Forget the sharks, now DOLPHINS are attacking Australian surfers: Man left with broken ribs after being rammed by rogue bottlenose

Surfer John Wolfson (left) was injured after being rammed by a bottlenose that belonged to this pod (top right) in Australia. It took more than an hour for medical help to arrive (bottom right)

.John Wolfson was bodyboarding at a remote beach to celebrate his birthday when he was hit on his side by a bottlenose dolphin

.The force of the impact left the 27 year old unable to move and tore a hole in his wetsuit

.The pain was so severe, he initially thought his back was broken

.He was taken by ambulance to a local hospital before being airlifted to a bigger facility where he was treated for two fractured ribs

.He doesn’t blame the dolphin for the incident, saying he was ‘in the wrong place at the wrong time’

By Daily Mail Reporter

A surfer had to be airlifted to hospital  after he was rammed from below by a bottlenose dolphin at a remote beach south  of Sydney.

John Wolfson says he was paddling out past  the breaking waves at Bawley Point, near Bateman’s Bay on the NSW South Coast,  when he spotted a pod of bottlenose dolphins playing nearby.

One of the dolphins dived beneath the surface  before charging into the surfer with enough force to tear his tough neoprene  wetsuit. Adult bottlenose dolphins weigh up to 500kg and can swim at speeds of  up to 30km/h.

The impact left the  27-year-old doubled over in pain, with his friends having to help him back to  shore where he waited over an hour for medical assistance.

Rescue efforts were hampered by the remote  location of the beach, with the first 4WD ambulance becoming bogged in soft  sand meaning a second car had to be dispatched.

Mr Wolfson was taken to a local hospital  where doctors were so concerned by his injuries that he was airlifted to the  bigger St George hospital for further treatment.

Mr Wolfson’s friend, surf  photographer Jason Corroto, told MailOnline he was watching from the beach when  he spotted a huge splash and realised his friend was in trouble.

‘He could not move at all. He thought he had  broken his ribs,’ he said…

Read more:




Caught on CCTV: The shocking moment a couple who rode through a red light on their tricycle were sent flying and killed by a car

Shocking: Authorities have released this graphic photograph of Mou and his wife in attempt to shock people into following traffic laws in Linhai, in the Zhejiang province, China

.Hu Mou and his wife were driving a small tricycle but ignored a red light

.A car hit the couple who were thrown into the air on February 5

.Authorities in China have released this photograph to shock people into following traffic laws

By Tara Brady

This is the horrifying moment a couple who  rode through a red light on their tricycle were hit and sent flying by car which  killed them.

Authorities have released the graphic  photograph in attempt to shock people into following traffic laws in Linhai, in  the Zhejiang province, China.

Hu Mou and his wife were driving a small  tricycle but ignored a red light on February 5.

In the photograph their bodies are captured  being hurtled into the air after they are hit by a car.

The tricycle which they were riding was  completely destroyed and neither Mou or his wife survived the  crashed.

Read more:


The Incredible Shrinking Planet Mercury!

by Ross Pomeroy

29 million miles away from the Sun at its closest, Mercury is the nearest of the eight planets to the burning center of our Solar System. It’s also the smallest.

And it’s getting smaller.

Back in the 1970s, the Mariner 10 spacecraft swung by Mercury on three occasions, photographing about 45% of the planet’s surface in the process. Examining those images, planetary scientists uncovered telltale signs of shrinkage: lobate scarps, geological structures where crustal rocks had been pushed up and over each other, sinking down in the process. They estimated that Mercury had lost one to two kilometers of its global 2,440-kilometer radius since forming and hardening approximately 4.6 billion years ago. (For comparison, Earth’s radius is 6,371 kilometers.)

According to a new report, however, Mercury has shrunk more than we thought: as much as 7 kilometers! The new finding, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, comes courtesy of a team led by Paul Byrne, a planetary scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington D.C.  But Byrne and his colleagues couldn’t have succeeded without a little help from a newfound mechanical friend.

In August 2004, the Messenger spacecraft blasted out of Earth’s atmosphere. Armed with an array of cameras and fortified with special shielding to  guard against the Sun’s damaging radiation, it set out to become the first  spacecraft to orbit Mercury, and help us Earthlings learn about our planetary neighbor. Three years ago, Messenger entered orbit around Mercury. Since then, it’s buzzed around the planet 2,886 times. A dedicated and busy bee, Messenger has put those orbits to good use, imaging the entirety of the planet’s surface.

Armed with this unprecedented view, Paul Byrne and his team found that the planet was littered with the aforementioned scarps. They also found lots of wrinkle ridges. Resembling veins on skin, they’re clear signs of contraction. The moon has lots of aged wrinkle ridges.

Surveying 216 ridges and scarps, the researchers arrived at a new estimate of Mercury’s shrinkage: 5 to 7 kilometers radially.

Referred to as a “Land of Confusion,” Mercury is an enigmatic planet — its day is actually longer than its year! While Mercury zips around the sun every 88 Earth days, it completes one rotation every 59 Earth days.* Thus, to a fictitious observer standing on Mercury’s inhospitable surface, a solar day from sunrise to sunset would take the equivalent of 176 Earth days. Moreover, its crust and mantle appear to be joined together into a single tectonic plate, and its solid iron core comprises as much as 65% of the planet!

“That’s twice the percentage of our own Earth,” NASA’s Charlie Plain wrote.

Mercury’s oversized core is likely to blame for its dwindling radius. The iron is likely still cooling, compacting in the process. William B. McKinnon, a planetary scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, summed up the paper succinctly and poetically.

“As Mercury’s interior cools and its massive iron core freezes, its surface feels the squeeze.”

Source: Paul K. Byrne, Christian Klimczak, A. M. Celâl Şengör, Sean C. Solomon, Thomas R. Watters and Steven A. Hauck. “Mercury’s global contraction much greater than earlier estimates. “Nature Geoscience. DOI: 10.1038/NGEO2097

(Images: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie Institution of Washington, NOAA)

*Correction 3/16: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated Mercury’s rotational period as six Earth months. This is incorrect.



War Is a Certainty

by Jeff Thomas

Any country that is considering waging war against another country should first consider that the loser is almost always the country that runs out of money first.

Recently, an associate offered the following observation with regard to the likelihood of war in the immediate future:

“The big guys like to play chess with the world. It’s the biggest game. The bankers need ups and downs and wars to make money. The military needs wars to exist. The politicians need both to exist.

Whilst he was reiterating a concept we have discussed on many occasions, it occurred to me that I have never seen the subject defined so succinctly, nor so informatively.

Let’s break it down:

The bankers need ups and downs and wars to make money

Just as bankers increase their profit as a result of upward and downward economic fluctuations, so, too, do they benefit from war. It is not unusual for a given bank to finance those who would create armed conflict, and indeed, they sometimes bankroll both sides. Whilst banks have other means of making money, war is often more profitable than conventional banking.

The military needs war

The military-industrial complex is in the business of selling armaments to governments. Although armament sales may tick over nicely in peace time, they boom in war time. Therefore, any armament supplier will benefit from war. It matters little whether it is an all-out war or a series of smaller ventures. The object is sales.

The politicians need both banks and war

This is true in the sense that politicians need both bankers and an active military to thrive. Political campaigns depend upon funding. Banks and armament suppliers have long been a major source of campaign funds for candidates of the primary political parties. (If each party is well-paid before the election, favourable treatment towards banks and armament suppliers is assured, regardless of which party wins an election.)

But there is further necessity for armed conflict with regard to politicians. First, it is a truism that a country rarely changes leaders during times of war, and nothing is more imperative to the politician than gaining a further term of office.

Second, nothing distracts the voting public like war. If a politician is receiving increased criticism from the voters, a good war can be counted on to get the voters concentrating more on the war than on the politician’s poor stewardship.

Third, governments typically remove the freedoms of a populace over time. Whilst citizens may object to the loss of their freedoms in normal times, they are often more willing to relinquish them “temporarily” in times of war, “for the good of the country.” Not surprisingly, lost freedoms are seldom reinstated after a war.

Consider the words of James Madison, the fourth US President:

“Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies and debts and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the dominion of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended…. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

Generally speaking, the citizens of most countries would prefer to avoid war. After all, they rarely benefit from it. But then, the impetus for war is almost never generated by the people of a country. Unless a nation is actually attacked, in nearly every case, the people need to be talked into going to war.

Convincing the People

A good example of this is the US, who, since World War I, have needed convincing on almost every occasion when political leaders proposed war. In World War I, the Lusitania incident was created jointly by the UK and the US to motivate them. In World War II, the goading of Japan was needed. In Vietnam, the trumped-up Gulf of Tonkin incident was needed, and so on…





Public apathy over GCHQ snooping is a recipe for disaster

GCHQ: keeping an eye on you, via its computers.

The lack of public alarm at government internet surveillance is frightening, but perhaps it’s because the problem is difficult to convey in everyday terms

John Naughton Sunday 16 March 2014

As someone who is supposed to know about these things, I’m sometimes asked to give talks about computing to non-technical audiences. The one thing I have learned from doing this is that if you want people to understand technological ideas then you have to speak to them in terms that resonate with their experience of everyday things.

It’s obvious, I know, but it took me a while to get it. I can vividly remember the moment when the penny dropped. One of the ideas I was always trying to get across was why open-source software was important. The term “open source” is actually a euphemism for free software, coined because some advocates of free software thought that the US corporate world would associate the word “free” with communism. The key thing about free software is not that you don’t pay for it (because sometimes you do) but that you have the freedom to change it to meet your requirements – on condition that you pass on the same freedom to anyone who uses the modified software.

When I tried to explain the significance of this to my lay audiences, however, they invariably responded with blank stares. And then one day I realised what the problem was – none of them had ever written a program. So the next time I gave a talk I brought with me a copy of Delia Smith’s great Complete Cookery Course. I put up a slide showing her recipe for gratin dauphinois, one of the ingredients for which is 150ml of double cream. “Now,” I said, “double cream is not good for me, so I’d like to substitute single cream in the recipe. Can you imagine a world in which, if I wanted to do that, I would have to get Delia’s written permission, and possibly pay her a fee? Wouldn’t that be absurd?”

Suddenly my audience got it. Computer programs are recipes and everyone understands recipes.

Now spool forward to the present. One of the things that baffles me is why more people are not alarmed by what Edward Snowden has been telling us about the scale and intrusiveness of internet surveillance. My hunch is that this is partly because – strangely – people can’t relate the revelations to things they personally understand.

In the past two weeks, two perceptive commentators have been trying to break through this barrier. One is Cory Doctorow, the science-fiction novelist, who had a terrific essay in the Guardian arguing that instead of increasing our security, government agencies such as the NSA, GCHQ and others are actually undermining it. The essay is worth reading in full, but one part of it stood out for me. It’s about the thriving, underworld online market in malicious software. Nowadays, if some hacker discovers a previously unknown vulnerability in widely used software, that discovery can be very valuable – and people will pay large sums for such “zero-day” exploits. But here’s the creepy bit: sometimes, the purchasers are government agencies that buy these pieces of malware to use as weapons against their enemies…





Why ExxonMobil’s Partnerships With Russia’s Rosneft Challenge the Narrative of U.S. Exports As Energy Weapon

Source: Steve Horn, DeSmogBlog

In a long-awaited moment in a hotly contested zone currently occupied by the Russian military, Ukraine’s citizens living in the peninsula of Crimea voted overwhelmingly to become part of Russia.

Responding to the referendum, President Barack Obama and numerous U.S. officials rejected the results out of hand and the Obama Administration has confirmed he will authorize economic sanctions against high-ranking Russian officials.

“As I told President Putin yesterday, the referendum in Crimea was a clear violation of Ukrainian constitutions and international law and it will not be recognized by the international community,” Obama said in a press briefing. “Today I am announcing a series of measures that will continue to increase the cost on Russia and those responsible for what is happening in Ukraine.”

But even before the vote and issuing of sanctions, numerous key U.S. officials hyped the need to expedite U.S. oil and gas exports to fend off Europe’s reliance on importing Russia’s gas bounty. In short, gas obtained via hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) is increasingly seen as a “geopolitical tool” for U.S. power-brokers, as The New York Times explained.

Perhaps responding to the repeated calls to use gas as a “diplomatic tool,” the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently announced it will sell 5 million barrels of oil from the seldom-tapped Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Both the White House and DOE deny the decision had anything to do with the situation in Ukraine.

Yet even as some say we are witnessing the beginning of a “new cold war,” few have discussed the ties binding major U.S. oil and gas companies with Russian state oil and gas companies.

The ties that bind, as well as other real logistical and economic issues complicate the narrative of exports as an “energy weapon.”

The situation in Ukraine is a simple one at face value, at least from an energy perspective.

“Control of resources and dependence on other countries is a central theme connecting the longstanding tension between Russia and Ukraine and potential actions taken by the rest of the world as the crisis escalates,” ThinkProgress explained in a recent article. “Ukraine is overwhelmingly dependent on Russia for natural gas, relying on its neighbor for 60 to 70 percent of its natural gas needs.”

At the same time, Europe also largely depends on Ukraine as a key thoroughfare for imports of Russian gas via pipelines.

“The country is crossed by a network of Soviet-era pipelines that carry Russian natural gas to many European Union member states and beyond; more than a quarter of the EU’s total gas needs were met by Russian gas, and some 80% of it came via Ukrainian pipelines,” explained The Guardian…