UNIVERSE EXPLORATION

Universe Exploration – very short view...

[at the beginning I would like to inform you that I’m not allowed to place here every worth news and information – this is a topic for hours, even days. If you read and decide that it’s not enough you will find more at provided links]

Space exploration is the use of astronomy and space technology to explore outer space.

Physical exploration of space is conducted both by human spaceflights and by robotic spacecraft. While the observation of objects in space, known as astronomy, predates reliable recorded history, it was the development of large and relatively efficient rockets during the early 20th century that allowed physical space exploration to become a reality. Common rationales for exploring space include advancing scientific research, uniting different nations, ensuring the future survival of humanity and developing military and strategic advantages against other countries. Various criticisms of space exploration are sometimes made.

The early era of space exploration was driven by a "Space Race" between the Soviet Union and the United States. The USSR launched the first man-made object to orbit the Earth - Sputnik 1 on October 4 1957. But American Apollo 11 craft putted the first man on the Moon on July 20 1969 The Soviet space program achieved many of the first milestones, including the first living being in orbit in 1957, the first human spaceflight (Yuri Gagarin aboard Vostok 1) in 1961, the first spacewalk (by Aleksei Leonov) in 1965, the first automatic landing on another celestial body in 1966, and the launch of the first space station (Salyut 1) in 1971.

After the first 20 years of exploration, focus shifted from one-off flights to renewable hardware, such as the Space Shuttle program (Space Shuttle – kind of a spacecraft designed by NASA for orbital spaceflight missions), and from competition to cooperation as with the International Space Station (ISS – internationally developed research facility placed on the lower Earth orbit).

From the 1990s onwards, private interests began promoting space tourism and then private space exploration of the Moon.

In the 2000s, the People's Republic of China initiated a successful manned spaceflight program, while the European Union, Japan, and India have also planned future manned space missions. The United States has committed to return to the Moon by 2018 and later Mars. China, Russia, Japan, and India have advocated manned missions to the Moon during the 21st century, while the European Union has advocated manned missions to both the Moon and Mars during the 21st century.

Targets of exploration

The Sun

While the Sun will probably not be physically explored in the close future, one of the reasons for going into space includes knowing more about the Sun. Once above the atmosphere in particular and the Earth's magnetic field, this gives access to the Solar wind and infrared and ultraviolet radiations that cannot reach the surface of the Earth. The Sun generates most space weather, which can affect power generation and transmission systems on Earth and interfere with, and even damage, satellites and space probes.

Mercury

Mercury remains the least explored of the inner planets. As of January 2008, the Mariner 10 and Messenger (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html) missions have been the only missions that have made close observations of Mercury. Messenger made a fly-by of Mercury on 14 January 2008, to further investigate the observations made by Mariner 10 in 1975 (Munsell, 2006). A third mission to Mercury, scheduled to arrive in 2020, BepiColombo is a joint mission between Japan and the European Space Agency.

Flights to other planets within the Solar System are accomplished at a cost in energy, which is described by the net change in velocity of the spacecraft, or delta-v. Due to the relatively high delta-v to reach Mercury and its proximity to the Sun, it is difficult to explore and orbits around it are rather unstable.

Venus

Venus was the first target of interplanetary flyby and lender missions and, despite one of the most hostile surface environments in the solar system, has had more lenders sent to it (nearly all from the Soviet Union) than any other planet in the solar system. The first successful Venus flyby was the American Mariner 2 spacecraft, which flew past Venus in 1962. Ten successful orbiter missions have been sent to Venus, including later missions which were able to map the surface of Venus using radar to pierce the obscuring atmosphere.

Earth

Space exploration has been used as a tool to understand the Earth as a celestial object in its own right. Orbital missions can provide data for the Earth that can be difficult or impossible to obtain from a purely ground-based point of reference.

Earth's Moon

Earth's Moon was the first celestial body to be the object of space exploration. It holds the distinctions of being the first remote celestial object to be flown by, orbited, and landed upon by spacecraft, and the only remote celestial object ever to be visited by humans.

In 1959 the Soviets obtained the first images of the far side of the Moon, never previously visible to humans. The U.S. exploration of the Moon began with the Ranger 4 in 1962.

In 1969 the Apollo 11 (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/index.html.) mission marked the first time humans set foot upon another world. Manned exploration of the Moon did not continue for long, however. The Apollo 17 mission in 1972 marked the last time humans would visit the Moon in any form and no human exploration mission is planned to reach the Moon any time in the near future.

Mars

The exploration of Mars has been an important part of the space exploration programs of the Soviet Union (later Russia), the United States, Europe, and Japan. Dozens of robotic spacecraft, including orbiters, landers, and rovers, have been launched toward Mars since the 1960s. These missions were aimed at gathering data about current conditions and answering questions about the history of Mars. Just to find the water and possible future of Earth.

The exploration of Mars has come at a considerable financial cost with roughly two-thirds of all spacecraft destined for Mars failing before completing their missions, with some failing before they even began.

The Phoenix lander descended on Mars on May 25, 2008. Mission scientists used instruments aboard the lander to search for environments suitable for microbial life on Mars, and to research the history of water there. May 25, 2010 NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander has ended operations after repeated attempts to contact the spacecraft were unsuccessful. A new image transmitted by NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter shows signs of severe ice damage to the lander's solar panels.

Phobos [Mars’s Moon]

The Russian space mission Phobos-Grunt, Scheduled to launch in 2011, will begin exploration of the Phobos and Martian circumterrestrial orbit, and study whether the moons of Mars, or at least Phobos, could be a "trans-shipment point" for spaceships travelling to Mars.

Jupiter

The exploration of Jupiter has consisted solely of a number of automated NASA spacecraft visiting the planet since 1973. The Galileo ( ) spacecraft is the only one to have orbited the planet. As Jupiter is believed to have only a relatively small rocky core and no real solid surface, a landing mission is nearly impossible.

Jupiter has over 60 known moons, many of which have relatively little known about them.

Saturn

Saturn has been explored only through unmanned spacecraft launched by NASA, including one mission planned and executed in cooperation with other space agencies. These missions consist of flybys in 1979 by Pioneer 11, in 1980 by Voyager 1, in 1982 by Voyager 2 (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/index.html) and an orbital mission by the Cassini (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/main/index.html) spacecraft which entered orbit in 2004 and is expected to continue its mission well into 2010.

Saturn has at least 62 satellities, although the exact number is debatable since Saturn's rings are made up of vast numbers of independently orbiting objects of varying sizes.

Uranus

The exploration of Uranus has been entirely through the Voyager 2 (see upper link) spacecraft, with no other visits currently planned. Given its axial tilt of 97.77°, with its polar regions exposed to sunlight or darkness for long periods, scientists were not sure what to expect at Uranus. The closest approach to Uranus occurred on January 24, 1986. Voyager 2 studied the planet's unique atmosphere and magnetosphere. Voyager 2 also examined its ring system and the moons of Uranus including all five of the previously known moons, while discovering an additional ten previously unknown moons.

Neptune

The exploration of Neptune began with the August 25, 1989 Voyager 100 (see upper link) flyby, the sole visit to the system as of 2009. The possibility of a Neptune Orbiter has been discussed, but no other missions have been given serious thought.

Pluto

The dwarf planet (is a celestial body orbiting a star that is massive enough to be spherical as a result of its own gravity but has not cleared its neighbouring region of planetesimals and is not a satellite).

Pluto presents significant challenges for spacecraft because of its great distance from Earth (requiring high velocity for reasonable trip times) and small mass (making capture into orbit very difficult at present). Voyager 1 could have visited Pluto, but controllers opted instead for a close flyby of Saturn's moon Titan, resulting in a trajectory incompatible with a Pluto flyby. Voyager 2 never had a plausible trajectory for reaching Pluto.

Current missions:

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/current/index.html

Future missions:

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/future/index.html

Hot news about the Space:

On 2024 NASA is going to start a colonization of the Moon by finishing the first space base. It will be a short stop between Mars expansion in 2030.

NASA, based on Stephen Hawking knowledge and discoveries, plans to find an alternative planet (solution) for the Earth. “People should start to colonize Universe, otherwise they would destroy life on the Earth.

The European astrologists discovered the Earth-like planet that could be covered in oceans and may support life is 20.5 light years away, and has the right temperature to allow liquid water on its surface.

Worth to see:

http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/index.php,

http://www.universetoday.com/,

http://www.nasa.gov/,

http://www.space.com/

1) What is your opinion about colonization of the Universe? Should humans do that?

2) Is there any other life out there?

3) Should we find The Star Wars and Star Treck plots more realistic nowadays?

Bloopers

Part II - Bloopers...

A blooper is a short sequence of a film or video production, usually a deleted scene, containing a mistake made by a member of the cast or crew. These bloopers, or outtakes as they are also called, are often the subject of television shows or are occasionally revealed during the credit sequence at the end of comedy movies. Humorous mistakes made by athletes are often referred to as bloopers as well, particularly in baseball.

Bloopers are usually accidental and humorous. Where actors need to memorize large numbers of lines or perform a series of actions in quick succession, mistakes can be expected. Similarly, newsreaders have only a short time to deliver a large amount of information and are prone to mispronounce place names and people's names, or switch a name or word without realizing it, as in a slip-of-the-tongue or Freudian slip.

Some common examples include:

• Inconsistent dating of plots
• Inconsistent costumes between scenes
• Uncontrollable laughter (called in television circles, corpsing);
• Unanticipated incidents (e.g. a prop falling or breaking);
• Forgotten lines; or
• Deliberate sabotage of an actor's performance by a fellow actor (to evoke laughter).

As well, many bloopers are made on purpose by moving in a video game and adding funny speech.

The famous old chestnut of show business "Never work with children or animals" demonstrates two other causes of out-takes: Children, especially such who have no acting experience, often miss cues, deliver the wrong lines or make comments which are particularly embarrassing. Similarly, animals are very likely to do things not in the script, generally involving bodily functions.

A third type of blooper is caused by failure of inanimate objects. This can be as simple as a sound effect being mistimed or a microphone not working, but frequently involves doorknobs (and doors) not working or breaking, props and sets being improperly prepared, as well as props working in ways they should not work.

In recent years, mobile phones have been a new source of bloopers with them frequently going off. Many of them belong to actors, presenters and contestants who may have forgotten to turn them off or put in silent mode. The effect is especially pronounced when the film setting is before the modern era (e.g., Ancient Greece or Rome). However, this blooper is rarely seen in recent films but

commonly used in fake bloopers for animations.

The reaction to bloopers is often intensified in the stressful environment of a movie or television set, with some actors expressing extreme annoyance while others enjoy the stress relief brought on by the unexpected event.

Lost - is a famous American television series created by Jeffrey Lieber.

Toy Story is a 1995 American computer-animated family film, created by Disney/Pixar.

House (a.k.a. House, M.D.) is an American television medical drama that debuted on the Fox network on November 16, 2004.

Do you have any favorite blooper?

Against violence in family

Media know how to lure our attention. People like to read and hear about violence because of some reasons. In the same moment they feel disgusted or outraged, but they willingly look at headlines foreshadowing crime stories. The more they are outraged, the more eagerly they follow the terrible stories. When they hear about children who are victims of violence, they are especially concerned.

Not surprisingly there are many news about such incidents. They are often accompanied with discussion about efficiency of current low against violence at home. Lately we could observe a real struggle for more powerful legal tools to protect DV victims. It fruited with new version of an act against domestic violence. This upgraded act doesn't differ much from last version but it has some very controversial statements, which caused a real struggle before voting. The new law set up special committees which are meant to invigilate family without any injunction and violate its privacy. Moreover, it allows social worker to take a child away from home without previous court's decision. As social workers usually base on "Social Worker Guide" it's good to know, what does it label as DV. Among others these are "imposing personal opinions" or "criticism of sexual behavior". Supporters of new act say that anyone sane wouldn't take a child away from its family because of these reason. Still, it allows social workers to do it.

http://walktherapist.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/it-was-just-a-spat/

If it happens, it would be definitely unexplained harm to family and to children themselves. Tearing family apart must be hurtful even if this family isn't perfect. This kind of legal acts have already functioned in the world, so we're not talking about abstract future but about something that we can observe and estimate.

Children taken from their parents can be adopted and have new houses. Can you imagine what do they feel?

Sweden is probably the best example. Social workers can take children away from their families for over 30 years. They say that they do it to protect children. Ruby Harrold-Claesson, a lawyer and chairwoman of Nordic Committee on Human Right admits that they often don't have any rational reasons to do it. Usually, if they take a child, they never give it back. It is always a trauma for kids.

Children in Sweden know their rights. Since preschool they are teched, that their parents can't smack them and if they do, children can report it so parents would be punished. 3-years old boy or girl can't predict the real consequences of this kind of "report".

As a result there is about 20 000 children per year taken away from their homes.

There are absurd trials, because teenagers were smacked by their parents, when kids did really something evil causing serious harms to their siblings.

There is a document prepared by The Nordic Committee for Human Rights which points the results of the Swedish anti-smacking law. I would like to cite just few sentences:

• The law against physical punishment does more damage to children than a smack from a mother or father. When the authorities intervene in the life of a well-functioning family, its life is destroyed. There is nothing that can mend the resulting hurt, pain and bitterness, and the children are the losers.
• When children are removed from their supposedly 'abusive' parents and taken into care, they suffer the torture of forced separation from parents, brothers and sisters, and other relatives and friends. They are also exposed to the risk of real abuse. Such children are frequently subjected to physical, mental, and even sexual abuse, but social workers seldom listen to the complaints of children in care.
• The 1979 law has caused incalculable damage to countless families where allegations have been made and investigations carried out, even where the charges have been dropped at an early stage.

The whole act you can find here: http://www.nkmr.org/english/anti_smacking_law_consultation_paper.htm. It is worth reading.

Of course there are families who really don't menage with their parental duties. In many countries, also in UK, state doesn't always help them to solve the problems. There is another option: forced adoption. Is it a happy solution for everyone?

If "anti-smacking law" is so bad, why do politicians still force it? ACT New Zealand Justice Spokesman Stephen Franks says: "It has nothing to do with reason. There's no evidence that banning smacking would save a single child from brutality. Some earnest people of good intent are caught up in this - but, mainly, this is about political elites wanting to look good to their mates." Here you read more: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0311/S00517.htm and http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0610/S00150.htm.

This nightmare is going on in many countries.

Many social workers are not well educated or trained people. In Poland these are very often nurses who started their work when social workers were meant to help to take care of health in families. Should they have so big authorities?

Can you imagine how easily it becomes to blackmail someone with such powerful instruments?

What if someone corrupt a social worker?

In the end I would like to recommend two more links: http://www.mothers-for-justice.net/ and http://www.fathers-4-justice.org/.

1. What do you think about Polish new act against violence in family?

2. Imagine that your child was taken from you. How would you feel? What would you do?

3. Have you heard about "Kocham, nie biję" campaign? Do you think it could influence on social atmosphere during discussion about changes in anti DV legislation?

The movie mistakes...

Part I - movie mistakes.

Nearly every move contains some mistakes.

How to capture them? You have to be patient and have careful eye.

Why do such movie mistakes occur? Quite often the answer lies in the high pressure world of commercial film making. Directors generally work

under tight budget and time restraints, and re-shooting scenes can be a logistical

nightmare. If an occasional movie slip-up manages to sneak into the final cut of a film, it may be best to leave it in rather than arrange for an expensive re-shoot or other post-production fix.

Some movie mistakes are caused by

the standard practice of shooting out of sequence. Very few movies are filmed in a linear progression according to the script. The producers may only have access to a particular location for a short amount of time, so the director and actors must shoot all

of the scenes based at that location at one time,

regardless of where the scenes fit in the overall narrative. This leads to continuity errors, such as having a dirty costume suddenly appear clean again. Shooting out of sequence can also lead to inconsistencies in an actor's appearance or use of certain props.

Continuity problems in movies can also be triggered by the long process of lighting, arranging and filming a set. During a dinner scene, for

example, the actors may first perform the "master shot," a wide shot of the entire dinner table with all actors eating and speaking. For close-ups of individual actors or smaller groupings, the entire

set may be completely re-arranged and re-lit. It is nearly impossible to keep track of every single movement of every single actor during several days of filming, so the resulting scene in the film could have any number of mistakes, as silverware changes position or food disappears and reappears at random.

Other movie mistakes are the result of factual errors or anachronisms. If a movie is set in a particular time period, such as the 1920s, it is up to the set designers and others to make sure all props and backgrounds are historically accurate.

Sometimes cast or crew members create movie mistakes by stepping into the shot or allowing a piece of equipment to appear. Boom microphones are especially difficult to wrangle without dipping them into the frame so many modern cameras have built-in safety zones which prevent such accidental intrusions from microphones or crew members.

Big amount of mistakes inspired a group of people to create a web site http://www.moviemistakes.com contains many mistakes taken in movies, described step-by-step.

Questions:

1) Have you ever noticed some movie mistakes during the showing?

2) Do you know any polish movie mistakes (there are many of them...) ?

3) When you watching the movie, do you ever try to observe scene-by-scene just to find a new mistake?

Numerousness can be fun?

I have written about many possible explanations of low birth rate in European countries, but I didn't mention one, which is the most significant in my opinion. I believe that low fertility is caused by mentality of our times. Every healthy animal strives for having joey. That's the natural power driving the world. Humans (or some of them) have lost their primal instinct. We don't care about the future of our species. Our philosophers and media convinced us to many new ideas turning tradition values upside-down. Movie below shows it on the example of capitalistic society:

I know it might be hard to accept for many. We are so consuming-addicted that we can find thousands excuses for our way of life. However, I think that capitalism is not the force discouraging people from having families.

Let's look at the east side of the globe. The most terrifying example of demographic catastrophe is Russia.

Actually, we don't suspect common Russians on having too consumptive way of life. If we think about possible reasons on low rate in this country, we would rather consider poverty. But should we really associate poverty with low fertility? Perhaps it's only our consuming -oriented perspective...

The highest birth rate we can observe in the poorest countries. "Poor people, they have no contraception, so they are forced to have so many children" - we think. In fact we don't really know how many of them would really use contraception if they had easy access to it. Nigerians are estimated as one of the most happy nations on the globe (haven't you ever heard that money can't give you happiness?). They probably wouldn't reject their way of life so easily.

Let's come back to Russia and to ideas. If capitalism may be dangerous for fertility, communism can be much more. This system did everything that is possible to destroy families. The traditional roles of family should be overwhelm by state.

http://www.theartofposter.com/RED/33.htm

Women must work, while state will bring up their children to be good Soviet citizens.

On the West and East women got convinced that motherhood is their prison and staying home as a housewife means some kind of lobotomy. I believe that feminist ideology made a lot of harm to women. I don't mean that women shouldn't study or work at all. It's all about accents. Why do women believe that their work at home is so useless and worth less than work away from home? Why should a housewife and a mother of several kids be less-self conscious or complete than a university professor?

People having more than two kids are described as "dziecioroby" and numerousness is identified with pathology. The climate for having more than standard 2 children in Poland is very unfriendly. Numerous couple are suspected as irresponsible and probably knowing nothing about contraception.

As I have proved in previous part of my presentation and as many economic authorities say nowadays, Poland needs more children. If we want to achieve it, we should change way of thinking. Even talking about geriatric bomb we still promote feminist ideas instead of appreciating parenthood. Every change starts in our heads.

What else can we do to encourage people to have babies?

Canadian scientists proved that 25% increase of family benefits increase fertility rate at 0,6 in short term and 0,4 in long term. In Poland at the moment we don't have any real pro-family policy except "becikowe" and little tax reduction, which are predicted to be abolished next year. That's a real pain for families. Pro-family policy should be distinguished from social policy. State shouldn't support only the poorest families as it is not in the state's interest. What's the logic of encouraging only the poorest people to have children? I don't have to write how expensive is rising and educating children in Poland, someone else did it last year :-)

I will write about examples of pro-family policy in other countries instead.

Iceland is one of the countries with the highest birth rate in Europe. Among others it offers full 6 months of parental leave (in Poland it's less than 5). Schools are for free as in Poland, but in fact we pay huge money for books and extras. In Iceland everything is for free, even meals and school trips. They have also high so called "child benefits".

France, birth-rate leader, pays salary for mothers staying home and rising up children. No only schools, but also preschools are also free. Of course they have also tax reduction for parents. When middle-class family give birth to its third child, it doesn't have to pay income tax any more!

In Norway parental leave is almost 10 months and mothers are paid for staying home with children under 3 years old. This is quite popular solution also in other Scandinavian countries (all of them are in the top of birth rate ranking). All of them offer also tax reduction.

Perhaps our government should think about some of these solutions? We can't afford for expensive pro-family policy, but can we afford for having no pro-family policy?

1. Try to answer the question from last paragraph.

2. Do you agree with stereotype of numerous people? What do think about them?

3. Do you plan to have any kids in the future?

Demographic bomb

Lately we often hear that our society is getting old. It is a problem of most European countries. Life length is increasing so there is more elder people while not too many children are born. We can that it is a global trend. Not everyone knows that even populations of China and India are shrinking. It doesn't mean that humanity is going to extinct, there is still many of us. However fertility rate is descending, survival rate is growing up. Thanks to medicine development much more many babies grow up instead of dying soon after being born or in their infant age.

Low fertility rate doesn't have to mean any damage for society. For China and India overpopulation is (or at least was) a huge problem, so they introduced policy that should provide reduction of their population. Chinese One Child Policy is specially controversial.

There is still many people who are afraid of overpopulation of the world. This fear is nothing new.

Anyway, in Poland we don't complain on having too many babies born. As you can see on the chart below the number of all the people in our country is rather steady since 1990' and it doesn't show any tendency to grow any more.

Does it mean that we have nothing to worry about? Actually, no. GUS' forecast for years 2008-2035 show that our population will be systematically decreasing and that this tendency will be deepening more and more. According to www.stat.gov.pl the number of people in Poland in 1935 will be smaller than 36 millions. "So, what?" - someone may ask - "We will have more space to live!" Actually, not only the number of population can cause trouble. There is something much more complicated: population structure. As a result of changes in demographic processes the number of children and youth (0-17 years old) decreased from 29% to 19% in lat 10 years. In the same time number of people in post-production age is continuously growing. Our pension-scheme doesn't have any reserves. It is not true that money which we earn during our life will be spend for our retirement. They are already spent for pensions of our grandparents or parents. It means that future generations earn money for the present. Therefore, if number of population descends, new generation will be not able to earn enough for old one's pensions. This is the real danger - our pension-scheme can simply collapse.

Here you can see how does it look in UK ;-) Of course, these rules are similar in Poland too...

Let's get serious. Before our governments will change retiring age to 70 in 1960 as European Commission suggests (gazeta prawna), we may concentrate on another end of this issue. If Polish population is descending and we don't need to be afraid of lack of space for future generation, we may thing about increasing birth rate. At the moment it is 1.39, which doesn't guarantee simple generation renewal. Demographers would be happy if it rises to at least 2. What could we do about it?

Why do people decide to have only 1, 2 or even no children? In the past material conditions weren't better than presently. Income per capita was smaller. That would exclude poverty as a reason to narrow down fertility. Still, people asked about the reason for having less children mention financial reason and say that they can't afford to have kids.

More reasonable cause may be easy access to contraception. In past ages or even decades some people would have limited the number of their babies if they had could.

People in European society have growing problems with their fertility. It's connected with environment's pollution but also with later decision of having family and stressful life.

Another reason can be change of traditional family model. Since women started to work away from home they don't have time for uprising children. They know that if they want to be successful at work they can't afford for a long break for having a baby.

Many people simply don't want to be parents. Dinks ("double income no kids") can afford for more expensive consumer lifestyle and have more time for pleasures or self-development. They don't want to take responsibilities of parenthood as it is an unnecessary burden.

People often don't see any advantages of having big family. In previous decades they believed that their children will take care of them in the future or at least they will support home budget. Now these hopes are not so obvious any more.

On the countryside more kids meant more hands to work. Thus for years we can observe migration from villages to towns, so young people are not supposed to stay in their parents' farms any more.

As it was said in the beginning, problem of ageing nation affects most of the European countries. Will they extinct? Here you can find an answer:

1. What do you think about reasons of lower birth rate in Europe and particularly in Poland?

2. Why One-Child-Policy in China may cause problems? Will it have ant influence on the rest of the world?

3. Do you think that overpopulation of the world is a global problem that we should fix? If so, how? What consequences it may cause?

4. What do you think about rising retirement age in Poland? How will it influence on labor market and social life of common people?

Comments (Different ways of spending holidays)

1. Lately I was thinking seriously about Camino and I hope to take this journey in future :-) I believe that would be a kind of spiritual experience and a fantastic adventure. I prefer traveling by my own without organised group, that's much more interesting.

If I don't have to worry about money I would choose Caribbean vacations as a second choice. I'm sure it must be great fun and relax.

2. I don't think that any of these vacations can show our real life. Holiday is something different from a real life by definition. I need to know more about Martians' habits to be a good advisor for them ;-)

The way of cheese...

Cheese at a glance.
Actually there are a lot of definitions about cheeses and exactly what the cheese is.
Most of them said:
1) A solid food prepared from the pressed curd of milk, often seasoned and aged.

2) A food consisting of the coagulated, compressed, and usually ripened curd of milk separated from the whey, an often cylindrical cake of this food.

3) Etc.

So try to summarize them and create global definition of cheese and the way how people discovered it.

Cheese is a form of fermented food produced from the milk of various mammals. Since humans began to domesticate milk-producing animals around 10,000 B.C., they have known about

the propensity of milk to separate into curds and whey.

As milk sours, it breaks down into curds and whey, a watery, grey fluid that contains lactose, minerals, vitamins, and traces of fat. It is the curds that are used to make cheese, and practically every culture on Earth has developed its own methods, the only major exceptions being China and the ancient Americas. That fact explains the scope of diversity in cheese’s brands and kinds.

The first cheeses were "fresh," that is, not fermented. They

consisted solely of salted white curds drained of whey, similar to today's cottage cheese. The next step was to develop ways of

accelerating the natural separation process. This was achieved by adding rennet to the milk. Rennet is an enzyme from the stomachs of young ruminants—a ruminant is an animal that chews its food very thoroughly and possesses a complex digestive system with three or four stomach chambers.

In the Europe, cows are the best known creatures of this kind. Rennet remains the most popular way of "starting" cheese, though other starting agents such as lactic acid and various plant extracts are also used. Now it’s time to add the starter bacteria.

Starter bacteria convert milk sugars into lactic acid. The same bacteria (and the enzymes they produce) also play a large role in the eventual flavor of aged cheeses. Most cheeses are made

with starter bacteria from the Lactococci and similar families. But Swiss starter cultures also include other keep in secret bacteria, which produces carbon dioxide gas bubbles during aging, giving Swiss cheese or Emmental its holes - called “cheese - eyes".

the milk chemistry. Cheeses that are heated to the higher temperatures are usually made with thermophilic starter bacteria that survive this step.

The first and simplest way of extending the

length cheese would keep without spoiling was simply ageing it. Aged cheese was popular from the start because it kept well for domestic use. In the 1300s, the Dutch began to seal cheese intended for export in hard rinds to maintain its freshness, and, in the early 1800s, the Swiss became the first to process cheese. Frustrated by the speed with which their cheese went bad in the days before refrigeration, they developed a method of grinding old cheese, adding filler ingredients, and heating the mixture to produce a sterile, uniform, long-lasting product.

Processing the Curd - at this point, the cheese has set into a very moist gel. Some soft cheeses are now essentially complete: they are drained, salted, and packaged. For most of the rest, the curd is cut into small cubes. This allows water to drain from the individual pieces of curd.

Some hard cheeses are then heated to temperatures in the range of 35–55 °C. This forces more whey from the cut curd. It also changes the taste of the finished cheese, affecting both the bacterial culture and

Salt has roles in cheese besides adding a salty flavor. It preserves cheese from spoiling, draws moisture from the curd, and firms cheese’s texture in an interaction with its proteins. Some cheeses are salted from the outside with dry salt or brine washes. Most cheeses have the salt mixed directly into the curds.

The next significant step to affect the manufacture of cheese occurred in the 1860s, when Louis Pasteur introduced the process that bears his name. Pasteurization entails heating milk to partially sterilize it without altering its basic chemical structure. Because the process destroys dangerous micro-organisms, pasteurized milk is considered more healthful, and most cheese is made from pasteurized milk today.

Cheeses achieve their final shape when the curds are pressed into a mold or form. The harder

the cheese, the more pressure is applied. The pressure drives out moisture—the molds are designed to allow water to escape—and unifies the curds into a single solid body
A newborn cheese is usually salty yet bland in flavor

and, for harder varieties, rubbery in texture. These qualities are sometimes enjoyed - cheese curds are eaten on their own - but normally cheeses are left to rest under controlled conditions. This aging period (also called ripening) lasts from a few days to several years. As a cheese ages, microbes and enzymes transform texture and intensify flavor. This transformation is largely a result of the breakdown of casein proteins and milk-fat into a complex mix of amino-acids, amines, and fatty acids.Some cheeses have additional bacteria or molds intentionally introduced before or during aging. In traditional “cheesemaking”, these microbes might be already present in the aging room. They are simply allowed to settle and grow on the stored cheeses. More often today, prepared cultures are used, giving more consistent results and putting fewer constraints on the environment where the cheese ages. These cheeses include soft ripened cheeses such as Brie and Camembert, blue cheeses such as Roquefort, Stilton, Gorgonzola, and rind-washed cheeses such as Limburger.

Prior to the twentieth century, most people considered cheese a specialty food, produced in individual households and eaten rarely. However, with the advent of mass production, both the supply of and the demand for cheese have increased. In 1955, 13 percent of milk was made
into cheese. By 1984, this percentage had grown to 31 percent, and it continues to increase. Interestingly, though processed cheese is now widely available, it represents only one-third of the cheese being made today. Despite the fact that most cheeses are produced in large factories, a majority are still made using natural methods. In fact, small, "farmhouse" cheese making has made a comeback in recent years.



Each country or region developed different types of cheese that reflected local ingredients and conditions. The number of cheeses thus developed is staggering. France, famous for the quality and variety of its cheeses, is home to about 400 commercially available cheeses.



Many European now own their own small cheese-making businesses, and their products have become quite popular, particularly among connoisseurs.



There are many ways of classifying the cheeses. “Cheesemakers” have tried to split them on different categories depends on:
• Length of aging
• Texture
• Methods of making
• Fat content
• Kind of milk
• Country/Region of Origin

If you still need more information please visit the page:

http://cheese.com

– portal designed and fully created by people who love that sort of food.

Also there is an online book: How to make a cheese -

http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/documents/MPGuide/mpguide5.htm.

Questions:
1) What do you think about the cheese? If you like it, what are your favorite types and kinds?
2) What is the traditional way of serving the cheese?
Would you prefer it with sandwich or just put on cheese-board?
3) What do you think about mix cheeses with fruits and wine?

Comments (Culture shock)

http://uwb2m-s.blogspot.com/2010/10/v-behaviorurldefaultvml-o.html#comments

1. Do you know other examples for culture shock from other countries?

Yes, I do. I think that showing emotions can make troubles in communication. When I came to France as a teenager I was surprised that my French colleagues were kissing each other so frequently. I was wondering if they have so big families or so many very close friends, while in fact it was a typical behavior. I had another "kissing problem" in Tunisia, where many people wanted to kiss my children. In Europe nobody dares to come and kiss strange kids.

2. Do you know which Polish good manners are not good in other countries?

I'm afraid I don't remember any that could be found rude in other cultures... Especially, I'm not sure if I know any good manners which are purely Polish. I think that at least most of them are common in Europe.

3. Do you know some gestures which meaning is different in other country?

There are so many good examples in this presentation - I don't think I know anything more.

4. Do you know any movie which is about culture shock?

There must be something... Perhaps "Babel" of Inarritu, but culture differences are not very funny in this picture. Disney's "Pocahontas" can be a perfect example too.

Designer Drugs

The New Poland Express I Friday 15th October 2010 I www.nwe.pl


Designer drugs fan to lobby cause


Friends and colleagues of Dawid Bratko, Poland’s so-called ‘Designer Drugs King’, are set to lobby in parliament in favour of legalizing designer drugs. “I want to help protect the freedoms and the rights of ordinary people who are addicted to psychotropic substances,” says Tomasz Obara of Poland’s ‘Free Hemp’ movement - an organisation aimed at promoting the legalisation of cannabis. But Obara, who has already officially registered as a lobbyist in Parliament, adds that he is also taking part in order to represent his mother who, he claims, is a constant victim of police harassment. “Police officers keep raiding my mother’s house in order to look for cannabis. That’s one of the reasons why I want to protect my mother’s interests.” However, while actively confirming that he is still lobbying on behalf of Bratko’s cause, Obara claims that he is in fact anti-designer drugs.
“I’m against designer drugs but I signed an agreement with [Bratko] that if we manage to persuade the authorities to legalise cannabis, then he will stop trading them.” Designer drugs, known in Poland as ‘dopalacze’ have made the headlines recently due to a fierce government clampdown on the booming sector which has seen around 900 shops closed down. Last week Bratko, dubbed ‘the Designer Drug King’ by the nation’s media for his large influence throughout the industry, was arrested for selling a number of proscribed substances. Despite a number of fatalities being linked to the new craze, numerous loopholes have kept the government’s hands tied. However it stated recently that it would try to push through legislation quickly in order to deal with what it sees as a growing problem.

What do you think of the whole campaign against designer drugs?
Is it just a part of political campaign?
Statistics say that in Poland more people day because of alcohol abuse than designer drugs but the media just do not talk about it.
Present your opinions please.