BOM DIA...BOM SÁBADO..BOM FINAL DE SEMANA...

Amigos são nossos presente. Por isso deixo um abraço super carinhosos a todos e convido para vir na Interação de Amigos, ver os meus primeiros comentários.

Quem foram as primeiras pessoas a comentar.

INTERAÇÃO DE AMIGOS E VOCÊ!

JUNTOS POR UM ACONCHEGO MUITO MAIOR.

“Tu te tornas eternamente responsável pelo que cativas".

Poetas-Um Voo Livre-
Sinal de Liberdade-uma expressão de sentimento-
Blog Coletivo-Uma Interação de Amigos- COLETIVAS-
MEUS MIMOS TEM UM AMIGO MUITO ESPECIAL AQUI. OFERECIDOS/RECEBIDOS-

The Mystical Path of Scientific Understanding

Reading and understanding the latest papers is a crucial part of being a scientist, but it's not something that we're ever taught to do, explicitly, as part of a scientific education. You take classes on genetics, and then maybe you become a grad student and you start doing genetics research: but there are no classes on reading genetics papers. It's something you pick up as you go along, if you're lucky.

But reading a paper isn't one single skill: as you learn more about a particular field your understanding of the published literature tends to progress through certain stages. At least, this is my experience. Like all such "stage models" what follows is a simplification, but it's something I think I'd have found useful to have been told when I was starting out.

Stage 0 : Huh?

You don't even understand what the paper is about. If I were to somehow find myself reading a paper on quantum chromodynamics, I would have no idea what it was trying to say, let alone whether it was right.

How to tell if you're at this level: The title has you stumped.

Next comes the most dangerous stage:

Stage 1 : Oooh!

You understand the paper's conclusions, but that's it: you don't get how the authors arrived at them, or how they relate to anything else. My understanding of chemistry is at this level: if someone claims to have found a new way of synthesizing some molecule, I know what that means, but I have to take the result or leave it: I can't criticize it, and in order to know how important the result is and what the implications are, I only have the author's word.

How to tell if you're here: you struggle with the Methods and the Results; you rely on the author's summary of their findings in the Abstract or the Discussion. The Introduction is all new to you.
How to get here: read a textbook until you grasp the basics of the field.

This is dangerous, because a paper could be completely wrong, and you wouldn't know - yet you know enough to be mislead by it, and to think you understand it. Incidentally, this is the stage inhabited by most journalists and politicians

These next two stages don't really come in any particular order. 2a does not necessarily precede 2b (it's just the one I chose to write about first.)

Stage 2a : Hmmm.

You understand the paper's conclusions and its methods, so you're able to judge how strong the argument is. If I were reading about a new cancer drug, and learned that had passed a large randomized controlled clinical trial, I'd be fairly confident that it works. Whereas, if I read that it had been "tested" in one patient (a case study), I'd be skeptical. I don't know anything about cancer drugs but I do know about clinical trials.

How to tell if you're here: you're comfortable reading the Methods and the Results.
How to get here: Read the Methods sections of papers in the field. If you don't understand the terminology, find a textbook or a review paper dealing with methods.

Stage 2b : Oh, interesting...

You understand why the authors decided to research this stuff, because you understand the specialist background literature about this sub-topic. You can judge important the research is and what the implications of it are. Note that the Introduction and the Discussion are meant to serve to explain all this context for the benefit of people who don't have this level of understanding of the topic, but in fact they're often either poorly written or actively misleading, so you can't rely on them.

How to tell if you're here: you find yourself either agreeing with, or criticizing, the Introduction and the Discussion.
How to get here: read recent review papers about the field. Textbooks are unlikely to be up-to-date enough, or detailed enough, to be of much use. Just remember that every review paper offers a different slant so make sure you don't just read one and take it as gospel.

Finally, we come to the highest stage, the moment of Enlightenment, saroti, Nirvana...

Stage 3 : Aha!

This is what happens when you have both of the previous kinds of understanding - you see what the authors did and why they did it. This is more than the sum of its parts, because it allows you to evaluate whether they chose the most appropriate way of answering the questions they set out to investigate. You can think up a better way of doing it, or design interesting follow-up work.

This is the stage at which you stop seeing papers as communications from a mysterious other world, and see them as something written by people much like yourself - which, or course, is what they are.

For example, if I were to read a paper using fMRI to study whether a new antidepressant raises dopamine levels in the brain, I'd be able to say that while that's an excellent question, fMRI is unable to show this directly, whereas PET can, so it's probably a better option; but they probably chose to use fMRI because it's a lot cheaper than PET and much less hassle.

How to tell if you're here: you pretty much know what the full paper is going to be like from the Abstract alone; you probably don't bother to read the whole thing.
How to get here: Get to 2a and 2b.

The Mystical Path of Scientific Understanding

Reading and understanding the latest papers is a crucial part of being a scientist, but it's not something that we're ever taught to do, explicitly, as part of a scientific education. You take classes on genetics, and then maybe you become a grad student and you start doing genetics research: but there are no classes on reading genetics papers. It's something you pick up as you go along, if you're lucky.

But reading a paper isn't one single skill: as you learn more about a particular field your understanding of the published literature tends to progress through certain stages. At least, this is my experience. Like all such "stage models" what follows is a simplification, but it's something I think I'd have found useful to have been told when I was starting out.

Stage 0 : Huh?

You don't even understand what the paper is about. If I were to somehow find myself reading a paper on quantum chromodynamics, I would have no idea what it was trying to say, let alone whether it was right.

How to tell if you're at this level: The title has you stumped.

Next comes the most dangerous stage:

Stage 1 : Oooh!

You understand the paper's conclusions, but that's it: you don't get how the authors arrived at them, or how they relate to anything else. My understanding of chemistry is at this level: if someone claims to have found a new way of synthesizing some molecule, I know what that means, but I have to take the result or leave it: I can't criticize it, and in order to know how important the result is and what the implications are, I only have the author's word.

How to tell if you're here: you struggle with the Methods and the Results; you rely on the author's summary of their findings in the Abstract or the Discussion. The Introduction is all new to you.
How to get here: read a textbook until you grasp the basics of the field.

This is dangerous, because a paper could be completely wrong, and you wouldn't know - yet you know enough to be mislead by it, and to think you understand it. Incidentally, this is the stage inhabited by most journalists and politicians

These next two stages don't really come in any particular order. 2a does not necessarily precede 2b (it's just the one I chose to write about first.)

Stage 2a : Hmmm.

You understand the paper's conclusions and its methods, so you're able to judge how strong the argument is. If I were reading about a new cancer drug, and learned that had passed a large randomized controlled clinical trial, I'd be fairly confident that it works. Whereas, if I read that it had been "tested" in one patient (a case study), I'd be skeptical. I don't know anything about cancer drugs but I do know about clinical trials.

How to tell if you're here: you're comfortable reading the Methods and the Results.
How to get here: Read the Methods sections of papers in the field. If you don't understand the terminology, find a textbook or a review paper dealing with methods.

Stage 2b : Oh, interesting...

You understand why the authors decided to research this stuff, because you understand the specialist background literature about this sub-topic. You can judge important the research is and what the implications of it are. Note that the Introduction and the Discussion are meant to serve to explain all this context for the benefit of people who don't have this level of understanding of the topic, but in fact they're often either poorly written or actively misleading, so you can't rely on them.

How to tell if you're here: you find yourself either agreeing with, or criticizing, the Introduction and the Discussion.
How to get here: read recent review papers about the field. Textbooks are unlikely to be up-to-date enough, or detailed enough, to be of much use. Just remember that every review paper offers a different slant so make sure you don't just read one and take it as gospel.

Finally, we come to the highest stage, the moment of Enlightenment, saroti, Nirvana...

Stage 3 : Aha!

This is what happens when you have both of the previous kinds of understanding - you see what the authors did and why they did it. This is more than the sum of its parts, because it allows you to evaluate whether they chose the most appropriate way of answering the questions they set out to investigate. You can think up a better way of doing it, or design interesting follow-up work.

This is the stage at which you stop seeing papers as communications from a mysterious other world, and see them as something written by people much like yourself - which, or course, is what they are.

For example, if I were to read a paper using fMRI to study whether a new antidepressant raises dopamine levels in the brain, I'd be able to say that while that's an excellent question, fMRI is unable to show this directly, whereas PET can, so it's probably a better option; but they probably chose to use fMRI because it's a lot cheaper than PET and much less hassle.

How to tell if you're here: you pretty much know what the full paper is going to be like from the Abstract alone; you probably don't bother to read the whole thing.
How to get here: Get to 2a and 2b.

RECOMEÇAR

Infelizmente a postagem anterior não abriu. Fico triste. cONTINUAM IMAGENS MUITO BONITAS. Mas fica a oração...

Cada manhã...
inicia o movimento...
de nascer,
transformar-se,
em cada manhã...
a vida floresce...
e estende seus braços...
e se reproduz...
em cada manhã...
a vida se expressa...
se encontra...
e se manifesta...
de mil formas...
de mil maneiras...
é maravilhosa de ser,
e reinventa...
seu milagre infinito...
de recomeçar...
uma nova manhã...
Deus só da três respostas as orações:
1. "Sim"
2. "Toda vida não"
3.- Eu pensei em algo melhor para ti"
Podes estar passando por momentos difícies agora
porém, Deus esta preparado para ajudar-te de uma
forma que tu nem sequer podes esperar e imaginar
Minhas instruções foram para escolher a
pessoas as que eu deseje que Deus
abençõe.
Eu escolhi você.

O poder da oração é incrível, e a oração e um dos
melhores presentes que podemos receber.
Não tem nenhum custo porém muita recompensa
Continuemos rezando uns pelos outros.
Aqui tens uma oração
Pai, eu te peço que abenções a meus amigos, parentes, e
contatos do
correio eletrônico agora.

Porque sempre é bom dar graças e queixar-se
menos......
SENHOR E PAI CELESTIAL, HOJE DE MANHÃ, MINHA CAMA
ESTAVA QUENTE E NÃO QUERIA DESPERTAR. NÃO QUERIA ME
LEVANTAR, QUERIA FICAR ALI, SEM TER QUE PREOCUPAR-ME
COM NADA, MAS AI ME RECORDEI QUE NÃO DEVERIA FAZÊ-LO.
PORQUE EXISTEM MILHÕES DE
PESSOAS, QUE QUERIAM ESTAR NO
MEU LUGAR, LEVANTAR-SE E TER A
ONDE IR, ESSAS PESSOAS QUE
ESTÃO SEM TER O QUE COMER, SEM
TER O QUE VESTIR.
HOJE MEU PAI AGRADEÇO PELA
NOITE MARAVILHOSA, PELO
COBERTOR QUE ME ACALENTOU.
POR MEU ALIMENTO, POR UM DIA MAIS DE TRABALHO E
PRINCIPALMENTE POR UM DIA MAIS DE VIDA.
BENDIGO SENHOR JESUS A MEUS AMIGOS E MEUS INIMIGOS, PORQUE
TAMBÉM ELES NESCESITAM DE TI. BENDIGO SENHOR A MEU AMIGO QUE

COMO É BOM AGRADECER A DEUS POR TODAS AS COISAS RECEBIDAS. PELOS CARINHOS, TRABALHO,UM LAR, ALIMENTOS, AMIGOS E PARENTES. CADA UM DE NÓS TEM O SEU MOTIVO ESPECIAL PARA AGRADECER. AGRADEÇO PRINCIPALMENTE PELA VIDA.
ELA É A PRINCIPAL RAZÃO DE ESTAR AQUI HOJE. NESTE MUNDO MARAVILHOSO DE DEUS.
APESAR DAS TRIBULAÇÕES E ACONTECIMENTOS.

AMIGOS! COMUNICO QUE ESTOU COM PROBLEMA NA NET. ESTÁ FALHANDO MUITO A CONEXÃO. LOGO ESTAREI AGRADECENDO A TODOS PELAS VISITAS NO BLOG. DESDE JÁ DEIXO MEU ENORME ABRAÇO E CARINHO. ESTOU FELIZ TAMBÉM. MINHA CIRURGIA FOI CANCELADA. SERIA DIA 06.08. O MÉDICO RESOLVEU ESPERAR MAIS UM POUCO, JÁ QUE O PARAFUSO QUEBROU NOVAMENTE DENTRO DO MEU PÉ. AGORA VOU ESPERAR...JÁ TINHA FEITO TODOS OS EXAMES. PRONTINHOS.
AGRADEÇO A DEUS TAMBÉM POR ISSO. QUEM SABE NÃO SERIA AINDA A HORA DE REFAZER.
LOGO RETORNAREI A MEU TRABALHO.
ISSO ME DEIXA MUITO FELIZ.
POIS AMO O QUE FAÇO.

Poetas-Um Voo Livre-

Sinal de Liberdade-uma expressão de sentimento-

Blog Coletivo-Uma Interação de Amigos- COLETIVAS-

MEUS MIMOS TEM UM AMIGO MUITO ESPECIAL AQUI.
OFERECIDOS/RECEBIDOS-

AGRADECER PELAS PEQUENAS COISAS.

EM CADA MANHÃ TUDO RECOMEÇE E SE RENOVA

COMO É BOM AGRADECER A DEUS POR TODAS AS COISAS RECEBIDAS. PELOS CARINHOS, TRABALHO,UM LAR, ALIMENTOS, AMIGOS E PARENTES. CADA UM DE NÓS TEM O SEU MOTIVO ESPECIAL PARA AGRADECER. AGRADEÇO PRINCIPALMENTE PELA VIDA.
ELA É A PRINCIPAL RAZÃO DE ESTAR AQUI HOJE. NESTE MUNDO MARAVILHOSO DE DEUS.
APESAR DAS TRIBULAÇÕES E ACONTECIMENTOS.

AMIGOS! COMUNICO QUE ESTOU COM PROBLEMA NA NET. ESTÁ FALHANDO MUITO A CONEXÃO. LOGO ESTAREI AGRADECENDO A TODOS PELAS VISITAS NO BLOG. DESDE JÁ DEIXO MEU ENORME ABRAÇO E CARINHO. ESTOU FELIZ TAMBÉM. MINHA CIRURGIA FOI CANCELADA. SERIA DIA 06.08. O MÉDICO RESOLVEU ESPERAR MAIS UM POUCO, JÁ QUE O PARAFUSO QUEBROU NOVAMENTE DENTRO DO MEU PÉ. AGORA VOU ESPERAR...JÁ TINHA FEITO TODOS OS EXAMES. PRONTINHOS.
AGRADEÇO A DEUS TAMBÉM POR ISSO. QUEM SABE NÃO SERIA AINDA A HORA DE REFAZER.
LOGO RETORNAREI A MEU TRABALHO.
ISSO ME DEIXA MUITO FELIZ.
POIS AMO O QUE FAÇO.

Poetas-Um Voo Livre-

Sinal de Liberdade-uma expressão de sentimento-

Blog Coletivo-Uma Interação de Amigos- COLETIVAS-

MEUS MIMOS
OFERECIDOS/RECEBIDOS-

The Left Hand of Obama

Voters in the 2008 Presidential election didn't have a meaningful choice. Whichever box they ticked, they were voting for a lefty.

Yes, Obama and McCain are both sinistral, a rather unlikely occurrence since just 7-10% of adults are left handed. Netherlands-based neuroscientists Casasanto and Jasmin decided to make use of this coincidence to test the hypothesis that people tend to make "good" gestures with their dominant hand and "bad" ones with their off-hand, in a new PLoS paper: Good and Bad in the Hands of Politicians.

They analyzed the final televised debates from the '04 and '08 elections, in which the candidates discussed various topics, both positive i.e. their own policies, and negative i.e. their opponent's Vietnam War records, choice of running-mate, and association with dodgy preachers. They also examined the gestures that the speakers made to accompany their positive or negative points, and recorded which hand they used. George W. Bush and John Kerry are both right-handed, by the way.

Here's what they found:
Both lefty candidates tended to use their left hands for good gestures and their right hands for bad ones, while the right-handed showed the opposite pattern. The data also reveal some interesting facts about the overall number of gestures: Obama had a hands-off approach with only 119 gestures in total, while McCain was gesticulating all over the shop (259). Bush and Kerry, however, were essentially equal (192 vs 193). Maybe Kerry's one extra gesture was just one too many for the electorate, thus costing him the Presidency.

Anyway, does this prove that we use our dominant hands to make "good" gestures - supporting the notion that we unconsciously associate positive ideas with our dominant side of space, and negative ideas with our non-dominant side? Well, this study includes a large amount of data: it is, statistically, very likely that Obama really does tend to use his left hand over his right hand for positive gestures, i.e. this is unlikely to be due to random chance.

But does this mean that there's a correlation between handedness and good-gesture-lateralization? We actually only have 4 data points relevant to that question: Obama, McCain, Kerry and Bush. We have a lot of information on each of those people, but there are only 4 independent sets of data.

Suppose that everyone has a hand-they-use-for-good-gestures, and that it's 50/50 whether it's left or right - that is to say, suppose it has nothing to do with your general handedness. Clearly, there's then a 50% chance that any given person's good-gesture-hand will match their handedness, just by coincidence. There's a 1 in 4 chance that, for any two people, both will have a match; it's 1 in 8 for three people and 1 in 16 for four people. Which implies that there's a 1 in 16 chance that these results would have happened purely by chance.

Maybe we need to look back to the Clinton / Dole debates to get some more data...

Daniel Casasanto and Kyle Jasmin1 (2010). Good and Bad in the Hands of Politicians: Spontaneous Gestures during Positive and Negative Speech PLoS ONE

The Left Hand of Obama

Voters in the 2008 Presidential election didn't have a meaningful choice. Whichever box they ticked, they were voting for a lefty.

Yes, Obama and McCain are both sinistral, a rather unlikely occurrence since just 7-10% of adults are left handed. Netherlands-based neuroscientists Casasanto and Jasmin decided to make use of this coincidence to test the hypothesis that people tend to make "good" gestures with their dominant hand and "bad" ones with their off-hand, in a new PLoS paper: Good and Bad in the Hands of Politicians.

They analyzed the final televised debates from the '04 and '08 elections, in which the candidates discussed various topics, both positive i.e. their own policies, and negative i.e. their opponent's Vietnam War records, choice of running-mate, and association with dodgy preachers. They also examined the gestures that the speakers made to accompany their positive or negative points, and recorded which hand they used. George W. Bush and John Kerry are both right-handed, by the way.

Here's what they found:
Both lefty candidates tended to use their left hands for good gestures and their right hands for bad ones, while the right-handed showed the opposite pattern. The data also reveal some interesting facts about the overall number of gestures: Obama had a hands-off approach with only 119 gestures in total, while McCain was gesticulating all over the shop (259). Bush and Kerry, however, were essentially equal (192 vs 193). Maybe Kerry's one extra gesture was just one too many for the electorate, thus costing him the Presidency.

Anyway, does this prove that we use our dominant hands to make "good" gestures - supporting the notion that we unconsciously associate positive ideas with our dominant side of space, and negative ideas with our non-dominant side? Well, this study includes a large amount of data: it is, statistically, very likely that Obama really does tend to use his left hand over his right hand for positive gestures, i.e. this is unlikely to be due to random chance.

But does this mean that there's a correlation between handedness and good-gesture-lateralization? We actually only have 4 data points relevant to that question: Obama, McCain, Kerry and Bush. We have a lot of information on each of those people, but there are only 4 independent sets of data.

Suppose that everyone has a hand-they-use-for-good-gestures, and that it's 50/50 whether it's left or right - that is to say, suppose it has nothing to do with your general handedness. Clearly, there's then a 50% chance that any given person's good-gesture-hand will match their handedness, just by coincidence. There's a 1 in 4 chance that, for any two people, both will have a match; it's 1 in 8 for three people and 1 in 16 for four people. Which implies that there's a 1 in 16 chance that these results would have happened purely by chance.

Maybe we need to look back to the Clinton / Dole debates to get some more data...

Daniel Casasanto and Kyle Jasmin1 (2010). Good and Bad in the Hands of Politicians: Spontaneous Gestures during Positive and Negative Speech PLoS ONE

A VIDA!!!

MINHA AUÊNCIA FOI DEVIDO A FALTA DA INTERNET.
ESTAMOS COM UM PQUENEO PROBLEMA POR AQUI.

AS VEZES RECEBEMOS MENSAGEM QUE MEXEM MUITO CONOSCO.
QUERO COMPARTILHAR ESTA COM VOCÊ!!!
NÃO IMPORTA NOSSO CREDO. O MAIS IMPORTANTE É QUE DEUS FAZ PARTE DA NOSSA VIDA.
ELE SIM É O NOSSO GRANDE MENTOR: NOS CRIOU E NOS FEZ SER, COM VIDA E BELEZA. COM UM GRANDE CORAÇÃO CAPAZ DE AMAR E PERDOAR.

A GRANDE VIAGEM DO ESPIRÍTO:

A VIDA!

Reflexões ...
Vale a Pena Viver... e Aprender!
A vida não espera.

Por onde você for, o
tempo não pára.
O que ficou, ficou...
O que se foi,
passou...

É a vida em
movimento. Somos
viajantes eternos em
suas trilhas.

Parece que somos passageiros na eternidade, mas
a verdade é que somos eternos dentro do
temporário. Ou seja, somos o eterno no
movimento da vida que segue.

Na natureza, tudo passa!
O traço característico da existência é a
impermanência.
As coisas mudam...

Pessoas e situações vão e vêm em nossas
vidas, entram e saem na esfera de ação
do nosso viver.

Há um tempo para tudo: o amanhecer, o meio-
dia e o anoitecer. Da mesma forma, há um tempo
para semear e colher; nascer, viver, partir,
renascer e seguir...

Tudo passa!
O que marca é a
experiência
adquirida.

As culpas e as mágoas também passam!
No rio da vida, as águas do tempo curam tudo,
pois diluem no eterno as coisas passageiras.

As coisas estranhas que
aconteceram, os dramas e as
palavras que feriram também
passam... Se você permitir. Sim,
se você se permitir notar que o
tempo leva tudo, e que a vida
segue...

Aquele ressentimento antigo ou aquelas emoções
apagadas que, vez por outra, bloqueiam a sua
alegria fazem parte do que é temporário, mas você
é eterno.Essas emoções passam por você,
mas que tal superá-las?
Que tal passar por elas, sem se deter, apenas
ficando a experiência e seguindo a vida?

Sim, tudo passa mesmo! As estações se sucedem no tempo
certo: primavera, verão, outono e inverno.
Isso é natural! Como é natural o espírito imperecível
entrar e sair dos corpos perecíveis. Como é natural seguir
em frente, pois o tempo não pára e a vida segue...

E, do centro da Consciência Cósmica, o Grande
Arquiteto do Universo, o Supremo Comandante de
todas as vidas e de todos os tempos nos abençoa
sempre.As experiências vão, mas o aprendizado fica.
A evolução é inevitável!

Todos estão destinados à Consciência Cósmica,
mesmo que não entendam isso agora. Porém, se o
desentendimento é passageiro, a felicidade
advinda do processo de evoluir continuamente será
imperecível.

Tudo a seu tempo!
Enquanto evoluem e aprendem a arte de viver,
sejam felizes...
E não se detenham até alcançar a meta!
O que vale é o Amor !

Que a luz do discernimento e dos sentimentos mais elevados
possa iluminar nossos corações!
Que cada dia leve consigo a maravilha do momento, que
sempre passa...
Existir é um privilégio. E viver é maravilhoso!
Paz e Luz!

" ... Esta mensagem dedico especialmente a você... leia com muita calma e medite .
Ela nos traz grandes ensinamentos para a vida... ter fé... acreditar que Deus e que Ele está te preparando um futuro melhor, para todos nós. Não podemos desanimar... confie... É melhor ter um pouco de paciência hoje do que ter que voltar e fazer o mesmo caminho de novo em situações ainda piores. Que Deus que te conceda muita paciência, compreensão, generosidade e CARIDADE que é:
Benevolência para com todos - Indulgência para com as imperfeições dos outros e Perdão das ofensas. PERDOE SEMPRE PERDOE... PERDOE..
Nós temos muita dificuldade de perdoar, mas é dele que precisamos nos utilizar para que tenhamos fortaleza para continuar.Com a mudança dos nossos paradigmas é que ele acontece. Não revide, simplesmente perdoe. É dificil, mas não é impossivel.

Cada um de nós tem os seus dias e momentos. As vezes é preciso ouvir e meditar. Deus é a nossa PRESENÇA. Nosso AMOR.. PAZ, ALEGRIA, CARINHO. A cada manhecer uma nova chance de estar aqui e VIVER.

MUITAS VEZES PRECISAMOS DESSAS MENSAGENS. PRECISAMOS FAZER A MANUTANÇÃO E REACORDAR PARA A VIDA. BUSCAR A PAZ, QUE VEZES FICA ADORMECIDA DENTRO DE NÓS.
REACENDER AS CHAMAS..
ELAS FAZEM A GRANDE DIFERENÇA EM NOSSA VIDA.

(Todas as imagens aqui usadas, foram pesquisadas na net, para fazer as ilustrações).