Modern high-speed internet uses light to quickly and reliably transmit large amounts of data through fiber-optic cables, but currently, light signals hit a bottleneck when data processing is necessary. For that, they must convert into electrical signals for processing before further transmission.

A pair of marine mammal scientists at The University of British Columbia, has found that claims that a lack of access to salmon is what is driving the crash in population numbers for southern resident killer whales of the Pacific are wrong.

A recent study in Physical Review Letters explores the effects of ultralight dark matter in extreme-mass-ratio inspirals (EMRIs), which could be detected by future space-based gravitational wave detectors like LISA (Laser Interferometer Space Antenna).

In stalk-eyed flies, longer eyestalks attract the ladies. Females prefer males with longer eyestalks, and other males are less likely to fight them for access to females. But some males have a copy of the X chromosome which always causes short eyestalks.

PHILADELPHIA—In an unexpected move, McDonald’s has added “Covfefe” to its beverage lineup, bringing the viral 2017 mystery word from Donald Trump’s late-night tweet into reality. “We’re…

UTL COMMENT:- $1.5 billion thus far to fund a war that we have nothing to do with. I bet that most monies have gotten corrupted as the Ukrainian war seems to be a massive money laundering exercise!! They couldn't give a toss about the issues ravaging this country, none whatsoever. Dark days ahead.

Last month, Steven Ward delivered a letter to King Charles III and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer stating they have violated the rule of law.  By doing so they have acted unconstitutionally.  […]

by Frank Bergman, Slay News: A group of leading Polish researchers has confirmed that carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere has zero impact on so-called “global warming.” The study, led by Professor Stan Kubicki of the Military University of Technology in Poland, debunks the globalist narratives regarding “climate change.” The study, published in Science Direct, confirms […]

  The ancient Israelites played an important role in the development of the three major Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This makes their history important, but it is also obscure. Their stories in the Old Testament may be fact or legend, and archaeologically they are hard to separate from the other inhabitants of the Middle East. Putting together the evidence that we do have for the ancient Israelites, what can we say about their history?   Origins and Identification Hebrew seal from Arad, Israel, c. 7th century BCE. Source: Israel Museum, Jerusalem.   The precise identification of the early Israelites is difficult because it involves religious concepts that can evoke emotion. With that in mind, it is important to begin with a linguistic-cultural-anthropological identification of the people who would later become the Israelites.   It is also important to define some terms, such as Hebrews, Israelites, and Jews, which are often used interchangeably in the modern world. The term Israelites refers to the people from the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the early first millennium BCE. Jew refers to followers of the ancient religion of the Israelites and those who practice the modern religion of Judaism. The earliest use of the term Jew in the Old Testament historical books is in 2 Kings (16:6). Israelite was generally used more widely and before that Hebrew was the preferred term.   The Hebrew people spoke a Semitic language that was closely related to the language spoken by various Canaanite peoples in the Levant during the Bronze Age. Philologists have further classified Hebrew as a member of the Northwest Semitic branch of the Semitic family. Other languages in this group include Moabite, Edomite, Ammonite, and perhaps most importantly, Phoenician.   Early Hebrew History Sandstone statue of Mentuhotep II from Deir el Bahri, Thebes, Egypt, c. 2051-2000 BCE. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.   Little is known about the early history of the Hebrews due to the nature of the sources. The Hebrews were not a literate people in their early history and both archaeologically and anthropologically they resembled their Canaanite neighbors in many ways.   For the history of the Hebrews before the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel, the first five books of the Old Testament, known as the Pentateuch, are often used in concert with archaeological and Egyptian sources. Biblical scholars who view the historical events of the Old Testament as more or less accurate are often referred to as “maximalists,” while those who view the books more allegorically are “minimalists.”   Many biblical scholars begin the history of the Israelites in Egypt, which is partially recounted in the Old Testament book of Exodus. According to Genesis 12:10-19, Abraham traveled to Egypt. Some modern Egyptologists and biblical scholars believe this took place around 2116 BCE, or during Egypt’s 10th dynasty. Abraham then left Egypt but a remnant of the Hebrews who originally followed him may have remained. It was then Joseph the son of Jacob’s journey into Egypt that changed the Hebrews’ relationship with the Egyptians.   Colossal statue of Ramesses II from Memphis, Egypt, c. 1279-1213 BCE. Source: Copyright Jared Krebsbach.   According to Genesis 41:29-36, Joseph was imprisoned for two years until he interpreted the pharaoh’s dream. Following this revelation, Joseph was appointed as the pharaoh’s vizier (Genesis 41:45-46), and a great number of Hebrews migrated into Egypt, called the “land of Rameses” (Genesis 47:11). Later the Hebrews were said to dwell in a part of Egypt known as “Goshen” (Genesis 47:27). None of these accounts are corroborated directly by Egyptian evidence, but there are several pieces of supporting circumstantial evidence.   Egyptian Evidence for Hebrews in Egypt Temple of Ramesses II at Abu Simbel, Egypt, c. 1279-1213 BCE. Source: Copyright Jared Krebsbach.   The Egyptian sources never mention the Hebrews or the Israelites by name during the period of the Hebrews’ sojourn in Egypt from about 2116 BCE to the middle 13th century BCE. The Egyptians referred to Canaanites and people from the Levant as Asiatics—A’am in ancient Egyptian—or by the specific location where they originated in the Levant.   The number of Asiatics in Egypt was considerable during the Middle Kingdom (c. 2055-1650 BCE), when the Egyptians expanded their influence into the Levant. Asiatics/Canaanites came flowing into Egypt, especially the Delta, as prisoners of war, slaves, and merchants. There were certainly Hebrews among them. As the population of Asiatics grew, they also gained influence.   The idea that the Hebrew Joseph could have become so influential in the Egyptian court is not without precedent. During the early New Kingdom (c. 1550-1279 BCE), a number of Canaanites are documented in Egyptian sources as having risen in the Egyptian political hierarchy. A man of Canaanite descent named Ben-ozen was the chief royal herald and chief of the department of alimentation and beverages under Ramesses II (ruled c. 1279-1213 BCE). Perhaps the most important Asiatic/Canaanite in ancient Egypt was a man named Bay, who in the late 19th dynasty (13th/12th centuries BCE) rose to the position of chancellor.   Historicity of the Biblical Exodus Canaanite scarab with a roaring lion from Canaan, Levant, c. 1600-1500 BCE. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.   Egyptian sources indicate that many of the events involving the Hebrews related in the early sections of the Old Testament were possible, if not likely. A further examination of the book of Exodus can help pinpoint when many of those events might have taken place. Exodus 1:11 states that the Hebrews “built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses.” Once again, the Egyptian sources can at least partially corroborate this passage and identify these two locations.   The pharaohs of the Ramesside era—the 19th and 20th dynasties (c. 1295-1069 BCE)—routinely settled large foreign populations in the Delta. For example, Ramesses II settled large numbers of the Sea Peoples known as the Shardana/Sherden, who were then used as mercenaries in the Egyptian army. Some modern scholars argue that the biblical Raamses was the city of Per-Ramesses Aa-nekhet, while Pithom was Per-Atum. Both cities were located in the Delta and built during the reign of Ramesses II. Unfortunately, most of the archaeology in the Delta has been lost due to a combination of the high water table and the modern reuse of temple bricks.   Conquest of Canaan  A sphinx statue from the Middle Kingdom and later repurposed by Ramesses II and Merenptah, c. 1275-1203 BCE. Source: Louvre Museum, Paris.   The manner in which the Israelites left Egypt is open to speculation, though some scholars believe it could have more or less followed the book of Exodus. According to Numbers 32:13, the Israelites wandered in the southern Levant for forty years before settling in their home. Some scholars argue that the Israelites’ conquest of Canaan began around 1456 BCE. This would have taken place during the reign of Thutmose III (ruled c. 1479-1425 BCE) or Amenhotep II (reigned c. 1427-1400 BCE) during the 18th dynasty of the New Kingdom.   On the other hand, others argue that the mention of Ramesses in Exodus, and the extensive building activity, fits more closely with Ramesses II. Either way, the first mention of Israel in a non-biblical source is a historical stela from the reign of the Egyptian king Merenptah (ruled c. 1213-1203 BCE). The text recounts a number of lands and people in the Levant that Merenptah defeated, including this important reference: “Israel is desolated, his seed is not.”   Kingdoms of Israel and Judah Victory Stela with Aramaic inscription “House of David” from Dan, Israel, c. 9th century BCE. Source: Israel Museum, Jerusalem.   Merenptah may have temporarily defeated the Israelites, but about 200 years after that event the Israelites had transitioned from a tribal society to a kingdom. For the early history of Israel as a state, modern scholars primarily refer to the historical books of Samuel. According to these books, Saul (ruled c. 1042-1010 BCE) was the first king of Israel (1 Samuel 8:10).   The book also relates how the Israelites were under the rule of the coastal dwelling people known as the Philistines, who took the Israelites’ iron weapons (I Samuel 13:17-19). The low point for the Israelites during this period was their defeat by the Philistines at the Battle of Aphek, which modern scholars date to 1060/1050 BCE.   The role of the Philistines in the early history of the Kingdom of Israel is another important historical point. Most modern historians and archaeologists now believe that the Philistines arrived in the Levant during the Bronze Age collapse of c. 1200 BCE. It appears that the Peleset who attacked Egypt in the early 12th century BCE went to the southern Levant afterwards and became the biblical Philistines. The Peleset originated in the Aegean Sea and after landing in the Levant they adopted Canaanite archaeological attributes, developing a hybrid culture in the process.   Wine jug from the Philistine/Peleset City of Azor, Israel, c. 11th-12th centuries BCE. Source: Israel Museum, Jerusalem.   After Saul’s rule, Israel’s two greatest kings came to the throne – King David (c. 1010-970 BCE), and his son Solomon (970-931 BCE). According to 2 Samuel 21:15-22, David decisively defeated the Philistines, paving the way for an era of peace, wealth, and stability.   Solomon inherited his father’s alliance with King Hiram I (c. 980-947 BCE) of the Phoenician city-state of Tyre, using the kingdom’s wealth to build the Great Temple (1 Kings 1-11; 2 Chronicles 1-9). The rule of Solomon would prove to be Israel’s apex because, after that, internal divisions and stronger neighbors proved the undoing of the kingdom.   Silver plate depicting the battle of David and Goliath, Byzantine, 629-630 CE. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.   Division of the Kingdom Moabite Stone/Mesha Stele from Bhiban, Levant, c. 9th century BCE. Source: British Museum, London.   After Solomon died, Israel devolved into petty squabbling and quickly divided into two dynasties. Feeling burdened by heavy taxes, the tribes of Judah and Benjamin formed the Kingdom of Judah in the south. Judah’s first king was Rehoboam (ruled c. 931-915 BCE), while the rule of Israel passed to Jeroboam I (reigned c. 931-911 BCE). Jerusalem became the capital city of Judah, and in the north King Omri (ruled c. 882-871 BCE) built the city of Samaria as Israel’s capital.   The division of Israel came at a bad time. A revived Egypt under the Libyan-descended Pharaoh Shoshenq I (ruled c. 945-924 BCE) was attempting to retake territories in the Levant that Egypt had lost after the collapse of the New Kingdom. Shoshenq took advantage of the division by supporting Jeroboam, which eventually led to an Egyptian military campaign in Judah and Israel. This happened in the 5th year of Jeroboam I’s rule.   The campaign is recounted in 1 Kings 14:25-26 and 2 Chronicles 12:2-5, where Shoshenq I is called Shishak. The campaign is corroborated by a collection of texts and pictorial relief from the Egyptian temple of Karnak that are today known as the Bubastite Portal. The text lists the more than sixty towns Shoshenq plundered, with those of Israel listed first, followed by Judah.   Granite capital featuring the head of the Egyptian goddess Hathor from Bubastis, Egypt, c. 874-712 BCE. Source: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.   It is believed that the main thrust of the Egyptian invasion went into Judah, with a smaller strike force hitting different locations in Israel. In addition to the list of the cities the Egyptians raided, the Bubastite Portal notes how the Israelites suffered serious casualties during the campaign.   “I made the southerners come in obeisance to thee, and the Northerners to the greatness of thy fame. Thou hast made a great slaughter among them without number, falling in their valleys, being multitudes, annihilated and perishing afterward, like those who have never been before.”   Shoshenq I’s campaign proved to be more of a raid, as the Egyptians did not occupy either kingdom. However, the damage they did to the kingdoms was likely quite significant and made the Israelites unable to oppose later, stronger enemies. The Moabite Stone/Mesha Stele is a Canaanite inscription that relates how King Mesha of Moab defeated the House of Omri around 840 BCE. It would be just another defeat in a long line the Israelites would suffer.   The Assyrian and Babylonian Captivities Cylinder inscription of Sargon II from Khorsabad, Iraq, c. 721-705 BCE. Source: British Museum, London.   Within a few decades of Shoshenq’s campaign against Israel, the northern kingdom was still weak and became a vassal of the Assyrian Empire by the mid-19th century BCE. Judah would hold out until the late eighth century, but during that time the kings of Israel attempted to reassert their independence. According to 2 Kings 18:9-10, the Assyrian King Shalmaneser V (726-722 BCE) besieged Samaria while Hoshea (732-722 BCE) was the king of Israel. The Assyrian sources corroborate this, although Sargon II (721-705 BCE) was the king. The discrepancy is probably the result of Sargon seizing the throne from his brother Shalmaneser in a palace coup during the siege. He then ended the siege during his rule in 722 BCE.   “From the year of my accession to the fifteenth year of my reign, I brought about the defeat of Humbanigash, the Elamite, in the plain of Der. I besieged and captured Samaria, carrying off 27,290 of the people who dwelt therein.”   The Assyrian and Babylonian practice of forcibly resettling rebellious populations became standard policy during the rule of the Assyrian King Ashurbanipal (884-859 BCE). Therefore, the end of the Kingdom of Israel and the dispersal of its people is corroborated by historical texts as well as circumstantial evidence.   Relief from the palace of Nimrud depicting the Assyrians using a siege engine and ladders to take a city, Iraq, c. 730-727 BCE. Source: British Museum, London.   The kings of Judah avoided the wrath of the Assyrians by following a more diplomatic path, and after the Assyrian Empire collapsed they probably thought they were safe. But the Assyrian Empire was replaced by the Neo-Babylonian Empire as the rulers of the Near East. The last three kings of Judah decided to test their Babylonian overlords, which is related in 2 Kings 24. According to 2 Kings, Jehoiakim (609-598 BCE), Jehoiachin (598-597 BCE), and Zedekiah (597-586 BCE) all rebelled against Babylon.   The Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BCE) ordered a siege of Jerusalem in 597 BCE and for all of its valuables, including the royal family, to be brought to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar then placed Jehoiachin’s uncle, Zedekiah, on the throne but he too rebelled (2 Kings 24:20). Finally, in 587 BCE, the Babylonians took Zedekiah away in chains to Babylon and tore down the walls of Jerusalem (2 Kings 25:10). A good portion of Judah’s population was taken into captivity and its royal dynasty ended. A cuneiform tablet from Babylon corroborates Nebuchadnezzar’s siege and destruction of Judah.   “Year seven, month Kisumu: The king of Akkad moved his army into Hatti land, laid siege to the city of Judah and the king took the city on the second day of the month Addaru. He appointed in it a (new) king of his liking, took heavy booty from it and brought it into Babylon.”   This marked the end of Israel’s era as an independent kingdom and its political influence in the Near East. With that said, Israel continued to influence ancient religion, giving birth to the three major Abrahamic religions of today.

  George Washington spent most of his life in a military uniform. As a young adult, Washington served as an officer in the Virginia militia loyal to the British Crown. But two decades later, he commanded an army determined to defeat Britain and secure American independence. Throughout his military service, Washington exposed himself to the same dangers on the battlefield as the soldiers he led. His bold choices in combat inspired his troops but worried supporters. Losing Washington was not an option for the revolutionaries if they were to win independence.   George Washington Goes to War George Washington in Virginia Militia Uniform, 1772 by Charles Wilson Peale. Source: Wikimedia Commons.   George Washington’s first experience in battle came in the conflict known to British colonists as the French and Indian War and in Europe as the Seven Years’ War. In fact, a young Washington played a central role in the outbreak of the war,  which also marked the first instance where he nearly lost his life in battle. In May 1754, as a 22-year-old Major, George Washington led a party of Virginia militia and Iroquois warriors against the French in the Ohio Valley. Although he achieved a quick victory, historian Fred Anderson notes that Washington was unprepared to be involved in the growing three-way struggle between Britain, France, and Native American communities for North America.   In July 1754, a French force joined by Canadian and Native American allies attacked Washington’s Virginia militia at Fort Necessity. The French wanted revenge for the May 1754 skirmish. Washington did not know it, but his name and actions would circulate in Europe as one of the causes of a new conflict between Britain and France for control of North America. A year later, Washington distinguished himself in the otherwise disastrous defeat of British forces led by General Edward Braddock at the Battle of the Monongahela in July 1755. Despite having multiple horses shot and musket ball holes in his clothing, Washington survived and led the retreat. Washington’s quick thinking saved most troops, but unfortunately, not Braddock.   The next time Washington fought in a major battle, it was against the British.   The Plot Against George Washington   Portrait of John Jay by Gilbert Stuart, 1794. Source: The National Gallery of Art   Washington arrived outside Boston in early July 1775 to take command of a motley army resisting British troops. The American rebels Washington commanded would be called the Continental Army. This undisciplined and poorly equipped force drove the British out of Boston in March 1776—but that was beginner’s luck. The British returned in the summer of 1776 with a massive force of roughly 30,000 troops to seize the important city of New York.   As Washington prepared his troops to defend New York, he also had to contend with a plot against his life. The week before Congress signed the Declaration of Independence, a crowd of 20,000 witnessed an American soldier’s execution for his role in a plot to assassinate Washington, foiled by future Chief Justice John Jay. Jay uncovered the designs on Washington’s life after the arrest of several prominent Loyalists in New York City. The central figure executed that day had been a member of Washington’s personal guard. Washington also faced conspiracies from fellow officers to remove him from command. While they may not have wanted to assassinate Washington, some ambitious officers had eyes on his job and were willing to challenge their commander’s authority.   Battle for New York  Battle of Long Island by Domenick D’Andrea, 2004. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The failed plot soon proved the least of Washington’s worries. American troops were little match for British forces in several battles around New York City later that summer. During the September 1776 British invasion of Manhattan at Kips Bay, Washington’s frustration with his army’s performance reached a boiling point. Retreating American soldiers scampered past Washington and other senior officers. Washington refused to withdraw, even as British troops marched closer. Instead, he attempted to rally his troops. Other commanders worried for Washington’s safety.   American General Nathanael Greene, who was on the battlefield that day, recalled his experience: “[Washington] was so vexed at the infamous conduct of the troops that he sought death rather than life.” Fortunately, one witness says an aide led Washington away before the British could attack.   Later in the campaign, British troops barely missed capturing Washington at his New York City headquarters. Clearly, Washington had been fortunate to escape New York with his life and the remnants of his army.   Ten Crucial Days The painting The Capture of the Hessians at Trenton, December 26, 1776, by John Trumbull, 1786-1828. Source: Yale University Art Gallery   Barely five months after the July 1776 Declaration of Independence, the American cause was on the verge of collapse. Indeed, as the year 1776 ended, Washington had barely any troops left to continue the fight against the British. Worse, much of Washington’s remaining force had expiring enlistment contracts, and there were few new recruits in the aftermath of so many defeats.   Washington wanted one last chance to defeat the British rather than surrender. On December 25, 1776, Washington led his army of 6,000 across the icy Delaware River to attack an unsuspecting Hessian garrison at Trenton, New Jersey. Washington’s troops routed the Hessians, who were still groggy from their Christmas celebration. Historian Alan Taylor explains it was Washington’s first major victory, and it saved the American cause.   American momentum continued to grow following the victory at Trenton. On January 2-3, 1777, Washington’s troops resisted British forces at Trenton and Princeton, with Washington once again leading his troops from the front at Princeton. Washington’s bold actions inspired his troops and created a new spike in volunteers joining the army. Historians refer to this period in late December and early January 1776-1777 as the “Ten Crucial Days.” In other words, it is difficult to imagine the American Revolution succeeding without Washington’s actions.   Ferguson’s Chance at Brandywine  Miniature of Captain Patrick Ferguson, 1774–77. Source: Wikimedia Commons   British forces in New York City spent the early months of 1777 recovering from the shock of Washington’s victories at Trenton and Princeton. British commander Sir William Howe decided to seize the American capital city of Philadelphia. In response, Washington took his army to defend Philadelphia from Howe’s invasion. The two armies clashed at the Battle of Brandywine on September 11, 1777.   Captain Patrick Ferguson was among the British officers involved in the opening phase of the Battle of Brandywine. Ferguson’s troops carried an experimental breech-loading rifle he invented. The rifle could fire at least two to three more shots per minute than the ordinary firearm of the time. Ferguson and his experimental weapon had an opportunity to change history.   At one point, Ferguson had an enemy officer “of remarkable distinction” in his sights. But as he prepared to fire, Ferguson changed his mind. He wrote, “It was not pleasant to fire at the back of an unoffending individual who was acquitting himself coolly of his duty, and so I let him alone.” While never confirmed, historian Thomas McGuire points out that many sources believe the officer was George Washington. Moments later, Ferguson was wounded. He recovered to command Loyalists in South Carolina, where he was killed at the Battle of King’s Mountain in 1780.   While the Americans lost the battle and Philadelphia, the coming months saw positive changes in the army’s quality. Brandywine showed this was not the same army that ran from the British in New York City.   Road to Independence  Panoramic View of the Siege of Yorktown by Jean-Antoine-Siméon Fort, October 6 to 19, 1781. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The American Continental Army had transformed from an inexperienced and untrained force into a professional military. While the soldiers may have changed, Washington remained fearless under fire. For instance, Washington rallied retreating troops at Monmouth Courthouse, New Jersey, in June 1778. After Monmouth, major fighting between different armies took place in the southern colonies, but despite various difficulties, Washington deployed his character and skillset to keep his army together.   For instance, Washington navigated multiple mutinies within the army. Soldiers and officers alike grew frustrated with Congress over many issues, including a lack of consistent pay. Their dissatisfaction continued even after the decisive victory over the British at Yorktown, Virginia, in October 1781. Despite these pressures, Washington diplomatically kept the peace within the army until the war’s end in 1783.   Tempting Fate or Making History? George Washington (The Constable-Hamilton Portrait), by Gilbert Stuart, 1797. Source: Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art, Bentonville, Arkansas   Washington’s behavior on the battlefield made subordinates and supporters fearful for his safety. Washington generally attributed his escapes to “providence”—he believed there was more than luck involved in explaining these near misses. On the other hand, Washington had no luck pursuing his dual passions of land surveying and farming at Mount Vernon. Instead, he was elected the nation’s first president.   From the attempt on his life in June 1776 to his aggressive actions on many battlefields, George Washington endured many risks during the American Revolution. The course of the war and the country’s history could have been changed had one of those dangerous situations proved fatal.   Were his near misses on his mind as he was sworn in as president on April 30, 1789?  Perhaps, as evidence shows, he was certainly considering them as he fought during the Revolution. In July 1776, as his armies prepared to fight the British and Congress formally declared independence, Washington wrote to a friend and fellow veteran of the French and Indian War, “I did not let the Anniversary of the 3rd or 9th…pas[s] of[f] without a grateful remembrance of the escape we had at the Meadows and on the Banks of the Monongahela.” Had they known, a great many Americans would have shared Washington’s gratitude.