HOME/ARCHIVES http://www.kazooweb.com/textes/
Merci de choisir un ou plusieurs textes plutôt que d'imprimer la totalité... Les arbres vous sont reconnaissants...
********************************
J'attire votre attention vers quelques articles sur vos métiers. (H) Un nouveau texte sur le risque, (2) Qui traite en passant du problème d'établir un réseau de concessionnaires et le financement idoine, et (7) Sur la recherche chez un fabricant d'hélicoptères.
********************************
View the calendar of US primaries and caucuses at this website: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P04/events.phtml?format=chronological

********************************
Week 9, 2004
THE REGULARS: Summary
A) Song of the week: "Thanks God it's Friday" performed by Love and Kisses
B) Penguin Readers: What will you be wearing? [Reportage de 2001 sur les collections de model
C) Salon/Relationships: Reformed runaway bride
D) The New York Times/The Ethicist: Ball in play [Conseils sur l'éthique et la déontologie: Je détiens une balle de base-ball signée par de grands joueurs. Puis-je la vendre ou dois-je la donner à un musée ? / Je suis prêtre anglican, et je n'ai pas de droit de marier des couples homosexuels, alors que certains de mes collègues plus âgés ont l'autorisation de ce faire.]
E) The Chicago Sun-Times: An interview with Prudie (Margo Howard)! [Un déjeuner-entretien avec Margo Howard, l'auteur de Dear Prudence.]
F) Miss Manners: Womb With a View [Conseils sur les bonnes manières : Comment réagir lorsqu'on vous tend la photo d'échographie de son foetus ?/ Comment se déplacer dans un cimetière ? / Comment réagir aux automobilistes qui font une bêtise puis font mine de vous remercier ?/Comment conduire une conversation où un tiers est en train de téléphoner ?]
G) WYNC On the Media radio show: Beatles On the Air [Une nouvelle émission de téléréalité : 40ème anniversaire d'un évènement de l'histoire de la télé américaine : le premier passage des Beatles sur le petit écran US.]
H) The Economist/Risk series: Freud, finance and folly [Une série d'articles sur le risque : les hommes sont mauvais juges des risques.]
I) Demotivator® of the week: Adversity [Les messages hélas trop vrais qui vont vous démotiver dans votre vie personnelle et professionnelle. Cette semaine, "L'adversité"]

********************************
A) Song of the week: "Thanks God it's Friday" performed by Love and Kisses

Friday
(Thank God it's) Friday
Friday
(Thank God it's) Friday, Friday, Friday, Friday...

Hey,
Put a smile on your face,
Things are coming your way,
Out there somewhere tonight,
(It's the right time and place).

I saw you baby,
For the very first time,
Couldn't take my eyes off you,
Girl you just had to be mine.

You're the key I'm dreamin' of,
For it just had to be you,
Girl I know this time
I'll make all my dreams come true.

Hey,
See the stars in his eyes,
And that music in you,
Tells you how you can find
(Your way to paradise)

Friday
(Thank God it's) Friday
Friday
(Thank God it's) Friday, Friday, Friday, Friday...

Hey,
Put a smile on your face,
Things are coming your way,
Out there somewhere tonight
(It's the right time and place)

Hey,
See the stars in his eyes,
Tells you how you can find love...

^RETURN TO TOP^

It's that time of year again – designers have introduced their new fashions to the world. As usual, the models in the fashion shows are tall and thin. The clothes cost thousands of dollars. And many people think that they look strange. They aren’t the clothes that you buy and wear. But how do the fashion shows change the clothes in the shops and on the streets?

Designers like to choose everything for their fashion shows. When a model walks on the catwalk, everything must be right. The model, the shoes, the hair, the make-up . . . everything about the look. Designers even tell their models how to walk and how to look at the people in the crowd. A good show is like a work of art. All of the world's famous designers show their work at fashion shows – Jean Paul Gaultier, Louis Vuitton and Giorgio Armani all became famous after successful shows.

Film stars and pop stars are usually in the crowd. Many designers like pop stars to wear their clothes. It helps to make them fashionable. Designers sometimes give their clothes to famous people to wear. Some designers have given clothes to Madonna . . . and to her daughter Lourdes, too.

How do these clothes reach your local shop? After the fashion shows, clothes companies study the designers' new fashions. They try to guess what shoppers will want from the shows. Of course, the clothes that are sold in the shops are not as strange as the clothes on the catwalk. Also, most people can wear them – you don't need to be tall and thin! Often clothes-makers just copy colours and styles from the fashion shows. Sometimes popular designers (like Gaultier and Armani) have their own cheaper clothes in the shops.

And what about this season's shows? Colours are everywhere on the catwalks. There are big flowers on dresses and skirts, and there are lots of stripes on shirts. Some fashions from the 1980s are back. Do you remember big belts? Some punk clothes are back, too, and punk make-up. Some shows have had big dresses in a 1950s style. There were lots of bags and shoes, too. One thing almost never goes out of fashion – black is still a fashionable colour to wear.

Anna Sui had a strong show with punk fashions, big skirts and even clothes like soldiers wear. Many people also liked Philosophy di Alberta Ferretti's show. It had lots of leather and the colour brown was very important. Will these new designers become famous after successful shows? We will have to wait and see.

And which of these new fashions will reach the streets? In a few months will you be in punk clothes or a big 1950s skirt? Wait and see – but let's hope that it looks good!

^RETURN TO TOP^

Reformed runaway bride

It doesn't look good when someone gives you a copy of "Runaway Bride" as a wedding gift. It's even worse when you acknowledge that there may be good reason for it. I was a runaway bride -- twice. Twice I had been engaged, only to break it off and run for the hills as my wedding day approached.

But now, in my mid-30s, I was beginning to hear the ticking of the bio-clock. Even more than that, I was tired of dating. I wanted to share real intimacy. I wanted to be a team of two, both pulling in the same direction, working at a life together. I wanted to be half of a couple. I wanted a family.

I thought I had found it with Rick. He was older than me, the kind of wine-you-and-dine-you boyfriend who was so different from the "Can we go dutch?" boyfriends -- and fiancés -- I had been with in the past. I was swept off my feet, excited, giddy to see what the next chapter would bring.

But there was that other aspect, the one that screamed, "Run!" -- just like before. I started thinking with my head, realizing that here was a man who'd been married three times before, who had a child he hadn't seen in years, who didn't really care for the fact that my best friends were my mother, sister and cousins.

We broke up, and three weeks later, I met Rich. (Note: If you're going to date men with very similar names, prepare him and yourself for the inevitability that your family will invariably call him by the wrong one.) The funny thing is, Rich really was not what I was looking for. I was into nerdy intellectuals; he was a beefy factory worker, a former G.I. who said "I seen" a lot. But every time I was with him, even if we were just chopping tomatoes for salsa, I was laughing and relaxed. Nothing said, "Run!" Yet.

The day we rehearsed our wedding, I found myself frozen to the floor when it came time to walk down the aisle. I asked everyone for a moment, and then took Rich aside. He had been standing off next to the altar, and I couldn't see him from my vantage point at the back of the chapel. Once we were all back in position, I saw his big silly grin, and this time, I wanted to run again -- straight into his arms.

That was three years ago. We're still laughing and relaxed, he doesn't say "I seen" anymore, he's a stay-at-home dad and a full-time college student. We're expecting our second child in May.

-- Annie Cieslukowski

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
D) The New York Times/The Ethicist: Ball in play [Conseils sur l'éthique et la déontologie : Je détiens une balle de base-ball signée par de grands joueurs. Puis-je la vendre ou dois-je la donner à un musée ? / Je suis prêtre anglican, et je n'ai pas de droit de marier des couples homosexuels, alors que certains de mes collègues plus âgés ont l'autorisation de ce faire.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/magazine/15ETHICIST.html
THE ETHICIST: Ball in Play
By RANDY COHEN
Published: February 15, 2004

Q:
I own a team-autographed baseball from an obscure summer league. One signer is a player in the Baseball Hall of Fame. I could donate the ball to the hall, the player, the player's major league team or a historical society. Or I could sell it; it may be of substantial value. I am torn between economic self-interest and sharing what may be a unique artifact. How should I dispose of the ball? A.O., Montpelier, VT.

A:
I agree that artifacts of genuine historic or cultural significance should be available to the public and to scholars, not hidden away in private collections. I don't think this autographed baseball -- or, for that matter, any autographed baseball -- is such a resource.

The personal library of Abraham Lincoln, its books and papers marked by his hand, can give us genuine insight into that great man. Those homely objects in the vitrines at Ellis Island, modest belongings our forebears carried with them to start a new life, say something profound and moving about our past and about ourselves. But Fonzie's jacket and Archie Bunker's chair on display at the Smithsonian do not tell us much of anything: they offer nostalgia, not illumination.

Your keepsake falls into this class of thing. One baseball is much like another. And while yours has symbolic value, it is indistinguishable from every other ball, save for its having been touched by the gods of the game. It is not so much a significant historic object as a fetish. Evocative? Perhaps. Edifying? Unlikely. And thus you are free to sell it to anyone willing to pony up the cash -- a wealthy individual who shares your enthusiasm or a well-endowed baseball organization.

Your zeal for the game might lead you to proffer this ball to any of those you've mentioned, perhaps beginning with the Hall of Fame. And since the lords of baseball tend mostly to be fabulously wealthy (made all the wealthier by having their teams mostly play in publicly financed stadiums), I don't see why the hall shouldn't be able to offer you a tidy sum if this ball is deemed worthy to rest among all those other balls.
-*-*-*-*-*-
Q:
I am an Episcopal priest. My diocese permits priests ordained by our previous bishop to bless same-sex unions, as was that bishop's policy, but it does not allow more recently ordained priests like me to do so.

I welcome homosexual people in my church, and I wish I could do more to include them. Restricted as I am, how can I best -- and ethically -- serve my parishioners? Anonymous

A:
Certainly not by resigning, if that is the implication of your question. You need not endorse every doctrine of the church to participate in it honorably. While there are practices so odious and organizations so impervious to reform that one would be ethically obliged to leave them, that is not your situation. Indeed, your gay parishioners have chosen to remain, and your church is in the midst of much debate and some change on these issues.

Your task is to make your gay parishioners feel welcome in your congregation, encouraging them to become involved in all aspects of church life, from the choir to the vestry. And you can speak out from the pulpit to ensure that everyone understands your bishop's policies and your feelings about them.

(If a religious leader can't speak from conscience, who can?) In addition, you can work for reforms within the church and urge your parishioners to do likewise.

Lastly, when a same-sex couple is eager to have their union blessed, you can bring in an older priest, one ordained by your previous bishop, and have him perform that happy task.

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
E) The Chicago Sun-Times: An interview with Prudie (Margo Howard)! [Un déjeuner-entretien avec Margo Howard, l'auteur de Dear Prudence.]
http://www.suntimes.com/output/pickett/cst-nws-lunch25.html
L unch with Ann Landers' daughter
January 25, 2004

People used to ask Margo Howard if her mother gave her lots of advice. And she always said no. Which would strike people as sort of funny, since Howard's mother was Eppie Lederer, better known as Ann Landers. Through a lifetime that's included school troubles, career changes and four marriages, Howard kept answering that question the same way. "My answer -- heartfelt -- was no," says Howard, now a sassy 63-year-old with red hair and a penchant for chatting up cute waiters. "She tried to keep me separate from her work."

And then Howard happened upon a stash of letters, ones her mother had sent her, that dated all the way back to her college days. She had to stop telling people that her famous mother had never offered her much advice. "When I got busy sorting those letters," she says, "I realized she did nothing but." That was the thing about Ann Landers' advice: It felt so obviously correct that it often didn't seem like advice at all.

Howard, who writes the advice column Dear Prudence for slate.com, has collected her mother's missives in a new book, A Life in Letters: Ann Landers' Letters to Her Only Child (Warner Books, $22), and now finds herself touring the country to promote it. It's an odd position to be in, being a grown-up with a happy life and even your own advice column, but spending your days chatting with reporters about the times you really screwed up and your mother had to give you a good talking-to. "Mother was such a good sport about that," she says, when I ask if she might go over her roster of ex-husbands so I can get my facts straight. "Imagine. Of all the women in the world to have a kid married four times!"

Howard is now happily married to her fourth, and she says "last, final" -- "I don't have the strength anymore" -- husband, heart surgeon Ron Weintraub, known to readers of her column as "Dr. Pussycat." Their relationship works, she says, in part because "he, too, had some clunker marriages." Howard laughingly calls it "love among the ruins" and says her mother died happy to know that she'd finally settled down with a nice Harvard doctor.

Settled in a semi-secluded table at Cafe Spiaggia, Howard rubs her hands with sanitizing gel -- "You have to shake so many hands on these tours" -- and inspects the menu for low-fat options, settling on grilled salmon and black coffee.

She loves to gossip and drop names, so in the same breath that she mentions she's got a personal trainer and nutritionist back home in Cambridge, Mass., she also works in that it's the same trainer/nutritionist who sees Suzy Wetlaufer, the Harvard Business Review editor for whom General Electric CEO Jack Welch so expensively divorced his wife. Over the course of our 90-minute lunch, Howard mentions friendships with boldface names that range from Dr. Jonas Salk to Bruce Vilanch, with a stop on Marty Peretz in between.

"They're after me at Warner [her publisher] to write a memoir," she says when I comment on the dazzling cast of characters in her life story. "I have been well-placed in time. And I don't know the reason for this, exactly . . . but I have been tied to people with very well-known names. Crazy stuff: I introduced the children of Alger Hiss [an FDR-era State Department official who was later accused of being a communist spy] and Whittaker Chambers [Hiss' accuser]. Nutty things happen to me."

Howard says she "learned a long time ago not to take myself too seriously." So, though she was a journalist herself, starting with a job at the Chicago Tribune and becoming a syndicated columnist at the old Chicago Daily News, she makes light of her accomplishments. "I was too dumb to be a reporter, so they made me a columnist," she says, instantly clearing up some things about my own career.

Her mother, she says, offered to pass the Ann Landers mantle on to her, but "I never wanted to work that hard."

When we talk about Dear Prudence, the now-syndicated advice column she started writing in 1999, she says she took it on because it was manageable (four letters a week) and because "Dr. Pussycat was encouraging me to go back to work a little." She reports, with a wry, saucy pride, that an editor once remarked that "writing is what Margo does between husbands."

She never felt the need to knock herself out with a fantastic career, she says, adding, "For years, my self-image was the last of the Jewish geishas. For me, marriage was where it was at." But, between Jennifer Lopez marriage jokes -- "Please. At least it took me a while to amass these numbers" -- and mock-flirty banter with the waiter -- ". . . cooked with olive oil, extra virgin, like me" -- Howard does find a few moments to get serious about her mother's legacy.

Ann Landers was an American icon, and, though it's odd and sometimes scary to think of your mother as an icon, Howard is fiercely protective of Landers' memory. She was particularly offended by the splashy debut of the Tribune advice columnist, Amy Dickinson, who took over Landers' "real estate" inside the paper. Dickinson was quoted as saying that her column would be "funnier and snappier" than Landers' and that, in Landers' column, "the entertainment value came more from the questions than the answers." "I'd file those comments under 'judgment,'" Howard says, pursing her lips.

I ask if she'd like to comment further about Dickinson or about Tribune writer Rick Kogan, who has written a biography of her mother. "Oh, I'd really love to," she says, deliciously. But all she'll say about Kogan, to whom she isn't speaking, is that "he has a wonderful subject." Her mother, after all, raised her to be a lady.

"You know," she says, changing the subject, "there might be an advice gene. I feel so comfortable [answering her Dear Prudence readers' questions].... It's an instinct." Howard stops herself, realizing she has wandered onto the subject of another feud: her mother's troubled relationship with her identical twin, Dear Abby, and her own conflicts with Abby's daughter, Jeanne Phillips, who now writes the Dear Abby column. "Well, maybe there's a gene," Howard says, laughing brightly, "but it's only on my side of the family."

^RETURN TO TOP^

Q:
Dear Miss Manners:

Could you please suggest an appropriate response to the (unrequested) viewing of sonogram photographs? I am a teacher and have noticed female students passing these photographs among themselves. Then, a few days ago, one thrust her photographs into my hands.

I would shrug this off as teenagers who perhaps have yet to learn all their etiquette. However, I have also had my adult, professionally trained relatives put their photographs into my hands. These photographs cause me to feel a little queasy. I feel they should be viewed by the expectant couple only, unless others request a viewing.

I feel like a relic from another century. Could Miss Manners suggest an appropriate response, should this situation occur again? I honestly do not know what to say that would be appropriate. I can think of several inappropriate responses. However, I have noticed Miss Manners does not allow boorish behavior even on the heels of other, at least perceived, boorish behavior.

A:
Indeed, Miss Manners does insist on polite responses, even to people who force you to look at unfinished works. The proper response to all baby pictures is, "Looks just like you!"
-*-*-*-*-*-
Q:
Dear Miss Manners:

Could you please inform us what the proper etiquette is for making one's way around graves? Whenever I've gone to visit a loved one, I haven't known whether it's all right to walk across the grass (of course not the headstone) or only in strict right angles so as to try to avoid walking across people's graves. The bottom ends of the graves, of course, aren't marked, so I don't know whether I'm treading softly or not.

A:
No, but you know approximately how long caskets are, and that there is often little space between plots. Miss Manners realizes that the ancient habit of burying distinguished people under cathedral floors, as well as the park-like appearance of modern graveyards, makes treading on graves difficult to avoid, but she would hope that the effort would be made. You wouldn't care to see someone strolling across the grave you are there to visit.
-*-*-*-*-*-
Q:
Dear Miss Manners:

In these increasingly etiquette-free times, I have stumbled on what appears to me to be a new and slightly unsettling expression of etiquette. I am referring to the strange phenomenon wherein a driver pulls a harebrained (and often dangerous or even illegal) maneuver -- cutting me off, running a red light in front of me, or such -- then smiles and waves thanks, as if permission to pull the maneuver had actually been requested and granted, when in fact neither is the case.

I am not referring to a similar situation, where the other driver musters up a shrug and grin of apology, which I can accept. I am speaking of a cheerful and guilt-free offer of gratitude.

I realize it is churlish of me to find fault in anyone showing the good manners to thank me, but I am afraid the feeling this inspires in me is closer to road rage than warm and fuzzy. I would like your comments on this phenomenon, and what, if anything, I can do with my unseemly feelings.

A:
Drive off with them. Or drive them off. The unseemly feelings, that is.

You make an interesting observation. Miss Manners had noticed that look without considering how it implies complicity on the part of the innocent. But while she is always pleased to have the sights along the roads pointed out to her, she does not advise detouring off the path of politeness.
-*-*-*-*-*-
Q:
Dear Miss Manners:

Is it incorrect, inappropriate, rude or wrong to carry on a conversation in a room where someone is using a telephone?

Several times now I have seen this occur, and the phone user has lashed out irrationally at the people conversing. This seems harsh and rude seeing as the people speaking are talking in hushed voices and are cognizant of the telephone conversation.

What I am saying is that they realize someone is on the phone and they are making every effort so as not to disturb this person. This sounds acceptable, but maybe you could tell me: Should they just not talk at all if someone is on the phone?

A:
Would someone who ignores everyone around him except to lash out at them win this etiquette contest?

Miss Manners supposes it is possible. If several of you crowded into his office and started chattering away while he was on the telephone with his elderly mother's cardiologist, you would be rude. Under other circumstances, people who are in company with others are expected to stay off the telephone unless they can move discreetly away for a short time and not bother others.

PAUL INGLES: Most people remember the Beatles' Ed Sullivan performance as their first on American television. Well, it wasn't. Sullivan made a deal with Beatles manager Brian Epstein for three CBS appearances in February 1964, but Ed got scooped by his NBC rival Jack Paar on January 3rd.

JACK PAAR: The Beatles are an extraordinary act in England. I think they're the biggest thing in England in 25 years. [BEATLES AUDIENCE AMBIENCE UP & UNDER]

BRUCE SPIZER: Jack Paar. He and Sullivan had been having a feud for years.

PAUL INGLES: Bruce Spizer is author of a new book on American Beatlemania called The Beatles Are Coming.

PAUL INGLES: His idea was to see if he could contact the BBC and get footage of the Beatles performing and air that on his program prior to Ed Sullivan showing the Beatles on his show, and that is precisely what he did.

JACK PAAR: These guys have these crazy hairdos, and when they wiggle their head, and the hair goes, the girls go out of their minds.

PAUL INGLES: Paar showed newsreel footage of British girls screaming at a Beatles concert, then film of a complete performance by the band. He announced that the Beatles would soon play live on Ed Sullivan's Show, but the plug did not appease Sullivan. Bruce Spizer.

BRUCE SPIZER: Sullivan was absolutely livid. In his negotiations with Brian, he was assured that he would be getting the first and exclusive appearance of the Beatles on American television, and he contacted his European talent coordinator, Peter Prichard and told him to cancel the Beatles. Fortunately, a day or two later, Sullivan realized it would be a mistake to cancel the Beatles, and he called up Peter Prichard and canceled the cancellation.

PAUL INGLES: And the advance publicity about the Beatles only got better. [AUDIO FROM 1964 RADIO BROADCAST]

JINGLE SINGERS: IT'S NOW NUMBER ONE, ON 77 WABC.

MAN: What, what, what, what--?

MAN: Go Beatles! Get 'em! [BEATLES' "I WANNA HOLD YOUR HAND" UNDER]

PAUL INGLES: The Beatles, whose records had flopped in the U.S. in 1963, suddenly topped the charts, and by the time they landed in New York February 7th, the were dominating top 40 radio nationwide and charming the press who kept asking why the name Beatles?

RINGO STARR: John thought of the name Beatles, and he'll tell you about it now. [LAUGHTER]

JOHN LENNON: [LAUGHS] It does - it means beatles, doesn't it -- you know. That's just a name. It --you know, like shoe. His shoe.

PAUL McCARTNEY: The Shoes. You see, we couldn't have been called The Shoes for all you know.

PAUL INGLES: At rehearsals for the "really big shoe" as Sullivan often called his own program - (Sorry -- couldn't resist) - the Beatles took no chances with their sound. They helped the technicians mark the audio console with chalk so they'd remember precisely how the music and vocals should be mixed. Swamped with 50,000 ticket requests, CBS only had about 1500 to give away -- half for the evening's live show, and half for an afternoon dress rehearsal and taping of a Beatles segment to be broadcast two weeks later.

ED SULLIVAN: Now, ladies and gentlemen-- [SCREAMS] the Beatles! [SCREAMS]

PAUL INGLES: Leslie Samuels Healy was a 14 year old New Yorker in 1964, and one of her friends scored them afternoon tickets.

LESLIE SAMUELS HEALY: If you were there, you felt the electricity, the whole energy of the Beatles. Again, it was like nothing else I've ever lived through. [SCREAMING GIRLS]

BEATLES: [SINGING] "WHEN I SAY THAT SOMETHING, I WANNA HOLD YOUR HAND-"

LESLIE SAMUELS HEALY: When Sullivan was going into all the commercials, the fans booed, the audience booed. They didn't want to hear about Pillsbury or Anacin. They wanted music.

ED SULLIVAN: Let's take a moment right now for an interesting idea from Pillsbury. [BOOING FROM AUDIENCE]

LESLIE SAMUELS HEALY: But there was more booing I think they had to cut out when other people were being introduced.

ED SULLIVAN: And now ladies and gentlemen a very fine novelty act, Wells and the Four Fays, so let's bring them out with a really nice... [INTRO MUSIC]

PAUL INGLES: It was typical Sullivan. The Beatles -- plus magicians, acrobats, Vaudeville style comedians and a few big stars of the day, all destined to become answers to Beatles trivia questions. After the afternoon taping, the theater was emptied, and the sound technicians took a dinner break. A new audience came in for the live broadcast, and when the techs returned, they found that all the chalk marks on their console indicating the perfect Beatles mix had been erased by the cleaning crew.

ED SULLIVAN: Ladies and gentlemen, the Beatles! [SCREAMS]

PAUL INGLES: The CBS sound team had to wing it through one of the most important live music broadcasts of all time.

BEATLES: [SINGING] CLOSE YOUR EYES, AND I'LL KISS YOU, TOMORROW I'LL MISS YOU, REMEMBER I'LL ALWAYS BE TRUE...

PAUL INGLES: Also winging it were the cameramen who, because of the screaming, couldn't hear any of the director's instructions. The crying, bouncing, squealing fans caught on camera were the envy of girls across the country who had to watch it on TV. Alyse Kosarin, a college student in Ohio at the time, saw the show on a communal TV set in the lounge of her dorm.

ALYSE KOSARIN: We're down there in our robes and slippers, watching, and not necessarily screaming, but kind of squealing inside. I can remember a very different reaction by some of the girls. Actually they just - they - like why are you going downstairs? What's so important about the Beatles? But there were those of us who felt that we -- it was something that we needed to see, because they were so much a part of everything that was happening then. [BEATLES FINAL CHORD, SCREAMS]

PAUL INGLES: In the days that followed, the ratings for the broadcast were announced: 73 million viewers, the largest TV audience ever. Sullivan historian Jerry Bowles.

JERRY BOWLES: I think whatever reservations the American media may have had, they were easily overcome, and particularly when the, when the newspapers saw those ratings, those 73 million people. They knew that somebody out there was paying attention. [AUDIO UP FROM ED SULLIVAN SHOW]

ANNOUNCER: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Tonight, from Miami Beach, the Ed Sullivan Show.

PAUL INGLES: The next week, another 70 million or so tuned in to see the Beatles in a scruffier Sullivan show broadcast from a ballroom at Miami's Deauville Hotel. Everything about this remote broadcast felt loose. The Beatles chatted up the audience, the temporary stage creaked, and the sound mix was a bit off. But author Bruce Spizer says there were still great moments.

BRUCE SPIZER: One of the really wonderful performances was on "This Boy." You had all three of the Beatles sharing one vocal microphone, and it seemed to be a very intimate moment.

BEATLES: OH, AND THIS BOY COULD BE HAPPY JUST TO LOVE YOU BUT OH MY-- THAT BOY WON'T BE HAPPY TILL HE SEES YOU CRY-- [SCREAMS]

PAUL INGLES: After Miami, the Beatles never performed live for Sullivan again. They furnished him and other shows with taped performances and films that many see as precursors to music videos. But nothing matched the energy of that first live Beatles show on February 9th. It's still one of the most requested videotapes at the Museum of Television and Radio in New York. Arthur Smith is curator of a Beatles in America exhibit there.

ARTHUR SMITH: It augered a new age of popular culture in which it became sort of a, a-- international youth culture. There's something fairytale-like or mythic about the Beatles, and to be able to watch that actually happening, unfolding before your eyes, is an incredible experience.

PAUL INGLES: Four Sullivan shows featuring the Beatles are out now in a DVD set, and 40 years after being in the Sullivan audience, Leslie Samuels Healy decided to make a personal Beatles pilgrimage. She got tickets to David Letterman's February 9th show in the Ed Sullivan theater. She wanted to sit in the same space where she saw the Beatles -- live. For On the Media, I'm Paul Ingles.

BEATLES: BE GLAD-- YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, YEAHHHHH-- [SCREAMS]

^RETURN TO TOP^

Human intuition is a bad guide to handling risk

PEOPLE make barmy decisions about the future. The evidence is all around, from their investments in the stockmarkets to the way their run their businesses. In fact, people are consistently bad at dealing with uncertainty, underestimating some kinds of risk and overestimating others. Surely there must be a better way than using intuition?

In the 1950s and 60s, a group of researchers at American universities set out to find a more scientific method. They created a discipline called “decision science” which aimed to take the human element out of risk analysis. It would offer a way of making soundly based decisions for a future fraught with uncertainties. This would involve using computer models for forecasting, estimating the probabilities of possible outcomes and determining the best course of action, thus avoiding the various biases that humans brought to decision-making. Such models, the researchers thought, would provide rational answers to questions such as whether to build a factory, how to combat disease and how to manage investments.

Business schools soon adopted their teachings, and even some policymakers were persuaded. Decision science's heyday may have been the Vietnam war when Robert McNamara, then America's defence secretary, used such techniques to forecast the outcome of the conflict (though, as it turned out, without much success). But mostly the approach did not quite catch on. Decision-makers, whether in business or politics, were loth to hand over their power to a computer. They preferred to go with their gut instincts.

Think like a machine

Daniel Kahneman, now a professor at Princeton, noticed as a young research psychologist in the 1960s that the logic of decision science was hard for people to accept. That launched him on a career to show just how irrationally people behave in practice. When Mr Kahneman and his colleagues first started work, the idea of applying psychological insights to economics and business decisions was considered quirky. But in the past decade the fields of behavioural finance and behavioural economics have blossomed, and in 2002 Mr Kahneman shared a Nobel prize in economics for his work.

Today he is in demand by organisations such as McKinsey and PartnerRe, and by Wall Street traders. But, he says, there are plenty of others that still show little interest in understanding the roots of their poor decisions. The lesson from the analyst's couch is that, far from being random, these mistakes are systematic and predictable:

•Over-optimism. Ask most people about the future, and they will see too much blue sky ahead, even if past experience suggests otherwise. Surveys have shown that people's forecasts of future stockmarket movements are far more optimistic than past long-term returns would justify. The same goes for their hopes of ever-rising prices for their homes or doing well in games of chance. In a recent study of Dutch game-show contestants, people's estimates of their odds on winning were around 25% too high. Americans are perhaps the most optimistic: according to one poll, around 40% of them think they will end up among the top 1% of earners.

Such optimism can be useful for managers or football players, and sometimes turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy. But most of the time it results in wasted effort and dashed hopes. Mr Kahneman's work points to three types of over-confidence. First, people tend to exaggerate their own skill and prowess; in polls, far fewer than half the respondents admit to having below-average skills in, say, love-making or driving. Second, they overestimate the amount of control they have over the future, forgetting about luck and chalking up success solely to skill. And third, in competitive pursuits such as betting on shares, they forget that they have to judge their skills against those of the competition.

•The anchor effect. First encounters tend to be decisive not only in judging the character of a new acquaintance but also in negotiations over money. Once a figure has been mentioned, it takes a strange hold over the human mind. The asking price quoted in a house sale, for example, tends to become accepted by all parties as the “anchor” around which negotiations take place, according to one study of property brokers. Much the same goes for salary negotiations or mergers and acquisitions. If nobody has much information to go on, a figure can provide comfort—even though it may lead to a terrible mistake.

•Stubbornness. No one likes to abandon a cherished belief, and the earlier a decision has been taken, the harder it is to give up. In one classic experiment, two groups of students were shown slides of an object, say a fire hydrant or a pair of spectacles. The slides started out of focus and were gradually made clearer until the students could identify the object. Those who started with a very blurry image tried to decide early and then found it difficult to identify it correctly until quite late in the process, whereas those who started less out of focus kept a more open mind and cottoned on more quickly.

The same sort of thing happens in boardrooms or in politics. Drug companies must decide early to cancel a failing research project to avoid wasting money, but find it difficult to admit they have made a mistake. Bosses who have hired unproductive employees are reluctant to fire them. Mr Kahneman cites the example of Israel's failure to spot growing threats in the lead-up to its 1973 war with its Arab neighbours. Part of the explanation was that the same people who had been watching the change in political climate had to decide on Israel's response. Similar problems have arisen in recent counter-terrorism work in America. In both cases, analysts may have become wedded early to a single explanation that coloured their perception. A fresh eye always helps.

•Getting too close. People put a lot of emphasis on things they have seen and experienced themselves, which may not be the best guide to decision-making. For example, many companies took action to guard against the risk of terrorist attack only after September 11th, even though it was present long before then. Or somebody may buy an overvalued share because a relative has made thousands on it, only to get his fingers burned.

In finance, too much emphasis on information close at hand helps to explain the so-called “home bias”, a tendency by most investors to invest only within the country they live in. Even though they know that diversification is good for their portfolio, a large majority of both Americans and Europeans invest far too heavily in the shares of their home countries. They would be much better off spreading their risks more widely.

•Winning and losing. Fear of failure is a strong human characteristic, which may be why people are much more concerned about losses than about gains. Consider the following bet: with the flip of a coin, you could win $1,500 if the coin turns up heads, or lose $1,000 on the tails. Now describe it in another way: with heads, you keep all the money you had before the bet, plus $1,500; with tails, you also keep everything, except $1,000. The two bets are identical, and each one, on average, will make you richer by $250 (although that average will be little consolation to the punter who has just lost $1,000). Even so, people will usually prefer the second bet.

Behavioural economists say that is because the prospect of losses seems far more daunting in isolation, rather than in the context of looking at your entire wealth, even if the average outcome is the same. This sort of myopia in the face of losses explains much of the irrationality people display in the stockmarket.

•Misplaced priorities. More information is helpful in making any decision but, says Mr Kahneman, people spend proportionally too much time on small decisions and not enough on big ones. They need to adjust the balance. During the boom years, some companies put as much effort into planning their Christmas party as into considering strategic mergers.

•Counterproductive regret. Crying over spilled milk is not just a waste of time; it also often colours people's perceptions of the future. Some stockmarket investors trade far too frequently because they are chasing the returns on shares they wish they had bought earlier.

Mr Kahneman reckons that some types of businesses are much better than others at dealing with risk. Pharmaceutical companies, which are accustomed to many failures and a few big successes in their drug-discovery programmes, are fairly rational about their risk-taking. But banks, he says, have a long way to go. They may take big risks on a few huge loans, but are extremely cautious about their much more numerous loans to small businesses, many of which may be less risky than the big ones.

But at least when businesses try to assess their risks, they have to worry only about making money. Governments, on the other hand, face a whole range of sometimes conflicting political pressures. This makes them even more likely to take irrational decisions.

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
I) Demotivator® of the week: Adversité [Les messages trop, trop vrais qui vont vous démotiver dans votre vie personnelle et professionnelle. Cette semaine, "L'adversité"]
http://www.despair.com

"That which does not kill me postpones the inevitable."

^RETURN TO TOP^

A second-grader's one-day suspension from Sunnyside Elementary in Stanton Heights left her parents with one question: What the hell? Brandy McKenith, 7, of Stanton Heights, was home from school Tuesday after being suspended a day earlier for using the word "hell" in class. McKenith said she used the word after a classmate said, "I swear to God." "I said, 'You're going to go to hell for swearing to God,'" the girl said.

Pittsburgh Public Schools spokeswoman Pat Crawford said the student code of conduct prohibits profanity, but does not provide a definition of what profanity is. Without a solid definition, the district could run into problems enforcing the policy, said Witold "Vic" Walczak, legal director of the Greater Pittsburgh chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. "Hell, to some, is a dirty word," Walczak said. "To others, it's blasphemous, and to others, it's a part of everyday lexicon. Given that, it is a gray area. "My gosh, why don't you just talk to the kid? It seems pretty Draconian."

McKenith's classmate told the teacher what McKenith said, landing her in Principal Laura Dadey's office. Dadey could not be reached for comment.

McKenith's father, Wayne, said he believes his daughter's story and her suspension left him flabbergasted. He and his wife, Cynthia, complained about the suspension in a letter yesterday to Dadey. "She's never been suspended," he said. "I never heard of 7-year-old being suspended, anyway." Even Brandy was surprised at her punishment. "Why would I get suspended for something stupid?" she said.

Crawford declined to comment further about the incident. "As a teacher ... basically you want to maintain a particular decorum in the classroom," said school board member Patrick Dowd, a teacher at the privately operated Ellis School. "What that means exactly, that's where you have policy." Dowd, whose district includes Sunnyside, said he spoke to Wayne McKenith and school administrators about the incident, but believes the school board's role will be to look at the broader policy issue.

That's all McKenith is asking for. "It's the principle," he said. "You've got to draw the line somewhere. Use some reasonable judgment. Kids are bringing guns and knives to school. ... They've got dope. And we're worried about 'hell?'"

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
4) The Urban Legends Reference Pages: The Privilege of Ladies [Une coutume veut qwue le 29 février les femmes peuvent demander les hommes en mariage.]
http://www.snopes.com/spoons/oldwives/feb29.asp
The Privilege of Ladies: Custom allows marriage-minded gals to propose to their boyfriends on February 29.

Origins: Due to the vagaries of our calendar, every year whose number is cleanly divisible by four is a leap year, and so contains an extra day tacked onto its February. (Excepting full centuries which, to be leap years, must be divisible by 400; if not, they are common years. The year 1900, therefore, was not a leap year, but 2000 was. Leaves one breathless, doesn't it?)

Because leap years are seen as unusual events that disturb the otherwise orderly progression of days/months/years, certain beliefs have been attached to them. (One constant in the realm of folklore and superstition is that out-of-the-ordinary events are deemed to have out-of-the-ordinary consequences or properties.) Leap years, according to folk tradition, were the only times when women could propose marriage to men, with this belief often termed "The Ladies' Privilege." Yet even within this hypothesis there was disagreement as to how far it went — a great many of those who encountered this custom did not see it as applicable throughout the length of a leap year, but only to the extra day itself; that is, only to February 29.

Another school of thought held that a man so entreated either had to accept the proposal or pay the refused woman a substantial forfeit for turning her down, such as a silk gown or £100. (Indeed, it was widely and erroneously reported that a Scottish Act of Parliament from the 13th Century had mandated this, or that this "agree or else" proposition had been enshrined in English Common Law. Often this tidbit of misinformation was presented as a 1288 decree by Queen Margaret of Scotland, under which men who declined the invitation to wed were fined £1.) In another form of the belief, men who said no were not on the hook to buy expensive presents for the disappointed girls or to pay fines to the Crown, but their refusals attracted ill fortune to themselves. In yet another twist, if the gal who did the asking had failed to wear a scarlet flannel petticoat, or if a corner of the same were not partly visible under her dress, the man who declined would be spared the ill luck that a turn-down would ordinarily have propelled his way.

The origins of "The Ladies' Privilege" are not definitively known, but one posited beginning set in Ireland had St. Bridget complaining to St. Patrick about women not being able to ask the men they fancied to marry them. According to the folktale, he offered the opportunity at a seven-year interval, and she bargained him down to four. (If this tale is true, it's no wonder St. Patrick took to putting the run on snakes, because he sure wasn't doing well against women.)

Though everyone loves a good folktale, the beginning of this custom more likely has to do with February 29 being perceived as a day that does not properly belong on the calendar and thus as a period when the ordinary rules of conduct do not apply. Other superstitions play upon the underlying theme of "betwixt and between" times being occasions especially fraught with peril or periods when the unusual was not only allowed to occur, but was encouraged to do so. Midnight — the time after the twelve but before the one — was viewed as an interval when the fabric drawn between the ordinary world and the realm of the spirits grew especially thin, its etherealness perhaps allowing a ghost or two to suddenly appear in our midst, or permitting one of us to be sucked into the chaos of the other side. In similar spirit, it is considered bad luck for betrothed couples to allow themselves to be photographed together since, being neither single nor married, they exist in an in-between state. Consequently, they must take care to prevent the appearance of presumption of enduring couplehood, lest by seemingly flaunting their togetherness, they may never see it come to fruition.

In earlier days of Western society, relations between the sexes were far more formal and scripted, with each gender being expected to adhere to its assigned roles. When it came to proposing marriage, men did the asking and women did the accepting or declining — the other way around would have been unthinkable. Thus a leap year reversal of this ordinary state of things would be seen as something else being turned on its ear during a period when little else made sense anyway.

The U.S. has its own "women can pursue men" holiday: Sadie Hawkins Day. Named for a man-chasing female character in the Al Capp cartoon strip Li'l Abner, whose father decreed an annual footrace in her name (with the spinsters chasing the unhitched males of the town and getting to marry any they caught), the day purports to grant women the right to propose marriage to unmarried men, or at least to ask them out. Though there is no set day for this holiday, many communities celebrate it in November, some deeming it to be the Saturday closest to November 9. Additionally, some high schools will designate one dance a year as a "Sadie Hawkins" event, meaning girls are expected to ask guys to be their dates for that event, not the other way around.

Unlike in earlier times, there is now no societal prohibition against women being the ones to ask on bended knee. Custom, however, still continues to favor men doing the proposing, but its happening the other way around is no longer seen as shocking or as a challenge to the right way of things.

There is a bit more to leap year lore besides girls suddenly popping up to hold out velvet-covered ring boxes to their beaux. Superstition decrees leap years are notably excellent for beginning important undertakings or business ventures. The choice of February 29 itself is deemed particularly astute in that even greater luck will attach to all that is begun on that day, including children conceived during that particular 24-hour stretch. Speaking of children, we also note that superstition says those born on February 29 are fated to be favored by Dame Fortune.

Perhaps the last word on the subject of who should offer marriage to whom goes to the much-married Zsa Zsa Gabor, who proposed to every one of her nine husbands. "A woman has to make up a man's mind," she said.

^RETURN TO TOP^

Workout: I do Pilates. I actually trained with Joseph Pilates himself and his wife, Clara. This was in the mid-1960's, and it was a thing for dancers then. When Joe died, a group of us bought his gym for his widow. I still do Pilates downstairs, all the mat work. I don't need an instructor. I could teach it myself. Not that I look thin these days. I sit too much and eat too much.

Favorite household chore: I do very few things in the world well, but one of the things I do well is frame and hang pictures. I am most fastidious about my pictures. I go around straightening them all day.

Pre-show ritual: We shoot on Monday nights. I will already have done two weeks' research. Then Friday morning through Monday afternoon I am incommunicado. My wife and I will dine and talk, but those four days are sacrosanct. I am in my study preparing my questions. I print out my blue cards at around 4 on Monday afternoon.

Post-show ritual: Often the guest and I have dinner afterward. I don't eat before the show. We go to Elaine's, and we eat and talk until 1 or 2 in the morning. We did it with Harrison Ford and Mike Myers; Charlize Theron and her mother; and John Travolta.

Favorite outfit: My wife has to put me together. Sartorially, I am a disaster. I have no taste. I am from Michigan. I am a Midwesterner with Midwestern taste.

Luxury he can't live without: Our home in Bridgehampton, without question. It is my oasis, my salvation.

Car: A Mercedes S.U.V. I love that car. I'm not a P.C. person. I sit there royally in my S.U.V. and never think about the gas consumption.

Oscar-night plan: I'm going to the Vanity Fair party in L.A. I went last year. If you are not nominated, and obviously I am not, the worst thing in the world to have to sit through is an awards ceremony. So I watched it at the party.

Biggest shock of his life: I wrote the book and lyrics for a musical called ''Sherry,'' which opened and closed in 1967. In the aftermath, the orchestrations disappeared, but they turned up in the Library of Congress in 2000. On Feb. 24, Angel Records is bringing out an album of the show with Nathan Lane, Carol Burnett, Bernadette Peters, Tommy Tune and Mike Myers.

Collection: Everything having to do with whales and whaling. Not contemporary whaling, of course, but old whaling, when they used to go out in boats with harpoons. I read ''Moby-Dick'' as a child and became entranced by it. I am very attracted to the story of Ahab's obsession with the white whale. I like commitment.

Question he's asked most often at cocktail parties: A question I will never answer -- ''Who was your favorite guest?'' -- because I am not about to tick off the 161 other people who have been on the show. Then the next is another I will never answer, ''Who was your least favorite guest?'' Then they ask me questions from the questionnaire I ask at the end of each show.

Always in the fridge: Slim Fasts and caffeine-free Diet Coke and always Chinese food. It is the only cuisine I know anything about.

Favorite object in the house: My wife, Kedakai Lipton. Well, she's not an object, but she is the heart and soul of this house. This doll is a portrait of her. She's so beautiful. She's half-Japanese and half-Irish. She was a model.

Favorite movie: Chaplin's films and all the films of Ingmar Bergman. For sheer romantic enjoyment ''Casablanca.''

Favorite sport: Hockey. I used to have seats in Madison Square Garden right behind the Rangers' bench. I love a defensive game, which is why I dislike basketball.

Best place to see movies: I used to insist that the only way to see a movie, especially a comedy, was with the general public. But now audiences have been so spoiled by television that they sit there and talk. So I depend more and more on press screenings.

Person he'd most like to interview but hasn't: I used to say Marlon Brando, but I've given up on that.

What he wanted to be when he was 5 years old: You may not believe me, but I could read when I was 1 1/2. My father was the poet Lawrence Lipton; he taught me. When I was 3, I was writing epic poetry, horrible, terrible stuff. So I wanted to be a writer. But then my father, who was a famous eccentric, left us, and I decided I wanted to be a lawyer.

Last book he read: When you are working seven days a week, you don't have time to read. But out at the country, I am halfway through a biography of the poet Rimbaud. He is one of my heroes.

His last meal would be: A great cheeseburger. I have very plebeian tastes. I still have never tasted caviar or escargot.

Hobbies: I used to do show jumping on horses, and I am a pilot. The great virtue of those two pursuits is that you may not think of anything else, or you may die. I just feel bored if I don't have that risk around. I am not saying I am brave. I am not. But I enjoy the challenge.

Favorite souvenirs from the show: After people appear on my show, many of them send me letters. The guest and I are onstage together for five hours, and during those five hours something happens. It is like people who have been in combat together.

Why he uses blue index cards: Because white glares on television; it's the same reason I always wear blue or black shirts.

Latest gadget: A hand-held Magellan Global Positioning System for flying. It saved my life once on a moonless night flying to the Hamptons from New York over water. The electrics in my plane went out, and I used my Magellan to find the airport and land.

What he keeps by the bed: My alarm clock, the thermostat for the electric blanket and a few sound machines -- I like white noise when I sleep.

The Lipton Questionnaire

Favorite word: Honor.

Least favorite word: Terror -- a useless act and useless emotion.

What turns you on: Words.

What turns you off: The humiliation of others, especially children.

A sound you love: Silence.

A sound you hate: The din that passes for fun in most public places.

Favorite curse: ''Jesus Christ.''

Profession, other than your own, you most want to practice: Ballet dancer.

Profession you would not want to practice: Executioner.

What you want God to tell you at the pearly gates: ''You see, Jim, you were wrong. I do exist. But you may come in anyway.''

^RETURN TO TOP^

NEW YORK (AP) _ Taxing plastic surgery and other cosmetic procedures could bring in $62 million in revenue for the city, according to the city's Independent Budget Office. The suggestion to collect taxes on cosmetic surgery was among nearly 70 options included in a report released by the publicly funded, nonpartisan agency on Thursday. Such a tax could cover botox and collagen injections, laser treatments, dermabrasions, chemical peels and breast surgery, which are currently not subject to sales tax because they are considered medical procedures, the agency said. "The business of cosmetic enhancements, including both surgical and nonsurgical procedures, is one of the fastest-growing industries in the United States," the report said, adding that the number of procedures more than quadrupled between 1997 and 2001.

Another suggestion included in the report was a "latte tax" similar to the recent 10-cent tax on coffee drinks proposed and rejected in Seattle. The agency said such a tax could bring in $12 million annually in New York, with an assumption that New Yorkers consume about half as many coffee drinks as Seattle residents.

The city could also raise revenues by putting cafes in library reading rooms, an idea that could generate $1 million annually if concessions were put into 125 libraries. Another $26.5 million could be saved if the city stopped funding transportation for private school students, and $11 million could be saved by eliminating funding for textbooks for private school students, the report said. Other tax options included restoring the commuter tax, reinstating fares on the Staten Island ferry, and reducing the number of paid holidays for city workers, the agency said.

^RETURN TO TOP^

HELICOPTERS that are up to a third faster, 50 per cent quieter, more comfortable, easier to use and can fly in any weather? It sounds like a chopper pilot's pipedream but Eurocopter expects to introduce technologies providing all of those benefits in the next 15 years. Eurocopter helicopters already feature composite materials, fly-by-wire technology and advanced rotor design.

"But this is the status quo and the question is, where is the helicopter going?" Eurocopter spokesman Christoph Muller said in Sydney this week. Where indeed? Researchers at Eurocopter are experimenting with innovative rotor blade designs, "fly by light" fibre optic control systems, vibration damped gearboxes and an array of sensors to take helicopters to the next stage. At the same time, says Muller, they also want to make the machines cheaper to buy and to operate.

Among the new concepts already under test is "individual blade control", a technology that reduces helicopter noise by 50 per cent through the use of piezo-electric elements integrated into the rotor blades. Applying an electrical charge to piezo material causes it to extend, changing the shape of the rotor blade. "It doesn't influence the flight characteristics of the helicopter - that is very important - but we are able to redirect the vortex at the end of the rotor blade," Muller says. "And if you do that at a certain frequency you will redirect them underneath or above the following rotor blade and that's why we have this significant noise reduction."

The system reduces noise by 9 decibels and cuts vibration 70 per cent, according to Muller. It can also be used to boost the aircraft's lift. "And if we use it intelligently we believe we can increase speed by 50km/h, which is a lot for a helicopter," he says. "Helicopters have a natural speed limit. Due to the rotating rotors you can't go faster than approximately 300km/h."

In the longer term, Eurocopter is toying with the idea of a rotor blade made up entirely of piezo elements, but is currently constrained by weight considerations. It is also considering asymmetric rotor blades which Muller says could take speeds to 400km/h.

Making helicopters simpler to fly involves a two-pronged approach that researchers hope will reduce pilot workload by 50 per cent. Eurocopter engineers say most modern helicopter accidents occur because of overloading. "Flying a helicopter is much more complex than flying a plane, due to the fact you have to use your paddles, you have to direct your stick, you have a pitch," says Muller. "So actually both your hands are on controls and so are your feet."

Researchers are hoping to replace the complex mechanical controls with a single sidestick which would eventually use a "fly-by-light" system using fibre optics and optical impulses. Fly-by-light has the advantage of being lighter than fly-by-wire and is capable of carrying more information to a central computer. Eurocopter is testing a fly-by-light architecture in one of its EC-135 helicopters and is using the demonstrator to test the sidestick, look at control laws and how to avoid unsafe pilot inputs. Muller believes the new sidestick system will significantly boost safety by reducing demands on pilots and allowing them to concentrate more on their environment. "We think that if we could reach this point of having just one stick for all flight operations in a helicopter, that would just be a great advantage," he says.

Eurocopter envisages combining the new controls with an all-weather system which joins virtual displays and topographical databases with an array of sensors. It has two demonstrators working on various combinations it hopes will allow a pilot to fly in zero visibility using a three-dimensional display. "The problem at the moment is that we have not found one single sensor which is able to operate under all weather conditions and which would give the pilot 100 per cent assurance they can fly," Muller says. "It does not help if we have a system that can fly at only 99 per cent - the remaining 1 per cent could cause lethal damage."

********************************
8) BBC News: Passion over for Barbie and Ken [C'est la rupture pour Barbie et son petit ami Ken.]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/3484949.stm
Passion over for Barbie and Ken

Valentine's Day is approaching, but the romance is over for Barbie and Ken.
After 43 years as an item, the plastic pair's "business manager" at toymaker Mattel said they "feel it's time to spend some quality time - apart". "Like other celebrity couples, their Hollywood romance has come to an end," said Russell Arons of Mattel toys.

But the split may also be related to sales figures in the last quarter - which fell by 5% globally and 25% on the domestic market in the US. It coincides with the release of the latest Barbie model - Cali (as in Californian) Girl Barbie, who sports board shorts, a bikini top, metal hoop earrings and a deeper tan.

Career girl

Barbie and Ken met on the set of a television advert in 1961 - two years after Barbie was first launched. Wasp-waisted with unlikely proportions, Barbie was an incongruous accompaniment to the feminist wave of the 1960s and 70s, although her career has spanned everything from rock star to military medic. More than one billion dolls have now been sold in 150 countries.

Cali Girl Barbie has already attracted a new admirer - Blaine the Australian boogie surf boarder. But Mr Arons assured fans that she will remain "good friends" with Ken. Yeah, right.

^RETURN TO TOP^