Watching director Bryan Singer?s ?Jack the Giant Slayer,? a half-hearted variation on the beanstalk fairytale, is like being the fan of a middling sports franchise. You root for them to improve and somehow wow you, but know full well it?s fat chance that they will. After showing us all his moves in the first ten minutes, it?s apparent that Jack is just a dull boy.
Still, aside from the cynics and depressives among us, our hardwired capacity for optimism hopes some redeeming magic might yet surface before the final buzzer?a consolation for our indulgence. Again, our fealty is chastened. And, as our good sense returns, we wonder how the director of ?X-Men? (2000) could conjure such mediocrity.
Continuing the sports metaphor beyond any acceptable length, there is at least the minor reward of being in the venue. Just as sitting in the arena or ballpark elicits all sorts of imaginings, when located in the land of fables we?re reminded of a time and place when anything was possible. The mind wanders from the screen?and that?s a good thing.
Meanwhile, whether we?re paying attention or not, because we hold sacred that the show must go on regardless of whether it?s good or bad, good old Jack goes through the motions. A long-winded preface told us all about the kingdom, the magic crown, and how powers unleashed by those proverbial beans will bring a visit from those terrible giants.
At the politically incorrect risk of engendering hate mail from mythical giants, you have to get a load of these guys. Shades of special effects genius Ray Harryhausen, who pioneered the methodology of scale, these gargantuas are really ugly, especially their leader (Bill Nighy). Dig John Kassir as the toadying head popping out of his shoulder.
In contrast, Jack, who true to form accepts beans in return for the horse he was supposed to trade for food and roofing thatch, is a comely and agreeable young fellow portrayed by Nicholas Hoult. Of course the story must romantically wend its way to Princess Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson), who he?ll be trying to rescue from the giants. She?s pretty, too.
Rounding out the perfunctory dramatis personae, Ian McShane is King Brahmwell, the hoodwinked monarch of Cloister; Stanley Tucci does the deceitful-chief-advisor-and- suitor-to-his boss?s-daughter thing under a flattering toupee he might want to import into real life; and Ewan McGregor is Elmont, the handsome, noble and brave chief of guards.
Expectedly, Tucci?s lousy, stinking, rotten, fraudulent Roderick, through his megalomaniacal greed, ostensibly sets free those terrible forces that were better left dormant. Along the way we?re treated to a litany of the usual, pretentious lore, to which we must impatiently mutter, ?Yeah, yeah, yeah, OK, OK, OK, we know, good for you.?
There are no surprises, not even that we?ve bamboozled ourselves into thinking this film, like that forlorn team we had such hopes for, might still be victorious. Oh, but we are slightly confounded by the audience-limiting, PG-13 rating. Not that Mr. & Mrs. Arrogant don?t shirk the rules anyway, but the sensibilities here are definitely 10 to 13.
The gratuitous violence tips the scale. With the accent on repulsive and cannibalism, poor or cheap parents who forsake the babysitter and tote their under 6-year-old, could create a bed-wetter who grows up to be either a serial killer or a lawyer. Smuggled-in 6 to 10-year-olds might someday lean to obesity and feel their votes don?t count in elections.
Among other fallout that could result from this half fable/ half horror flick?s inability to slot suitably into a demographic, H.S. seniors aiming to punish themselves for seeing this ?baby stuff? might opt to attend their safety schools. Whereas men in their 20?s will have an urge to shave their heads, wear sunglasses, become stockbrokers and drive BMWs.
Film critics, on the other hand, averse to boring readers with the hackneyed details of this typically pedestrian excuse for selling yesterday?s special effects, might exhibit a proclivity for suffusing their reviews with a lot of inane nonsense. All the same, it behooves them to note that both heroes and their damsel in distress are well-scrubbed.
But alas, unable to carry their deficient surroundings to any sort of cinema victory, odds are their talents would be better realized if they were traded to a superior movie?one with a championship attitude. As it stands, ?Jack the Giant Slayer,? comprised of a ragtag assemblage of over the hill elements, can?t climb its beanstalk to any winning heights. ? ?Jack the Giant Slayer,? rated PG-13, is a Warner Bros. Pictures release directed by Bryan Singer and stars Nicholas Hoult, Eleanor Tomlinson and Stanley Tucci. Running time: 114 minutes
FLORENCE (Reuters) - The spokesman of Monte Paschi di Siena, the Italian bank at the center of an investigation into alleged corruption and fraud, was found dead at the bank's Siena headquarters, a judicial source and a banking source told Reuters on Wednesday.
David Rossi was the head of the bank's communications unit.
A witness told Reuters that his body, which had been covered with a sheet, lay beneath an open window overlooking a back street outside the building, a restored 14th century fortress.
The judicial source told Reuters that prosecutors were investigating whether Rossi had committed suicide. Italian news agencies ANSA and AGI reported that he had killed himself.
Rossi, born in 1961, was the spokesman of Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena's foundation, the bank's biggest shareholder, from 2001 to 2006. When Giuseppe Mussari, the foundation's chairman, became chairman of the bank in 2006, Rossi remained his spokesman.
Mussari is under investigation in the probe on allegations of misleading regulators, market manipulation and false information in the prospectus of the Antonveneta deal.
Rossi, who was not under investigation himself, was among several people whose homes and offices were searched last month as part of a probe into the lender's purchase of Antonveneta in 2007 and subsequent losses linked to complex derivatives deals.
(Reporting By Silvia Ognibene; Editing by Alex Smith and Toni Reinhold)
GENEVA (AP) ? Hybrids aren't just for fuel economy any more.
Ferrari and McLaren both on Tuesday unveiled sleek hybrid supercars sculpted from carbon fiber at the Geneva Motor Show.
LaFerrari is the name of the new special edition Ferrari, meant to be the definitive. "Owners say they have a Ferrari," Chairman Luca di Montezemolo said. "This is THE Ferrari." Montezemolo said the electric engine has a performance appeal that is proving a draw to Ferrari owners.
Only 499 of the models will be built -- and some 700 people, many of them Ferrari owners already, have registered interest meaning a tough selection process. It has a top speed in excess of 350 kilometers per hour (217.4 mph). The price tag: ?1 million ($1.3 million).
Designer Flavio Manzoni said the engineering and design teams worked together from the start to ensure maximum performance.
Sculpted from carbon fiber, in a glittery racing yellow set off by hash-marked slate gray, the McLaren P1 cuts a racetrack figure while boasting superior ? for its class ? emissions under 200 grams per kilometer. That compares with over 300 grams/kilometer for a super car without hybrid.
P1 program director Paul McKenzie says the hybrid technology has performance advantages because the electric engine fills in the gap before the turbo engine kicks in. It's a tiny effect, but everything counts in supercars.
The P1 can do 0-180 mph (0-300 kph) in under 17 seconds. It sells for $1.3 million, with just 375 in the series.
Porsche is also driving the trend, showing at Geneva the 918 Spyder that debuted three years ago as a concept car. The car is slated to go on sale this year at a price tag of ?650,000 ($870,000).
Toyota, the world's leader in hybrid technology with 5 million sales since 1997, welcomed the supercar entries to the market.
"If people start falling in love with hybrids, and if it's a Ferrari or a Porsche, it is great. It is going to help hybridization," said Toyota Europe executive Karl Schlicht.
Apple CEO Tim Cook met with Beats Electronics CEO Jimmy Iovine in L.A. in late February, according to a report from Reuters today. The news comes just as Beats project ?Daisy,? a streaming music service built by Beats, is being spun off as a separate company by the audio electronics maker, with the help of a $60 million investment round. Apple was interested in Daisy, including its business plan and rollout, Reuters said.
Apple?s Eddy Cue, who is in charge of Internet Software and Services at the company (including the iTunes Store, iCloud and more) also attended the meeting, according to the report. It was an ?information? gathering meeting, Reuters? source says, with the intent of finding out how project Daisy plans to stand apart from Spotify, Pandora, Rdio and others. Iovine had previously said in an interview with AllThingsD that he?d pitched a streaming music service to then-CEO Steve Jobs back in 2003, but that Jobs wanted to wait to get record companies to lower their licensing fees.
Daisy is set to launch toward the end of 2013, according to a press release issued yesterday documenting the company?s spin-off from Beats. The company has some strong industry backing, including the involvement of Dr. Dre, Jimmy Iovine, Trent Reznor and CEO Ian Rogers. It?ll benefit from Beats??acquisition?of music streaming service MOG, which was purchased in 2012 for $14 million, too. All these and the sizeable initial funding should make Daisy a strong competitor for existing services like Pandora and Spotify out of the gate.
For Apple, it sounds on the surface like this was little more than a fact-finding mission. The iPhone-maker has been rumored to have been developing its own streaming music service for years now, and its recent moves with iCloud and iTunes Match seem to indicate it sees the value in streaming media. Digital music sales (of which iTunes makes up the lion?s share) also grew this year for the first time since 1999, with Apple accounting for?around?60 percent of those, so the company is hardly at a do-or-die when it comes to streaming music services.
There are reports that Google is looking to do something with a Spotify-style streaming service via YouTube, which itself could prompt Apple to look harder at the idea, and might help explain why it wanted to set up a meet with Beats so quickly following Daisy?s initial reveal.
Apple could be feeling out Daisy to see if it makes sense as an acquisition target ? Cook freely admitted back in February that Apple?s acquisition strategy could extend to larger companies with more complete product offerings, but in general, he said it?s about?finding?the talent needed to push Apple?s own projects forwards. There?s also the possibility that Apple will go the way of forming a formal partnership with a single provider, but that would be tricky in the long run in terms of working out a revenue arrangement that satisfies all involved. It would get around the big problem around outright acquisition of a streaming service, however, as licensing deals often don?t come along with other company assets in those situations.
It?s early to draw any conclusions from this meeting, beyond the simple one that Apple is very keen on the streaming music space and paying close attention to major news in that area. Not everyone gets a visit from Apple?s CEO and the man in charge of its digital media storefronts, after all, a pair that you can be sure does very little without specific intent.
Beats Electronics, a company best known for its Beats by Dr. Dre line of headphones.
Mar. 6, 2013 ? Comet 2013 A1 (Siding Spring) will make a very close approach to Mars in October 2014.
The latest trajectory of comet 2013 A1 (Siding Spring) generated by the Near-Earth Object Program Office at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., indicates the comet will pass within 186,000 miles (300,000 kilometers) of Mars and there is a strong possibility that it might pass much closer. The NEO Program Office's current estimate based on observations through March 1, 2013, has it passing about 31,000 miles (50,000 kilometers) from the Red Planet's surface. That distance is about two-and-a-half times that of the orbit of outermost moon, Deimos.
Scientists generated the trajectory for comet Siding Spring based on the data obtained by observations since October 2012. Further refinement to its orbit is expected as more observational data is obtained. At present, Mars lies within the range of possible paths for the comet and the possibility of an impact cannot be excluded. However, since the impact probability is currently less than one in 600, future observations are expected to provide data that will completely rule out a Mars impact.
During the close Mars approach the comet will likely achieve a total visual magnitude of zero or brighter, as seen from Mars-based assets. From Earth, the comet is not expected to reach naked eye brightness, but it may become bright enough (about magnitude 8) that it could be viewed from the southern hemisphere in mid-September 2014, using binoculars, or small telescopes.
Scientists at the Near-Earth Object Program Office estimate that comet Siding Spring has been on a more than a million-year journey, arriving from our solar system's distant Oort cloud. The comet could be complete with the volatile gases that short period comets often lack due to their frequent returns to the sun's neighborhood.
Rob McNaught discovered comet 2013 A1 Siding Spring on Jan. 3, 2013, at Siding Spring Observatory in Australia. A study of germane archival observations has unearthed more images of the comet, extending the observation interval back to Oct. 4, 2012.
NASA detects, tracks and characterizes asteroids and comets passing close to Earth using both ground- and space-based telescopes. The Near-Earth Object Observations Program, commonly called "Spaceguard," discovers these objects, characterizes a subset of them, and plots their orbits to determine if any could be potentially hazardous to our planet.
JPL manages the Near-Earth Object Program Office for NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington. JPL is a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.
More information about asteroids and near-Earth objects is at: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroidwatch . More information about asteroid radar research is at: http://echo.jpl.nasa.gov/ . More information about the Deep Space Network is at: http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/dsn .
Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:
Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:
Story Source:
The above story is reprinted from materials provided by NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.
Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.
Health benefits of marriage may not extend to allPublic release date: 5-Mar-2013 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Hui Zheng Zheng.64@sociology.osu.edu 614-688-8348 Ohio State University
COLUMBUS, Ohio Marriage may not always be as beneficial to health as experts have led us to believe, according to a new study.
Researchers made two discoveries that explain why: First, marriage provides less protection against mortality as health deteriorates, even though it does seem to benefit those who are in excellent health. Secondly, married people tend to overestimate how healthy they are, compared to others.
"We believe marriage is still good for the health of some people, but it is not equally protective for everyone," said Hui Zheng, lead author of the study and an assistant professor of sociology at Ohio State University.
"For those who are already in poor health, marriage doesn't seem to provide any extra benefits."
The results generally held true for both men and women. They were also similar for all types of unmarried people, including divorced, widowed and never married, as well as separated people.
Zheng conducted the study with Patricia Thomas of the University of Texas at Austin. Their results appear in the March 2013 issue of the Journal of Health and Social Behavior.
The researchers used data on about 789,000 people who participated in the National Health Interview Survey from 1986 to 2004. In this survey, participants rated their own health on a five-point scale (excellent, very good, good, fair, poor). Zheng and Thomas then used follow-up data to identify the nearly 24,100 people who died between 1986 and 2006.
The self-rated health measure used in this study has been found to be one of the best predictors of whether a person will die in both the short and long term even better than doctor diagnosis in some cases, Zheng said.
The researchers used a statistical model to determine how self-rated health, marriage status and other factors related to mortality risk over a three-year period.
Overall, the researchers confirmed the volumes of previous research that has found that, overall, being unmarried including never married, separated, divorced and widowed significantly increases the risk of death within three years. For example, a never-married person who lists his health as "excellent" is two times more likely to die within three years than a similar married person in excellent health.
But their new finding is that as self-rated health declines (from excellent down to poor), the mortality advantage for married people diminishes.
For example, for never-married people, each unit decline in health (e.g., from fair to poor) decreases the risk of death compared to married people by 12 percent. When people rate their health as "poor," there is essentially no difference in mortality risks between married and unmarried people.
"These results suggest that marriage may be important for the prevention of disease, but not as helpful once people become seriously ill," Zheng said.
"That's why we see a protective effect of marriage when people are in excellent health, but not when they are in poor health."
The researchers confirmed that marriage offers diminishing protection against mortality at poorer levels of health by using another, more objective measure of health. They compared married and unmarried people's responses to questions about how well they could handle routine care activities such as eating and bathing, as well as activities that promote independent living, such as driving and cooking.
These results also showed that married and unmarried people have similar mortality rates when they have worse health as measured by limitations on their ability to perform these types of activities.
But the diminishing protection of marriage as health declines is only part of the explanation about why marriage may not guard health as much as assumed. The other explanation uncovered by the study is that married people overestimate how healthy they are.
"The married don't seem to report their health as being poor until they've already developed much more severe health problems," Zheng said.
"They have a different threshold for what they consider to be bad health compared to unmarried people."
That means that once a married person rates his health as "poor," he may be sicker than a similar single person who also lists his health as poor.
The reason may have to do with the social support married people receive from their spouses.
"Even when married people do get sick, the impact on their life may be less because of the support they receive from their husband or wife. They don't rate their health as low as do unmarried people, because their spouse helps them cope," Zheng said.
These results shouldn't be used to cast doubt on the validity of self-rated health measures, Zheng said. In general, self-rated health is still very useful and accurate in predicting mortality. However, the results here show researchers should use such measures cautiously when comparing people of different marital statuses.
People should also be clear about what marriage can and cannot do when it comes to health. "Marriage is helpful in persuading people to adopt a healthy lifestyle that can lead to a longer life," Zheng said. "But it is not as useful in helping people recover from a serious illness."
###
The research was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Health and Child Development.
Written by Jeff Grabmeier, (614) 292-8457; Grabmeier.1@osu.edu
[ | E-mail | Share ]
?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
Health benefits of marriage may not extend to allPublic release date: 5-Mar-2013 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Hui Zheng Zheng.64@sociology.osu.edu 614-688-8348 Ohio State University
COLUMBUS, Ohio Marriage may not always be as beneficial to health as experts have led us to believe, according to a new study.
Researchers made two discoveries that explain why: First, marriage provides less protection against mortality as health deteriorates, even though it does seem to benefit those who are in excellent health. Secondly, married people tend to overestimate how healthy they are, compared to others.
"We believe marriage is still good for the health of some people, but it is not equally protective for everyone," said Hui Zheng, lead author of the study and an assistant professor of sociology at Ohio State University.
"For those who are already in poor health, marriage doesn't seem to provide any extra benefits."
The results generally held true for both men and women. They were also similar for all types of unmarried people, including divorced, widowed and never married, as well as separated people.
Zheng conducted the study with Patricia Thomas of the University of Texas at Austin. Their results appear in the March 2013 issue of the Journal of Health and Social Behavior.
The researchers used data on about 789,000 people who participated in the National Health Interview Survey from 1986 to 2004. In this survey, participants rated their own health on a five-point scale (excellent, very good, good, fair, poor). Zheng and Thomas then used follow-up data to identify the nearly 24,100 people who died between 1986 and 2006.
The self-rated health measure used in this study has been found to be one of the best predictors of whether a person will die in both the short and long term even better than doctor diagnosis in some cases, Zheng said.
The researchers used a statistical model to determine how self-rated health, marriage status and other factors related to mortality risk over a three-year period.
Overall, the researchers confirmed the volumes of previous research that has found that, overall, being unmarried including never married, separated, divorced and widowed significantly increases the risk of death within three years. For example, a never-married person who lists his health as "excellent" is two times more likely to die within three years than a similar married person in excellent health.
But their new finding is that as self-rated health declines (from excellent down to poor), the mortality advantage for married people diminishes.
For example, for never-married people, each unit decline in health (e.g., from fair to poor) decreases the risk of death compared to married people by 12 percent. When people rate their health as "poor," there is essentially no difference in mortality risks between married and unmarried people.
"These results suggest that marriage may be important for the prevention of disease, but not as helpful once people become seriously ill," Zheng said.
"That's why we see a protective effect of marriage when people are in excellent health, but not when they are in poor health."
The researchers confirmed that marriage offers diminishing protection against mortality at poorer levels of health by using another, more objective measure of health. They compared married and unmarried people's responses to questions about how well they could handle routine care activities such as eating and bathing, as well as activities that promote independent living, such as driving and cooking.
These results also showed that married and unmarried people have similar mortality rates when they have worse health as measured by limitations on their ability to perform these types of activities.
But the diminishing protection of marriage as health declines is only part of the explanation about why marriage may not guard health as much as assumed. The other explanation uncovered by the study is that married people overestimate how healthy they are.
"The married don't seem to report their health as being poor until they've already developed much more severe health problems," Zheng said.
"They have a different threshold for what they consider to be bad health compared to unmarried people."
That means that once a married person rates his health as "poor," he may be sicker than a similar single person who also lists his health as poor.
The reason may have to do with the social support married people receive from their spouses.
"Even when married people do get sick, the impact on their life may be less because of the support they receive from their husband or wife. They don't rate their health as low as do unmarried people, because their spouse helps them cope," Zheng said.
These results shouldn't be used to cast doubt on the validity of self-rated health measures, Zheng said. In general, self-rated health is still very useful and accurate in predicting mortality. However, the results here show researchers should use such measures cautiously when comparing people of different marital statuses.
People should also be clear about what marriage can and cannot do when it comes to health. "Marriage is helpful in persuading people to adopt a healthy lifestyle that can lead to a longer life," Zheng said. "But it is not as useful in helping people recover from a serious illness."
###
The research was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Health and Child Development.
Written by Jeff Grabmeier, (614) 292-8457; Grabmeier.1@osu.edu
[ | E-mail | Share ]
?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
![[ Back to EurekAlert! ]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tzcmeEuPOKoSvKtq4zrqW1vANgo-8jmUQCrWJ_59UmkS00rIc-N17XqzpXkIkg0Z0NkVi_nKKrcK2vZEJwpcr6pIZ45rqVqfP37zMd7F4=s0-d){kind=small}
Public release date: 5-Mar-2013
Share ] 
