read and abstract this article for extra credit. email me your abstract at jgiacobbe_southpointe@cox.net, or print it and turn it in during class.  jg

Zero Gravity for Zero Dollars: Best Student Discount Ever

• By Alexis Madrigal
• September 14, 2009  | 

While the super-rich can pay millions to experience weightlessness at the International Space Station, some college kids have figured out how to experience the thrill of zero gravity for the student-friendly price of $0.

Through NASA’s Microgravity University program, teams of college students get to ride in and conduct experiments on a NASA jet that simulates zero-gravity conditions. Undergrads around the country will be sending their letters of intent to apply to this year’s competition this week, with completed applications due next month.
“It’s really an ‘as only NASA can’ program,” said Sara Malloy, coordinator of the Microgravity University office at Johnson Space Center in Houston.
Students spend 10 days preparing for and going on their flights. Though the program’s science doesn’t get piped directly into NASA’s high-profile programs, some of the research can end up in the hands of engineers. And the students themselves get unique training in one of the strangest environments a human can experience.
The Microgravity University program hasn’t been heavily publicized, but it has reached more than 2,800 students at more than 165 colleges and universities since it first began in 1995. The trips on NASA’s Weightless Wonder, known more informally as the Vomit Comet, would cost more than $5,000 per person through the Zero Gravity Corporation.


Justin Nieusma headed up the College of New Jersey’s team, which flew this summer. (Some of Nieusma’s cohorts, though not him, are pictured above.) Their participation grew out of research some students were doing with the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab that required access to microgravity to continue.
“We got amazing scientific data that could never be reproduced on Earth or any other program I know of,” said Nieusma, now a graduate student in astronomy and astrophysics at University of Michigan.
Their experiment looked at how “dusty plasmas” like the ones that compose Saturn’s rings and comet tails react under different conditions. The experiments that College of New Jersey designed and built have been good (and lucky) enough to fly both of the past two years.
“You have to go through a very rigorous application process. These applications are like 50, 60 pages long, full of details that they want out of you,” Nieusma said. “It’s a crazy program, competitive, and we were so happy we got in the second year.”
By flying up, then nosing down, microgravity conditions are obtained for 18 to 25 seconds a time, and engineering students attempt to do science as their feet float above their heads. Conducting research while floating in the main cabin of a McDonnell Douglas C-9B Skytrain II isn’t the easiest thing, as YouTube videos of the microgravity experiments can attest.
Students bolt their experiments to the floor of the plane. When the plane dips, and the pull of the Earth’s gravity is counteracted by the force of the airplane’s descent, they attain weightlessness. Holding on to their experiment boxes, they race to complete whatever tasks they can before the plane levels off.
As the microgravity conditions ease, NASA personnel yell out, “Get down!” and the students bring their bodies out of dangerous positions and closer to the ground before gravity itself puts them there.
They also have time for some fun, floating and spinning in microgravity or doing one-armed pushups in simulated lunar gravity only one-sixth the strength of Earth’s.
“It’s the opportunity of a lifetime,” Niusma said.
Not everyone’s proposals get accepted, unfortunately. Recent budget cuts have made the program, which used to accept about half of the applicants, more competitive.
Sean Currey, a junior at Dartmouth who wants to go into aeronautics, led a dedicated team that wanted to study how IV-fluid–bag preparation works in microgravity. The team went through the entire process, but didn’t get to fly. Still, Currey’s team will try again this year.
“The people who read over the proposal thought it was a great idea, but they wanted more technical writing and background in the proposal,” Currey said. “We’re going to take the comments that NASA gave us last year, and resubmit it.”
Images: NASA. 1. Rachel Sherman in Superman gear flies in between Russell Jones (left) and Chaz Ruggieri (right). 2. The “Weightless Wonder” in microgravity mode.
See Also:

• High-Tech Weights for Space Workout
• NASA Offers $5000 a Month For You to Lie in Bed
• Sex in Space, Why NASA Isn’t Talking
• Microgravity

Week III Extra Credit...

Hi All. Hope you're enjoying our classes.

For some extra credit this week, follow the link below, and read one of the articles on the web page, then email or print out a brief summary (one paragraph) of what the thing is (that science can't yet explain) and how you might go about explaining it, if it was your job to find an answer to these mysteries...



Top Ten Things Science Can't Explain


From The Null Hypothesis - The Journal of Unlikely Science

an excellent and fun site to explore weird science stuff...

jg

Annaleen futurism: three scenarios for the future of romantic love http://bit.ly/1917Xu9 minutes ago from TweetDeck

South Pointe Students - Welcome to Block I!

If you're a returning student, you may have noticed that last year I moved my blog to its new digs here with Blogger, so the posts are just from last year. Old posts are still archived here, if you wanted to look at what brilliant comments I may (or may not) have posted over the last few years.

I hope my new Biology I and Biology II students had an awesome break, and are energized and stoked for our first semester together. Check here every week or so for some awesomely interesting articles and (often brilliant) comments, and of course extra credit assignments. The first one of the block is soooooo simple, dudes!

For both Biology I and II students, just send me an email telling me how cool I am (and that you've checked out our site), and email it to me at jgiacobbe_southpointe@cox.net, for 25 points extra credit. Piece of cake, dudes and dudettes.

It's all good, babies...

See ya' in class...jg

I think, what a joy it is to be alive,

and wonder if I will ever reach inward, to the root of this flesh,
and know myself as I truly am.

The root is there,
whether any act can free me,
that remains tangled in the web that is the future.

It may only take a single word to free me.

Until then, all things a man can do are mine, I but await the word...

The other big bang?

The theory about space rocks wiping out Ice Age species just got another boost: It turns out the first human inhabitants may have also been hit. Rare "nano-sized diamonds" that form under extremely hot fires are evidence that space rocks hit the North American continent about 13,000 years ago. Unfortunately, some pygmy mammoth (a smaller version of the woolly mammoth) and a group called the Clovis people happened to be in the line of fire. The galactic slam, plus "overhunting and climate change," created what one researcher called a "perfect storm" that wiped out the Ice Age population. The findings swelled searches on Yahoo! for the prehistoric "clovis people," so named because of artifacts first found in Clovis, New Mexico. For more on the mastodon hunters and the first Americans, check out this 2007 LiveScience article.

A sad but true story (sorry, Lilly) about the state of our nation. How can we lead the world when we don't have a clue how it works? jg

Survey Shows Gap Between Scientists and the Public

By CORNELIA DEAN, of the New York Times

When it comes to climate change, the teaching of evolution and the state of the nation’s research enterprise, there is a large gap between what scientists think and the views of ordinary Americans, a new survey has found.

On the whole, scientists believe American research leads the world. But only 17 percent of the public agrees, and the proportion who name scientific advances as among the United States’ most important achievements has fallen to 27 percent from nearly 50 percent in 1999, the survey found.

And while almost all of the scientists surveyed accept that human beings evolved by natural processes and that human activity, chiefly the burning of fossil fuels, is causing global warming, general public is far less sure.

Almost a third of ordinary Americans say human beings have existed in their current form since the beginning of time, a view held by only 2 percent of the scientists. Only about half of the public agrees that people are behind climate change, and 11 percent does not believe there is any warming at all.

According to the survey, about a third of Americans think there is lively scientific debate on both topics; in fact, there is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution and there is little doubt that human activity is altering the chemistry of the atmosphere in ways that threaten global climate.

The survey, by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s largest scientific organization, involved about 2,000 members of the public and 2,500 scientists drawn from the rolls of the science advancement association, which includes teachers, administrators and others involved in science as well as researchers.

The survey, made public Thursday, is available at people-press.org.

It found that at least two-thirds of Americans hold scientists and engineers in high regard, but the feeling is hardly mutual.

The report said 85 percent of science association members surveyed said public ignorance of science was a major problem. And by large margins they deride as only “fair” or “poor” the coverage of science by newspapers and television.

Only 3 percent of the scientists said they “often” spoke to reporters.

In a telephone news conference announcing the survey, Alan I. Leshner, chief executive of the science association, said scientists must find new ways to engage with the public.

“One cannot just exhort ‘we all agree you should agree with us,’ ” Mr. Leshner said. “It’s a much more interactive process that’s involved. It’s time consuming and can be tedious. But it’s very important.”

From the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media

For the full report (.pdf), click here

For the Topline Questionnaire, click here

From The Onion

Pet Owner Not Bothering To Neuter Loser Cat

CORAL SPRINGS, FL—Mike Oakland, 29, told reporters Monday he is not about to pay $100 to have his 5-month-old cat, Mowgli, neutered, because he has no expectations that the dull, paunchy tabby will ever get laid.

Mowgli

"For all he's going to use those balls, he might as well keep them," said Oakland, adding that he'd bet anyone any amount of money that the striped kitten will die a virgin. "He never leaves the house, and I've seen how the neighbor cat looks at him. Completely platonic." When reached for comment, a spokesperson from the Florida Humane Society reiterated that it's important to have all pets spayed or neutered, even ugly lame-o's who probably couldn't score in a roomful of calicos in heat.

by Andrew Sullivan of The Daily Dish

When Palin Quoted Cronkite

She did, of course, remove the context:

Playboy: Implicit in the Administration's attempts to force the networks to "balance" the news is a conviction that most newscasters are biased against conservatism. Is there some truth in the view that television newsmen tend to be left of center?

Cronkite: Well, certainly liberal, and possibly left of center as well. I would have to accept that.

Playboy: What's the distinction between those two terms?

Cronkite: I think the distinction is both clear and important. I think being a liberal, in the true sense, is being nondoctrinaire, nondogmatic, non-committed to a cause - but examining each case on its merits. Being left of center is another thing; it's a political position. I think most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they're not liberal, by my definition of it, then they can hardly be good newspapermen. If they're preordained dogmatists for a cause, then they can't be very good journalists; that is, if they carry it into their journalism.

Final rules out for government stem cell research

By LAURAN NEERGAARD – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government issued final rules Monday expanding taxpayer-funded research using embryonic stem cells, easing scientists' fears that some of the oldest batches might not qualify and promising a master list of all that do.

President Barack Obama lifted previous restrictions on the field in March, but left it to the National Institutes of Health to decide just what stem cell research was ethically appropriate: Only science that uses cells culled from leftover fertility clinic embryos — ones that otherwise would be thrown away — the agency made clear in draft guidelines.

But the final rules issued Monday settle a big question: Would new ethics requirements disqualify many of the stem cells created over the past decade, even the few funded under the Bush administration's tight limits?

The NIH came up with a compromise, saying it deems those old stem cell lines eligible for government research dollars if scientists can prove they met the spirit of the new ethics standards. Further, NIH will create a registry of qualified stem cells so scientists don't have to second-guess if they're applying to use the right ones.

"We think this is a reasonable compromise to achieve the president's goal of both advancing science while maintaining rigorous ethical standards," acting NIH Director Raynard Kington said Monday. "We believe that judgment is necessary."

He wouldn't speculate on how many old stem cells ultimately would qualify, but scientists welcomed the change.

"I expect that most existing lines will be found to have been ethically derived," said Dr. Sean Morrison, director of the University of Michigan Center for Stem Cell Biology. "This will eventually make hundreds of new stem cell lines available for use."

The issue: Trying to harness embryonic stem cells — master cells that can morph into any cell of the body — to one day create better treatments, maybe even cures, for ailments ranging from diabetes to Parkinson's to spinal cord injury.

Culling those stem cells destroys a days-old embryo, something many strongly oppose on moral grounds. Once created, those cells can propagate indefinitely in lab dishes.

The Bush administration had limited taxpayer-funded research to a small number of stem cell batches, or lines, already in existence as of August 2001. This spring, Obama lifted that restriction, potentially widening the field — there now may be as many as 700 stem cell lines around the world — but letting NIH set its boundaries.

Federal law forbids using taxpayer money to create or destroy an embryo. At issue here are rules for working with cells that initially were created using private money.

NIH sifted through 49,000 comments from the public in finalizing the rules, which take effect Tuesday. The draft changed little: Stem cells created solely for research in whatever manner, including cloning, won't qualify.

Any newly made stem cells must come with documentation that the woman or couple who donated the original embryo gave full informed consent. For example, they must have been told of other options for leftover embryos, such as donating to another infertile woman, and the donation must have been voluntary.

That kind of documentation may not exist for stem cell lines created years ago, Kington said, but "some and perhaps many of those lines might be eligible" on a case-by-case evaluation.

From the awesome Bad Astronomy Blog

Arizona is 6000 years old?

Ian O’Neill at Astroengine posted this stunning bit of video featuring Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen.

It’s not that she says the Earth is 6000 years old — twice, just to make sure — that floors me. It’s the casual way she said it, as if she said "I had a cup of coffee today." From her manner, it’s clear that not only does she believe this complete and utter nonsense, but this is a simple fact woven into her mind just like the Sun is bright or chocolate is tasty.

To her, the Earth being 6000 years old just is.

Now, to be fair, this video is without context, and so we can’t be absolutely sure she’s a creationist. But it sure as heck sounds that way, and given her voting record it fits right in.

The irony, of course — and there’s always irony when creationism is involved — is that she’s talking about uranium mining, and it’s through the radioactive decay of uranium that we know the Earth is billions of years old. And she also praises technological achievements!

AIIIIiiiiieeee!

So while you soak that up I leave you, of course, with this:

comments on the ludicrous recent decision by the Supreme Court regarding the denial of the right to DNA testing of crimes by "convicted" people...the quality of mercy is severely strained...jg From the New York Times, June 21, 200, Letters Section

Unfair Denial of DNA Tests

To the Editor:

At its core, due process of law is about fairness, reasonableness and justice, none of which was served by the Supreme Court’s decision to deny a request for new DNA testing to challenge a rape conviction (“Unparalleled and Denied,” editorial, June 19).

The court wrongly deferred to the other branches of government in supporting its decision, as evidence so potentially overwhelming as DNA testing rises well above any technical legal argument the court’s majority used to support its decision. The court should never shrink from its duty to vigorously enforce due process in whatever context it arises.

Moreover, if the criminal justice system failed, as it may have here, not only was the wrong man jailed but also the guilty have remained free.

Bruce Neuman
Sag Harbor, N.Y., June 19, 2009

•

To the Editor:

Re “Court Rejects Inmate Right to DNA Tests” (front page, June 19):

The five hard-line conservative justices on the Supreme Court have once again acted to curtail justice in our country. There is no reason, if DNA evidence can exonerate an innocent convict, that the simple test ought not be given.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s argument that such a right would overthrow the established criminal justice system makes absolutely no sense, and only reveals his anxiety to uphold the institution of justice rather than its spirit.

The aim of the justice system is to establish the facts of each case. Therefore, the opposite of Justice Roberts’s argument is true: far from overthrowing the system, DNA testing would affirm it, whereas to refuse to examine pertinent DNA evidence would amount to a miscarriage of justice.

William Youmans
New York, June 18, 2009

Anyone else feel that life became more special once leaving religion? (self.atheism)

submitted by HotMustard

When I was religious, Mormon to be precise, I believed that I was created by God and given a this life as a test and an exercise in free will. As soon as I left the Mormon church I had to deal with the idea of life most likely being a pointless event of random chance with no inherent meaning whatsoever. Coming from a belief system which asserted that there was a loving deity purposefully creating everything that I would spend eternity with in infinite bliss, this was a very jarring idea that didn't immediately sit well with me.

That is, until I began to read authors like Carl Sagan and learn more about the unfathomable awesomeness of the universe. It hit me like a supernova that it doesn't matter if there's someone else watching from above and putting some purpose in my time here. I have a truly priceless gift, no matter how infinitesimally short, of life in this amazing universe where I can think and feel and be. I can connect and share experiences with other people who also enjoy this chance existence. Just because my life didn't come prepackaged with a meaning doesn't mean that it's worthless; I don't believe nature has any inherent purpose and yet I feel that it has a beauty nonpareil, untouchable by anything we can create. I can give my life whatever meaning I want it to have, and no matter what happens in it or what I do with it it will be the greatest thing I can be certain that I will ever truly experience.

Hopefully that doesn't sound too corny, but I know there both people out there who struggle with the idea of life not having a religiously-given meaning and people who feel that atheism has nothing positive to offer, and to them and anyone else I just wanted to take a moment to share that my life has never been as special to me as it was once I left religion.

Michael Jackson!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/arts/music/26jackson.html?ref=global-home

Farah Faucet!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/arts/television/26appraisal.html?ref=global-home

jeez, I feel old and feeble, and it really sucks when the icons of your youth start dying

Next, an article suggesting cultural variations within the same species. Not so long ago, we actually debated whether culture even existed in n-human species, now some whales have blown that oldy moldy idea out their blowhole...jg

Hidden Whale Culture Could Be Critical to Species Survival

Though it sounds at first like a marine biologist’s take on political correctness, respecting the cultural diversity of whales may be essential to saving them.

Scientists are accustomed to thinking of whale populations in terms of genetic diversity. But even when they share the same genes, groups of whales can live in very different ways, raising the possibility that species might be saved even while individual cultures vanish. The tragedy of cultural extinction aside, cultural diversity may sustain the long-term health of Earth’s cetaceans.

“We have no idea what’s going on. As we mess up the world, it goes off in all kinds of weird directions,” said biologist Hal Whitehead of Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia. ”The more diversity that’s out there, both genetic and cultural, the more whales can deal with it.”

That whales could even have culture is a relatively new scientific proposition. It was not unil the late 1960s that recordings of humpback whale songs provided a glimpse of the unexpectedly complicated and beautiful world of cetacean communication. The songs don’t appear — for now — to reach the level of language, but they’re clearly a form of learned communicative behavior common across the cetacean realm. And as researchers spend more time with whales, they’re realizing just how much their learned behaviors differ.

One of the best-known example of marine culture comes from killer whales (which, technically, are dolphins, but they’re mentioned in the same breath as whales by biologists). Pods of killer whales have highly varied dialects and ways of life, even while sharing the same habitat — the aquatic equivalent of a neighborhood populated by two different ethnic groups.

Over the last decade, two pods found off North America’s west coast and known to researchers as the Northern and Southern residents became the focus of an international conservation battle. Scientists showed that the pods had different dialects and feeding habits. The Southern Residents, their numbers at a fraction of historical levels, often ranged south through Puget Sound and into waters off the California coast. They’re more threatened than their Northern counterparts by shipping collisions and depleted salmon populations.

In 2004, Canada’s environmental officials declared the Southern Residents both distinct and endangered, but U.S. officials insisted on treating the two pods as a single, genetically similar and unendangered group. The next year, following outrage among scientists and environmentalists, the United States acknowledged the Southern Residents as unique and endangered.

Their decision was promising, but cultural considerations are otherwise absent from U.S. government conservation plans and the agenda of the International Whaling Commission. To some extent, the absence reflects the state of cetacean science. Most species have not been extensively studied at the cultural level. But with pollution, noise, global warming, overfishing and intermittent hunting threatening the recovery of creatures nearly hunted to extinction by the early 20th century, it might be time to expand the focus.

read the rest of the article here...

Who is Anonymous?

• 
  
  Anonymous is a cultural phenomenon which began on internet image boards. Many such boards require no registration for posting, and every poster remains anonymous. This format of communication is inherently noisy and chaotic. However, the unprecedented openness made possible by such boards has nurtured the appearance of a unique and persistent culture.
  We are a collection of individuals united by ideas. You likely know Anonymous, although you don't know exactly who we are. We are your brothers and sisters, your parents and children, your superiors and your underlings. We are the concerned citizens standing next to you. Anonymous is everywhere, yet nowhere. Our strength lies in our numbers. Our will as a whole is the combined will of individuals. Our greatest advantage is a knowledge of the fundamentals we share as human beings. This knowledge is a fruit of our anonymity.
  Anonymous has left its mark on society more than once. Previous Anonymous projects have resulted in the closing of the white-supremacist radio show produced by Hal Turner, and the criminal prosecution of Canadian pedophile Chris Forcand. Anonymous has been called a "Cyber Vigilante Group" by The Toronto Sun and Global News, though in reality we are much more than that.
  We are Anonymous. You can be Anonymous, too. Together, we can shape society.

(we have no idea who posted this...)

food for thought...no endorsement implied!
...a book review posted on Amazon.com

Customer Review

1,555 of 1,797 people found the following review helpful: Don't Leave It Lying Around the House, October 23, 2008 By Carl Wong This book should never be left where it could fall into the hands of children. Recurrent themes of bloody violence, murder, racism, incest and rape are dealt with extremely irresponsibly. Horrific events are presented as justified by circumstances and as solutions to petty wrongs. Worse than the depictions in the book are actual historic examples of such depictions being used to justify the worst kind of degradation and humiliation that humans have ever been forced to endure. These acts are not just inspired by this book, but characters in the book urge its readers to follow its example. Worst of all, however, is that, despite this book's obvious lack of coherent logic or sense, it inexplicably possesses a following of people that somehow find comfort in its horror. No doubt about it, the horrific images, and lack of intelligent discussion of those images, contained in this book makes it entirely unsuitable for children, or sensible adults. It is very doubtful that a book that meanders so terribly, and contradicts itself so often, is truly inspired by a deity. What you will read in here can be found in other mythologies. There is nothing truly unique about it. Upon close scrutiny, we discover that the content of Bible is a compilation of historically and archaeologically unsupportable Myths such as Noah's ark, Abraham, Joseph, David, Solomon, etc. Item Holy Bible: New American Standard Bible (NASB)

From the Bad Astronomy Blog, Posted to Discover Magazine

Homeopathy kills

[Note: This post may upset some people. It damn sure upset me. If you are easily upset by pediatric medical stories that do not end well, then you might want to skip reading this. The title alone may be all you need to know.]

Homeopathy is the antiscientific belief that infinitely diluted medicine in water can cure various ailments. It’s perhaps the most ridiculous of all "alternative" medicines, since it clearly cannot work, does not work, and has been tested repeatedly and shown to be useless.

And for those who ask, "what’s the harm?", you may direct your question to Thomas Sam and his wife Manju Sam, whose nine-month-old daughter died because of their homeopathic beliefs.

The infant girl, Gloria Thomas, died of complications due to eczema. Eczema. This is an easily-treatable skin condition (the treatments don’t cure eczema but do manage it), but that treatment was withheld from the baby girl by her parents, who rejected the advice of doctors and instead used homeopathic treatments. The baby’s condition got worse, with her skin covered in rashes and open cracks. These cracks let in germs which her tiny body had difficulty fighting off. She became undernourished as she used all her nutrients to fight infections instead of for growth and the other normal body functions of an infant. She was constantly sick and in pain, but her parents stuck with homeopathy. When the baby girl developed an eye infection, her parents finally took her to a hospital, but it was far too late: little Gloria Thomas succumbed to septicemia from the infection.

Thomas and Manju Sam were convicted yesterday of manslaughter in Australian court. As a parent myself I cannot even begin to imagine the pain they are going through, the anguish and the emotional horror. But let us be clear here: their belief in a clearly wrong antiscientific medical practice killed their baby. Homeopathy doesn’t work, but because they were raised in an environment that supports belief in homeopathy, they trusted it. They used it, and they rejected real, science-based medicine. And their daughter suffered the consequences.

And suffer she did. The accounts of the pediatricians who tried too late to help little Gloria Thomas are simply harrowing.

Every time I hear about something like this — a baby dying due to "alternative" medicine, or the lies and disinformation from the antivaccination movement, or some other belief system that flies in the face of reality — a little bit of me dies as well. I held my daughter shortly after she was born, and I would have done anything to protect her, and that included and still includes protecting her against people who fight so adamantly against reality.

The reality is that the antivaxxers’ work will result in babies dying. The reality is that belief in homeopathy will result in more babies dying. The reality is that denying science-based medicine will result in more babies dying.

And I know these words will fall on many deaf ears. And I will guarantee the comments to this post will contain many loud and irrational arguments supporting homeopathy and the antivaxxers. I’ve seen it before, and I know that many of those people are completely immune to reason and logic. And if you wonder what might wake them up, the answer may very well be nothing. Just read what Gloria Thomas’ father — the man just convicted of the manslaughter of his own daughter — had to say:

But even after Gloria died, Thomas Sam adhered to his belief that homeopathy was equally valid to conventional medicine for the treatment of eczema.

He told police: “Conventional medicine would have prolonged her life … with more misery. It’s not going to cure her and that’s what I strongly believe.”

He and his wife face 25 years in jail, where they will have plenty of time to rethink their convictions.

Kung Fu is Dead!

Actor David Carradine found dead

American actor David Carradine has been found dead in a Bangkok, Thailand, hotel, according to his personal manager, Chuck Binder.

David Carradine became famous in the 1970s after starring in the television series "Kung Fu." Binder said Thursday that the death is being investigated but could provide no other details. Carradine's death was "shocking and sad. He was full of life, always wanting to work ... a great person," Binder said, according to People magazine.

Carradine, who became famous in the 1970s when he starred as traveling Shaolin monk Kwai Chang Caine in the television series "Kung Fu," was 72. Modern audiences may best know him as "Bill" in Quentin Tarantino's "Kill Bill" films. He earned a 2005 Golden Globe nomination for his role in the second movie in the two-part saga. iReport: Share memories of David Carradine

You can read the rest of the obit here

It may be hard for some of you to imagine, but I watched Kung Fu religiously when I was a little kid, and I took it in deeply.

The spiritual side of a Buddhist Monk, with the kick-ass side of an American Wild West hero. I know he was just an actor, but to me he was Kwai Chang Caine.

As mentioned in the article above, he was also Bill in "Kill Bill," but I'll always remember him as the gentle monk who never looked for violence, but when it came his way, he took care of business.

It introduced me to both Buddism and the martial arts, and I started studying Judo right after that, which I practice to this day.

Namaste, David, and I hope your next incarnation brings you a better life. jg