The financial crisis may be dominating the US presidential campaign, but the season’s most intriguing political battle is shaping up as a straightforward fight for survival between two old foes: Sarah Palin and the polar bear. When the US government decided to classify Ursus maritimus as an endangered species earlier in the year, Palin sued in attempt to overturn the ruling, fearing the label would deter oil and gas exploration in Alaska. The case of Palin v Polar bear will be heard in January. Here’s how the contenders size up:
Range
Polar bear: Found across the Arctic regions of five countries; the US, Canada, Russia, Norway and Greenland.
Sarah Palin: Not quite as well travelled. Lives within sight of Russia, but has never ventured there, possibly because of diminishing sea ice.
Conservation status
Polar bear: Vulnerable, largely due to climatic change and the resulting habitat loss.
Palin: Also vulnerable, because of a lack of experience and controversial stances on abortion, creationism, global warming, same-sex marriage and the environment.
Predatory armoury
Polar bear: Possesses razor-sharp teeth, a powerful build and a sense of smell that can detect a seal a mile away under three feet of snow. Still unlikely to triumph in a direct confrontation with Palin however, unless the Alaska legislature suddenly decides to uphold the right to arm bears.
Palin: Licensed gun-owner, avid hunter and crack shot. Palin also supports a policy of shooting wolves from helicopters in order to increase the Alaskan moose population so that Alaskans can shoot more moose. Deadly.
Impact of climate change
Polar bear: Length of hunting season has diminished, birth rates have fallen and it now has insufficient fat reserves.
Palin: None observed.
Biggest supporters
Polar bear: Greenpeace, the US department of the interior, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the US Geological Survey.
Palin: Hockey moms, the National Rifle Association, rightwing fundamentalist Christians, climate change deniers, the oil industry, God (endorsement unconfirmed).
Biggest threat to survival
Polar bear: Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden, feminism, belated national reality check brought on by global economic crisis.
Palin: Sarah Palin.
Fuente: www.guardian.co.uk
Archivado en: General
Negaron el aborto terapéutico a una nena de 12 años violada en Mendoza
Un juez de Familia se expidió en contra de la interrupción del embarazo. La niña, que padece trastornos mentales, está internada y fue su mamá la que pidió el procedimiento, contemplado en el artículo 86 del Código Penal.
Link a la nota en Crítica
Archivado en: General
Sesionó esta semana en Guatemala y está compuesto por nueve juristas, técnicos, científicos y representantes de pueblos indígenas. Entre sus casos emblemáticos hay demandas de contaminación por explotación de mineras, pesticidas y empresas hidroeléctricas. El año que viene hará sus audiencias en Argentina.
Link a la nota en Página/12
La voz (ronca) de la industria discográfica en el BAFIM.
Jo Oliver, directora de Asuntos Jurídicos del organismo internacional que nuclea al sector, instó a incrementar el control sobre quienes ofrecen y bajan música por Internet. Al fondo de la sala, se alzó una bandera que rezaba: “Compartir es bueno”
Link al artículo en Página/12
Archivado en: General
Desde hace unos 20 años se viene construyendo en la frontera entre Suiza y Francia un colisionador de hadrones (LHC por sus siglas en inglés) que permitirá reproducir el momento 0 del Universo. La mayoría de nosotros no podemos entender la importancia de semajante máquina pero nos alegramos de que haya gente pensando en esas cosas y los aplaudimos mientras pedimos comida china en Min-Min.
Nunca faltan los pájaros de mal aguero que piensan lo peor. Tal es el caso de este señor de Hawaii que inició un juicio contra CERN porque cree que el experimento hará que la Tierra sea chupada por un agujero negro. Debe ser porque no lee la web del instituto donde cada día nos tranquilizan con un nuevo post explicando que el experimento es totalmente seguro.
Desde Proyecto Estocolmo queremos desearle lo mejor al pibe que el miércoles tenga que apretar ON.
For many Americans the thought of life without TV is akin to forgoing food, shelter or, God forbid, the Internet. But about 1 to 2 percent of Americans do abstain from the boob tube, and they might seem like strange bedfellows.
Link a la nota.
Las empresas agropecuarias de José Aranda y George Soros inundarán 8.000 hectáreas de reservas naturales en la provincia de Corrientes para cultivar arroz. Según denuncian organizaciones ambientalistas, lo harán violando leyes nacionales y provinciales. El gobierno correntino aún no aprobó el plan de obras. El grupo empresario se defendió: “actuaremos dentro de la normativa legal vigente”.
“Represa Ayui Grande” es el emprendimiento arrocero privado más importante del Mercosur, que producirá 120 mil toneladas anuales de granos. Así lo anuncian Copra S.A., cuyo titular es el vicepresidente del Grupo Clarín, José Aranda, y Adecoagro, perteneciente al financista húngaro George Soros, ambos integrantes de la UTE que encabeza la iniciativa. El proyecto contempla una inversión de 55 millones de dólares y la construcción de una represa sobre el río Ayuí, en la localidad correntina de Mercedes, con la que crearán un lago artificial destinado a regar las 18.000 hectáreas de plantaciones.
Las organizaciones ambientalistas consideran “ilegal” que un grupo privado “se adueñe de un río para hacerlo desaparecer junto a sus bosques y sus especies animales y vegetales”. Voceros del grupo empresario aseguraron que “los ecologistas se oponen sin fundamento”. La iniciativa ya fue presentada oficialmente y aguarda los dictámenes provinciales que la autoricen.
Link a Crítica para la nota completa.
Google has been very vocal on its stance for net neutrality. Now, Richard Whitt–Senior Policy Director for Google–announces that Google will take an even more active role in the debate by arming consumers with the tools to determine first-hand if their broadband connections are being monkeyed with by their ISPs:
“We’re trying to develop tools, software tools…that allow people to detect what’s happening with their broadband connections, so they can let [ISPs] know that they’re not happy with what they’re getting — that they think certain services are being tampered with,” Google senior policy director Richard Whitt said this morning during a panel discussion at Santa Clara University, an hour south of San Francisco.
In an article written by Cade Metz, a reporter for The Register, Metz explains that when the net neutrally debate first popped up at Google, Google actually considered playing along with the network-throttling ISPs:
“We were pretty well known on the internet. We were pretty popular. We had some funds available. We could essentially buy prioritization that would ensure we would be the search engine used by everybody. We would come out fine – a non-neutral world would be a good world for us.”
But more idealist minds prevailed at Google, and the company has advocated network neutrality ever since–”or as Whitt likes to call it ‘broadband neutrality’.” Whitt didn’t mention when the network analysis tools would become available.
Other participants of the panel discussion had very different opinions on network neutrality, such as “George Ou and Richard Bennett, two networking-obsessed pals who have vehemently defended Comcast’s right to throttle peer-to-peer traffic.” The one thing that everyone on the panel appeared to agree on, however, was that ISPs need to be transparent with how they manage their network traffic. Google’s stance is that if the ISPs won’t disclose that information to the public, then consumers should have the tools at hand to determine for themselves what their ISPs are doing.
Fuente: hothardware
