A Cat Worth $13 Million? There's an Heir of Truth about That

We're just going to have to get used to it. Tommaso is richer than we are. Tommaso is richer than all of us put together.

Tommaso is not some previously unknown heir to the Silvio Berlusconi fortune (although that might be dwindling a bit these days). Tommaso is not even a bambino. 

No, Tommaso is a cat.

An Italian woman, Maria Assunta, who had inherited a large fortune when her husband, died turned around and, at age 94, having no children, left the money to the cat.

The money in this case was a collection of properties in Rome and Milan, a bit of land in Calabria, and a pile of cash. In all, the total is $13 million.

You have to hand it to some people. They know how to go out in style.

According to Stefania, the nurse who cared for Mrs. Assunta in the last weeks in her life, the woman was devoted to the cat, which she had rescued from the streets of Rome. She tried to leave the money to an animal welfare group but couldn't find one to her satisfaction. So the cat got all the money.

So, Stefania and Tommaso are living somewhere in Italy, their location and last names undisclosed — hers for privacy reasons and his because he never had one.

A cat with $13 million? Now that's a lot of catnip.

But Tommaso isn't the world's richest pet. He's not even close. That honor belongs to Gunther IV, a German shepherd who inherited $124 million from his owner, a German countess, when she died a few years ago. Gunther, being a resourceful dog, has invested wisely (including in an apartment once owned by Madonna) and is now worth $372 million.

But Tommaso isn't the world's second-richest pet. No, that distinction is held by Kalu, a chimp whose owner left him what is now a fortune of $80 million. 

Tommaso's $13 million seems quite paltry compared to what Gunther and Kalu can bring to the table. (Now that's a sight I'd like to see.)

Maybe we're looking at a new opportunity for Forbes or Fortune here: The Pet 100.

Hard Times Mean Pay Cut for the Queen

Someone save the Queen. She's taking a pay cut.

One of the consequences of the austerity measures put forth by Parliament recently is a reduction in the annual amount paid to the Royal Monarch. Slated to last for several years, this legislation will, among other things, delay some repairs scheduled or otherwise needed for the royal palaces and put into doubt the rather sizable amount of annual funds needed to sustain the still-glamorous lifestyle of the New Kids on the Heir-to-the-Throne Block, William and Kate (otherwise known as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge). No doubt their wedding had something to do with this current downsizing, but never mind.

So on to the numbers. The Government has changed the way it allocates funds for the Royal Monarch, and it's now 15 percent of the profits made by the Crown Estate, during a two-year period. That's nowhere near what it used to be, and the Queen is NOT getting any younger. If you feel inclined to prop up the Royal Treasury, you can certainly visit one of the long list of Royal-held properties and make sure you spend a lot of tourist dollars.

But actually, the Queen is moving with the times. She is getting less, just like workers in the United Kingdom are. The general feeling of austerity shared by many a U.K. worker in these heady days of record number of bank bailouts and national bankruptcies is indeed felt by the Queen, so much so that her annual income in 2010 was a mere 32.1 million pounds. 

However does she survive on such a pittance? Why, in the early 1990s, when all was boom and none was bust, the Queen pocketed more than twice that amount. If this trend continues indefinitely, she might well end up a pensioner and have to borrow books from the library like everyone else.

Come to think of it, there might be something in this, for if the common people see the Queen standing in line and buying produce at the supermarket, they might feel more kindly toward her and the appearance she has to keep up. Besides, you don't hear much from the Queen anymore these days unless it's a solemn occasion or a state dinner or something incredibly A-list like that. She hasn't had a thing to say about the News of the World, now has she? (Maybe she thinks they're somehow still listening.)

But never fear: the Royals are on to it. Word out of Buckingham Palace is that the Royal Family is working on new revenue streams, which do not, repeat, DO NOT include reality television. Too bad. Keeping Up with the Windsors has a nice ring to it.

Yes, We Could Live on That Planet (Maybe)

Let it roll off your tongue: exoplanet.

That's the new buzzword, the one you're going to hear a lot about in the next few weeks and decades. NASA have confirmed the existence of what very well could be a habitable planet elsewhere in the universe. (The word exoplanet is short for extrasolar planet, meaning one that is outside our own Solar System.)

The planet is Kepler-22b. It is 2.4 times as big as Earth and orbits its "sun," which is very similar in size to our Sun, once every 290 days. The temperature very near the planet's surface is estimated at 72 degrees Fahrenheit, or 22 Celsius. (The average near-surface temperature of Earth is 59 Fahrenheit, or 15 Celsius.) 

NASA confirmed the planet's existence through data collected by the Kepler space telescope, which has discovered more than 2,300 more potential planets since launching in 2009. Kepler has the largest camera ever sent out of Earth's orbit, with a staggering 95-megapixel capability, so it sees an entire night sky's worth of images that other telescopes just can't bring into focus.

This is not the first exoplanet to be thought habitable, of course. European astronomers have announced the discovery of two others, although those orbit stars that smaller and cooler than the Sun, so the planets are thought to be less likely candidates than Kepler-22b.

One thing that astronomers are not yet sure of is the composition of the exoplanet's surface: Is it gaseous, liquid, or rocky? 

There's one way to find out for sure, and that is to go there. But be warned: Kepler-22b is 600 light-years away. Using current technology, you wouldn't make it there in time to appreciate anything you discover. One of your descendants would, though. Even traveling at light speed, the journey would take 600 years.

Never Mind the Reality of Santa: It's the (giving) Thought That Counts

Here we go again: Another very public figure has denied the existence of Santa Claus in a very public way and has been made to suffer the consequences.

A TV news person made the "announcement" on the air, on a 9pm newscast, and the other news person on air at the time responded immediately with a reference to Ebenezer Scrooge, the main character of Charles Dickens's timeless classic A Christmas Carol. 

Well, the TV station was flooded with angry comments, especially from parents, some of whose children were watching TV at the time. So the TV news person got back on air and apologized for her carelessness. But the damage was done.

Or was it?

Seems like this happens several times a year. America is a big country, the planet has other big countries with lots of parents and children and television news people, and the Internet is a very vast place. News spreads fast, and it won't be the last time this year that someone makes a similar assertion.

Yet these people are missing the point. We can certainly debate the existence of the fat man in the red suit whose toy-delivering skills are said to be second-to-none, but the point isn't whether the physical existence of Santa Claus is proved or disproved. No, the real point is what Santa represents: hope for happiness. That's it, really. 

So many people get all wrapped up (pun intended) with what to get who and it becomes all about the gifts themselves instead of all about the reason by the gifts. We give people gifts because we love them or we like them or we work with them or we know them slightly or they have given a gift, or, most noble of all, we want to help. That's the spirit of Santa Claus, the thought behind the giving. All the rest is just window dressing.

In the words of the New York Sun in 1897:

"DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old.
"Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.
"Papa says, 'If you see it in THE SUN it's so.'
"Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?

"VIRGINIA O'HANLON.
"115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET."

VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except [what] they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.
You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.

Rocket Engine for Sale ... Wait, Not Really

You have to wonder how these things happen, really. I mean, surely NASA has a spreadsheet somewhere of all of their rocket engines, past and present, and their whereabouts. There can't be that many, can there? And yet, in the 2011 year-end Inspector General's report is an item about an RL-10 rocket appearing for sale online.

The sale price would have been enough to keep most people away (unless they had a spare $200,000 to drop on what would be just one of many parts), so maybe that's not a whole lot to worry about, right? Well, not exactly, because the person who bought it would still have an engine powerful enough to jet a Saturn rocket into space (or a long way over land), which is why the Feds got involved and tracked down the "owner" before he or she could unload the engine for a good price.

Given that no one will be going to the Moon anytime soon, it's probably an academic argument, except that the engine is actually covered by the International Traffic in Arms Regulation because it could be used to make a missile. So suddenly it's no laughing matter. This is certainly not U.S. v Progressive, in which even though the Supreme Court upheld the magazine's right to publish a step-by-step recipe for making an atomic bomb, the theory was that the full set of ingredients would be so cost- and law-prohibitive that it wouldn't matter who had that bomb-making recipe. No, this kind of engine could be used to transport a very large payload of weaponry, which is these days all too common and all too easily bought.

NASA isn't commenting on who took the engine, or how or why. It's probably enough for the rest of us to know that they were quick to react. But it is a reminder that the free market nature of the Internet, vast as it is, can harbor some devastating and dangerous things.

No email for you ... and you and you

Fighting spam can take many forms. One drastic method is banning internal email altogether.

That's exactly what the CEO of a French IT company has done, saying that the company's 74,000 employees working in 42 countries will have to eschew emailing coworkers in favor of instant messaging, a Facebook-like interface, or plain old face-to-face (which could include teleconferencing, of course).

Why? Spam, apparently.

The company says that of the 200 email messages each employee receives, on average, each day, the percentage of spam is higher than that of business-related (18 to 10). To fix that, the company is on an 18-month journey into email withdrawal. The policy is six months old, and progress is such that the number of internal emails has dropped by 20 percent.

A company spokesperson clarified that the target was internal emails, not emails to clients. This would suggest that the move has more to do with using internal technology — which would not be accessible to spambots. Still, it's a bold move to make for the head of an IT company.

This CEO is Thierry Breton, of the company Atos. A former finance minister, he cheerfully announced that he has not sent one email since becoming the CEO in late 2008. He expects his employees to (eventually) follow that example. 

Yawning? That's to Keep Your Brain from Overheating

You've seen them — the yawners. You're talking and they're listening and then they just yawn, as if what you're saying is the most boring thing they've heard in a million years — or at least in the last 10 minutes. You jump to a conclusion and then get incensed that they think what you're saying is so uninteresting, when what is really happening is that they're acting out of self-preservation. 

No, it's not to keep from keeling over because of boredom — it's actually to keep their brain cool. So says a study in the December issue of Medical Hypotheses. See, a group of scientists got together and spent a whole lot of time thinking about yawns and what they mean and why people experience them and other important things like that. These scientists discovered that people used their sinuses as a sort of bellows, to get cooler air into the brain so it didn't overheat. Your brain, like any other computer, needs a relatively cool temperature in order to process properly.

Think about what happens when you yawn. Better yet, do it. What do your cheeks do? Your mouth is open a bit wider than normal, your sinuses are open a bit more as well; and even though you might appear to exhale, you're also making it possible for cooler air to get into your brain through your sinuses. (Presumably, if you're snotty because your nose is stuffed up, it takes a wider or a longer yawn to get that brain cooled down enough to keep functioning.)

It's the maintenance of proper brain function, apparently, that precipitates the yawn. So the next time you see someone yawn, don't think that you're boring them. You could be having quite the opposite effect — you could be stimulating their brain so much that it's overheating.