Talents you've Got which you don't know about.

When most Africans living in Africa hear or read the word talent the first thing that goes into their mind is music. Music has become one talent that so many people have been rushing into, and even those who are not talented musically have found themselves trying to break into the music industry because of its profitability. But apart from music, comedy, dance etcetera, there are some other talents that are even more profitable that God has deposited in so many people that are lying idle. One difficult hurdle that I have always encountered when coaching people in my talent maximization coaching program has been trying to convince most of my clients to leave music or comedy for the moment and focus on some other idle talents that needs attention.

These four talents can be taken as a full blown career, used to grow your business as an entrepreneur and can also be used to increase your productivity as an employee. You probably may have heard about them, or know about them, but I strongly believe that there are so many people who need to read it. So, please, show love by helping to take this to the four corners of the earth.

• Eyes For Errors 

There are people who are very talented with this but don't know that it can be made Profitable. This set of people can spot an error from afar. They can also be called perfectionist. No matter how good you claim to be, a perfectionist can spot an error in your work unless it has already gone through the table of a perfectionist.
Being a perfectionist is not as a result of your experience or skills, it's a talent. While discussing with a friend sometime ago, I jokingly told her that the easiest way to know a scam email is to check the spellings and grammars, because most Internet scammers are high school dropouts. Big organisations have Perfectionists who go through their works before taking them public. Perfectionists are of different types and works in different areas. Haven't you wondered why some foreign products looks perfect?
So, when next you see a product that looks excellent, please know that it has gone through the table of a Perfectionist.

•  Manager 

When I hear people say that women are naturally managers, I laugh because not every woman has this talent. Some people are talented managers while some are talented wasters. People who are talented managers can use what Is available to sustain for a period of time. When others are complaining that what they have won't be enough, managers don't. Few managers are maximizers but not all. Companies, especially startups with limited funds are always in search for employees with this talent or skill (if you learnt it). Even most men and women desire this talent in their spouses.
Managers naturally knows how to manage their resources, time, team etc. A manager is not a waster. Management isn't just about finance, but also people. Most people with this talent are always seen as stingy, but they are not. A man who's a waster needs a manager as a wife otherwise, he may end up working for thirty-five years with nothing to show for his labours. With this talent, you can become a lender to people who earn more than you.

• Strategist 

Has anyone ever approached you for a way to get out of a problem they found themselves? and you just find yourself helping them out without knowing how you came about the solutions? That's a sign that you are a natural Strategist. If well maximized, this talent can give you financial freedom, influence, connection and can ultimately make you a highly sought after Consultant. I used to have a friend back then in the University who was referred to as a go-to for relationship issues while another friend was the one you go to when you need a lie to tell your parents in order to collect money from them. These aforementioned people were Strategists and were always needed. The truth is, not every knowledge was learnt, some came naturally.

• Critics

Critics and perfectionist are somehow interrelated but, a critic criticisms without having a concrete solution to the problem. People with this talent naturally criticizes even if they don't want to. It is a natural something. Every product needs critics. Critics may not spot errors, they can even criticize a perfect plan. Sometimes, as humans, we are bound to see things from one particular angle, but what criticism does is to show us life from a different perspective. Some critics criticizes out of hatred but talented critics criticizes because they can't live without criticism.

Succeed You Must!

(c) Johnspeak Uwangue 

Motivational Speaker

Read More

So many of us long to be part of something real. But we’ll need to risk discomfort and criticism and show the world our real selves first

Our True belonging.

I don’t know exactly what it is about the combination of those two words, but I do know that when I say it aloud, it just feels right. It feels like something that we all crave and need in our lives. We want to be a part of something, but we need it to be real -- not conditional or fake or constantly up for negotiation. We need true belonging, but what exactly is it?

“Belonging is the innate human desire to be part of something larger than us. Because this yearning is so primal, we often try to acquire it by fitting in and by seeking approval, which are not only hollow substitutes for belonging, but often barriers to it. Because true belonging only happens when we present our authentic, imperfect selves to the world, our sense of belonging can never be greater than our level of self-acceptance.”

This definition has withstood the test of time as well as the emergence of new data, but it is incomplete. There’s much more to true belonging. Being ourselves means sometimes having to find the courage to stand alone, totally alone. It’s not something we achieve or accomplish with others; it’s something we carry in our heart. Once we belong thoroughly to ourselves and believe thoroughly in ourselves, true belonging is ours.

No matter how separated we are by what we think and believe, 

we are part of the same spiritual story.

Belonging to ourselves means being called to stand alone -- to brave the wilderness of uncertainty, vulnerability and criticism. And with the world feeling like a political and ideological combat zone, this is remarkably tough. We seem to have forgotten that even when we’re utterly alone, we’re connected to one another by something greater than group membership, politics and ideology -- we’re connected by love and the human spirit. No matter how separated we are by what we think and believe, we are part of the same spiritual story.

The special courage it takes to experience true belonging is not just about braving the wilderness, it’s about becoming the wilderness. It’s about breaking down the walls, abandoning our ideological bunkers and living from our wild heart rather than our weary hurt. We’re going to need to intentionally be with people who are different from us. We’re going to have to sign up, join and take a seat at the table. We’re going to have to learn how to listen, have hard conversations, look for joy, share pain and be more curious than defensive, all while seeking moments of togetherness.

True belonging is not passive. It’s not the belonging that comes with just joining a group. It’s not fitting in or pretending or selling out because it’s safer. It’s a practice that requires us to be vulnerable, get uncomfortable and learn how to be present with people -- without sacrificing who we are. We want true belonging, but it takes tremendous courage to knowingly walk into hard moments.

True belonging is not something you negotiate externally, it’s what you carry in your heart. It’s finding the sacredness in being a part of something.

You don’t wander into the wilderness unprepared. Standing alone in a hypercritical environment or standing together in the midst of difference requires one tool above all others: trust. To brave the wilderness and become the wilderness, we must learn how to trust ourselves and trust others.

As I often say, I’m an experienced mapmaker, but I can be as much of a lost and stumbling traveler as anyone else. We all must find our own way through. This means that, while we may share the same research map, your path will be different from mine. Joseph Campbell wrote, “If you can see your path laid out in front of you step by step, you know it’s not your path. Your own path you make with every step you take. That’s why it’s your path.”

We’ll need to learn how to navigate the tension of many paradoxes along the way, including the importance of being with and being alone. In many ways, the etymology of the word “paradox” cuts right to the heart of what it means to break out of our ideological bunkers, stand on our own and brave the wilderness. In its Greek origins, paradox is the joining of two words, para (contrary to) and dokein (opinion). The Latin paradoxum means “seemingly absurd but really true.”

True belonging is not something you negotiate externally, it’s what you carry in your heart. It’s finding the sacredness in being a part of something. When we reach this place, even momentarily, we belong everywhere and nowhere. That seems absurd, but it’s true. Carl Jung argued that a paradox is one of our most valued spiritual possessions and a great witness to the truth. It makes sense to me that we’re called to combat this spiritual crisis of disconnection with one of our most valued spiritual possessions. Bearing witness to the truth is rarely easy, especially when we’re alone in the wilderness.

But as Maya Angelou tells us, “The price is high. The reward is great.”

Read More

Researchers recently reported that they were able to edit human embryos to fix a dangerous mutation

The technology is inching closer to reality, so we need to take a stand, says biochemists

If CRISPR can help parents conceive a disease-free child when no other options exist and it can do so safely, ought we to use it? It’s a question I’ve asked myself again and again -- and one that is particularly timely due to the Nature study published this month that described how scientists at Oregon Health and Science University, working with collaborators in California, China and South Korea, were able to correct human embryos of a common and harmful genetic mutation.

Unsurprisingly, Americans are having a hard time agreeing on an answer: a 2016 Pew Research poll found that 50 percent of adults in the US oppose the idea of reducing the risk of disease using germline editing, compared to 48 percent in favor. (When it comes to making nonessential enhancements to a baby’s genome, we seem to be considerably more unified; only 15 percent of the poll’s respondents were in favor.)

Religion is one obvious moral compass that people use to confront difficult questions like this, though perspectives can vary widely. When it comes to experimentation with human embryos, some Christian communities are opposed because they regard the embryo as a person from conception, whereas Jewish and Muslim traditions tend to be more accepting because they do not consider embryos created in vitro to be people. And while some religions see any interventions in the germline as a usurpation of God’s role in humanity, others welcome human involvement in nature as long as the goals pursued are inherently good.

Humans have been reproducing for millennia aided only by the DNA mutations that arise naturally, and for us to begin directing that process ​seems almost perverse.

Yet another moral guidepost is purely internal: the visceral, knee-jerk reaction to the idea of using CRISPR to permanently edit a future child’s genes. For many people, the very idea feels unnatural and wrong, and I was one of those people when I first started thinking about the issue. Humans have been reproducing for millennia aided only by the DNA mutations that arise naturally, and for us to begin directing the process ​-- ​similar to the way that plant biologists might genetically modify corn ​-- ​seems almost perverse at first glance. As National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins put it, “Evolution has been working toward optimizing the human genome for 3.85 billion years. Do we really think that some small group of human genome tinkerers could do better without all sorts of unintended consequences?”

While I share the general feeling of unease at the idea of humans taking control of their evolution, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that nature has fine-tuned our genetic composition. Obviously, evolution didn’t optimize the human genome for the present era, when modern foods, computers and high-speed transportation have completely transformed the way we live. And if we look over our shoulders at the course of evolution that has led to this moment, we’ll see it’s littered with organisms that didn’t benefit from the mutational chaos that underpins evolution. Nature is less an engineer than a tinkerer -- and a fairly sloppy one at that. Its carelessness can seem like outright cruelty for those people who have inherited genetic mutations that turned out to be suboptimal.

Similarly, the argument that germline editing is unnatural doesn’t carry much weight with me anymore. When it comes to human affairs and especially the world of medicine, the line between natural and unnatural blurs to the point of disappearing. We wouldn’t call a coral reef unnatural, but we might use the term for a megalopolis like Tokyo. Is this because one is crafted by humans and the other isn’t? In my mind, the distinction between natural and unnatural is a false dichotomy, and if it prevents us from alleviating human suffering, it’s also a dangerous one.

One woman told me: “If I could use germline editing to remove this mutation from the human population so that no one else suffers as my sister did, I would do it in a heartbeat!”

I’ve had numerous opportunities to meet with people who have experienced genetic disease themselves or in their families, and their stories are deeply moving. One woman pulled me aside at a conference to share her personal story after a session in which I had discussed CRISPR technology. Her sister had suffered from a rare but devastating genetic disease that affected her physical and mental health and caused tremendous hardship for the entire family. “If I could use germline editing to remove this mutation from the human population so that no one else suffers as my sister did, I would do it in a heartbeat!” she said, tears welling up in her eyes.

On another occasion, a man came to visit me and explained that his father and grandfather had died of Huntington’s disease and that three of his sisters had tested positive for the trait. He wanted to do anything he could to advance research toward a cure or, better yet, prevention of this terrible disease. I did not have the heart to ask him if he carried the mutated gene. If he did, he could expect to be robbed of his powers of movement and speech before much longer and to meet an early death ​-- ​a terrible sentence for anyone to see placed on their loved ones, let alone be subjected to themselves. Stories like these underscore the terrible human costs of genetic diseases. If we have tools that can one day help doctors safely and effectively correct mutations, whether prior to or just after conception, it seems to me that we’d be justified in using them.

It’s not a stretch to think that wealthy families would benefit from germline editing more than others, at least in the beginning.

Setting aside the inherent rightness or wrongness of editing the germline, another ethical issue continues to nag at me: how would CRISPR affect society? Just as it’s hard to know where we’d draw the line when it comes to editing embryos, it’s difficult to see how we’d do it equitably ​-- ​that is, in a way that improves human health across the board, not just in certain groups. It’s not a stretch to think that wealthy families would benefit from germline editing more than others, at least in the beginning. Recent gene therapies have hit the market with a price tag of around a million dollars, and it’s likely the first gene-editing therapies will be no different.

Of course, new technologies shouldn’t be rejected simply because they’re expensive. You need look no further than personal computers, cell phones, and direct-to-consumer DNA sequencing to see how costs of new technologies generally diminish over time as improvements are made, leading to a resulting increase in access. Furthermore, there’s also the chance that germline editing, like other medical treatments, could one day be subsidized by health insurance.

This might certainly seem like only a remote possibility in the US, since existing reproductive procedures such as IVF and PGD, which routinely cost tens of thousands of dollars, are seldom covered by insurance. But in France, Israel, Sweden and other countries whose national health plans cover assisted reproduction, it’s possible that simple economics will incentivize governments to make gene editing available to patients who need it. After all, providing lifelong treatment to a single person with a genetic disease could be much more expensive than intervention in the embryo using gene editing.

But even in countries with comprehensive health-care systems where people from all classes could benefit from germline editing, there’s a risk that it might give rise to genetic inequalities, creating a new “gene gap” that would only widen over time. Since the wealthy would be able to afford the procedure more often and since any beneficial genetic modifications made to an embryo would be transmitted to that person’s offspring, linkages between class and genetics would ineluctably grow from one generation to the next, no matter how small the disparity in access might be.

Consider the effect this could have on the socioeconomic fabric of society -- if you think our world is unequal now, just imagine it stratified along socioeconomic and genetic lines. Envision a future where people with more money live healthier and longer lives, thanks to their privileged sets of genes. It’s the stuff of science fiction, but if germline editing becomes routine, this fiction could become reality.

Using gene editing to “fix” things like deafness or obesity could create a less inclusive society, one that pressures everyone to be the same.  ​

Germline editing may also create a different kind of injustice. As disability-rights advocates have pointed out, using gene editing to “fix” things like deafness or obesity could create a less inclusive society, one that pressures everyone to be the same ​— ​and perhaps even encourages more discrimination against differently abled people ​-- ​instead of celebrating our natural differences. After all, the human genome is not mere software with bugs that we should categorically eliminate. Part of what makes our species unique and our society so strong is its diversity. While some disease-causing gene mutations produce defective or abnormal proteins on a biochemical level, the individuals who live with the disease are certainly not defective or abnormal people, and they might live happy lives and not feel any need for gene repair.

This fear ​-- ​that gene editing will exacerbate existing prejudices against people who fall outside a narrow range of genetic norms ​-- ​underlies the association that numerous writers have made between germ­line editing and eugenics. That concept is best known today for its popularity in Nazi Germany, where a quest to perfect the human race reached its terrible zenith through the forced sterilization of hundreds of thousands of people and the widespread extermination of millions of Jews, homosexuals, the mentally ill and others deemed unworthy of life.

Eugenics as practiced by the Nazis was utterly reprehensible, but I believe the odds are minuscule we’ll see anything similar happen with gene editing. Governments are simply not going to begin forcing parents to edit their children’s genes. (In fact, the procedure is still illegal in many places.) Unless we’re talking about coercive regimes controlling their citizens’ procreative liberty, germline editing would remain a private decision for individual parents to make for their own children, not a decision for bureaucrats to make for the population at large.

My views on the ethics of germline editing continue to evolve, ​but as they do, I find myself returning time and again to the issue of choice. Above all else, we must respect people’s freedom to choose their own genetic destiny and strive for healthier, happier lives. If people are given this freedom, they will do with it what they personally think is right, ​whatever that may be. As Charles Sabine, a victim of Huntington’s disease, put it, “Anyone who has to actually face the reality of one of these diseases is not going to have a remote compunction about thinking that there is any moral issue at all.” Who are we to tell him otherwise?

Get more of our posts here. 

Read More

Our images and Memory

People worldwide upload more than one billlion images a day, preserving their memories to enjoy them in the future

When it comes to obsessional tech habits, photo-taking probably isn’t the worst for relationships. If you’re not gazing into someone’s eyes, at least you’re pointing an iPhone at them. But how does that persistent need to capture the moment -- which so many of us feel -- change how we actually experience the moment, both in the present and when we try to recall it down the line? The answer is quite illuminating.

One of the major reasons we take photos in the first place is to remember a moment long after it has passed: the birth of a baby, a reunion, a pristine lake. In 2015, I conducted a Bored and Brilliant Project -- in which I challenged people to detach from their devices in order to jump-start their creativity -- with more than 20,000 listeners of Note to Self (the podcast about technology that I host). When I surveyed the participants, many said they used photos as a “memory aid,” taking pictures of things like parking spots or the label of the hot sauce at a restaurant to buy later. However, every time we snap a quick pic of something, we could in fact be harming our memory of it.


In one study, students were told to take photos of objects at a museum -- and they remembered fewer of the overall objects they had photographed.

Linda Henkel, a professor of psychology at Fairfield University in Connecticut, studied how taking photos impacts experience and memory by crafting an experiment using a group of undergraduates on a guided tour of the university’s Bellarmine Museum of Art. The students were asked to take photos of objects that they looked at on the tour and to simply observe others.

The next day, she brought the students into her research lab to test their memory of all the objects they had seen on the tour. Whenever they remembered a piece of work, she asked follow-up questions about specific visual details. The results were clear: overall, people remembered fewer of the objects they had photographed. They also couldn’t recall as many specific visual details of the photographed art, compared to the art they had merely observed.

“When you take a photo of something, you’re counting on the camera to remember for you,” Henkel said. “You’re basically saying, ‘Okay, I don’t need to think about this any further. The camera’s captured the experience.’ You don’t engage in any of the elaborative or emotional kinds of processing that really would help you remember those experiences, because you’ve outsourced it to your camera.”

In other words, if your camera captures the moment, then your brain doesn’t. Henkel came up with a frightening term for this phenomenon: the “photo-taking-impairment effect.” Okay, okay. Of course you’d remember things better if you were completely in the present, hyperaware of every detail, like some supreme Zen master. But isn’t that what photos are for? To refresh our fallible memories?

Who hasn’t dumped photos from a trip into Dropbox and promised to make an album -- only to never look at them again?

Henkel doesn’t disagree that the purpose of outsourcing our memory to devices can free up our brains to do other cognitive processing. The problem is, she says, “We’re constantly going from one thing to the next to the next.” So instead of outsourcing so we can focus our attention on more important tasks, “we have this constant stream of what’s next, what’s next, what’s next and never fully embrace any of the experiences we’re having.”

Nonetheless, Henkel and her student Katelyn Parisi ran another study to see what happens to memory when people have photos to remind them of a moment or object. Although, in the real world, Henkel rightly observes, “We’re so busy capturing photos that afterwards we don’t actually look at them.” Who hasn’t dumped a bunch of photos of a graduation or trip into Dropbox and promised to make an album only to never look at them again?

This time when people took a tour of the museum, they were asked to take two kinds of photos: those of the objects in the exhibit alone and those with them standing next to the objects. Afterward, Henkel had the subjects look at all the photos and interviewed them on their memories of what they saw. “It turns out that it actually changes your perspective on the experience, whether you’re in a photo of it or not,” Henkel said. If you are in the image, you become more removed from the original moment -- it is as if you are an observer watching yourself doing something outside yourself. Whereas if you are not in the image, you return to the first person, reliving the experience through your own eyes, and you remember more.


Professor Linda Henkel is sure: cameras, as amazing as they are, can’t compare to what the brain is capable of with input from the eyes and the ears.

How taking photos affects our understanding of ourselves and of the things we are photographing is still a big question mark. But as a result of her experiments, there is one thing Henkel is sure of. “Cameras, as amazing as they are, can’t compare to what the brain is capable of with input from the eyes and the ears,” she said. “Cameras are a lesser version of the human information-processing system.”

Even if you can’t bear to face a computer hard drive that’s nightmarishly filled with photos, there was one way in which taking pictures did not erode people’s memories in Henkel’s experiments. In the art museum study, “when participants zoomed in to photograph a specific part of the object, their subsequent recognition and detail memory were not impaired, and, in fact, memory for features that were not zoomed in on was just as strong as memory for features that were zoomed in on,” the professor wrote. “This suggests that the additional attention and cognitive processes engaged by this focused activity can eliminate the photo-taking-impairment effect.”

Why not challenge yourself to a photo-free day? For 24 hours, see the world through your eyes, not your screen. Take absolutely no pictures -- not of your lunch, your children, your cubicle mate, or that beautiful sunset. No photo messages. No cat pics. Instagrammers, it’s gonna get rocky. Snapchatsters? Hang in there. Everyone is going to be okay. I promise.

Those of you who take one picture a month -- like my mother -- will find this challenge a breeze. But before you get too smug, know that this might be harder than you think. Many people reported they took pictures way more, and way more mindlessly, than they had previously imagined. But you will experience rewards for your sacrifice. “Sure, the world does want to see my adorable grandchildren and gorgeous children,” Beth in Indiana wrote us. “However, it’s been a liberating twenty-four hours!”

If a participant in my Bored and Brilliant photo-free challenge were given a prize for the day, it might have to be Vanessa Jean Herald, whose green Subaru skidded off the highway and into a snowy ditch during her one-hour commute between the southern Wisconsin farm where she lives and her job in Madison. Although she had to wait more than two hours in frigid temperatures for a tow truck to arrive, Herald did not lose her resolve!

“I placed my necessary emergency calls, sent some texts to let folks know I was okay, and then just sat,” she wrote. “Sure, my gut reaction was to snap a picture of the car sitting in the ditch and covered with thrown snow for Instagram. Or, to snap a photo of the cool way the red and blue lights of the sheriff’s car blinked in my rearview mirror and lit up the roadway as the day turned to night through my two-hour mandatory break from life. But thanks to today’s challenge, instead I chilled out, took it all in, and then pulled out my writing notebook to jot down a story about how the best-laid plans sometimes end you up in a ditch on the side of the road.” [Place imaginary photo of green Subaru in a snowy ditch on the side of the road here.]

Don’t worry if your photo-free inspiration doesn’t spill out in a well-formed story like Herald’s. And it’s okay to be uncomfortable, hostile or bored without photos to fill your day. Just use your brain instead of your phone. No one is going to “heart” or “like” whatever goes on up there, except for you.

And if you want a deeper detox from digital images, avoid all photo proliferation for the day -- meaning you can check out images on social media, but don’t “like” or retweet them. Just take a good look, and maybe a (mental) picture.



more on images. Click here.

Read More

The pen and what it does......

The pen draws ink from the reservoir through a feed to the nib and deposits it on paper via a combination of gravity and capillary action. A pen really is a great tool. It is also used for various things, it is used in analyzing, summarizing, calculating, solving, writing, signing and it can also be used for various official purpose. A pen is also used by different people in different occupations.


The artist used a pen in drawing, the scientist uses the pen in solving arithmetic problems. The pen has just three layers yet it can and takes place in all life processes. The pen produces different images depending on the type of person using it. Here are some of the images the ink pen produces.
Though the ink pen can’t work itself, it requires the user and the paper. The ink pen produces the ink used and it gives the information a smooth or a rough edge. The image drawn by an ink pen depends on the User.


· Paper used
· The platform on which it is used
· The ink
· The Nibble of the pen


Ink pens float effortlessly over the paper when everything is working as it should. That is one of the reasons why people who prefer fountain pens really like them. But they can be difficult when something is not as it should be. They can be scratchy. Ink flows poorly or not at all. And, they may put out too much ink, even in the form of a sudden blob of ink that runs over a document and onto clothing. These problems are not inherent to all fountain pens, but occur in pens needing a little tender care to keep them in sound working condition.

The pen might draw the image but the image is produced mainly by these factors, an image produced by a pen is always a message. The message is always passed directly or indirectly. The images produced by a pen in the hand of its right user are always distinct, neat, smooth and clear. Though the pen is said to be going extinct because of the invention on new age systems and computers, but however, the pen cannot be neglected, not even stopped, this is because of the disadvantages affecting technologies.


click here to get more images of Gorgeous pens.

Read More

Do you think the computer causes problem to the eyes. No it doesn’t. Check out this

Do you think  the computer causes problem to the eyes. No it doesn’t. The manufacturers of the computer gave precautions on how to use the system. It states that:

·         Take a break - Use the 20-20-20 rule: every 20 minutes, take a 20-second break and look at something 20 feet away.

·         Blink frequently - Do not forget to blink periodically. Staring at computer screens can dry our eyes and cause redness and irritation.

·         Consider computer glasses - Computer glasses are prescription eyewear that is specifically designed for computer work. They allow you to focus your eyes on the distance of a computer screen, which is generally farther away than reading material. Computer glasses optimize your eyesight when you're looking at digital screens and help to reduce glare.

·         Keep your monitor bright - This reduces the flicker rate of the computer and reduces fatigue. Flickering can lead to eyestrain and headaches. Also, a bright monitor causes your pupil to constrict, which results in a greater range of focus. This reduces the need for your eye to accommodate and enables you to work longer and with more comfort.

·         Use proper lighting - Use incandescent lighting and avoid high-intensity lamps, which cast shadows and create glare. Place a dim light on either side of your workstation to create equal brightness without dark, shadowed areas.

·         Check your monitor’s position - The position of your computer monitor can add to your eyestrain. It is important that it be positioned at the proper distance away from your eyes. Optimally, your computer screen should be 15 to 20 degrees below eye level (about 4 or 5 inches) as measured from the center of the screen and 20 to 28 inches from the eyes.

·         Adjust your screen resolution - Make sure your monitor has a high-resolution display. A higher resolution produces sharper type and crisper images, reducing eye strain.

·         Minimize glare - Clean your monitor regularly to remove dust and consider installing an anti-glare screen. It also helps to keep shades drawn to prevent glare from outside sources.

·         Try massage or eye cupping - Massaging the area around the eyes will help relax the muscles and can be very comforting. Rub your hands together to create friction and warmth, then gently cup your palms over your closed eyes and rest them.

·         Take your vitamins - Getting the proper amount of vitamins and minerals is important for overall eye health. Opt for vitamins that contain antioxidants and ingredients that help improve the health of the eye and reduce eyestrain, such as vitamins A, C and E with a B complex and Zinc.

·         Schedule a comprehensive eye exam - Almost 71% of people reporting symptoms of CVS wear eyeglasses or contact lenses, so make sure your prescription is correct! The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommend that all computer users have an eye exam yearly. Lastly, be sure to tell your eye doctor about your workstation setup and the number of hours each day you spend on electronic devices.

The eye is an essential organ in the body system. It in fact is the bright side of the body. Though it is RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY. It stores images temporarily and takes it to the brain. The computer produces the image using light and different films. Actually all colored images gotten from the computer is a spectrum of white light. Which means the white light contains all other color known as the ROYGBIV. The eyes will let you see the image while the brain processes it, your body reacts to it and you access it either positively or negatively.

Your comments are highly welcomed.

Read More

How one woman turned the world’s worst aquatic plant into cool products and new job

Beautiful water hyacinth was strangling the life out of waterside communities in Nigeria, but entrepreneur Achenyo Idachaba saw potential in the plague.

The water hyacinth is a flowering aquatic plant that is native to the Amazon River basin. When plant enthusiasts first encountered its tall, showy lavender blooms more than a century ago, they transplanted it into gardens all over the world and it spread from there. The nearly indestructible plant propagates like an alien creature out of a sci-fi film, and it’s become what some consider the world’s worst aquatic plant.

Water hyacinth is a noxious, invasive weed that is found in more than 50 countries, threatening natural ecosystems and people's livelihoods. In Nigeria, it is referred to by names that point to its destructiveness and insidiousness -- for example, in Igala, it’s called A Kp'iye Kp'oma, which translates to “death to mother and child,” and gbe’borun, a Yoruba phrase that translates roughly to “gossip” or “tale-bearer.”

In 2009, Achenyo Idachaba had recently moved to Lagos from the US when she was on the city’s Third Mainland Bridge one day and saw a group of fishing boats hemmed in by heavy mats of water hyacinth (TED Talk: How I turned a deadly plant into a thriving business). Today, she has helped turn this scourge into a source of employment for people in some of the communities it has harmed.

Water hyacinth can double in mass in less than two weeks. Making things worse, the freshwater plants link together as they grow: their waxy leaves form a dense blanket on the water’s surface and their roots tangle below in a thick web. As a result, they displace other plants and marine life, prevent the growth of phytoplankton, deplete the dissolved oxygen in the water, and degrade water quality -- also hurting fish and other organisms.

The water hyacinth is devastating to humans, too. “Once it invades a lake or river, people who depend on the waterways for their livelihood are just shot,” says Idachaba. Fisherfolk, children who travel to school by boat, tourism, recreation and hydropower can all be harmed. What’s more, an overgrowth of hyacinth slows currents, leading the stagnant water to become a breeding ground for disease-carrying mosquitoes. The plant has also been linked to an increase in incidences of cholera. So how do you get rid of it? You can pull it by hand or with a machine, douse it with herbicides, or introduce native predators, but the plant frequently grows too fast (and its seeds are too tough) for these labor-, time- and money-intensive methods to make much of a dent. As a result, many people just wait for it to abate, which it sometimes does. In Nigeria, two occasions that can bring relief are the dry season and when saltwater from the Atlantic flows inland to freshwater bodies, killing the plants. But even so, the indefatigable weed usually resurfaces within a matter of months.

Could something so detestable be turned into stuff that people wanted? Idachaba wondered what, if anything, could be done with the plants. She did some research and found that people in Kenya and parts of Southeast Asia were creating baskets, bags and furniture from it. Could she learn to do the same, then teach these skills to people and help them sell their products? Together, perhaps they could turn the plague into profit. She traveled to the Sabo community in Ibadan, a city in southwestern Nigeria, where she hoped she might find people who could help her weave the stems of the plants into rope. There, she met Malam Yahaya who, with the help of local kids acting as translators, taught her the skill.

Idachaba first perfected her rope-making abilities. Then she worked with rattan artisans from Ibadan and Lagos to use it to create items like coasters. In 2010, she started a company, MitiMeth, to sell hyacinth-based products (today it offers everything from napkin rings and lamps to rugs and iPad sleeves). She also began teaching the handicraft in Nigerian communities that have been harmed by the plant. She and her colleagues will typically go to the chief of a village, introduce themselves, describe what they’re doing and the benefits it could bring, and ask for a list of people who’d be interested in learning. The training -- which shows participants how to make rope and a few products -- lasts around a week. To date, Idachaba has helped teach more than 250 artisans.

Click to get more images of products made from water Hyacinths

The usual reaction of Nigerians when shown products made from water hyacinths: disbelief. The residents of Bayeku, a community in the southern part of the country, “never thought anything good could come out of the weed,” Idachaba says. “But we proved them wrong at the end of the training.” In fact, because there was so much enthusiasm, she ended up teaching 60 people. “We had kids climbing through the windows,” she laughs. “They’d gather up the scraps from the training afterwards and make things with it.” Idachaba has been particularly gratified by the generous impulse of trainees to share their skills with friends and neighbors. In 2015, she and her colleagues trained 33 women in Idah, a town in north central Nigeria. Later, when she began sourcing rope from them, she says, “I noticed that people who weren’t at the training were weaving.” She learned that two students from the original session had taught others. “They could easily have kept it to themselves,” she says, “but they didn’t look at it that way.”

After training, the artisans become workers that Idachaba’s company can contact as orders for products come in. MitiMeth sells goods through a variety of channels: at duty-free shops and other retail stores; and through local and international exhibitions, as well as e-commerce sites like Konga and etsy. Last year, they rang up more than NGN 7.5-million in sales. And 44 percent goes to the workers, who are also encouraged to find their own ways to sell their products.

Idachaba is extending training to reach different groups of people in need. In 2016, she was contacted by the Tolaram Foundation, which runs the ISHK Limb Centre, a nonprofit that provides free prosthetics to people in Lagos. “A number of the men and women they’ve given prosthetics to are indigent and unemployed,” she says. The terrain in parts of Nigeria can be tough to navigate, even for the able-bodied, and it’s especially rough for those with a disability to travel to remote jobs. People who know how to weave, however, could earn money while working at home. In late July, Idachaba conducted an initial training session with people from the Limb Centre. The participants were excited to learn, she says, and picked up the skills quickly.

Even as her company grows, Idachaba remains committed to her original purpose: turning water hyacinth into something that can help people rather than hurt them. She slowly sees this shift happening -- and it’s reflected in the changing names for the plant. 

“It was gbe'borun, or ‘gossip,’ and now people call it olusotan, or ‘storyteller,’” she says. “And it’s gone from a kp'iye kp'oma, or ‘killer of mother and child,’ to ya du j'ewn w'Iye kp'oma, or ‘provider of food for mother and child.’

Read More

Image. What it really is..

Have you ever thought of what things look like, Have you ever thought everything you see are the same as others see it, if so why do a black ball seems red to others, or why do a blue sky looks dark to some people. Do you think it’s because of their various eye problems? Do you think it’s because some look sad and others are happy. Let’s look a typical example.

The computer screen:

The computer is great invention, it processes data and bring out better information.

These days, many of us have jobs that require us to stare at computer screens for hours at a time. That can put a real strain on your eyes.

Eye problems caused by computer use fall under the heading computer vision syndrome (CVS). It isn’t one specific problem. Instead, it includes a whole range of eye strain and pain. Research shows that between 50% and 90% of people who work at a computer screen have at least some symptoms.

Working adults aren't the only ones affected. Kids who stare at tablets or use computers during the day at school can have issues, too, especially if the lighting and their posture are less than ideal.

How Do Computers Affect Vision?

CVS is similar to carpal tunnel syndrome and other repetitive motion injuries you might get at work. It happens because your eyes follow the same path over and over. And it can get worse the longer you continue the movement.

When you work at a computer, your eyes have to focus and refocus all the time. They move back and forth as you read. You may have to look down at papers and then back up to type. Your eyes react to changing images on the screen to create so your brain can process what you’re seeing. All these jobs require a lot of effort from your eye muscles. And to make things worse, unlike a book or piece of paper, the screen adds contrast, flicker, and glare.

You’re more likely to have problems if you already have eye trouble, if you need glasses but don't have them, or if you wear the wrong prescription for computer use.

Computer work gets harder as you age and the lenses in your eyes become less flexible. Somewhere around age 40, your ability to focus on near and far objects will start to go away. Your eye doctor will call this condition presbyopia.

click here to know more about presbyopia.

subscribe to our Website to continue this article.

Read More

All about Presbyopia

Presbyopia is the normal loss of near focusing ability that occurs with age. Most people begin to notice the effects of presbyopia sometime after age 40, when they start having trouble seeing small print clearly — including text messages on their phone.
Presbyopia is on the rise in the United States as the population continues to age. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 112 million Americans were presbyopic in 2006. This number is expected to increase to 123 million by the year 2020.
Worldwide, an estimated 1.3 billion people had presbyopia in 2011. This number is expected to increase to 2.1 billion by 2020.
Though presbyopia is a normal change in our eyes as we age, it often is a significant and emotional event because it's a sign of aging that's impossible to ignore and difficult to hide.
Presbyopia Symptoms And Signs
When you become presbyopic, you either have to hold your smartphone and other objects and reading material (books, magazines, menus, labels, etc.) farther from your eyes to see them more clearly. Unfortunately, when you move things farther from your eyes they get smaller in size, so this is only a temporary and partially successful solution to presbyopia.
Also, even if you can still see pretty well up close, presbyopia can cause headaches, eye strain and visual fatigue that makes reading and other near vision tasks less comfortable and more tiring.

What Causes Presbyopia?

Presbyopia is caused by an age-related process. This differs from astigmatism, nearsightedness and farsightedness, which are related to the shape of the eyeball and are caused by genetic and environmental factors. Presbyopia generally is believed to stem from a gradual thickening and loss of flexibility of the natural lens inside your eye.


These age-related changes occur within the proteins in the lens, making the lens harder and less elastic over time. Age-related changes also take place in the muscle fibers surrounding the lens. With less elasticity, the eye has a harder time focusing up close. Other, less popular theories exist as well.

Presbyopia Treatment: Eyeglasses

Eyeglasses with progressive lenses are the most popular solution for presbyopia for most people over age 40. These line-free multifocal lenses restore clear near vision and provide excellent vision at all distances, regardless of what refractive errors you may have in addition to presbyopia.


Another option is eyeglasses with bifocal lenses. But bifocals are much less popular these days because they provide a more limited range of vision for many presbyopes. Also, most people don't want to show their age by wearing eyeglasses that have a visible bifocal line.

Also, it's common for people with presbyopia to notice they are becoming more sensitive to light and glare due to aging changes in their eyes. Photochromic lenses, which darken automatically in sunlight, are a good choice for this reason. They are available in all lens designs, including progressive lenses and bifocals.

Reading glasses are another choice. Unlike bifocals and progressive lenses, which most people wear all day, reading glasses are worn only when needed to see close objects and small print more clearly.

If you wear contact lenses, your eye doctor can prescribe reading glasses that you wear while your contacts are in. You may purchase readers over-the-counter at a retail store, or you can get higher-quality versions prescribed by your eye doctor.

Regardless which type of eyeglasses you choose to correct presbyopia, definitely consider lenses that include anti-reflective coating. AR coating eliminates reflections that can be distracting and cause eye strain. It also helps reduce glare and increase visual clarity for night driving.
Presbyopia Treatment: Contact Lenses

Presbyopes also can opt for multifocal contact lenses, available in gas permeable or soft lens materials. Another type of contact lens correction for presbyopia is monovision, in which one eye wears a distance prescription, and the other wears a prescription for near vision. The brain learns to favor one eye or the other for different tasks. But while some people are delighted with this solution, others complain of reduced visual acuity and some loss of depth perception with monovision.

Because the human lens continues to change as you grow older, your presbyopic prescription will need to be increased over time as well. You can expect your eye care practitioner to prescribe a stronger correction for near work as you need it.

Presbyopia Treatment: Surgery

Don't want to wear eyeglasses or contact lenses for presbyopia? A number of surgical options to treat presbyopia are available as well.

One presbyopia correction procedure that's gaining popularity is implantation of a corneal inlay. Typically implanted in the cornea of the eye that's not your dominant eye, a corneal inlay increases depth of focus of the treated eye and reduces the need for reading glasses without significantly affecting the quality of your distance vision.
FDA-approved corneal inlays for presbyopia correction surgery include the Kamra inlay (AcuFocus) and the Raindrop Near Vision Inlay (ReVision Optics).
Presbyopia is an unavoidable age-related condition that causes near vision problems in people aged 40 and over. The gradual loss of vision can interfere with simple everyday tasks like reading, operating a smartphone or tablet, or working on a computer. The good news is that presbyopia can be easily diagnosed through a routine eye exam, and there are a number of treatment options available to help restore near vision.


Check out these seven common treatments for presbyopia

1. Eyeglasses

By far the most common (and simplest) treatment for presbyopia is bifocal or progressive lens eyeglasses.

A bifocal lens is split into two sections. The larger, primary section corrects for distance vision, while the smaller, secondary section allows you to see up close.

Progressive lenses function in a similar manner, except that the sections of the lens optimized for distance and near vision are more blended (as opposed to the two distinct zones that characterize bifocals).

Although a simple and cheap option for correction, there can be associated hassles and aesthetic concerns with eyeglasses, which is why some people opt for an alternative solution such as contact lenses or surgery.

2. Contact Lenses

Multifocal and monovision contact lenses are very common treatments for presbyopia.
Multifocal contact lenses function in a manner similar to bifocal eyeglasses and are designed to provide clear vision across various focal points. Patients can work with their eye doctor to find the best fit, whether a soft lens, a rigid gas permeable lens, or a hybrid. They also have the added bonus of being available as disposable lenses.
Monovision contact lenses offer different prescriptions for each eye; one for distance vision and one for near vision. This can be problematic for some people who have a difficult time making the adjustment. Visual acuity and depth perception can be affected.

Both eyeglasses and contact lenses are temporary solutions for presbyopia that require ongoing maintenance. These days more people are opting for a permanent treatment through corrective
surgery.

3. Monovision LASIK

Although LASIK cannot treat the root cause of presbyopia, there are LASIK variations that can help reduce your need for reading glasses or bifocals.
Monovision LASIK is a procedure that corrects the dominant eye for distance vision while leaving the less-dominant eye nearsighted. Why? Because a mildly nearsighted eye is able to see things up close without reading glasses. The only problem is that distance vision with monovision LASIK is often not as crisp as it would be without the nearsightedness. Many people find this to be an acceptable tradeoff for improved near vision and, as such, Monovision LASIK is the most widely
used surgical correction for presbyopia.

4. Multifocal LASIK

Whereas monovision LASIK improves distance vision in one eye and near vision in the other, multifocal LASIK (also called PresbyLASIK) creates multiple “power zones” across the surface of the cornea to improve the depth of clear vision focus at any distance.
Multifocal LASIK is not yet approved by the FDA, though it is progressing through the clinical trial process and has been approved in several other countries.

5. Corneal Inlays

Corneal inlays are tiny implantable lenses that are surgically placed in the cornea to improve vision affected by presbyopia. There are currently two FDA-approved corneal inlays available, each of which works in a slightly different fashion.

The KAMRA corneal inlay is implanted in the non-dominant eye where its pinhole design allows it to extend the patient’s range of vision from near to far.
The Raindrop Near Vision Inlay is a biocompatible hydrogel that is designed to closely resemble the human cornea. The Raindrop Inlay treats presbyopia in a manner similar to multifocal contact lenses
by changing the curvature of the eye.

6. Conductive Keratoplasty 

Also called NearVision CK, conductive keratoplasty incorporates the use of a handheld probe that sends radio waves to targeted spots on the cornea to adjust its shape. It is most often performed on only one eye, making it a form of monovision correction.
In addition to being used as a treatment for presbyopia, conductive keratoplasty has been studied as a treatment for other eye conditions including keratoconus and astigmatism.

7. Refractive Lens Exchange

Refractive lens exchange (RLE) is an invasive procedure that involves replacing the natural lens of the eye with an artificial alternative. RLE treatment for presbyopia is similar to that used for cataract surgery. An artificial intraocular lens (IOL) replacement can improve near vision and reduce a person’s dependence on reading glasses. The surgeon performing RLE can utilize a monovision strategy with a distance-correcting lens in one eye and a near-correcting lens in the other, or a multifocal strategy where the lenses provide vision correction across a range of distances.

The best solution for each patient depends on age, current status of distance vision, and personal preference. Consult your eye doctor to determine which of these seven treatments is best for you.

Remember to subscribe to our blog before leaving.

Read More

The great evil of American slavery wasn’t involuntary servitude, says public-interest lawyer Bryan Stevenson. It was the ideology of white supremacy used to justify it -- and it’s an ugly part of our history we need to acknowledge.

Today in America we are not free. We are burdened by a history of racial inequality and injustice. It compromises us; it constrains us. We live with the legacy of slavery, and that legacy has created a shadow that undermines so many of our best efforts to get to something that looks like justice.

The great evil of American slavery was not involuntary servitude and forced labor. To me, the great evil of slavery was the narrative of racial difference, the ideology of white supremacy that we created to make ourselves feel comfortable with enslaving people who are black. We’ve never addressed that legacy.

My parents were humiliated when they saw those signs that said “white” and “colored.” They weren't directions; they were assaults.

In the 13th amendment, we have language that prohibits involuntary servitude and forced labor. But we never talked about the narrative of racial differences, and as a result, I don't believe that slavery ended in 1865. Instead, it turned into decades of terrorism and violence and lynching that terrorized people of color. Thousands of people were pulled into courthouse squares in America, brutalized and sometimes even burned alive.

The demographic geography of this nation was shaped by terrorism. The black people who moved to Cleveland and Chicago and Detroit and Los Angeles and Oakland and New York and Boston didn't go to those communities as immigrants looking for new economic opportunities. They went to those communities as exiles and refugees from terrorism in the American South, and they are burdened by that history.

Even during the Civil Rights era, we never confronted all the pain and anguish that was created by decades of segregation. During that time, we said to black people, “You're not good enough to vote because you're black”; we said to black kids, “You can't go to school with other kids because you're black.” I started my education at a colored school. My parents were humiliated every day of their lives when they saw those signs that said “white” and “colored.” They weren't directions; they were assaults. We haven't addressed this. We try to press on instead, but now there’s a presumption of dangerousness and guilt that follows black and brown people in this country. It’s why kids are being killed on the streets by police officers.

An older black man said to me, “You see the scar I have behind my right ear? I got that scar in Greene County, Alabama, in 1963, trying to register people to vote.”

We cannot recover until we commit ourselves to a process of truth and reconciliation. We need to create a new relationship to this history of ours. I was giving a talk one time in a church. An older black man in a wheelchair came in while I was speaking. He sat in the back, and he looked at me with such intensity while I was talking. He had an angry, almost mean look on his face. I got through my talk, and people came up to speak to me afterwards. That man kept staring at me, and I couldn't figure out why. Finally, when everybody else had left, he got a young kid to wheel him up. The man got in front of me and said, “Do you know what you're doing?” I just stood there and looked at him. He asked me again: “Do you know what you're doing?” I mumbled something. He asked me one more time, “Do you know what you're doing?” And then he looked at me and told me, “I'm going to tell you what you're doing. You're beating the drum for justice.” He said, “You keep beating the drum for justice.”

I was so moved. I was also relieved, because I hadn’t known what he was going to do. Then he grabbed me by my jacket and pulled me towards him. He said, “Come here. I want to show you something.” He turned his head and asked, “You see the scar I have behind my right ear?” He said, “I got that scar in Greene County, Alabama, in 1963, trying to register people to vote.” He turned his head and said, “You see this cut I have down here at the bottom of my neck? I got that cut in Philadelphia, Mississippi, in 1964, trying to register people to vote.” He turned his head and said, “You see this bruise? I got this bruise in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1965, trying to register people to vote.” He said, “I'm going to tell you something, young man. People look at me and think I'm some old man sitting in a wheelchair covered with cuts and bruises and scars. But I want to tell you something.” He said, “These aren't my cuts; these aren't my bruises; these aren't my scars. These are my medals of honor.”

If we create spaces where we resurrect the truth, we can get to something that feels more like freedom.

I tell you this because our history has scarred us, it has bruised us, and it has injured us, but when we tell the truth about our history, we can change things. If we create spaces where we resurrect the truth, we can change the iconography of the American landscape; we can get to something that feels more like freedom; and we can achieve something that looks more like justice. We can shift this narrative that has burdened us and resurrect the hope that animates many of us.

That's why I'm excited about projects like The Memorial to Peace and Justice, a memorial to victims of lynching in Montgomery, Alabama. It’s a place that will tell a hard story but a necessary one. You can't go to South Africa without seeing these incredibly difficult but important monuments and memorials to apartheid; you can't go to Rwanda without being reminded of the genocide; you cannot go 100 meters in Berlin, Germany, without seeing a marker or a stone that's been placed at the home of a Jewish family abducted during the Holocaust. The Germans want people to go to Auschwitz and reflect soberly on the history of the Holocaust. We do the opposite in this country, and I think this kind of space will invite us to look at this truth. And when we do, we will find ourselves -- maybe for the first time -- freer, more just, more motivated and more liberated from our history.


please remember to subscribe to our blog before leaving

Read More