster (1987)
• Morgan Stewart's Coming Home (1987)
• Breakfast Club, The (1985)
• Challenge of a Lifetime (1985) (TV)
• Doubletake (1985) (TV)
• Ewoks: The Battle for Endor (1985) (TV)
• Trading Places (1983)
• Tender Mercies (1983)
• Arthur (1981)
• Fort Apache, the Bronx (1981)
• Pursuit of D.B. Cooper, The (1981)
• He Knows You're Alone (1980)
• "Ike" (1979) (mini) TV Series
• Great Santini, The (1979)
• Women at West Point (1979) (TV)
• Ike: The War Years (1978) (TV)
• Vigilante Force (1976)
• Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze (1975)
• Little Laura and Big John (1973)
• Private Duty Nurses (1971)
• "All My Children" (1970) (TV)