DO NOT LOOK UP THESE IDIOMS BEFORE DOING THIS QUIZ. THERE IS NO POINT DOING THAT! THE FUN IS IN NOT KNOWING,TRYING TO GUESS CORRECTLY, AND MAYBE GETTING THE ANSWERS WRONG! LISTEN TO THE AUDIO FILE AND SUBMIT YOUR ANSWERS IN A COMMENT BELOW. I WILL POST THE CORRECT ANSWERS LATER.
A. To have bigger fish to fry
B. To have egg on your face
C. To have eyes bigger than your stomach
D. To have eyes in the back of your head
E. To have method in your madness
F. To have one hand tied behind your back
G. To have seen better days
H. To have your nose in the air
I. To have your head in the clouds
J. To have something up one’s sleeve
Showing posts with label Week 002. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Week 002. Show all posts
Wednesday, 29 August 2018
Friday Class Only: Get To Know Your Lecturer
Feel free to listen to this everybody, but it is exclusively for the Friday Class to submit their answers to (because they missed doing this activity in their first session). The other classes should already know the correct answers. But... if you think you may have forgotten, why not just listen to it and test yourself?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Tuesday, 28 August 2018
Should Wimbledon offer equal prize money for men and women tennis players?
What do you think are the three strongest YES arguments and the three strongest NO arguments? Also, state your own opinion and briefly explain it.
debate.org
YES... Yes because it is the same sport. What makes tennis different for men then it does for women? It is the exact same sport played with the exact same rules, and both men and women should get the exact same prizes and pay. There is no rationale that makes sense to say no to this, but people are discriminatory so that is why most people have voted no.
No... Longer games, higher quality, more public interest Men's matches go for longer for starters, since they're best of five rather than best of three. They also generate more money since they have a much bigger following. They hit the ball harder and matches are of a higher quality. If women want to get paid the same it should be a single tournament where they play the men.
YES... Both men and women are competing in equal events,they should receive equal pay. When both men and women are competing in the same tournament it is unfair that men or women should make more than each other. They both play equal numbers of games in the same environment, what makes one more difficult to require more money?
No... more people watch the mens tennis, more people = more money. Women and men play in different competitions and the men are better at tennis. They are at a higher level of skill which means they deserve more prize money. If they women want equal prize money, women should compete in the same competition as men! also, attendance at male mathces is higher which means more money is generated...
YES... I believe sports competitions such as Wimbledon should offer the same prize money amounts for men and women, because there is no reason not to. I can find no reason why the prize money amounts would be different in men's or women's sports. A placement is a placement, so if first place is worth $200,000, then both genders should get the same. By saying that one gender is worth more than the other, you are trivializing the sport, and the effort all contenders put into the competition.
No... Obvious answer The answer is simple and obvious. If men and women play the same game, then the prize money should be the same. But they don't! Men play the best of 5 sets; women play the best of 3 sets. That alone defines an obvious difference. It's not the same game when it's not the same effort. If it were equal, then they should play each other as well, in theory. But they can't and won't because there is no equally of strength, skill, and (apparently) stamina. Play 5 sets each, or 3 sets each, and the prize money can be equal. Otherwise, less pay for less effort. "Bully" Jean King was the force behind this crazy concept of "equality for women" in tennis. Where is the equality in an unequal effort?
YES... They show leadership and a huge inspiration Girls work just as hard as guys do and are very committed. Girls never get credit for all the things they do. Some of the worlds best athletes are girls. They deserve to get noticed. Its sexist to think that guys should get paid more. Even if they are injured they get paid more while us girls are working out everything we can.
No... Ridiculous If women want to win the same amount of prize money that men make, they can compete against men for that prize money. Since women really cannot compete against men and play at a much lower level of competition, they get a lower amount of prize money. That is what fair actually is.
YES... They both won Wimbledon! If you are a woman and you win Wimbledon you are still the best that you can possibly be in your category the same as men. They give the men's 100m sprint a gold medal and women get the same prize, why shouldn't this be the same for other sporting events?
No... Wimbledon and other sports competitions should not offer equal prize money for men and women, because the level of competition is different. Wimbledon and other sports competitions should not offer equal prize money for men and women, because they have a men's division and a women's division. The level of competition is different. The best resolution would be to eliminate the divisions, and have everyone play equally for the same prize. Billie Jean King dispelled the myth that men are better athletes long ago.
YES... Yes, because people should be fairly compensated, without regard to their gender. Men and women obviously have different strengths. But in any athletic competition, the rewards should be equal. On the other hand, if the sport has sponsors that determine the salaries or rewards, it would depend on the popularity of the sport, and how much the sponsors are willing to commit to.
No... Sports competitions should not be required to offer equal prize money to both men and women, as the sponsorship revenues are not equal for the two genders. Sporting events, such as Wimbledon, should not be required to offer equal prize money for men and women, as these prizes are generally tied to the ad revenue that the events are able to attract. This, in turn, is affected by the overall excitement and popularity of the event in question. Because members of the public feel that men's events are more exciting to watch than women's events, men should reap the monetary rewards of this preference.
YES... Sports competitions should have equal prizes for men and women, because there is no reason to not have them be equal. There is absolutely no reason or defensible rationale for paying the winner of a sports competition a different amount, based solely on their gender. The prize money should be equal to the winner of a tournament, regardless of their sex, since both participants have both won the exact same competition.
No... Sports competitions are private businesses and should not be regulated for gender equality. Amateur and educational-based sports, such as the NCAA, are fair game for Washington to regulate and say that women's sports get as many dollars as men's sports. Professional sports should be left alone, though. They are businesses and only make money if there is a large enough market. If Wimbledon were forced to give men prize money equal to the women, it would actually be reverse discrimination against the men.
YES... Just as Good Women's tennis is just as exciting to watch as the men's tennis. It is learned prejudices and historical precedent that prevents women from being paid the same as men in sport and workplaces. The arguments about men playing more sets is just plain sexist. We watch the spectacle, not the length of the match... Think of test cricket which is fading in popularity to the quicker and more exciting 20/20!
No... It is alright for men's and women's prizes to be different in sports, as men's competitions generally generate far more attention and revenue than women's competitions. It is a simple fact that men's sports competitions tend to draw much more interest, attendance, and revenue than women's sports competitions. It is, therefore, fair if a men's prize is more than a women's, since the prize is generated from revenues. To do otherwise would actually be unfair, as the men would actually be subsidizing the women.
YES... All sports competitions should offer equal prize money for men and women to help the world continue moving forward in making men and women equal. Women have been trying to become equal to men for many years. When men and women accomplish the same tasks, they should be awarded the same amount. Women's sports are just as exciting and competitive as men's sports, so there is no reason that they should not receive an equal prize.
No... They should offer whatever prize money they want to offer because they are private enterprises. There is no reason why the public should force a private enterprise like a sporting tournament to offer equal prize money for men and women. The main draw in these sporting tournaments that have both men's and women's competitions is always the men's competitions; that is why they receive a greater share of the prize money. Besides, the amount of the prize money for the women is definitely large enough that no one should be complaining on either side.
Please follow the instructions at the top of this article.
Asian demography
The flight from marriage
Asians are marrying later, and less, than in the past. This has profound implications for women, traditional family life and Asian politics
SEOUL AND TAIPEI | from the print edition of The Economist



An educated choice

The lost brides
Parasites and bare branches

Taken from HERE.
Asians are marrying later, and less, than in the past. This has profound implications for women, traditional family life and Asian politics
SEOUL AND TAIPEI | from the print edition of The Economist
With her filmy polka-dot dress, huge sunglasses and career as a psychologist, Yi Zoe Hou of Taiwan might seem likely to be besieged by suitors. Yet, at 35, she is well past Taiwan's unspoken marriage deadline. “It's a global village,” she shrugs. “If I can't find a Taiwanese guy that accepts my age, I can find another man somewhere else.” Maybe—but since she still wants children, Ms Hou is also wondering whether to use a sperm bank or ask a male friend to be a sperm donor. She represents a new world of family life for Asians.
Conservatives in the West are fond of saying that the traditional family is the bedrock of society. That view is held even more widely in Asia. The family is the focus of Confucian ethics, which holds that a basic moral principle, xiushen (self-improvement), can be pursued only within the confines of the family. In an interview in 1994 Lee Kuan Yew, a former prime minister of Singapore, argued that after thousands of years of dynastic upheaval, the family is the only institution left to sustain Chinese culture. It embodies a set of virtues—“learning and scholarship and hard work and thrift and deferment of present enjoyment for future gain”—which, he said, underpins Asia's economic success. He feared that the collapse of the family, if it ever happened, would be the main threat to Singapore's success.
His Malaysian contemporary, Mahathir Mohamad, went further. In a book written in 1995 with a Japanese politician, Shintaro Ishihara, Dr Mahathir contrasted Asians' respect for marriage with “the breakdown of established institutions and diminished respect for marriage, family values, elders, and important customs” in the West. “Western societies”, Dr Mahathir claimed, “are riddled with single-parent families… with homosexuality, with cohabitation.” He might well have concluded that the absence of traditional family virtues from the streets of London recently showed the continued superiority of Asia.
Asians, in fact, have several distinct family systems. To simplify: in South Asia it is traditional to have arranged, early marriages, in which men are dominant and the extended family is important. East Asia also has a male-dominated system, but one that stresses the nuclear family more; nowadays it has abandoned arranged marriages. In South-East Asia, women have somewhat more autonomy. But all three systems have escaped many of the social changes that have buffeted family life in the West since the 1960s.
In South Asia and China marriage remains near-universal, with 98% of men and women tying the knot. In contrast, in some Western countries, a quarter of people in their 30s are cohabiting or have never been married, while half of new marriages end in divorce. Marriage continues to be the almost universal setting for child-bearing in Asia: only about 2% of births took place outside wedlock in Japan in 2007. Contrast that with Europe: in Sweden in 2008 55% of births were to unmarried women, while in Iceland the share was 66%.
Most East and South-East Asian countries report little or no cohabitation. The exception is Japan where, among women born in the 1970s, about 20% say they have cohabited with a sexual partner. For Japan, that is a big change. In surveys between 1987 and 2002, just 1-7% of single women said they had lived with a partner. But it is not much compared with America where, according to a 2002 Gallup poll, over half of married Americans between the ages of 18 and 49 lived together before their wedding day. In many Western societies, more cohabitation has offset a trend towards later marriage or higher rates of divorce. That has not happened in Asia.
Traditional attitudes live on in other ways. Compared with Westerners, Asians are more likely to agree that “women's happiness lies in marriage”. They are more likely to say women should give up work when they get married or have children, and more likely to disapprove of pre-marital sex. Surveys by Pew Global Research, a social-research outfit in Washington, DC, show that Muslims in South and South-East Asia are more likely than Muslims elsewhere to say that families should choose a woman's husband for her.
Over the hill
Yet, as Ms Hou shows, Asia is changing. Although attitudes to sex and marriage are different from those in the West, the pressures of wealth and modernisation upon family life have been just as relentless. They have simply manifested themselves in different ways. In the West the upshot has been divorce and illegitimacy. In Asia the results include later marriage, less marriage and (to some extent) more divorce. The changes in the West may be more dramatic. But both East and West are seeing big changes in the role of women and traditional family life.
The first change is that people are getting married later, often much later. In the richest parts—Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong—the mean age of wedlock is now 29-30 for women, 31-33 for men (see chart right). That is past the point at which women were traditionally required to marry in many Asian societies. It is also older than in the West. In America, women marry at about 26, men at 28. If you take account of the cohabitation that routinely precedes Western marriage (but not Asian), the gap between East and West is even larger. The mean age of marriage has risen by five years in some East Asian countries in three decades, which is a lot.
The second change is that, among certain groups, people are not merely marrying later. They are not getting married at all. In 2010 a third of Japanese women entering their 30s were single. Perhaps half or more of those will never marry. In 2010 37% of all women in Taiwan aged 30-34 were single, as were 21% of 35-39-year-olds. This, too, is more than in Britain and America, where only 13-15% of those in their late 30s are single. If women are unmarried entering their 40s, they will almost certainly neither marry nor have a child.
The Asian avoidance of marriage is new, and striking. Only 30 years ago, just 2% of women were single in most Asian countries. The share of unmarried women in their 30s in Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong has risen 20 points or more (see chart below), “a very sharp change in a relatively short period”, says Gavin Jones of the National University of Singapore. In Thailand, the number of women entering their 40s without being married increased from 7% in 1980 to 12% in 2000. In some cities, rates of non-marriage are higher: 20% among women aged 40-44 in Bangkok; 27% among 30-34-year-olds in Hong Kong. In South Korea, young men complain that women are on “marriage strike”.
What is remarkable about the Asian experience is not that women are unmarried in their 30s—that happens in the West, too—but that they have never been married and have rarely cohabited. In Sweden, the proportion of women in their late 30s who are single is higher than in Asia, at 41%. But that is because marriage is disappearing as a norm. Swedish women are still setting up homes and having children, just outside wedlock. Not in Asia. Avoiding both illegitimacy and cohabitation, Asian women appear to be living a more celibate life than their Western sisters (admittedly, they could also be under-reporting rates of cohabitation and pre-marital sex). The conclusion is that East Asia's growing cohorts of unmarried women reflect less the breakdown of marriage than the fact that they are avoiding it.
But marriages are breaking down, too. In Hong Kong and Japan, the general divorce rate—the number of divorces per 1,000 people aged 15 or more—was about 2.5 in the mid-2000s, according to Mr Jones's calculations. In Asia as a whole, the rate is about 2 per 1,000. That compares with 3.7 in America, 3.4 in Britain, 3.1 in France and 2.8 in Germany. Only in one or two Asian countries is divorce as widespread as in the West. The South Korean rate, for example, is 3.5. Because divorce has been common in the West for decades, more couples there have split up. The rise in Asia has been recent: China's divorce rate took off in the early 2000s. In the 1980s the Asian rate was 1 per 1,000 people; now it is 2. If that rise continues, Asian divorce could one day be as common as in Europe.
The main function of marriage in most traditional societies is to bring up children (romantic love rarely has much to do with it). Not surprisingly, changes in child-bearing have gone along with changes in marriage. The number of children the average East Asian woman can expect to have during her lifetime—the fertility rate—has fallen from 5.3 in the late 1960s to below 1.6 now, an enormous drop. But old-fashioned attitudes persist, and these require couples to start having children soon after marriage. In these circumstances, women choose to reduce child-bearing by delaying it—and that means delaying marriage, too.
Changing marriage patterns are also the result of improvements in women's education and income, and the failure of women's status to keep pace. The salient characteristic of many traditional marriage systems is that women—especially young women—have little independence. In South Asia, brides are taken into the groom's family almost as soon as they move into puberty. They are tied to their husband's family. Sometimes women may not inherit property or perform funeral rites (this is especially important in China). In parts of South Asia, wives may not even take their children to hospital without getting their husband's permission.
Two forces are giving women more autonomy: education and jobs. Women's education in East Asia has improved dramatically over the past 30 years, and has almost erased the literacy gap with men. Girls stay at school for as many years as boys, and illiteracy rates for 15-24-year-olds are the same for the two sexes (this is not true of South Asia). In South Korea now, women earn half of all master's degrees.
Education changes women's expectations. Among Thai women who left school at 18, one-eighth were still single in their 40s; but among university graduates, the share was a fifth. A survey in Beijing in 2003 found that half of women with a monthly income of 5,000-15,000 yuan (roughly $600-1,800, an indicator of university education) were not married. Half said they did not need to be, because they were financially independent. South Koreans call such people “golden misses”. “Why should I have to settle down to a life of preparing tofu soup, like my mother?” asks one.
Rates of non-marriage rise at every stage of education. Women with less than secondary education are the most likely to marry, followed by those with secondary education, with university graduates least likely. This pattern is the opposite of the one in America and Europe, where marriage is more common among college graduates than among those with just a secondary education.
There are two reasons why education's spread reduces women's propensity to marry. First, non-marriage has always been more prevalent among women with more education. Now that there are more women in these higher-education groups, there are fewer marriages. Marriage rates are also lower in cities. Since education is likely to go on improving, and urbanisation to go on rising, more women will join the ranks of graduates or city folk who are least likely to marry.
Marrying up
Second, more education leaves the best-educated women with fewer potential partners. In most Asian countries, women have always been permitted—even encouraged—to “marry up”, ie, marry a man of higher income or education. Marrying up was necessary in the past when women could not get an education and female literacy was low. But now that many women are doing as well or better than men at school, those at the top—like the “golden misses”—find the marriage market unwelcoming. Either there are fewer men of higher education for them to marry, or lower-income men feel intimidated by their earning power (as well as their brain power). As Singapore's Mr Lee once said: “The Asian man…preferred to have a wife with less education than himself.” In Singapore, non-marriage rates among female university graduates are stratospheric: a third of 30-34-year-old university graduates are single.
Better education also makes possible the other main trend changing marriage: female employment. Asia's economic miracle has caused—and been caused by—a surge of women into the formal workforce. In East Asia two-thirds of women have jobs, an unusually high rate. In South-East Asia the figure is 59%. In South Korea the employment rate of women in their 20s (59.2%) recently overtook that of twenty-something men (58.5%). This surge has been accompanied by the collapse of the lifetime-employment systems in Japanese and South Korean firms, which used to ensure that a single (male) worker's income could support a middle-class family. Now the wife's earnings are needed, too.
All things being equal, having a job increases a woman's autonomy. She has more options, and these options include not having a husband. But it is clear from Western societies that women will not necessarily choose a job over marriage. Rather, they will struggle to balance the conflicting demands of work and family.
What is unusual about Asia is that women seem to bear an unusually large share of the burden of marriage, reducing the attractiveness of family life compared with work. Certainly, this is what Asian women themselves think. Surveys about attitudes to marriage are patchy and subject to a lot of reservations. But for what it is worth, in a survey from 2011 of Japan's three largest cities, only two-thirds of wives said they felt positive about their marriage, much less than their husbands; in America, both husbands and wives usually report higher and similar levels of satisfaction. In a survey from 2000, satisfaction levels in Japan were only half those in America. This may be because the readier availability of divorce in America has left fewer people trapped in loveless marriages. Or there may be something in the Japanese caricature of the salaryman husband working long hours and socialising all night and at weekends, while his neglected, fretful wife struggles to bring up the children at home.
Whatever the problem, it is not confined to Japan. Illyqueen, a popular Taiwanese blogger, recently ranted about “Mama's boys” in their 30s who have had “no hardships, no housework, [and who] …have lost the ability to keep promises (like marriage).” If some Asian women do indeed have an unusually negative view of marriage, it might make them more likely to choose a job over a husband, or to put off marriage while they pursue a career.
Moreover, public attitudes and expectations are lagging far behind changes in women's lives in Asia, making it even harder to strike a balance between life and work. Despite higher incomes and education, “women have lower socioeconomic status than men,” argues Heeran Chun, a South Korean sociologist. “Their lives are markedly restricted by the cultural values associated with Confucianism.” They are expected to give up work—sometimes on marriage, often after childbirth—and many do not return to the job market until their children are grown. This forces upon women an unwelcome choice between career and family. It may also help to explain the unusually low marriage rates among the best-educated and best-paid women, for whom the opportunity cost of giving up a career to have children is greatest.
As in most traditional societies, women in Asia have long been the sole caregivers for children, elderly parents or parents-in-law. People generally assume they will continue to be so, even though many women have paid jobs outside the home. The result is that expectations placed on wives have become unusually onerous. Surveys in Japan have suggested that women who work full-time then go home and spend another 30 hours a week doing the housework. Their husbands contribute an unprincely three hours of effort. In America and Europe the disparity is less extreme, and has narrowed considerably since the 1960s.
On top of this, many Asian couples face enormous pressure to ensure their children succeed in schools with cut-throat competition for places—pressure that falls mostly on the mother. Private child care is exorbitantly expensive. There are few state-subsidised crèches (324,000 children are on waiting lists in Seoul alone). And setting up a home is expensive because of high house prices. All this means it is harder to strike a satisfying balance between job and family in Asia than in the West.
Not every Asian country is affected by these trends equally. South Korea, for example, has lower rates of non-marriage, and a lower age of marriage, than its neighbours. But the big exceptions are Asia's giants. At the moment, marriage is still the norm in China and arranged marriage the norm in India. As long as that continues to be true, a majority of Asians will live in traditional families. But how long will it continue? Signs of change are everywhere.
The mean age of marriage is rising in both countries. Divorce is increasing, especially among younger people. In India, traditional arranged marriages are being challenged by online dating (shaadi.com claims to be the world's largest matrimonial service) and by “self-arranged marriages”, hybrids in which the couple meet, fall in love and agree to marry—but then let the two families fix everything up, as in traditional arranged marriages.
In China, the migration of millions of young men and women from the countryside to cities is changing family life profoundly. It has pushed up the divorce rate because migrant workers return home to find that they and their partners have grown apart. When the husband and wife go to the city together, either they choose not to bring their children with them (since both work full time) or they may not do so, since the hukou household-registration system prevents dependants from joining them. According to a survey in 2008 by the All-China Women's Federation, 58m children of migrant workers were being brought up hundreds of miles away, in their parents' village, usually by grandparents. The immediate family is no longer the universal setting for child-rearing in China.
More important, the marriage systems of both giants risk being torn apart in future by their practice of sex-selective abortion. Tens of millions of female fetuses have been aborted over the past generation, as parents use pre-natal screening to identify the sex of the fetus and then rid themselves of daughters. In China in 2010 more than 118 boys were born for every 100 girls. In India the ratio was 109 to 100. By 2030, according to Avraham Ebenstein of Harvard University and Ethan Sharygin of the University of Pennsylvania, about 8% of Chinese men aged 25 and older will be unable to marry because of the country's distorted sex ratio. By 2050 the unmarried share will be 10-15%. In 2030, in the two giants, there will be 660m men between the ages of 20 and 50, but only 597m women. Over 60m men therefore face the prospect of not finding a bride. That is almost as many men of 20-50 as will be living in America in that year. This alone will wreck Asia's tradition of universal marriage.
The big question remains: how much is this a problem? And if it is, why? Arguably, the most important thing is that women who do not want to marry are no longer being forced to. And that must be a benefit: to them, to men spared an unhappy marriage; perhaps to society as a whole.
Against that, there are several reasons for worry, some of them extremely disturbing. Social attitudes in Asia change slowly, and many people think it wrong to remain unmarried. “Parasite singles” is the unflattering term in Japan. The reluctance to marry seems to have unleashed spiteful hostility, an attitude that makes the decision not to wed a tough one.
Contraception is a particular problem. Several Asian countries restrict state-provided family planning to married couples. A few even demand to see the wedding certificate before dispensing condoms (that has happened in Europe, too). This is not a sensible policy when so many men and women will remain unmarried throughout their 20s and 30s.
Then there are the educational and social aspects of changing marriage patterns. Because women tend to marry up—that is, marry men in an income or educational group above them—any problems of non-marriage are not dispersed throughout society but concentrated in two groups with dim wedding prospects: men with no education and women with a lot.
Almost every East Asian country is worried about the decline of marriage among its best-educated daughters. In Singapore the government even set up an online-dating service, lovebyte.org.sg, to boost marriage rates among graduates. The problem is no less acute among poor or ill-educated men. South Korean women seem to be no longer interested in marrying peasant farmers, for instance.
China has coined new terms to describe the two groups: sheng-nu (left-over women) and guang gun (bare branches, or men who will not add to the family tree). “Bare branches” is most commonly used in China to refer to men who will be unable to marry because of sex-selective abortion. And that encapsulates the biggest worry about Asia's flight from marriage. If (when?) it spreads to China and India, it will combine with the surplus of bachelors to cause unheard-of strains. Prostitution could rise; brides could be traded like commodities, or women forced to “marry” several men; wives could be kept in purdah by jealous, fearful husbands.
This may sound alarmist. But the reluctance of women to marry, together with men's continuing desire for a wife, is already producing a surge of cross-border brides. According to “Asian Cross Border Marriage Migration”, a book edited by Melody Lu and Wen-Shan Yang (Amsterdam University Press), 27% of Taiwanese marriages in 2002 involved foreign women; one in eight births that year was to a “mixed” family. Many girls are illiterate teenagers sold (in practice) by their families to older, richer foreigners. Back in their home villages, therefore, young men's marriage chances are lower. Arranged marriages with foreigners fell in Taiwan after the government cracked down on them, but they continue to rise elsewhere. In South Korea, one-seventh of marriages in 2005 were to “Kosians” (Korean-Asians). In rural areas, the share is higher: 44% of farmers in South Jeolla province who married in 2009 took a foreign bride. If China or India were ever to import brides on this scale, it would spread sexual catastrophe throughout Asia. As it is, that catastrophe may be hard to avoid.
There is an historical precedent for falling and low marriage rates. It happened in Ireland in the late 19th century and in America and much of Europe in the 1930s. American and European marriage rates bounced back between 1945 and 1970. But Europe and America were different: marriage rates fell during an economic crisis and recovered as the economy did. The Asian peculiarity is that marriage rates have been eroding during a long boom. And as Asia gets richer, traditional marriage patterns are only likely to unravel further.
Thoughts About The Future: Health
Doctors Online
Our relationship with our doctors is changing due to new technologies. Increasingly, instead of going to visit a doctor for routine matters, you can go online, as described in a CNS News article. The big difference is that doctors can now use what is being called e-health or e-care to meet with their patients online to engage in video chats, participate in health checkups over the phone, or review the results of in-home health monitoring devices that send the data to the doctor over an Internet connection.
Doctors can even monitor and adjust the doses of medicine that patients get over the Internet. If patients have an automatic drug dispenser, a doctor can prescribe how much of what drug a patient will get and change or stop the dosage based on the information obtained from other health monitors.

The way this online health care works is that a special device is clipped onto the patient ’s skin that contains all the drugs prescribed by the doctor. Then, based on what the doctor prescribes, the device using an Internet wireless connection will adjust what it doles out to the patient. In turn, the doctor will get information on what to do for the patient through an electronic health record, which keeps track of the results from other devices measuring the patient ’s blood pressure and glucose level. Later, should the doctor want to talk to the patient, he or she can communicate through video conferencing, as well as by phone.
For example, if a patient has diabetes, the flu, or high blood pressure, the doctor can see how the patient is doing at the push of a few keys or the movement of a mouse on a screen. Then, based on this information, the doctor can decide what the patient should do and provide any prescriptions for drugs or further treatment—all electronically, of course.
This means that doctors and patients no longer have to see each other very much, because so much routine medical care can be practiced while the patient is in the comfort of his or her own home. Certainly, if necessary, this Internet medical treatment can pave the way for the patient to actually see someone by going to the doctor ’s office or to a hospital for further care aided by electronic devices for everything from reading blood pressure to taking brain scans. But otherwise, the system increasingly emphasizes getting health care from the comfort of your own home without needing to physically visit a doctor.
Ironically, this new focus on medicine is a bit like turning back the clock to the days when doctors did in-home visits, though back then they were actually there in person, whereas now these home visits are increasingly conducted via an Internet connection between the doctor in his office and the patient at home.
Though some might consider this distance between doctor and patient overly impersonal, this system has much to commend it. You don ’t have to take the time to physically go to the doctor, and you don ’t have to deal with the stress of getting there as you battle traffic pileups and bad drivers. Additionally, you might have access to the latest and greatest of electronic monitoring devices.
However, there can be a number of downsides. For example, what if you are dependent on all this electronic gear to communicate with your doctor and the power suddenly goes off? Or what if when the power comes back on again, you find that the power surge has blown the power system in your monitoring gear, much like what happens when a surge takes out a computer power supply or motherboard (which is what has happened to me when I left one of my printers on, and suddenly ZAP, during an outage in the neighborhood, the power supply went dead and has taken three months to replace). And then what if your equipment simply fails or becomes uncalibrated and gives a wrong reading?
If you ’re in a doctor ’s office, where the doctor is seeing you personally, he might realize there could be a problem if you are telling him one thing about your health while he is personally examining you which contradicts what he sees on the electronic device. This means he should do further checking. Perhaps seeing you on a video monitor might help to overcome that disturbance problem—and maybe some home equipment plugged into the monitor might be able to take your blood pressure and pulse or scan your open mouth and listen to you breathe. But if there is all this high-tech equipment between you and the doctor, maybe that could cover up some of the things that might be observed during an in-person doctor ’s visit. Not everyone may want all of that electronic medical gear in their house, and some may consider it overly expensive.
Also, this care over the Internet lacks one more important thing. Quite often medical treatment depends on the placebo effect—a very real effect that comes not from the specific pills or other treatments the doctor provides, but from simply seeing a doctor and getting his or her reassurance or from a belief that the pills or treatment will work. While some people might need that personal interaction with a trusted doctor to get that reassurance, some people might just as easily feel it and maybe even more so when they interact with a doctor over a computer screen.

So are all these changes making health care more electronic a good thing? I think the doctor is still out—or maybe the appropriate word now is offline—on that one. But the one thing that seems certain is that more and more of us will be getting our health care online and through electronic devices. And as we do, more increasingly we will need to personally see fewer doctors, which could be a good thing, if fewer doctors are available. Or then again, this new technology could lead to outsourcing medical care as well as many other jobs, so now, not only is the doctor that you see likely to be online, but outsourced to another country, too.
In any case, for the health care of the future, just turn on your computer and start the program. Wherever you are, the doctor is always in, er . . . online.
Extracts taken from "The Very Next New Thing ~ Commentaries On The Latest Developments That Will Be Changing Your Life" by Gini Graham Scott (2011)
Much Ado About Love!
All things to do with relationships...
Tales of Heartbreakers - And The Heartbroken - Puppy Love Memories, Long Distance Love, Living the "Two Handphones" Life... if you want to share, then this is the thread.
10 Rules for Writing Numbers and Numerals
1. Number versus numeral. First things first, what is the difference between a number and a numeral? A number is an abstract concept while a numeral is a symbol used to express that number. “Three,” “3″ and “III” are all symbols used to express the same number (or the concept of “threeness”). One could say that the difference between a number and its numerals is like the difference between a person and her name.
2. Spell small numbers out. The small numbers, such as whole numbers smaller than ten, should be spelt out. That’s one rule you can count on. If you don’t spell numbers out it will look like you’re sending an instant message, and you want to be more formal than that in your writing.
3. No other standard rule: Experts don’t always agree on other rules. Some experts say that any one-word number should be written out. Two-word numbers should be expressed in figures. That is, they say you should write out twelve or twenty. But not 24.
4. Using the comma. In English, the comma is used as a separator for thousands (and the period as a decimal separator), to make large numbers easier to read. So write the size of Alaska as 571,951 square miles instead of 571951 square miles. In Continental Europe the opposite is true, periods are used to separate large numbers and the comma is used for decimals. Finally, the International Systems of Units (SI) recommends that a space should be used to separate groups of three digits, and both the comma and the period should be used only to denote decimals, like $13 200,50 (the comma part is a mess… I know).
5. Don’t start a sentence with a numeral. Make it “Fourscore and seven years ago,” not “4 score and 7 years ago.” That means you might have to rewrite some sentences: “Fans bought 400,000 copies the first day” instead of “400,000 copies were sold the first day.”
6. Centuries and decades should be spelt out. Use the Eighties or nineteenth century.
7. Percentages and recipes. With everyday writing and recipes, you can use digits, like “4% of the children” or “Add 2 cups of brown rice.” In formal writing, however, you should spell the percentage out like “12 percent of the players” (or “twelve percent of the players,” depending on your preference as explained in point three).
8. If the number is rounded or estimated, spell it out. Rounded numbers over a million are written as a numeral plus a word. Use “About 400 million people speak Spanish natively,” instead of “About 400,000,000 people speak Spanish natively.” If you’re using the exact number, you’d write it out, of course.
9. Two numbers next to each other. It can be confusing if you write “7 13-year-olds”, so write one of them as a numeral, like “seven 13-year-olds”. Pick the number that has the fewest letters.
10. Ordinal numbers and consistency. Don’t say “He was my 1st true love,” but rather “He was my first true love.” Be consistent within the same sentence. If my teacher has 23 beginning students, she also has 18 advanced students, not eighteen advanced students.
There's no need to comment on this Blog Entry if you don't want to! This is provided for your convenience.
Taken from: HERE
2. Spell small numbers out. The small numbers, such as whole numbers smaller than ten, should be spelt out. That’s one rule you can count on. If you don’t spell numbers out it will look like you’re sending an instant message, and you want to be more formal than that in your writing.
3. No other standard rule: Experts don’t always agree on other rules. Some experts say that any one-word number should be written out. Two-word numbers should be expressed in figures. That is, they say you should write out twelve or twenty. But not 24.
4. Using the comma. In English, the comma is used as a separator for thousands (and the period as a decimal separator), to make large numbers easier to read. So write the size of Alaska as 571,951 square miles instead of 571951 square miles. In Continental Europe the opposite is true, periods are used to separate large numbers and the comma is used for decimals. Finally, the International Systems of Units (SI) recommends that a space should be used to separate groups of three digits, and both the comma and the period should be used only to denote decimals, like $13 200,50 (the comma part is a mess… I know).
5. Don’t start a sentence with a numeral. Make it “Fourscore and seven years ago,” not “4 score and 7 years ago.” That means you might have to rewrite some sentences: “Fans bought 400,000 copies the first day” instead of “400,000 copies were sold the first day.”
6. Centuries and decades should be spelt out. Use the Eighties or nineteenth century.
7. Percentages and recipes. With everyday writing and recipes, you can use digits, like “4% of the children” or “Add 2 cups of brown rice.” In formal writing, however, you should spell the percentage out like “12 percent of the players” (or “twelve percent of the players,” depending on your preference as explained in point three).
8. If the number is rounded or estimated, spell it out. Rounded numbers over a million are written as a numeral plus a word. Use “About 400 million people speak Spanish natively,” instead of “About 400,000,000 people speak Spanish natively.” If you’re using the exact number, you’d write it out, of course.
9. Two numbers next to each other. It can be confusing if you write “7 13-year-olds”, so write one of them as a numeral, like “seven 13-year-olds”. Pick the number that has the fewest letters.
10. Ordinal numbers and consistency. Don’t say “He was my 1st true love,” but rather “He was my first true love.” Be consistent within the same sentence. If my teacher has 23 beginning students, she also has 18 advanced students, not eighteen advanced students.
There's no need to comment on this Blog Entry if you don't want to! This is provided for your convenience.
Taken from: HERE
Sunday, 26 August 2018
Smirk or Squirm Session 2
- I went to school in Pekanbaru since kindergaten to junior high but i finished my highschool in Solo.
- I’ve always consider myself an outgoing person, the ones that always try to get to know everyone around before they even introduce their selves.
- Thats a big difference, but it will make Mr Adrian (our english-writing teacher) lives easier
- Last year I’ve studied during one semester overseas. I’ve really enjoyed this experience that’s why I chose to come to Indonesia this year.
- I also play jazz piano so it makes me even more appreciate jazz.
- I have 2 siblings; one older sister and one younger brother.
- Since I was born, my father have taught me different type of sports, especialy martial arts.
- I have a lot of hobbies, such as watching movies, listening to music, play sports, and also reading novels.
- I lived most of my childhood in America for seven years.
- Before I will write a lot, let me introduce myself.
Think about each one for a moment before checking my corrected versions of them in the comments below.
Four Songs No.2
Transatlanticism by Isabeau Waia'u Walker
(Death Cab for Cutie cover)
The Atlantic was born today and I'll tell you how...
The clouds above opened up and let it out.
I was standing on the surface of a perforated sphere
When the water filled every hole.
And thousands upon thousands made an ocean,
Making islands where no island should go.
Oh no.
Those people were overjoyed;
They took to their boats.
I thought it less like a lake and more like a moat.
The rhythm of my footsteps crossing flatlands
To your door have been silenced forever more.
The distance is quite simply much too far for me to row
It seems farther than ever before
Oh no.
I need you so much closer
=x=
Peter Gabriel - Sledgehammer
Hey hey you
Tell me how have you been?
You could have a steam train
If you just lay down your tracks
You could have an aeroplane flying
If you bring your blue sky back
All you do is call me
I'll be anything you need
You could have a big dipper
Going up and down, all around the bends
You could have a bumper car, bumping
This amusement never ends
I wanna be your sledgehammer
Why don't you call my name?
Oh, let me be your sledgehammer
This will be my testimony
Show me 'round your fruit cage
Cause I will be your honey bee
Open up your fruit cage
Where the fruit is as sweet as can be
I wanna be your sledgehammer
Why don't you call my name?
You'd better call the sledgehammer
Put your mind at rest
I'm going to be - the sledgehammer
This can be my testimony
I'm your sledgehammer
Let there be no doubt about it
Sledge sledge sledgehammer
I get it right
I kicked the habit
Shed my skin
This is the new stuff
I go dancing in (We can go dancing in)
Oh, won't you show for me?
And I will show for you
Show for me, I will show for you
Yea, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I do mean you
Only you
You been coming through
Gonna build that power
Build, build up that power, hey
I've been feeding the rhythm
I've been feeding the rhythm
Going to feel that power, build in you
Come on, come on, help me do
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, you
I've been feeding the rhythm
I've been feeding the rhythm
It's what we're doing, doing
All day and night
=x=
Ultraίsta - Bad Insect
Holding off she breaks down in blue
Standing on that bridge and she’s waiting, waiting for you
Holding off she breaks down in blue
I’m gonna wait right here for you
What do you wanna do?
Baby the lovers don’t talk to me like you do
The lazies don’t love me they don’t talk to me like they used to
So I’m going out
And I’m not gonna dance,
Not gonna sing unless somebody’s holding on
I’m going out, and I’m not gonna dance,
Not gonna sing unless somebody’s holding on
Not gonna sing unless somebody’s holding on
Not gonna sing unless somebody’s holding on
Holding off she breaks foreign favour
Standing under that bridge and she’s waiting, waiting for you,
Holding off she breaks down in blue
I’m gonna wait right here for you, what you wanna do?
Baby the lovers won’t talk to me like you do
The lazies don’t talk to me they don’t love me like they used to
So I’m going out and I’m not gonna dance
Not gonna sing unless somebody’s holding on
=x=
L.E.J - SUMMER 2015
La la la la la la la la la
La la la la la la la la la
La la la la la la la la la
La la la la la la la la la
Hold on to me
Don't let me go
Who cares what they see?
Who cares what they know?
First name is Free
Last name is Dom
Cause you still believe
In where we're from
Freedom
Freedom
Freedom
Freedom
Do you recall, not long ago
We would walk on the sidewalk
Innocent, remember?
All we did was care for each other
But the night was warm
We were bold and young
All around the wind blows
We would only hold on to let go
Blow a kiss, fire a gun
We needed someone to lean on
Blow a kiss, fire a gun
All we need is somebody to lean on
Freedom
Blow a kiss, fire a gun
Freedom
Et c'est comme ça qu'on ...
Hey ma ma ma hey ma ma
S’aime, s’aime, s’aime
Et c'est comme ça qu'on ...
Hey ma ma ma hey ma ma
Comme ça consomme
Somme, somme, somme
Beating my drum like, dum di di day
I like the dirty rhythm you play
I wanna hear you calling my name
Like, hey mama, mama, hey mama, ma
Beating the drum like, dum di di day
I know you want it in the worst way
I wanna hear you calling my name
Like, hey mama, mama, hey mama, ma
Be my woman, girl
I'll be your man
Be my woman, girl
I'll be your man
Pourtant, j'fais bouger les têtes, tu connais mes textes
Connais pas ma technique, mec, mais t'es qui
Je vise le Bingo, que des faux lingots, éviter les bimbos, matte mon équipe
Ça fout les boules, ouais, ça les dégoûte
Car nous on déboule comme des fous dans la foule
Mais mon pote ça c'est cool toi, tu restes à l'écoute
On se serre les coudes, ils nous prennent pour des fous
J'suis pas un gangsta
Pas la peine de mentir, j'suis comme toi
S'aime, s'aime, s'aime
Un gangsta
Pas la peine de mentir, j'suis comme toi
Bara bara pa ba pa ya
Venga bailar
S'aime, s'aime, s'aime
Me laisse pas solo solo
Conmigo, gangsta
Comme ça qu'on
Hey ma ma ma hey ma ma
Somme, somme, somme
Bitch better have my money
Bitch better have my money
Too hot, hot, hot (Hot damn)
Call the police and the fireman
I’m too hot, hot, hot (Hot damn)
Make a dragon wanna retire man
Girls hit your hallelujah (Woo!) (x4)
Cuz oh, I think that I've found myself a cheerleader
She is always right there when I need her
Oh, I think that I've found myself a cheerleader
She is always right there when I need her
I'm in love with the coco
Is English or Mandarin the language of the future?
By Jennifer Pak - BBC News, Kuala Lumpur
Those who believe that English is important for their children's future either send their kids to expensive private schools or to Singapore, where the government has been credited as being far-sighted for adopting the language of its former colonial master.
Nearly three-quarters of the population in Singapore are ethnic Chinese but English is the national language.
Many believe that this has helped the city state earn the title of being the easiest place to do business, by the World Bank.
However, the dominance of English is now being challenged by the rise of China in Singapore.
The Singapore Chinese Chamber Institute of Business has added Chinese classes for business use in recent years.
Students are being taught in Mandarin rather than the Hokkien dialect spoken by the older Chinese immigrants.
These courses have proved popular, ever since the government began providing subsidies for Singaporeans to learn Chinese in 2009 during the global financial crisis.
"The government pushed to provide them with an opportunity to upgrade themselves so as to prepare themselves for the economic upturn," says chamber spokesperson Alwyn Chia.
Some businesses are already desperate for Chinese speakers.
Lee Han Shih, who runs a multimedia company, says English is becoming less important to him financially because he is taking western clients to do business in China.
"So obviously you need to learn English but you also need to know Chinese," says Mr Lee.
As China's economic power grows, Mr Lee believes that Mandarin will overtake English. In fact, he has already been seeing hints of this.
"The decline of the English language probably follows the decline of the US dollar.
"If the renminbi is becoming the next reserve currency then you have to learn Chinese."
More and more, he says, places like Brazil and China are doing business in the renminbi, not the US dollar, so there is less of a need to use English.
Bilingualism
Indeed, China's clout is growing in South East Asia, becoming the region's top trading partner.
But to say that Mandarin will rival English is a "bit of a stretch", says Manoj Vohra, Asia director at the Economist Intelligence Unit.
Even companies in China, who prefer to operate in Chinese, are looking for managers who speak both Mandarin and English if they want to expand abroad, he says.
"They tend to act as their bridges."
So the future of English is not a question of whether it will be overtaken by Mandarin, but whether it will co-exist with Chinese, says Vohra.
He believes bilingualism will triumph in South East Asia.
It is a sound economic argument, but in Vietnam's case, there is resistance to learning Mandarin.
The country may share a border with China, but the Vietnamese government's choice to not emphasise Mandarin is an emotional one, says leading economist Le Dang Doanh.
"All the streets in Vietnam are named according to generals and emperors that have been fighting against the Chinese invasion for 2000 years," he says.
Tensions flared up again last May over the disputed waters of the South China Sea.
Anti-Chinese sentiment means that young Vietnamese are choosing to embrace English - the language of a defeated enemy. Many families still bear the psychological scars from the Vietnam War with the United States.
Yet there is no animosity towards English because the founding father of Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh, made a clear distinction between the so-called American imperialists who were bombarding Vietnam and the American people, says Le Dang Doanh.
Many Vietnamese who have lost family members during the war are now studying in America, he says.
"We never forget any victim in the past but in order to industrialise and normalise a country, Vietnam needs to speak English."
The Vietnamese government has an ambitious goal to ensure all young people leaving school by 2020 will have a good grasp of the English language.
But it's not hard for young Vietnamese to accept English. For some, the language offers a sense of freedom in Vietnam, where the one-party communist state retains a tight grip on all media.
In a public square in central Hanoi, a group of young men are break-dancing to the pulsing beats of western hip hop. Ngoc Tu, 20, says he only listens to English music.
"The Ministry of Culture has banned a lot of [Vietnamese] songs and any cultural publications that refer to freedom or rebellion but... English songs are not censored."
It is debatable whether English or Mandarin will dominate in South East Asia in the future. There are arguments for both on the economic front.
But culturally, there is no dispute.
Even Mandarin language enthusiasts like Singaporean businessman Mr Lee, says that English will remain popular so long as Hollywood exists.
The success of movies such as Kung Fu Panda, an American production about a Chinese animal, has caused a lot of anxiety in China, he says.
There have been many cartoons in China about pandas before, but none had reached commercial success, says Mr Lee.
"The moment Kung Fu Panda hit the cinemas everybody watched it. They bought the merchandise and they learned English."
Taken from the BBC News web site.
Friday, 24 August 2018
Five Types of Writing
This is what we can call a Communication Continuum which includes traits and examples of five types of writing, ranging from the connotative (having the power of implying or suggesting something in addition to what is explicit ~ e.g. creative writing) to the denotative (having the power of explicitly denoting, designating, or naming ~ e.g. technical writing).
Taken from "A Teacher’s Guide to Technical Writing Writing That Works"
by Dr. Steven M. Gerson.
You can peruse it HERE.
by Dr. Steven M. Gerson.
You can peruse it HERE.
Why do we behave so oddly in lifts?
"Most of us sort of shut down.
"We walk in. We press the button. We stand perfectly still."
Taking the lift could be the least memorable part of your journey to work, but Dr Lee Gray of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte has made it his business to scrutinise this overlooked form of public transportation. People refer to him as "the Elevator Guy".
"The lift becomes this interesting social space where etiquette is sort of odd," he explains. "They are socially very interesting but often very awkward places."
Conversations that have been struck up in the lobby tend to be extinguished quite quickly in the thick atmosphere of the office elevator. We walk in and usually turn around to face the door.
If someone else comes in, we may have to move. And here, it has been observed that lift-travellers unthinkingly go through a set pattern of movements, as predetermined as a square dance.
On your own, you can do whatever you want - it's your own little box.
If there are two of you, you take different corners. Standing diagonally across from each other creates the greatest distance.
When a third person enters, you will unconsciously form a triangle (breaking the analogy that some have made with dots on a dice). And when there is a fourth person it's a square, with someone in every corner. A fifth person is probably going to have to stand in the middle.
Now we are in uncharted territory. New entrants to the lift will need to size up the situation when the doors slide open and then act decisively. Once in, for most people the protocol is simple - look down, or examine your phone.
Why are we so awkward in lifts?
"You don't have enough space," says Professor Babette Renneberg, a clinical psychologist at the Free University of Berlin.
"Usually when we meet other people we have about an arm's length of distance between us. And that's not possible in most elevators, so it's a very unusual setting. It's unnatural."
In such a small, enclosed space it becomes vital, she says, to act in a way that cannot be construed as threatening, odd or in any way ambiguous. The easiest way to do this is to avoid eye-contact.
But perhaps there is more to it than just social awkwardness.
"In the back of our minds we are a little anxious," says Nick White, an office worker in New York who was unfortunate enough to be trapped in a lift for 41 hours.
| Nick White was trapped in a lift in his office building for 41 hours. |
"We don't like to be locked into a place. We want to get out of the elevator as soon as possible, because, you know, it's a creepy place to be."
During his ordeal, he began to think of another enclosed space that lurks at the back of our minds - a tomb.
It would be understandable if White refused ever to step in a lift again. But if you work in a city built on a vertical plane, and if you have aspirations above being a receptionist, that isn't an option.
"I certainly remember what happened to me every time I go in one," he admits. "It's part of the commute, the part you have the least control over."
Elevator Guy Lee Gray agrees that a sense of disempowerment is the main cause of lift anxiety.
"You're in a machine that's moving, over which you have no control. You cannot see the elevator engine, you don't know how it's working," he says.
This sense of passivity in the hands of a machine may become more pronounced as we enter the age of buttonless "smart" elevators.
After swiping through security or touching a central control panel, travellers are directed to a lift that has been programmed to stop at their floor, removing the need for any further commands. The system is designed to cut down on unnecessary stops, but although more efficient, some people find the experience unnerving.
Regardless of the qualms and anxieties associated with lifts, Gray is adamant that they are safer than cars - and significantly safer than escalators.
"It is in in fact of one of the safest forms of transportation, if you look at the billions of miles that lifts travel every year and the very, very small number of accidents."
We all know this, which is why we continue to take lifts every day, despite our anxieties.
"We have learned that we can take an elevator and it is safe to do so," says Renneberg. "So in a way it's a triumph of rationalism over our more animalistic instincts."
This pleasing thought - that we become more sophisticated by travelling in lifts - is perhaps one to ponder next time you get in one.
Just don't, whatever you do, start a conversation about it.
Taken from the BBC HERE.
LISTEN: There is a BBC podcast [ MP3 ] about this subject HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


















