Slider

Science

SCITECH

AMAZING FACTS

NATURE SPACE

Psychology

How many trees are there in the world?

According to a new study, the answer is somewhere around 3.04 trillion.
That's about 400 trees for every person.
12,000 years ago, before the advent of agriculture, Earth had twice as many trees as it does now. Currently, our planet is losing 10 million trees a year.
"We used ground-sourced information," says Crowther. "All of the information that went into our models was generated from people standing on the ground counting numbers of trees in a given area. And so we could relate this information to what the satellites are telling us."
Previous estimates of the Earth's tree population put the number at 400.25 billion. That’s nearly an order of magnitude less than the new tally. Scientists say the discrepancy has to do with how the two estimates were calculated.
“Satellite images can tell you a lot about the forest area and canopy cover,” Crowther said. “What we provide is a more detailed understanding of what is going on beneath the surface.”
The new study incorporates satellite imagery, but it also relies on 429,775 ground-based measurements of tree density made by an actual person who counted the number of trees in a given area.
"We all gathered in a room, it was a very exciting time," remembers Crowther. "We'd been working toward it for two years."

The result: A staggering three trillion trees.

Researchers represented the number of trees across the globe using bars that are taller for denser forests.


Crowther added that one of the most dominant themes of the study is how large an effect humans are having on the tree population on the planet.

“Human activity came out as the strongest control on tree density across all biomes,” he said. “It really highlights how big of an impact humans are having on the Earth on a global scale.”


Asus unveils 5-in-1 Android/Windows Transformer Book V tabfonetop

Asus Transformer Book V: A Windows, Android, laptop, tablet, and smartphone five-in-one!
If you thought that Microsoft’s tablet-that-turns-into-a-laptop was cool, the Asus Transformer Book V — unveiled at Computex 2014 in Taiwan — will blow your mind. Like previous 2-in-1 Transformer Books, there’s a Windows tablet that clicks into a laptop base — but now there’s also a slot on the back of the tablet for an Android smartphone! All told, this hideous three-in-one device has five modes of operation: a Windows laptop, a Windows tablet, an Android smartphone, an Android tablet, and an Android laptop. There’s no word on pricing or release date.
Okay, let’s break this beast down. First, the main brain of the operation is the tablet: a 12.5-inch device running Windows 8.1, with an Intel Core CPU under the hood, 4GB of RAM, a 28 watt-hour battery, and up to 128GB of flash storage. Reports seem to differ on the resolution of the screen (some say 1920×1080, some say 1366×768). In the laptop keyboard/base station, there’s a 1TB hard drive — and that’s about it (not quite as fancy as last year’s Transformer Book Trio, which had a full PC in the base). On the back of the tablet there’s a slot that will take a 5-inch, ZenFone-like smartphone. The smartphone will apparently be the first device in the world with Intel’s 64-bit Moorefield (Atom) SoC.
Asus Transformer Book V
Asus Transformer Book V. You can see the Android home screen running in a window in the background. [Image credit: Engadget]
The various parts of the Asus Transformer Book V (pronounced “five”) interact in the following ways. The tablet can be used as a Windows tablet, or as a Windows laptop. The smartphone can obviously be used as a normal Android smartphone. When you slot the smartphone into the tablet, you then gain the ability to run Android apps on your Windows desktop — or you can let Android take over the display entirely, turning the device into an Android tablet (or laptop, if you’re docked). The tablet gains LTE connectivity when the smartphone is plugged in. There will be some interchange of data between the two devices, but the exact implementation isn’t clear.
In terms of real-world usefulness, color us fairly skeptical. If the tablet part features an Intel Core processor, expect the entire Transformer Book V package to be very expensive — probably in the $1500 to $2000 range. While we don’t have the tablet’s exact weight, it will probably be in the region of 700-800 grams — which will be rather heavy, once you plug in the 140-gram smartphone. While there’s something to be said for a very cheap, “dumb” tablet that merely extends the size of your smartphone’s screen, I think putting a smartphone slot in the back of a full-featured 2-in-1 tablet/laptop is probably taking things a bit too far.
The various modes of the Asus Transformer Book V
The various modes of the Asus Transformer Book V
Having said that, if you’re in the market for a new smartphone, and potentially a new tablet as well, there’s no real reason why you shouldn’t at least try the Asus Transformer Book V. When you actually have all three parts laying around, and assuming the interchange of data between Android and Windows isn’t too clunky, some fairly useful scenarios might actually emerge.
I think the whole setup would be cheaper and more interesting if there was only one processor, though, in the smartphone. Then you could walk around with the smartphone, and turn it into a tablet or laptop if you want to consume some media or do something productive. That would be pretty close to my vision of the future, where the smartphone isthe PC of the future.

10 Stupid Laws

stupid laws

Politicians do some downright stupid things. Sure, we all do. But these are the people who draft our laws — the ones who decide how the rest of us should live and behave. Maybe you consider wars you disagree with to be “stupid” decisions. Perhaps it’s the latest report of infidelity from politicians that’s getting under your skin. But today let’s have some fun and look at the lighter side of government gaffs by exploring some incredibly stupid laws that may still be on the books.
Please note that I am not saying all of these dumb laws are still in effect (or even were). But they’re examples reported for various states in the U.S. and some international laws as well. Maybe they’ll make more sense to you than to me. Or perhaps you’ll also find them good for a laugh.
-->
1. In Pennsylvania it’s illegal to have more than 16 women live in the same house — doing so makes it a brothel.
I wanted to kick things off with an example of a dumb law from my own home state. I’m not sure if the specifics reported are right, or if it’s still the case (as opposed to an old law). But I do remember the topic coming up periodically when I was in college. It was a concern for sororities where groups of “sisters” would share a sorority house.
2. In Sweden it’s claimed that it’s illegal to paint a house without a painting license from the government.
Well, if that’s the case I’m glad I don’t live in Sweden. I just painted my place this spring, and am planning to do some more paint touch-ups soon. While this sounds like a pretty stupid law, I could maybe understand it if it’s outdated and became law out of concerns over lead-based paint or something.
3. It’s reported that in San Antonio, Texas it’s illegal to use your eyes or hands while flirting.
Why not just ban flirting altogether? Outdated, still on the books — I don’t know. But this is one where I can’t even begin to understand the logic if it’s true… not even in a historical context. You?
trick-or-treat
Credit: love♡janine (via Flickr)
4. Don’t send the kiddies trick-or-treating on Halloween in Virginia.
It’s reported that doing so is illegal. Again, I’m not sure if this is legit or current. But the idea doesn’t really surprise me. I know where I live Halloween trick-or-treating is very different than it was when I was a kid. They’ve put strict limits on the time kids can go out, and I seem to remember them deciding trick-or-treating should be a different day at some point — maybe if Halloween was on a school night. So no, if this is true, it wouldn’t really surprise me. Just for curiosity’s sake, have you seen changes in trick-or-treating since you were a kid too? Or do I just live in a dud of a town?
-->

5. In Singapore, oral sex is illegal (unless it leads to the real deal).
Let’s be honest here. Sex laws can sometimes be the funniest. It’s usually a case of them being outdated, based in times when public opinion was quite different. And when it comes to international sex laws, I’m pretty “forgiving,” because I certainly don’t understand every culture out there. What sounds crazy to me might be perfectly normal there. But this one? I really hope it’s just a joke or at least off the books now. Oral sex is illegal, unless you use it as foreplay. Why do I suspect only a man could come up with that idea?
6. While we’re talking about Singapore, tourists take note: it’s also illegal to pee in an elevator.
Because apparently we need a reminder….

7. Way to go Fairbanks, Alaska! (They cleaned up filthy moose sex on city streets!)
moose
Credit: gainesp2003 (via Flickr)
This is one of those reported laws that’s so incredibly stupid I can’t help but hope it’s true (because that makes it all the funnier). As if animals give a moose’s behind what our laws say. If it works, maybe my local officials can write a law that would stop those damned birds from crapping on my car. [source]
8. In Canada, it’s reported that it’s illegal for clear and non-dark sodas to be caffeinated.
Ironically, just this morning I was talking to someone about caffeinated beverages (yes, my life is so relevant to my work!). I never actually knew that Mountain Dew had caffeine (haven’t had it in years either). It was pointed out to me that it’s indeed one of the most caffeinated sodas here in the U.S. So when I saw this stupid law I immediately thought of Mountain Dew. And I just had to look it up — is Canadian Mountain Dew different from “real” Mountain Dew? And it seems that it is (or at least was)! I don’t understand why the law was created in the first place, but I found it to be one of the most interesting. Yes. I find soft drinks fascinating. Shut up.
9. In Washington State, it’s illegal to use x-ray machines to find the perfect shoe fit.
The hilarity of this dumb law is in its specificity. Sometimes when you read about stupid laws, they’re actually just taking general laws and twisting them to sound silly (like a ban on large animals such as big dogs on a beach being twisted to say you can’t take a polar bear to the beach). But this one isn’t one of those. The law specifically mentions shoe fittings, and you can see the actual text of the law in the source for this one. I could completely understand a law banning any non-medical use of x-ray equipment because of the radiation involved. But to specifically call out shoe fittings? What were they thinking? I just can’t imagine so many people in Washington State trying to do this that they felt it necessary to make it illegal.
-->
10. In New Jersey, it’s illegal for a murderer to wear a bullet-proof vest while committing that crime.
Well, I guess if you can’t get him on the other charges….
Remember to take these dumb laws with a grain of salt. They’re meant for amusement more than anything. Do you know more about any of these reported stupid laws? Do you have a favorite silly law that’s still on the books where you live? Leave a comment and tell us about it!

Man Who Killed The USSR | General Akhtar Abdul Rehman

Man Who Killed The USSR | General Akhtar Abdul Rehman.
Discussion in 'Seniors Cafe' started by Aeronaut, Jun 25, 2013.
General Akhtar Abdul Rehman

[​IMG]


At the start of this book, which tells the story of my part in the Afghan Jehad, I want to acknowledge the debt I, and indeed Pakistan and the Mujahideen owe to the ‘Silent Soldier’, General Akhtar Abdur Rahman. I served under him for four years at the height of the war, but he carried the enormous responsibility for the struggle against what was then the Soviet superpower, for over eight years. I call him the ‘Silent Soldier’ because of his great humility and modesty. Few people, apart from his family knew him as well as I did until he was assassinated, along with President Zia-ul-Haq, in the plane crash in August 1988. At one blow the Jehad lost its two most powerful leaders.

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 President Zia sent for General Akhtar, who
had recently taken over as Director of ISI. At that time nobody in authority in Pakistan, and certainly no overseas government (including the US), thought the Soviet military might could be confronted. Afghanistan was written-off as lost. The only person within the military to advocate supporting the Jehad by Pakistan, and the only person to come up with a plausible plan for doing so, was General Akhtar. He convinced the president that no only was it vital to Pakistan’s interests to fight the aggressors, but that there was every chance of defeating them. Some years later Zia was to say to him, you have wrought a miracle, I can give you nothing worthy of your achievements. Only God can reward you. 

My job during my time at ISI was to command the Afghan Bureau which was charged with
the day to day running of the Afghan war. General Akhtar was my superior, charged with devising,
controlling and supervising the strategy to bring about victory in the field. Put in its simplest form
he was the strategist, while I was the tactician. At the outset he was almost alone in thinking that the Soviet Union with all its modern aircraft and armour could be brought down by a few thousand poorly trained and armed Mujahideen. It certainly seemed an impossibility at the beginning. I recall being very skeptical myself when I first joined ISI on General Akhtar’s orders.
As events were to show he was right. Under his leadership, under this order, under his
strategy, the communist menace was not only confronted, but turned back–forced to retreat.

Little wonder that the chief architect of this humiliation was on the top of the KGB’s hit list with a huge price on his head. Nevertheless, during the time that I knew him he never wavered or showed concern at the danger or, but continued to press on with the Jehad. I would venture to highlight two main areas in which General Akhtar’s influence was critical. The first was strategically. The whole concept of how to fight the war was his. He understood how even a guerrilla army can defeat a superpower in the battlefield if it applied the strategy of death by a thousand cuts. Gradually, over the years, as the Mujahideen became better armed and trained this strategy of avoiding direct confrontation, of concentration on soft targets, on communications, and on supply lines and depots, brought about a full, scale Soviet withdrawal. Only after the removal of General Akhtar from ISI (and from the command of Mujahideen) did we deviate from these methods, such as when we attacked Jalalabad head on, and suffered a serious setback.

At the centre of General Akhtar’s strategy lay the city of Kabul. Not that he wanted to take the
capital by storm–far from it. But he recognized its political, economic, social, and military
significance. His cry was ‘Kabul must burn’. It had to be cut off, its supply lines served, and it had
to be under continuous pressure year in year out. He knew that if a stranglehold on the city could be applied it would fall without assault. His great wish was that he be able, after the war, to visit Kabul to offer prayers of thanksgiving for victory. Sadly it was not to happen. 

The second area of crucial influence was in the political/diplomatic field, I do not mean
international politics or diplomacy, but rather internal affairs. General Akhtar seemed to me to be the only person able to bring about a degree of unity among the fractious Mujahideen political parties. Without that degree of cooperation nothing of importance could be achieved on the battle field. He was able to unite, sometimes only temporarily I admit, leaders who were lifelong enemies. He was able to convince men who would not normally sit in the same room with each other to fight, together for the common goal of the Jehad.

An important part of his success was in his ability to resist the ever growing pressure by the
US to run the war. Through the CIA the US sought to control the clandestine supply pipeline, arms
distribution, and the training of the Mujahideen. That they were not able to do so was entirely due to General Akhtar’s efforts. It was a major contribution to a avoiding operational chaos. Unfortunately, General Akhtar was removed from the ISI by a promotion he did not seek just
as the Mujahideen were on the brink of success. His tragic death a year later prevented him from
witnessing the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan–the ultimate proof that he had won. I believe that
Pakistan and Afghanistan owe a debt of gratitude to him. I certainly count it a great privilege to
have served under the only general in Pakistan’s short history to have masterminded a victory in a
major war and earn a name for his military genius.

The information for this book came almost entirely from personal experience and observations during my time at ISI, and more recently when I returned to Peshawar. I know the Mujahideen, some of their Commanders and all their Leaders well, We worked and planned together for four years and I have discussed the situation today with many of them. This book, therefore, has not been written with extensive us of works of reference, or from the stories of journalist. I disagree with much that has been written about the war in Afghanistan. Sometimes the facts are wrong, more often the interpretation is wrong. This does not mean that all books on the war are valueless, far from it, but merely that I found very few to be reliable aids when compiling my manuscript. Those that were included Mark Urban’s War in Afghanistan, Macmillan Press, 1988; David C. Isby’s War in a Distant Country, Arms and Armour Press, 1986; and Robert D. Kaplan’s Soldiers of God, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1990. Of these I found the first-mentioned to be particularly authentic and accurate.

DEATH by thousand cuts–this is the time-honoured tactic of the guerrilla army against a large
conventional force. In Afghanistan it was the only way to bring the Soviet bear to its knees; the only way to defeat a superpower on the battlefield with ill-trained, ill-disciplined and ill-equipped tribesmen, whose only asset was an unconquerable fighting spirit welded to a warrior tradition. Ambushes, assassinations, attack on supply convoys, bridges, pipelines, and airfields, with the avoidance of set piece battle; these are history’s proven techniques for the guerrilla. For four years,from 1983-87, it was my task to plan and coordinate these activities.
I was an infantry brigadier in the Pakistan Army when I was suddenly summoned to take over
the Afghan Bureau of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

I went reluctantly, and with foreboding. The ISI has, like most covert intelligent organizations and intimidating reputation both inside and outside the Services. It is considered to be the most effective intelligence agency in the third world. It is also vast, with hundreds of officers, both military and civil, and thousands of staff. Its head the Director General–who was the then Lieutenant-General Akhtar Abdul Rehman Khan, was the most powerful man in the armed forces, with daily direct access to President Zia.

When I received the news of my posting over the telephone I was a brigade commander on a divisional exercise at Quetta. I could not believe it, and asked the staff officer to recheck as I had
never had intelligence training, never held an intelligence appointment, and so felt sure there had
been an error. To my dismay three had not. I was to report to Islamabad within 72 hours. It was
unbelievable. For a while I thought it was the end of my professional career. Such a posting is generally not welcomed by senior officers as, invariably, you make more enemies than friends. Overnight you become a different person in the eyes of your peers.

Even superiors outside the ISI regard you with deep suspicion, as part of the ISI’s function is to keep careful watch on the generals to ensure reliability to the regime. Certainly in those days of martial law under Zia, apprehension, even fear, of what the ISI could do was very real. The next day General Akhtar telephoned me and I took the opportunity to protest that I had neither the experience nor the aptitude for a job within the ISI. His curt response was that neither had he when he first took over as Director General. He did, however, assure me that the job he had in mind would be to my liking. And so it was.

As it turned out I was not directly involved in intelligence gathering. My duties, month after
month, year after year, involved operations; operations against the second most powerful
superpower in the world–the USSR. It was the most momentous challenge of my life. The responsibility was frightening. As Director of the Afghan Bureau of the ISI I was tasked not only with training and arming the Mujahideen (Soldiers of God), but planning their operations inside Afghanistan. When I looked at the enemy order of battle on the map in my operation room I counted no fewer than one 4 star, five 3 star, and some fifteen 2 star Soviet generals, not to mention at least twenty-five Afghans, all of whom outranked me.Throughout my time in the ISI I was concerned with formulating and implementing a military strategy to defeat the Soviets.

My aim was to make Afghanistan their Vietnam. Operations were of course also directed against the communist Afghan Army, but I emphasize that my main enemy was the USSR. It was the invader. Without its massive presence the conflict would have been over long before I took up my post in October, 1983. My duties were military. Although I was keenly aware of the effect of politics on the outcome of the fighting I was seldom, if ever, directly involved in political decision-making. Nevertheless, as time went on, the whims and prejudices of politicians, including those within the Mujahideen, often made the actual fighting of the war a nightmare of frustrations and disappointments. Had it not been for General Akhtar, my only superior during most of my time in the ISI, shielding me from the political intrigues I would surely have resigned within months.

Despite this the reader will need to understand that there are seven recognized Mujahideen
political parties, headquartered in exile, in Pakistan, each with a leader. Of these, four can be broadly classified as Islamic Fundamentalists, while three are Islamic Moderates. They are referred to in the text as the ‘Parties’ or the ‘Party Leader’. These Leaders are not to be confused with the Mujahideen commanders in the field. They all belong to one of the Parties, but are termed Commanders. My time, until late in 1987 when I retired from the Army, was spent in trying to organize and administer rival Mujahideen groups so that they might present some sort of unity on the battlefield.

I had to attempt to coordinate one of the largest guerrilla campaigns in modern times, with a staff of sixty officers and 300 senior NCOs and men from the Pakistan Army. To the Mujahideen I could
issue no order–an advantage taken for granted by my Soviet and Afghan opponents. I had to achieve operational results by cajoling and convincing, not commanding. Somehow I must continue to improve and develop on what had been achieved by my predecessor so that eventually the tactics of a thousand cuts would produce such a haemorrhaging of men and money that the burden would be unbearable. I was compelled to operate under an elaborate smokescreen of secrecy. Most senior generals of the Pakistan Army had no idea of my duties. Even my family was unaware of the real nature of my task.

This need for absolute anonymity stemmed from the official denial of the government that Pakistan was aiding the Mujahideen. No one in authority would admit that weapons, ammunition and equipment were being channelled through Pakistan, by Pakistanis, to the guerrillas. Even more taboo was the fact that the ISI was training the Mujahideen, planning their combat operations, and often accompanying them inside Afghanistan as advisers. Of course the arms supply was an open secret; everybody knew it was happening, but although the involvement of Pakistan in the field was guessed at, it was never, ever, publicly admitted. Throughout the war the diplomats kept playing their game of pretence with Pakistani ambassadors in Moscow and Kabul, and a Soviet one in Islamabad.

Because the role of Pakistan was so sensitive, because I had no wish to embarrass my country,
or jeopardize its security, and would do nothing that might prejudice operations against the Soviets, the writing of this book was delayed. When I retired in August, 1987, the Geneva Accord had yet to be signed, no Soviet withdrawal had started, but the Mujahideen were gaining the upper hand. There was little doubt that the USSR had enough. Mujahideen military victory was in sight. Although I spent the early months of my retirement recording the highlights of my time with the ISI, it was not my intention to write a book. Indeed, I was most strongly advised against such a course. Now, in late 1991, there is no danger of compromising either state secrets or the prosecution of the Jehad.

The once covert activities of the Mujahideen, ISI, or Pakistan, are no longer secret, but common knowledge in my country, if not outside. With the retreat of the Soviets what I have
exposed of the struggle against them is no longer of operational importance. Today all training activities by Pakistan have ceased, the training camps have been abandoned, ISI personnel do not enter inside Afghanistan, and Mujahideen no longer raid across the Amu River into the Soviet Union.

Even the system of distribution of arms has changed, while the quantity has been substantially
reduced. The Military Committee of Afghan leader with which I worked on planning operation, has
been disbanded, and a new system of control by the Afghan Interim Government (AIG) substituted. So I am persuaded that this book may serve a useful purpose for posterity and for historians, if only to highlight lessons for political and military leaders. There is much to be learned, or rather re-learned, about the conduct of guerrilla warfare from the Afghanistan experience. If some of these can be assimilated and applied in the future then writing this book will have been worthwhile.

After three years, things have changed for the worse with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. In
February, 1989, when the last Soviet soldier crossed back into the USSR everybody expected a Mujahideen victory within weeks. In Kabul resistance was on the point of collapse, its citizens faced starvation, the Afghan Army was supposedly about to surrender, and foreign diplomats were packing their bags. A second Saigon was about to happen. All Afghan watchers predicted a Mujahideen triumph, they only differed as to whether it would come in weeks or months. It never came at all. To a soldier, who had been so intimately involved, it was a devastating disappointment.

Somehow a Mujahideen defeat had been snatched from the jaws of victory. This book is an attempt to explain why. Nevertheless, I have not written a history of the Afghan war. My objective has been to set the record straight with regard to how things happened, and why they happened. I seek to explain the workings of a guerrilla army, how it operated, its failings as well as its merits, to record the reasons, as I see them why a triumph for the Mujahideen was denied them in the months following the Soviet withdrawal. Some, perhaps most, of the things I describe have never been made public before–hence the sub-title of the book–although I have been careful that nothing I say can damage current or future operations inside Afghanistan. For the first time the true extent of the assistance given by Pakistan to the Mujahideen in training, logistics and on operations is made known.

During my four years some 80,000 Mujahideen were trained; hundreds of thousands of arms and ammunition were distributed, several billion dollars were spent on this immense logistic exercise and ISI teams regularly entered Afghanistan alongside the Mujahideen. Certainly some of the motives and actions of the US to which I allude as being distinct possibilities will be denied–perhaps correctly. Where I feel that all is not it seems, where doubt exists as to the cause of events, such as the air crash that killed President Zia, I attempt to set out the known evidence honestly, and then draw conclusion. These conclusion are entirely personal, but ones which I cannot wipe from my mind. Probably, I shall for ever remain uncertain. Many books have been written on the war, some describe the cut and thrust of battle on both sides, year by year, while others, more numerous, are merely accounts of journalist’s journeys with the Mujahideen.

Invariably these books flatter a particular Mujahideen Party of Commander, depending on who was the author’s host. It is extremely difficult for the media to know what is happening in Afghanistan. First, it is so remote. There are no comfortable hotels, the fighting is taking place hundreds of miles away from Peshawar, in Pakistan, where most journalists congregate. There is no way of dashing out after breakfast, watching or filming a shootout in the
streets, then getting a story to New York or London that evening. Secondly and arising from the
first, there is the physical stamina required to go inside Afghanistan.

The gruelling effort of marching for several weeks in those unforgiving mountains without proper food or shelter deters all but the most hardy. Add to this the sickness and the danger and it is not surprising that Mujahideen Commanders assess prospective companions with caution. Only a few get taken in. Then, at the end of it all, they may see no action. Their supreme efforts in keeping up for day after day are often poorly rewarded in teams of a readable story. For a few all this was quite unacceptable, so they persuade a Commander to set up a mock battle, sometimes with Mujahideen in Afghan uniforms, buildings wired for demolition in advance, all in true Hollywood style. The Mujahideen enthusiastically rushed around firing all type of weapons, there was much smoke, much noise, much enjoyment and much filming. Of course the journalists had to pay, give the Commander publicity and prestige, but the films sold well in the US or elsewhere.

It was n altogether more civilized way to wage war, and for parties to make money. Even when writing a genuine article, it usually became a channel to promote the views and aspiration of the Commander who took them in. He is their here, his views are expounded, while the reader gets an overly extravagant picture of a personality, his performance and his importance. To avoid falling into this trap I have seldom mentioned Mujahideen Commanders by name when describing a particular operation. I have chosen examples that I believe to be typical of the fighting, some of which were failures, but I have not praised one Commander while disparaging another on the basis of the old Army dictum, ‘No names, no pack drill’.

Similarly, I have not named people who are still serving, or who operated under the veil of secrecy, where this could damage their reputation or endanger their lives. Apart from this the names used are the real ones. Despite the above safeguards there will be some who oppose this book’s publication, if only for the sake of perversity. My immediate superior at the time of my retirement, while showing an interest in the idea, insisted that I should get any draft approved by the Army. This would have been the kiss of death to my efforts. The Pakistan military would have chopped it to pieces in their efforts to eliminate criticisms. So when, after two years, I decided to put my handwritten notes into a more presentable form I could seek no official help.

This book is the outcome of the ensuing partnership. I have endeavored to convey the ‘flavour’ of this guerrilla war by describing my experiences, or those of others known to me, during my tenure with the ISI. It was, while the Soviets occupied the country, a campaign in which a late twentieth century army fought against an early nineteenth century one. The Afghans who annihilated the British during their winter retreat from Kabul in 1842 were virtually identical to those indestructible fighters who killed over 13,000 Soviet soldiers and wounded some 35,000 and sent its army scurrying home after nine years of bitter fighting. The people have not changed much over the centuries; even Alexander’s Macedonian pikemen who marched up the Panjsher valley 2300 years ago would easily recognize the jagged, barren, rocky skyline today. Time does not change much in Afghanistan.

To my knowledge the mystery of why the Mujahideen never marched into Kabul within
weeks of the Soviets withdrawal has never been fully explained. It has usually been put down to
internal feuding. I believe this is only part of the answer. To me the evidence, albeit circumstantial, points to a covert decision by their main backer–the US–that the Mujahideen should no be allowed an outright military victory. I believe they could have had their triumph despite their quarrels if it had been in the US interests. Unfortunately it was not. Both superpowers are much more conformable with the present stalemate. Nothing in this book is official history, but I have made every effort to get my facts correct. Any errors are mine, as are the opinion and comments. I wish to concede, without any reservations, that I could have achieved nothing during my time with ISI without the devoted, unstinting and unending labours of my officers and staff.

They worked day and nights, without any public recognition, for the success of the Jehad. I owe them a lot. I hope that this book will, in a small way, be seen by them as an acknowledgement of their contribution. Finally, I salute the Mujahideen who, for all their faults, have once again proved an unbeatable opponent. No matter how many political reasons may have been espoused for the Soviet’s retreat from Afghanistan, they would never have gone without the efforts of these Soldiers of God.


I salute him [General Akhtar Abdul Rehman]. BRIGADIER (RETD.) MOHAMMAD YOUSAF, S.Bt.

Author: Brig R Mohammad Yousaf S.Bt. [Chief of the Afghan bureau ISI.]
Book: Bear Trap: The defeat of a Super Power.

Samsung Galaxy S5 unveiled: Fingerprint scanner, 16-megapixel camera, but still a plastic body


Galaxy S5, fingerprint scanner
At its Unpacked event in Barcelona, Samsung has released the Galaxy S5 — and, to the surprise of everyone,three new smartwatches: the Gear 2, Gear 2 Neo, and the Gear Fit. We’ll talk about the smartwatches in a separate story and will focus on the Galaxy S5 here.
The Galaxy S5 is, for all intents and purposes, the Galaxy S4 but with a few cool new features: a fingerprint scanner, a heartbeat sensor, and some tech that constantly calibrates the AMOLED screen to compensate for ambient lighting, to ensure that those gaudy super-saturated colors are always present no matter the conditions. The Galaxy S5 is indeed splash-proof (similar to the S4 Active), but not ruggedized. This post will be updated with the release date and pricing when we know it (soon).
Specs-wise, the Galaxy S5 is not a huge step up from the S4. The 5.1-inch 1920×1080 (432 ppi) Super AMOLED screen is as wondrous as ever. Under the hood there’s a top-of-the-range Snapdragon 800 (MSM8974) SoC clocked at 2.5GHz, with the Adreno 330 GPU. There’s 802.11ac with MIMO, and LTE/WiFi aggregation — a relatively new feature that lets you download files over both connections at once.
On the back of the S5 is a heartbeat sensor (it’s close to the camera) — put your finger over it, and S Health picks up your heart rate very quickly. The home button, as expected, is now a fingerprint scanner — and yes, unfortunately, you have to swipe your finger over it (it remains to be seen how stable a 5-inch phone is, when swiping your thumb). There is a special chip that adjusts the screen’s contrast and color gamut, so that it retains the over-saturated AMOLED “pop” under different lighting conditions.
Galaxy S5 back, textured plastic, big camera
And then there’s the camera — a 16-megapixel beast that creates a small (nowhere near Lumia 1020-sized) bulge on the back of the Galaxy S5. Samsung is very proud of the autofocus, which is apparently very fast (0.3 seconds). There’s some neat features, like live HDR preview (for both stills and video). You can apply selective focus on the live view, too.
In general, the camera’s interface has been vastly simplified over the S4, which is a very good thing. It’s too early to talk about the image quality, but our early impressions are good.
Galaxy S5, Ultra Power Saving Mode
On the software side of things, you’ll be glad to hear that the S5 is definitely a bit more sedate than the smorgasbord of useless crap that Samsung shoehorned into the S4. The interface is still TouchWiz, but it’s fairly minimal and inoffensive. There’s unfortunately no sign of Google Now.
The fingerprint sensor isn’t just for unlocking the phone — it can be used to confirm your identity with other apps (such as PayPal). There’s a Kids Mode, which does what you think, and Easy Mode (really) which simplifies the interface for older people. One of my favorite features is Ultra Power Saving Mode, where the phone falls back to a black and white display with just a few icons. This apparently extends the phone’s battery life immensely. Makes me wonder how long the phone would last if you only kept it in Ultra Power Saving Mode…
Galaxy S5, water proofing
The chassis, unfortunately, is still plastic — but now the back is textured plastic (like the Galaxy Note 3), and the edges are now “chromed plastic” (i.e. plastic with silver paint on, I think). If you were hoping for a phone that looked or felt like a metal-bodied iPhone or HTC, you will be disappointed. As far the waterproofing goes, there’s a plug over the bottom USB port, and a rubber seal inside the backplate that keeps the battery dry. Samsung says you can dunk it — but you shouldn’t keep it under water. It’s splash proof, basically.
We will update this post with more hands-on impressions, release date, and pricing, in a little while.

Fruit Salad Trees

The Science of Pomato Plants and Fruit Salad Trees


In an episode of Matt Groening’s animated science fiction sitcomFuturama, Leela offers her friend Fry an unusual housewarming gift: a bonsai tree sprouting tiny bananas, melons and plums. “It’s a miniature fruit salad tree,” she explains.
Here’s the thing: fruit salad trees are real.
In Australia, James and Kerry West grow and sell four types of fruit salad trees, each of which bears several different kinds of fruit. Stone fruit salad trees grow peaches, plums, nectarines, apricots and peachcots. Citrus salad trees offer a winter and summer orange, mandarins, lemons, limes, grapefruits, tangelos and pomelos. Multi-apple trees boast between two and four different kinds of apples and multi-nashi trees produce between two and four different kinds of Asian pears.
In an online video, Kerry West explains how her husband James created their first fruit salad trees more than twenty years ago by learning the craft of grafting. “He started putting the different fruits but of the same family and seeing what would happen if you grafted them all onto the one tree,” Kerry says in the video. “We were amazed at the results.”
Grafting unites the tissues of two or more plants so that they grow and function as a single plant. One plant in the graft is called the rootstock, selected for its healthy or hardy root system. The other plant or plants, chosen for their fruit, flowers or leaves, are known as scions. You can join a scion to a rootstock in many different ways. In one of the most common techniques, you remove a branch from a plant whose fruit you want to reproduce and cut the broken end of the branch into a V-shape not unlike the reed for a woodwind. Shaving the scion in this way exposes its vascular cambium—a ring of plant tissue full of dividing cells that increase the branch’s girth. Once the scion is ready, you slice lengthwise into a branch on the rootstock—exposing its vascular cambium—and wedge the scion into the cleft. Successful grafting requires placing the vascular cambia of both the rootstock and scion in close contact. Another grafting method involves cutting small pockets between the rootstock’s bark and cambium and slipping scions into those pouches. To seal the deal, you bind the scion and rootstock with a rubber band, tape, staples, string or wax.

Click to enlarge (Credit: Ferris Jabr; adapted from photo by J.smith, via Wikimedia Commons)
Over the next few weeks, the scion and rootstock fuse their internal tissues and grow thickened scar tissue around the graft. First, both plants kill and wall off damaged cells. Meanwhile, callus cells in the vascular cambia proliferate and cement themselves together with sticky proteins, forming a living link between scion and rootstock known as the “callus bridge.” If you were to look from above at a cross-section of a cleft graft undergoing this process, it would look something like an intact slice of kiwi—the scion—jammed between the separated halves of another kiwi slice—the rootstock—with the living threads of the callus bridge merging the middle kiwi slice with the semicircles on its flanks. Callus cells also provide temporary links between the primary vascular tissues in the scion and rootstock—the xylem, which transports water, and the phloem, which carries sugars. Eventually, the vascular cambia builds brand new xylem and phloem that unite scion and rootstock into a single functional organism (Reference: Plant Propagation: Principles and Practices).
Farmers have been grafting fruit trees and other crops for thousands of years, but most grafts involve only two plants. The basic idea is to attach whatever kind of plant you want to grow onto a root system that is well adapted to the local soil. As John McPhee explains in his book Oranges:
“In Florida, most orange trees have lemon roots. In California, nearly all lemon trees are grown on orange roots. This sort of thing is not unique with citrus. With the stone fruits, there is a certain latitude. Plums can be grown on cherry trees and apricots on peach trees, but a one-to-one relationship like that is only the beginning with citrus. A single citrus tree can be turned into a carnival, with lemons, limes, grapefruit, tangerines, kumquats and oranges all ripening on its branches at the same time…Most of the trees on the Ridge [a mountain range in Florida renowned for its orange tree orchards] are growing on Rough Lemon…As a rootstock, it forages with exceptional vigor and, in comparison with others, puts more fruit on the tree.”
In addition to increasing yield, grafting can improve resistance to bacteria, viruses and fungi, attract a more diverse group of pollinators and provide a sturdy trunk for delicate ornamental plants. In many cases, grafting is the most reliable way to propagate fruit trees because apples, citrus fruits and many others are not “true to seed”—if you plant the seeds from such fruit, the new generation will not necessarily produce the same fruit as their parents. Instead, you might get something completely different—a grapefruit from a lime, a lemon from an orange—or a genetic surprise.
The main advantage of multi-graft plants like fruit salad trees is convenience. Many people do not have room for several large fruit trees in their backyard, but would ideally like to harvest more than one kind of fruit. Different multi-graft techniques work best for different combinations of species. In general, the more closely related the plants, the more successful the graft. Getting a single tree to bear apples, oranges and bananas is probably too problematic a goal to come to fruition. That’s why the Wests’ fruit salad trees are fusions of related stone fruits or related citrus fruits, but not a mixture of fruits from different botanical families. Other nurseries offer similar multi-graft trees. Ison’s nursery in Georgia sells a multi-graft stone fruit tree that produces peaches, plums, nectarines and apricots. Yamagami’s nursery in California has multi-graft apple and cherry trees. And Stark Bro’s in Missouri sell a 2-N-1 pear tree. Nurseries and hobbyists also graft different types of cacti. Some farmers and gardeners have created pomato plants, which grow potatoes underground and tomatoes above ground. Potatoes and tomatoes might seem very different based on appearances, but they both belong to the genus Solanum (genus is the taxonomic order just above species).
Although grafting woody plants, like fruit trees, is an ancient horticultural technique, grafting soft-stemmed vegetables is a much more recent agricultural practice. Perhaps nurseries will soon start selling mixed vegetable shrubs alongside fruit salad trees. Brassica oleracea seems like a particularly good candidate for such an experiment. This one species includes cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts and kale. Yes, all these plants are cultivars of the exact same species—their appearances and characteristics have been altered through artificial selection over the generations, in the same way people have created so many different dog breeds. A broccauliflower sprouts plant sounds particularly delicious. Maybe it’s time for a family reunion..

For those who have trouble sleeping researchers say that 1 week of camping, without electronics, resets our biological body clock and synchronizes our melatonin hormones with sunrise and sunset.

For those who have trouble sleeping researchers say that 1 week of camping, without electronics, resets our biological body clock and synchronizes our melatonin hormones with sunrise and sunset.

Artificial light sources can negatively affect circadian rhythms, scientists say

This story was originally published byInside Science News Service.
Throughout most of human history, humans went to bed shortly after the sun went down and woke up in the morning as it rose. There were candles and later oil lamps, but the light was not very bright so people still went to bed early.
Then came Thomas Edison and the incandescent light bulb and everything changed, including our sleeping habits. So, if you have problems getting to sleep at night or are a miserable person to be around in the morning, blame him.
Scientists at the University of Colorado Boulder found that if you live by the sun's schedule, you are more likely to go to bed at least an hour earlier, wake up an hour earlier, and be less groggy, because your internal clock and external reality are more in sync. The sun adjusts your clock to what may be its natural state, undoing the influence of light bulbs. 
The work is published in the current issue of the journal Current Biology.
The disconnect between the outside environment and sleep is one reason why even native Alaskans have problems sleeping in the almost endless days of the Arctic summers, and get depressed during the long nights of winters.
The subjects in the Colorado study lived more normal lives.
"We weren’t studying people who had sleep difficulties," said Kenneth Wright, an integrative psychologist at Boulder. "The amount of sleep they got did not change. What changed was the timing of their sleep and the timing of their [internal] clock relative to when they slept."
The researchers took eight adults, average age around 30, and followed them around the normal course of their lives for a week. The subjects spent most of their time indoors while working, studying, eating, and sleeping. Most of the light they encountered was   artificial. Then, they sent the same people out camping.
Sleep and light were measured daily and the hormone melatonin every hour across 24 hours, once after the week of living at home, going to work, school, and then after a week of camping.
Melatonin is the "hormone of darkness," said Namni Goel, a psychologist and sleep researcher at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Scientists use the hormone to measure photoperiods, or the physiological response that organisms have to cycles of daylight and darkness. 
"It rises at night naturally, and falls during the day, suppressed by light," said Goel.
Melatonin also drops the body’s core temperature, making it easier to sleep. People often take melatonin pills to help them fall asleep, she said.
After the week’s study indoors, the Colorado subjects went camping in the Rockies. Instead of artificial lighting, they had only sunshine during the day and campfires at night. Wright estimates the light from the sun was four times as intense as what they experienced indoors. The nature of the light also changed during the day. Think of the bright white light of midday and the golden glow that often precedes sunset.
After their week of camping, researchers measured the subjects' melatonin levels again.
The researchers found that the onset of melatonin shifted two hours earlier, and the subjects’ actual sleep shifted more than an hour earlier. Their bodies were recalibrating themselves, Wright explained.
When they woke in the morning in their normal lives, the melatonin and the external time were in conflict. They were waking up, but the melatonin in their bodies was telling them they should still be asleep. That might account for their still feeling sleepy, Wright said.
When they were out in the outdoors, the melatonin levels and the sun cycle were more aligned--the levels went down as the sun rose and before they woke up. They were subject to more light -- sunlight -- for the majority of the day.
The relationship between light and sleep and how much sleep a person needs has been the subject of several classic experiments.
Some involving putting subjects in deep, totally dark caves for weeks at a time have discovered that the 24-hour-day is almost exactly right for our bodies. The average amount of time our bodies consider a day comes to 24.3 hours, Goel said.
Goel and other Colorado scientists agree that the experiment was small, with only eight subjects, which limits what can be concluded. Nonetheless, the findings justify more experiments like it.
And more camping.

Eiffel Tower, Paris, France



Eiffel Tower, Paris, France

The tower rises 300 meters tall (984 ft); when it was completed.The Eiffel Tower was built for the World Exhibition in 1889, held in celebration of the French Revolution in 1789.

The construction was only meant to last for the duration of the Exposition, but it still stands today, despite all protests from contemporary artists who feared the construction would be the advent of structures without 'individuality' and despite the many people who feared that this huge 'object' would not fit into the architecture of Paris. 

Today, there is no such aversion anymore among the Parisians, and one could not imagine Paris without the Eiffel Tower, in fact it has become the symbol of the City of Light.

The man behind the Eiffel Tower was Gustave Eiffel, known from his revolutionary bridge building techniques, as employed in the great viaduct at Garabit in 1884. These techniques would form the basis for the construction of the Eiffel Tower. He was also known for the construction of the Statue of Liberty's iron framework.

Top