Wat Pho spelled Wat Po, is a Buddhist temple complex in the Phra Nakhon District, Thailand. It is on Rattanakosin Island, directly south of the Grand Palace. Known as the Temple of the Reclining Buddha, its official name is Wat Phra Chetuphon Wimon Mangkhalaram Rajwaramahawihan; the more known name, Wat Pho, is a contraction of its older name, Wat Photaram. The temple is first on the list of six temples in Thailand classed as the highest grade of the first-class royal temples, it is associated with King Rama I. It is where some of his ashes are enshrined; the temple was expanded and extensively renovated by Rama III. The temple complex houses the largest collection of Buddha images in Thailand, including a 46 m long reclining Buddha; the temple is considered the earliest centre for public education in Thailand, the marble illustrations and inscriptions placed in the temple for public instructions has been recognised by UNESCO in its Memory of the World Programme. It houses a school of Thai medicine, is known as the birthplace of traditional Thai massage, still taught and practiced at the temple.
Wat Pho is one of Bangkok's oldest temples. It existed before Bangkok was established as the capital by King Rama I, it was named Wat Photaram or Podharam, from which the name Wat Pho is derived. The name refers to the monastery of the Bodhi tree in Bodh Gaya, India where Buddha is believed to have attained enlightenment; the date of the construction of the old temple and its founder are unknown, but it is thought to have been built or expanded during the reign of King Phetracha. The southern section of Wat Pho used to be occupied by part of a French Star fort, demolished by King Phetracha after the 1688 Siege of Bangkok. After the fall of Ayutthaya in 1767 to the Burmese, King Taksin moved the capital to Thonburi where he located his palace beside Wat Arun on the opposite side of the Chao Phraya River from Wat Pho; the proximity of Wat Pho to this royal palace elevated it to the status of a wat luang. In 1782, King Rama I moved the capital from Thonburi across the river to Bangkok and built the Grand Palace adjacent to Wat Pho.
In 1788, he ordered the construction and renovation at the old temple site of Wat Pho, which had by become dilapidated. The site, marshy and uneven, was drained and filled in before construction began. During its construction, Rama I initiated a project to remove Buddha images from abandoned temples in Ayutthaya, Sukhothai, as well other sites in Thailand, many of these retrieved Buddha images were kept at Wat Pho; these include the remnants of an enormous Buddha image from Ayuthaya's Wat Phra Si Sanphet destroyed by the Burmese in 1767, these were incorporated into a chedi in the complex. The rebuilding took over seven years to complete. In 1801, twelve years after work began, the new temple complex was renamed Phra Chetuphon Vimolmangklavas in reference to the vihara of Jetavana, it became the main temple for Rama I; the complex underwent significant changes over the next 260 years during the reign of Rama III. In 1832, King Rama III began renovating and enlarging the temple complex, a process that took 16 years and seven months to complete.
The ground of the temple complex was expanded to 56 rai, most of the structures now present in Wat Pho were either built or rebuilt during this period, including the Chapel of the Reclining Buddha. He turned the temple complex into a public center of learning by decorating the walls of the buildings with diagrams and inscriptions on various subjects. On 21 February 2008, these marble illustrations and inscriptions was registered in the Memory of the World Programme launched by UNESCO to promote and propagate the wisdom of the world heritage. Wat Pho is regarded as a center for traditional Thai massage, it served as a medical teaching center in the mid-19th century before the advent of modern medicine, the temple remains a center for traditional medicine today where a private school for Thai medicine founded in 1957 still operates. The name of the complex was changed again to Wat Phra Chetuphon Vimolmangklararm during the reign of King Rama IV. Apart from the construction of a fourth great chedi and minor modifications by Rama IV, there had been no significant changes to Wat Pho since.
Repair work, however, is a continuing process funded by devotees of the temple. The temple was restored again in 1982 before the Bangkok Bicentennial Celebration. Wat Pho is one of the largest and oldest wats in Bangkok covering an area of 50 rai or 80,000 square metres, it is home to more than one thousand Buddha images, as well as one of the largest single Buddha images at 46 metres in length. The Wat Pho complex consists of two walled compounds bisected by Chetuphon Road running in the east–west direction; the larger northern walled compound, the phutthawat, is open to visitors and contains the finest buildings dedicated to the Buddha, including the bot with its four directional viharn, the temple housing the reclining Buddha. The southern compound, the sankhawat, contains the residential quarters of a school; the perimeter wall of the main temple complex has sixteen gates, two of which serve as entrances for the public. The temple grounds contain four great chedis, 91 small chedis, two belfries, a bot (central sh
}</rften score within normal. Close relatives of these same patients, may describe substantial memory problems; the disparity occurs because it is not the memory system itself, affected, but the functions of the frontal lobe that facilitate working memory. Working memory is involved with the ability to hold attention. An increase in impulsivity, risk taking or both is seen in individuals following frontal lobe damage; the two related terms differ in that impulsivity is a response disinhibition, while risk taking is related to the reward-based aspects of decision-making. Put more an impulsive person will make a decision without considering the consequences, leading to a lack of self-control. Contrarily, risk takers will look at the consequences but not weigh them; the increase of risk taking amongst damaged frontal lobe patients can be directly observed during gambling, gambling tasks have been developed to measure such behavior. Before more advanced technology came about, scientists tested individual behavior using more low-tech means.
As technology progressed, so did the tests scientists administer to evaluate a person's cognitive function. In testing the behavioral effects of a frontal lobe injury, many of the tests are still simple and do not involve advanced technology; this test has an inverse relationship between the probability of obtaining a reward and the value of the reward itself. Thus, actual gambling skills are not being tested, but the preference for high reward despite the risks. In one of the ways to carry this out, a set of cards will be presented face down to the individual being tested. Cards will be continuously removed from the pile and added back in randomly, during which time the winning card could be anywhere. Subjects being tested are told they can stop the process at any time and have the cards flipped over; the catch, however, is. Risk takers are those that go for the higher reward though they are less to receive that reward, they choose a higher, less award, over a lower, more probable reward. Subjects that have experienced a frontal lobe injury show just such behavior.
The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test can be used in conjunction with other tests to speculate to possible dysfunction of the prefrontal cortex, the front-most area of the frontal lobe, that plays an important role in executive functioning. However, since the age of modern medicine and brain imaging, the WCST has been proven to be inaccurate and inconclusive in diagnosing frontal lobe damage; the WCST test is supposed to measure an individual's competence in abstract reasoning, the ability to change problem-solving strategies when needed. A saccade is a fast movement of the eyes in a certain direction. In the most simplistic form, there are two types of saccade tests administered in which the only requirement is movement of the eye: the prosaccade and the antisaccade. In the prosaccade, participants are required to look toward a point in response to some attention-catching cue, such as a flashing light; because there are powerful evolutionary forces that work to automatically focus attention toward prepotent stimuli, this type of test does not call upon an individual’s executive control.
Conversely, the antisaccade test requires not only ignoring the flashing cue, but looking in the opposite direction. This task calls for inhibition of a prepotent response as well as planning and executing an eye movement that contradicts instinct. In the anti-saccade test, an individual has to set the goal of ignoring these instincts and continue to ‘’maintain’’ this goal; those with frontal lobe injuries show lower working memory, therefore do not test well in the antisaccade test. While impulsivity and risk-taking behavior are both observed following a frontal lobe injury, such traits are hard to evaluate and quantify without some degree of subjectivity; the definitions of these traits are themselves not straightforward, nor are they always agreed upon. As a result, the methods to measure such behaviors differ, this should be taken into consideration when comparing data/results from different sources; because of this, caution should be taken in. It is important to remember that a single test, such as the WCST, cannot be used to measure the effects of a frontal lobe injury, or the aspects of cognitive function it may affect, such as working memory.
A subject show dysfunction in executive function overall. Test results can be made misleading after testing the same individual over a long period of time; the subject may get better at a task, but not because of an improvement in executive cognitive function. He/she may have learned some strategies for doing this particular task that made it no longer a good measurement tool.<citation needed> Patients with damaged frontal lobes complain of minimal to substantial memory loss though when
Tristán de Luna y Arellano was a Spanish explorer and Conquistador of the 16th century. Born in Borobia, Spain, to a noble family he came to New Spain, was sent on an expedition to colonize Florida in 1559, he was a cousin of the viceroy of New Spain, Antonio de Mendoza, of Juana de Zúñiga, wife of Hernán Cortés. In August of that year, he established an ephemeral colony at modern-day Pensacola, the earliest multi-year European settlement in the continental United States. During his years in Mexico, Luna had served with Francisco Vásquez de Coronado on his expedition to the Seven Cities of Cíbola and crushed an Indian rebellion in Oaxaca. Luna was chosen by Luis de Velasco, Viceroy of New Spain, to establish a settlement on the Gulf Coast of what is now the United States, clear an overland trade route to Santa Elena, where another outpost would be founded; the bay known as "Filipina Bay" had been recommended from the September 1558 voyage of Guido de Lavazaris, but Luna's fleet chose "Ochuse Bay" for their settlement.
Luna's fleet included eleven crewed ships and more than 1,500 soldiers and settlers, under six captains of cavalry and six of infantry. Luna, proved to be an ineffective leader, the expedition was plagued by multiple disasters, before he was deposed and the remaining survivors of the colony were evacuated; the party anchored in Pensacola Bay and set up the settlement called Santa Maria de Ochuse during late August and September 1559. Luna dispatched the factor Luis Daza with a galleon back to Vera Cruz to announce his safe arrival, plan for resupplying the site, he fitted two other vessels to sail to Spain. With much of the colony's stores waiting on the ships, Luna sent several exploring parties inland to scout the area. Before they could unload the vessels, on the night of September 19, 1559, a hurricane swept through and destroyed most of the ships and cargo: five ships, a galleon and a bark, pushing one caravel and its cargo into a grove inland. With the colony in serious danger, most of the men traveled inland to the Alabama River to the village of Nanipacana, which they had found abandoned.
Back in Mexico, the Viceroy sent two relief ships in November, promising additional aid in the spring. The relief got the colony through the winter, but the supplies expected in the spring had not arrived by September. In mid-February, Luna ordered most of the colonists to move inland to Nanipacana, where they remained through the end of June, 1560. Lack of food at Nanipacana spurred Luna to send a 200-man detachment upriver to the Coosa chiefdom in Northwest Georgia, where they remained through November before returning to Pensacola Bay. Back at Ochuse on Pensacola Bay, in part as a result of increasing tensions between Luna and his remaining officers and men, the Viceroy replaced Luna with a new governor, Ángel de Villafañe, who arrived in Pensacola Bay in April 1561 and offered to take all who wished to leave on an expedition to Cuba and Santa Elena. Luna was granted permission to leave, taking a ship to Havana and Spain, though he spent the rest of his life in Mexico, where he died in 1573.
The Luna settlement was occupied through August, 1561 by a detachment of fifty men under Captain Biedma, left there by Villafañe in case further orders arrived from Viceroy Velasco. The site of Luna's colony was re-discovered by local historian Tom Garner in October 2015, is being investigated by the University of West Florida archaeology program under archaeologist and principal investigator John Worth
Ian Brown is a Canadian journalist and author, winner of several national magazine and newspaper awards. Brown is the host of Human Edge and The View from Here on TVOntario, has hosted programming for CBC Radio One, including Later the Same Day, Talking Books, Sunday Morning, he has worked as a business writer at Maclean's and the Financial Post, a feature reporter for The Globe and Mail, a freelance journalist for other magazines including Saturday Night. He is an occasional contributor to the American public radio program This American Life. Ian Brown was the editor of What I Meant to Say: The Private Lives of Men a 2006 collection of twenty-nine essays by prominent Canadian writers, including Greg Hollingshead, David MacFarlane, Don Gillmor, Bert Archer, Brown himself, who asked his contributors to write on subjects that they'd like to discuss with women but had never been able to. Ian Brown has published four books, including Freewheeling about the Billes family, owners of Canadian Tire, Man Overboard.
The Boy in the Moon: A Father's Search for His Disabled Son. A book-length version of Brown's series of Globe and Mail features dealing with his son Walker's rare genetic disorder, Cardiofaciocutaneous Syndrome, was published in the fall of 2009. Ian Brown's newest book is Sixty: The Beginning of the End, or the End of the Beginning? A Diary of My Sixty-First Year. Brown began keeping a diary with a Facebook post on the morning of February 4, 2014, his sixtieth birthday; as well as keeping a running tally on how he survived the year, Brown explored what being sixty means physically and intellectually. In January 2010, Ian Brown won British Columbia's National Award for Canadian Non-Fiction for his book The Boy in the Moon: A Father's Search for His Disabled Son; the award offers the winner a $40,000 prize. In February, 2010, the book won the Charles Taylor Prize, a $25,000 prize which recognizes excellence in literary non-fiction. Brown is married to Mail film critic Johanna Schneller. Freewheeling: The Feuds and Outrageous Fortunes of the Billes Family and Canada's Favorite Company Man Overboard: True adventures with North American Men What I Meant to Say: The Private Lives of Men The Boy in the Moon: A Father's Search for His Disabled Son Sixty: The Beginning of the End, or the End of the Beginning?
A Diary of My Sixty-First Year The Boy in the Moon and Mail Talking Books, CBC Radio Charles Taylor Prize citation for The Boy in the Moon Macmillan Speakers Bureau Profile
Krašići is a settlement in the Tivat municipality in the Bay of Kotor, located on the Luštica peninsula. Krašići is located on the Luštica peninsula, on the southern shore of the Bay of Tivat in the Bay of Kotor, between the village settlements of Tičići and Radovići. Old Krašići was located at a few kilometers from its present location; this place is now called Gornji Krašići or Stari Krašići and current village is sometimes called Donji Krašići. The village church has a relief depicting the battle of Lepetane, taken from the church in the old village; the village has one pier, with a navigational light. The beach is concrete beach with gravel sea floor, with a number of beach bars; the village graveyard is still located in the old village. Villagers lived from planting olives and vines and producing olive oil and wine. After the great 1979 Montenegro earthquake, the village was damaged and people have resettled on the current location at sea shore, prior to the earthquake used for small-scale fishing.
In addition to their former occupations, they increased fishing, tourism. In the 1970s, some tourists started building houses around the village in larger numbers; this now they by far outnumber locals. The first tourist settlement is Krašići 1. Tourists have built the beach and infrastructure in the settlement, it has electricity and sewage, but no water. Houses in Krašići 1 and 2 are self-built by tourists. After that some people have self-built houses in Krašići 3. According to the 2003 census, the village had 167 inhabitants, 27,15% Montenegrins, 24,50% Serbs and 20,52% Croats; the only families which lived in the old, Gornji Krašići village, were Francisković, Slavović and Petrović. It was the only Catholic village on Luštica. Original Krašići has some 150 houses. Krašići 2/1 has around 800 houses. Houses in Krašići 1 and 2 are self-built by tourists. Media related to Krašići at Wikimedia Commons
The Reverend Samuel Foster Upham, A. B. A. M. D. D. LL. D. was professor and Chair of Practical Theology at Drew Theological Seminary, now Drew University in Madison, New Jersey from 1881 until his death in 1904. Besides his academic training, he arrived with 25 years of experience preaching in New England and New York, he was known as a person of great humor. His father was Rev. Frederick Upham who introduced Methodism to Massachusetts. Samuel Upham and his wife Lucy Graves née Smith had three sons, Frederick N. Upham, Francis B. Upham and Walter H. Upham, who became preachers, he joined the Methodist Episcopal church at the age of 11. He graduated Wesleyan University in 1856, he joined the Methodist ministry in the New England Southern Conference when he was 23. He served the Conference in many roles in addition to serving local congregations, including serving as secretary of the commission which produced a new church constitution, serving on the body which created a new hymnal, he was influential in removing time limits as to.
He received an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Hamline University in 1889. In 1904 when Upham lay dying and unresponsive in his bedroom at his home in Madison, New Jersey, surrounded by his friends, a physician wanted to determine if he was still alive; the physician said he would feel of Upham's feet to see if they were still warm, commented "No, he is not dead. His feet are warm, no man died with warm feet." At this, Upham rallied and said in a weak voice, "Jan Huss did." Jan Hus was a Czech Christian reformer, burned at the stake on accusations of heresy in 1415. Upham's deathbed humor has been quoted since in sermons, although sometimes the name in the anecdote is changed to Joan of Arc as a more familiar person burned at the stake