- He may have won this weekend’s The Players Championship
tournament at TPC Sawgrass in Florida, but Tiger Woods isn't going to win any
awards for maturity after he and longtime rival Sergio Garcia got after one
another verbally on Saturday like two whiny elementary school brats fighting
over control of the monkey bars at recess. Prior to Woods claiming the title by
shooting a 70 on Sunday, he and Garcia traded barbs after Garcia
suggested that Woods could have shown better judgment in pulling a club from
his bag early in their third round. During a mid-round weather delay, Garcia
complained that he felt the timing of Woods' action distracted him. The problem
arose after Woods hooked his tee shot into the trees and was trying to figure
out his second shot to the par-5 second hole. At the same time, Garcia was
waiting to play his second from the fairway. When his shot sailed well to the
right of the green, Garcia reacted angrily, casting an angry glare toward the
commotion surrounding Woods. A rattled Garcia a went on to bogey the hole,
while Woods got up-and-down for birdie from the right-greenside bunker. "Well,
obviously, Tiger was on the left, and it was my shot to hit,'' Garcia said. “He moved all the crowd that he needed to
move. I waited for that. I wouldn't say that he didn't see that I was ready, but you do have a feel when the other
guy is going to hit, and right as I was in the top of my backswing, I think he must have pulled like a 5-wood or a
3-wood and obviously everybody started screaming.” Woods didn’t like hearing
his adversary complain and wholeheartedly disagreed with the Garcia's assessment. "Obviously, he doesn't know
all the facts," Woods replied. . "The marshals told me he had already
hit. I pulled the club and played my shot. Then I hear his comments afterward.
Not really surprising that he's complaining about something." Ouch. That
didn’t sound very kind, Tiger. Then again, these two have existed in a state of
mutual disdain since a 2000 made-for-TV exhibition in which Garcia
defeated Woods in a match-play event and celebrated like it was a big
tournament victory…….
- Junk DNA or not junk DNA? So-called junk DNA and its greater purpose has been debated for years,
but new research by Victor Albert, a molecular evolutionary biologist at the
University at Buffalo in New York, aims to settle the issue definitively.
According to Albert’s findings, this junk DNA doesn't code for proteins and isn't
needed for a healthy organism – in a non-human subject anyhow. "At least
for a plant, junk DNA really is just junk — it's not required," Albert said.
His work centered on a carnivorous plant, but could have implications for the
human genome as well. Genes comprise 2 percent of the human genome and in
recent years, researchers have debated whether the remaining 98 percent could
play some hidden, useful role. Many theories posited that junk DNA may consist of
genetic parasites that copy segments of DNA and paste themselves repeatedly in
the genome, or that it consists of the remains of once-useful genes that have
now been switched off. "Nobody's
really known what junk DNA does or doesn't do," Albert admitted. His work
may not silence researchers who believe that junk DNA might actually be useful,
including those involved in a ginormous project called ENCODE, which aimed to
uncover the role of the 3.3 billion base pairs, or letters of DNA, in the human
genome that don't code for proteins. Scientists in that effort found that in
test tubes, about 80 percent of the genome seemed to have some biological
activity, such as affecting whether genes turn on. If these new results bear
out, they would mean that such activity does not translate to any useful or
necessary function for humans, Albert and his colleagues sequenced the genome
of the carnivorous bladderwort plant, Utricularia gibba, a freshwater or
soil dweller in much of the world. The carnivorous plant sucks swimming
microorganisms into its tiny, 1-milimeter-long bladders. The genome they
studied had just 80 million base pairs and was interesting because the plant seemed
to have stripped out a vast amount of non-coding DNA. It remained healthy and
functional without it, suggesting that junk DNA may just live up (or down) to
its name………
- There wasn’t enough greatness in the tank for the weekend’s
most-hyped new film to dislodge the reigning box office champ. “Iron Man 3”
fended off a challenge from “The Great Gatsby,” banking $72.5 million to up its
two-week domestic take to $284.9 million. That was enough to hold off “Gatsby,”
which was solid in its debut with a $51.1 million tally. After those two movies
took their cut, there wasn’t much money left for anyone else. “Pain and Gain”
was a distant, distant third with $5 million in its third weekend and has brought
in $41.6 million so far. Fourth place was something of a surprise, as the
latest identical Tyler Perry movie and what feels like the fourth one already
this year, “Tyler
Perry Presents Peeples,” finished in that fourth slot with $4.8 million in its
debut weekend. Fifth place belonged to “42,” which remained in the top five for
the fifth time in as many weeks, earning $4.7 million and elevating its overall
domestic earnings to $84.7 million. “Oblivion” locked down sixth place with $3.8
million and its four-week bank roll stands at $81.6 million. “The Croods” was
next on the list with $3.6 million and its eight-week domestic earnings are an
impressive $173.2 million and counting. “The Big Wedding” tumbled two more spots
in its third weekend, earning a mere $2.5 million for an overall take of $18.2
million. Matthew McConaughey’s dramatic turn in “Mud” continued to go
relatively well in limited release as the project appeared in only 854 theaters
but still made $2.4 million for a three-week total of $8.4 million. “Oz The
Great and Powerful” had enough juice left for one more top-10 appearance,
adding $800,000 to its running tally for a $229.9 million total through 10
weeks. “Scary Movie 5” (No. 11) and “The Place Beyond the Pines” dropped out
from last week’s top 10…….
- Wise choice, Turkish Airlines officials. After
trying to drop a controversial ban on flight attendants wearing red lipstick or
nail polish because it made flight attendants appear too sexy, the airline has
doubled back amidst pressure both internally and externally. The controversy
began last week when the airline’s media relations department sent out a memo forbidding
flight crew members from wearing red cosmetics. The memo explained, in
thoroughly B.S. business-speak terms, that wearing those colors "impairs the visual integrity of
the intended look.” What does that nonsense actually mean? "Turkish
Airlines has adopted a policy that requires service personnel to use personal
grooming products that are in a more muted color palate,” the statement added
later on in its avalanche of printed nonsense. Booooooringgggg……and clearly
that point of view is shared by many because the wars of words from within and
without have led Turkish Airlines to reconsider the new policy – sort of. Dr.
Temel Kotil, the airline's president and chief executive, tried to spin the
situation his company’s way by insisting that there was never any official
decision made and it was only an idea suggested by lower-tier managerial
personnel. "It was not a decision actually, there's no approval,” Kotil
said, adding that the idea came from a paper on appearance standards prepared
by "low-level" managers. "This is taking us one step back but we're
going four steps forward.” The claim that it was just some theoretical concept
floated out there by an assistant manager in Ankara seems like a reach,
especially given that the airline is making other changes that seem designed to
take any remaining fun out of flying and turn it into an arch-conservative
experience. Among the changes are a ban on bleached hair for flight attendants
and a cessation of serving alcohol to economy passengers on many domestic
flights. The changes have raised concerns among secular Turks that the carrier
is becoming more Islamic and the separation of church and oppressive airline is
an important one to keep intact. At least red lipstick and nail polish are safe
for the time being, but this fight may not be over……..
- The scourges of the road are about to get theirs in the
Windy City…..as long as a stockbroker or package delivery employee on a Schwinn
qualifies as a scourge of the road. Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants to drop the hammer on cyclists
who violate traffic laws and believes current measures are insufficient to keep
these Lance Armstrong wannabes in line. Emanuel’s plan calls for fines against
law-breaking cyclists to increase from a flat $25 to a range of $50 to $200,
depending on the violation. “If they are sharing the roadway with vehicles,
cyclists must obey all traffic laws, including yielding to pedestrians,
stopping at traffic signals and indicating when they are making turns,” Emanuel
said. “When the traffic laws are obeyed, everyone is safer. By increasing the
fines for failing to obey the law, cyclists will behave more responsibly,
increasing safety and encouraging others to ride bikes.” Whatever you say,
Mayor McCash-Grab. The ploy is such an obvious attempt to generate extra
revenue that Emanuel should just go ahead and admit it. To make sure more money
comes in, he also wants to hike up the fines for motorists who open their doors
in front of people on bikes, a practice known as “dooring.” As part of the
mayor’s proposal, the fine for “dooring” cyclists would double from $500 to
$1,000, with the same happening for anyone who leaves a car door open in
traffic (increasing from $150 to $300). According to the “official” statistics
from the mayor’s office, there were more than 250 dooring accidents in the city
last year. “I’ve been doored or hit about 5 times,” 32nd ward Alderman Scott
Waguespack said. However, Waguespack astutely pointed out that the real challenge
isn't changing the rules, but rather enforcing them. Lots of luck on
either endeavor………
No comments:
Post a Comment