King Tutankhamun was an Egyptian Pharaoh of the Eighteenth dynasty. His original name, Tutankhaten, means "Living Image of Aten", the Egyptian God. King Tut , as he is popularly known ,was one of the most famous of all the kings found in the Valley of the Kings He died in mid-January, 1343 B.C He is so famous because out of the many tombs that have been discovered of Egyptian pharaohs over the years, his tomb was in the most perfect condition at the time of its discovery. The tomb had been robbed once very soon after he was put in, but everything lost was replaced as soon as possible. Tutankhamun's parentage has been considered uncertain. An inscription calls him a king's son, but it is not clear which king was meant. One of the most common hypothesis holds that Tutankhamun was the son of Akhenaten, also known as Amenhotep IV, and his minor wife Queen Kiya.
The 1922 discovery by the archeologist, Howard Carter of Tutankhamun's intact tomb received worldwide press coverage and sparked a renewed public interest in ancient Egypt, for which Tutankhamun's burial mask remains the popular face. Howard Carter was born on May 9th, 1874 in the small town of Kensington, London, England. He developed an early interest in Egypt, so when he was 17 years old, under the influence of Lady Amherst, a family acquaintance, he set sail for Alexandria, Egypt. A British aristocrat, Lord Carnarvon funded this famous discovery.
A certain Curse too is associated with the discovery of the tomb. The hype began when Lord Carnarvon, died shortly after the discovery. Once Carnarvon died the media went wild with stories of his death. They claimed King Tut wanted vengeance and announced a mummy's curse, which targeted those who had entered the tomb. Not only did the death of Carnarvon get all the people in an uproar but other stories began to surface as well. Did King Tut's Tomb really unleash a curse? New findings are showing that bacteria on the wall of the tomb might have been the cause of the curse. The myth of the curse has remained with King Tut and continues to make people question as to whether the curse was really unleashed.
One of the major mysteries associated with King Tut is that of his death. There are several theories of his death but the most recent findings seem to conclusively indicate that he died of natural causes, rather than being murdered. Specifically, the latest report is that he died of gangrene caused by a broken leg. There was more than a little reason to believe that King Tut may have been murdered. The two principal suspects, Aye who succeeded him as king, and General Horemhab who in turn succeeded Aye to the throne, both appear to have been powerful men who, in effect, ruled Egypt while King Tut was a child. It would not be unreasonable at all to believe that, as King Tut grew into a young man, the two elder men would have resented losing much of their power However, one of the main reasons that murder has ragged on as a possible cause of King Tut's death is because of a fracture to the back of his head. Revealed in an X-ray of his mummy made by the University of Liverpool, a trauma specialist theorized that the blow was not caused by an accident. However Dr. Zahi Hawass does reveal in recent media that is it known it was not murder. But other specialists argue about the hypothesis that King Tut may have been poisoned. Hence as it was not certain as to how he died, murder could not be ruled out. Over the years several findings have been made about the famous boy king, but the latest is the facial reconstruction that has been carried out by French , Egyptian and American teams in association with National Geographic. Even though it has been nearly a century since his tomb was discovered, King Tut’s story continues to interest people even today.
Navashree Bharadwaj
Friday, February 19, 2010
The way we socialize has considerably changed over a very short period of time. You no more need to e-mail the photos of the last night party to multiple people, or chat for long on the phone. Simply log on to Flickr or Facebook and your job is done.
Facebook was earlier just restricted to the students of the Harward University, USA now has over 1,191,373,339 monthly visitors. No doubt it is the most popular Social Networking Website (SWN) today.
What makes these sites addictive? How do they manage to attract so many people? Some research over the internet, explains that the whole idea is based on 'narcissism'. Narcissism as defined by the Dictionary.com is 'inordinate fascination with oneself and excessive self-love'. We want the world to know about anything and everything we do. Addiction follows. This is simple, since when you post something about yourself you expect replies. When you expect replies, you keep coming back to the website. This is not it, the inherent tendency to spy and peek into other's life is also deemed as one of the reason why people spend long hours on these websites.
A lot of apps on these websites itself tell if you are addicted to them. But there's a simpler formula I believe. If the rate of your logging in to these accounts exceeds the rate at which you receive scraps, comments or notifications, you just might be a target of SNW addiction!
The basic idea behind the social networking websites was to connect old friends and make new ones. But like every business, these websites need money to keep them running. Where does this money come from? Ads that you see and applications that you use. These applications are also designed to keep you coming for more.
With rising popularities of these websites, various businesses have started to join these websites to promote their products. Be it a celebrity page, a new band releasing it first album, or a college fest, you can be its official fan on your favourite SNW.
But the more important question is that what is the future of SNWs? With increasing service providers it has got difficult to manage multiple profiles for the users. You have to separately log in for Orkut, Twitter, Facebook or Blogger. At the AlwaysOn Stanford Summit 07, attended by the CEO's of various SNWs, the common idea presented was to have a single platform where users could manage multiple profiles. That's the technical aspect though. But to keep it popular among the people we definitely need better and fresh ideas on how we use these websites.
Something yet to get popular among the masses is Second Life. A virtual world where you can socialize, connect with new people, and buy property with some virtual money. You need to download the customized application and you are ready to go. Design your avatar, fly around the city (yes your avatar can really fly), chat with people, go on a date or shop, in brief live your second life. What scares me is that excessive engagement with the second life could adversely affect our real life, which is obviously our first priority!
Some tech authors also feel that the future devices would be more customized for the websites. So perhaps a couple of years from now, when you click a picture from your digital camera, it is directly posted on Facebook or Flickr. Or what music you are listening on your iPod, what show you are watching on TV would be on Facebook instantly. Don't forget to read the Privacy Policy then! Since a lot of us mix work (me included) with social networking, embedding something like Google Docs could also be a good idea.
So is it the need to connect with friends or narcissism that keeps us addicted to these websites? Do you have any new ideas that could make online social networking cooler? Share your opinions and thoughts with me at muditbhargava09@gmail.com. It would be a pleasure hearing from you.
Mudit Bhargava
Facebook was earlier just restricted to the students of the Harward University, USA now has over 1,191,373,339 monthly visitors. No doubt it is the most popular Social Networking Website (SWN) today.
What makes these sites addictive? How do they manage to attract so many people? Some research over the internet, explains that the whole idea is based on 'narcissism'. Narcissism as defined by the Dictionary.com is 'inordinate fascination with oneself and excessive self-love'. We want the world to know about anything and everything we do. Addiction follows. This is simple, since when you post something about yourself you expect replies. When you expect replies, you keep coming back to the website. This is not it, the inherent tendency to spy and peek into other's life is also deemed as one of the reason why people spend long hours on these websites.
A lot of apps on these websites itself tell if you are addicted to them. But there's a simpler formula I believe. If the rate of your logging in to these accounts exceeds the rate at which you receive scraps, comments or notifications, you just might be a target of SNW addiction!
The basic idea behind the social networking websites was to connect old friends and make new ones. But like every business, these websites need money to keep them running. Where does this money come from? Ads that you see and applications that you use. These applications are also designed to keep you coming for more.
With rising popularities of these websites, various businesses have started to join these websites to promote their products. Be it a celebrity page, a new band releasing it first album, or a college fest, you can be its official fan on your favourite SNW.
But the more important question is that what is the future of SNWs? With increasing service providers it has got difficult to manage multiple profiles for the users. You have to separately log in for Orkut, Twitter, Facebook or Blogger. At the AlwaysOn Stanford Summit 07, attended by the CEO's of various SNWs, the common idea presented was to have a single platform where users could manage multiple profiles. That's the technical aspect though. But to keep it popular among the people we definitely need better and fresh ideas on how we use these websites.
Something yet to get popular among the masses is Second Life. A virtual world where you can socialize, connect with new people, and buy property with some virtual money. You need to download the customized application and you are ready to go. Design your avatar, fly around the city (yes your avatar can really fly), chat with people, go on a date or shop, in brief live your second life. What scares me is that excessive engagement with the second life could adversely affect our real life, which is obviously our first priority!
Some tech authors also feel that the future devices would be more customized for the websites. So perhaps a couple of years from now, when you click a picture from your digital camera, it is directly posted on Facebook or Flickr. Or what music you are listening on your iPod, what show you are watching on TV would be on Facebook instantly. Don't forget to read the Privacy Policy then! Since a lot of us mix work (me included) with social networking, embedding something like Google Docs could also be a good idea.
So is it the need to connect with friends or narcissism that keeps us addicted to these websites? Do you have any new ideas that could make online social networking cooler? Share your opinions and thoughts with me at muditbhargava09@gmail.com. It would be a pleasure hearing from you.
Mudit Bhargava
Have journalistic norms and ethics become a casualty of the pace of change in mass media? Many media persons seem to have abdicated their responsibility, suggesting that you should mechanically do your job and not bother your head about journalistic ethics, commitment and quality. Today, the common man is being wronged and mislead by being provided with defective and manipulated information and statistics.
News can manipulate and be manipulated. Government and corporations may attempt to exploit news media by censorship and share ownership. Some media persons may disclose military secrets and other sensitive government information which may be contrary to public interest; just to grab attention. This is dangerous. Our media should try to mould genuine public opinion on an issue of national or local importance, instead what they do is feeding them with fabricated and twisted news and views so as to influence their opinions in favor of all and sundry that contribute a few column centimeters or help fill a commercial break.
I would not be wrong to say that, most of the Indian Media is politically biased.
We know that there is not a single news paper or visual media which is not run by a family in this country. If you consider CNN-IBN it is the most visibly biased visual media channel ever India have seen, so obsessed with Gandhi dynasty, they are totally after Narendra Modi and BJP. Of course, they have to have allegiance to their business partners and their political patrons. They cannot run the show without it. But, will it be worth it if it is at the cost of national interest? The answer is no!
Some news channels and magazines have taken the responsibility of poking their noses into everyone’s personal and private lives. Salacious details of the lives of public figures are a central content in many media. Publication is not necessarily justified simply because the information is true. Privacy is a right and one which conflicts with the fundamental right of free speech.
Though, we have the Press Councill Of India, It’s doing no good to us. The condition will get worse if we do not react. As they always say, “ If you do not stand for something, you will fall for anything.” So here, in this country, media responsibility is decided more by column centimeters, corporate and political stories (story in the real sense of the term), prime air times and programme and event sponsorships than by anything else. Free press, freedom of expression, citizens’ right to be heard and informed are paper tigers known much more to the ruling than the ruled.
Raunaq Kalia
News can manipulate and be manipulated. Government and corporations may attempt to exploit news media by censorship and share ownership. Some media persons may disclose military secrets and other sensitive government information which may be contrary to public interest; just to grab attention. This is dangerous. Our media should try to mould genuine public opinion on an issue of national or local importance, instead what they do is feeding them with fabricated and twisted news and views so as to influence their opinions in favor of all and sundry that contribute a few column centimeters or help fill a commercial break.
I would not be wrong to say that, most of the Indian Media is politically biased.
We know that there is not a single news paper or visual media which is not run by a family in this country. If you consider CNN-IBN it is the most visibly biased visual media channel ever India have seen, so obsessed with Gandhi dynasty, they are totally after Narendra Modi and BJP. Of course, they have to have allegiance to their business partners and their political patrons. They cannot run the show without it. But, will it be worth it if it is at the cost of national interest? The answer is no!
Some news channels and magazines have taken the responsibility of poking their noses into everyone’s personal and private lives. Salacious details of the lives of public figures are a central content in many media. Publication is not necessarily justified simply because the information is true. Privacy is a right and one which conflicts with the fundamental right of free speech.
Though, we have the Press Councill Of India, It’s doing no good to us. The condition will get worse if we do not react. As they always say, “ If you do not stand for something, you will fall for anything.” So here, in this country, media responsibility is decided more by column centimeters, corporate and political stories (story in the real sense of the term), prime air times and programme and event sponsorships than by anything else. Free press, freedom of expression, citizens’ right to be heard and informed are paper tigers known much more to the ruling than the ruled.
Raunaq Kalia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
