YOUR SAY

CELEBRITIES' PRIVACY

When we were little, almost everyone wanted to be famous: a singer, an important football player, an actor… Then, we started figuring out that being famous is not a bed of roses. In this post I’m not going to talk about all the disadvantages about being famous, but I’m going to focus on, for me, one of the worst of them: the privacy, or rather, the NO privacy that celebrities have.

I think at first you like people stopping you in the street asking you for photos, autographs or other things. But later on you get sick of it, not just because of the people, but for the annoying reporters, always following you wherever you go. The moment you start being very famous, your private life almost disappears. Everyone knows who you are dating, where have you gone on vacations, the clothes you wear when you go to the gym, etc. Most of the people say well, this is the price you pay for fame, but I think it’s not fair. I mean, in my place, I don’t think I would be able to put up with it. From my point of view, I don’t think it should be legal to invade so much the privacy of someone, whether is he or she famous. But most people accept that fact if the person is famous. I mean, for example, if a girl reports someone for following her and taking pictures of her to post it in internet for everyone to see it; that would be a normal thing to do, because you can’t invade someone’s privacy. Oh, but, it’s normal that a reporter takes photos of someone famous being naked and publish that to a magazine or post it in internet, right?

In conclusion, I think famous people should have more privacy. It’s normal that people want to know what they do, but sometimes I think reporters go too far, and we don’t have to forget that celebrities are humans too, so they should have the same rights, including the right of privacy.

DOES HUMOUR PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN LIFE?

Everybody likes to laugh and everybody has laughed in their life. Laughter is a sign of happiness, it shows that you're having a good time so, how could this be bad?

Of course, I think everybody agrees that laughing is beneficial for ourselves. For example, if someone is going through in his or her life the first thing that you do is trying to make that person laugh and forget about the problems. So I think laughter is like a medicine, like a treatment, but completely free.

Can you imagine how boring your life would be if you couldn’t laugh at all? Someone once said: “a day without laughter is a day wasted”. From my point of view, I agree with it, but laughing is not an obligation, it’s something that appears naturally; it doesn’t even have to be something incredibly funny to make you laugh.

Therefore, answering to the main question, I think humour plays an important role in life because, among other things, it makes you be more positive, it helps you get over your problems, connect to people and so more. So, in conclusion, as I wasn’t able to find any negative part about laughter, I reached to the conclusion that laughing is one of the best things you can do!

NEWS

FIRST "THREE PERSON BABY" BORN USING A NEW METHOD CALLED MITOCHONDRIAL DONATION

A few months ago was born the first baby using a new “three person” fertility technique. Experts say that this advance starts a new era in medicine, and could help other families with rare genetic conditions.

The baby has the usual DNA from his mum and dad, plus a tiny bit of genetic code from a donor. The couple decided to do it because the mother carried in her genes an illness that would have passed to the baby.

This is not the first time scientists have created babies that have DNA from three different people; it started in the late 1990s, but this time doctors have used an entirely new method, called mitochondrial donation. Mitochondria are small structures inside nearly every cell of the body that convert food into energy. Some women carry genetic defects in mitochondria and it’s probably they will pass it to their children. In the case of this family, the woman carried a disease in her mitochondria called Leigh Syndrome, a severe neurological disorder that causes the progressive lost of movement and deterioration of mental functions. Children with this illness usually die in two or three years.

Therefore, this new method takes all the vital DNA from the mother’s egg plus healthy mitochondria from a donor egg to create a healthy new egg that can be fertilized with the father’s sperm. Therefore, the baby has 0,1% of his DNA from the donor and all the genetic code from the mother and father.

The reactions to this method that allows creating babies from three different persons are varied. Some of them say that maybe the child will feel strange about having DNA from three people. Some fertility experts say it’s important to push ahead, but cautiously. Even some critics say the work is irresponsible.


PERSONAL OPINION:

In my opinion, I think this is a great progress because it allows women or men who carry a disease in their DNA to have completely healthy babies. Well, I think maybe this method has to improve and fix some aspects, but maybe one day all the people who need it will be able to use it. Personally, I don’t think the kid will have a lot of complex thinking about s/he is a kid from three different persons, because actually s/he only has 0,1% of the donor’s genetic code. As the new says, all the genetic code for things like hair and eye colour is from the mother and father.


NEW WORDS:

Herald: proclamar
Miscarriage: abort natural
Patch: zona (de la pell)


Link: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-37485263

NEWS

iPHONE 7? YOU'RE FIRED!

Can you imagine getting fired from your job just because you have the iPhone 7? Or that your boss tells you your mobile would harm your promotion chances? This is the policy some employers in China are threatening to take against employees who have the iPhone 7. The reasons they take to defend their position are that they do it for patriotic reasons and to prevent workers from being too materialistic.

The first company to announce this rule was Nanyang Yongkang Medicine Company, in the province of Henan. The policy was timed to coincide with commemoration of the 85th anniversary of Japanese troops invading north east China in 1931, so this was an excuse to argue the boycott of foreign products. But, really, boycotting the iPhone 7 can be counterproductive to the national economic interest because Apple manufacturing is carried out at Foxconn factories based in China.

However, there are people who believe that boycotting the iPhone 7 can be beneficial to the economy and that this policy should be instituted across the country. They argue that if people are pressured with getting fired if they buy the new iPhone 7, they will be forced to buy a mobile made in China, so the sales of domestic phones will be increased.

Mr. Liu, an employer of Nanyang Yongkang Medicine Company that the main objective of this rule was to encourage staff to pay more attention to their family instead of luxury goods. The iPhone 7 could lead their workers to developing an unhealthy obsession with pricey technology. Also, it’s a fact that the new iPhone 7 is very expensive, and the Company didn’t want their workers to waste money. Besides, most of their employees really can’t afford buying an iPhone 7, so they normally borrow money from banks, family or friends, or they even do crazy things like selling their organs just to buy it.

Even though this policy isn’t applied yet in any company, more and more of them are discussing about rather apply it or not.

PERSONAL OPINION:

In my point of view, I don’t think it’s fair to forbid your employees to buy the iPhone 7. Each person has to have the right to buy the mobile phone they want. Even though the Company does that to prevent workers from wasting their money (but also under the name of patriotism, don’t forget that), I don’t think they should be able to decide whether their workers can buy this mobile phone or not. In the same way, I find excessive that a business gives the sack to their workers just for buying the iPhone 7. It totally doesn’t make sense for me. Personally, I think applying this policy the Company is violating its workers’ rights.

NEW WORDS:

Device: aparell

Conterproductive: contraproduent

Supplier: proveïdor

Link: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-37523712

YOUR SAY

ZOOS

In this your say I want to talk about some place that annoys me a lot: zoos. 

I have to say that when I was little once I went to the zoo in Barcelona, and I liked it. I’ve always been an animal lover, so it’s not surprising that ten years ago I liked going to the zoo, because I didn’t know what the reality about these places is. But when I grew up, I realized that the zoos are not a happy place, at least, not for the animals living there. These animals are forced to live in small, artificial and stressful gates, so they don’t have any freedom. They are removed from their natural habitats, from their similar ones, even from their family. They are miserable there. And all this to get what? Just for some humans to go there and say “Oh, how curious, look at that lion”. Yes, I know is fun to see exotic animals, but you also have to think that these animals have to spend all their live in captivity just for you to look at them during two minutes. And I think that’s not fair. If you want to see exotic animals with your own eyes, go to the savanna, to the North Pole or wherever these animals are. Actually, you can perfectly live without seeing them, it’s not vital for our lives. What for you are just a few hours of entertainment, for these animals is a lifetime in captivity.

Zoos claim that they provide conservation, education and entertainment, but their primary goal is to gain money; that’s a fact. And I don’t think it’s moral to gain money from this situation. These animals have to be free, in their natural habit, not caged for human entertainment. Imagine you are one of these animals and have to spend all your life in a boring cage, doing nothing, not able to see the world, to discover things, just seeing some strange creatures looking at you all the time. Animals in the zoo are sad, miserable, and they don’t deserve to live like this. That’s why I’m against zoos. And I know there are worst places for animals to go, like in an animal circus, for example, but I wanted to talk about zoos because there are people that don’t think these places are bad for the animals, and we all have to be conscious about it.

JOKE