ARTICLES - HOT OFF THE FAGGOT

Video: Solar Eclipse Seen From Space

Amplify’d from www.wired.com

Video: Solar Eclipse Seen From Space

The Earth-orbiting satellite Hinode caught this stunning video of the annular solar eclipse Jan. 4.

An annular eclipse occurs when the moon is slightly farther from Earth than usual and appears slightly smaller. When it moves between the Earth and sun, it covers the center of the sun, leaving a bright, fiery ring, or annulus, at the edge.

Hinode, a Japanese mission, studies the sun’s magnetic fields and surface eruptions. The satellite carries three NASA-developed telescopes that capture different types of light:

  • The optical telescope sees visible light.
  • The X-ray telescope, which took the video above, can see deep inside the corona.
  • The ultraviolet-light telescope reveals the deep, high-temperature processes that heat the sun’s corona.

This will be a good year for eclipse fans. With four partial-solar and two total-lunar eclipses upcoming, watch for more sun shots.

Video: Hinode/XRT

See Also:

See more at www.wired.com
 

Obama’s Solution for Online ID? Let Silicon Valley Take the Lead

Amplify’d from www.wired.com

Obama’s Solution for Online ID? Let Silicon Valley Take the Lead

To help solve the modern nightmare of trying to control your online identity and keep track your passwords, the government came to Silicon Valley Friday and said it was here to help.


But rather than propose a big government initiative, Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke and the White House cyber czar Howard Schmidt made clear the feds want the private sector to take the lead.


“Just to be clear: We’re not talking about a national ID card,” Secretary Locke said in a speech at Stanford University. “We are not talking about a government-controlled system, but we are talking about enhancing online security and reducing the need to remember a dozen passwords.”


Schmidt described government’s role as being more like an organizer. “This will help us turn up the online economic engine, so online e-commerce is not shaken by the fraudsters that are out there,” he said.


Even more telling is that the effort is being lodged in the Department of Commerce, not in Homeland Security or the NSA.


When Schmidt first announced that the government wanted to do something to make it safer and easier to identify yourself online to businesses and bureaucracies last summer, it looked to many as if the government was trying to create some sort of federal internet driver’s license.


What exactly is the problem? In short, internet users have too many passwords and logins, there’s no easy way to prove to any website that you are who you say you are, leading many people to use and re-use weak passwords.


The government’s proposed solution is what the administration calls a “trusted-identity ecosystem.” The idea is to create an environment with a wide choice of trusted-identity providers that individuals can use to log in to a wide range of websites, including ones that handle sensitive data, using a single login.


Many internet users are already familiar with this approach, thanks to initiatives by Facebook, Twitter, Google, Yahoo and others. If you use Google as your online identity provider to log into another company’s site, for example, you are sent to a Google page when you encounter a page that shows you a Google login screen. You log in through Google, Google vouches for you to the other website, and passes along a little, some or none of the info in your profile — but doesn’t pass along your password.


What the government wants however, is something even more flexible and more secure, so when you buy something on an new site, you don’t have to create a new account and you can rely on the identity provider that you choose. Or if, you are logging into a service that is particularly sensitive, you have methods beyond simply creating a password to protect your account (a process known as two-factor authentication, which consumers might have run into in online banking).


One can also imagine having an identity provider that enables you to tie your home address, e-mail address and mobile phone number together so you could securely log in to the Social Security Administration and request a new Social Security card. The government would be able to mail the card to your house, with strong assurance you actually live at that address.


And while the U.S. government might like to use such a system, privacy advocates say the government has no business trying to create the system.


“The government can’t build this,” said James Dempsey, the head of the west coast office of the Center for Democracy and Technology who spoke on a panel at Friday’s event. “They don’t have the technology and they don’t have the trust.”


Philip Kaplan, the outspoken founder of Blippy, AdBrite and Fucked Company, added a Silicon Valley developer voice to the event’s panel, arguing that any system has to be simple to implement, so that developers working in their living room making a website can concentrate on building new features, not worrying about security.


The closest thing to that currently is Facebook Connect, which lets you use your Facebook credentials to log you in around the net and on mobile apps.


“I can put in one line of JavaScript and I have a login system,” Kaplan said. “But I’m not going to pay my taxes using Facebook Connect.”


Which is another way of saying it might be as dangerous for a single company to be the world’s online ID vault as it would for the government to handle that task.


And right now, with Facebook at 600 million users and $50 billion in valuation, that future seems much more likely than a standards-based, interoperative system built by geeks at the behest of the feds.


Photo: A fine example of what not to do with your password, and what passwords not to have.

Reidrac/Flickr


Read more at www.wired.com
 

Cardinal: Church-State Cooperation Makes Everyone Happy


Cardinal: Church-State Cooperation Makes Everyone Happy

Most people do not realize that the Vatican is fiercely opposed to separation of church and state.  Although it will generally toe the line when operating in a secular nation, the Catholic hierarchy constantly advocates for breaking down the barrier.
This article comes from Zenit.
Envoy: Church, State Teamwork Makes for Happy Citizens



Cardinal Dias Leads Conclusion of Vietnam Jubilee





HUE, Vietnam, JAN. 7, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Cardinal Ivan Dias, prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, represented Benedict XVI on Thursday at the closing of a jubilee year marking the 350th anniversary of the establishment of Vietnam's first two apostolic vicariates at Dang Trong and Dang Ngoai.



The Tuesday through Thursday celebrations, which also marked the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Catholic hierarchy, brought to a close a year-long jubilee. The events were held at the Marian shrine of LaVang.



Benedict XVI's Latin-language letter in which he named Cardinal Dias as his envoy was made public Dec. 28.



During Wednesday's events, Cardinal Dias compared Church-state cooperation to the parents of a family, according to UCANews. When the parents live in harmony, he said, then the children are happy.



“I hope God allows that between the local Church and State in this country,” the cardinal said in French, with translation to Vietnamese provided by Monsignor Barnabew Nguyen Van Phuong.



Church-state relations in Vietnam are troubled; though Catholics make up the second-largest religious group in the country according to a 1999 census, they are still only about 7% of the population. Almost 10% of Vietnam's near 90 million citizens are Buddhist, and the vast majority (80%) claim no religion.



According to the U.S. State Department's report on religious freedom, in the past year there were instances of local government officials occasionally harassing and using force against religious groups. Other problems included delays in approving registrations of Protestant congregations, and the continuing lack of approval by the government to translate the Bible into H'mong, after five years of waiting for permission.



The report also noted that there were accounts of harsh treatment of detainees who were accused of initiating violence during a protest over the closure of a cemetery in the Catholic Con Dau parish.



Nevertheless, there are some signs of improvement for religious freedom in the nation and after a meeting in June, the Holy See and Vietnam reported "positive developments" with regard to the advancement of diplomatic relations between the two entities.



At Wednesday's celebration -- attended by some 60 cardinals and bishops and 1,000 priests, as well as government officials -- Cardinal Dias noted that the presence of Vietnamese politicians was a "good sign for the future," UCANews reported.





He emphasized that the Church in Vietnam does not request special favors for itself, but only asks for freedom to fulfill its mission, seeking human dignity and the common good.



According to statistics provided by AsiaNews, the Church in Vietnam today counts almost 8 million members divided in 26 dioceses and 2,228 parishes. They are served by some 2,900 priests, 1,500 men religious, 10,000 women religious, 1,500 seminarians and 40,000 catechists.
Read more at thevaticanlobby.blogspot.com
 

Irish Protesters Demand End to Government Collusion with Catholic Church Child Rapists

Amplify’d from theintelhub.com

Irish Protesters Demand End to Government Collusion with Catholic Church Child Rapists

ITCCS members rally in Dublin, issue statement

By Kevin Annett

Protesters rallied yesterday outside government offices in Dublin to demand that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) stop shielding child rapists in the Catholic church, and threatening citizens who demand action.

Gerry O’Donovan, a member of the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State (ITCCS), joined with Kevin Flanagan, Dave O’Brien and others in delivering a formal letter of protest to the government because of the DPP’s refusal to bring charges against a Catholic priest, “Brother B”, who has raped at least nine girls.

The protesters also pointed out that the DPP has even threatened to sue anyone who demands the prosecution of suspected child raping priests.

According to O’Donovan,

“In the DPP’s letter to me it says ‘Under Section 6 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974, it is against the law to write to the Director to ask him to either stop or not to prosecute a case.’ Me, Dave, Kevin and others have broken that law by writing to him as it is considered to be ‘improper’. “.

O’Donovan also read from a statement issued by Kevin Annett for the ITCCS Executive, which announced the intention of the ITCCS Tribunal to investigate the DPP’s actions when it convenes next September in London.

The Irish group is planning a similar protest tomorrow in Cork. For more information contact the ITCCS at ITCCS101@gmail.com .

See the evidence of Genocide in Canada at www.hiddennolonger.com

Watch Kevin’s award-winning documentary film UNREPENTANT on his website www.hiddenfromhistory.org

“We will bring to light the hidden works of darkness and drive falsity to the bottomless pit. For all doctrines founded in fraud or nursed by fear shall be confounded by Truth.”

- Kevin’s ancestor Peter Annett, writing in The Free Inquirer, October 17, 1761, just before being imprisoned by the English crown for “blasphemous libel”

Read more at theintelhub.com
 

Crime Shocking Vid: Man Beats Cameraman With a Stick Over Animal Cruelty Story

Amplify’d from www.theblaze.com

Crime Shocking Vid: Man Beats Cameraman With a Stick Over Animal Cruelty Story

When a news crew from WGHP in North Carolina was sent to investigate reports of animal cruelty, they probably never imagined to catch pictures of themselves being beaten. But that’s exactly what happened.

The news crew originally went to catch footage of horses that were reportedly being neglected. The cameraman, identified as Chris Weaver, set up his camera on the side of the road and started recording. That’s when Kirkus — the horses’ owner — spotted him, and came running after Weaver with a large stick. The video shows Kirkus swinging at Weaver multiple times, Weaver pleading with Kirkus not to hit him, and then picks up the loud thump of when Kirkus ignores those please and connects:

According to WGHP, Kirkus was arrested and charged with two felonies — including assault with a deadly weapon — and the crew escaped without any serious injuries. Although the sheriff’s office admitted it has received calls about the horses welfare in the past, it said their treatment does not amount to abuse.

Read more at www.theblaze.com
 

Woe to the Wealthy

Amplify’d from www.spectrummagazine.org

Woe to the Wealthy


By Keith Burton

The recent extension of Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s prison sentence, took my mind back to the Tuesday in 2005 when the Russian courts initially sentenced the billionaire tycoon to nine years in prison for tax evasion and several counts of fraud. Worth an estimated $15 billion before his arrest, Khodorkovsky had accumulated his wealth following the collapse of the Soviet Union when he purchased oil fields from the state and formed the giant corporation, Yukos. Among free-market enthusiasts in the west he had become a poster-child for capitalist success. They saw his company as a perfect model of what can happen when the government steps back and allows private citizens to exercise their creative genius. In their estimation, Russia had finally entered the post-modern age of unbridled big business.

However, not all shared the enthusiasm of the western plutopaths. Millions of struggling poor in his home country viewed Khodorkovsky as a frightening example of capitalist excess. Indeed, it is when Khodorkovsky began to use his wealth to influence the political process that he attracted the attention of the government revenue department, and the rest is yesterday’s news.

Glass House Hypocrisy

At his initial sentencing, President Bush was first among world leaders to criticize the ruling of the Russian courts. I still recall the arch-warden of Guantanamo Bay remarking, “[in this country] you are innocent until proven guilty....” It’s easy to look out the thick distorting window of your own home and criticize the magnified weeds in your international neighbor’s yard, but I recall a proverb that cautions glass house occupants against throwing stones. As members of the current administration join their meddling predecessors and other Moscow-bashing sympathizers, I feel compelled to whisper a name in their ears: “Martha Stewart.” Need I say more? And she is just the tip of the iceberg. Who can forget Leona Helmsley–remember the “only the little people pay taxes” person–who was also rewarded by an all expenses paid detention in one of Uncle Sam’s penal facilities? And lets not forget Hollywood’s Wesley Snipes, Enron’s Kenneth Lay and WorldCom’s Bernie Ebbers.

Further, what about those who are able to fly below the radar? This is still the nation where the formerly ousted CEO of AIG could gift his wife with $2.2 billion in stock options while my premiums went up and the workforce was “downsized.” It is still the nation where the former Vice President has reaped millions of dollars from the same Haliburton that receives billions of dollars of tax payers money each month. It is still the nation where the middle class bears the brunt of the tax burden while the wealthiest get rebates for luxurious summer homes, only pay federal insurance taxes on a fraction of their income, and are entitled to Social Security and Medicaid even if they have billions in the bank. It is still the nation where three sons of President George H. Bush received painless slaps on the wrist for their involvement in the Savings and Loans debacle of the 1980s and other activities resembling fraud and insider trading.

Double Standards

I really don’t know if Mikhail Khodorkovsky is guilty of the charges levied against him, but I do know that there is something inherently wrong with an economic system that allows one person to stockpile wealth while others in the same geographical vicinity are dying of starvation.

Somehow in the west, we have no problem lambasting the Mbitis, Amins, Gadaffis, and Husseins, but tend to excuse the exploitative business strategies that will catapult a William Gates to the position in which his individual wealth is ten times as much as the combined wealth of the 33 million African-Americans residing in the United States. We have no problem criticizing nations who redirect international aid to building grand stadiums and presidential palaces, but say nothing when the Thatcher government implemented the controversial Poll Tax that exempted the royal family from millions of pounds in property taxes while further burdening the “little people.” We have no problem decrying socialist economies where government controls many of the services, but are conspicuously silent when an economic system produces the heirs of Sam Walton–three of whom are among the ten wealthiest in the world–who make their billions by eliminating established American companies while strengthening the capitalist friendly Chinese economy.

Woe to the Wealthy

Each year, leaders of the G8 nations convene at luxurious locations around the globe. It has been customary for protestors to appear at these conferences en masse as they voice their displeasure at the way in which the world’s wealthiest nations shamelessly continue the legacy of global exploitation. While the G8 voices are often muffled by the New Age visionaries who predominate the protests, I believe that Christian leaders also need to make a statement to the international oligarchy. They need to stand with prophetic boldness and let the privileged few know that God is not pleased with their selfish misuse of the world’s resources and their manipulation of the two-thirds world with their economic terrorism.

Our leaders need to remind the oligarchs of Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Plain: “Woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep. Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how the ancestors treated the false prophets” (Luke 6:24-26, TNIV). They need to confront the systems of oppression with the courage of James, who cautioned: “Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourself in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you” (James 5:1-6, TNIV).

For the Glory of God

As we enter 2011, I trust I’m not the only person who is concerned about the widening gulf between the rich and the poor. I believe it is our Christian imperative to confront injustice wherever and whenever it arises. With over 156,000 people dying from starvation every day, professed people of God need to reassess their priorities and ask the Lord what we can do to make a difference in the global community. This is not the time for the propagation of a prosperity gospel and the adulation of those celebrity preachers who have been possessed with the materialistic spirit of Hollywood movie-stars. This is not the time for adding non-functional icons in our places of worship as we attempt to pacify our cognitive dysfunction with the excuse that it is being done “to the glory of God.”

God is glorified when the people of God understand that we are our brothers and sisters’ keepers, and we have a responsibility to agitate the conscience of world leaders whom God so desperately wants to use as His benevolent servants (Rom 13:6). God is glorified when the “least” among us are touched by acts of compassion (Mt 25:31-46). As you consider the role that you will play in making a difference this year, never forget that “a tree is known by its fruit.”

Keith Augustus Burton is an adjunct instructor of Religion at Florida Hospital College of Health Sciences and Oakwood University. The column is an updated version of a commentary written on June 3, 2005 for his lifeHERITAGE Perspectives blog. Other commentaries can be found at http://www.empowermylife.org/perspectives

Read more at www.spectrummagazine.org
 

Education Parents Demand Removal of Candy From High School Condom Kits

Amplify’d from www.theblaze.com

Education Parents Demand Removal of Candy From High School Condom Kits

An AIDS Services group is reportedly removing candy from safe-sex kits distributed to high school students in Swanzey, N.H., after outraged parents lodged complaints with the local school district.

According to WMUR-TV, parents of students at Monadnock High School said they were outraged after learning that the “safe sex” packages distributed to their kids contained not just condoms, but fruit-flavored lubricant and candies, as well.

The kits were reportedly made available to students in December as part of a World AIDS Day presentation. Officials of the Monadnock Regional School District say they were not previously aware of the contents of the kits and have now banned them after outraged parents voiced their concerns.

From now on, parents will be notified when controversial programs are presented in the schools, one school board member told WMUR.

Susan MacNeil, director of AIDS Services for the Monadnock Region, says the lubricant was intended to prevent condoms from breaking and that the candy is “just a piece of candy.” MacNeil dismisses the notion that the candy was intended to entice kids to have sex.

Closing question: If Happy Meal toys supposedly entice kids to eat unhealthy foods, exactly what kind of message were they trying to send to kids about sex by including candy? Further, what kind of message does doling out condoms to kids send??

Read more at www.theblaze.com
 

Police Arrest 21-Year-Old ‘Jihadist’ in Pennsylvania | The Blaze


The Emperor's New Missile Defense

The Emperor's New Missile Defense

"Regardless of Russia’s actions in this regard, as long as I am president, and as long as the Congress provides the necessary funding, the United States will continue to develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect the United States, our deployed forces, and our allies and partners". So said President Barack Obama in a letter to the Senate in defense of the language contained in the New Start Treaty linking strategic missile defense and strategic offensive arms.

This letter arrived as the Senate was in the middle of a tight debate to see if the New Start Nuclear Weapons Treaty would be ratified before Congress adjourned and was one of the key factors, along with several fiscal and language compromises, that helped contribute to the successful ratification of the Treaty. Some Republicans were worried that the proposed treaty inhibits the flexibility and efficacy of present and future missile defense systems, while Pentagon officials and Democrats argued that the treaty places no meaningful limits on such systems.

However, absent from the debate was a key reality check: The President’s statement was wrong. We do not have an effective Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Defense system, and no one has ever demonstrated that such defense is technologically and strategically workable. This point should have been brought home on the day the Senate voted to begin debate on the treaty. That same day our existing Missile Defense system was tested, and once again, for the second time that year, it failed.

The air of unreality surrounding the Senate Debate followed a long tradition in this country. In a survey taken well before our current ballistic missile defense system was installed in 8 silos in Alaska and California in 2003 and 2004, 50% of the US public thought we already HAD such a system in place. They were about as correct in their assumption at that time as they would be now.

Failure has been the norm rather than the exception regarding our experience with Missile Defense. Before deployment, the system failed in at least 40% of its tests, even allowing for some debate about what constituted success, and after deployment the failure rate has been worse, with even the Defense Department acknowledging success in only 8 of 15 tests.

In 2002, the American Physical Society, which represents the entire physics community in this country, was so concerned about the technological challenges that it passed a resolution which seemed eminently reasonable, although it was subsequently ignored. The resolution called on the US government not to deploy a missile defense system until it was demonstrated to be workable against a realistic threat.

In fact, the system has never been tested against a realistic threat: an incoming missile with decoys, long known to be the Achilles Heel of Missile Defense. A decoy was supposed to be used in one recent test, but that test failed because the decoy failed to deploy.

The central problem with missile defense systems is that decoys are always cheaper to deploy than interceptors. Moreover, an imperfect system is intrinsically destabilizing, because it encourages building and launching more weapons. Even a system with 90% efficiency, far in excess of any existing system, will result in a 50-50 chance of successful penetration for every 5 missiles launched.

In 1972 Richard Nixon signed the ABM treaty because an active campaign by the scientific community convinced his administration that a workable ICBM defense system was not technologically feasible. Nothing much has changed in the interim.

This unfortunately has not stopped active campaigns to resuscitate expensive and flawed missile defense systems. Our current dysfunctional system has cost in excess of 100 billion dollars, with about 10 billion dollars per year going into the program.

Efficacy questions aside, there are serious National Security issues that make one wonder whether we should be spending such sum—and even in today’s world 100 billion dollars is significant—instead on systems that might address realistic threats.

Even ignoring the fact that neither North Korea nor Iran are currently capable of delivering nuclear weapons to the US via ballistic missiles, one wonders whether any potential adversary would choose the risk of immediate obliteration (ballistic missiles automatically allow one to determine, on the basis of their trajectory, where they were launched), or instead might decide it was preferable to attempt to smuggle a nuclear device into, say, New York harbor, where its origin might be harder to unambiguously discern and prove.

Some ABM advocates have argued that even if strategic missile defense systems have fundamental technological obstacles, simply the threat of a system that might shoot down some incoming missiles is enough to dissuade a possible aggressor from attacking. Logic suggests otherwise. In the first place, if an attack was based on rational decision-making (and again, since such an attack would have a high likelihood of being followed by an annihilating counterattack it is hard to wonder how reason would enter into such a decision)—presumably to inflict damage or terrorize our country—then in the face of an imperfect ABM system, reason would dictate launching several missiles instead of 1 against any prospective target.

Others have questioned why, if any potential ABM system is flawed, Russia objects so strongly to the US building such systems. One clear answer, which has been enunciated by Russia since the days of the former Soviet Union, is that such a system encourages a costly renewed arms race, requiring building more missiles to overcome each interceptor. There could easily be another, even more cogent Russian concern. An imperfect missile defense system is nevertheless likely to be most useful when we know in advance an attack is imminent, and from where that attack will come. Such circumstances would occur if we chose to strike first for example. In this sense, building an ABM system can be viewed as an aggressive step rather than a defensive one.

There is no doubt that now that New Start has been ratified both the United States and Russia will be more secure in the near term. However, what will be the long-term cost of ratification? If it empowers proponents of missile defense to grow a flawed program or otherwise increase the already ludicrous sums being spent on these systems, the net impact of the treaty on our national security could be more ambiguous.

What we need to do, now that we have introduced some more rationality into the international balance of nuclear weapons between the superpowers, is to follow up New Start with further negotiations on tactical nuclear weapons, and to focus on the best defense against nuclear catastrophe: getting rid of nuclear weapons altogether.

Whatever the future brings, it was nevertheless unfortunate that the debate in the Senate on an issue as important as New Start—of relevance to the safety and security of much of the world’s population—was not more firmly grounded in empirical reality.

About the Author: Lawrence M. Krauss is co-chair of the Board of Sponsors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and a member of the American Physical Society’s Panel on Public Affairs. His newest book, Quantum Man will appear in March of 2011.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Read more at www.scientificamerican.com
 

The universe is no fluke, Pope Benedict XVI says

The universe is no fluke, Pope Benedict XVI says

Pope Benedict
Why are we here? Many cosmologists think that everything—not just life on Earth but the planets, the stars, the entire observable universe—is a roll of the dice writ large. Other universes within a grander multiverse have entirely different properties, not to mention completely different laws of physics, based on different rolls of those cosmic dice.



Pope Benedict XVI might beg to differ. The birth of our universe was not in any way random, he said December 6 during a sermon to thousands at the Vatican, according to Reuters. Benedict's speech was given on the day that the Epiphany—the coming of the Magi—is observed in the Western church.



"The universe is not the result of chance, as some would want to make us believe," the Pope said, according to the wire service. Reuters reports that the Pope's sermon held that "God's mind was behind complex scientific theories such as the big bang" but does not quote Benedict explicitly mentioning the big bang theory. "Contemplating it (the universe) we are invited to read something profound into it: the wisdom of the creator, the inexhaustible creativity of God," Benedict said.



Maybe now cosmologists will stop contemplating the cosmos through the lens of their own theories—worrying about how the universe began, whether our universe is but one of many within a multiverse, and whether time and space may have existed in some kind of pre–big bang cosmic past life. Then again, probably not.



Photo of Pope Benedict courtesy Tadeusz Górny via Wikimedia Commons
Read more at www.scientificamerican.com