El poder de tu voz

Bueno, supongo que a estas alturas ya lo habréis visto todos, pero por si acaso y por lo increiblemente bueno que es el anuncio. Aquí tenéis el famoso spot de Amnistía Internacional que no se ha emitido.

Khalkhin-Gol: The Battle that shaped WW2

Under the then unknown Georgy Zhukov, the Soviets won a crushing victory at the batte of Khalkhin-Gol (known in Japan as the Nomonhan Incident). Defeat persuaded the Japanese to expand into the Pacific, where they saw the United States as a weaker opponent than the Soviet Union. If the Japanese had not lost at Khalkhin Gol, they may never have attacked Pearl Harbor.

Más en Siberian Light

Sin embargo esta batalla parece no ser muy conocida, le preguntare a Pedro (Ruso) a ver si a el le suena. Si es que los jodidos europeos y los putos yankis somos demasiado etnocentristas y aveces nos perdemos la sal de la historia…

A vueltas con el medio ambiente

Perdonar por escribir tan poco ultimamente, con lo de curro me paso el dia rodeado de maquinas y no me apetece demasiado sentarme a escribir imbecilidades..:P
Peeeerom he leido una cosa y no me he podido resistir, hace un mes o 2 discutiamos sobre el calentamietno global, la veracidad de las teorías sobre el y todo este tema. Y yo, decía así al tun tun, que el propio ser humano, solo por respirar, tendría que emitir una cantidad apreciable de CO2 a la atmosfera. Pues justamente hoy he leido en microsiervos el dato que nos faltaba. Segun CO2balance.com este se trata del 10% del total de las emisiones de CO2.

Bueno pues eso, era solo dejaros el dato y los links para tener una cosa medio clara mas…:D

Ukraine’s Future

“SORRY we are closed: everybody has gone to the barricades,” read the note pinned to the door of a travel agency in Lvov, western Ukraine, in November 2004. Irina Mala, the manager and part-owner, remembers how she gathered warm clothes for her husband and sent him off to Kiev, “not knowing whether he would ever come back”. For several days she clung to the television news, watching people like her husband make history in Kiev’s Independence Square. “For the first time in my life, I felt proud for Ukraine.”

The euphoria of the “orange revolution” is long gone. In the past six months, Ms Mala has not even watched the news or read newspapers. The power struggle that ensued when Viktor Yushchenko won the presidency in December 2004 after weeks of popular protests made her first angry, then disappointed and now indifferent. Ms Mala may not even vote in the general election on September 30th. “We can’t explain to our children what is going on,” she says. The charges and counter-charges are mind-boggling, the nexus between business and politics that Mr Yushchenko pledged to break as strong as ever and the switching of political sides is like a comic opera, not a revolutionary drama.

The plot, so far, goes like this. Mr Yushchenko came to power on a promise to clean up Ukrainian politics. His defeated rival, Viktor Yanukovich, was disgraced because, as prime minister, he had blatantly tried to rig the presidential election. Yulia Tymoshenko, a firebrand politician in the orange revolution, became Mr Yushchenko’s first prime minister. But within months, the orange coalition descended into turmoil. Ms Tymoshenko’s threats to reopen privatisation deals and her price caps on fuel and other commodities damaged the economy. Fierce internal rows, plus a swathe of corruption scandals, led to the dismissal of the government.

It was thus not a surprise that Mr Yanukovich’s Party of the Regions took the biggest share of the vote in the parliamentary election in early 2006. After more months of infighting on the orange side, Mr Yanukovich bounced back as prime minister. Under a compromise in the orange revolution, many presidential powers had been transferred to parliament. Once he was in the driving seat, Mr Yanukovich began to encroach even more.

According to Mr Yushchenko, the Party of the Regions bribed and pressured opposition members of parliament to switch sides so as to gain an illegitimately big majority that would let Mr Yanukovich change the constitution. Mr Yushchenko accuses the party of trying to alter the result of the election and insists that the right response was to call a new election. His opponents say this was an illegal move. Both sides have cited the constitution (full of loopholes) and appealed to the courts (notoriously corrupt). The stand-off almost ended violently, but both Viktors have pulled back and agreed to a fresh parliamentary election on September 30th.

Enter Oleksandr Moroz, a renegade socialist and speaker of the parliament who is still trying to unravel the deal. Mr Moroz’s party was once part of the orange coalition. But he betrayed his voters and his political allies by joining Mr Yanukovich’s camp. The September election threatens to get rid of him and his party.

Few ordinary Ukrainians care about the politicians’ squabbling, partly because they are used to a state of political crisis and partly because they can afford to be bored. After a brief dip under Ms Tymoshenko, the economy is doing well, with GDP growing by over 7% a year, and incomes are rising. The sharp hike in gas prices charged by the Russians has trimmed the pre-2005 double-digit growth, but has also led to greater energy efficiency. “The increase in gas prices has been very helpful,” insists Viktor Pinchuk, a steel magnate who has invested $600m in modernising his plant.

Ukraine’s political crisis has had little economic impact. Indeed, one reason the economy is doing well, say some, is that politicians are too busy fighting each other to meddle. There is also a consensus on policy. “Neither Yushchenko nor Yanukovich want to review the results of the privatisations, nor build state capitalism,” says Oleksandr Paskhaver, a former economic adviser to Mr Yushchenko.

There are, indeed, few ideological divides between the main parties. Short-hand labels of Mr Yushchenko as pro-Western and Mr Yanukovich as pro-Russian are misleading. “Both politicians are pro-Ukrainian,” says Petro Oliynyk, governor of Lvov. Both Mr Yanukovich and Mr Yushchenko want Ukraine to integrate with Europe, to join the World Trade Organisation and to stay friendly with Russia. Mr Yanukovich no longer flies to Moscow for advice: these days he is coached by American spin-doctors.

To be sure, there are deep cultural, historical and economic differences between the east and the south of Ukraine, which supports Mr Yanukovich, and the pro-Yushchenko west (with Ms Tymoshenko’s support coming from the middle). Only 38% of western Ukrainians have been to the east of the country and 35% of easterners to the west, says one poll. The east, part of the Russian empire for centuries, is largely Orthodox and Russian-speaking. Donetsk, Mr Yanukovich’s hometown, was the industrial heartland of the Soviet Union. By contrast western Ukraine was ruled, as Galicia, first by Poland and then by Austria-Hungary, joining the Soviet Union only in 1945. It is partly Catholic and mostly Ukrainian-speaking.

Yet these differences between east and west, exploited by politicians on both sides, have not turned into separatism or even hatred. One thing all parts of the country agree on is that they want a united, independent Ukraine. For all the talk of a pro-Russian mood in the east, none of the Russian oligarchs has been allowed to gain control of its industrial assets. “Yanukovich is an excellent manager and he knows full well that economically the east needs Europe more than the west of Ukraine,” says Alexander Krivoruchko, a businessman in Donetsk.

The real differences between Mr Yanukovich and Mr Yushchenko lie in their values, style of governance and the economic interests they stand for. Behind Mr Yanukovich lurk powerful billionaire oligarchs who control most of the former Soviet mines and giant steelworks in the east. They need markets in Europe, cheap gas from Russia and political connections. Mr Yanukovich’s critics say that, despite an attempt at a makeover, he still bears the marks left by the criminalised post-Soviet era. To him, they claim, European integration is a way of gaining new markets rather than of installing democratic values. But Mr Yanukovich also appeals to eastern Ukrainians who see him as a paternal post-Soviet figure who will ensure stable pensions and salaries and won’t bother with empty promises of a new way of life.

For his part, Mr Yushchenko sees it as his mission to transform a post-Soviet country into a democratic European one. Despite allegations of corruption in his entourage, most of Mr Yushchenko’s support comes from millionaires who need clear rules and independent courts to enforce contracts. Since there are no giant industrial employers in western Ukraine, private initiative is the only way forward. “During the orange revolution, we did not fight for Mr Yushchenko, we fought against lawlessness,” claims Ms Mala. Lawlessness and bureaucratic tyranny are still associated with Mr Yanukovich, as prime minister before November 2004. “My business was under constant pressure from bureaucrats and administrators who all demanded bribes,” says Ms Mala.

The election on September 30th is unlikely to change the balance of power in the Ukrainian parliament. Even Mr Yushchenko recognises this: “I don’t question who will lose and who will win in this election.” But it may still help to lay down rules to prevent a similar crisis unfolding again. None of the three main parties is likely to win a majority on its own, so a broad coalition between Mr Yushchenko’s Party of the Regions and Mr Yanukovich’s Our Ukraine, which may not include the Tymoshenko Block, appears likely. “We are almost done with intrigues, unfair agreements, plots and murky games,” Ms Tymoshenko wrote in a recent article. For Ukraine’s 48m people, “almost” is not good enough.

Viktor Ludorum. July 5th 2007

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9443618

comentabamos el otro día

Posible enfriamiento?

Yo también me rayo por esas cosas

Pero de una forma ligeramente diferente. El tema, es que dudo mucho de las razones que nos presentan los científicos para el cambio climático. Tal como ellos lo presentan, se trataría de un sistema de caja negra (osease, que lo que nos importa de él son los intercambios de energía (en este caso) entre el sistema y el exterior. Paro esto, lo que hacen es explicar como los rayos del sol rebotan mas o menos según los terrenos y como el CO2 no los deja salir de nuevo al espacio, provocando así un incremento de temperatura (porque hay energía que debería de salir del sistema, y aquí se queda) Pero el problema que le veo yo a todo esto, es que no se si es el CO2 realmente el culpable de todo esto. Algunos estudios apuntan también a que el CO2 igual que no deja salir algunas radiaciones, no dejaría entrar otras, haciendo por tanto una doble función, que no sabemos hasta que punto sería dañina o beneficiosa (imaginaros que dificultara la fotosíntesis, por ejemplo) Además debemos tener en cuenta, que no tenemos registros de temperatura, ni de concentraciñon de gases desde hace mucho tiempo, es posible que lo que conocemos como el terrible efecto invernadero, sea necesario para la vida (no tenemso ni idea) y que sean otras causas lo que nos calientan en exceso. Por otro lado, hace poco salió un dato que confirmaba que la temperatura de Marte había aumentado un grado o así en los últimos años, ¿porque? Acaso el sol pega mas fuerte? (Allí se notaria más rápido porque no tiene una atmósfera protectora como nosotros) Además los científicos parece que excluyen de sus estudios la posibilidad de que sea el propio ser humano y su forma de vida la que caliente el planeta. Ya hay estudios que han demostrado que el metano de los pedos de las vacas contamina (por su enorme concentración) muchísimo siendo un gas mucho más peligroso que el CO2, y pienso yo, 6mil millones de humanos también se tiran pedos, y además seis mil millones de humanos gastan cientos de calorías todos los días para mantenerse calientes, así como utilizan motores de combustión que sueltan CO2, pero CO2 caliente! Nuestras bombillas actuales, a parte de gastar mucha electricidad (y por extensión producir mucho CO2) gastan un 80% de la energía que gastan en calentarse, es que todo ese calor producido por todas esas bombillas, y coches, y fabricas, no cuenta? No es importante para el calentamiento global, o es que no saben en que medida afecta?(o que el discurso ecologista no es tan convincente si no nos deja poner la calefaccion) En fin, parece que no cabe duda que excedernos en la producción de CO2 no puede ser bueno, pero¿ es seguro que es esa la razón del calentamiento global?, y es más, ¿cómo podemos saber que no estamos en plena glaciación y es el calor que producimos y el efecto invernadero lo que nos salvan del frió? Yo creo que no podemos, que no comprendemos lo suficientemente bien nuestro planeta como para saberlo, y que estamos dando palos de ciego…
PD: pido perdón por no linkear a los artículos a los que hago referencia (calentamiento de Marte, metano vacas etc., pero los leí hace mucho así que no me acuerdo ande andan:()
PD2:Editado, añadido un link de lo de marte y un par de frases

I do not agree with myself.

After more thought on this subject and a little discussion with some people, I came to realise that the argument I posted earlier was flawed.

Apparently, the chart created by the person in the video is similar to Pascal’s Wager. which consists of a series of logical deductions intended to convince the atheists and agnostics that the ”better bet” is to believe in god:

Let us consider the paraphrased translation of Pascal. “God either exists or He doesn’t. Based on the testimony, both general revelation (nature) and special revelation (Scriptures/Bible), it is safe to assume that God does in fact exist. It is abundantly fair to conceive, that there is at least 50% chance that the Christian Creator God does in fact exist. Therefore, since we stand to gain eternity, and thus infinity, the wise and safe choice is to live as though God does exist. If we are right, we gain everything, and lose nothing. If we are wrong, we lose nothing and gain nothing. Therefore, based on simple mathematics, only the fool would choose to live a Godless life. Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have nothing to lose. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.”

As you can see, his proposition only considers posibility and not probability, much like the earlier video. Sure, it is possible that god exists, why not? It is also possible that the Sun will not go up the next day, you never know.

Some made me realise that the system used to convince us of action does not bypass the question of whether global warming is true or not, because the weight of each exposed scenario depends on the probability of it’s occurence.

In the end, it is all reduced to what you believe in. If you believe that global warming is definately ocurring, then by the chart you should always take action against it. If you believe that global warming is not happening, stand opposed to wasting millions of dollars. That is why the argument does not transcend the question of rightness and thus is very weak.

Let’s use this example: Why has USA invaded Irak?, because the worst case scenario would be the existance of biological weapons of mass destruction that might be given to terrorists who might bomb New York which might end the free world as we know it. Thus preventive strike was taken. Now it is ok to spend trillions of dollars. Also we could start selling laser guns to citizens in case the transformers invade us.

So where did I want to arrive with this counter-argument? Well, nowhere really. I personally believe in global warming, the danger is really high, so let’s just all recycle as a precaution. Or not.

http://ideasydesvarios.blogspot.com/2007/06/whats-worst-thing-that-could-happen.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal’s_Wager

What’s the worst thing that could happen?

Another argument in the global warming debate. Do you believe in it? or are you still a naysayer? It doesnt matter. It doesn’t matter because the resulting scenario of a global warming catastrophe, without any action taken to stop or diminish it, will end in a post-apocaliptic nightmare of a world.

I mean, sure it is not proven that global warming is a fact. Sure, why spend money on adressing such problem if nobody knows yet what will happen?

People tend to think of themselves and their well being almost exclusively. It is human nature. I do everything I can to survive and live a happy and comfortable life, and I would not like that to change very much. And what about the future? Our children? What is the worst thing that can happen?

Let’s examine the situation of the possible scenarios.

First, let’s say that global warming did not happen, and we took action to address it. The world stays fine as it is, but the industry has been turned upside down for nothing, resulting in a political crisis and a great economical depression. We wouldn’t like that, would we?

Now, what if global warming did not happen, and we did not take any action whatsoever? The world is fine, and everybody is happy :) This would be the best possible scenario if you ask me.

Let’s consider the scenario in which global warming does happen, and humanity has adressed the problem. The cost of the solution is still as high as the first example, but it has certainly been proven to be a necessary choice. Even though our world will be shaken by the economic upheaval, it was the only way to keep our civilization in a somewhat comfortable situation.

And so, let us consider the last scenario, in which global warming did happen, but nothing was done to prevent/diminish it. Let’s imagine the worst situation: floods, storms, famine, diseases… entire crops and ecosystems wiped out! Deaths! Now being extreme, we could say it would be the end of the world as we know it.

So, what do you prefer? Sit by and gamble? Or try to do everything that is in your power to eliminate the last presented scenario? And as individuals what can we do? Simple:
See this video:

Interesting Argument About Global Warming – Watch more free videos

and spread the word…..

Ukraine… Sigh….

I ignore what knowledge our limited readers have on this issue, but surely even though I have tried to enlighten myself on the crisis, my knowledge has not arisen a bit.

I will post here the main developments:

25/05/2007 Yushenko signs decree to take control over interior troops.

26/05/2007 Ukraine interior ministry says troops move into Kiev.

27/05/2007 Ukraine to hold parliamentary poll Sept. 30 – president

27/05/2007 Moscow hopes Ukraine parliament vote deal will help solve crisis

29/05/2007 Ukraine leader suspends dissolution decree for two days

30/05/2007 Ukraine Communist leader urges no-confidence vote for Yushchenko

30/05/2007 Ukraine interior minister must be called to account – president

30/05/2007 Kiev MPs defy prosecutor dismissal, ready to stop successor

As you can see the situation does not seem to be very optimistic. Filled with power hungry -corrupted to the core- politicians, backed up by cold war superpowers in control for the gas, the solution is not near. Mobilized army and incessant quarrels between Eastern and Western Ukraine leads to a very tense situation. Let us just hope that a solution will be reached in a peaceful way and not with a coup, or a geographical split.

Biocombustible y EXAMENES!!!!

Pues eso, que la verdad es que tengo muuuucho que contaros de estas elecciones y cosas interesantes que he leido por ahí, os he dejado unos cuantos posts en “Entradas de otros” muchos que me gustaria comentar y hablar del tema pero hasta dentro de 2 semanas voy a estar muyyyy liado, luego 10 dias y otra vez muy liado..xD

Pero hoy me voy a hacer eco de una noticia de la que ya había oido hablar, pero que han publicado en el mundo mas detallada para profanos, asi que os la pego..:P

GUSTAVO CATALÁN DEUS

MADRID.- ¿Se imaginan un petróleo biológico, renovable y que absorbe dióxido de carbono (CO2) en un ciclo sin fin? Existe. Está en unas discretas naves en Alicante de la empresa española Bio Fuel System (BFS), que es quien lo ha inventado.

Tiene el color verde de las algas, contiene cientos de millones de seres unicelulares por mililitro cúbico, y se ha tardado varios años años en dar con la fórmula científica de cultivarlo en un medio artificial. No en vano, detrás de este futuro biocombustible están los departamentos de Biotecnología, Ingeniería Química y Ciencias del Mar de las universidades de Alicante y Valencia.

Sus padres son el profesor de Biotecnología de la Universidad de Alicante, Cristian Gomis, y el ingeniero de Termodinámica, Bernard Stroïazzo. La búsqueda de este último de un sistema que acelerara el ciclo vital de la fotosíntesis por el que las células marinas absorben el dióxido de carbono y expulsan oxígeno, crecen y se reproducen, encontró la respuesta en el biólogo marino Gomis.

En estos años se han seleccionado una treintena de cepas de familias de algas clorofíceas a las que se ha alimentado con luz solar, CO2 y una pizca de fósforo y nitrógeno. El resultado ha sido que en esas condiciones artificiales óptimas, sin cambios extremos de temperaturas, ni corrientes, ni depredadores, han acelerado sus procesos vitales y reproductivos. Si en el medio marino la concentración de estos seres es de 300 en un mililitro cúbico, en el sistema BFS llega a 200 millones.

Una sopa verde

La batería de cilindros de plástico transparentes de tres metros de altura y 70 centímetros de diámetro -que hacen de prototipo de la que será una próxima planta industrial- contiene una especie de sopa de color verde, donde cada día esos cientos de miles de millones de seres se dividen en dos cada 12 horas. Es así como la biomasa está servida.

Es igual que la del mar, aunque más densa. O como ocurrió hace 200 millones de años con el fitoplancton en una Tierra en formación, cuando los cataclismos lo sepultaron y se fosilizó, hasta que hace 150 años el hombre comenzó a extraerlo, lo llamó petróleo y creó una sociedad dependiente de este combustible.

El biopetróleo de BFS no tiene el color negro del crudo y no tiene ni azufre ni los metales pesados que se le incorporan en su fosilización. Es sólo materia orgánica con la celulosa y el silicio de la membrana celular.

Cada día se ordeña el cilindro extrayendo la mitad de su contenido, se centrifuga, se devuelve el agua al tanque para que se doble la cantidad de individuos en las siguiente 24 horas, y queda la materia orgánica en pasta para la refinería o seca para carbón. Cada kilogramo de esta masa tiene 5.700 kilocalorías. Tanto como el carbón. Capaz de alimentar plantas térmicas de electricidad, que se verían obligadas a capturar el CO2 de sus chimeneas para alimentar al biocombustible que crece en la planta de al lado, donde digiere su propio carbono y ni tan siquiera hay que transportarlo. Una refinería podría hacer lo mismo. ¿Quién da más?

Bernard Stroïazzo afirma que han logrado reproducir el “mejor intecambiador de energía del Sol que existe, el mismo que hay en los océanos en forma de fitoplancton y que es la base de la cadena alimentaria marina”. Gomis señala que “las algas son seres inmortales porque están en crecimiento infinito”.

Más del 50% de la masa de las decenas de miles de especies de algas que componen el fitoplancton en los océanos es aceite. ¿Para qué quieren tanta grasa? Simplemente porque tiene menos densidad que el agua y flota en el mar con el fin de estar cerca de la superficie donde llega la luz solar, que es la mitad de su dieta junto al dióxido de carbono en la fotosíntesis.

En BFS logran que, en cada dos metros cúbicos de agua, se produzcan seis kilos al día de biomasa. Esto es miles de veces más que el cultivo anual de soja, girasol o palma, usando mucho menos territorio y menos agresivamente.

El próximo objetivo de la empresa será la primera planta de producción eléctrica de 30 megavatios antes de un año. Necesitarán de una hectárea para instalar el hogar artificial de las algas en cilindros de ocho metros de altura y 70 centímteros de diámetro. Allí producirán la electricidad de 3.000 viviendas con calderas que muevan generadores y recuperen el CO2. El lugar ya está elegido en Alicante y las licencias solicitadas.

Pues eso, a ver si es verdad y funciona..:D