Warren Buffett

Warren Edward Buffett (b. August 30, 1930, Omaha, Nebraska) is an American investor, businessperson and philanthropist. Buffett has amassed an enormous fortune from astute investments managed through the holding company Berkshire Hathaway, of which he is the largest shareholder and CEO. With an estimated current net worth of around US$52 billion, he was ranked by Forbes as the third-richest person in the world as of April 2007, behind Bill Gates and Mexican businessman Carlos Slim Helú. In June 2006, he made a commitment to give away his fortune to charity, with 83% of it going to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.[4] The donation amounts to approximately $30 billion. Buffett's donation is said to be the largest in U.S. history. At the time of the announcement the donation was enough to more than double the size of the foundation. Despite his immense wealth, Buffett is renowned for his unpretentious and frugal lifestyle. When he spent $9.7 million of Berkshire's funds on a corporate jet in 1989, he jokingly named it "The Indefensible" because of his past criticisms of such purchases by other CEOs. He continues to live in the same house in the central Dundee neighborhood of Omaha, Nebraska that he bought in 1958 for $31,500 (although he also owned a more expensive home in Laguna Beach, California which he sold in 2004). The current estimated value for his house is around $700,000. His 2006 annual salary of about $100,000 is tiny by the standards of senior executive remuneration in other comparable companies. CEOs in S&P 500 constituent companies averaged about $9 million compensation in 2003. In 2007, Buffett was listed among Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in The World. Warren Buffett was born in Omaha, Nebraska to Howard Buffett, a stock broker and United States Representative, and his wife Leila Buffett. Warren Buffett displayed an extremely keen understanding of business and mathematics at a young age, easily doing complex mathematical computations in his head. He was also known as a book worm who displayed an insatiable hunger for knowledge pertaining to business and capital markets. He began working at his father's brokerage at the age of 11, and that same year made his first stock purchase, buying Cities Services shares for $38.25 each. He sold them when the price reached $40, only to see them rocket to $200 a few years later.[8] This taught him the importance of investing in good companies for the long term. At the age of 14, he and a fellow high school student began installing pinball machines in barber shops, and he eventually spent his take of $1,200 to buy 40 acres of farmland which he then rented to tenant farmers. [9] Although he excelled as a student, he felt college would be a waste given his success as an entrepreneur. He had already had money coming in from Wilson Coin Op, a pinball machine company he had started with a friend, as well as passive income streams coming from a farmer paying rent to him for the use of his farm, and he had saved $5,000 graduating near the top 20 in his class at the age of 16. He eventually yielded to his father's advice and attended college. Following his graduation from Washington, DC's Woodrow Wilson High School in 1947, Warren attended the prestigious Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania for three years, then transferred to the University of Nebraska. There he began his interest in investing after reading Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor. He obtained a Master's degree in economics in 1951 at Columbia Business School, studying under Benjamin Graham, alongside other future value investors including Walter Schloss and Irving Kahn. Another influence on Buffett's investment philosophy was the well known investor and writer Philip Fisher. After receiving the only A+ Benjamin Graham ever handed out to a student in his security analysis class, Buffett wanted to work at Graham-Newman but was initially turned down. He went to work at his father's brokerage as a salesman until Graham offered him a position in 1954. Buffett returned to Omaha two years later, when Graham retired. Buffett established Buffett Associates, Ltd., his first investment partnership, in 1956. It was financed by $100 from Buffett, the general partner, and $105,000 from seven limited partners consisting of Buffett's family and friends.[10] Buffett created several additional partnerships which were later consolidated as Buffett Partnership Limited. He ran the partnerships out of his bedroom, adhering closely to Graham's investment approach and compensation structure. These investments made in excess of 30% compounded annually between 1956 to 1969, in a market where 7% to 11% was the norm. Buffett employed a three-pronged approach: Generals: undervalued securities that possess margin of safety and meet expected return-to-risk characteristics[5] Arbitrages: company events that are not related to broader market changes, such as mergers and acquisitions, liquidation, etc. Controls: build sizable holdings, ally with other shareholders or employ proxies to effect changes in companies In 1962 Buffett Partnerships began purchasing shares of Berkshire Hathaway, a large manufacturing company in the declining textile industry that was selling for less than its working capital. In 1969, Buffett would dissolve all his partnerships to focus on running Berkshire Hathaway. At the time, Charlie Munger, Berkshire's current Vice Chairman, remarked that purchasing the company was a mistake, due to the failure of the textile industry. Berkshire, however, became one of the largest holding companies in the world, as Buffett redirected the company's excess cash to acquire private businesses and stocks of public companies. At the core of his strategy were insurance companies, due to the large cash reserves they must keep on hand to pay out future claims. Essentially, the insurer does not own the reserve, but may invest it and keep any proceeds. Under Munger's influence, Buffett's investment approach moved away from a strict adherence to Graham's principles, and he began to focus on high-quality businesses with enduring competitive advantages. He described such advantages as a "moat" that kept rivals at a safe distance, as opposed to commodity businesses, which sell undifferentiated products and face direct competition. A classic example of a wide-moat company is Coca-Cola, because consumers are willing to pay more for a Coke than for a generic beverage with a similar taste. On the other hand, salt is considered a commodity product because consumers generally have no preferences for one brand of salt over another. Investment in wide-moat businesses has become a hallmark of Berkshire Hathaway, particularly when buying whole companies rather than public stocks. As a result, it now owns a large number of businesses which are dominant players in their respective industries, specialize in various niche markets, or possess other unique characteristics to separate them from their competitors. Management style Warren Buffett views himself as a capital allocator above anything else. His primary responsibility is to allocate capital to businesses with good economics and keep their existing management to lead the company. When Buffett acquires a controlling interest in a business, he makes clear to the owner the following: He will not interfere with the running of the company. He will be responsible for hiring and setting the compensation of the top executive. Capital allocated to the business will have a price tag (a hurdle rate) attached. This process is to motivate owners to send excess capital that does not return more than its cost to Berkshire headquarters rather than investing it at low returns.[citation needed] This cash is then free to be invested in opportunities that offer higher returns. Buffett's hands-off approach has held strong appeal and created room for his managers to perform as owners and ultimate decision makers of their businesses. This acquisition strategy enabled Buffett to buy companies at fair prices because the sellers wanted room to operate independently after selling. Besides his skills in managing Berkshire's cash flow, Buffett is skilled in managing the company's balance sheet. Since taking over Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has weighed every decision against its impact on the balance sheet. As of 2005 he has succeeded in building Berkshire into one of the nine companies that are still rated by Moody's as AAA, the highest credit rating achievable and thus with the lowest cost of debt. Buffett takes comfort in the knowledge that, for the near future, his company will not be one of those shaken by economic or natural catastrophes. He repeated over the years that his catastrophe insurance operation is the only one he knew that can keep the checks clearing during financial turmoil. Investment approach Buffett's philosophy on business investing is a modification of the value investing approach of his mentor Benjamin Graham. Graham bought companies because they were cheap compared to their intrinsic value. He was of the belief that as long as the market undervalued them relative to their intrinsic value he was making a solid investment. He reasoned that the market will eventually realize it has undervalued the company and will correct its course regardless of what type of business the company was in. In addition he believes that the business has to have solid economics behind it. The following are some questions to determine what business to buy, based on the book Buffettology by Mary Buffett: Is the company in an industry of good economics, i.e., not an industry competing on price points. Does the company have a consumer monopoly or brand name that commands loyalty? Can any company with an abundance of resources compete successfully with the company? Are the Owner Earnings on an upward trend with good and consistent margins? Is the debt-to-equity ratio low or is the earnings-to-debt ratio high, i.e. can the company repay debt even in years when earnings are lower than average? Does the company have high and consistent Returns on Invested Capital (his version differs from the popular definition)? Does the company retain earnings for growth? The business should not have high maintenance cost of operations, low capital expenditure or investment cash outflow. This is not the same as investing to expand capacity. Does the company reinvest earnings in good business opportunities? Does management have a good track record of profiting from these investments? Is the company free to adjust prices for inflation? Buffett's next concern would be when to buy. He does not hurry to invest in businesses with indiscernible value. He will wait for market corrections or downturns to buy solid businesses at reasonable prices, since stock-market downturns present buying opportunities. He is known for being conservative when speculation is rampant in the market and being aggressive when others are fearing for their capital. This contrarian strategy is what led Buffett's company through the Internet boom and bust without significant damage, although critics have also noted that it may have led Berkshire to miss out on potential opportunities during the same period. Then he asks at what price is the business a bargain, and his answer typically is when it provides a higher rate of compounded return relative to other available investment opportunities. Buffett has coined the term "economic moat," preferring to acquire companies that possess sustainable competitive advantages over their competitors.[6] Warren Buffett's letters to shareholders are a valuable source in understanding his investment style and outlook.[11] Philanthropy In June 2006, Warren Buffett announced plans to contribute approximately 10 million Berkshire Hathaway Class B shares to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (worth approximately USD 30.7 billion as of June 23 2006; see [7]) making it the largest charitable donation in history. The foundation will receive 5% of the total donation on an annualized basis each July, beginning in 2006. Buffett will also join the board of directors of the Gates Foundation, although he does not plan to be actively involved in running the foundation. Buffett also announced plans to contribute additional Berkshire stock valued at approximately $6.7 billion to the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and to other foundations headed by his three children. This is a significant shift from previous statements Buffett has made, having stated that most of his fortune would pass to his Buffett Foundation. The bulk of the estate of his wife, valued at $2.6 billion, went to that foundation when she died in 2004.[8] His children will not inherit a significant proportion of his wealth. These actions are consistent with statements he has made in the past indicating his opposition to the transfer of great fortunes from one generation to the next. Buffett once commented, "I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing"[9]. The following two quotations from 1995 and 1988, respectively, highlight Warren Buffett's thoughts on his wealth and why he long planned to reallocate it: I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I've earned. If you stick me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru or someplace, you find out how much this talent is going to produce in the wrong kind of soil... I work in a market system that happens to reward what I do very well - disproportionately well. Mike Tyson, too. If you can knock a guy out in 10 seconds and earn $10 million for it, this world will pay a lot for that. If you can bat .360, this world will pay a lot for that. If you're a marvelous teacher, this world won't pay a lot for it. If you are a terrific nurse, this world will not pay a lot for it. Now, am I going to try to come up with some comparable worth system that somehow (re)distributes that? No, I don't think you can do that. But I do think that when you're treated enormously well by this market system, where in effect the market system showers the ability to buy goods and services on you because of some peculiar talent - maybe your adenoids are a certain way, so you can sing and everybody will pay you enormous sums to be on television or whatever -I think society has a big claim on that. (Lowe 1997:164-165) I don't have a problem with guilt about money. The way I see it is that my money represents an enormous number of claim checks on society. It's like I have these little pieces of paper that I can turn into consumption. If I wanted to, I could hire 10,000 people to do nothing but paint my picture every day for the rest of my life. And the GNP would go up. But the utility of the product would be zilch, and I would be keeping those 10,000 people from doing AIDS research, or teaching, or nursing. I don't do that though. I don't use very many of those claim checks. There's nothing material I want very much. And I'm going to give virtually all of those claim checks to charity when my wife and I die. (Lowe 1997:165-166) Since 2000, Buffett has raised money for the Glide Foundation through online auctions. Bidders have donated up to $650,100 for the chance to have one meal with him. In September 2006, Buffett auctioned his Lincoln Town Car to support Girls, Inc.[10] The vehicle sold for $73,200 on eBay.[11] In May 2007, fishermen, tribal leaders and environmental leaders from northwest California went to Omaha to ask Buffett to tear down four dams on the Klamath River. [12] The dams, owned by Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary Pacific Corp., are currently up for relicensing. The dams have had a devastating effect on the Klamath River fisheries. Members of the Hupa, Yurok, and Karuk tribes who depend on these fisheries have been especially hard hit. In September, 2002, low water flows resulting from the dams caused the death of at least 33,000 adult salmonids. As of July 2007, with Klamath River waters dangerously low once again, it is unclear what action Buffett will take. Writings Warren Buffett's writings include his annual reports and various articles. In his article The Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville, Buffett refuted the academic position at the time that the market was efficient and beating the S&P500 was "pure chance" by highlighting a number of students of the Graham and Dodds value investing school of thought. In addition to himself, Buffett named: Walter J. Schloss, Tom Knapp Ed Anderson (Tweedy, Brown Inc.), Bill Ruane (Sequoia Fund, Inc.), Charles Munger, Rick Guerin (Pacific Partners, Ltd.), and Stan Perlmeter (Perlmeter Investments) as having beaten the S&P500, "year in and year out". Public stances Buffett has repeatedly criticized the financial industry for what he considers to be a proliferation of advisors who add no value but are compensated based on the volume of business transactions which they facilitate. He has pointed to the growing volume of stock trades as evidence that an ever-greater proportion of investors' gains are going to brokers and other middle-men. Buffett emphasized the non-productive aspect of gold in 1998 at Harvard: "It gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head." Buffett believes that the U.S. dollar will lose value in the long run. He views the United States' expanding trade deficit as an alarming trend that will devalue the U.S. dollar and U.S. assets. As a result it is putting a larger portion of ownership of U.S. assets in the hands of foreigners. This induced Buffett to enter the foreign currency market for the first time in 2002. However, he substantially reduced his stake in 2005 as changing interest rates increased the costs of holding currency contracts. Buffett continues to be bearish on the dollar, and says he is looking to make acquisitions of companies which derive a substantial portion of their revenues from outside the United States. Buffett invests in PetroChina Company Limited and in a rare move, posted a commentary[13] on Berkshire Hathaway's website why he will not divest from the company despite calls from some activists to do so. Buffett's speeches are known for mixing serious business discussions with humor. Each year, Buffett presides over Berkshire Hathaway's annual shareholders' meeting in the Qwest Center in Omaha, Nebraska, an event drawing over 20,000 visitors from both United States and abroad, giving it the nickname "Woodstock of Capitalism". Some have gone so far as to purchase a single stock share just for the chance to ask Buffett a question at the meeting. Berkshire's annual reports and letters to shareholders, prepared by Buffett, frequently receive coverage by the financial media. Buffett's writings are known for containing literary quotes ranging from the Bible to Mae West, as well as hokey Midwestern advice and numerous jokes. Various websites extol Buffett's virtues while others decry Buffett’s business models or dismiss his investment advice and decisions. Buffett is strongly in favor of inheritance tax, saying that repealing it would be like "choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics".[14] Buffett has long been a proponent of abortion rights. In 1969, he and Charlie Munger backed Munger's legal firm in defending a doctor convicted of referring a woman to an abortion provider. The doctor's acquittal set an important precedent, preparing the way for Roe v. Wade [12] Buffett has been recognized as most responsible for FASB 123 (r), or Stock Option Expensing on the GAAP Income Statement. When asked about the subject at Berkshire Hathaway's 2004 annual meeting, he compared the United States Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission's decision to override FASB, who wanted to consider company-issued stock-option compensation as an expense, to a bill that passed in the Indiana house for pi to be changed from 3.14...to 3.20. On May 17, 2007, Yahoo announced that Buffett had extended Berkshire Hathaway's holdings to include shares in Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp.,Norfolk Southern Corp. and Union Pacific Corp.[13]

Carlos Slim Helú is rich than Bill Gates

Carlos Slim Helú Aglamaz (born January 28, 1940 in Mexico City) is a Mexican businessman. Slim has a substantial influence over the telecommunications industry in Mexico and in much of the rest of Latin America as well. He controls Teléfonos de México (Telmex), Telcel and América Móvil companies. Though he maintains an active involvement in his companies, his three sons Carlos Slim Domit, Marco Antonio Slim Domit and Patrick Slim Domit and his son in law Daniel Hajj Aboumrad, head them on a day-to-day basis.
On July 3, 2007, a report by Mexican financial journalist Eduardo Garcia indicated that Slim's wealth had exceeded that of Microsoft founder Bill Gates, making him the world's wealthiest person. Recent gains in his shares in the America Movil group are largely responsible for his recent increase in wealth, boosting his fortune to an estimated 67.8 billion dollars compared with the estimated fortune of 56 billion dollars for Bill Gates.

Family

His father,was Julián Slim Haddad Aglamaz, a Lebanese native from Jezzine,[3] moved to Mexico City as a teenager in 1902. Julián established a dry goods store called La Estrella del Oriente (Star of the Orient) in 1911 and purchased real estate in the city center. Julián married the daughter of another prosperous Lebanese merchant. They had six children, of whom Carlos was the youngest.

Achievements, directorships

He has been vice-president of the Mexican Stock Exchange and president of the Mexican Association of Brokerage Houses. He was the first president of the Latin-American Committee of the New York Stock Exchange Administration Council, and was in office from 1996 through 1998.
He was on the Board of Directors of the Altria (Previously Philip Morris) Group (resigned in April, 2006) and Alcatel. He was on the Board of Directors of SBC Communications until July 2004 to devote more time to the World Education & Development Fund, which focused on infrastructure, health and education projects. He is also the Majority Shareholder of CompUSA. In 1997, just before the company introduced its famous iMac line, Slim bought 3% of Apple Computer's stock, which has skyrocketed over the years.[4]
He built an important Mexican financial-industrial empire, Grupo Carso, which owns, among other companies, the CompUSA electronic retail chain. After 28 years he became the Honorary Lifetime Chairman of the business. He is also Chairman of Teléfonos de Mexico, América Móvil, and Grupo Financiero Inbursa.

Telecom leadership

Slim gained notoriety when he led a group of investors that included France Télécom and Southwestern Bell Corporation in buying Telmex from the Mexican government in 1990 in a public tender during the presidency of Carlos Salinas.
Today, ninety percent of the telephone lines in Mexico are operated by Telmex.[5] The mobile company, Telcel, which Carlos Slim Helú also controls, operates almost eighty percent of all the country's cellphones. These operations have financed Mr. Slim's expansion abroad. Over the past five years, his wireless carrier América Móvil has bought cellphone companies across Latin America, and is now the region's dominant company, with more than 100 million subscribers.
Slim was once MCI's largest shareholder, with 13 percent ownership. On April 11, 2005, The Wall Street Journal announced that he had sold his stake in MCI to Verizon Communications of the United States.

Awards

Slim has been awarded the Entrepreneurial Merit Medal of Honor from Mexico's Chamber of Commerce; he received the "Golden Plate Award", granted by the American Academy of Achievement, and the Belgian Government awarded him the Leopold II Commander Medal. Click here for a photo of Slim accepting the award. [1]
In the year 2000, Carlos Slim Helú organized the Fundación del Centro Histórico de la Ciudad de México A.C. (Mexico City Historic Downtown Foundation), whose objective is to revitalize and rescue Mexico City's historic downtown, for more people to live, work and find entertainment in this area. He is Chairman of the Executive Committee for the Restoration of the Historic Center since the year 2001.
Additionally, as part of his philanthropic work, he heads the Latin America Development Fund project[edit] Family
His father,was Julián Slim Haddad Aglamaz, a Lebanese native from Jezzine,[3] moved to Mexico City as a teenager in 1902. Julián established a dry goods store called La Estrella del Oriente (Star of the Orient) in 1911 and purchased real estate in the city center. Julián married the daughter of another prosperous Lebanese merchant. They had six children, of whom Carlos was the youngest.

Achievements, directorships

He has been vice-president of the Mexican Stock Exchange and president of the Mexican Association of Brokerage Houses. He was the first president of the Latin-American Committee of the New York Stock Exchange Administration Council, and was in office from 1996 through 1998.
He was on the Board of Directors of the Altria (Previously Philip Morris) Group (resigned in April, 2006) and Alcatel. He was on the Board of Directors of SBC Communications until July 2004 to devote more time to the World Education & Development Fund, which focused on infrastructure, health and education projects. He is also the Majority Shareholder of CompUSA. In 1997, just before the company introduced its famous iMac line, Slim bought 3% of Apple Computer's stock, which has skyrocketed over the years.[4]
He built an important Mexican financial-industrial empire, Grupo Carso, which owns, among other companies, the CompUSA electronic retail chain. After 28 years he became the Honorary Lifetime Chairman of the business. He is also Chairman of Teléfonos de Mexico, América Móvil, and Grupo Financiero Inbursa.

Telecom leadership

Slim gained notoriety when he led a group of investors that included France Télécom and Southwestern Bell Corporation in buying Telmex from the Mexican government in 1990 in a public tender during the presidency of Carlos Salinas.
Today, ninety percent of the telephone lines in Mexico are operated by Telmex.[5] The mobile company, Telcel, which Carlos Slim Helú also controls, operates almost eighty percent of all the country's cellphones. These operations have financed Mr. Slim's expansion abroad. Over the past five years, his wireless carrier América Móvil has bought cellphone companies across Latin America, and is now the region's dominant company, with more than 100 million subscribers.
Slim was once MCI's largest shareholder, with 13 percent ownership. On April 11, 2005, The Wall Street Journal announced that he had sold his stake in MCI to Verizon Communications of the United States.

Awards

Slim has been awarded the Entrepreneurial Merit Medal of Honor from Mexico's Chamber of Commerce; he received the "Golden Plate Award", granted by the American Academy of Achievement, and the Belgian Government awarded him the Leopold II Commander Medal. Click here for a photo of Slim accepting the award.
In the year 2000, Carlos Slim Helú organized the Fundación del Centro Histórico de la Ciudad de México A.C. (Mexico City Historic Downtown Foundation), whose objective is to revitalize and rescue Mexico City's historic downtown, for more people to live, work and find entertainment in this area. He is Chairman of the Executive Committee for the Restoration of the Historic Center since the year 2001.
Additionally, as part of his philanthropic work, he heads the Latin America Development Fund project

The discovery of 2003 UB313 Eris, the 10th planet largest known dwarf planet

Eris, the largest dwarf planet known, was discovered in an ongoing survey at Palomar Observatory's Samuel Oschin telescope by astronomers Mike Brown (Caltech), Chad Trujillo (Gemini Observatory), and David Rabinowitz (Yale University). We officially suggested the name on 6 September 2006, and it was accepted and announced on 13 September 2006. In Greek mythology, Eris is the goddess of warfare and strife. She stirs up jealousy and envy to cause fighting and anger among men. At the wedding of Peleus and Thetis, the parents of the Greek hero Achilles, all the gods with the exception of Eris were invited, and, enraged at her exclusion, she spitefully caused a quarrel among the goddesses that led to the Trojan war. In the astronomical world, Eris stirred up a great deal of trouble among the international astronomical community when the question of its proper designation led to a raucous meeting of the IAU in Prague. At the end of the conference, IAU members voted to demote Pluto and Eris to dwarf-planet status, leaving the solar system with only eight planets.The satellite of Eris has received the offical name Dysnomia, who in Greek mythology is Eris' daughter and the demon spirit of lawlessness. As Dysnomia is a bit of a mouthful, we tend to simply call the satellite Dy, for short.As promised for the past year, the name Xena (and satellite Gabrielle) were simply placeholders while awaiting the IAU's decision on how an official name was to be proposed. As that process dragged on, however, many people got to know Xena and Gabrielle as the real names of these objects and are sad to see them change. We admit to some sadness ourselves.We used the names for almost two years now and are having a hard time swtiching. But for those who miss Xena, look for the obvious nod in the new name of the moon of Eris.

What is it?

This new dwarf planet (see the now out of date "What makes a planet?" below) is the largest object found in orbit around the sun since the discovery of Neptune and its moon Triton in 1846. It is larger than Pluto, discovered in 1930. Like Pluto, the new dwarf planet is a member of the Kuiper belt, a swarm of icy bodies beyond Neptune in orbit around the sun. Until this discovery Pluto was frequently described as "the largest Kuiper belt object" in addition to being a dwarf planet. Pluto is now the second largest Kuiper belt object, while this is the largest currently known.

Where is it?

The dwarf planet is the most distant object ever seen in orbit around the sun, even more distant than Sedna, the planetoid discovered almost 2 years ago. It is almost 10 billion miles from the sun and more than 3 times more distant than the next closest planet, Pluto and takes more than twice as long to orbit the sun as Pluto.The dwarf planet can be seen using very high-end amateur equipment, but you need to know where to look. The best way to find precise coordinates (of this planet, or any other body in the solar system) is with JPL's horizons system. Click on "select target" and then enter "2003 UB313" under small bodies.
The orbit of the new dwarf planet is even more eccentric than that of Pluto. Pluto moves from 30 to 50 times the sun-earth distance over its 250 year orbit, while the new planet moves from 38 to 97 times the sun-earth distance over its 560 year orbit

How big is it?

Usually when we first discover distant objects in the outer solar system we don't know for sure how large they are. Why not? Because all we see is a dot of light, like the picture at the top of the page. This dot of light is sunlight reflected off the surface of the planet (interestingly the sunlight takes almost a day to get out to the planet, reflect off of it, and get back to the earth!), but we don't know if the object is bright because it is large or if it is bright because it is highly reflective or both. When an object is too far away to directly see how big it is, astronomers use an indirect method instead where they measure the heat coming from the object. If we wanted to measure the size of a fire, for example, we could do it by measuring the total amount of heat coming from the fire. The temperature of the flames in a match and a bonfire are essentially the same, but a bonfire emits much more heat because it is much bigger. The same is true of distant planets. Because we know how far away the planet is we have a pretty good idea of the surface temperature (a frosty 405 degrees below zero!), thus when we measure the total heat we can tell how big the object is. Unfortunately, the new planet is so far away and so cold that our first attempt at measuring the heat, using the Spitzer Space Telescope, could not detect the heat output. This fact tells us that the object must be smaller than about 3300 km.In the meantime, observations have been made by a group from the University of Bonn from the 30-meter IRAM telescope. This telescope, like Spitzer, measures the heat output. IRAM measures the heat output in a region of the spectrum where much less heat is given off, but IRAM is a much larger telescope than Spitzer. The observations were successful in finally detecting the heat of Eris. From the amount of heat measured they determined that Eris has a diameter of 3000 +/- 400 km. A very nice discussion of the measurement and what the uncertainties mean can be found at the press release web page. The newest size measurement comes from the Hubble Space Telescope. While for most telescopes the planet is too small to be seen as anything other than a dot of light, HST can (just barely) directly measure how big across it is. The measurement is extremely hard, however, even for HST, because even HST distorts light a little bit as it goes through the telescope, and we needed to be sure that we were measuring the actual size of the planet, rather than being fooled by distortion. So we waited until Eris was very close to a star and then snapped a series of 28 pictures and carefully went back and forth comparing the star and the planet. In the end, we determined that Eris t is 2400 +/- 100 km across. When we initially guessed how big Erist was, we thought it was likely a bit larger, because we guessed that it probably reflected the same amount of sunlight as Pluto (about 60%). But this new size measurement tells us that the planet reflects considerably more sunlight than Pluto (86 +/- 7%)!. For more on this see below on what Eris is made out of.The new HST measurement makes it sound like the previous measurement was "wrong," but it was not! All measurements in science are subject to uncertainty, and the group from Bonn carefully stated what their uncertainty was, just as we have with the new measurement.

What is on the surface of Eris?

We study the composition of distant objects by looking at sunlight reflected off of them. The sunlight reflected off the surface of the earth, for example, shows distinct signatures of the oxygen in earth's atmosphere, of photosynthetic plants, and of abundant water, among other things. We have been using the Gemini Observatory on Mauna Kea, Hawaii to study the light reflected from the surface of Eris, and have found that the dwarf planet looks remarkably similar to Pluto. A comparison of the two is shown below, where we show the amount of sunlight reflected in near infrared light. This type of light, just beyond what is visible to the human eye, is most sensitive to the types of ices expected on surfaces in the outer solar system. The plot above compares the amount of infrared sunlight of different colors ("wavelength") reflected from the new planet with the amount of sunlight reflected from Pluto. The dips in the amount of sunlight at 1.15, 1.35, 1.7, and 2.3 um are a characteristic signature of a surface covered with solid frozen methane (natural gas). Both Pluto and Eris show these signatures. At the very low temperatures of Pluto and Eris, methane, which is in gaseous form on the earth, is frozen solid. The interior of Eris, like the interior of Pluto, is likely a mixture of rock and ice.Pluto and the new dwarf planet are not completely identical, however. While Pluto's surface is moderately red, the new dwarf planet appears almost white, and while Pluto has a mottled-looking surface which reflects on average 60% of the sunlight which hits it, the new planet appears essentially uniform and reflects 86% (+/- 7%) of the light that hits it. These characteristics were not at all expected. In fact, Eris reflects more sunlight from its surface than any body in the solar system other than Saturn's moon Enceladus, which has active geysers continuously coating the surface in fresh frost. We can't think of any source of heat for Eris that would cause similar geysers. So what is happening?We think that the bright surface and uniform white coloring of the planet both have the same cause. Right now the planet is as far away from the sun as it ever gets, and thus as cold as it ever gets. At this distance from the sun even the planet's atmosphere is frozen solid. (In fact if the earth were brought that far away from the sun its atmosphere would freeze solid, too!). In 280 years the planet will be the closest it ever gets -- a factor of almost 2.6 times closer. The absolute temperature on the planet will rise over the next 280 years by a factor of 1.6 (which is the square root of 2.6). The current temperature of (a quite cold) 405 degrees below zero will be but a distant memory at this point when the temperatures will be a balmy 360 degrees below zero. While both of these temperatures seem frigid beyond imagination, to methane and nitrogen (the likely components of the atmosphere of the planet), the difference between the two is the difference between frozen solid and evaporating into the atmosphere.In this hypothesis, then, Eris is bright and uniform because the atmosphere that it used to have (280 years ago at its peak) is now frozen solid to the ground, giving a bright shining coating to whatever type of mottled surface used to be there. The whole atmosphere is now probably only a few inches thick.This whole process repeats itself over and over and over with the dwarf planet's orbital period of 580 years.For comparison, the relative temperature change on the new planet is equivalent to the earth's average temperature changing from about 60 degrees F to about 360 degrees F ever 6 months. No other planet in the solar system -- dwarf or otherwise -- goes through temperature swings nearly as extreme as this!

What is Eris made out of?

While we can only see the surface of the dwarf planet, we have some educated guesses about the interior. Pluto, we know, has a density about midway between ice and rock, thus we think that it is made of about half and half ice and rock on the inside. The new planet, being about the same size and the same surface composition as Pluto, is probably close to the same. We used to suspect that all objects out in the Kuiper belt are the same on the inside but recent measurements suggest a very wide variety! For this reason, we are quite anxious to measure the actual density of the planet itself. Such a measurement is possible by measuring the mass of the planet by looking at the way its moon goes around it and then dividing this mass by the volume (which we know because we know the size). We need more observations of the moon to accurately determine its orbit, however, so we don't think we will know the answer until the end of the year.

How was Eris found?

We have been conducting an ongoing survey of the outer solar system using the Palomar QUEST camera and the Samuel Oschin Telescope at Palomar Observatory in Southern California. This survey has been operating since the fall of 2001, with the switch to the QUEST camera happening in the summer of 2003. To date we have found around 80 bright Kuiper belt objects. To find objects, we take three pictures of a small region of the night sky over three hours and look for something that moves. The many billions of stars and galaxies visible in the sky appear stationary, while satellites, planets, asteroids, and comets appear to move. The area of sky shown here is approximately 0.015% of the amount of sky that we look at every night, but even though we survey vast regions of the sky per night, it is still going to take us about 5 years to look at all of the sky visible from Palomar Observatory.Happily for us (and our families) much of the work is done by computers. The telescope is robotically controlled and sends its data to Pasadena every morning where it is searched by a bank of 10 computers at Caltech. Each morning the computers find approximately 100 potentially-moving objects that a human has to look at. The vast majority are some flaw in the camera and are not real solar system objects, but, occasionally, as seen above, a real object makes its presence known.Because the new dwarf planet is so far away it is moving slower than most of the objects that we find. It is moving so slowly, in fact, that our computers didn't notice it the first time around! We began a special reanalysis a year later to specifically look for very distant objects. This reanalysis found the new planet at 11:20AM PST on January 5th 2005, almost 1 1/2 years after the initial data were obtained. Note that initial reports suggested that the discovery date was January 8th. We apologize for the mistake; it was caused because of the craziness surrounding the first day of announcement. We didn't have time to check our notes and apparently our memories are not as good as they used to be.

What is the real name going to be?

When a new object is discovered the International Astronomical Union (IAU) gives it a temporary designation based on the date it was first seen. Thus 2003 UB313 can be decoded to tell you that the data from which the object was discovered was obtained in the second half of October 2003. Next, depending on what the object is, the discoverers propose a certain type of permanent name.
Interestingly, there are no actual rules for how to name a planet (presumably because no one expected there to be more). All of the other planets are named for Greek or Roman gods, so an obvious suggestion is to attempt to find such a name for the new planet. Unfortunately, most of the Greek or Roman god names (particularly those associated with creation, which tend to be the major gods) were used back when the first asteroids were being discovered. If a name is already taken by an asteroid, the IAU would not allow that name to be used again. One such particularly apt name would have been Persephone. In Greek mythology Persephone is the (forcibly abducted) wife of Hades (Roman Pluto) who spends six months each year underground close to Hades. The new planet is on an orbit that could be described in similar terms; half of the time it is in the vicinity of Pluto and half of the time much further away. Sadly, the name Persephone was used in 1895 as a name for the 399th known asteroid. The perhaps more appropriate Roman version of the name, Proserpina, was used even earlier for the 26th known asteroid. The same story can be told for almost any other Greek or Roman god of any consequence. One exception to this name depletion is the Roman god Vulcan (Greek Haphaestus), the god of fire. Astronomers have long reserved that term, however, for a once hypothetical (now known to be nonexistent) planet closer to the sun than Mercury (god of fire, near the sun, good name). We would not want to use such a name to describe such a cold body as our new planet!

Is this object really a planet or a dwarf planet? Is Pluto a planet? What makes a planet?

Even after all of these years of debate on the subject of whether or not Pluto should be considered a planet, astronomers appear no closer to agreement. I wrote extensively about this at the time of the discovery of Sedna in March 2004. My thoughts have evolved since then, so it might be amusing to see what I said 1 1/2 years ago. I have been heavily influenced by writing a scientific review article this summer on the topic of "What is a planet?" with my colleague Gibor Basri at U.C. Berkeley who I thank for his insights. The main stumbling block in defining planets in our solar system is that, scientifically, it is quite clear that Pluto should certainly not be put in the same category as the other planets. Some astronomers have rather desperately attempted to concoct solutions which keep Pluto a planet, but none of these are at all satisfactory, as they also require calling dozens of other objects planets. While people are perhaps prepared to go from 9 to 10 planets when something previously unknown is discovered, it seems unlikely that many people would be happy if astronomers suddenly said "we just decided, in fact, that there are 23 planets, and we decided to let you know right now." There is no good scientific way to keep Pluto a planet without doing serious disservice to the remainder of the solar system.
Culturally, however, the idea that Pluto is a planet is enshrined in a million different ways, from plastic placemats depicting the solar system that include the nine planets, to official NASA web sites, to mnemonics that all school children learn to keep the nine planets straight, to U.S. postage stamps. Our culture has fully embraced the idea that Pluto is a planet and also fully embraced the idea that things like large asteroids and large Kuiper belt objects are not planets.
In my view scientists should not be trying to legislate an entirely new definition of the word "planet." They should be trying to determine what it means. To the vast majority of society, "planet" means those large objects we call Mercury through Pluto. We are then left with two cultural choices. (1) Draw the line at Pluto and say there are no more planets; or (2) Draw the line at Pluto and say only things bigger are planets. Both would be culturally acceptable, but to me only the second makes sense for what I think we mean when we say the word planet. In addition, the second continues to allow the possibility that exploration will find a few more planets, which is a much more exciting prospect than that suggested by the first possibility. We don't think the number of planets found by the current generation of researchers will be large. Maybe one or two more. But we think that letting future generations still have a shot at planet-finding is nice.
Astronomers tend to dislike this solution as it is clearly non-scientific. The best analogy I can come up with, though, is with the definition of the word "continent." The word sound like it should have some scientific definition, but clearly there is no way to construct a definition that somehow gets the 7 things we call continents to be singled out. Why is Europe called a separate continent? Only because of culture. You will never hear geologists engaged in a debate about the meaning of the word "continent" though. When geologists talk about the earth and its land masses they define precisely what they are talking about; they say "continental crust" or "continental drift" or "continental plates" but almost never "continent." Astronomers need to learn something from the geologists here and realize that there are a few things -- like continents and planets -- to which people have large emotional attachments, and they should not try to quash that attachment.
Thus, we declare that the new object, with a size larger than Pluto, is indeed a planet. A cultural planet, a historical planet. I will not argue that it is a scientific planet, because there is no good scientific definition which fits our solar system and our culture, and I have decided to let culture win this one. We scientists will continue our debates, but I hope we are generally ignored.

How was the planetary status be decided?

A special committee of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) was charged with determining "what is a planet."
Sometime around the end of 2005, this committee voted by a narrow margin for the "pluto and everything bigger" definition, or something close to it.
The exectutive committee of the IAU then decided to ask the Division of Planetary Sciences (DPS) of the American Astronomical Society to make a reccomendation.
The DPS asked their committee to look in to it.
The DPS committee decided to form a special committee.
The IAU decided to that it no longer wanted the DPS to look at the question
Nothing happened for a long time
During the summer of 2006 the IAU made a new committee that met for 2 days in Paris and came up with the "everything round is a planet" definition
The definition was met with heated opposition at the IAU General Assembly in Prague
The strict eight planet definition was agreed upon

What is the real story about the hasty announcement and the reports of "hacking"?

In mid-July 2005 short abstracts of scientific talks to be given at a meeting in September became available on the web (for example, here). We intended to talk about the object now known as 2003 EL61, which we had discovered around Christmas of 2004, and the abstracts were designed to whet the appetite of the scientists who were attending the meeting. In these abstracts we call the object a name that our software automatically assigned, K40506A (the first Kuiper belt object we discovered in data from 2004/05/06, May 6th). Using this name turns out to have been a very bad idea on our part! Unbeknownst to us, some of the telescopes that we had been using to study this object kept open records of who has been observing, where they have been observing, and what they have been observing (these detailed records have since been removed from the web). A two-second Google search of "K40506A" immediately reveals one of these observing records. A little playing around with web addresses then reveals even more records not initially Googleable. Ouch. Bad news for us. From the moment the abstracts became public anyone on the planet with a web connection, and a little curiosity about this "K40506A" object, and a knowledge of orbital dynamics could have found out where it was. Anyone on the planet with even a modest-sized telescope could then go find the object and claim a discovery as their own.
According to our web server logs, these observing logs were accessed on July 26, 2005 by a computer at the Instituto de Astrofisica in Spain. Less than two days after this computer accessed the observing logs, the same computer was used to send email officially claiming the discovery by P. Santos-Sanz and J.-L. Ortiz at the Instituto de Astrofisica (see detailed timeline here). At the time of the announcement we truly believed that they had no prior knowledge that we had been observing the object, and we truly believed that they had not used our data to make the announcement of the discovery, but other people found the coincidence suspicious.. Shortly after their announcement, however, we realized that all of our observing records -- including those about what is now known as 2003 UB313, the tenth planet -- were unexpectedly public, and made the decision to prematurely announce the discovery of 2003 UB313 that same afternoon by a press conference. We were unhappy about having to forgo normal scientific protocol and announce the discovery with no corresponding scientific paper, but under the circumstances we felt we had no choice.
It is worth asking: if the observing records were on a publicly accessible web site, is it wrong to look at them? The obvious answer is that there is nothing wrong with looking at information on any publicly accessible web site, just as there is nothing wrong with looking at books in a library. But the standards of scientific ethics are also clear: any information used from another source must be acknowledged and cited. One is not allowed to go to a library, find out about a discovery in a book, and then claim that discovery as your own with no mention of having read it in a book. One is not even allowed to first make a discovery and then go to the library and realize that someone else independently made the same discovery and then not acknowledge what you learned in the library. Such actions would be considered scientifically dishonesty. It is not clear from the timeline precisely what Ortiz and Santos-Sanz knew or how they used the web-based records. They were required by the standards of science, however, to acknowledge their use of our web-based records if they accessed them. The director of the IAA, Dr. Jose Carlos del Toro Iniesta has promised to investigate what precisely happened. We have confidence in Dr. del Toro Iniesta to clarify the situation and determine the appropriate actions.
Some have commented that the real fault here was our own for keeping the objects "secret." We are saddened by anti-scientific statements like these, and have already written extensively on why this rather bizarre accusation is spurious below. The community of scientists condemns scientists who announce their results publicly before publishing scientific papers. Regardless of the number of times these bizarre accusations are repeated, we will continue at all times to adhere to accepted scientific protocol.

Why does it take so long to announce these discoveries?

Soon after the announcement of the discovery of the new planet the suggestion slowly made its way around the internet that we, the discoverers, were somehow violating long standing scientific standards by keeping the existence of the planet "secret" for so long. This suggestion seemed so bizarre to us that we paid no attention at first, but, as with many things on the internet, it has been repeated enough times even reasonable people are starting to believe it. We would like to quickly dispell this odd misconception that no credible scientist would hold.One of the things that is so strange about this allegation is that it should also be made of every single scientific result that is published in a reputable scientific journal. In all such cases, scientists make discoveries, they verify their discoveries, they carefully document their discoveries, and they submit papers to scientific journals. What they don't do is make discoveries and immediately hold press conferences to announce them (one need only think back to the cold fusion days to remember how thoroughly the scientific community condemns such behavior). Good science is a careful and deliberate process. The time from discovery to announcement in a scientific paper can be a couple of years. For all of our past discoveries, we have described the objects in scientific papers before publicly announcing the objects' existence, and we have made that announcement in under nine months. These papers allow other astronomers to verify, confirm, and critique the analysis we have done. Sadly, because we were forced to announce 2003 UB313 prematurely, we have still yet to complete the scientific paper describing this object (it is now finally complete! see below). We find this situation scientifically embarrassing and apologize to our colleagues who are reduced to learning about this new object from reading reports in the press. We are hard at work on this scientific paper, but, as we said above, good science is a careful and deliberate process and we are not yet through with our analysis. Our intent in all cases is to go from discovery to announcement in under nine months. We think that is a pretty fast pace.One could object to the above by noting that the existence of these objects is never in doubt, so why not just announce the existence immediately upon discovery and continue observing to learn more? This way other astronomers could also study the new object. There are two reasons we don't do this. First, we have dedicated a substantial part of our careers to this survey precisely so that we can discover and have the first crack at studying the large objects in the outer solar system. The discovery itself contains little of scientific interest. Almost all of the science that we are interested in doing comes from studying the object in detail after discovery. Announcing the existence of the objects and letting other astronomers get the first detailed observations of these objects would ruin the entire scientific point of spending so much effort on our survey. Some have argued that doing things this way "harms science" by not letting others make observations of the objects that we find. It is difficult to understand how a nine month delay in studying an object that no one would even know existed otherwise is in any way harmful to science!Many other types of astronomical surveys are done for precisely the same reasons. Astronomers survey the skies looking for ever higher redshift galaxies. When they find them they study them and write a scientific paper. When the paper comes out other astronomers learn of the distant galaxy and they too study it. Other astronomers cull large databases such as the 2MASS infrared survey to find rare objects like brown dwarves. When they find them they study them and write a scientific paper. When the paper comes out other astronomers learn of the brown dwarves and they study them in perhaps different ways. Still other astronomers look around nearby stars for the elusive signs of directly detectable extrasolar planets. When they find one they study it and write a scientific paper..... You get the point. This is the way that the entire field of astronomy -- and probably all of science -- works. It's a very effective system; people who put in the tremendous effort to find these rare objects are rewarded with getting to be the first to study them scientifically. Astronomers who are unwilling or unable to put in the effort to search for the objects still get to study them after a small delay.There is a second reason that we don't announce objects immediately, and that is because we feel a responsibility not just to our scientific colleagues but to the public. We know that these large objects that keep being found are likely to be the result of intensive interest by the public, and we would like to have the story as complete as possible before making an announcement. Consider, for example, the instantaneous Ortiz et al. announcement of the existence of 2003 EL61. Headlines in places like the BBC web site breathlessly exclaimed "new object may be twice the size of Pluto." But even at the time we knew that 2003 EL61 had a satellite and was only 30% the mass of Pluto. We quickly got the truth out, but just barely. Sadly, other interesting aspects of 2003 EL61 also got lost in the shuffle. No one got to hear that it rotates every 4 hours, faster than anything else known in the Kuiper belt. Or how that fast rotation causes it to be shaped like a cigar. Or how we use the existence of the satellite to calculate the mass. All of these are interesting things that would have let the public learn a bit more about the mysteries of physics and of the solar system. In the press you get one chance to tell the story. In the case of the instantaneous announcement of 2003 EL61 the story was simply "there is a big object out there." We are saddened by the lost opportunity to tell a richer scientific story and to have the public listen for just one day to a tale that included a bit of astronomy, a bit of physics, and a bit of detective story.Given that we do precisely what other astronomers do and that we are actually very prompt about making announcements, where did the crazy ideas that we should be announcing objects instantly come from? Interestingly, there is one area of astronomy in which instantaneous announcement is both expected and beneficial to all. In the study of rare, quickly changing objects, such as supernovae, gamma ray bursts, comets, and near earth asteroids, astronomers quickly disseminate their results so that as many people as possible can study the phenomenon before it disappears or changes completely. No one discovers a comet and keeps it to himself to study, because by the time the study was done the comet would be gone and no one else could study it ever again. The people initially suggesting that we were wrong to not announce our objects instantly are, for the most part, a small group of amateur astronomers who are familiar with comet and near earth asteroid observation protocols. We can only assume that this familiarity led them to their misconceptions. Kuiper belt objects are not quickly changing phenomena. Astronomers will be intensively studying Eris for a long time to come.We hope to discover a few more large objects in the outer solar system. When we do, we will do everything we can to learn as much as possible about them before we make their existence public, and we will try to make the announcement as complete and scientifically and publicly interesting as possible. We will take the chance -- as all scientists do -- that by taking the time to do the scientific job correctly someone else may beat us to the announcement, and if they do we will congratulate them heartily.

The Taj Mahal, Eiffel Tower,Sydney Opera House, and the Statue of Liberty in New York may be chosen among the new seven wonders of the world

July 6 (Bloomberg) -- The Taj Mahal in Agra, the Eiffel Tower in Paris, Sydney Opera House and the Statue of Liberty in New York may be chosen among the new seven wonders of the world in a poll that has drawn more than 90 million votes.
The Acropolis in Greece, Jordan's ancient city of Petra, the Statues on Easter Island, the Great Wall of China and the Statue of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, are also contenders, the New7Wonders Foundation said. The group said it removed candidates' rankings from its Web site because of a surge of voting before balloting on the Internet closes at 8 p.m. New York time today.
``The phenomenal participation in the New7Wonders campaign, with votes still pouring in every day from all corners of the globe is powerful testimony to the fact that people yearn for dialogue,'' foundation head Bernard Weber said. The new seven wonders are due to be announced July 7 in Lisbon, Portugal.
The Great Pyramid of Giza, the only surviving structure of the seven wonders of the ancient world, was automatically included after Egypt protested it shouldn't have to compete to join the list, which will now comprise eight marvels.
The New7Wonders Foundation, based in Switzerland, is separate to the United Nations list of world cultural treasures, which was updated last week to include Sydney Opera House in Australia and the Red Fort in India.
Ancient World
The six other ancient wonders of the world were the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, the Colossus of Rhodes, the Statue of Zeus at Olympia, the Lighthouse of Alexandria, the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus and the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus. The six were located around the Mediterranean and in the Middle East, reflecting the origins of civilization.
The ancient wonders came from a list compiled by Greek philosophers at the time. The modern list was started in 1999 by Weber with 200 candidates. It has been narrowed to 20 sites.
A month ago, the top 10 included the Acropolis, the Colosseum in Rome, the Eiffel Tower, the Chichen Itza pyramid in Mexico, Machu Picchu in Peru, Petra, the Christ the Redeemer statue and the Easter Island statues off Chile.
The bottom 10 were Angkor Wat in Cambodia, the Alhambra in Spain, Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, the Kiyomizu Temple in Japan, the Kremlin and St. Basil's Cathedral in Russia, Neuschwanstein Castle in Germany, the Statue of Liberty, Stonehenge in the U.K., the Sydney Opera House and Timbuktu in Mali.
Jennifer Lopez
The new seven wonders of the world will be announced at Lisbon's Benfica Stadium. Guests will include actors Ben Kingsley and Hilary Swank, singer Jennifer Lopez, soccer player Cristiano Ronaldo and Neil Armstrong, the first man on the moon, the New7Wonders Foundation said in a statement last month.
The list by the UN's Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization includes 851 cultural and natural sites which its World Heritage Committee considers to have ``outstanding universal value.'' The Taj Mahal, Australia's Great Barrier Reef, Stonehenge, the Grand Canyon National Park in the U.S. and the Great Wall of China are among the sites.
The World Heritage Committee consists of representatives from 21 of the 184 countries that are signatories to the 1972 international convention for the protection of the world's cultural and natural heritage