Is Pastor Nico Guilty?
I think he can't be accused of homicide, because the "moral cleanser" was completely harmless and is not his fault that people died. He didn't force anybody to do it, they did it because they wanted to. If it is a psychosomatic illness, it happens because people believed they were evil. If they tought they were evil, why did they drink the moral cleanser?
He can be accused of betray or fool in the people, since he was lying about the properties of his "moral cleanser", and he could be charged of the homicides as a consecuence of it, but not directly. (He could be accused of being one causant of the deaths, but he can't be accused of directly homicide).
Monday, November 30, 2009
The value of the time
-To realize the value of ONE YEAR, ask a student who failed a grade.
-To realize the value of ONE MONTH, ask a mother who has given birth to a premature baby.
-To realize the value of ONE WEEK, ask the editor of a weekly newspaper.
-To realize the value of ONE HOUR, ask the lovers who are waiting to meet.
-To realize the value of ONE MINUTE, ask a person who just missed a train.
-To realize the value of ONE SECOND, ask someone who just avoided an accident.
-To realize the value of ONE MILLISECOND, ask the person who won a silver medal at the Olympics.
Treasure every moment that you have! And treasure it more because you shared it with someone special, special enough to spend your time with. And remember time waits for no one.
Yesterday is history. Tomorrow is a mystery. Today is a gift. That's why its called the present.
-Unkown
-To realize the value of ONE MONTH, ask a mother who has given birth to a premature baby.
-To realize the value of ONE WEEK, ask the editor of a weekly newspaper.
-To realize the value of ONE HOUR, ask the lovers who are waiting to meet.
-To realize the value of ONE MINUTE, ask a person who just missed a train.
-To realize the value of ONE SECOND, ask someone who just avoided an accident.
-To realize the value of ONE MILLISECOND, ask the person who won a silver medal at the Olympics.
Treasure every moment that you have! And treasure it more because you shared it with someone special, special enough to spend your time with. And remember time waits for no one.
Yesterday is history. Tomorrow is a mystery. Today is a gift. That's why its called the present.
-Unkown
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Philosophy of Charles Schultz
The following is the philosophy of Charles Schultz, the creator of the "Peanuts" comic strip. You don't have to actually answer the questions. Just read straight through, and you'll get the point.
1. Name the five wealthiest people in the world.
2. Name the last five Heisman trophy winners.
3. Name the last five winners of the Miss America.
4. Name ten people who have won the Nobel or Pulitzer Prize.
5. Name the last half dozen Academy Award winner for best actor and actress.
6. Name the last decade's worth of World Series winners.
How did you do?
The point is, none of us remember the headliners of yesterday. These are no second-rate achievers. They are the best in their fields. But the applause dies. Awards tarnish. Acheivements are forgotten. Accolades and certificates are buried with their owners.
Here's another quiz. See how you do on this one:
1. List a few teachers who aided your journey through school.
2. Name three friends who have helped you through a difficult time.
3. Name five people who have taught you something worthwhile.
4. Think of a few people who have made you feel appreciated and special.
5. Think of five people you enjoy spending time with.
Easier?
The lesson: The people who make a difference in your life are not the ones with the most credentials, the most money, or the most awards. They are the ones that care.
"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia." (Charles Schultz)
1. Name the five wealthiest people in the world.
2. Name the last five Heisman trophy winners.
3. Name the last five winners of the Miss America.
4. Name ten people who have won the Nobel or Pulitzer Prize.
5. Name the last half dozen Academy Award winner for best actor and actress.
6. Name the last decade's worth of World Series winners.
How did you do?
The point is, none of us remember the headliners of yesterday. These are no second-rate achievers. They are the best in their fields. But the applause dies. Awards tarnish. Acheivements are forgotten. Accolades and certificates are buried with their owners.
Here's another quiz. See how you do on this one:
1. List a few teachers who aided your journey through school.
2. Name three friends who have helped you through a difficult time.
3. Name five people who have taught you something worthwhile.
4. Think of a few people who have made you feel appreciated and special.
5. Think of five people you enjoy spending time with.
Easier?
The lesson: The people who make a difference in your life are not the ones with the most credentials, the most money, or the most awards. They are the ones that care.
"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia." (Charles Schultz)
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Essay
“The philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) once observed that in most countries certain ideas are recognized as correct and others as dangerous. Teachers whose opinions are not correct are expected to keep silent about them. What opinions, if any, are teachers in your country expected to keep silent about, and to what extent can this be justified?”
In many countries, freedom of expression is not a right and people are expected to behave in a certain way. I think there is where you can find (in most occasions), situations like the one described above.
In Mexico we don´t really have that problem, since the freedom of expression is considered one of the most important articles in our constitution, we are completely allowed to speak our minds. But even then, I think that there are still some “taboo topics” depending in the situation. I´m going to use schools as an example: Since most of the population in my country is catholic, we have many catholic schools. Perhaps people is not as religious as they used to be before, but in those schools, the religious formation is still important and strong, religion is taken as a really serious thing and teachers are expected to respect it, still if they don’t believe in it. There are many topics that students have to learn to have a complete educational formation like methods of protection, abortions, how to plan a family, etc. Catholicism is against them but, they can’t skip those topics because they have to follow the country´s study program, in order to have permission to offer the Mexican education system certificate. So, when they get to those topics, the teachers only can talk about the things the book says, it is forbidden to them to add opinions to their lessons and even worst to say that the agree or disagree with things like for example condoms and abortions.
From my point of view, this is not a problem for my country; it’s a thing that happens everywhere. You have to adapt to the situation depending on where you are and what it is like. If you don´t like a system and you think you can’t adapt to it, then don´t get involved with it.
I want to clarify something: It s a rule in Mexico that public schools have to be secular. Therefore catholic schools are always private and they exist in a smaller percent than the other kinds of schools in Mexico.
In many countries, freedom of expression is not a right and people are expected to behave in a certain way. I think there is where you can find (in most occasions), situations like the one described above.
In Mexico we don´t really have that problem, since the freedom of expression is considered one of the most important articles in our constitution, we are completely allowed to speak our minds. But even then, I think that there are still some “taboo topics” depending in the situation. I´m going to use schools as an example: Since most of the population in my country is catholic, we have many catholic schools. Perhaps people is not as religious as they used to be before, but in those schools, the religious formation is still important and strong, religion is taken as a really serious thing and teachers are expected to respect it, still if they don’t believe in it. There are many topics that students have to learn to have a complete educational formation like methods of protection, abortions, how to plan a family, etc. Catholicism is against them but, they can’t skip those topics because they have to follow the country´s study program, in order to have permission to offer the Mexican education system certificate. So, when they get to those topics, the teachers only can talk about the things the book says, it is forbidden to them to add opinions to their lessons and even worst to say that the agree or disagree with things like for example condoms and abortions.
From my point of view, this is not a problem for my country; it’s a thing that happens everywhere. You have to adapt to the situation depending on where you are and what it is like. If you don´t like a system and you think you can’t adapt to it, then don´t get involved with it.
I want to clarify something: It s a rule in Mexico that public schools have to be secular. Therefore catholic schools are always private and they exist in a smaller percent than the other kinds of schools in Mexico.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Nikita's Problem
Lau has learned from Nikita how to be a lawyer, under a very generous arrangement whereby he doesn’t need to pay anything for his tuition until and unless he wins his first court case. Rather to Nikita’s’ annoyance, however, after giving up hours of his time training Lau, the pupil decides to become a musician and never takes any court cases. Nikita demands that Lau pay him for his trouble and, when the musician refuses, decides to sue him in court. Nikita reasons that if Lau loses the case, he, Nikita, will have won, in which case he will get his money back, and furthermore, that even if he loses, Lau will then have won a case, despite his protestations about being a musician now, and will therefore still have to pay up.
Lau reasons a little differently however. If I lose, he thinks, then I will have lost my first court case, in which event, the original agreement releases me from having to pay any tuition fees. And, even if he wins, Nikita will still have lost the right to enforce the contract, so he will not need to pay anything.
They can’t both be right. So who’s making the mistake?
Nikita reasons that if Lau loses the case and he wins, Lau will have to pay him and that if Lau wins the case, he, Lau, will still have to pay him because he, Lau, will have won a case.
Lau reasons that if he loses he won’t have to pay because he will have lost his first court case and the original agreement releases him from having to pay any tuition fees and if he wins, Nikita will still have lost the right to enforce the contract, so he won’t need to pay anything.
I think that the problem here is that both of them are giving less credit to the original agreement in one of their assumptions and more in the other one, let me explain:
When Nikita reasons that if Lau loses the case he, Lau, will have to pay him he doesn’t care about the original statement he made with Lau, but if, by the other side, he, Nikita, loses, he takes care about the original statement, so Lau pays him.
When Lau reasons that if he loses he won’t have to pay he gives importance to the original statement and in the other hand, if he wins, he forgets about the original statement.
They need to either invalidate the original statement or give it full value. If they invalidate it, then the winner of the case will get the privileges (if Lau wins he doesn’t need to pay Nikita and if Nikita wins Lau has to pay him), if they give it full value, the winner of the case will lose the privileges (if Lau wins he needs to pay, if Nikita wins Lau doesn’t have to pay).
Lau reasons a little differently however. If I lose, he thinks, then I will have lost my first court case, in which event, the original agreement releases me from having to pay any tuition fees. And, even if he wins, Nikita will still have lost the right to enforce the contract, so he will not need to pay anything.
They can’t both be right. So who’s making the mistake?
Nikita reasons that if Lau loses the case and he wins, Lau will have to pay him and that if Lau wins the case, he, Lau, will still have to pay him because he, Lau, will have won a case.
Lau reasons that if he loses he won’t have to pay because he will have lost his first court case and the original agreement releases him from having to pay any tuition fees and if he wins, Nikita will still have lost the right to enforce the contract, so he won’t need to pay anything.
I think that the problem here is that both of them are giving less credit to the original agreement in one of their assumptions and more in the other one, let me explain:
When Nikita reasons that if Lau loses the case he, Lau, will have to pay him he doesn’t care about the original statement he made with Lau, but if, by the other side, he, Nikita, loses, he takes care about the original statement, so Lau pays him.
When Lau reasons that if he loses he won’t have to pay he gives importance to the original statement and in the other hand, if he wins, he forgets about the original statement.
They need to either invalidate the original statement or give it full value. If they invalidate it, then the winner of the case will get the privileges (if Lau wins he doesn’t need to pay Nikita and if Nikita wins Lau has to pay him), if they give it full value, the winner of the case will lose the privileges (if Lau wins he needs to pay, if Nikita wins Lau doesn’t have to pay).
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
New words
-Make up THREE words and put them in your blog
Histmythology: study of the history of the mythology (when where myths created, by which civilizations, etc)
Sbrut: a rude person
Partyable: available for parties
Histmythology: study of the history of the mythology (when where myths created, by which civilizations, etc)
Sbrut: a rude person
Partyable: available for parties
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Vocabulary
-Anecdata: Anecdotal evidence
-Collaboratory: Center without walls, in which the nation’s researchers can perform their research without regard to physical location, interacting with colleagues, accessing instrumentation, sharing data and
computational resources, and accessing information in digital libraries
-Econophysics: Interdisciplinary research field, applying theories and methods originally developed by physicists in order to solve problems in economics
-Exoplanet: Planet beyond our solar system, orbiting a star other than our Sun
-Geomythology: Study of alleged references to geological events in mythology
-Magnetic wood: High-tech material absorbs microwave radio signals, making it impossible to use a mobile phone in any room lined with it. Or a radio for that matter
-Poopology: The study of fecal matter expelled from the anus
-Stylometrician: A person who uses statistical analysis to study the style and content of text or speech
-Yestersol: Word created by the NASA Mars Operations Team and it is defined as the Mars version of "yesterday"
More info: http://www.glossary.com/encyclopedia.php?q=Yestersol
-Momniscience: The ability of moms to know what you're planning to do before you do it
-Science friction: English record label established by English singer-songwriter Roy Harper in order to release his back catalogue of recorded
-Somniscience: A state of heightened, subconscious awareness that allows drivers to "safely" navigate and control a vehicle without watching the road.
-Collaboratory: Center without walls, in which the nation’s researchers can perform their research without regard to physical location, interacting with colleagues, accessing instrumentation, sharing data and
computational resources, and accessing information in digital libraries
-Econophysics: Interdisciplinary research field, applying theories and methods originally developed by physicists in order to solve problems in economics
-Exoplanet: Planet beyond our solar system, orbiting a star other than our Sun
-Geomythology: Study of alleged references to geological events in mythology
-Magnetic wood: High-tech material absorbs microwave radio signals, making it impossible to use a mobile phone in any room lined with it. Or a radio for that matter
-Poopology: The study of fecal matter expelled from the anus
-Stylometrician: A person who uses statistical analysis to study the style and content of text or speech
-Yestersol: Word created by the NASA Mars Operations Team and it is defined as the Mars version of "yesterday"
More info: http://www.glossary.com/encyclopedia.php?q=Yestersol
-Momniscience: The ability of moms to know what you're planning to do before you do it
-Science friction: English record label established by English singer-songwriter Roy Harper in order to release his back catalogue of recorded
-Somniscience: A state of heightened, subconscious awareness that allows drivers to "safely" navigate and control a vehicle without watching the road.
"Surprise test"
Is it possible to have an unexpected exam?
I think it is possible, but not in the situation given to us, because since the moment your teacher tells you that he is preparing a “surprise test” you are expecting it. For it to be unexpected, the teacher needs to keep it a secret, so he really surprises the students.
If a teacher announces a surprise test, he can’t give it.
I think it is possible, but not in the situation given to us, because since the moment your teacher tells you that he is preparing a “surprise test” you are expecting it. For it to be unexpected, the teacher needs to keep it a secret, so he really surprises the students.
If a teacher announces a surprise test, he can’t give it.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Escaping Death
Now Judge Stella had been doing the job for 20 years. In that time she had had many disagreeable, violent people in front of her. However Stella was made of stern stuff. She had never hesitated in sending people to the gallows. “Der Teufel steckt im Detail. “ she used to say – as she sent a prisoner to his death…
The prisoner she saw today was the worst, though. This prisoner was called ‘Rob-the-Philosopher’.
Stella didn’t know much about philosophy – and the title of this prisoner annoyed her.
Stella said: 'I intend to teach you the value of honesty, prisoner. You have been found guilty of being a crook and a swindler and of repeatedly and systematically lying to the court to try to save your wretched skin. Well, justice has caught up with you now, my friend. The sentence of this court is . . .' (here Stella pauses for effect and dons a pair of black gloves and a little black hat) ' . . that you be taken from here to a place of execution and hanged by the neck until you are dead.
. . . BUT, as I am a magnanimous Judge, I shall give you one more opportunity to learn the value of truth. If, on the day of your execution, you sign a statement making one true declaration, the sentence will be commuted to ten years imprisonment. If, on the other hand, your statement is, in the view of the Chief
Executioner, false, the sentence will be carried out immediately. And I warn you,'
Stella adds, seeing his words having no effect on the crook, 'the Chief is a member of the Logical Positivist Executioners' Club and will dismiss any metaphysical nonsense as false, so don't try any of your tricks on her! There, now you have one day in which to make your choice!'
At this the jury of Eric and Richard, Veronika, Nico, Abraham, Karla, Lau, Celina (now recovered), Vitoria, Andres, Ignacia, and Lau applauded at the severity of the sentence and everyone in the courtroom looks at the defendant, pleased to see such a villain get a heavy sentence, coupled with the humiliating public true declaration.
But, strangely, the Philosopher just smirks back as he is led away to Death Row.
The day of the execution arrives and the crook, beaming, signs a declaration which is handed to the Chief Executioner who reads it with growing bewilderment. Then, snarling, she crumples it up and orders the Philosopher be released, with no penalty whatsoever to be ~imposed.
What could the prisoner have said in the statement to have saved himself?
Since the chief is a member of the Logical Positivist Executioners, the statement has to be rational and observational evidence of it needs to exist in order to be approved.
Therefore he could make use of simple maths and for example say 2+2=4, and he would be right.
The prisoner she saw today was the worst, though. This prisoner was called ‘Rob-the-Philosopher’.
Stella didn’t know much about philosophy – and the title of this prisoner annoyed her.
Stella said: 'I intend to teach you the value of honesty, prisoner. You have been found guilty of being a crook and a swindler and of repeatedly and systematically lying to the court to try to save your wretched skin. Well, justice has caught up with you now, my friend. The sentence of this court is . . .' (here Stella pauses for effect and dons a pair of black gloves and a little black hat) ' . . that you be taken from here to a place of execution and hanged by the neck until you are dead.
. . . BUT, as I am a magnanimous Judge, I shall give you one more opportunity to learn the value of truth. If, on the day of your execution, you sign a statement making one true declaration, the sentence will be commuted to ten years imprisonment. If, on the other hand, your statement is, in the view of the Chief
Executioner, false, the sentence will be carried out immediately. And I warn you,'
Stella adds, seeing his words having no effect on the crook, 'the Chief is a member of the Logical Positivist Executioners' Club and will dismiss any metaphysical nonsense as false, so don't try any of your tricks on her! There, now you have one day in which to make your choice!'
At this the jury of Eric and Richard, Veronika, Nico, Abraham, Karla, Lau, Celina (now recovered), Vitoria, Andres, Ignacia, and Lau applauded at the severity of the sentence and everyone in the courtroom looks at the defendant, pleased to see such a villain get a heavy sentence, coupled with the humiliating public true declaration.
But, strangely, the Philosopher just smirks back as he is led away to Death Row.
The day of the execution arrives and the crook, beaming, signs a declaration which is handed to the Chief Executioner who reads it with growing bewilderment. Then, snarling, she crumples it up and orders the Philosopher be released, with no penalty whatsoever to be ~imposed.
What could the prisoner have said in the statement to have saved himself?
Since the chief is a member of the Logical Positivist Executioners, the statement has to be rational and observational evidence of it needs to exist in order to be approved.
Therefore he could make use of simple maths and for example say 2+2=4, and he would be right.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
A Puzzle
Problem: year 3222, Joe Jones, three years ago he started using the tele-matic (machine used to teleport employees to work on Borax3, a place far away from Earth). The company told him that the machine makes their bodies fly through the space at fantastic speed, but they lied and the true is that the machine scans their bodies and duplicates them and the original bodies are instantaneusly vaporised when the new one is created. The company gave all its employees the option of using the tele-matic to take one last "return" trip back to earth and in fact thats the only way to get back home.
What should he do?
If he uses the tele-matic machine once again, will he be transported back to earth?
Or will he be killed?
Will it be he who appears on Earth and gets to return to the family of whom he seems to have all these fond memories?
Or will he be incinerated, to be replaced by someone merely just like him?
What would I do?
I think that the tele-matic, to transfer your memories and the way you are, is transfering your soul. So, if you still remember everything and act in the same way, you are still you. It's like a person with a plastic surgery, no because he had a plastic surgery and his body is different he is another person. Your mind makes you who you are, some people would recognice you because of it or the way you act and some others for the way you look, but even if he uses the machine again, he would look the same when he gets home, so if he will be looking the same and thinking the same, it will be him who gets to return to Earth.
I would obviously go back home.
What should he do?
If he uses the tele-matic machine once again, will he be transported back to earth?
Or will he be killed?
Will it be he who appears on Earth and gets to return to the family of whom he seems to have all these fond memories?
Or will he be incinerated, to be replaced by someone merely just like him?
What would I do?
I think that the tele-matic, to transfer your memories and the way you are, is transfering your soul. So, if you still remember everything and act in the same way, you are still you. It's like a person with a plastic surgery, no because he had a plastic surgery and his body is different he is another person. Your mind makes you who you are, some people would recognice you because of it or the way you act and some others for the way you look, but even if he uses the machine again, he would look the same when he gets home, so if he will be looking the same and thinking the same, it will be him who gets to return to Earth.
I would obviously go back home.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
"Richard the farmer"
Does farmer Richard really know that Doris is in the field?
It is wrong to say that he "knows" that Doris is in the field, but it he changes his statement and instead of saying "I know" he says "I believe" then it is right, because he believed that his cow was in the field, but he didn't really have proves of it. Our vision can be easily deceived.
Was farmer Richard right to say that he knew she was in the field?
He wasn't wrong, because Doris really was in the field but his statement wasn't right formuled, he had to say "I believe Doris is in the field"
It is wrong to say that he "knows" that Doris is in the field, but it he changes his statement and instead of saying "I know" he says "I believe" then it is right, because he believed that his cow was in the field, but he didn't really have proves of it. Our vision can be easily deceived.
Was farmer Richard right to say that he knew she was in the field?
He wasn't wrong, because Doris really was in the field but his statement wasn't right formuled, he had to say "I believe Doris is in the field"
Friday, November 20, 2009
Eat a nameless substance
Circumstances: Donner Kebab. First time i tryed it, I was in a foregein country (Germany). I did it because a friend recommended it to me. I dind't know what was it made of. I founded it good and I was comparing it to tacos.
The second time I tried it, I still didn't know what was it made of. I tried it here en England. I compared the flavour with the one I tried in Germany weeks ago and I didn't like it that much, but I was eating it anyway until the cooker started telling me what was it made of, when I knew the ingredients, I stopped eating it and I think im never going to eat it again.
So, I agree with the statement in he paper, "our appetite is as much linguistic as gastric. The tongue that tastes is not just in our mouths. It is in our dictionaries"
The second time I tried it, I still didn't know what was it made of. I tried it here en England. I compared the flavour with the one I tried in Germany weeks ago and I didn't like it that much, but I was eating it anyway until the cooker started telling me what was it made of, when I knew the ingredients, I stopped eating it and I think im never going to eat it again.
So, I agree with the statement in he paper, "our appetite is as much linguistic as gastric. The tongue that tastes is not just in our mouths. It is in our dictionaries"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)