Ok, wtf with the swine flu

April 28, 2009 at 1:01 pm (Anything, Essays)

Well then, there’s a high alert on this issue right now. But are you really informed about it? More important, is your information reliable? I think I don’t need to explain why having the correct information is critical.


Lets start with this, what is a zoonosis?

A zoonosis is a disease transmitted from insects and animals to the human, as is the case of fastidiousness.

What is influenza?

Influenza is a severa disease that results from the infection of influenza virus, which in this case is the virus which normally affects pigs.

Is there a vaccine available?

It is not likely possible to find a useful vaccine at this early point.

Is the stational influenza vaccine useful against this disease?

No, but it can lower the effects of other types of influenza.

Are the anti-viral drugs useful against this disease?

They prevent the reproduction and evolution of the virus, thus reducing the time of hopitalization. These drugs should be taken during the first 48 hours after the first symptoms.

At last, what should we do?

Rest at home, drink 50% liquids than before, avoid the use of aspirine, double your personal higiene.


If you have to go out, use something to cover your mouth and nose. If you sneeze, cover your mouth using the inner part of you elbow.

The virus is not in the air, but it can be in the small drops of saliva that people sneezes. These drops can travel no more than 1 meter to 1 and half meter (3 -5 feet) from the person who sneezes. Be carefull in rooms with air conditioning since the same air currents created from the air conditioning can carry particles farther. Be sure to clean surfaces often since the virus can remain there for hours until it dries up.


Permalink Leave a Comment

Facebooking #3

March 19, 2009 at 10:14 pm (Anything, Essays) (, , , )

This is the third and last facebooking article. Now, with or without your permit… FUCK YOU Facebook, FUCK your stupid huge amount of mails you send, FUCK your bitchy mini games, FUCK your annoing invitations for stupid groups. Now that I’ve had my relief… let me breath… ok done. Well you might be thinking “oh my, but why? Facebook is so cool and relaxed”. Don’t fool yourselves, it is an incredible waste of time. “No way” you’ll say, well you most probably are logged to Facebook on another window or tap. I’ve nothing against only websites where you can meet new people or have contact with a huge community of poeple, friends and strangers. But I’ve seen what this net is doing to poeple of all aged, no matter the gender. They are wasting time at work, at school, in their homes, where ever they are logged. Something that I see very often at college are some of my classmates wasting time playing a minigame about world flags or country shapes. They get so obsessed on beating their friends scores, they really start to give me the creeps.

One thing is to spend some leisure time or doing this as a hobby, but another quite different is obsessing with this stuff, and even leaving some other very important stuff incomplete. Some just don’t care about that, but I know there are people who suffer a lot because they just can’t ressist Facebook temptation and end up feeling very guilty because of leaving other things undone.

Facebook is turning to be some poeple’s life. You don’t know me and I don´t know you if you don’t have Facebook. There’s even people which attend to parties just to upload the pictures they took.

Do you remember the roots of Facebook? Do you know them at least? I’ll say this very very short: Facebook was the website created by students of Harvard and it came from a Harvard net system called homeSYSTEM, which was the college’s platform system. Face book came as a tool to help locate other college students.

Come on people. There is nothing wrong on joinning this particular website, or any other, just state your limits. The web pages will be there, don’t worry, do other stuff, meet people in the real world, keep some stuff for your self. Remember this kind of pages aren’t ment to consume people, but to entertain and sometimes to help people. Don’t let it consume you, if you can’t have the control on this, then quit it, do it for yourself.

Well, now a link to a humorous video of how to commit suicide of Facebook (quit Facebook, not to actually kill yourself for facebook), just to cool things down. Enjoy!


Permalink Leave a Comment

Facebooking #2

March 10, 2009 at 12:21 am (Anything, Essays) (, )

Today the second article on facebook. The videos for today have something to do with your privacy in facebook. You know there are certain filters or general conditions which allow or stop somebody else on the net to view your profile. Despite these security measures, people always find a way to break through this barriers and check on other people’s profiles. This is the point when it can turn unconfortable and even dangerous. Take this advice, always keep a low profile, nothing too personal or detailed information. Remember to make a responsable use of such websites and networks. More important, have COMMON SENCE.

So here, the videos.

(the first video is more serious than the second, but the second is kinda funnier, just watch both)

Permalink 1 Comment

Video games killed the radio star

February 7, 2009 at 10:42 pm (Essays, Humor, Video Games) (, , )

Have you ever played a game online? If you’ve done so, then you are familiar to the screaming and yelling of people who get really, and I mean really into de game. For instance a game can be dramatic, strong, intense and really adrenaline pumping, but there is a limit to the screaming and kicking.

Reciently, lots of researches arrive to the conclusion that intense violent video games develop an excessive anxiety on people who plays them. Especially people under 15 years. This may only be one of those news that you hear and forget two minutes later, but it is a very important issue now a days, especially for children.

Kids are growing very quick in a mdern world more and more for adults. Restriction methods and laws are uncapable of stoping or even reducing this problem. Cellphones, Internet and T.V. among others aren’t the ones guilty, these are only gadgets used the wrong way. Imagine if our children now is growing uninformed, or overloaded of information, which is mostly trash, what can we expect of them when they grow up. They will be in charge of the world one day, that is undenieble, but are we willing to allow people who are very unstable to be our future leaders.

I am a gamer too, and yes, once I had problems with my behavior during my gameplay time. Soon enough I learned video games are made to be a relief, to have fun. Inside a game you can do stuff that would be against the law or out of this world, but it should be a relief of the real world, something to keep inside the game, it shouldn’t be something more to stress for.

Take it easy, enjoy it, it is made for that purpose. Have a nice time playing!

PD: the good side about game rage is you can laugh at others who are angered by a game! here some videos…

Permalink 1 Comment

Religion and lifestlye blablabla pt 2

February 6, 2009 at 2:54 pm (Essays)

Wow! I was surprised to see that the other members actually commented! Great!  I read them and they were very interesting and actually talked about many things that were going to be present in the next posts

Yes, religion doesn’t necesarily need a divine being. Budhism is a perfect example for this. Budhism’s teachings include a balance in mind, body and universe, implying that all beings and things are connected and part of  the universe. Japan’s traditional and older buildings have a very different concept than western buildings. Their lifestlye follow a similar path, too. Their buildings show the results: the spaces and lighting, the materials used, the way they are constructed, the organization, they all reflect a different attitude towards the environment and man’s relationship to nature.

European and western lifestlye are also a important subject in arquitecture. And the renaissance was a huge influence for this. During this period, man became the center of the universe, forgetting nature even more. Countless palaces and monuments were built in this time, many were religious, but many were simply tribute to man’s greatness.

The mayans make also a very interesting case. However, there is still much mystery to be unravelled regarding their civilization, which I think changes our perspective quite a bit. Anyway, maybe it would be best if we simply go out one day and discuss it, sounds like an interesting conversation

Maybe later I’ll continue and write a more detailed post on the matter.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Religion and lifestyle reflected in poor arquitecture and planning pt.1

January 28, 2009 at 2:20 am (Essays) (, )

For my first post I decided to write about something I found really interesting, which is green arquitecture and sustainable construction. I have been reading some things on the subject, and I’d like to share some of what I have learned so far. I intendo to write a follow up on the matter, since there is too much info for just one post.

First of all, “green arquitecture” is a concept that goes beyond just building things with low energy consumption, and filled with trees and things like that. It’s so much more, it’s understanding the connection between the building and the environment, using regional materials, working WITH the terrain and not angainst it, minimize impact onf the surroundings, visualizing the building as as an extent of the land, and all that without losing the aesthetic iconography. It seems that green arquitecture is a growing trend in constructions (though few buildings are truly “green”) now when the environmental problema is pressing down on us. Maybe the only choice is to turn green, but why has this taken so long?

Our point of view on nature and the environment is shaped by everything in our culture and our lifestyle, with religion playing a mjor role in our mentality. For example, in western religions, god created everything and the entire world exists on his will. Teachings in these religions show man also as a creation of god, but fail to connect him with the natural world. There is no commitment or responsibility implied in the use of resources. Man exists on god’s world to benefit from it. You can see it many examples of it in the bible for example.

Heaven, for example is a place for the soul, implying that the essence and importance of man relies not in the physical world. Needless to say, there is no mention of any animal or plant present in heaven.

Christianity is not the only example on this case, and there are sure some cases in which the opposite occurs. But this post is getting kind of long and I’ll have to leave it for later jaja, depends on how’s the response to this one.

Don’t miss “Religion and lifestyle reflected in poor arquitecture and planning pt.2” !! (I need a better title for the post)

Permalink 2 Comments

Los impedimentos para la comunicación desde la filosofía existencialista

January 23, 2009 at 5:01 am (Essays) (, , )

“Ningún hombre es igual a otro. Ni mejor ni peor, es otro.

Y si dos están de acuerdo alguna vez, es por un malentendido”.

Jean-Paul Sartre.

Las personas viven su vida cotidiana comunicándose con los demás, y asumiendo que sus mensajes, además de ser objetivos, tienen la posibilidad de ser entendidos por sus receptores. El existencialismo nos dice que esto es una mentira, un engaño; que la comunicación real no existe, pues ningún receptor puede adentrarse en la mente de un emisor y comprender, tal y como lo hace éste, el mensaje que le está siendo transmitido.

El existencialismo, en lo que se refiere a la comunicación, trajo consigo fuertes implicaciones éticas y espirituales, implicaciones que tienen que ver con la forma en que las personas viven su vida. ¿Cómo una persona puede transmitir ideas de manera efectiva? ¿Cómo puede alguien darse a conocer al mundo y “salirse de uno mismo”? ¿Cómo pueden amarse dos personas, si no pueden conocer lo que sucede en la psiquis de su pareja, si la imposibilidad es un atributo inmanente de la intimidad? Pienso que encontrar respuestas a estas preguntas es verdaderamente vital, es decir, que dichas respuestas ayudarían a vivir más íntegramente, y a tener una relación verdadera con los demás.

Primeramente creo que es importante aclarar qué es lo que dice esta filosofía respecto a la comunicación. Un concepto que puede servir para aclarar esto es el de “la nada”, el cual fue expuesto por Jean-Paul Sartre en su obra El ser y la nada. Lo que el filósofo trata de explicar con este concepto es que una persona nunca puede estar segura de lo que otra persona piensa. Un receptor puede recibir el mensaje de un emisor, pero jamás puede entender el mensaje de la misma manera en la que el emisor lo hace, debido a que no puede adentrarse en su pensamiento. Entre un individuo y las demás personas, entonces, siempre existirá una especie de barrera o muro, llamado “la nada”.

De la misma forma es importante abordar otra parte de la filosofía existencialista, relacionada con la diferencia entre “sujeto” y “objeto”. Un sujeto es un ser consciente, mientras que un objeto no lo es. Hay un momento en el que la consciencia se vuelve consciente de sí misma, y por lo tanto la consciencia existía previamente al proceso de conocerse. Esto significa, a su vez, que los objetos existen desde antes de ser clasificados por la consciencia como un objeto en específico – una silla es una silla porque un sujeto la percibe como tal, pero dicho objeto no es una silla por sí mismo. Como las percepciones de los objetos (los conceptos) existen sólo en la consciencia de cada sujeto, y cada sujeto es un individuo aislado de los demás, entonces todo conocimiento es subjetivo, toda información es subjetiva, y finalmente, toda transmisión de información o conocimiento (toda comunicación) es también subjetiva.

Existe otra implicación de la filosofía existencialista que considero muy importante. Cuando un sujeto percibe el mundo, le está dando un significado propio, está creando conceptos para cada objeto percibido dentro de su mente, y esto también se aplica cuando un sujeto percibe a otro. Para cada sujeto en particular, los demás sujetos son objetos o cosas percibidas. Esto se llama “cosificación”, e implica que la intimidad entre las personas no puede existir, pues éstas no pueden conocerse tal y como son, sino que cada quien percibe a los demás a su manera, y sólo a su manera. La intimidad, además, necesita una buena comunicación, la cual ni siquiera es posible dentro de esta filosofía.

Volviendo a las preguntas planteadas más arriba, ¿cómo es posible, entonces, tener una vida que venza la angustia causada por la soledad que implica el existencialismo, y cómo se pueden alcanzar una comunicación y una intimidad reales con las demás personas? El filósofo existencialista Gabriel Marcel soluciona este problema mediante el concepto de la “fe”.

Cuando un receptor recibe un mensaje de un emisor, el primero nunca puede estar seguro de haber entendido el mensaje de la misma forma en que el segundo lo entiende, pero puede tener fe de haberlo hecho. Asimismo, cuando una persona le dice “te amo” a otra, la última no puede estar segura de que la primera dice la verdad – ni siquiera puede estar segura de que ambos tienen el mismo concepto de amor –, pero puede tener fe de que lo está haciendo.

Marcel distingue dos tipos de reflexión: la primaria y la secundaria. La primaria tiene que ver con lo que se puede conocer por métodos científicos, por la razón; la secundaria tiene que ver con los misterios, con lo que no se puede conocer o no se puede comprobar.

Yo pienso que la reflexión secundaria implica “elegir una verdad”, y tener fe en ésta. Ante el problema de nunca estar completamente seguro de que exista una verdadera comunicación y una verdadera intimidad, se nos presentan dos opciones: creer que es imposible alcanzar la comunicación y la intimidad, o creer que sí es posible. No se puede estar seguro de ninguna de las dos posturas, simplemente se puede tener fe en alguna de ellas.

Esta fe, en mi opinión, es diferente a la fe religiosa, pues tiene como objetivo resolver un problema concreto, real; es una fe práctica. En el ejemplo que enuncié unas líneas arriba, la fe en que la comunicación y la intimidad son posibles resuelve el problema de la necesidad que tenemos los humanos de trascender.

¿Qué es la frustración? ¿Qué son la ira o el amor? Cuando digo “amor”, el sonido sale de mi boca y golpea el oído de la otra persona, viaja por un conducto en su cerebro a través de sus memorias de amor o falta de amor. Dicen que entienden, pero, ¿cómo puedo estar seguro de eso? Las palabras son inertes, son símbolos, están muertas […]. Mucho de lo que experimentamos no puede ser expresado. Aún así, cuando nos comunicamos con los demás y sentimos que nos hemos conectado, y pensamos que nos entendemos, creo que alcanzamos un sentimiento cercano al de comunión espiritual[1].

La filosofía existencialista, al suponer que el conocimiento es subjetivo, asume que la verdad también lo es, por lo que creer en algo implica elegir entre una postura u otra. Para cuestiones prácticas, creo que lo más conveniente es tener fe en que la verdadera comunicación es posible. Digo que son cuestiones prácticas, porque una verdadera comunicación responde a una necesidad importantísima de las personas, que es la conexión con los demás, la intimidad y la trascendencia más allá de uno mismo.

El existencialismo nos deja con un acervo de ideas complicadas, y, para algunos, con una angustia vital muy poco sana. Sin embargo, creo que se pueden vencer los impedimentos que el existencialismo impone a la comunicación, e incluso pienso que a los ojos de esta filosofía, una verdadera comunicación es algo más espiritual y profundo.

[1] Linklater (director). (2002). Waking life.

Permalink 5 Comments