CARLOS Tiger without Time

Alfred C. Gilbert (1884-1961) started his company in 1909 and invented his Erector set in 1913. His inspiration reportedly was the steel construction girders used on a nearby railroad.

Dark energy does more than hurry along the expansion of the universe. It also has a stranglehold on the shape and spacing of galaxies

What took us so long? Only in 1998 did astronomers discover we had been missing nearly three quarters of the contents of the universe, the so-called dark energy–an unknown form of energy that surrounds each of us, tugging at us ever so slightly, holding the fate of the cosmos in its grip, but to which we are almost totally blind.

Some researchers, to be sure, had anticipated that such energy existed, but even they will tell you that its detection ranks among the most revolutionary discoveries in 20th-century cosmology. Not only does dark energy appear to make up the bulk of the universe, but its existence, if it stands the test of time, will probably require the development of new theories of physics.
Scientists are just starting the long process of figuring out what dark energy is and what its implications are. One realization has already sunk in: although dark energy betrayed its existence through its effect on the universe as a whole, it may also shape the evolution of the universe’s inhabitants–stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters. Astronomers may have been staring at its handiwork for decades without realizing it.

Ironically, the very pervasiveness of dark energy is what made it so hard to recognize. Dark energy, unlike matter, does not clump in some places more than others; by its very nature, it is spread smoothly everywhere.

Whatever the location–be it in your kitchen or in intergalactic space–it has the same density, about 10-26 kilogram per cubic meter, equivalent to a handful of hydrogen atoms. All the dark energy in our solar system amounts to the mass of a small asteroid, making it an utterly inconsequential player in the dance of the planets. Its effects stand out only when viewed over vast distances and spans of time.
Since the days of American astronomer Edwin Hubble, observers have known that all but the nearest galaxies are moving away from us at a rapid rate.

This rate is proportional to distance: the more distant a galaxy is, the faster its recession. Such a pattern implied that galaxies are not moving through space in the conventional sense but are being carried along as the fabric of space itself stretches [see “Misconceptions about the Big Bang,” by Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis; Scientific American, March 2005].

For decades, astronomers struggled to answer the obvious follow-up question: How does the expansion rate change over time? They reasoned that it should be slowing down, as the inward gravitational attraction exerted by galaxies on one another should have counteracted the outward expansion.

The first clear observational evidence for changes in the expansion rate involved distant supernovae, massive exploding stars that can be used as markers of cosmic expansion, just as watching driftwood lets you measure the speed of a river.

These observations made clear that the expansion was slower in the past than today and is therefore accelerating. More specifically, it had been slowing down but at some point underwent a transition and began speeding up [see “Surveying Space-time with Supernovae,” by Craig J. Hogan, Robert P. Kirshner and Nicholas B. Suntzeff; Scientific American, January 1999, and “From Slowdown to Speedup,” by Adam G. Riess and Michael S. Turner; Scientific American, February 2004].

This striking result has since been cross-checked by independent studies of the cosmic microwave background radiation by, for example, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP).

Dark energy may be the key link among several aspects of galaxy formation that used to appear unrelated.

One possible conclusion is that different laws of gravity apply on supergalactic scales than on lesser ones, so that galaxies’ gravity does not, in fact, resist expansion.

But the more generally accepted hypothesis is that the laws of gravity are universal and that some form of energy, previously unknown to science, opposes and overwhelms galaxies’ mutual attraction, pushing them apart ever faster. Although dark energy is inconsequential within our galaxy (let alone your kitchen), it adds up to the most powerful force in the cosmos.

As astronomers have explored this new phenomenon, they have found that, in addition to determining the overall expansion rate of the universe, dark energy has long-term consequences for smaller scales. As you zoom in from the entire observable universe, the first thing you notice is that matter on cosmic scales is distributed in a cobweblike pattern–a filigree of filaments, several tens of millions of light-years long, interspersed with voids of similar size. Simulations show that both matter and dark energy are needed to explain the pattern.

That finding is not terribly surprising, though. The filaments and voids are not coherent bodies like, say, a planet. They have not detached from the overall cosmic expansion and established their own internal equilibrium of forces. Rather they are features shaped by the competition between cosmic expansion (and any phenomenon affecting it) and their own gravity. In our universe, neither player in this tug-of-war is overwhelmingly dominant. If dark energy were stronger, expansion would have won and matter would be spread out rather than concentrated in filaments. If dark energy were weaker, matter would be even more concentrated than it is.

The situation gets more complicated as you continue to zoom in and reach the scale of galaxies and galaxy clusters. Galaxies, including our own Milky Way, do not expand with time. Their size is controlled by an equilibrium between gravity and the angular momentum of the stars, gas and other material that make them up; they grow only by accreting new material from intergalactic space or by merging with other galaxies. Cosmic expansion has an insignificant effect on them. Thus, it is not at all obvious that dark energy should have had any say whatsoever in how galaxies formed. The same is true of galaxy clusters, the largest coherent bodies in the universe–assemblages of thousands of galaxies embedded in a vast cloud of hot gas and bound together by gravity.
Yet it now appears that dark energy may be the key link among several aspects of galaxy and cluster formation that not long ago appeared unrelated. The reason is that the formation and evolution of these systems is partially driven by interactions and mergers between galaxies, which in turn may have been driven strongly by dark energy.

To understand the influence of dark energy on the formation of galaxies, first consider how astronomers think galaxies form. Current theories are based on the idea that matter comes in two basic kinds. First, there is ordinary matter, whose particles readily interact with one another and, if electrically charged, with electromagnetic radiation. Astronomers call this type of matter “baryonic” in reference to its main constituent, baryons, such as protons and neutrons. Second, there is dark matter (which is distinct from dark energy), which makes up 85 percent of all matter and whose salient property is that it comprises particles that do not react with radiation.

Gravitationally, dark matter behaves just like ordinary matter.
According to models, dark matter began to clump immediately after the big bang, forming spherical blobs that astronomers refer to as “halos.” The baryons, in contrast, were initially kept from clumping by their interactions with one another and with radiation. They remained in a hot, gaseous phase. As the universe expanded, this gas cooled and the baryons were able to pack themselves together.

The first stars and galaxies coalesced out of this cooled gas a few hundred million years after the big bang. They did not materialize in random locations but in the centers of the dark matter halos that had already taken shape.

Since the 1980s a number of theorists have done detailed computer simulations of this process, including groups led by Simon D. M. White of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching, Germany, and Carlos S. Frenk of Durham University in England. They have shown that most of the first structures were small, low-mass dark matter halos.

Because the early universe was so dense, these low-mass halos (and the galaxies they contained) merged with one another to form larger-mass systems. In this way, galaxy construction was a bottom-up process, like building a dollhouse out of Lego bricks. (The alternative would have been a top-down process, in which you start with the dollhouse and smash it to make bricks.)

My colleagues and I have sought to test these models by looking at distant galaxies and how they have merged over cosmic time.

Detailed studies indicate that a galaxy gets bent out of shape when it merges with another galaxy.

The earliest galaxies we can see existed when the universe was about a billion years old, and many of these indeed appear to be merging. As time went on, though, the fusion of massive galaxies became less common. Between two billion and six billion years after the big bang–that is, over the first half of cosmic history–the fraction of massive galaxies undergoing a merger dropped from half to nearly nothing at all.

Since then, the distribution of galaxy shapes has been frozen, an indication that smashups and mergers have become relatively uncommon.

In fact, fully 98 percent of massive galaxies in today’s universe are either elliptical or spiral, with shapes that would be disrupted by a merger. These galaxies are stable and comprise mostly old stars, which tells us that they must have formed early and have remained in a regular morphological form for quite some time. A few galaxies are merging in the present day, but they are typically of low mass.

The virtual cessation of mergers is not the only way the universe has run out of steam since it was half its current age. Star formation, too, has been waning. Most of the stars that exist today were born in the first half of cosmic history, as first convincingly shown by several teams in the 1990s, including ones led by Simon J. Lilly, then at the University of Toronto, Piero Madau, then at the Space Telescope Science Institute, and Charles C. Steidel of the California Institute of Technology.

More recently, researchers have learned how this trend occurred. It turns out that star formation in massive galaxies shut down early. Since the universe was half its current age, only lightweight systems have continued to create stars at a significant rate.

This shift in the venue of star formation is called galaxy downsizing [see “The Midlife Crisis of the Cosmos,” by Amy J. Barger; Scientific American, January 2005]. It seems paradoxical. Galaxy formation theory predicts that small galaxies take shape first and, as they amalgamate, massive ones arise. Yet the history of star formation shows the reverse: massive galaxies are initially the main stellar birthing grounds, then smaller ones take over.

The universe has run out of steam since it was half its current age. Mergers have ceased, and black holes are quiescent.

Another oddity is that the buildup of supermassive black holes, found at the centers of galaxies, seems to have slowed down considerably. Such holes power quasars and other types of active galaxies, which are rare in the modern universe; the black holes in our galaxy and others are quiescent. Are any of these trends in galaxy evolution related? Is it really possible that dark energy is the root cause?

Some astronomers have proposed that internal processes in galaxies, such as energy released by black holes and supernovae, turned off galaxy and star formation. But dark energy has emerged as possibly a more fundamental culprit, the one that can link everything together. The central piece of evidence is the rough coincidence in timing between the end of most galaxy and cluster formation and the onset of the domination of dark energy. Both happened when the universe was about half its present age.

The idea is that up to that point in cosmic history, the density of matter was so high that gravitational forces among galaxies dominated over the effects of dark energy. Galaxies rubbed shoulders, interacted with one another, and frequently merged.

New stars formed as gas clouds within galaxies collided, and black holes grew when gas was driven toward the centers of these systems. As time progressed and space expanded, matter thinned out and its gravity weakened, whereas the strength of dark energy remained constant (or nearly so).

The inexorable shift in the balance between the two eventually caused the expansion rate to switch from deceleration to acceleration.

The structures in which galaxies reside were then pulled apart, with a gradual decrease in the galaxy merger rate as a result. Likewise, intergalactic gas was less able to fall into galaxies. Deprived of fuel, black holes became more quiescent.

This sequence could perhaps account for the downsizing of the galaxy population. The most massive dark matter halos, as well as their embedded galaxies, are also the most clustered; they reside in close proximity to other massive halos. Thus, they are likely to knock into their neighbors earlier than are lower-mass systems. When they do, they experience a burst of star formation.

The newly formed stars light up and then blow up, heating the gas and preventing it from collapsing into new stars. In this way, star formation chokes itself off: stars heat the gas from which they emerged, preventing new ones from forming. The black hole at the center of such a galaxy acts as another damper on star formation.

A galaxy merger feeds gas into the black hole, causing it to fire out jets that heat up gas in the system and prevent it from cooling to form new stars.

Apparently, once star formation in massive galaxies shuts down, it does not start up again–most likely because the gas in these systems becomes depleted or becomes so hot that it cannot cool down quickly enough.

These massive galaxies can still merge with one another, but few new stars emerge for want of cold gas. As the massive galaxies stagnate, smaller galaxies continue to merge and form stars. The result is that massive galaxies take shape before smaller ones, as is observed. Dark energy perhaps modulated this process by determining the degree of galaxy clustering and the rate of merging.

Dark energy would also explain the evolution of galaxy clusters. Ancient clusters, found when the universe was less than half its present age, were already as massive as today’s clusters. That is, galaxy clusters have not grown by a significant amount in the past six billion to eight billion years. This lack of growth is an indication that the infall of galaxies into clusters has been curtailed since the universe was about half its current age–a direct sign that dark energy is influencing the way galaxies are interacting on large scales.

Astronomers knew as early as the mid-1990s that galaxy clusters had not grown much in the past eight billion years, and they attributed this to a lower matter density than theoretical arguments had predicted.

The discovery of dark energy resolved the tension between observation and theory.

An example of how dark energy alters the history of galaxy clusters is the fate of the galaxies in our immediate vicinity, known as the Local Group. Just a few years ago astronomers thought that the Milky Way and Andromeda, its closest large neighbor, along with their retinue of satellites, would fall into the nearby Virgo cluster. But it now appears that we shall escape that fate and never become part of a large cluster of galaxies. Dark energy will cause the distance between us and Virgo to expand faster than the Local Group can cross it.
By throttling cluster development, dark energy also controls the makeup of galaxies within clusters. The cluster environment facilitates the formation of a zoo of galaxies such as the so-called lenticulars, giant ellipticals and dwarf ellipticals. By regulating the ability of galaxies to join clusters, dark energy dictates the relative abundance of these galaxy types.

Space is emptying out, leaving our Milky Way galaxy and its neighbors an increasingly isolated island.

This is a good story, but is it true? Galaxy mergers, black hole activity and star formation all decline with time, and very likely they are related in some way. But astronomers have yet to follow the full sequence of events.

Ongoing surveys with the Hubble Space Telescope, the Chandra X-ray Observatory and sensitive ground-based imaging and spectroscopy will scrutinize these links in coming years. One way to do this is to obtain a good census of distant active galaxies and to determine the time when those galaxies last underwent a merger.

The analysis will require the development of new theoretical tools but should be within our grasp in the next few years.

An accelerating universe dominated by dark energy is a natural way to produce all the observed changes in the galaxy population–namely, the cessation of mergers and its many corollaries, such as loss of vigorous star formation and the end of galactic metamorphosis.

If dark energy did not exist, galaxy mergers would probably have continued for longer than they did, and today the universe would contain many more massive galaxies with old stellar populations. Likewise, it would have fewer lower-mass systems, and spiral galaxies such as our Milky Way would be rare (given that spirals cannot survive the merger process).

Large-scale structures of galaxies would have been more tightly bound, and more mergers of structures and accretion would have occurred.

Conversely, if dark energy were even stronger than it is, the universe would have had fewer mergers and thus fewer massive galaxies and galaxy clusters. Spiral and low-mass dwarf irregular galaxies would be more common, because fewer galaxy mergers would have occurred throughout time, and galaxy clusters would be much less massive or perhaps not exist at all. It is also likely that fewer stars would have formed, and a higher fraction of our universe’s baryonic mass would still be in a gaseous state.
Although these processes may seem distant, the way galaxies form has an influence on our own existence. Stars are needed to produce elements heavier than lithium, which are used to build terrestrial planets and life. If lower star formation rates meant that these elements did not form in great abundance, the universe would not have many planets, and life itself might never have arisen. In this way, dark energy could have had a profound effect on many different and seemingly unrelated aspects of the universe, and perhaps even on the detailed history of our own planet.
Dark energy is by no means finished with its work. It may appear to benefit life: the acceleration will prevent the eventual collapse that was a worry of astronomers not so long ago.

But dark energy brings other risks. At the very least, it pulls apart distant galaxies, making them recede so fast that we lose sight of them for good.

Space is emptying out, leaving our galaxy and its immediate neighbors an increasingly isolated island. Galaxy clusters, galaxies and even stars drifting through intergalactic space will eventually have a limited sphere of gravitational influence not much larger than their own individual sizes.

Worse, dark energy might be evolving. Some models predict that if dark energy becomes ever more dominant over time, it will rip apart gravitationally bound objects, such as galaxy clusters and galaxies.

Ultimately, planet Earth will be stripped from the sun and shredded, along with all objects on it. Even atoms will be destroyed. Dark energy, once cast in the shadows of matter, will have exacted its final revenge.

*Source: Scientific American, January 14, 2007, By Christopher J. Conselice

1) “Property of the things that causes love them, instilling in us spiritual delight. This property exists in the nature and in the artistic and literary works.”

2) “notable Woman by its beauty.”

Analyzing the two definitions that this prestigious dictionary gives us, we can deduce that the first one is  more complete definition through the time.

A good book transcends and remains in the time; although its author have died, for example with Miguel of Cervantes and his masterpiece “Don Quijote de la Mancha” (1605)

The same thing we can say of other artists and poets that left us, in a permanent way, the beauty of their works.

Also the spiritual aspect we can observe it directly, since we awake and we walk in our environment with representatives of the three kingdoms, animal, vegetable and mineral.

We can see beautiful flowers, pretty gardens, imposing mountains,  natural beauty or refreshing landscapes or beaches and mysterious rivers.

All this one and many other things more, they show us a mosaic of natural things, according to our environment,. They permit feel us alive and surrounded by natural beauty.

The second definition, on the beauty of the woman, is relative. Therefore the human beauty or physics beauty has a time of duration, limited in years.

 Therefore who is grasped only to this beauty will be carried large disillusionments in some years more.

On the other hand who cultivates more the love by the beauty of the nature, the good literary or artistic works. Even by the interior beauty that many human beings have it. Then, we will have the beauty in a permanent way with us.

See you later,
CARLOS (Tiger without Time)

Keep doing it and smile at challenges. Curse at idleness.

Be true to your dream. Don’t stop until you achieve it. Then dream another dream. And work to achieve that.

Give your family a better life and the world a better life, too.

Leave signs of significance. Don’t forget the spiritual life (It’s eternal)

I hope that everybody can love one another, and welcome to my blog.

See you later.
CARLOS (Tiger without Time)

The Army of the Unemployed, 1930
There were too many jobless people to ignore and it became acceptable for them to demonstrate with dignity, as these men did.

Light at the End of the Tunnel, 1936
After becoming President in 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt began a series of ambitious programs to deal with the Depression, including Social Security, public works and wage-and-hour laws.

Currently, 38 million American live below the poverty line, which the federal government defines as an annual income of $20,000 or less for a family of four. But for the first time in history, more of America’s poor are living in the suburbs than the cities –1.2 million more, according to a 2005 survey.

· Newsweek, February 12, 2007

As criminal gangs run amuck in Iraq, hundreds of girls have gone missing. Are they being sold for sex?

Safah, 14-year-old Iraqi girl was kidnapped and imprisoned in a dark house in Baghdad’s middle-class.

It was finally settled at $10,000. Later a fake passport with her photo and assumed name had already been forged for her.

Safah is part of a seldom –discussed aspect of the epidemic of kidnappings in Iraq: Sex trafficking. No one knows how many young women have been kidnapped and sold since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.
The organization for Women’s Freedom in Iraq, based in Baghdad, estimates from anecdotal evidence that more than 2,000 Iraqi women have gone missing in that period.

But admits that sex trafficking, virtually nonexistent under Saddam, has become a serious issue.
The collapse of law and order and the absence of a stable government have allowed criminal gangs, alongside terrorist, to run amuck.

These Iraqi women and girls being sent to Yemen, Syria, Jordan and Persian Gulf countries for sexual exploitation.

Families are usually so shamed by the disappearance of a daughter that they do not report kidnappings. And the resulting stigma of compromised chastity is such that even if the girl should resurface, she may never be taken back by her relations.

Two other girls, Asmah, 14, and Shadah, 15, were taken all the way to the United Arab Emirates before they could escape their kidnappers and report them to a Dubai police station. The sisters were then sent back to Iraq but, like many other girls who have escaped their kidnappers and buyers, were sent to prison because they carried fake passports.

The sisters hear rumor that the men paid their way out of jail and are back on the streets.

The locations are secret to keep the women safe from both trafficking gangs trying to cover their tracks and outraged relatives who may try to kill the women to restore their clans’ reputation.

The next three weeks were the worst in Safah’s life
“I was tortured and beaten and insulted a lot in that house,” Safah says.

· It was summarized of TIME, May1, 2006

We should to have respect for other country, about its national anthem, its flag, its culture and respect its citizens. And we cannot go to another country to make fun of its native symbols and of its citizens, for to do money for the movies.

Sadly it did actor Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat), who mocked of Kazakhstan (Few years ago it was part of Russia)
Also taking advantage of its condition of English citizen for made mocked of some politicians and of the American national anthem in a stadium in Texas.

Of course mister “Borat” is funny in his other scenes of his movie; but those two big mistakes: He mocked Kazakhstan and mocked of the national anthem, I believe that it was not funny.

Looks at the video (down)

[myheavy=embedID=60586f26e37afe8d2251f10b04418bb7&videoID=8594&autoPlay=false]

See you later
CARLOS (Tiger without Time)

Last year I see a polemics, about Christian preachers that they said, that God wanted that all people will be rich, in Money, and, of course, also in big love and solidarity with the neighbor.

Certainly those words were music for there millions of listeners or assistants to the coliseum -the Churches are small to receive to so much people. Anyway, those were words, for many people, those were celestial music.

Therefore, in secret, the main incentive of the Christians, around here, is MONEY, MONEY and more MONEY. But, If you don’t have money; then, you better looking another church or religion, because, they think, these persons are a sinner and they have a poor curse to be the remainder of their miserable life.

Thus, they think, in private of course, many millionaires and famous religious in U.S. Besides being good religious speakers, also they are Artists; because they sing pretty and they do some acts of magic.

Also they write motivating Books about God and the Sky, and they record CD with celestial music for their followers, that, in U.S. they seem to be many million people.

The majority of their followers they are so hypnotized, with the images and public words of their leader that, generally, they are not true persons.

I remember the wise words about that “the appearances deceive” and “by their facts you will know them”.

Thus many faithful are forgot of some large contradictions that some lead Christians have about supporting, direct or indirectly, the war in Iraq.

Will be that God says this?

Will be that God is here?

See you later,

CARLOS (Tiger without Time)

Chen Guangcheng, a native of China’s eastern Shandong province, the legal activist CAME to Shangai to publicize the plight of women who had been forced to undergo abortions or sterilizations as part of the nation’s family-planning campaign.
China has tried for more than two decades to lower its population through its “one child” policy.
Chen was blinded by a fever as a small child.

China is the world’s factory. It holds bountiful foreign-currency reserves. It will be host to the Olympics in 2008.

The balance has shifted from China’s feeling as if it needs the world to the world’s needing China.

* It was summarized of Time, sep.4, 2006

The makeup that is used in the actors at present, they look very real.

This man lost an arm working in Iraq. Now, He is handling his computer with his voice.

Aging Pipes, Sudden Hazards…

Murder is up, but alarms about a new surge in violence seem overstated-so far. Even before the fireworks launched from the French Quarter’s Jackson Square, 2006 went out with a bang in New Orleans-a handful of them, actually.

The three men were some of the last murder victims in an unusually bloody 2006. The year is expected to snap a long stretch of relatively good news on the homicide front nationwide, moving questions about the causes of crime increases off the back burner they have occupied for more than a decade.

Nationwide murder totals for 2006 will not be available until the fall, when the FBI releases its annual Uniform Crime Report. But an analysis by U.S. News shows a substantive, if uneven, increase in homicide in the nation’s 20 largest cities.

The 19 cities for which data were available had 4,152 homicides in 2006, compared with 3,919 the previous year-a 6 percent increase. Phoenix, which could not provide a year-end number, had neared its 2005 total of 238 by the end of November.

Murder is considered the most reliable crime statistic because such a high percentage of killings are reported. So the numbers are always watched closely as an indicator of crime trends.

The beginning of the crack epidemic brought soaring murder numbers-a 31 percent increase between 1984 and its peak in 1993. But as the drug’s popularity waned, so did murder, falling to around 16,000 a year and staying there for the early years after the millennium.

More recently, the plateau has ended. Homicide showed an uptick in 2005, and the FBI’s preliminary numbers from the first six months of 2006, along with the yearlong data collected by U.S. News, suggest the increase continued last year.

Some cities were hit especially hard. Philadelphia’s 406 homicides were the most in the City of Brotherly Love since 1997. Oakland, Calif., topped its 2005 homicide tally by more than 50, and Cincinnati’s 85 homicides were literally unprecedented.

Anomalies. But there are plenty of caveats to the new numbers. New York City’s nearly 10 percent rise in murders-to 590-doesn’t look as bad after taking account of the city’s unusually high number of “reclassified deaths,” those resulting from injuries in prior years. And the city’s number of homicides is still historically low; more than 2,000 people were killed in New York in 1990 alone.

Houston neared its highest number of murders in a decade, but the increase largely matches the city’s surge in population from Hurricane Katrina evacuees.

Several big cities, including Dallas and San Francisco, bucked the murder trend completely. Washington, D.C., ended the year 27 murders shy of its 2005 total. Los Angeles’s historically undermanned police force saw its fifth straight year with a reduction of violent crime.

In fact, the 6 percent increase in murders in the country’s 20 largest cities is lower than the 9 percent rise the FBI charted in the first six months of the year. And once smaller cities are included, the FBI recorded only a 1.4 percent increase in that time. On average, smaller cities actually showed dramatic declines in their number of homicides.

With the Dow reaching new records last year and relatively low unemployment, an economic explanation for the rise in violence would seem unlikely. But Richard Rosenfeld, a criminology professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, says the economy’s strong finish in 2006 belied a volatile year, with concerns about fuel costs and the end of the housing boom. The lack of economic stability especially impacts the urban poor, who are most likely to turn to crime, he says.

* It was summarized of TIME. January 15,2007