Click on the links below to see the poster samples.
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample 4
Sample 5
lunes, 19 de octubre de 2009
lunes, 7 de septiembre de 2009
Lines On The Loss Of The "Titanic" by Thomas Hardy
In a solitude of the sea
Deep from human vanity,
And the Pride of Life that planned her, stilly couches she.
Steel chambers, late the pyres
Of her salamandrine fires,
Cold currents thrid, and turn to rhythmic tidal lyres.
Over the mirrors meant
To glass the opulent
The sea-worm crawls -- grotesque, slimed, dumb, indifferent.
Jewels in joy designed
To ravish the sensuous mind
Lie lightless, all their sparkles bleared and black and blind.
Dim moon-eyed fishes near
Gaze at the gilded gear
And query: "What does this vaingloriousness down here?" ...
Well: while was fashioning
This creature of cleaving wing,
The Immanent Will that stirs and urges everything
Prepared a sinister mate
For her -- so gaily great --
A Shape of Ice, for the time far and dissociate.
And as the smart ship grew
In stature, grace, and hue,
In shadowy silent distance grew the Iceberg too.
Alien they seemed to be;
No mortal eye could see
The intimate welding of their later history,
Or sign that they were bent
By paths coincident
On being anon twin halves of one august event,
Till the Spinner of the Years
Said "Now!" And each one hears,
And consummation comes, and jars two hemispheres.
A contribution by Cheeps
Deep from human vanity,
And the Pride of Life that planned her, stilly couches she.
Steel chambers, late the pyres
Of her salamandrine fires,
Cold currents thrid, and turn to rhythmic tidal lyres.
Over the mirrors meant
To glass the opulent
The sea-worm crawls -- grotesque, slimed, dumb, indifferent.
Jewels in joy designed
To ravish the sensuous mind
Lie lightless, all their sparkles bleared and black and blind.
Dim moon-eyed fishes near
Gaze at the gilded gear
And query: "What does this vaingloriousness down here?" ...
Well: while was fashioning
This creature of cleaving wing,
The Immanent Will that stirs and urges everything
Prepared a sinister mate
For her -- so gaily great --
A Shape of Ice, for the time far and dissociate.
And as the smart ship grew
In stature, grace, and hue,
In shadowy silent distance grew the Iceberg too.
Alien they seemed to be;
No mortal eye could see
The intimate welding of their later history,
Or sign that they were bent
By paths coincident
On being anon twin halves of one august event,
Till the Spinner of the Years
Said "Now!" And each one hears,
And consummation comes, and jars two hemispheres.
A contribution by Cheeps
jueves, 6 de agosto de 2009
''The Solipsist'' by Fredric Brown
Walter B. Jehovah, for whose name I make no apology since it really was his name, had been a solipsist all his life. A solipsist, in case you don't happen to know the word, is one who believes that he himself is the only thing that really exists, that other people and the universe in general exist only in his imagination, and that if he quit imagining them, they would cease to exist.
One day, Walter B. Jehovah became a practicing solipsist. Within a week, his wife had run away with another man, he'd lost his job as a shipping clerk and he had broken his leg chasing a black cat to keep it from crossing his path.
He decided, in a hospital, to end it all.
Looking out the window, staring up at the stars, he wished them out of existence, and they weren't there anymore. Then he wished all other people out of existence, and the hospital became strangely quiet, even for a hospital. Next the world, and he found himself suspended in a void. He got rid of his body quite easily and then took the final step of willing himself out of existence.
Nothing happened.
Strange, he thought, can there be a limit to solipsism?
"Yes," a voice said.
"Who are you??" Walter B. Jehovah asked.
"I am the one who created the universe which you have just willed out of existence. And now that you have taken my place"---there was a deep sigh---"I can finally cease my own existence, find oblivion, and let you take over."
"But---how can I cease to exist? That's what I'm trying to do, you know."
"Yes, I know," said the voice. "You must do it the same way I did. Create a universe. Wait until someone in it really believes what you believed and wills it out of existence. Then you can retire and let him take over. Good-bye now."
And the voice was gone. Walter B. Jehovah was alone in the void an there was only one thing he could do. He created the heaven and the earth.
It took him seven days.
One day, Walter B. Jehovah became a practicing solipsist. Within a week, his wife had run away with another man, he'd lost his job as a shipping clerk and he had broken his leg chasing a black cat to keep it from crossing his path.
He decided, in a hospital, to end it all.
Looking out the window, staring up at the stars, he wished them out of existence, and they weren't there anymore. Then he wished all other people out of existence, and the hospital became strangely quiet, even for a hospital. Next the world, and he found himself suspended in a void. He got rid of his body quite easily and then took the final step of willing himself out of existence.
Nothing happened.
Strange, he thought, can there be a limit to solipsism?
"Yes," a voice said.
"Who are you??" Walter B. Jehovah asked.
"I am the one who created the universe which you have just willed out of existence. And now that you have taken my place"---there was a deep sigh---"I can finally cease my own existence, find oblivion, and let you take over."
"But---how can I cease to exist? That's what I'm trying to do, you know."
"Yes, I know," said the voice. "You must do it the same way I did. Create a universe. Wait until someone in it really believes what you believed and wills it out of existence. Then you can retire and let him take over. Good-bye now."
And the voice was gone. Walter B. Jehovah was alone in the void an there was only one thing he could do. He created the heaven and the earth.
It took him seven days.
martes, 21 de julio de 2009
Psychology matters a lot - By Robert Samuelson
Buenos Aires Herald
On EconomicsThe Washington Post
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
To make sense of today's most perplexing economic debate —whether we're flirting with inflation or deflation — it's worth recalling what happened after World War II. Under intense political pressure, President Harry Truman lifted wage-price controls. All heck broke loose. Suppressed during the war, wages and prices exploded. Autoworkers, steelworkers and others went on strike for higher pay. In 1946 and 1947, consumer prices rose 8.5 and 14.4 percent, respectively. What's instructive is that prices then stabilized. There was no upward wage-price spiral as occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. True, a mild recession in late 1948 and 1949 helped temper price increases. But inflation subsided mainly because people didn't expect it to continue. They'd lived through the Depression, when prices declined. They knew that, except for the impact of wars, US prices were usually fairly stable. The lesson for today: psychology matters. What economists call "expectations" shape how workers, managers and investors behave. If they fear inflation, they act in ways that bring it about. The converse is also true, as the late 1940s remind. The lesson provides context for today's debate. Are the Federal Reserve's easy-money policies laying the groundwork for higher inflation? Or will these policies prevent deflation — a broad decline of prices — that would deepen the economic slump? The questions arise from the Fed's strenuous efforts to contain the economic crisis. It has cut the overnight Fed funds rate almost to zero. It has made loans when private lenders wouldn't — in the commercial paper market, for instance. To lower long-term interest rates, it has pledged to buy US$1.25 trillion of mortgage securities backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and US$300 billion of long-term Treasury bonds. All these measures are without modern precedent. Precisely, say the inflation worriers. Once the economy recovers, the easy money and credit will spawn inflation. Cheap loans will bid up prices; wages may follow. Low interest rates will encourage spending and deter saving. The Fed will be "under pressure from Congress, the administration and business . . . to prevent interest rates from increasing," warns economist Allan Meltzer of Carnegie Mellon University. With huge budget deficits, the White House and Congress will want to hold down borrowing costs. Inflation psychology will emerge. Nonsense, say deflation worriers. Inflation results mainly from too much demand chasing too little supply. Today, too much supply chases too little demand. High unemployment and slack business capacity (idle factories, vacant office suites, closed mines) impede wage and price increases. If the Fed doesn't maintain cheap credit, shrinking demand might cause prices and wages to spiral down. "Deflation, not inflation, is the clear and present danger," retorts Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. It seems impossible for both arguments to be correct, but they may be. As Krugman notes, inflationary pressures are almost nonexistent. In the past year, the Consumer Price Index has been roughly stable. In May, unemployment rose to 9.4 percent from 8.9 percent. A survey by Challenger, Gray and Christmas found that 52 percent of firms had frozen or cut salaries. GM's bankruptcy is but one indicator of excess industrial capacity. The surplus is worldwide, finds a study by Joseph Lupton and David Hensley of J.P. Morgan. Inflationary expectations are low. All this gives the Fed maneuvering room. Expectations matter; inflation won't burst forth instantly. Even Meltzer doesn't see an immediate surge. "When will it come? Surely not right away," he writes. Still, Meltzer's warning remains relevant. The Fed has often overdone expansionary policies and fostered inflationary expectations. In the 1960s and 70s, that occurred through excess demand and a classic wage-price spiral. The danger now might emerge through exchange rates and commodity prices. Inflation fears could raise prices of commodities (oil, metals, foodstuffs) and depress the dollar. Imports would become costlier, allowing domestic producers to raise prices. Once inflationary practices take hold, high inflation and unemployment can coexist: dreaded "stagflation." In 1977, both inflation and unemployment were about 7 percent. There's evidence (better housing and auto sales, stronger growth in "emerging markets") that the danger of a deflationary economic free fall is ebbing. Someday, the Fed will have to raise interest rates. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has pledged to preempt high inflation. Will the Fed get the timing right and resist contrary political pressures? Will the pledges reassure markets? One reason they might not is that Bernanke's term as chairman expires in January. Any replacement named by President Obama would be seen, fairly or not, as more beholden to the administration. The president could eliminate that perception by offering Bernanke, who has performed well in the crisis, a second four-year term now and, if he accepts, announcing the reappointment. That would not settle today's deflation-inflation debate. Only time will do that, but it would remove a needless uncertainty.
On EconomicsThe Washington Post
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
To make sense of today's most perplexing economic debate —whether we're flirting with inflation or deflation — it's worth recalling what happened after World War II. Under intense political pressure, President Harry Truman lifted wage-price controls. All heck broke loose. Suppressed during the war, wages and prices exploded. Autoworkers, steelworkers and others went on strike for higher pay. In 1946 and 1947, consumer prices rose 8.5 and 14.4 percent, respectively. What's instructive is that prices then stabilized. There was no upward wage-price spiral as occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. True, a mild recession in late 1948 and 1949 helped temper price increases. But inflation subsided mainly because people didn't expect it to continue. They'd lived through the Depression, when prices declined. They knew that, except for the impact of wars, US prices were usually fairly stable. The lesson for today: psychology matters. What economists call "expectations" shape how workers, managers and investors behave. If they fear inflation, they act in ways that bring it about. The converse is also true, as the late 1940s remind. The lesson provides context for today's debate. Are the Federal Reserve's easy-money policies laying the groundwork for higher inflation? Or will these policies prevent deflation — a broad decline of prices — that would deepen the economic slump? The questions arise from the Fed's strenuous efforts to contain the economic crisis. It has cut the overnight Fed funds rate almost to zero. It has made loans when private lenders wouldn't — in the commercial paper market, for instance. To lower long-term interest rates, it has pledged to buy US$1.25 trillion of mortgage securities backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and US$300 billion of long-term Treasury bonds. All these measures are without modern precedent. Precisely, say the inflation worriers. Once the economy recovers, the easy money and credit will spawn inflation. Cheap loans will bid up prices; wages may follow. Low interest rates will encourage spending and deter saving. The Fed will be "under pressure from Congress, the administration and business . . . to prevent interest rates from increasing," warns economist Allan Meltzer of Carnegie Mellon University. With huge budget deficits, the White House and Congress will want to hold down borrowing costs. Inflation psychology will emerge. Nonsense, say deflation worriers. Inflation results mainly from too much demand chasing too little supply. Today, too much supply chases too little demand. High unemployment and slack business capacity (idle factories, vacant office suites, closed mines) impede wage and price increases. If the Fed doesn't maintain cheap credit, shrinking demand might cause prices and wages to spiral down. "Deflation, not inflation, is the clear and present danger," retorts Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. It seems impossible for both arguments to be correct, but they may be. As Krugman notes, inflationary pressures are almost nonexistent. In the past year, the Consumer Price Index has been roughly stable. In May, unemployment rose to 9.4 percent from 8.9 percent. A survey by Challenger, Gray and Christmas found that 52 percent of firms had frozen or cut salaries. GM's bankruptcy is but one indicator of excess industrial capacity. The surplus is worldwide, finds a study by Joseph Lupton and David Hensley of J.P. Morgan. Inflationary expectations are low. All this gives the Fed maneuvering room. Expectations matter; inflation won't burst forth instantly. Even Meltzer doesn't see an immediate surge. "When will it come? Surely not right away," he writes. Still, Meltzer's warning remains relevant. The Fed has often overdone expansionary policies and fostered inflationary expectations. In the 1960s and 70s, that occurred through excess demand and a classic wage-price spiral. The danger now might emerge through exchange rates and commodity prices. Inflation fears could raise prices of commodities (oil, metals, foodstuffs) and depress the dollar. Imports would become costlier, allowing domestic producers to raise prices. Once inflationary practices take hold, high inflation and unemployment can coexist: dreaded "stagflation." In 1977, both inflation and unemployment were about 7 percent. There's evidence (better housing and auto sales, stronger growth in "emerging markets") that the danger of a deflationary economic free fall is ebbing. Someday, the Fed will have to raise interest rates. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has pledged to preempt high inflation. Will the Fed get the timing right and resist contrary political pressures? Will the pledges reassure markets? One reason they might not is that Bernanke's term as chairman expires in January. Any replacement named by President Obama would be seen, fairly or not, as more beholden to the administration. The president could eliminate that perception by offering Bernanke, who has performed well in the crisis, a second four-year term now and, if he accepts, announcing the reappointment. That would not settle today's deflation-inflation debate. Only time will do that, but it would remove a needless uncertainty.
lunes, 18 de mayo de 2009
A hotter earth?
The greenhouse effect is not only a worrying but growing phenomenon affecting our earth’s temperature. As a consequence of the increasing amount of greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide, produced in the last years, the heat balance in the atmosphere has been altered. This increase has been caused mainly by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, the use of fertilizers in agriculture, decomposition of garbage and the use of refrigerators as well as air conditioning. Those gases in the air work like a glass in a greenhouse, allowing light energy to get in but preventing much of heat energy from escaping. Therefore, the atmosphere becomes irreversibly warmer. This problem, which is often referred as the “enhanced” greenhouse effect, will eventually bring about a radical change in the globe’s temperature balance and lead to global warming.
Emma
Emma
miércoles, 13 de mayo de 2009
A memorable teacher
When you study you know different teachers but there are some of them that you will remember for ever. Isabel is one of the cases. She always came to the school with the lesson perfectly organized, you could realize because every minute was calculated with a funny activity. One of the things I remember the most is her big bag, the magical place we used to call it, full of toys, magazines and balls. Anything she needed to motivate us was in there. Another thing that I remember is that she was always in a good mood, and she knew how to transmit all that energy to us. In this way, she created the right atmosphere to make us participate in the lesson. But the most important thing about her was that she was all ears when you had a problem; in that situation, she could stop the lesson and helped you to find a solution. Once I heard that to teach is to touch a life. She does not know it, but she did it; that is why she is a memorable teacher.
Pedro
Pedro
sábado, 9 de mayo de 2009
On Anothers Sorrow
by William Blake
Can I see another's woe,
And not be in sorrow too?
Can I see another's grief,
And not seek for kind relief?
Can I see a falling tear,
And not feel my sorrow's share?
Can a father see his child
Weep, nor be with sorrow fill'd?
Can a mother sit and hear
An infant groan an infant fear?
No, no! never can it be!
Never, never can it be!
And can he who smiles on all
Hear the wren with sorrows small,
Hear the small bird's grief & care,
Hear the woes that infants bear,
And not sit beside the nest,
Pouring pity in their breast;
And not sit the cradle near,
Weeping tear on infant's tear;
And not sit both night & day,
Wiping all our tears away?
O, no! never can it be!
Never, never can it be!
He doth give his joy to all;
He becomes an infant small;
He becomes a man of woe;
He doth feel the sorrow too.
Think not thou canst sigh a sigh
And thy maker is not by;
Think not thou canst weep a tear
And thy maker is not near.
O! he gives to us his joy
That our grief he may destroy;
Till our grief is fled & gone
He doth sit by us and moan.
A contribution sent by Atlantis
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)