10 Gorgeous Pilgrimage Sites Even Atheists Can Admire!

1) Jagannatha

location: Puri, India
most frequented by: Hindus
Festivals are an important part of Hinduism, and Ratha Yatra is certainly one with a lot of pull … and pulling. The celebration takes place in June or July of each year in Puri, a city on the southeastern coast of India. Why Puri? It’s home to the 12th-century Jagannatha temple and three roughhewn (and highly sacred) wooden statues. They represent Jagannatha, an incarnation of the Hindu Lord Krishna; his brother, Balarama; and his sister, Subhadra. Hindus believe that around 5,000 years ago, devotees of Krishna pulled the chariots of these three siblings to the family’s nearby childhood home. Each year, as many as 1 million faithful visit the temple to re-enact the event, dragging the statues in giant chariots. And we do mean giant: The largest is 45 feet high and sports 16 wheels. Devout Hindus believe if they help transport the chariot bearing Jagannatha, they will be granted the opportunity to serve him in the spiritual world.
During Ratha Yatra, some of the more enthusiastic pullers have been known to deliberately throw themselves under the chariots’ wheels. Fortunately, the frequency of this practice has waned in recent years, but the popularity of the festival certainly hasn’t. In fact, those who can’t make it to Puri for Ratha Yatra can participate in smaller versions in cities all over the world, from Kuala Lumpur to New Orleans.
And if you think Jagannatha bears significance for Hindus only, you’re wrong. Turns out, the statue is credited with giving the English language the word “juggernaut.” In the 17th century, British travelers returning from India brought back lurid (and highly exaggerated) tales of the festival in Puri, describing hordes of people being squashed by the chariots. “Juggernaut” is an Anglicization of Jagannatha, and the word has since come to mean “a massive, inexorable force that crushes everything in its path.” That certainly describes a four-story-high chariot.

2) Cathedral of St. Mary of Zion

location: Aksum, Ethiopia
most frequented by: Ethiopian Orthodox
Anyone who’s seen “Raiders of the Lost Ark” knows that the Ark of the Covenant is the chest containing the stone tablets on which the 10 Commandments were inscribed. Aside from that, you can forget all the other Indiana Jones nonsense. The most prominent story of the Ark comes from Ethiopian tradition. According to that legend, the biblical Queen of Sheba was actually Queen Makeda of Ethiopia. After adopting Mosaic laws for the Ethiopian people, she sent her son Menelik and members of his staff to steal the Ark and bring it to Aksum. There, ostensibly, it remains—housed in the Church of Saint Mary of Zion, a relatively modest 17th-century stone building. Who gets the honor of guarding the holy relic and, consequently, being the only human on Earth allowed to actually see the Ark? That job goes to an especially holy monk, who’s tasked with the duty until death. In accordance with tradition, he names his successor with his dying words. So, if you want to know whether or not the Ark is really there, you’ll have to take the guardian’s word for it.
There are more than enough people, however, who don’t need any visible proof. Every year, thousands of tourists and pilgrims visit Aksum, a small mountain town about 300 miles north of the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa, to see the shrine protecting the Ark. Aksum is considered one of the holiest sites for followers of Ethiopian Orthodoxy, which counts itself among the oldest forms of Christianity.

3) Sri Harmandir Sahib

location: Amritsar, India
most frequented by: Sikhs
Most Westerners know Sri Harmandir Sahib simply as “The Golden Temple,” so named for its structures adorned with gold and gold paint. But to the world’s roughly 20 million Sikhs, it’s their religion’s most sacred site. In fact, followers pray daily for a chance to visit the temple at least once during their lives.
Sri Harmandir Sahib is in Amritsar, a city about 240 miles north of New Delhi. Built in the late 16th century, the temple’s impressive architecture was designed to represent the magnificence and strength of the Sikh people. Sikhism itself is an offshoot of Hinduism founded about 500 years ago by Guru Nanak, a government accountant who rejected both Hinduism and Islam.
The temple at Sri Harmandir Sahib occupies a small island in the middle of a pool and is connected to land by a marble causeway. Every year, it attracts millions of pilgrims. In 2004 alone, more than 2.5 million Sikhs visited The Golden Temple to take part in a five-day celebration marking its 400th anniversary. Sadly, however, the temple has also attracted its fair share of violence, including attacks and conquests by Mongol, Arab, Afghan, and British armies. Perhaps the most notable incident occurred in 1984. Sikh separatists, feeling oppressed by the Hindu-dominated Indian government and seeking an independent state, occupied the temple and refused to leave. When Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi ordered soldiers and tanks to attack, more than 1,000 people were killed, and some of the buildings around the temple were badly damaged. Gandhi received scores of death threats and was assassinated a few months later by Sikh terrorists.

4) Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe

location: Mexico City, Mexico
most frequented by: Roman Catholics
The story of the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe begins on a frosty December day in 1531, only a decade after the Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortéz toppled the Aztec empire. A 50-year-old Indian peasant named Juan Diego was trudging along between his village and modern-day Mexico City when he encountered the Virgin Mary, who told him to build a church on the site where they were standing. Not one to ignore an order from the mother of Christ, the peasant relayed the request to the local bishop. A bit suspicious of Diego’s claim, the bishop demanded proof of Mary’s request. In response, the Virgin (who conveniently appeared to Diego again) supplied the peasant with a bunch of roses in the dead of winter. Needless to say, the bishop was pretty impressed with the bouquet, but even more so by the likeness of Mary that was mysteriously imprinted on Diego’s cloak, and a church was promptly built.
Today, the site houses the old Basilica as well as a newer one, and millions of Catholics travel the world for a chance to walk inside. Pilgrims praying to the Virgin Mary there have reported miraculous cures, particularly for alcoholism. (Why alcoholism? We have no idea.) Diego’s cloak is also on display at the site, though it’s an object of controversy. Scientists argue about the authenticity of his cloak, and historians quibble over the authenticity of Juan Diego himself—some doubting such a man ever existed. The arguments, however, had a hard time competing with former Pope John Paul II’s stamp of approval. He visited the Basilica several times, and on a 2002 journey there, he made Juan Diego a saint.

5) Shatrunjaya Hill

location: Palitana, India
most frequented by: Jains

Shatrunjaya Hill just might have been what Led Zeppelin had in mind when the band wrote “Stairway to Heaven.” The site has no fewer than 3,950 steps—enough to make you think you can reach heaven (either by looking up or keeling over) by the time you actually get done climbing it.
Located in the western Indian city of Palitana, Shatrunjaya (or Satrunjaya) Hill is the primary pilgrimage destination for followers of Jainism and home to 863 temples dedicated to the Jain religion. Founded in India about the same time as Buddhism, Jainism teaches the path to spiritual purity through a life of discipline, austerity, and non-violence. In fact, this aversion to violence has led many among India’s Jain community (which consists of about four million people) to shun most occupations outside of commerce and finance. Jains not only frown upon killing people, but animals as well. For that reason, none of the temples at Palitana contain ivory (since that would mean dead elephants) or even clay (since it contains dead insects and micro-organisms). Instead, they’re constructed of marble, bronze, or stone. So if you’re going, don’t wear anything made of fur, leather, or any other part of a dead animal.
Oh, and about those steps up the Hill to the temples: It can take as long as three hours to climb up them, depending on your level of fitness. The elderly and ailing go up in a dholi, a small seat attached under a bamboo pole, carried by two men who take a few jouncing steps at a time. If ever an employee deserved a great tip, it would be one of these guys.

6) Destination: Sri Pada

location: Sri Lanka
most frequented by: Everyone! (It’s multi-denominational)
Sri Pada is the only mountain in the world sacred to four major religious groups. Oddly enough, it also happens to be nestled in Sri Lanka, a country ravaged by civil war for the past 20-plus years.
Sri Pada is a modest, cone-shaped peak on an island in the Indian Ocean. At the top of the mountain, you’ll find a 1,600-square-foot platform on which there’s a depression the shape of a human foot—a very large foot, about 1 yard wide and nearly 2 yards long. (See how carefully we avoided measuring the foot in “feet?”) Buddhists believe the footprint to be Buddha’s. Hindus think it belongs to the god Shiva. Christians claim St. Thomas left it there before he ascended into heaven. Muslims believe Adam made it after he descended from heaven (hence the mountain’s nickname, Adam’s Peak).
Despite the ongoing civil war in Sri Lanka between the Sinhalese government and Tamil separatists, hundreds of thousands of travelers of all religious stripes make the pilgrimage up the mountain each year. The climb up Sri Pada, which can take three to four hours, is marked by crumbling steps, hundreds of colorful butterflies, lots of leeches in the surrounding forests, and tea houses for breaks along the way. In some places, there are iron chains to help out climbers who wish to pull themselves up. It’s said that Alexander the Great left them behind when he visited the site in 324 BCE. There’s no record regarding who Alexander believed created the footprint, but if we had to take a guess, we think he probably told people that it was his own.

7) Mecca

location: Mecca, Saudi Arabia
most frequented by: Muslims
A trip to Mecca isn’t likely to be confused with anything but a pilgrimage. Located in a drab, sandy valley about 50 miles from the Red Sea (where summer temperatures can easily reach 115 F), it’s hardly a vacation destination. Regardless, it’s a must-see for followers of Islam … and we do mean “must.” Mecca is the birthplace of the Islamic prophet Mohammed and therefore the holiest city to Muslims. In fact, one of the religion’s “Five Pillars” requires followers to attempt a hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca, at least once during their lives if at all physically and financially possible. Not ones to take pillars lightly, more than 2.5 million devout Muslim pilgrims flock to the city each year.
The hajj takes place during Dhu’l-Hijja, the last month of the Muslim calendar year (which is based on lunar cycles, meaning the hajj dates change annually). While there, pilgrims follow a pattern of devotional duties. One such ritual involves circling the Ka’ba, a cube-shaped building said to be the first place Mohammad preached and the holiest shrine in Islam. In addition, pilgrimages include the ritual kissing of the Black Stone.
Although not a formal object of Islamic veneration, the Black Stone is believed to be a meteorite and is revered by pilgrims as a traditional symbol of Mecca. According to Muslim legend, it was originally a white stone given to Adam after he was expelled from Paradise, and since then, it’s turned black from absorbing the sins of all those who have touched or kissed it.
Sadly, pilgrimages to Mecca are sometimes marred by tragedy. In 1990, a human stampede in an underground pathway resulted in nearly 1,500 deaths. And in 2004, another stampede killed 251 worshippers. More recently, cases of polio discovered in the city led health officials to fear a situation in which returning pilgrims could spread the disease around the world. But Mecca’s potential dangers are less of a threat to non-Muslims. Members of all other religions are banned from the city to prevent its sanctity from being “polluted.”

8) Western Wall

location: Jerusalem
most frequented by: Jews
In Hebrew, it’s known as ha-kotel ha-ma’aravi. In English, it’s usually referred to as the Wailing Wall or the Western Wall. But whatever you call it, it’s old … as in 2,000 years old. The Wall is all that remains of Jerusalem’s Second Temple. King Solomon built the First Temple around 960 BCE, but after the Babylonians destroyed it and expelled the Jews from the region, construction began on its replacement. The Second Temple’s luck wasn’t much better. In 70 CE, the Romans flattened it—all but the Western Wall. Some historians claim Emperor Titus left this small section standing to remind the Jews who was in charge. The Jewish faithful, however, choose to view it as God’s way of showing them that He hasn’t forgotten about their whole “chosen” pact.
Westerners, observing Jewish worshippers crying over the destruction of the temple, dubbed it the Wailing Wall. But the appellation belies the site’s much greater religious significance. For Jews, the Wall symbolizes God’s presence, which is why millions of people come from all over the world to pray before the structure and insert written prayers into its crevices.
Unfortunately, as in just about everything else in the Middle East, the Wailing Wall is a point of controversy between Muslims and Jews. That’s because the site is also home to the Dome of the Rock, one of the holiest sites in the Islamic religion. Muslims believe it’s where Mohammed ascended into heaven with the messenger archangel, Gabriel.

9) Mount Athos

location: Greece
most frequented by: Eastern Orthodox
Depending on your views on gender equality, this one’s either going to entice you or make you really, really angry. It’s for men only. The Byzantine emperor Constantine IX officially banned women from Mt. Athos in 1045, but he didn’t stop there. He also prohibited female animals and children, as well as eunuchs. These days, the eunuch ban isn’t strictly enforced (how could it be?), and you might be able to find a hen or two walking around. The rule excluding women, though, is still very much in place, despite the ardent efforts of feminist groups, not to mention the European Union, to pressure the Greek government into lifting the ban.
Mt. Athos, a self-governed region on a peninsula in northeastern Greece, is the Rolls-Royce of meditation retreats. The 6,670-foot peak is populated by 20 monasteries sprinkled across dazzlingly beautiful marble cliffs and ancient evergreen forest. There, monks practice Heyschasm, a lifestyle in which followers seek hesychia, or “divine quietness,” a practice common to the Eastern Orthodox Church. As for the religion itself, it arose after a split with the Church of Rome in 1054, largely due to questions concerning the authority of the pope.
To visit one of the monasteries, men must obtain permits in advance, and crowds are limited to 100 per day. Once there, serious contemplation and meditation are encouraged; gawking tourism is not. Visitors are allowed to eat and room with the monks, as well as participate in daily work routines. More than 350,000 men travel to Mt. Athos annually. In recent years, England’s Prince Charles has been a regular visitor.

10) Destination: Bodh Gaya

location: Bodh Gaya, India
most frequented by: Buddhists
For years, Siddhartha Gautama tried to find an end to human suffering through, well, human suffering. He nearly starved to death following a life of extreme self-denial. When that didn’t work, he decided to try sitting under a tree and meditating. Luckily for him, after a few weeks, Gautama found Enlightenment—the understanding that suffering comes from desire—and thereafter became known as Buddha. Thus began one of the world’s great religions.
In a nutshell, that’s why an average of more than 2,000 people per day visit the small town in northeast India known as Bodh Gaya. For Buddhist pilgrims and tourists alike, there are two main attractions: the Mahabodhi Temple, a pyramid-shaped building first erected in the 3rd century BCE; and the Bodhi Tree, said to be a direct descendant of the tree under which Buddha attained Enlightenment.

Buddhists regard Bodh Gaya as the first place Buddha began teaching his reap-what-you-sow idea of karma. Ironically, the city has the unsavory reputation as the center of one of the poorest and most lawless regions in India.

Top 15 Amazing Coincidences

ife is full of coincidences, some very minor, but occasionally - extraordinary. This is a list of 15 of the most incredible, unbelievable coincidences.

15. Childhood Book

While American novelist Anne Parrish was browsing bookstores in Paris in the 1920s, she came upon a book that was one of her childhood favorites - Jack Frost and Other Stories. She picked up the old book and showed it to her husband, telling him of the book she fondly remembered as a child. Her husband took the book, opened it, and on the flyleaf found the inscription: “Anne Parrish, 209 N. Weber Street, Colorado Springs.” It was Anne’s very own book.

14. Poker Luck

In 1858, Robert Fallon was shot dead, an act of vengeance by those with whom he was playing poker. Fallon, they claimed, had won the $600 pot through cheating. With Fallon’s seat empty and none of the other players willing to take the now unlucky $600, they found a new player to take Fallon’s place and staked him with the dead man’s $600. By the time the police had arrived to investigate the killing, the new player had turned the $600 into $2,200 in winnings. The police demanded the original $600 to pass on to Fallon’s next of kin - only to discover that the new player turned out to be Fallon’s son, who had not seen his father in seven years!

13. Twin Deaths

In 2002, Seventy-year-old twin brothers died within hours of one another after separate accidents on the same road in northern Finland. The first of the twins died when he was hit by a lorry while riding his bike in Raahe, 600 kilometres north of the capital, Helsinki. He died just 1.5km from the spot where his brother was killed. “This is simply a historic coincidence. Although the road is a busy one, accidents don’t occur every day,” police officer Marja-Leena Huhtala told Reuters. “It made my hair stand on end when I heard the two were brothers, and identical twins at that. It came to mind that perhaps someone from upstairs had a say in this,” she said.

12. Poe Coincidence

In the 19th century, the famous horror writer, Egdar Allan Poe, wrote a book called ‘The narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym’. It was about four survivors of a shipwreck who were in an open boat for many days before they decided to kill and eat the cabin boy whose name was Richard Parker. Some years later, in 1884, the yawl, Mignonette, foundered, with only four survivors, who were in an open boat for many days. Eventually the three senior members of the crew killed and ate the cabin boy. The name of the cabin boy was Richard Parker.

11. Royal Coincidence

In Monza, Italy, King Umberto I, went to a small restaurant for dinner, accompanied by his aide-de-camp, General Emilio Ponzia- Vaglia. When the owner took King Umberto’s order, the King noticed that he and the restaurant owner were virtual doubles, in face and in build. Both men began discussing the striking resemblance between each other and found many more similarities.

1. Both men were born on the same day, of the same year, (March 14th, 1844).
2. Both men had been born in the same town.
3. Both men married a woman with same name, Margherita.
4. The restaurateur opened his restaurant on the same day that King Umberto was crowned King of Italy.
5. On the 29th July 1900, King Umberto was informed that the restaurateur had died that day in a mysterious shooting accident, and as he expressed his regret, an anarchist in the crowd then assassinated him.

10. Falling Baby

In 1930s Detroit, a man named Joseph Figlock was to become an amazing figure in a young (and, apparently, incredibly careless) mother’s life. As Figlock was walking down the street, the mother’s baby fell from a high window onto Figlock. The baby’s fall was broken and Figlock and the baby were unharmed. A year later, the selfsame baby fell from the selfsame window, again falling onto Mr. Figlock as he was passing beneath. Once again, both of them survived the event.

9. Mystery Monk

In 19th century Austria, a near-famous painter named Joseph Aigner attempted suicide on several occasions. During his first attempt to hang himself at the age of 18, a mysterious Capuchin monk interrupted Aigner. And again at age 22, the very same monk prevented him from hanging himself. Eight years later, he was sentenced to the gallows for his political activities. But again, his life was saved by the intervention of the same monk. At age 68, Joseph Aigner finally succeeded in suicide, using a pistol to shoot himself. Not surprisingly, the very same Capuchin monk - a man whose name Aigner never even knew, conducted his funeral ceremony.

8. Photographic Coincidence

A German mother who photographed her infant son in 1914 left the film to be developed at a store in Strasbourg. In those days some film plates were sold individually. World War I broke out and unable to return to Strasbourg, the woman gave up the picture for lost. Two years later she bought a film plate in Frankfurt, over 100 miles away, to take a picture of her newborn daughter. When developed the film turned out to be a double exposure, with the picture of her daughter superimposed on the earlier picture of her son. Through some incredible twist of fate, her original film, never developed, had been mislabeled as unused, and had eventually been resold to her.

7. Book Find

In 1973, actor Anthony Hopkins agreed to appear in “The Girl From Petrovka”, based on a novel by George Feifer. Unable to find a copy of the book anywhere in London, Hopkins was surprised to discover one lying on a bench in a train station. It turned out to be George Feifer’s own annotated (personal) copy, which Feifer had lent to a friend, and which had been stolen from his friend’s car.

6. Twins

The twin brothers, Jim Lewis and Jim Springer, were separated at birth, adopted by different families. Unknown to each other, both families named the boys James. Both James grew up not knowing of the other, yet both sought law-enforcement training both had abilities in mechanical drawing and carpentry, and each had married women named Linda. Both had sons, one of who was named James Alan and the other named James Allan. The twin brothers also divorced their wives and married other women - both named Betty. And they both owned dogs which they named Toy.

5. Revenge Killing

In 1883, Henry Ziegland broke off a relationship with his girlfriend who, out of distress, committed suicide. The girl’s enraged brother hunted down Ziegland and shot him. Believing he had killed Ziegland, the brother then took his own life. In fact, however, Ziegland had not been killed. The bullet had only grazed his face, lodging into a tree. It was a narrow escape. Years later, Ziegland decided to cut down the same tree, which still had the bullet in it. The huge tree seemed so formidable that he decided to blow it up with dynamite. The explosion propelled the bullet into Ziegland’s head, killing him.

4. Golden Scarab

From The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche: “A young woman I was treating had, at a critical moment, a dream in which she was given a golden scarab. While she was telling me this dream I sat with my back to the closed window. Suddenly I heard a noise behind me, like a gentle tapping. I turned round and saw a flying insect knocking against the windowpane from outside. I opened the window and caught the creature in the air as it flew in. It was the nearest analogy to the golden scarab that one finds in our latitudes, a scarabaeid beetle, the common rose-chafer (Cetonia aurata) which contrary to its usual habits had evidently felt an urge to get into a dark room at this particular moment. I must admit that nothing like it ever happened to me before or since, and that the dream of the patient has remained unique in my experience.” - Carl Jung

3. Taxi

In 1975, while riding a moped in Bermuda, a man was accidentally struck and killed by a taxi. One year later, this man’s brother was killed in the very same way. In fact, he was riding the very same moped. And to stretch the odds even further, the very same taxi driven by the same driver - and even carrying the very same passenger struck him!

2. Hotel Discovery

In 1953, television reporter Irv Kupcinet was in London to cover the coronation of Ellizabeth II. In one of the drawers in his room at the Savoy he found some items that, by their identification, belonged to a man named Harry Hannin. Coincidentally, Harry Hannin - a basketball star with the famed Harlem Globetrotters - was a good friend of Kupcinet’s. But the story has yet another twist. Just two days later, and before he could tell Hannin of his lucky discovery, Kupcinet received a letter from Hannin. In the letter, Hannin told Kucinet that while staying at the Hotel Meurice in Paris, he found in a drawer a tie - with Kupcinet’s name on it.

1. Historical Coincidence

The lives of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, two of America’s founders. Jefferson crafted the Declaration of Independence, showing drafts of it to Adams, who (with Benjamin Franklin) helped to edit and hone it. The Continental Congress approved the document on July 4, 1776. Surprisingly, both Jefferson and Adams died on the same day, July 4, 1826 - exactly 50 years from the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Sources: Ripley’s Believe it or not, BBC, New Scientist

Innovative Minds Don’t Think Alike

By JANET RAE-DUPREE

IT’S a pickle of a paradox: As our knowledge and expertise increase, our creativity and ability to innovate tend to taper off. Why? Because the walls of the proverbial box in which we think are thickening along with our experience.

Andrew S. Grove, the co-founder of Intel, put it well in 2005 when he told an interviewer from Fortune, “When everybody knows that something is so, it means that nobody knows nothin’.” In other words, it becomes nearly impossible to look beyond what you know and think outside the box you’ve built around yourself.

This so-called curse of knowledge, a phrase used in a 1989 paper in The Journal of Political Economy, means that once you’ve become an expert in a particular subject, it’s hard to imagine not knowing what you do. Your conversations with others in the field are peppered with catch phrases and jargon that are foreign to the uninitiated. When it’s time to accomplish a task — open a store, build a house, buy new cash registers, sell insurance — those in the know get it done the way it has always been done, stifling innovation as they barrel along the well-worn path.

Elizabeth Newton, a psychologist, conducted an experiment on the curse of knowledge while working on her doctorate at Stanford in 1990. She gave one set of people, called “tappers,” a list of commonly known songs from which to choose. Their task was to rap their knuckles on a tabletop to the rhythm of the chosen tune as they thought about it in their heads. A second set of people, called “listeners,” were asked to name the songs.

Before the experiment began, the tappers were asked how often they believed that the listeners would name the songs correctly. On average, tappers expected listeners to get it right about half the time. In the end, however, listeners guessed only 3 of 120 songs tapped out, or 2.5 percent.

The tappers were astounded. The song was so clear in their minds; how could the listeners not “hear” it in their taps?

That’s a common reaction when experts set out to share their ideas in the business world, too, says Chip Heath, who with his brother, Dan, was a co-author of the 2007 book “Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die.” It’s why engineers design products ultimately useful only to other engineers. It’s why managers have trouble convincing the rank and file to adopt new processes. And it’s why the advertising world struggles to convey commercial messages to consumers.

“I HAVE a DVD remote control with 52 buttons on it, and every one of them is there because some engineer along the line knew how to use that button and believed I would want to use it, too,” Mr. Heath says. “People who design products are experts cursed by their knowledge, and they can’t imagine what it’s like to be as ignorant as the rest of us.”

But there are proven ways to exorcise the curse.

In their book, the Heath brothers outline six “hooks” that they say are guaranteed to communicate a new idea clearly by transforming it into what they call a Simple Unexpected Concrete Credentialed Emotional Story. Each of the letters in the resulting acronym, Succes, refers to a different hook. (“S,” for example, suggests simplifying the message.) Although the hooks of “Made to Stick” focus on the art of communication, there are ways to fashion them around fostering innovation.

To innovate, Mr. Heath says, you have to bring together people with a variety of skills. If those people can’t communicate clearly with one another, innovation gets bogged down in the abstract language of specialization and expertise. “It’s kind of like the ugly American tourist trying to get across an idea in another country by speaking English slowly and more loudly,” he says. “You’ve got to find the common connections.”

In her 2006 book, “Innovation Killer: How What We Know Limits What We Can Imagine — and What Smart Companies Are Doing About It,” Cynthia Barton Rabe proposes bringing in outsiders whom she calls zero-gravity thinkers to keep creativity and innovation on track.

When experts have to slow down and go back to basics to bring an outsider up to speed, she says, “it forces them to look at their world differently and, as a result, they come up with new solutions to old problems.”

She cites as an example the work of a colleague at Ralston Purina who moved to Eveready in the mid-1980s when Ralston bought that company. At the time, Eveready had become a household name because of its sales since the 1950s of inexpensive red plastic and metal flashlights. But by the mid-1980s, the flashlight business, which had been aimed solely at men shopping at hardware stores, was foundering.

While Ms. Rabe’s colleague had no experience with flashlights, she did have plenty of experience in consumer packaging and marketing from her years at Ralston Purina. She proceeded to revamp the flashlight product line to include colors like pink, baby blue and light green — colors that would appeal to women — and began distributing them through grocery store chains.

“It was not incredibly popular as a decision amongst the old guard at Eveready,” Ms. Rabe says. But after the changes, she says, “the flashlight business took off and was wildly successful for many years after that.”

MS. RABE herself experienced similar problems while working as a transient “zero-gravity thinker” at Intel.

“I would ask my very, very basic questions,” she said, noting that it frustrated some of the people who didn’t know her. Once they got past that point, however, “it always turned out that we could come up with some terrific ideas,” she said.

While Ms. Rabe usually worked inside the companies she discussed in her book, she said outside consultants could also serve the zero-gravity role, but only if their expertise was not identical to that of the group already working on the project.

“Look for people with renaissance-thinker tendencies, who’ve done work in a related area but not in your specific field,” she says. “Make it possible for someone who doesn’t report directly to that area to come in and say the emperor has no clothes.”

Janet Rae-Dupree writes about science and emerging technology in Silicon Valley.

Intelligence Redefined: Are You A Gifted Person?

For a long time the meaning of giftedness has been restricted to the rigid confines of achievement and accomplishment. Academic toppers are, and should be entitled to their share of glory, but in the process of lauding top scorers and scholarship winners we may be crowding out those who actually have advanced and complex patterns of development but just don’t fit the system’s definition of ‘top students’.

Characteristics of gifted individuals: If 75 per cent of the following 37 characteristics fit you, you are probably a gifted adult.
Are you a good problem solver?
Can you concentrate for long periods of time?
Are you a perfectionist?
Do you persevere with your interests?
Are you an avid reader?
Do you have a vivid imagination?
Do you enjoy doing jigsaw puzzles?
Often connect seemingly unrelated ideas?
Do you enjoy paradoxes?
Do you set high standards for yourself?
Do you have a good long-term memory?
Are you deeply compassionate?
Do you have persistent curiosity?
Do you have a good sense of humor?

Read

Are you a keen observer?
Do you love mathematics?
Do you need periods of contemplation?
Do you search for meaning in your life?
Are you aware of things that others are not?
Are you fascinated by words?
Are you highly sensitive?
Do you have strong moral convictions?
Do you often feel out-of-sync with others?
Are you perceptive or insightful?
Do you often question rules or authority?
Do you have organized collections?
Do you thrive on challenge?
Do you have extraordinary abilities and deficits?
Do you learn new things rapidly?
Feel overwhelmed by many interests/abilities?
Do you have a great deal of energy?
Often take a stand against injustice?
Do you feel driven by your creativity?
Love ideas and ardent discussion?
Did you have developmentally advanced childhood?
Have unusual ideas or perceptions?
Are you a complex person?
*Adapted from the Institute for the Study of Advanced Development.

One way to identify gifted individuals is their style of thinking. They usually employ divergent thinking. Their style is original and they tend to come up with crazy ideas, which other people find strange. But sometimes it is these crazy ideas that go on to become the most recognized ones of our time.

Gifted individuals face many challenges, with one of biggest being the inability to be correctly identified by the individuals who should be helping them realize their true potential.

As with any other student, it would be a shame if parents, teachers and peers did not recognize the strengths of gifted students and allow them to reach their true potential. But what must educators and parents do in order to make sure this does not happen?

However until more help is readily available, what are the gifted to do?

Sadly, not enough is known about giftedness. More time and energy need to be spent identifying traits among the gifted, especially since it is these students who go on to contribute much to improving the state of our world.

Acknowledge the possibilities, identify your capabilities and allow yourself to be different. You never know, you may be the next Einstein.

from link.

See how Mary, Joseph and their donkey did it

Help with Windows Movie Maker

If you are facing problems with WMM, that post if for you!
The following links will teach you the basis of WMM and more.
Good luck!

Official Web site
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/moviemaker/default.mspx

Video Tutorial
http://movies.atomiclearning.com/k12/moviemaker2/

Blackmail: The Solution

I have thought that the predominance in the minds of moralists
of a desire to edify has impeded the real progress of ethical
science: and that this would be benefited by an application to
it of the same disinterested curiosity to which we chiefly owe
the great discoveries of physics.

Henry Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics

The topic of blackmail brings up central topics in novel ways:
the permissibility of threats and offers, the relations between
morality and the law, the role of concern for consequences and
for non-consequentialist ethical considerations, and the limits
of freedom. The paradoxicality of blackmail has been recognized
for a long time, and unlike the other essays this one does not offer
a new paradox. It aims to offer a solution. “With a solution like
this, who needs problems?” it might be thought, as the solution
is itself paradoxical. But first we need to understand what blackmail
is, and what its paradoxes are.
The notion of blackmail is sometimes applied loosely, its users
merely relying rhetorically on its strong pejorative implication.
I shall here consider it in a narrower and more exact sense which
includes the following features: (a) a declaration of intention to
act (or to refrain from acting) in a way concerning which one
has no obligations, that is otherwise legally permissible, and that
the blackmailer believes his or her target would find unwelcome;
and (b) an accompanying offer not to carry out the intention on
condition of the blackmailer’s receiving compensation that is
otherwise legally permissible. Let us call this “ordinary blackmail.”
The paradigmatic example is Q’s threatening to tell Z’s wife
about Z’s involvement with another woman, unless Z pays him
a large sum of money. It is legal to ask for money, and likewise
it is legal to tell (or even to threaten to tell) another person’s wife
about her husband’s infidelity. The ethical issues here are less clear.
Note only that none of the separate components of “ordinary
blackmail” is normally thought to be morally odious in a way
that can account for the common attitude towards blackmail.
Something strange is going on here.
Blackmail differs from “extortion,” a coercive request accompanied
by a threat to perform an illegal action (for example, to
use violence against someone). Blackmail is also distinct from
the threat to spread damaging false information, which might
involve the idea of “defamation.” “Ordinary blackmail” excludes
cases in which the blackmailer’s advantage comes about illicitly
(say, through wire-tapping). Requests by blackmailers to be paid
in unacceptable “currency” (for example, that the person being
blackmailed perform an immoral or illegal act) also lie outside of
blackmail in the sense that concerns us. These different cases bring
up various other issues that would hamper our effort to consider
the difficulties inherent in “ordinary blackmail.” We want
to think about the pure case.
Finally, the narrow notion of blackmail that we are considering
is not limited to threatening with information (as in Q’s
blackmailing Z). If, for example, you asked all shops of a certain
kind to pay you a monthly sum for not carrying out the credible
threat of opening a competing shop nearby, thereby running
them out of business, problems may arise that fall within our
area of concern (see Smilansky 1995a). In fact, there is reason
for thinking that this may in fact be worse, in one respect, than
ordinary blackmail, since here the victim is entirely innocent,
whereas in ordinary blackmail the victim has often done something
wrong or at least shameful, so that he has a weaker claim
to immunity. But we shall focus on the ordinary cases.
The idea of “ordinary blackmail” gives rise to two apparent
paradoxes, one of which is conceptual, the other substantive.

The Conceptual Paradox of Blackmail

If each of the components of the common sort of blackmail (the
asking for payment, the threat to do what one is otherwise
permitted to do, and the carrying out – or not – of the threat)
is in itself permissible, what is the source of our powerful objection
to blackmail? Why do these innocuous things become so
bad when brought together? Understanding common attitudes
towards extortion presents no similar difficulties for, if one is
not allowed to inflict violence on others, then one is not allowed
to threaten to do so, let alone to demand payment for desisting.
The contrast between blackmail and extortion thus also helps
to highlight the question that surrounds the negative attitude
towards blackmail.
Michael Clark (1994) has countered that the request for money
in “ordinary blackmail” is backed up by a threat, that this combination
brings forth something new, and that that new thing
is what’s problematic about blackmail. Thus there is nothing
paradoxical about the fact that, in themselves, the elements that
make up the practice of blackmail are permissible. And indeed
there are other similar practices (bigamy or prostitution come to
mind) that are morally problematic although their components
are not. The ethical significance of combined acts may hence
transcend the significance of their individual elements. If, then,
the first paradox is taken as formal, we can dismiss it. By pointing
this out, Clark might be said to have solved the conceptual
paradox.
However, the way in which the “alchemy” of the novel emergence
of badness or wrongness operates in “ordinary blackmail”
remains mysterious, and separately noting the innocuous nature
of each of the elements of “ordinary blackmail” helps to bring this
out. If one may threaten to do what one is (otherwise) allowed to
do, offering not to so act in return for monetary compensation
does not seem capable of bringing forth the sense of radical and
novel heinousness that blackmail arouses. Our dissatisfaction
with any quick dismissal of the paradoxicality of blackmail increases
when we reflect on other factors. The person being blackmailed,
Z, would in fact often prefer to be offered the option
of paying the blackmailer, and would often take up the option if
it was offered. In and of itself, Z would not welcome allowing
the would-be blackmailer to sell news of the affair to the press.
But since selling news is permissible, Z would wish to allow the
blackmailer to sell his or her silence to Z as well. Such concerns
are substantive, and they point us in the direction of the second
paradox.

The Substantive Paradox

The main philosophical difficulty with blackmail follows from
the apparent similarity between typical cases of “ordinary blackmail”
such as Q’s blackmailing Z, and common practices in social
and economic life that morality does not take to be extremely
reprehensible and that the law does not prohibit. In what
follows I will call them the “Other Social Practices.” In many
labor disputes, for example, workers legally threaten to cease
work in order to gain higher salaries. Employers similarly threaten
to close down operations or to hire other workers if their demands
are not accepted. In divorce cases each partner can threaten
to prolong the proceedings if the settlement does not go his or
her way. Boycotts of goods or services may be threatened in
order to back up various sorts of demands. Victims of inadequately
tested products may threaten to sue companies under
tort law, thereby bringing adverse publicity to the producers,
unless compensation is forthcoming. Politicians indirectly threaten
to cut funds for groups who do not support them. Many instances
of raising prices of scarce goods or services are in effect
monetary demands backed up by threats. All of these common
practices contain the same two features I distinguished for
“ordinary blackmail.” Why, then, do we consider them to be
fundamentally different from blackmail when we take up a moral
point of view?
One way of approaching the philosophical difficulty of blackmail
is to assume that common intuitions are correct. Under
this interpretation the puzzle becomes merely one of how to
justify the status quo. Even then we still have our philosophical
work cut out. A true philosophical attitude, however, will question
more deeply whether common intuitions are justified at all.
One of the effects of thinking about the Substantive Paradox
is that we call into question basic assumptions about rights and
about moral limits. The consequences of the Substantive Paradox
threaten to spread in both directions. We may come to feel
that we need to take a more tolerant moral stance towards
“ordinary blackmail,” perhaps by decriminalizing it (see Mack
1982). Alternatively, we may see the common practices that
resemble blackmail as being morally equivalent to blackmail,
and therefore less tolerable morally and legally. In either case,
the prospect is disconcerting.
Several attempts to solve the Substantive Paradox have
appeared in the literature. First, we can explain common attitudes
cynically. One such explanation is that being blackmailed in the
ordinary ways is frightening only to the rich and powerful, while
threats from employers or politicians would rarely concern them.
That people with money and power take “ordinary blackmail”
but not the Other Social Practices seriously is therefore hardly
surprising. But the cynical sort of explanation does not seem to
explain the strength of the common attitude toward “ordinary
blackmail,” let alone justify it. If you learned that your brother
or sister was seriously dating a person who had been engaged
in “ordinary blackmail,” you would be upset. This doesn’t seem
to be explained as a result of your being in the grip of “false
consciousness” induced by the manipulations of the rich.
Second, we may concede that, in moral terms, the similarity
between “ordinary blackmail” and the social practices is great,
but we may still believe that the distinction commonly made
between them is legally justified. This tack would explain away
the paradox. For example, difficulties with enforcement may
justify why legal attitudes towards the Other Social Practices and
“ordinary blackmail” should be different, although there may
be no deep moral differences between them (see, e.g., Feinberg
1988; Gorr 1992).
This approach is problematic. Although the issue of blackmail
involves both moral and legal matters, we can confine the case
for the existence of a paradox to the moral side. Even if society
didn’t legally sanction blackmail, it would be hard to deny that
we hold blackmailers to be morally despicable. We don’t usually
express such a severe negative attitude toward those who engage
in sharp economic bargaining. Even our strictly ethical intuitions
tolerate practices that, on closer inspection, may seem difficult
to distinguish from “ordinary blackmail.” So the moral/legal
divide is not a solution to the moral paradox. Moreover, we would
pay a high price if we argued for a firm distinction between the
moral and the legal issues. A huge gap between the two, in a
context such as this, would in itself be a surprising and disturbing
result. Finally, the moral and the legal seem particularly
intertwined in the matter of blackmail: ethical disapproval is a
central reason that our laws circumscribe blackmail.
A third way in which philosophers and jurists have tried
to deal with the Substantive Paradox is by seeking to identify a
feature of “ordinary blackmail” that distinguishes it ethically from
those acceptable social practices that seem so similar. This route
is the most alluring, because it would defuse the Substantive Paradox:
once we look closely, “ordinary blackmail” and the Other
Social Practices turn out to be substantially different. However,
such a litmus test has not proved easy to formulate. Among
other candidates philosophers and legal thinkers have considered
coerced versus uncoerced choices, the invasion of privacy,
the rights of third parties, the exploitation of an opponent’s
weaknesses, and the distinction between harming and not benefiting
(see, e.g., Murphy 1980; Lindgren 1984; Fletcher 1993).
The specific discussions are complex and intriguing, but they
have not been manifestly successful. The suggestions offered seem
to succeed only in limited types of cases, or to beg the question
by making crucial moral assumptions as to what is morally
disallowed – assumptions that the issue of blackmail shows to
be contentious. For example, the “gutter press” may invade a
person’s privacy and exploit her weaknesses in order to make
money just as a blackmailer does. A neighbor may threaten to
put up that second story he has permission to build, thereby
blocking one’s view, unless one gives way on some land dispute.
This would seem to be an instance of coerced choice and of the
threat of outright harm. Yet few of us view such practices in the
same way as we view “ordinary blackmail.”
None of the above ways seem to succeed in resolving the
Substantive Paradox. We have a strong intuition that blackmail
is no ordinary matter, but a particularly loathsome pursuit, morally
odious to a high degree and deserving of severe criminal and
social sanction. Yet no one has so far been able to point out
anything special about blackmail that justifies these intuitions.
Something else seems to be going on here that provides
a “solution.” But this solution itself is paradoxical. We don’t
single out “ordinary blackmail” because its bad features are unique
but because there is nothing good about it to overcome the badness.
My conclusion is that at the end of the day, “ordinary blackmail”
and the practices I have discussed may not inherently be
very different ethically. There may merely be further reasons for
allowing the other practices to continue. Our intuitive sense –
that something unique must be present in blackmail, to make it
so manifestly vile – is a mistake. Unless we find a different
explanation of the status of blackmail, we need to live with this
“deflationary” conclusion, namely, that there is nothing especially
negative about blackmail.
Approaches from the standpoint of rights-oriented, contractual,
and virtue-based ethics may all be able to contribute here,
but utilitarianism (or more broadly consequentialism, a concern
for consequences not necessarily related to utility) seems to
acquire a particular authority in justifying the common practices.
The nastiness of using information might actually be increased
when such information appears in the gutter press, but
other good reasons for maintaining a free press outweigh this.
Using “quasi-blackmail” to threaten and to offer advantages in
economic bargaining may likewise be justified because of its
economic efficiency or by virtue of the importance of the right
both to offer and to withhold one’s labor or employment to
others. But “ordinary blackmail” offers no equivalent saving
graces.
Decriminalizing “ordinary blackmail” would cause widespread
social harm. Some good might emerge (certain people may refrain
from wrongdoing because of the additional risk of being blackmailed),
but this would be negligible as compared to the damage.
The opening up of this new business opportunity, with the
disappearance or decline of the major current disincentives for
blackmail (the legal and moral sanctions), would mean that,
overall, people would be likely to face much more blackmail.
Although one may prefer to be able to buy off one’s blackmailer
if such a blackmailer were to exist, overall it would be better to
have as few blackmailers as possible. As invasion into one’s private
sphere becomes commercially viable, fear for individual
privacy would intensify. This would not be limited to public
figures, but potentially threaten everyone. And it would typically
be repetitive (that is, one would need to buy silence again and
again, perhaps from more than one source, and with no guarantee
that the matter would be favorably concluded). An atmosphere
would prevail in which each person, no matter how intimate or
how foreign, could constitute a potential enemy: Hobbes’s “war
of all against all.” And all to what purpose?
“Ordinary blackmail” is coercive, hurtful, demeaning, exploitative,
parasitical, and invasive, as are many other social practices.
There is nothing especially bad about it. Paradoxically, what
singles it out is that little or no good derives from it.

by Saul Smilansky - 10 Moral Paradoxes