In the late 1940s, Teller began advocating the immediate development of a hydrogen bomb, in response to the news that Russia had built an atomic weapon. All rights reserved. The question will be whether these advantages will outweigh the benefits of competition. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.
The bureaucratic competition is not always productive, however.
Copyright 2006, Gale Group. With the help of Ernest Lawrence, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and California scientific entrepreneur, Teller persuaded Congress to create a second design lab in Livermore, Calif., which would go full-speed ahead on the H-bomb project.
The antagonism has its roots in the relationship between the two fathers of the atomic program, Edward Teller and Robert Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer remained more cautious, and Teller soon became convinced that Los Alamos, whose director, Norris Bradbury, was an Oppenheimer ally, was insufficiently dedicated to the H-bomb project.
. They concluded, wrongly as it turned out, that the design was unsafe, and advised against building it, a judgment that was received at Los Alamos as a slap in the face. But having separate design labs, and a relationship of competition–even antagonism–between them, does make it easier for outsiders to gain access to information about their shortcomings.” If I want to hear what’s wrong with the NIF at Livermore, my best option is to go to people at Los Alamos,” says Hugh Gusterson, an MIT anthropologist who studies the culture of the weapons labs.
COPYRIGHT 2006 Washington Monthly Company
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
If elected officials ever get around to consolidating our weapons complex, they’ll have to decide whether to also consolidate the design labs. From the start, scientists at Los Alamos felt undermined by and resentful of Teller and his new facility, which they saw as radical and potentially dangerous.
When the H-bomb was eventually produced, Livermore was given most of the credit. But some members of the task force privately support such a step–which would almost certainly mean shuttering Livermore, the smaller of the two.
In the long and storied history of bureaucratic infighting, few contests have been more vitriolic than the one between our two major nuclear weapons design labs, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore. This infuriated scientists at Los Alamos, who had in fact run the thermonuclear tests that had helped pave the way for the bomb. Doing so would not only provide the cost and security improvements associated with consolidation of special nuclear material, k would also, in all likelihood, make it easier to reduce the number of weapons scientists employed by the complex–and therefore the amount of federal money for “make-work” designed solely to keep those scientists busy. ‘And if I want to hear what’s wrong with the DAHRT at Los Alamos, I’ll go to people at Livermore.”
The ultimate truth, say historians, is that the rancor was probably worth it: Thanks to competition between the two labs, America more quickly produced the H-bomb, and therefore had a more effective deterrent against the Soviet Union sooner. At the end of the Cold War, Livermore scientists reviewed the Los Alamos design for the W88 warhead. (The production facilities largely work on separate aspects of the process, so there’s no real competition taking place.) The Overskei report neither recommended nor discouraged consolidating the two labs into one. Livermore scientists, for their part, saw their counterparts at Los Alamos as stodgy and risk-averse
It also will use the information to validate computer models designed to apply the results to other drop scenarios, since it’s not possible to replicate every possible accident in tests, according to the lab.
Mark Rockwell is a staff writer covering acquisition, procurement and homeland security. CRAFT demonstrated how the radar performed during re-entry through plasma generated by the hypersonic speeds at which the warhead travels. The June CRAFT test, according to Tim Edwards, manager for the program’s technical basis and qualification activities, was the first of several planned tests intended to demonstrate the upgraded system’s performance. It was also the first flight test unit Sandia and its partners, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Kansas City Plant, and Pantex, delivered to the Navy for full-scale testing under the program.
Researchers at Sandia National Labs, who are responsible for validating designs, improving computer modeling and updating component specifications for the W88 Alt 370 (alteration), have finished gathering data from two tests for an upgraded version of the US W88 nuclear warhead used in the Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile.
About the Author
The second test was more straightforward — and possibly a little alarming, if you’re not familiar with nuclear weapons design tests.
And, according to a statement from the labs, the W88 Alt 370 is cleared to move forward.
Gathering data for the latest nuclear warhead design is as nuanced as gathering intricate computer modeling data from flight tests and as brutally honest as dropping a nuclear warhead’s shell onto a concrete slab to see if it breaks.
. Contact him at email@example.com or follow him on Twitter at @MRockwell4.
In its first “drop test” of the W88 warhead since 1987, Sandia researchers hoisted an unarmed version of the weapon’s re-entry body on a crane and dropped it almost 200 feet to smash onto a concrete slab below.
The test is designed to replicate a crane accidentally dropping the re-entry body onto a concrete surface, according to the lab and helps develop evidence that the shell would remain safe during an accident. The test was conducted at Sandia’s 185-foot Drop Tower Facility near Albuquerque, N.M., using the same handling gear a crane would use to move the weapon.
The Critical Radar Arming and Fuzing Test (CRAFT) was the first flight test of a prototype radar for the W88 ALT 370.
What happens when you drop a nuclear warhead on concrete?
By Mark RockwellNov 04, 2014
Sandia National Labs’ 185-foot Drop Tower Facility near Albuquerque, N.M., was used to gather data on the durability of the W88 ALT 370 warhead.
Sandia said it will use vibration and shock measurement data from the test to update specifications for components in the weapon
(Work on the facility and its equipment was well along when DOE abruptly realized it would not be large enough to accommodate needed machinery, forcing a costly redesign and lengthy delays.)
Moniz, in his confirmation hearing, tread carefully around the topic of what the department should be spending on nonproliferation. Elzea, declined to address the issue in detail but confirmed that “over the past year DOD and DOE carried out a joint study regarding DOD’s nuclear weapons requirements and funding options for those requirements. “These cuts are going to be huge,” and will be particularly problematic amid budget boosts for weapons programs that many lawmakers believe “have been mismanaged for the last five to six years.”
Asked for comment, NNSA spokesman Robert Middaugh said he could not respond until the budget has been formally released. “If confirmed, I intend to make sure that [DOE laboratories and intelligence experts] … because our national security depends on it.”
The half-billion-dollar shift in spending priorities reflects an administration decision that nuclear explosives work the Energy Department performs for the military should be both accelerated and expanded. military deploys could be cut by at least a third, below a limit of 1550 established in a treaty with Russia in 2010. continue to sustain the nation’s nuclear security,” he said, without delving into budgetary issues or specific programs.
The priority shift “is going to be a disaster,” said a Democratic congressional aide, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak on the budget before its official release. The officials have also decided to discuss a potential agreement for such reductions with Russian president Vladimir Putin.
Specifically, officials said, the Energy Department determined in consultation with the Pentagon that it would likely need $10 billion in new funds to fulfill all of its promises to the military for the production of modernized warheads, over the next decade alone.
In the end, the Pentagon was cajoled into contributing $3 billion more. nuclear weapons arsenal into fuel for reactors that generate electricity, known as the Mixed-Oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication plant in Savannah River, S.C. Tim Scott (R.-S.C.) about whether he supports completing the MOX plant. But he said officials may have calculated that they cannot win congressional support for further cuts in nuclear arsenals with Russia without spending billions more to refurbish America’s remaining stockpile of nuclear weapons, under a bargain Obama struck during his first term.
Under the 2014 proposal, the Energy Department’s nuclear weapons activities funding — which includes modernization efforts for bomber-based and missile-based warheads – would be increased roughly 7 percent, or around $500 million, above the current level of $7.227 billion for these activities.
As recently as December 3, President Obama described the government’s nuclear nonproliferation efforts – including some directed by the Defense Department – as “one of our most important national security programs.” Speaking at the National Defense University, Obama said the effort was “nowhere near done. But Democrats on Capitol Hill and independent arms control groups predicted the decision will provoke controversy and a substantial budget fight this year.. The study determined that the modernization program was underfunded, and steps have been taken to ensure adequate funding for essential modernization needs moving forward.”
Only one category of Energy Department nonproliferation work would be increased – research and development, mostly to finance work on a new nuclear detonation sensor to be placed about Air Force satellites.
The Obama administration will propose a deep cut in funding for nuclear nonproliferation programs at the Energy Department largely so it can boost the department’s spending to modernize its stockpile of nuclear weapons, according to government officials familiar with the proposed 2014 federal budget to be unveiled Wednesday, April 10.
Joan Rohlfing, president of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonprofit arms control group founded by Ted Turner and former Sen. At the end of it, a $250 million DOE “nuclear counterterrorism incident response” program previously considered a weapons activity was shifted to the nonproliferation budget account, a change that has the effect of making the bottom line for that account look better than it otherwise would have.
But several officials and other sources familiar with the administration’s budget deliberations this year said the DOE nuclear weapons-related cost overruns and the new austerity climate gripping Washington – including the demand under so-called “sequestration” legislation for $54 billion in national security spending cuts each year until 2021 -had upended the administration’s plans to spend more on nonproliferation.
The new weapons-related spending would expand efforts to upgrade the W76, W88, W78, and B-61 warheads, and help fund construction of a new facility in Tennessee for processing uranium, a nuclear explosive used in these and other warheads. A Pentagon spokeswoman, Jennifer D. Its construction would be greatly slowed, while the Defense Department and the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration study alternative ways to safeguard tons of the excess plutonium.
The department also needs more funds than anticipated for improvements to the W76 warhead, which is carried by Trident submarine-based missiles.
Under the Obama proposal, the budget for other DOE work related to nuclear nonproliferation would also be curtailed by about $277 million. “I will certainly look into this with high priority” if confirmed, he told Scott.
But then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, after hearing from aides that these overruns were due in part to poor management and inaccurate cost accounting at DOE, initially said the department would not provide any new funds to DOE, on top of the $4.5 billion it previously promised to cover earlier overruns, according to two government officials privy to the deliberations.
The Energy Department needs at least $3 billion to $5 billion more to upgrade the B61 nuclear bomb – meant for deployment aboard strategic and tactical aircraft – than it initially expected, and several billions of dollars more to cover cost overruns in construction of the uranium processing facility. These programs have experienced billions of dollars in cost overruns in recent years, forcing the administration to look elsewhere in the DOE budget to find the money it needs to keep them alive.
Much of the reduction in nonproliferation spending – around $183 million – would come from a controversial plant designed to transform excess plutonium from the U.S. But that still left a $4 billion gap between DOE’s nuclear weapons-related promises to the military and its ability to complete that work, forcing a scramble during the department’s budget deliberations to cut from other programs, officials said.
The plant is about 60 percent completed, but one senior administration official called it “managerially and programmatically, a nightmare,” with continuously rising costs.
The department’s nonproliferation programs, aimed at diminishing the security threat posed by fissile materials in other countries that can be used for nuclear weapons, would be cut by roughly 20 percent, or $460 million, below the current level of $2.45 billion, the officials said.
To cover the $10 billion total cost overrun, the Energy Department and its National Nuclear Security Administration agreed to transfer roughly $3 billion into weapons work from management accounts and other internal savings. programs for securing, reducing and eliminating weapons usable nuclear materials are a critical part of our strategy for combating nuclear terrorism and preventing the proliferation of these deadly dangerous materials…A decision to significantly cut these programs, including our near-term ability to dispose of excess plutonium, would be a setback to our ability to reach critical security goals.”
Tom Collina, research director for the Arms Control Association, a Washington-based nonprofit group, said “in a way,” it seems inconsistent for the administration to promote arms control while cutting the DOE’s nonproliferation budget. That would include a 16 percent cut in spending on efforts to halt the use of fissile material in civilian nuclear reactors and collect or secure weapons-usable fissile materials in other countries; an 8 percent cut in spending on policy to control the spread of nuclear weapons-related technologies; and a 36 percent cut in efforts to monitor potential illicit commerce in fissile materials.
One, who asked not to be named, said the DOE shortfall had set off “months of wrangling” about the issue, not only within the department but at the highest levels of the administration. Sam Nunn, said “the U.S. Under the Obama administration’s proposal for fiscal year 2014, spending for the MOX plant would be around $330 million, or 47 percent of the budget it was supposed to get next year. That plant was initially budgeted at $1.8 billion, but the pricetag has ballooned to at least $7.5 billion, provoking widespread criticism and allegations of mismanagement.
The Center for Public Integrity has previously reported administration officials had agreed that the number of nuclear warheads the U.S. Not by a long shot.” He also proudly said the government has been “increasing funding, and sustaining it … It then asked the Pentagon to provide the additional $7 billion.
Secretary of Energy nominee Ernest Moniz, speaking at a Senate confirmation hearing Tuesday, ducked multiple questions from Sen
But most often, the contrary happens. The allurement is not easy to overcome. It may lead them to a stage where they cannot stop themselves from betting money and valuables, in turn leading them to bankruptcy. People engage in gambling activities to get rid of their problems, stress, and loneliness. Perhaps, a good solution to prevent the ill-effects of gambling is to make it illegal.
Why Gambling Should Be Illegal
Though one may argue that gambling is only a means of recreation and that it should be taken as a form of entertainment, truth is that it is seldom taken that way. You get caught in this cycle and keep gambling for hours together. Those addicted to gambling are often seen giving up their jobs and careers, thus spoiling their lives.
Gambling refers to the process of staking money in view of gaining more. It will keep a check on the prevalence of gambling practices. It’s a fruitless activity actually. Strict laws against gambling, and punishments or penalties to those caught, coupled with surveillance, can prevent the number of people indulging in gambling. These practices can best be prevented through the use of rules. Lack of funds to repay the loans may leave them incapable of shouldering their responsibilities towards their family. The same, on applying to gambling, can prevent or at least reduce the negative effects it has. If addiction to gambling is entitled to punishment, gambling practices will become less prevalent or even stop. But it is tempting to bet money, hoping for a bigger win every time. Problem gamblers or compulsive gamblers as they can be called, feel compelled to bet money with the intent to win more and more. Money just changes hands between the gamblers and is never really put to good use. Generally, people fear to do something that is illegal. In the process, you may end up losing large amounts of money. It keeps circulating between those involved in gambling, and they keep switching between rich, richer, poor, and poorer. Gambling can make the rich poor and the poor rich, within seconds; that too, only out of luck. When it comes to making money, one has to draw a line between need and greed. Gambling often turns out to be a thoughtless splurge of money and a waste of quality time. Crime is best curbed through the use of law and order. It tempts you to risk more in an attempt to win more and the cycle does not seem to end. Irrespective of whether they lose or win money, their addiction to gambling forces them to continue staking it. You get addicted to it. Gambling is something that blurs this line. It invites problems.
Gambling can lead people to crime. In this case, the family members either have to face hardships and economic problems, or they may decide to separate, sharing no responsibility of the money lost.
Gambling leads people to borrow money and take secret loans for betting. In case you lose money, you want to earn it back and in case you earn money, you are tempted to get more. It may land them into huge debts. Their addiction forces them to risk huge amounts of money. This leads to huge debts they may never be able to repay. They take irresponsible decisions about staking money and risk amounts they don’t even have. Many a time, law serves as the best stickler.
Gambling is so addictive, that it won’t be wrong to compare it with drugs. And then you do it regularly. Similar to how substance abuse has devastating effects on a personal and social level, even gambling is detrimental to both these aspects of living. Even if you win, your greed to win more might never end. Why not make it illegal?
Money that could have been invested in better ways or put to better use is lost in gambling. Hence, it should be made illegal.
Making gambling illegal can solve most of the problems associated with it. Gamblers consider it to be a business, an investment, or a way to earn money. Gambling may breed ill-practices that have adverse effects on your family and social life. Those addicted to gambling fail to think wisely before taking any decisions in life. The prohibition of gambling by law is an effective measure to discourage people from its damaging effects.. The activity that started as a game of winning or losing money might take a bad turn and lead you to criminal activities. They prefer to remain away from something that is banned by law. And hence it’s best done by law.
In January 2013, Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security broke up a “transnational gambling ring” connected with the Philippine-licensed M88.com following a three-year investigation. At least 70 individuals were arrested, including the alleged organizer Nguyen Hoang Kiet, whom Thanh Nien News described as “a notorious retired thief.”
Police said Kiet, who has served three jail sentences for robbery and drug smuggling, had been running the operation for over a year under the guise of a pig farm.
Among those arrested was Nguyen Le Sand, the former deputy director of marketing at Vietnam International Bank, who was allegedly paid US $100k to allow M88 financial transactions to be conducted through eight bank accounts. The trial is scheduled to last until May 19.
HO CHI MINH CITY TAKES DOWN ILLEGAL CASINO, COCKFIGHTING RING
Meanwhile, Ho Chi Minh City police busted a massive illegal casino and cockfighting operation over the weekend. Last June, charges were filed against 59 individuals, some of who acted as agents and money-movers on behalf of M88, which police have described as the most popular online betting site in Vietnam. The operation is believed to have handled over $92m in wagers from nearly 12k customers before the authorities pulled the plug. .
Vietnamese authorities have commenced court proceedings against 59 individuals caught up in the bust of a ring tied to online gambling operator M88.com. Inside, were roulette tables and a cockfighting tent. The walled-off grounds were accessible via a single entrance and monitored by four CCTV cameras. Police are still on the trail of suspect Nguyen Vo Hoai Tram, who is believed to have been M88′s first agent on the ground in 2010. Prosecutors have proposed charging six individuals with the serious offence of gambling organization while the others are facing mere illegal gambling charges.
May 12, 2015
On Tuesday, the trial of the 59 accused got underway in Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court. The ring’s biggest whale reportedly generated $415k in total bets. Police seized around $10k in cash, 60 mobile phones and 77 motorbikes
Vietnam has several casinos, but they are reserved for foreigners. A draft decree on casino operations under review by government agencies would allow Vietnamese under certain conditions. Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung’s approval in principle of the casino at Phu Quoc, a resort island in the Gulf of Thailand, was reported this week by local media.
HANOI, Vietnam – A recently announced government decision to allow a casino on Vietnam’s biggest island has drawn mixed reactions from citizens, who weigh its potential economic benefits against its perceived social vices.
Debate has focused on whether Vietnamese citizens should be allowed inside. The decree also mandates a minimum $4 billion investment in the casino’s development.
How would they feel if their girlfriends do the sam, watching or chatting to guys online?
Why do guys never mention they were watching porn online to their partners?…because they know it’ll bother them! That’s why they hide it.
But, it’ll be really hard for me, as we were planning to do that together. I feel totally lost, at a moment in my life were I most need my partner’s support, as I have several relatives in my life who are dealing with serious health issues.
I kept asking him, and he denied it. To what I said: “Maybe more like 30 times and counting?!…it’s right here in the “History”!” And then he started looking like “shit, I got caught”.
It’s a very hard subject to discuss, as everyone has different views of what a healthy relationship and sexual relationship should be. At 5am! he followed me in his car and took me home.
I felt so mad and betrayed. And if you don’t have a healthy stable relationship, you should discuss it with your partner first to fix up the cracks TOGETHER. It’s the same principle. When you do something behind someone else’s back, it’s because you know in your heart it might upset the other person.
Mind you, all the sites were girls-girls, girls-guys, and one of transexuals having sex!!!!
In a relationship, I only ask TRUST, COMMUNICATION, and RESPECT. I don’t trust him the same way, and to me, trust is everything. It’s hard to realize this is the beginning of the end of this relationship, at this point in my life. I NEVER negotiate with not getting that. I wasn’t looking for it. This got me even more mad.
This happened right next to him, while I was using his laptop, and he was sleeping next to me. I said: “Don’t treat me as if I’m stupid, you can’t deny it, it’s right here, in your “History”. You’re making the other person feel like he/she is not good enough.
Please post any replies identifying the message with “REPLY” on the first paragraph of your reply.
I just found out my boyfriend watches porn sites often, by looking at his computer “History”. I saw it, as I was looking for another link in the “History” I had visited before, that had nothing to do with porn.
Me personally…I grew up in a catholic family were also, trust and respect for others is everything. Everyone has different needs. He went blank, and said: “I haven’t visited any porn sites”. I’ve even sacrificed career dreams to support his, and this porn issue makes me feel like I should have never done that.
We were supposed to go to NYC together on vacation 4 days later. Remember, I only ask for TRUST, RESPECT, and COMMUNICATION in a relationship. You should not patch the cracks online, watching porn.
Instead, they should talk to their partners about it as a couple, to see how the other feels about it. I decided not to go. I don’t feel comfortable with him anymore. now, I feel like I should just go on with my life, and go live my career and personal dreams elsewhere.
I believe all guys who do so behind their partners back are “virtual cheaters”. You can call it conservative, or you can call me wild child too…it depends on what your core beliefs are.
Thanks to all for reading my long message. Than, he said, “we’ll i watched it once before”. I’m 40, and it’s hard to not know now were my life may be heading without him. Still, I have experimented with things catholisism says you should not. Specially, because he denied it when I asked him the first time. But I can’t forget situations that have to do with distrust.
I took the computer and went in the bathroom, locked the door, and checked out all his “history” and “caches” from both his Safari and Firefox internet browsers. He immediately started breathing heavier and sweating even though the A/C was full on.
I’ve always wanted to work elsewhere, and haven’t done so to support his career dreams at this time (we planned to tackle my career dreams together later on, and tackle his first). Doing this not only causes distrust from the other person, but also inadequate feelings and insecurities. I said: “The porn sited you’ve visited”. What might be ok to someone may not be ok to someone else, due to their beliefs and upbringing.
It’s very selfishl and immature for guys to think it’s ok only because “guys think like that”.
I don’t see any difference between watching porn online and going to a strip club to see girls dancing naked. This, assuming you didn’t go for a lap dance or more at the strip club, or started chatting with girls online.
When you’re in a happy and healthy sexual relationship you don’t have the need to look elsewhere. I rather not live with that stress, or have to bring up this situation everytime I get mad or angry at him for something else (I know I will do that). My partner knew that very well.
This is a very common issue in relationships, and that’s why men try to justify it as being something “every guy does”. I came out of the bathroom, took my things and left. Not do it behind their partners back. When someone breaks my trust, I rather not be with that person anymore. And have given my partners the same.
It’s very sad, as I am deeply in love with him, and always thought this was the man I will be with forever. You’re looking at girls naked: one is dancing in front of you almost naked (and you don’t touch her), the other is fuxxxxx a guy/girl naked in your computer, and you don’t touch her. (Hello, who doesn’t?! Living 100% under catholic beliefs is rarely seen anymore).
Good luck to all!
We’ve been together for 2 years, and had the most healthy and beautiful relationship. I was also looking to let it all out while writing it. He had many visits to porn sites. I’ve never seen a man so in love with me before, who always really put me first. I need someone to talk to about this, but feel ashamed to tell others what my boyfriend (or ex-boyfriend) did.. I rather not waste my time or his anymore, and be in a relationship in those terms.
Like most people, I’ve had pre-marital sex with all my partners (I’m not married) I’m just not as liberal as other people who don’t mind having orgies at home, kissing other guys/girls, taking many drugs, etc. Then, he woke up, and asked me what was it I was looking at. Because it’s an easier way out for them to say that, than admit they were hiding something from their partners.
I know if I stay with him, it’ll always hunt me that he may be going online to watch porn, or that he may be lying to me on other things. We don’t go to mass or do all the catholic rituals, we just have that catholic upbringing from having being in private catholic schools. And THEN, take it from there. I’m just an average woman, when it comes down to all that. While in the car he said: “I did it because I was just curious”
This happened when Rahul Dravid, was considered the batting backbone of Indian cricket team. Same way you are bound to find many kids with Rahul as their name. Now, the condition is so pathetic for that same man that he finds it tough to get a place in the playing 11 of Indian cricket team.
. Thats not all!
Worlds best golf player Tiger Woods, too, has a poignant story behind his name. People keep names for different reasonssome name their kids after political heroes, film stars and great personalities and after sports stars.
There is nothing weird in this. His father had named him after a Vietnam soldier whom he befriended with during that war.
In India where cricket is treated like a religion, many parents have kept the first name of the master blaster batsman Sachin Tendulkar as their sons names.
It has been reported that during and after 2000 when China was preparing to bid to host the now upcoming Beijing 2008 Games, around 3,491 people named themselves as Aoyun, which means Olympics. And now, if anyone calls the name of these five creatures in China, it is expected that there will more than 4000 people who will come running around you looking for the people who called their names.
Go to any nation, one would definitely find many people who have been named after their parents favorite sports idols or there will those fanatic fans who have adopted their favorite sport stars names in order to show their respect for those players.
The Beijing Games effect: Many Chinese have “Olympics” as their names
by: James Larry
The cute looking five creatures, Bei, Jing Jing, Huan Huan, Ying Ying, and Ni Ni, that form the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games mascot called Fuwa, have such an indelible effect on the Chinese residents that many kept their names as their own.
Who said whats in the name? Ask those 7, 491 Chinese people who have named themselves or their kids after the Olympics or with the names of five creatures that are part of the 2008 Beijing Games mascotFuwa. Names have great significance and meanings