1
Mostrar Mensagens
Esta secção permite-lhe ver todas as mensagens colocadas por este membro. De realçar que apenas pode ver as mensagens colocadas em zonas em que você tem acesso.
Páginas: [1]
2
Política e Economia Política / percepções subjectivas sobre genética
« em: 2015-12-30 16:16:05 »
este tópico não é sobre genética.
é sobre o que nós subjectivamente percepcionamos sobre a genética e como classificamos o mundo sobre essas própria percepções.
Inc: não percebo a tua resistência em abordar este tópico sem qualquer tipo de restrições.
eu coloquei em causa o facto de eu próprio ser ou não racista.
comecei por mim.
e não vou acusar ninguém!
gostaria apenas de ter feedback de cada um sobre o tema. mais nada.
ao impedires esta abordagem, não sei bem o que queres conseguir. fechar totalmente o debate sobre este tema - não genética, sublinhe-se?
H
é sobre o que nós subjectivamente percepcionamos sobre a genética e como classificamos o mundo sobre essas própria percepções.
Inc: não percebo a tua resistência em abordar este tópico sem qualquer tipo de restrições.
eu coloquei em causa o facto de eu próprio ser ou não racista.
comecei por mim.
e não vou acusar ninguém!
gostaria apenas de ter feedback de cada um sobre o tema. mais nada.
ao impedires esta abordagem, não sei bem o que queres conseguir. fechar totalmente o debate sobre este tema - não genética, sublinhe-se?
H
3
Política e Economia Política / genética
« em: 2015-12-30 16:09:55 »
Ainda há poucos dias andei por aí a pontificar sobre alimentação - consumo de gorduras especificamente. penso que no off-topic (já vou buscar o link).
Afirmei que os inuit e os masai teriam um genoma especial que lhes permitiria consumir (inuit) gorduras saturadas (focas e baleias) e quantidades prodigiosas de leite (masai).
No caso dos masai, acresce que para além da capacidade de ingerir as quantidades enormes de gorduras presente no leite de vaca não processado, também teriama capacidade de digerir a lactose, algo que uma grande fatia da população terrestre não tem.
Será isto uma análise objectivamente racista?
Serei eu próprio um racista?
H
Afirmei que os inuit e os masai teriam um genoma especial que lhes permitiria consumir (inuit) gorduras saturadas (focas e baleias) e quantidades prodigiosas de leite (masai).
No caso dos masai, acresce que para além da capacidade de ingerir as quantidades enormes de gorduras presente no leite de vaca não processado, também teriama capacidade de digerir a lactose, algo que uma grande fatia da população terrestre não tem.
Será isto uma análise objectivamente racista?
Serei eu próprio um racista?
H
4
Política e Economia Política / The conservative mind
« em: 2015-12-22 18:14:21 »
Trump played a clever trick when he called Clinton’s bathroom visit ‘disgusting’
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump remarked on Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton's brief absence from the debate stage on Dec. 19 saying, "Where did she go? I thought she quit."
On Monday night, Donald Trump made his latest polarizing comment, saying it was “too disgusting” to talk about Hillary Clinton’s use of the bathroom during the last Democratic debate and that she had got “schlonged” by Barack Obama when she lost to him in the 2008 Democratic primary.
Trump was surely talking off-the-cuff in his usual style — and the comments were criticized as offensive and sexist — but it was another example of his mastery in exploiting the psychological biases of conservatives who see much to dislike in today’s society and express support for Trump in the polls.
In fact, a growing mass of academic research has shown that conservatives have a particular revulsion to “disgusting” images. In this line of thinking, Trump’s decision to describe Clinton, one of the most disliked people by conservatives, as a “disgusting” figure would have been an especially powerful way to rile up his supporters.
The research — still debated — suggests that psychological and even biological traits divide people politically, both in the United States and abroad. These are attributes that may help explain why Trump has been so popular among a segment of the electorate, confounding political and media elites.
Some of the recent research has been most pronounced evaluating the differing responses of conservatives and liberals to “disgusting” or “negative” images. Several studies have shown that conservatives are far more likely to have strong reactions to these images or situations than moderates or liberals are.
Researchers have also suggested that conservatives are more likely to respond negatively to threats or be prone to believe conspiracies, perhaps helping explain why Trump’s calls to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States or build a wall at the southern border have resonated with many voters.
In a 2008 study in the journal “Cognition and Emotion,” researchers at Cornell and Yale asked 181 adults from across the political spectrum about their views on a range of matters. Participants were asked to rate their agreement to statements like “I try to avoid letting any part of my body touch the toilet seat in a public restroom, even when it appears clean” and to indicate how disgusting they found situations like “You take a sip of soda and then realize that you picked up the wrong can, which a stranger had been drinking out of.”
Across most metrics — including partisan affiliation — there were no noticeable differences among demographic groups in their response to these statements and questions.
But this wasn’t true of all groups. Conservatives showed a statistically significant likelihood of reacting negatively to “disgusting” situations. (So did religious groups, but the researchers determined the finding about conservatives remained true even when controlling for religiousity.)
Another, more recent study showed that the response to disgust may be hard-wired into our brains — even when we don’t consciously perceive it.
In a paper published in 2014 in Current Biology, researchers at the Human Neuroimaging Laboratory and the Computational Psychiatry Unit at Virginia Tech showed 83 subjects “disgusting” pictures of dead animal bodies, dirty toilets, as well as pleasant images such as pretty landscapes and babies playing together. The participants took a standard test to evaluate their political leanings.
Consciously, liberal, moderate and conservative participants showed no significant differences in rating these pictures, although conservatives “had marginally higher disgust sensitivity than the liberal group.” But things changed when the subject had their brains scanned using fMRI machines as they saw the images.
With a more than 90 percent success rate, the researchers were able to predict whether the participants were conservative or liberals based on how regions of their brains lit up while viewing the images. And it turned out that conservatives had a much stronger reaction to disgusting images than liberals. Reactions to other types of images were not predicted by political views.
“Disgusting images … generate neural responses that are highly predictive of political orientation,” the authors write. “Remarkably, brain responses to a single disgusting stimulus were sufficient to make accurate predictions about an individual subject’s political ideology.”
Others have suggested that disgusting images can even alter people’s political leanings.
A 2012 paper by Cornell University researchers tested the response of students to the presence of a hand sanitizer. The researchers asked random students a series of questions about their backgrounds and political leanings in a university building, and then asked them either to step over to the empty side of the hallway or to “step over to the hand-santizer dispenser to complete the questionnaire.”
The study found that “participants who reported their political attitudes in the presence of the hand-sanitizer dispenser reported a less liberal political orientation … than did participants in the control condition.” The researchers then ran a second, similar study and found the same response.
“It is worth noting that the cleanliness reminder used in these studies was quite subtle — in one case, through simple exposure to a public hand-sanitizer station and in another case via a sign on the laboratory wall reminding experimenters to wash their hands,” the researchers write. “It is notable that simply reminding participants of physical cleanliness rather than involving them in direct physical cleansing was sufficient for the effect to emerge.”
wapo
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump remarked on Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton's brief absence from the debate stage on Dec. 19 saying, "Where did she go? I thought she quit."
On Monday night, Donald Trump made his latest polarizing comment, saying it was “too disgusting” to talk about Hillary Clinton’s use of the bathroom during the last Democratic debate and that she had got “schlonged” by Barack Obama when she lost to him in the 2008 Democratic primary.
Trump was surely talking off-the-cuff in his usual style — and the comments were criticized as offensive and sexist — but it was another example of his mastery in exploiting the psychological biases of conservatives who see much to dislike in today’s society and express support for Trump in the polls.
In fact, a growing mass of academic research has shown that conservatives have a particular revulsion to “disgusting” images. In this line of thinking, Trump’s decision to describe Clinton, one of the most disliked people by conservatives, as a “disgusting” figure would have been an especially powerful way to rile up his supporters.
The research — still debated — suggests that psychological and even biological traits divide people politically, both in the United States and abroad. These are attributes that may help explain why Trump has been so popular among a segment of the electorate, confounding political and media elites.
Some of the recent research has been most pronounced evaluating the differing responses of conservatives and liberals to “disgusting” or “negative” images. Several studies have shown that conservatives are far more likely to have strong reactions to these images or situations than moderates or liberals are.
Researchers have also suggested that conservatives are more likely to respond negatively to threats or be prone to believe conspiracies, perhaps helping explain why Trump’s calls to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States or build a wall at the southern border have resonated with many voters.
In a 2008 study in the journal “Cognition and Emotion,” researchers at Cornell and Yale asked 181 adults from across the political spectrum about their views on a range of matters. Participants were asked to rate their agreement to statements like “I try to avoid letting any part of my body touch the toilet seat in a public restroom, even when it appears clean” and to indicate how disgusting they found situations like “You take a sip of soda and then realize that you picked up the wrong can, which a stranger had been drinking out of.”
Across most metrics — including partisan affiliation — there were no noticeable differences among demographic groups in their response to these statements and questions.
But this wasn’t true of all groups. Conservatives showed a statistically significant likelihood of reacting negatively to “disgusting” situations. (So did religious groups, but the researchers determined the finding about conservatives remained true even when controlling for religiousity.)
Another, more recent study showed that the response to disgust may be hard-wired into our brains — even when we don’t consciously perceive it.
In a paper published in 2014 in Current Biology, researchers at the Human Neuroimaging Laboratory and the Computational Psychiatry Unit at Virginia Tech showed 83 subjects “disgusting” pictures of dead animal bodies, dirty toilets, as well as pleasant images such as pretty landscapes and babies playing together. The participants took a standard test to evaluate their political leanings.
Consciously, liberal, moderate and conservative participants showed no significant differences in rating these pictures, although conservatives “had marginally higher disgust sensitivity than the liberal group.” But things changed when the subject had their brains scanned using fMRI machines as they saw the images.
With a more than 90 percent success rate, the researchers were able to predict whether the participants were conservative or liberals based on how regions of their brains lit up while viewing the images. And it turned out that conservatives had a much stronger reaction to disgusting images than liberals. Reactions to other types of images were not predicted by political views.
“Disgusting images … generate neural responses that are highly predictive of political orientation,” the authors write. “Remarkably, brain responses to a single disgusting stimulus were sufficient to make accurate predictions about an individual subject’s political ideology.”
Others have suggested that disgusting images can even alter people’s political leanings.
A 2012 paper by Cornell University researchers tested the response of students to the presence of a hand sanitizer. The researchers asked random students a series of questions about their backgrounds and political leanings in a university building, and then asked them either to step over to the empty side of the hallway or to “step over to the hand-santizer dispenser to complete the questionnaire.”
The study found that “participants who reported their political attitudes in the presence of the hand-sanitizer dispenser reported a less liberal political orientation … than did participants in the control condition.” The researchers then ran a second, similar study and found the same response.
“It is worth noting that the cleanliness reminder used in these studies was quite subtle — in one case, through simple exposure to a public hand-sanitizer station and in another case via a sign on the laboratory wall reminding experimenters to wash their hands,” the researchers write. “It is notable that simply reminding participants of physical cleanliness rather than involving them in direct physical cleansing was sufficient for the effect to emerge.”
wapo
7
Política e Economia Política / O Medo
« em: 2015-12-05 00:19:02 »
Fear
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fear is an emotion induced by a threat perceived by living entities, which causes a change in brain and organ function and ultimately a change in behavior, such as running away, hiding or freezing from traumatic events. Fear may occur in response to a specific stimulus happening in the present, or to a future situation, which is perceived as risk to health or life, status, power, security, or, in the case of humans, wealth or anything held valuable. The fear response arises from the perception of danger leading to confrontation with or escape from/avoiding the threat (also known as the fight-or-flight response), which in extreme cases of fear (horror and terror) can be a freeze response or paralysis.
In humans and animals, fear is modulated by the process of cognition and learning.
Thus fear is judged as rational or appropriate and irrational or inappropriate.
An irrational fear is called a phobia.
imagens colhidas neste blog: http://drrajivdesaimd.com/?p=3993
vale a pena ler.
compreender o que é o medo é um passo importante para o ultrapassar.
H
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fear is an emotion induced by a threat perceived by living entities, which causes a change in brain and organ function and ultimately a change in behavior, such as running away, hiding or freezing from traumatic events. Fear may occur in response to a specific stimulus happening in the present, or to a future situation, which is perceived as risk to health or life, status, power, security, or, in the case of humans, wealth or anything held valuable. The fear response arises from the perception of danger leading to confrontation with or escape from/avoiding the threat (also known as the fight-or-flight response), which in extreme cases of fear (horror and terror) can be a freeze response or paralysis.
In humans and animals, fear is modulated by the process of cognition and learning.
Thus fear is judged as rational or appropriate and irrational or inappropriate.
An irrational fear is called a phobia.
imagens colhidas neste blog: http://drrajivdesaimd.com/?p=3993
vale a pena ler.
compreender o que é o medo é um passo importante para o ultrapassar.
H
8
Política e Economia Política / Arábia Saudita
« em: 2015-12-04 21:04:05 »
Saudi Arabia 'destabilising Arab world', German intelligence warns
It is unusual for the BND spy agency to publicly release such a blunt assessment on a country that is considered an ally of the West. Germany has long-standing political and economic ties with Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia is at risk of becoming a major destabilising influence in the Arab world, German intelligence has warned.
Internal power struggles and the desire to emerge as the leading Arab power threaten to make the key Western ally a source of instability, according to the BND intelligence service.
“The current cautious diplomatic stance of senior members of the Saudi royal family will be replaced by an impulsive intervention policy,” a BND memo widely distributed to the German press reads.
The memo focuses particularly on the role of Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the 30-year-old son of King Salman who was recently appointed deputy crown prince and defence minister.
The concentration of so much power in Prince Mohammed’s hands “harbours a latent risk that in seeking to establish himself in the line of succession in his father’s lifetime, he may overreach,” the memo notes.
“Relations with friendly and above all allied countries in the region could be overstretched.”
Prince Mohammed is believed to have played a key role in Saudi Arabia’s decision to intervene in the civil war in Yemen earlier this year.
Both he and King Salman want Saudi Arabia to be seen as “the leader of the Arab world” and are trying to extend its foreign policy “with a strong military component and new regional alliances,” the BND analysts write.
Prince Mohammed is believed to want to succeed his father as king, but he is currently second in line to the throne, behind the 56-year-old Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, King Salman’s nephew.
Analysts at the Royal Bank of Canada recenlty desrcribed the jockeying for position inside the extensive royal family as “Saudi Arabia’s Game of Thrones”.
The royal family has thousands of members of varying influence and power, and any suggestion Prince Mohammed is trying to move ahead of the crown prince in the line of succession could trigeer a dangerous power struggle.
Regionally, the Sunni kingdom is locked in a rivalry with Shia Iran “reinforced by mutual mistrust and religious-ideological enmity,” the memo warns.
This rivalry between the two counties is being fuelled by a Saudi loss of faith in the US as the dominant strategic power in the region and in its ability to provide protection, it says.
Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen was driven by a desire to show the country was “willing to take military, financial and political risks in order not to fall behind in regional politics”.
The overthrow of Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad remains a priority for the kingdom, the BND says.
Saudi Arabia has previously been accused of supplying arms and funding to jihadist groups fighting in Syria, including Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil).
telegraph
o príncipe Boahmerd bin Salmão
It is unusual for the BND spy agency to publicly release such a blunt assessment on a country that is considered an ally of the West. Germany has long-standing political and economic ties with Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia is at risk of becoming a major destabilising influence in the Arab world, German intelligence has warned.
Internal power struggles and the desire to emerge as the leading Arab power threaten to make the key Western ally a source of instability, according to the BND intelligence service.
“The current cautious diplomatic stance of senior members of the Saudi royal family will be replaced by an impulsive intervention policy,” a BND memo widely distributed to the German press reads.
The memo focuses particularly on the role of Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the 30-year-old son of King Salman who was recently appointed deputy crown prince and defence minister.
The concentration of so much power in Prince Mohammed’s hands “harbours a latent risk that in seeking to establish himself in the line of succession in his father’s lifetime, he may overreach,” the memo notes.
“Relations with friendly and above all allied countries in the region could be overstretched.”
Prince Mohammed is believed to have played a key role in Saudi Arabia’s decision to intervene in the civil war in Yemen earlier this year.
Both he and King Salman want Saudi Arabia to be seen as “the leader of the Arab world” and are trying to extend its foreign policy “with a strong military component and new regional alliances,” the BND analysts write.
Prince Mohammed is believed to want to succeed his father as king, but he is currently second in line to the throne, behind the 56-year-old Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, King Salman’s nephew.
Analysts at the Royal Bank of Canada recenlty desrcribed the jockeying for position inside the extensive royal family as “Saudi Arabia’s Game of Thrones”.
The royal family has thousands of members of varying influence and power, and any suggestion Prince Mohammed is trying to move ahead of the crown prince in the line of succession could trigeer a dangerous power struggle.
Regionally, the Sunni kingdom is locked in a rivalry with Shia Iran “reinforced by mutual mistrust and religious-ideological enmity,” the memo warns.
This rivalry between the two counties is being fuelled by a Saudi loss of faith in the US as the dominant strategic power in the region and in its ability to provide protection, it says.
Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen was driven by a desire to show the country was “willing to take military, financial and political risks in order not to fall behind in regional politics”.
The overthrow of Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad remains a priority for the kingdom, the BND says.
Saudi Arabia has previously been accused of supplying arms and funding to jihadist groups fighting in Syria, including Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil).
telegraph
o príncipe Boahmerd bin Salmão
9
Política e Economia Política / Philantropy
« em: 2015-12-01 23:25:31 »
Mark Zuckerberg has baby girl, pledges to give away 99% of Facebook shares
SAN FRANCISCO — Mark Zuckerberg and Dr. Priscilla Chan celebrated the birth of a baby girl with the stunning announcement they plan to give away most of their fortune through a new initiative to "advance human potential and promote equality for all children in the next generation."
Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan have welcomed their baby girl, Max, into the world. He posted on Facebook, Your mother and I don't yet have the words to describe the hope you give us for the future.
The billionaire Facebook founder and chief executive and his physician wife pledged to give away 99% of Facebook shares in their lifetime, currently worth about $45 billion, in a letter to their newborn daughter Max posted on Facebook on Tuesday, the national day of giving known as #GivingTuesday.
"Our initial areas of focus will be personalized learning, curing disease, connecting people and building strong communities," Zuckerberg and Chan wrote to their daughter. "We know this is a small contribution compared to all the resources and talents of those already working on these issues. But we want to do what we can, working alongside many others."
Facebook's Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg commented on Facebook: "This is a beautiful letter and an incredible commitment to future generations."
The pledge is remarkable given Zuckerberg's relative youth — he's 31 — and because he's still at the apex of his career running Facebook, a prosperous tech giant that powers the world's most popular social network and boasts a $300 billion market cap.
Facebook said Zuckerberg's gradual dispersal of Facebook shares would not affect his status as the controlling shareholder of Facebook "for the foreseeable future." Zuckerberg has committed to disposing of no more than $1 billion of Facebook stock each year for the next three years, Facebook said.
Zuckerberg will continue his role as chairman and CEO "for many, many years," Facebook said in a statement.
"Mark and Priscilla are early in their careers and will continue to lead active lives — Priscilla as a pediatrician and Founder and CEO of The Primary School, and Mark as the leader of Facebook," according to the statement. "They have been very fortunate in their work and do not want to wait until later in life to give back. Instead, they believe in pursuing philanthropy concurrently with pursuing their professional careers."
Zuckerberg and Chan made the surprise announcement after the close of trading. Facebook shares barely budged in after-hours trading.
Zuckerberg and Chan declined an interview request.
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative follows in the footsteps of the Gates Foundation started by Microsoft founder Bill Gates and wife Melinda Gates and is part of a growing wave of philanthropy from the Facebook generation of entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley. Zuckerberg had already signed The Giving Pledge, a public commitment to give away at least 50% of his or her wealth or more during his or her lifetime or upon his or her death.
He and Priscilla have already donated $1.6 billion to philanthropy including $120 million to support education in underserved communities in the Bay Area, $75 million to San Francisco General Hospital to complete a new trauma center and buy equipment and technology, $25 million to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to help stop the spread of Ebola and $100 million to the Newark Public School System.
Philanthropy coming from a tech pioneer so early in his career drew plaudits.
In a statement distributed by Facebook, Bill and Melinda Gates said: "As for your decision to give back so generously, and to deepen your commitment now, the first word that comes to mind is: Wow. The example you’re setting today is an inspiration to us and the world. We can be confident of this: Max and every child born today will grow up in a world that is better than the one we know now. As you say, 'seeds planted now will grow.' Your work will bear fruit for many decades to come."
Warren Buffett, who conceived of The Giving Pledge with Bill Gates whose Gates Foundation oversees it, said Zuckerberg and Chan "are breaking the mold with this breathtaking commitment."
"A combination of brains, passion and resources on this scale will change the lives of millions," Buffett said in the prepared statement. "On behalf of future generations, I thank them."
Zuckerberg announced last month that he would take two months of paternity leave after the birth of his daughter. The announcement set a new precedent for technology chief executives. Facebook has not said who will run the company in Zuckerberg's absence. Zuckerberg's daughter Max was born "early the week of Thanksgiving," Facebook said.
Mark Zuckerberg to take two months off after his child is born
News of the Chan Zuckerberg initiative comes just days after Zuckerberg announced he would team up with Gates to invest in The Breakthrough Energy Coalition, a clean energy fund, that will explore ideas that "have the potential to transform the way we all produce and consume energy."
A press statement from Facebook says the initiative will fund nonprofit organizations, make private investments and participate in policy debates "in each case with the goal of generating positive impact in areas of great need."
"Any profits from investments in companies will be used to fund additional work to advance the mission," the statement says.
usa today
SAN FRANCISCO — Mark Zuckerberg and Dr. Priscilla Chan celebrated the birth of a baby girl with the stunning announcement they plan to give away most of their fortune through a new initiative to "advance human potential and promote equality for all children in the next generation."
Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan have welcomed their baby girl, Max, into the world. He posted on Facebook, Your mother and I don't yet have the words to describe the hope you give us for the future.
The billionaire Facebook founder and chief executive and his physician wife pledged to give away 99% of Facebook shares in their lifetime, currently worth about $45 billion, in a letter to their newborn daughter Max posted on Facebook on Tuesday, the national day of giving known as #GivingTuesday.
"Our initial areas of focus will be personalized learning, curing disease, connecting people and building strong communities," Zuckerberg and Chan wrote to their daughter. "We know this is a small contribution compared to all the resources and talents of those already working on these issues. But we want to do what we can, working alongside many others."
Facebook's Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg commented on Facebook: "This is a beautiful letter and an incredible commitment to future generations."
The pledge is remarkable given Zuckerberg's relative youth — he's 31 — and because he's still at the apex of his career running Facebook, a prosperous tech giant that powers the world's most popular social network and boasts a $300 billion market cap.
Facebook said Zuckerberg's gradual dispersal of Facebook shares would not affect his status as the controlling shareholder of Facebook "for the foreseeable future." Zuckerberg has committed to disposing of no more than $1 billion of Facebook stock each year for the next three years, Facebook said.
Zuckerberg will continue his role as chairman and CEO "for many, many years," Facebook said in a statement.
"Mark and Priscilla are early in their careers and will continue to lead active lives — Priscilla as a pediatrician and Founder and CEO of The Primary School, and Mark as the leader of Facebook," according to the statement. "They have been very fortunate in their work and do not want to wait until later in life to give back. Instead, they believe in pursuing philanthropy concurrently with pursuing their professional careers."
Zuckerberg and Chan made the surprise announcement after the close of trading. Facebook shares barely budged in after-hours trading.
Zuckerberg and Chan declined an interview request.
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative follows in the footsteps of the Gates Foundation started by Microsoft founder Bill Gates and wife Melinda Gates and is part of a growing wave of philanthropy from the Facebook generation of entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley. Zuckerberg had already signed The Giving Pledge, a public commitment to give away at least 50% of his or her wealth or more during his or her lifetime or upon his or her death.
He and Priscilla have already donated $1.6 billion to philanthropy including $120 million to support education in underserved communities in the Bay Area, $75 million to San Francisco General Hospital to complete a new trauma center and buy equipment and technology, $25 million to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to help stop the spread of Ebola and $100 million to the Newark Public School System.
Philanthropy coming from a tech pioneer so early in his career drew plaudits.
In a statement distributed by Facebook, Bill and Melinda Gates said: "As for your decision to give back so generously, and to deepen your commitment now, the first word that comes to mind is: Wow. The example you’re setting today is an inspiration to us and the world. We can be confident of this: Max and every child born today will grow up in a world that is better than the one we know now. As you say, 'seeds planted now will grow.' Your work will bear fruit for many decades to come."
Warren Buffett, who conceived of The Giving Pledge with Bill Gates whose Gates Foundation oversees it, said Zuckerberg and Chan "are breaking the mold with this breathtaking commitment."
"A combination of brains, passion and resources on this scale will change the lives of millions," Buffett said in the prepared statement. "On behalf of future generations, I thank them."
Zuckerberg announced last month that he would take two months of paternity leave after the birth of his daughter. The announcement set a new precedent for technology chief executives. Facebook has not said who will run the company in Zuckerberg's absence. Zuckerberg's daughter Max was born "early the week of Thanksgiving," Facebook said.
Mark Zuckerberg to take two months off after his child is born
News of the Chan Zuckerberg initiative comes just days after Zuckerberg announced he would team up with Gates to invest in The Breakthrough Energy Coalition, a clean energy fund, that will explore ideas that "have the potential to transform the way we all produce and consume energy."
A press statement from Facebook says the initiative will fund nonprofit organizations, make private investments and participate in policy debates "in each case with the goal of generating positive impact in areas of great need."
"Any profits from investments in companies will be used to fund additional work to advance the mission," the statement says.
usa today
10
Comunidade de Traders / The Zark Solo Experiment...
« em: 2015-12-01 21:14:28 »
para comemorar os 100 anos da expedição (falhada) de Shackleton ao Antártico, o Worsley decidiu atravessar a Antártica a pé e a solo.
http://shackletonsolo.org/
Eu Haroun Al Poussah, grande Califa de Baghdad e comendador dos crentes, associando-me a esta comemoração, encarreguei o meu servo Zark da seguinte missão:
Com uma conta inicial de 2000 €:
suster-se a si próprio através do trading;
fazer aumentar a conta significativamente;
relatar online o seu quotidiano de trading;
relatar online as suas estratégias de sobrevivência e prosperidade através do trading;
H
11
Política e Economia Política / Bullshiting
« em: 2015-12-01 17:14:53 »
Donald Trump Is Not a Liar
He's something worse: a bullshit artist.
December 1, 2015
Falsehoods fly out of Donald Trump’s mouth with such unstoppable frequency that it’s tempting to describe him as a liar. Among the recent Trumpian untruths is his claim to have seen a video showing “thousands and thousands” of Muslim Americans cheering 9/11 in Jersey City, New Jersey, an event there is no record of, video or otherwise.
Trump has also retweeted and vigorously defended the claim that 81 percent of whites who are murdered are killed by blacks (the actual number for last year is 15 percent). And he has asserted, contrary to fact, that the federal government is sending refugees to states with “Republicans, not to the Democrats.”
Trump wants to take us to a land where subjectivity is all, where reality is simply what he says.
Yet the increasingly frequent tendency of Trump’s critics to label him a liar is wrongheaded. Trump is something worse than a liar. He is a bullshit artist.
In his 2005 book On Bullshit, Harry G. Frankfurt, emeritus philosophy professor at Princeton University, makes an important distinction between lying and bullshitting—one that is extremely useful for understanding the pernicious impact that Trump has on public life.
Frankfurt’s key observation is that the liar, even as he or she might spread untruth, inhabits a universe where the distinction between truth and falsehood still matters.
The bullshitter, by contrast, does not care what is true or not. By his or her bluffing, dissimilation, and general dishonesty, the bullshit artist works to erase the very possibility of knowing the truth. For this reason, bullshit is more dangerous than lies, since it erodes even the possibility of truth existing and being found.
The contrast Frankfurt draws between lying and bullshit is sharp. “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth,” Frankfurt observes. “Producing bullshit requires no such conviction.
A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false.
For the bullshitter, however, all bets are off. … He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of truth than lies are.”
Frankfurt’s analysis works extraordinarily well in explaining why Trump is so unfazed when called on his bullshit. Trump’s frequent response is to undermine the very possibility that the truth of his claims are knowable.
When asked why there are no videos of “thousands and thousands” of Muslim-Americans cheering the 9/11 attacks, Trump told Joe Scarborough that 2001 was so far in the past that the evidence has disappeared. “Don’t forget, 14, 15 years ago, it wasn’t like it is today, where you press a button and you play a video,” Trump said in a phone interview on yesterday’s Morning Joe. “Fourteen, 15 years ago, they don’t even put it in files, they destroy half of the stuff. You know, if you look back 14, 15 years, that was like ancient times in terms of cinema, and in terms of news and everything else. They don’t have the same stuff. Today you can press a button and you can see exactly what went on, you know, two years ago. But when you go back 14, 15 years, that’s like ancient technology, Joe.”
This claim—that he’s telling the truth but that there can be no proof of it—is in some ways more insidious than the initial falsehood. It takes us to a post-truth world where Trump’s statements can’t be fact-checked, and we have to simply accept the workings of his self-proclaimed “world’s greatest memory.” In effect, Trump wants to take us to a land where subjectivity is all, where reality is simply what he says.
A similar gambit to destroy the possibility of objective historical knowledge can be seen in a controversy over a Civil War memorial plaque at a Trump golf course in Sterling, Virginia. The plaque reads: “Many great American soldiers, both of the North and South, died at this spot. The casualties were so great that the water would turn red and thus became known as ‘The River of Blood.’ ”
When informed by The New York Times that historians called the plaque a fiction because there is no record of a battle fought on that spot, Trump petulantly responded: “How would they know that?… Were they there?” Again, what’s disturbing here is an attack on the hard-won scholarship that tries to sift through the evidence of the past to accurately record history. In Trump’s bullshit universe, history is whatever is convenient for him to say.
Why is Trump such a bullshit artist? His background as a real estate developer—a job that requires making convincing sales pitches—is one clue.
But Frankfurt’s book offers another suggestion: “Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about,” Frankfurt notes. “
Thus the production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person’s obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic exceed his knowledge of the facts that are relevant to that topic.” As a businessman-turned-politician, Trump often seems in over his head on policy discussions. Maybe that’s the core reason why he’s so given over to bullshitting.
But Trump’s propensity to bullshit shouldn’t be seen as an aberration. Over the last two decades, the GOP as a party has increasingly adopted positions that are not just politically extreme but also in defiance of facts and science.
As Michael Cohen argues in the Boston Globe, the seeds of Trump’s rise were planted by earlier politicians who showed how far they could go with uttering outright untruths which their partisans lapped up. This can be seen most clearly in the climate denial which so many leading candidates have given credence to. Or consider the way Carly Fiorina concocted a story about an imaginary Planned Parenthood video. It took a party of liars to make Trump’s forays into outright bullshit acceptable.
The triumph of bullshit has consequences far beyond the political realm, making society as a whole more credulous and willing to accept all sorts of irrational beliefs.
A newly published article in the academic journal Judgment and Decision Making links “bullshit receptivity” to other forms of impaired thinking: “Those more receptive to bullshit are less reflective, lower in cognitive ability (i.e., verbal and fluid intelligence, numeracy), are more prone to ontological confusions and conspiratorial ideation, are more likely to hold religious and paranormal beliefs, and are more likely to endorse complementary and alternative medicine.”
It’s no accident that Trump himself is receptive to bullshit ideas promulgated by the likes of anti-vaxxers. A President Trump, based on his own bullshit receptivity and his own bullshit contagiousness, would lead a country that is far more conspiratorial, far more confused, and far less able to grapple with problems in a rational way. Trump’s America would truly be a nation swimming in bullshit.
newrepublic
He's something worse: a bullshit artist.
December 1, 2015
Falsehoods fly out of Donald Trump’s mouth with such unstoppable frequency that it’s tempting to describe him as a liar. Among the recent Trumpian untruths is his claim to have seen a video showing “thousands and thousands” of Muslim Americans cheering 9/11 in Jersey City, New Jersey, an event there is no record of, video or otherwise.
Trump has also retweeted and vigorously defended the claim that 81 percent of whites who are murdered are killed by blacks (the actual number for last year is 15 percent). And he has asserted, contrary to fact, that the federal government is sending refugees to states with “Republicans, not to the Democrats.”
Trump wants to take us to a land where subjectivity is all, where reality is simply what he says.
Yet the increasingly frequent tendency of Trump’s critics to label him a liar is wrongheaded. Trump is something worse than a liar. He is a bullshit artist.
In his 2005 book On Bullshit, Harry G. Frankfurt, emeritus philosophy professor at Princeton University, makes an important distinction between lying and bullshitting—one that is extremely useful for understanding the pernicious impact that Trump has on public life.
Frankfurt’s key observation is that the liar, even as he or she might spread untruth, inhabits a universe where the distinction between truth and falsehood still matters.
The bullshitter, by contrast, does not care what is true or not. By his or her bluffing, dissimilation, and general dishonesty, the bullshit artist works to erase the very possibility of knowing the truth. For this reason, bullshit is more dangerous than lies, since it erodes even the possibility of truth existing and being found.
The contrast Frankfurt draws between lying and bullshit is sharp. “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth,” Frankfurt observes. “Producing bullshit requires no such conviction.
A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false.
For the bullshitter, however, all bets are off. … He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of truth than lies are.”
Frankfurt’s analysis works extraordinarily well in explaining why Trump is so unfazed when called on his bullshit. Trump’s frequent response is to undermine the very possibility that the truth of his claims are knowable.
When asked why there are no videos of “thousands and thousands” of Muslim-Americans cheering the 9/11 attacks, Trump told Joe Scarborough that 2001 was so far in the past that the evidence has disappeared. “Don’t forget, 14, 15 years ago, it wasn’t like it is today, where you press a button and you play a video,” Trump said in a phone interview on yesterday’s Morning Joe. “Fourteen, 15 years ago, they don’t even put it in files, they destroy half of the stuff. You know, if you look back 14, 15 years, that was like ancient times in terms of cinema, and in terms of news and everything else. They don’t have the same stuff. Today you can press a button and you can see exactly what went on, you know, two years ago. But when you go back 14, 15 years, that’s like ancient technology, Joe.”
This claim—that he’s telling the truth but that there can be no proof of it—is in some ways more insidious than the initial falsehood. It takes us to a post-truth world where Trump’s statements can’t be fact-checked, and we have to simply accept the workings of his self-proclaimed “world’s greatest memory.” In effect, Trump wants to take us to a land where subjectivity is all, where reality is simply what he says.
A similar gambit to destroy the possibility of objective historical knowledge can be seen in a controversy over a Civil War memorial plaque at a Trump golf course in Sterling, Virginia. The plaque reads: “Many great American soldiers, both of the North and South, died at this spot. The casualties were so great that the water would turn red and thus became known as ‘The River of Blood.’ ”
When informed by The New York Times that historians called the plaque a fiction because there is no record of a battle fought on that spot, Trump petulantly responded: “How would they know that?… Were they there?” Again, what’s disturbing here is an attack on the hard-won scholarship that tries to sift through the evidence of the past to accurately record history. In Trump’s bullshit universe, history is whatever is convenient for him to say.
Why is Trump such a bullshit artist? His background as a real estate developer—a job that requires making convincing sales pitches—is one clue.
But Frankfurt’s book offers another suggestion: “Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about,” Frankfurt notes. “
Thus the production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person’s obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic exceed his knowledge of the facts that are relevant to that topic.” As a businessman-turned-politician, Trump often seems in over his head on policy discussions. Maybe that’s the core reason why he’s so given over to bullshitting.
But Trump’s propensity to bullshit shouldn’t be seen as an aberration. Over the last two decades, the GOP as a party has increasingly adopted positions that are not just politically extreme but also in defiance of facts and science.
As Michael Cohen argues in the Boston Globe, the seeds of Trump’s rise were planted by earlier politicians who showed how far they could go with uttering outright untruths which their partisans lapped up. This can be seen most clearly in the climate denial which so many leading candidates have given credence to. Or consider the way Carly Fiorina concocted a story about an imaginary Planned Parenthood video. It took a party of liars to make Trump’s forays into outright bullshit acceptable.
The triumph of bullshit has consequences far beyond the political realm, making society as a whole more credulous and willing to accept all sorts of irrational beliefs.
A newly published article in the academic journal Judgment and Decision Making links “bullshit receptivity” to other forms of impaired thinking: “Those more receptive to bullshit are less reflective, lower in cognitive ability (i.e., verbal and fluid intelligence, numeracy), are more prone to ontological confusions and conspiratorial ideation, are more likely to hold religious and paranormal beliefs, and are more likely to endorse complementary and alternative medicine.”
It’s no accident that Trump himself is receptive to bullshit ideas promulgated by the likes of anti-vaxxers. A President Trump, based on his own bullshit receptivity and his own bullshit contagiousness, would lead a country that is far more conspiratorial, far more confused, and far less able to grapple with problems in a rational way. Trump’s America would truly be a nation swimming in bullshit.
newrepublic
12
Comunidade de Traders / Short gold to two hundred fifty (250 that's right) and beyond
« em: 2015-02-27 21:32:00 »
salam, salam meus bons subditos,
Vou tentar dar aqui uma ideia sobre o ouro e eventualmente a prata.
Ao contrário do que os gold-bugs querem fazer crer, o ouro não é um hedge contra a inflação.
É antes um activo qu epode servir de hedge contra a deflação.
É algo que se compra quando os retornos noutros assets são pequenos.
Um dos conselheiros económicos aqui do califado, o bom Kruger, diz assim:
gráfico anexo em baixo
Quero acrescentar mais umas coisitas:
1. O ouro cota em USD. Mais alto o USD, mais baixo o gold. Estou longo em USD logo....
2. Com o bom Kruger diz, o ouro poderá ser uma alternativa quando os retornos noutros activos são pequenos.
Mas os retornos accionistas não se têm mostrado pequenos. E como já expliquei noutro tópico, podemos estar ainda a menos de meio da subida.
A subida do USD acompanhada com a subida dos mercados accionistas, pode ser uma combinação fatal para o preço do ouro.
salam meu pequenos,
H
Vou tentar dar aqui uma ideia sobre o ouro e eventualmente a prata.
Ao contrário do que os gold-bugs querem fazer crer, o ouro não é um hedge contra a inflação.
É antes um activo qu epode servir de hedge contra a deflação.
É algo que se compra quando os retornos noutros assets são pequenos.
Um dos conselheiros económicos aqui do califado, o bom Kruger, diz assim:
Citar
In fact gold prices are down a lot. But it’s also important to understand why they were high in the first place. Gold is not, in fact, a hedge against inflation. It’s something people buy when real returns on alternative assets are low. The figure shows the price of gold versus the interest rate on inflation-protected bonds (inverted, so that a falling real rate of interest is a rise on the chart). Gold went up as real interest rates turned negative, thanks to a depressed economy — an economy, by the way, that was deflation- rather than inflation-prone.
And as recovery has gathered strength, real rates have gone up and gold has gone down. So the Obama recovery has both dashed right-wing hopes for catastrophe and dealt a body blow to their favoritescaminvestment.
gráfico anexo em baixo
Quero acrescentar mais umas coisitas:
1. O ouro cota em USD. Mais alto o USD, mais baixo o gold. Estou longo em USD logo....
2. Com o bom Kruger diz, o ouro poderá ser uma alternativa quando os retornos noutros activos são pequenos.
Mas os retornos accionistas não se têm mostrado pequenos. E como já expliquei noutro tópico, podemos estar ainda a menos de meio da subida.
A subida do USD acompanhada com a subida dos mercados accionistas, pode ser uma combinação fatal para o preço do ouro.
salam meu pequenos,
H
13
Comunidade de Traders / long the JPY to one hundred fifty and beyond
« em: 2015-02-24 17:33:46 »
Salam, Salam
O JPY está sob uma experiência radical a nível monetário.
o governo japonês faz tudo, mas tudo o que for possível para combater a deflação.
o QE japonês é, ainda que relativamente, superior ao americano e europeu.
Pelas mesmas razões que shorto o EUR, quero estar longo no JPY. O QE americano acabou e o japonês ainda é uma criança.
H
O JPY está sob uma experiência radical a nível monetário.
o governo japonês faz tudo, mas tudo o que for possível para combater a deflação.
o QE japonês é, ainda que relativamente, superior ao americano e europeu.
Pelas mesmas razões que shorto o EUR, quero estar longo no JPY. O QE americano acabou e o japonês ainda é uma criança.
H
14
Comunidade de Traders / short the eurusd to parity and beyond
« em: 2015-02-19 16:50:10 »
salam, salam meus bons súbditos.
abro este tópico para fazer algumas análises expeditas sobre alguns activos.
as análises serão menos técnicas e mais gerais do que o meu bom Iznogoud costuma fazer.
começo pelo eurusd.
1. O QE americano acabou. embora não haja data marcada para a subida das taxas de juro pelo banco central, o único caminho, neste momento é para cima.
salvo alguma catástrofe, evidentemente. a grexit não conta como catástrofe. poderá ter alguma influência, como abaixo descreverei, mas na cotação do USD, não na política monetária dos US.
2. O QE europeu vai começar. aqui sim, a grexit poderá influir tanto na política monetária - alargamento do QE - como na cotação do euro - ver abaixo.
excluindo a grécia da equação, a perspectiva de aumento de taxas US / início do QE na EU força o EURUSD para baixo. Tal como se tem vindo a verificar.
Resta saber qual o ponto de equilíbrio que se atingirá.
3. Na minha opinião o ponto de equilíbrio andará pela paridade; 1 EUR = 1 USD. eventualmente poderá haver um overshoot abaixo disso.
4. grexit. com a saída da grécia do EUR, este tenderá a valorizar-se. diz-me o meu bom Iznogoud, o mago da análise técnica, que não mais do que [1.19 , 1.22] ( a verde claro no gráfico). aí será uma excelente altura para iniciar ou aumentar uma posição short neste activo.
e pronto, um grande salam para todos vocês,
to parity & beyond...,
Haroun
abro este tópico para fazer algumas análises expeditas sobre alguns activos.
as análises serão menos técnicas e mais gerais do que o meu bom Iznogoud costuma fazer.
começo pelo eurusd.
1. O QE americano acabou. embora não haja data marcada para a subida das taxas de juro pelo banco central, o único caminho, neste momento é para cima.
salvo alguma catástrofe, evidentemente. a grexit não conta como catástrofe. poderá ter alguma influência, como abaixo descreverei, mas na cotação do USD, não na política monetária dos US.
2. O QE europeu vai começar. aqui sim, a grexit poderá influir tanto na política monetária - alargamento do QE - como na cotação do euro - ver abaixo.
excluindo a grécia da equação, a perspectiva de aumento de taxas US / início do QE na EU força o EURUSD para baixo. Tal como se tem vindo a verificar.
Resta saber qual o ponto de equilíbrio que se atingirá.
3. Na minha opinião o ponto de equilíbrio andará pela paridade; 1 EUR = 1 USD. eventualmente poderá haver um overshoot abaixo disso.
4. grexit. com a saída da grécia do EUR, este tenderá a valorizar-se. diz-me o meu bom Iznogoud, o mago da análise técnica, que não mais do que [1.19 , 1.22] ( a verde claro no gráfico). aí será uma excelente altura para iniciar ou aumentar uma posição short neste activo.
e pronto, um grande salam para todos vocês,
to parity & beyond...,
Haroun
Páginas: [1]