Some are calling Google's (GOOG) new browser Chrome an "Internet Explorer killer." Others venture further and call it a "Windows killer." Whether Google's newly launched browser has Microsoft (MSFT) quaking is unclear, but there's no doubt that Google is serious about "organizing the world's information"—and is prepared to shake up the status quo in the process.
It should come as little surprise that Google is entering the Web browser market. The search heavyweight already has a substantial stake in our online activities. Search, check! E-mail, check! Office documents, check! The list of Web applications offered by Google is both long and varied. With its goal of providing all of our online needs, it makes perfect sense that Google would step up and provide a Web browser built to accommodate its applications. With Chrome, Google is betting that more of us will move more of our computing from desktops to online, relying on the vast data centers known as "the cloud." But can Google's Web browser singlehandedly entice us to dump a favorite Web browser and our computer's operating system?
Let's start with the operating system. What's your favorite flavor? Windows, OS X, Linux? Whichever your allegiance, for at least the next several years, you'll need an operating system to boot your computer and store the applications that are still too large and unwieldy to run from inside the cloud. Take iTunes, Photoshop, or PowerPoint. While online equivalents exist, they just can't match the processing power and functionality that come from the applications you run from your computer's operating system.
Segmenting Online Activities
And, while Google Chrome's strength comes in its ability to segment online activities—an open tab playing a live video stream won't slow down the remainder of your Web browsing—it still needs an operating system at its foundation. For evidence that Google Chrome is not yet ready to replace an operating system, consider the browser's limitations at launch. Despite two years of hard work, Chrome can't run without Windows and it won't run at all on Apple's OS X or Linux.
Then comes the question of Chrome's potential for wresting market share from Google's rivals. Can Google really launch a new browser and expect to grab some of Internet Explorer's 72% Web browser market share and Firefox's 20%? Chrome certainly started off strong. On its opening days, according to analysts at Lehman Brothers, free downloads reached an astounding 2% of the market. Lehman predicts that the new browser could reach 15%-20% market share in just two years. In other words, it's likely to be big, but not dominant.
What's more, Google Chrome is not yet proven as a revolutionary Web browser. Google technicians emphasize that its architecture is different, and predict that it will handle computing intensive software applications better than its rivals. But most of the Web surfers who downloaded it on its first day came to face to face with a bare-bones browser with few of the add-ons and plug-ins available on the others.
Brand of Gold
What Chrome can boast is the Google brand. While not everything Google touches turns to shareholder gold, its brand works wonders. The company could launch a new brand of laundry detergent, and we'd likely clear grocery store shelves of the stuff. You can bet that Google's fans will jump at the chance to download a Google-branded browser, so they can check their Gmail, look-up their Google Maps, and search for laundry detergent on Google.com.
It's our infatuation with the Google brand, more than the technology inside, that will boost Chrome's market share and further extend Google in our daily Web activities. As for being a Windows or Internet Explorer killer, don't count on it.
[Via Business Week]
Thursday, September 4, 2008
9 Words That Don't Mean What You Think
The English language is under assault by stupid people who use words they don't understand, and is defended by pompous asses who like to correct those people. We're not sure who to side with.
So, here are some words that you'll see used incorrectly on a daily basis, and a helpful guide as to just how big of a dick you'd have to be to correct people on it.
IRREGARDLESS
People think it means: Regardless.
Actually means: Not a damned thing.
This is not a word. Now, we have no problem with making up words (if a particular scent can only be described as "fartalicious," we reserve the right to call it so). The problem with this one is "regardless" already means something isn't worth regard (that's why the "less" is there) so adding the "ir" to it means... it's worth regarding again? Who knows.
PERUSE
People think it means: To skim over or browse something.
Actually means: Almost the opposite of that.
Peruse means "to read with thoroughness or care." If you peruse a book, you leave no page unturned. This makes sense when you consider the Middle English per use, meaning "to wear out or use up." Unfortunately, if you "consider the Middle English" very often when speaking, you're probably not exactly the life of the party.
IRONIC
People think it means: Any kind of amusing coincidence.
Actually means: An outcome that is the opposite of what you'd expect.
So, if a porn star moved to Virgin, Utah, that would be ironic. If the same porn star bought a house in Boner Knob, Montana that would not be ironic.
PRISTINE
People think it means: "Spotless" or "as good as new."
Actually means: "Ancient, primeval; in a state virtually unchanged from the original."
It's therefore perfectly possible to have a pristine mountain of fossilized brontosaurus shit, but if you were to buff that mountain to a lustrous shine, it would no longer be pristine.
NONPLUSSED
People think it means: Unperturbed, not worried.
Actually means: Utterly perplexed or confused. It comes from the Latin non plus (a state in which nothing more can be done).
The misunderstanding would seem to stem from people making semi-educated guesses as to the word's meaning, which kind of sounds like it means "unruffled" or something like that.
BEMUSED
People think it means: Mildly amused.
Actually means: Bewildered or confused.
If you were to say "I was bemused by your dead baby joke," you wouldn't be saying the joke was funny. You'd be saying that you completely failed to understand it. You were following the story up to and including the bit about the trowel, but you'd lost the thread way before the Ku Klux masturbation climax.
ENORMITY
Enormity
People think it means: Enormous.
Actually means: Outrageous or heinous on a grand scale.
War crimes are enormities. Extra-big bouncy castles are not.
PLETHORA
Plethora
People think it means: A lot of something.
Actually means: Too much of something, an over-abundance.
It's the difference between: "Dude, I am jonesing to go snort a plethora of medicinal-grade barbiturates right now." And ... "Dude, I just snorted a plethora of medicinal-grade barbiturates, and now there are hundreds of terrifying arachnids crawling out of my penis. They all have human lips."
DECEPTIVELY
People think it means: Nobody is sure.
Actually means: Nobody is sure.
Specifically, we're talking about when the word is used with some other adjective. Like if somebody says, "The turd pool is deceptively shallow," does that mean it's deeper than it appears, or not as deep?
If you're not sure, don't feel bad. The American Heritage Dictionary asked their word experts and they said they had no fucking idea, either. So ... nobody knows.
[Via Cracked]
So, here are some words that you'll see used incorrectly on a daily basis, and a helpful guide as to just how big of a dick you'd have to be to correct people on it.
IRREGARDLESS
People think it means: Regardless.
Actually means: Not a damned thing.
This is not a word. Now, we have no problem with making up words (if a particular scent can only be described as "fartalicious," we reserve the right to call it so). The problem with this one is "regardless" already means something isn't worth regard (that's why the "less" is there) so adding the "ir" to it means... it's worth regarding again? Who knows.
PERUSE
People think it means: To skim over or browse something.
Actually means: Almost the opposite of that.
Peruse means "to read with thoroughness or care." If you peruse a book, you leave no page unturned. This makes sense when you consider the Middle English per use, meaning "to wear out or use up." Unfortunately, if you "consider the Middle English" very often when speaking, you're probably not exactly the life of the party.
IRONIC
People think it means: Any kind of amusing coincidence.
Actually means: An outcome that is the opposite of what you'd expect.
So, if a porn star moved to Virgin, Utah, that would be ironic. If the same porn star bought a house in Boner Knob, Montana that would not be ironic.
PRISTINE
People think it means: "Spotless" or "as good as new."
Actually means: "Ancient, primeval; in a state virtually unchanged from the original."
It's therefore perfectly possible to have a pristine mountain of fossilized brontosaurus shit, but if you were to buff that mountain to a lustrous shine, it would no longer be pristine.
NONPLUSSED
People think it means: Unperturbed, not worried.
Actually means: Utterly perplexed or confused. It comes from the Latin non plus (a state in which nothing more can be done).
The misunderstanding would seem to stem from people making semi-educated guesses as to the word's meaning, which kind of sounds like it means "unruffled" or something like that.
BEMUSED
People think it means: Mildly amused.
Actually means: Bewildered or confused.
If you were to say "I was bemused by your dead baby joke," you wouldn't be saying the joke was funny. You'd be saying that you completely failed to understand it. You were following the story up to and including the bit about the trowel, but you'd lost the thread way before the Ku Klux masturbation climax.
ENORMITY
Enormity
People think it means: Enormous.
Actually means: Outrageous or heinous on a grand scale.
War crimes are enormities. Extra-big bouncy castles are not.
PLETHORA
Plethora
People think it means: A lot of something.
Actually means: Too much of something, an over-abundance.
It's the difference between: "Dude, I am jonesing to go snort a plethora of medicinal-grade barbiturates right now." And ... "Dude, I just snorted a plethora of medicinal-grade barbiturates, and now there are hundreds of terrifying arachnids crawling out of my penis. They all have human lips."
DECEPTIVELY
People think it means: Nobody is sure.
Actually means: Nobody is sure.
Specifically, we're talking about when the word is used with some other adjective. Like if somebody says, "The turd pool is deceptively shallow," does that mean it's deeper than it appears, or not as deep?
If you're not sure, don't feel bad. The American Heritage Dictionary asked their word experts and they said they had no fucking idea, either. So ... nobody knows.
[Via Cracked]
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Fish Can Count to Four - But No Higher
Fish can count, according to scientists, who have found that North American mosquito fish have the ability to count up to four.
Previously it was known that fish could tell big shoals from small ones, but researchers have now found that they have a limited ability to count how many other fish are nearby.
This means that they have similar counting abilities to those observed in apes, monkeys and dolphins and humans with very limited mathematical ability.
Christian Agrillo, an experimental psychologist at the university of Padua in Italy said: "We have provided the first evidence that fish exhibit rudimentary mathematical abilities."
Last year, he and his colleagues showed that if a female mosquito fish is harassed by a male, she will try to avoid his attentions by seeking solace in the largest nearby shoal; demonstrating that the fish can tell bigger shoals from smaller ones.
The team first conducted a series of experiments to see whether a lone mosquito fish would prefer to join a shoal of between two and four others.
The results, published on the BBC Worldwide's natural history site, loveearth.com, show that females preferred to join shoals that were larger by just one fish significantly more often - consistently preferring shoals of four fish rather than three fish, and consistently preferring shoals of three fish over those containing just two.
A second series of experiments revealed the fish's ability to process larger numbers. The fish were not able to directly count over four, but they were able to distinguish between larger numbers if they differed by a ratio of 2:1.
For example, the fish could distinguish between a shoal of 16, compared to a shoal of eight others. But they could not tell the difference between a shoal of 12 compared to a shoal of eight, a ratio of 3:2. This demonstrates that fish are able to visually estimate larger numbers - but not very accurately.
Prof Angelo Bisazza, who led the latest research, said that fishes' numerical abilities were actually on a par with the numerical abilities of monkeys and human infants between six and 12 months old, who were both able to visually count small numbers and less accurately estimate larger ones.
Adult humans use a third counting mechanism, in which they verbally count much larger numbers.
Dr Agrillo said: "The most interesting thing is that fish performance is very similar to what is observed in adult humans who possess a very limited vocabulary for numbers."
For example, speakers of the Amazonian language Mundurukú lack words for numbers beyond five. "Their limits in quantity tasks closely resemble what we found in pre-verbal organisms such as fish!" he added.
A variety of animals, including pigeons, parrots, raccoons, ferrets, rats, monkeys and apes are to varying degrees capable of either counting, adding or subtracting numbers. Most need to be trained to do so.
Without training, adult rhesus monkeys are capable of subtracting small numbers, and are capable of representing the number zero.
Wild lions apparently have a rudimentary ability to count. When a pride of lions hears the roar of an approaching lion then two or three females, rather than a lone greeter will always go out to meet the stranger. But if two approaching lions can be heard, the resident females send out four of their own.
[Via Telegraph]
Previously it was known that fish could tell big shoals from small ones, but researchers have now found that they have a limited ability to count how many other fish are nearby.
This means that they have similar counting abilities to those observed in apes, monkeys and dolphins and humans with very limited mathematical ability.
Christian Agrillo, an experimental psychologist at the university of Padua in Italy said: "We have provided the first evidence that fish exhibit rudimentary mathematical abilities."
Last year, he and his colleagues showed that if a female mosquito fish is harassed by a male, she will try to avoid his attentions by seeking solace in the largest nearby shoal; demonstrating that the fish can tell bigger shoals from smaller ones.
The team first conducted a series of experiments to see whether a lone mosquito fish would prefer to join a shoal of between two and four others.
The results, published on the BBC Worldwide's natural history site, loveearth.com, show that females preferred to join shoals that were larger by just one fish significantly more often - consistently preferring shoals of four fish rather than three fish, and consistently preferring shoals of three fish over those containing just two.
A second series of experiments revealed the fish's ability to process larger numbers. The fish were not able to directly count over four, but they were able to distinguish between larger numbers if they differed by a ratio of 2:1.
For example, the fish could distinguish between a shoal of 16, compared to a shoal of eight others. But they could not tell the difference between a shoal of 12 compared to a shoal of eight, a ratio of 3:2. This demonstrates that fish are able to visually estimate larger numbers - but not very accurately.
Prof Angelo Bisazza, who led the latest research, said that fishes' numerical abilities were actually on a par with the numerical abilities of monkeys and human infants between six and 12 months old, who were both able to visually count small numbers and less accurately estimate larger ones.
Adult humans use a third counting mechanism, in which they verbally count much larger numbers.
Dr Agrillo said: "The most interesting thing is that fish performance is very similar to what is observed in adult humans who possess a very limited vocabulary for numbers."
For example, speakers of the Amazonian language Mundurukú lack words for numbers beyond five. "Their limits in quantity tasks closely resemble what we found in pre-verbal organisms such as fish!" he added.
A variety of animals, including pigeons, parrots, raccoons, ferrets, rats, monkeys and apes are to varying degrees capable of either counting, adding or subtracting numbers. Most need to be trained to do so.
Without training, adult rhesus monkeys are capable of subtracting small numbers, and are capable of representing the number zero.
Wild lions apparently have a rudimentary ability to count. When a pride of lions hears the roar of an approaching lion then two or three females, rather than a lone greeter will always go out to meet the stranger. But if two approaching lions can be heard, the resident females send out four of their own.
[Via Telegraph]
How 'Mein Kampf' Changed the World
Aside from the Bible, few books over time have stirred up such controversy as one composed from the cell of a German prison.
It is a poorly-written mess, according to literary critics, but the ideas contained within Adolf Hitler's 1925 tome "Mein Kampf" (or My Struggle) sadly would resonate well beyond the book's quality of prose.
Mein Kampf was the manifesto from which all of Hitler's atrocities stemmed, a tinderbox of a book that may have disappeared from the annals of history had the author not actually gone on to carry out the ideas presented in his tirade against all things non-German.
Because he did, however, the notorious book remains banned in some parts of the world, more than 80 years later, and has sparked ongoing debates about literary freedoms.
Hitler passes the time behind bars
Hitler rose through the ranks of Germany's small but powerful National Socialist (Nazi) political party to become its bombastic leader in the early 1920s. Believing that Germany's central Weimar government had let the country be ridiculed by a series of post-World War I punishments handed down by the victorious Allies, the Nazis attempted a coup d'etat in 1923. The famous "Munich Beer Hall Putsch" failed and sent Hitler to jail for high treason.
While imprisoned, Hitler read piles of books on history and philosophy, consolidating his own set of beliefs all the while. He didn't consider putting his political ideas down on paper, however, until his business manager suggested that an autobiography might be a fruitful way to pass the time in prison. At the urging of his manager, Hitler's original title for his work, "Four Years of Struggle Against Lies, Stupidity and Cowardice," was also changed to the more marketable "My Struggle." Hitler did not, in fact, write the book himself, but dictated to his friend Rudolf Hess, who was imprisoned alongside him.
Part autobiography, part political manifesto, the patchwork pages of "Mein Kampf" were put to print in 1925. By that time, Hitler had already been released from prison upon growing pressure from members of the Nazi party.
A gift for the newly-married couple
Despite being repetitive, long-winded and difficult to read, "Mein Kampf" had become a popular read throughout Germany by the late 1920s, disseminating Hitler's main theories to a large audience.
In "Mein Kampf," the future chancellor of the Third Reich goes on at length about his youth and the early days of the Nazi Party, but it was his visions for a Germany of the future that resonated most with its readers.
Chief among his ideas was the absolute, innate superiority of the Germanic race, which Hitler called Aryan, over every group of people. "Mein Kampf" singled out Jews as the source of many of Germany's ills and a threat to Aryan dominance. The Aryans had a duty to restore Germany's former glory and enlarge its territory by winning back the land it had during World War I and gaining new area by expanding into Russia.
"Mein Kampf" gained enormous readership in the early 1930s and once Hitler gained power as Chancellor of Germany in 1933, became the de facto Nazi bible. Every newly married couple received a free copy on their wedding day, and every soldier had one included as part of his gear. At the outset of World War II, the book had been translated into 11 languages and sold 5 million copies.
The debate goes on today
"Mein Kampf" was a clear-cut warning to the world of Hitler's intentions for war and genocide, which may have been recognized and prevented had more people read it outside of Germany, some historians say. Publishers in the United States and the U.K. did produce copies in English prior to the War, but were held up by copyright lawsuits by Hitler's publishers.
Since the war, the book has remained a flashpoint of controversy, especially in Germany and the former Axis nations.
Worried over its use as propaganda by neo-Nazi groups, Germany and Austria have banned the possession and selling of "Mein Kampf" outright, while some countries restrict its possession to people using the book for academic purposes only. Opponents of the ban argue that the book is a valuable historical document, and that keeping it unavailable only makes it more desirable to right-wing groups.
The debate over the book's ban has flared up again in Germany in recent months, with some groups calling for an edition carefully annotated by academics to be produced before 2015, when the book's copyright officially expires in Germany and it will become available to anyone in the general public to own and reprint.
[Via Live Science]
It is a poorly-written mess, according to literary critics, but the ideas contained within Adolf Hitler's 1925 tome "Mein Kampf" (or My Struggle) sadly would resonate well beyond the book's quality of prose.
Mein Kampf was the manifesto from which all of Hitler's atrocities stemmed, a tinderbox of a book that may have disappeared from the annals of history had the author not actually gone on to carry out the ideas presented in his tirade against all things non-German.
Because he did, however, the notorious book remains banned in some parts of the world, more than 80 years later, and has sparked ongoing debates about literary freedoms.
Hitler passes the time behind bars
Hitler rose through the ranks of Germany's small but powerful National Socialist (Nazi) political party to become its bombastic leader in the early 1920s. Believing that Germany's central Weimar government had let the country be ridiculed by a series of post-World War I punishments handed down by the victorious Allies, the Nazis attempted a coup d'etat in 1923. The famous "Munich Beer Hall Putsch" failed and sent Hitler to jail for high treason.
While imprisoned, Hitler read piles of books on history and philosophy, consolidating his own set of beliefs all the while. He didn't consider putting his political ideas down on paper, however, until his business manager suggested that an autobiography might be a fruitful way to pass the time in prison. At the urging of his manager, Hitler's original title for his work, "Four Years of Struggle Against Lies, Stupidity and Cowardice," was also changed to the more marketable "My Struggle." Hitler did not, in fact, write the book himself, but dictated to his friend Rudolf Hess, who was imprisoned alongside him.
Part autobiography, part political manifesto, the patchwork pages of "Mein Kampf" were put to print in 1925. By that time, Hitler had already been released from prison upon growing pressure from members of the Nazi party.
A gift for the newly-married couple
Despite being repetitive, long-winded and difficult to read, "Mein Kampf" had become a popular read throughout Germany by the late 1920s, disseminating Hitler's main theories to a large audience.
In "Mein Kampf," the future chancellor of the Third Reich goes on at length about his youth and the early days of the Nazi Party, but it was his visions for a Germany of the future that resonated most with its readers.
Chief among his ideas was the absolute, innate superiority of the Germanic race, which Hitler called Aryan, over every group of people. "Mein Kampf" singled out Jews as the source of many of Germany's ills and a threat to Aryan dominance. The Aryans had a duty to restore Germany's former glory and enlarge its territory by winning back the land it had during World War I and gaining new area by expanding into Russia.
"Mein Kampf" gained enormous readership in the early 1930s and once Hitler gained power as Chancellor of Germany in 1933, became the de facto Nazi bible. Every newly married couple received a free copy on their wedding day, and every soldier had one included as part of his gear. At the outset of World War II, the book had been translated into 11 languages and sold 5 million copies.
The debate goes on today
"Mein Kampf" was a clear-cut warning to the world of Hitler's intentions for war and genocide, which may have been recognized and prevented had more people read it outside of Germany, some historians say. Publishers in the United States and the U.K. did produce copies in English prior to the War, but were held up by copyright lawsuits by Hitler's publishers.
Since the war, the book has remained a flashpoint of controversy, especially in Germany and the former Axis nations.
Worried over its use as propaganda by neo-Nazi groups, Germany and Austria have banned the possession and selling of "Mein Kampf" outright, while some countries restrict its possession to people using the book for academic purposes only. Opponents of the ban argue that the book is a valuable historical document, and that keeping it unavailable only makes it more desirable to right-wing groups.
The debate over the book's ban has flared up again in Germany in recent months, with some groups calling for an edition carefully annotated by academics to be produced before 2015, when the book's copyright officially expires in Germany and it will become available to anyone in the general public to own and reprint.
[Via Live Science]
Chronology of Einstein’s Mistakes
1905 Mistake in clock synchronization procedure on which Einstein based special relativity
1905 Failure to consider Michelson-Morley experiment
1905 Mistake in transverse mass of high-speed particles
1905 Multiple mistakes in the mathematics and physics used in calculation of viscosity of liquids, from which Einstein deduced size of molecules
1905 Mistakes in the relationship between thermal radiation and quanta of light
1905 Mistake in the first proof of E=mc²
1906 Mistakes in the second, third, and fourth proofs of E=mc²
1907 Mistake in the synchronization procedure for accelerated clocks
1907 Mistakes in the Principle of Equivalence of gravitation and acceleration
1911 Mistake in the first calculation of the bending of light
1913 Mistake in the first attempt at a theory of general relativity
1914 Mistake in the fifth proof of E=mc²
1915 Mistake in the Einstein-de Haas experiment
1915 Mistakes in several attempts at theories of general relativity
1916 Mistake in the interpretation of Mach’s principle
1917 Mistake in the introduction of the cosmological constant (the “biggest blunder”)
1919 Mistakes in two attempts to modify general relativity
1925 Mistakes and more mistakes in the attempts to formulate a unified theory
1927 Mistakes in discussions with Bohr on quantum uncertainties
1933 Mistakes in interpretation of quantum mechanics (Does God play dice?)
1934 Mistake in the sixth proof of E=mc²
1939 Mistake in the interpretation of the Schwarzschild singularity and gravitational collapse (the “black hole”)
1946 Mistake in the seventh proof of E=mc²
[Via Discover Magazine]
1905 Failure to consider Michelson-Morley experiment
1905 Mistake in transverse mass of high-speed particles
1905 Multiple mistakes in the mathematics and physics used in calculation of viscosity of liquids, from which Einstein deduced size of molecules
1905 Mistakes in the relationship between thermal radiation and quanta of light
1905 Mistake in the first proof of E=mc²
1906 Mistakes in the second, third, and fourth proofs of E=mc²
1907 Mistake in the synchronization procedure for accelerated clocks
1907 Mistakes in the Principle of Equivalence of gravitation and acceleration
1911 Mistake in the first calculation of the bending of light
1913 Mistake in the first attempt at a theory of general relativity
1914 Mistake in the fifth proof of E=mc²
1915 Mistake in the Einstein-de Haas experiment
1915 Mistakes in several attempts at theories of general relativity
1916 Mistake in the interpretation of Mach’s principle
1917 Mistake in the introduction of the cosmological constant (the “biggest blunder”)
1919 Mistakes in two attempts to modify general relativity
1925 Mistakes and more mistakes in the attempts to formulate a unified theory
1927 Mistakes in discussions with Bohr on quantum uncertainties
1933 Mistakes in interpretation of quantum mechanics (Does God play dice?)
1934 Mistake in the sixth proof of E=mc²
1939 Mistake in the interpretation of the Schwarzschild singularity and gravitational collapse (the “black hole”)
1946 Mistake in the seventh proof of E=mc²
[Via Discover Magazine]
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Three Children Left Home Alone as Mother 'Honeymoons'
A mature college student left her three children at home for two weeks while she went on her honeymoon, her neighbours claimed.
Police found the back door of the family home in Leeds open on Saturday evening. The three children were under a bed.
Simten Sadiq, 33, was seen carrying a balloon with the words “Just Married” on it days before she disappeared, neighbours said.
She had recently had an Islamic ceremony with an Austrian man.
Detectives are trying to establish what arrangements were made for the children, aged four, six and 11, and whether they were on their own for long periods, including overnight.
They have been taken into protective custody. Officers are working with social services. All three were understood to have been fed throughout.
Police said they did not appear to have any injuries and were fit and well. Police found the children aged five, six and eleven, under a bed after they were alerted by neighbours.
Their father Parvez Sadiq, 43, a private hire taxi driver, who lives half a mile away, said he only became aware of what had happened when social workers told him.
Mr Sadiq met her in her native Turkey when she was 17, they married and she moved to the UK in 1992 after being granted a visa.
At first she could not speak any English, but enrolled at college initially to study a GCSE in Maths.
In the summer of 2006 she moved out of the matrimonial home, leaving her four children, including eldest son aged 14, with her husband.
She went on to stay with a student friend after being accepted on a BA degree course in Education Studies at Bradford College.
Mr Sadiq said after completing the first year of the course in June last year, she was granted a council house after returning for the three youngest children.
[Via Telegraph]
Police found the back door of the family home in Leeds open on Saturday evening. The three children were under a bed.
Simten Sadiq, 33, was seen carrying a balloon with the words “Just Married” on it days before she disappeared, neighbours said.
She had recently had an Islamic ceremony with an Austrian man.
Detectives are trying to establish what arrangements were made for the children, aged four, six and 11, and whether they were on their own for long periods, including overnight.
They have been taken into protective custody. Officers are working with social services. All three were understood to have been fed throughout.
Police said they did not appear to have any injuries and were fit and well. Police found the children aged five, six and eleven, under a bed after they were alerted by neighbours.
Their father Parvez Sadiq, 43, a private hire taxi driver, who lives half a mile away, said he only became aware of what had happened when social workers told him.
Mr Sadiq met her in her native Turkey when she was 17, they married and she moved to the UK in 1992 after being granted a visa.
At first she could not speak any English, but enrolled at college initially to study a GCSE in Maths.
In the summer of 2006 she moved out of the matrimonial home, leaving her four children, including eldest son aged 14, with her husband.
She went on to stay with a student friend after being accepted on a BA degree course in Education Studies at Bradford College.
Mr Sadiq said after completing the first year of the course in June last year, she was granted a council house after returning for the three youngest children.
[Via Telegraph]
Doctor, No
A doctor who said he could not help having affairs with his patients was struck off the medical register at his own request yesterday morning. "I have a fundamentally flawed personality which makes me permanently unfit to be in a position of trust as a GP," John Razzak wrote to the General Medical Council. "I have had affairs with patients over which I seem to have no control."
The formal end to 46-year-old Dr Razzak's career in medicine came just five days after Staffordshire GP Keith Bevan was thrown out of the medical profession for a 14-month affair with a farmer's wife, whom he seduced in his surgery while her husband was sitting in the waiting room. "She was avid for sex and her husband was happy to watch the telly," Bevan, 57, told the GMC hearing which concluded that his behaviour "undermines the confidence which the public is entitled to place in members of the medical profession and constitutes a gross abuse of your position."
In July, the GMC ejected Iain MacLeod, a 66-year-old GP who rode around Moffat in Dumfriesshire in a Jaguar with the number plate TSM 1T, which stood for "The Sexiest Man In Town". He was struck off over a 22-year affair with a woman he had been treating for depression which, it was said "contributed to the distress she has suffered over a significant part of her life". In February, Dr Anthony Leeper, 48, who admitted an 11-month sexual relationship with a patient, escaped with a two-year supervision order.
These are just a few of the doctors who have recently got caught. Typically they are middle-aged and male. Research in the US has shown that one-in-10 family doctors has had a sexual relationship with a patient. Having sex with a patient is completely off-limits. Every doctor, certainly in the UK, knows it is a career-ending offence.
Yet, medical students who were asked about whether they would have relationships with their patients, for a study published in the Journal of Medical Ethics this month, were equivocal. If they were a GP on a remote Scottish island and were asked, by a patient they had just about finished treating for a skin condition, to come to dinner, in a way that suggested her interest was more than conversation, what would they do? Nearly half (40%) said they couldn't see the harm.
Many of us might feel sympathetic. What's a doctor to do on a windswept rock where there might be more sheep than potential partners? But no. John Goldie, an Easterhouse GP and senior tutor at the University of Glasgow, who devised the study, is uncompromising. "There is a power imbalance in the relationship, it is not a relationship of equals and it can never be," he says. It is doubtful, he says, that any patient can ever truly give consent to a sexual relationship with her doctor.
This isn't about the sexy registrar with the white coat, gentle hands and impeccable bedside manner. It's not about Carry On Doctor frolics or seductive soap opera GPs. Fiction has frequently woven sex into the life-and-death tapestry of medicine, but the reality features men and women who go to their doctor because of physical and often emotional vulnerability. What they find, from their doctor, is sympathy, care and concern. It can be devastating.
Sigmund Freud noted that many of his female patients fell in love with him. He called it transference. What was happening, he said, was that they were casting him as somebody in their past life, projecting on to him the feelings of love and desire that they had experienced for other men.
"If you help a patient who is having problems, they are so grateful they sort of fall in love with you," says Claire Rayner, president of the Patients Association. "They are not, but they think they are. They transfer all their emotions to the person who has helped them.
"Doctors are attractive figures. They have all this knowledge and they care about you and you get the feeling they care more about you than they do. Getting a crush on them is easy. I did it. It has happened to me that I have been looked after really well and thought: 'Oh you are lovely.' "
It happens most with psychiatrists, gynaecologists and GPs - those doctors who spend most time with patients and are likely to talk over problems beyond the physical. But this is not a one-way street. The doctors most likely to have a sexual relationship with a patient are male, middle-aged and may have problems of their own.
The damage that can be done is clear from the GMC cases, which will only have got that far because they are the most serious. The woman with whom MacLeod had an affair over two decades was being treated for depression. Dr Leeper's affair was with a patient who came to him with anxiety and emotional problems. The woman Bevan seduced had marital problems and wanted him to prescribe Viagra for her husband, a farmer whose livelihood had been badly hit by foot and mouth disease.
In every case, the woman was vulnerable and looking for help. There can be no equal relationship if it is born in the surgery or consulting room, says Dr Goldie. He says there is no way out - asking the patient to switch to another doctor is also unacceptable. "It's a bit of a grey area," he acknowledges, but because the woman was once a patient, transference can have occurred and the power imbalance exists. "There is no evidence that it disappears," he says.
In an age when sexuality and sexual expression rule and when marriages last for ever briefer periods, it may be seen as a hair-shirted hard road for the doctor on the remote Scottish island, if not the rest of the profession. But Dr Goldie takes no prisoners: "With professionalism comes boundaries," he said. He says there is a need for much more education and discussion among doctors to help them deal with the doctor/patient relationship, including asking students their attitudes at the start of their training and, if necessary, attempting to change them. Because, at the end of the day, this is not about sex between a man and a woman, but potential - even if unknowing - exploitation of vulnerability. And as Hippocrates said, the first duty of a doctor is to do no harm.
[Via Guardian]
The formal end to 46-year-old Dr Razzak's career in medicine came just five days after Staffordshire GP Keith Bevan was thrown out of the medical profession for a 14-month affair with a farmer's wife, whom he seduced in his surgery while her husband was sitting in the waiting room. "She was avid for sex and her husband was happy to watch the telly," Bevan, 57, told the GMC hearing which concluded that his behaviour "undermines the confidence which the public is entitled to place in members of the medical profession and constitutes a gross abuse of your position."
In July, the GMC ejected Iain MacLeod, a 66-year-old GP who rode around Moffat in Dumfriesshire in a Jaguar with the number plate TSM 1T, which stood for "The Sexiest Man In Town". He was struck off over a 22-year affair with a woman he had been treating for depression which, it was said "contributed to the distress she has suffered over a significant part of her life". In February, Dr Anthony Leeper, 48, who admitted an 11-month sexual relationship with a patient, escaped with a two-year supervision order.
These are just a few of the doctors who have recently got caught. Typically they are middle-aged and male. Research in the US has shown that one-in-10 family doctors has had a sexual relationship with a patient. Having sex with a patient is completely off-limits. Every doctor, certainly in the UK, knows it is a career-ending offence.
Yet, medical students who were asked about whether they would have relationships with their patients, for a study published in the Journal of Medical Ethics this month, were equivocal. If they were a GP on a remote Scottish island and were asked, by a patient they had just about finished treating for a skin condition, to come to dinner, in a way that suggested her interest was more than conversation, what would they do? Nearly half (40%) said they couldn't see the harm.
Many of us might feel sympathetic. What's a doctor to do on a windswept rock where there might be more sheep than potential partners? But no. John Goldie, an Easterhouse GP and senior tutor at the University of Glasgow, who devised the study, is uncompromising. "There is a power imbalance in the relationship, it is not a relationship of equals and it can never be," he says. It is doubtful, he says, that any patient can ever truly give consent to a sexual relationship with her doctor.
This isn't about the sexy registrar with the white coat, gentle hands and impeccable bedside manner. It's not about Carry On Doctor frolics or seductive soap opera GPs. Fiction has frequently woven sex into the life-and-death tapestry of medicine, but the reality features men and women who go to their doctor because of physical and often emotional vulnerability. What they find, from their doctor, is sympathy, care and concern. It can be devastating.
Sigmund Freud noted that many of his female patients fell in love with him. He called it transference. What was happening, he said, was that they were casting him as somebody in their past life, projecting on to him the feelings of love and desire that they had experienced for other men.
"If you help a patient who is having problems, they are so grateful they sort of fall in love with you," says Claire Rayner, president of the Patients Association. "They are not, but they think they are. They transfer all their emotions to the person who has helped them.
"Doctors are attractive figures. They have all this knowledge and they care about you and you get the feeling they care more about you than they do. Getting a crush on them is easy. I did it. It has happened to me that I have been looked after really well and thought: 'Oh you are lovely.' "
It happens most with psychiatrists, gynaecologists and GPs - those doctors who spend most time with patients and are likely to talk over problems beyond the physical. But this is not a one-way street. The doctors most likely to have a sexual relationship with a patient are male, middle-aged and may have problems of their own.
The damage that can be done is clear from the GMC cases, which will only have got that far because they are the most serious. The woman with whom MacLeod had an affair over two decades was being treated for depression. Dr Leeper's affair was with a patient who came to him with anxiety and emotional problems. The woman Bevan seduced had marital problems and wanted him to prescribe Viagra for her husband, a farmer whose livelihood had been badly hit by foot and mouth disease.
In every case, the woman was vulnerable and looking for help. There can be no equal relationship if it is born in the surgery or consulting room, says Dr Goldie. He says there is no way out - asking the patient to switch to another doctor is also unacceptable. "It's a bit of a grey area," he acknowledges, but because the woman was once a patient, transference can have occurred and the power imbalance exists. "There is no evidence that it disappears," he says.
In an age when sexuality and sexual expression rule and when marriages last for ever briefer periods, it may be seen as a hair-shirted hard road for the doctor on the remote Scottish island, if not the rest of the profession. But Dr Goldie takes no prisoners: "With professionalism comes boundaries," he said. He says there is a need for much more education and discussion among doctors to help them deal with the doctor/patient relationship, including asking students their attitudes at the start of their training and, if necessary, attempting to change them. Because, at the end of the day, this is not about sex between a man and a woman, but potential - even if unknowing - exploitation of vulnerability. And as Hippocrates said, the first duty of a doctor is to do no harm.
[Via Guardian]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)