Unrelated Thoughts

Pisco Sour

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:13:00 +0000

Just follow the instructions...

Have any number in mind?

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:24:00 +0000

Ok guys, since I know that telling you how busy I am right now will not justify my loooooong absence from this cozy bloggy place (a poor but blameless blog!), I will not attempt to say a word.

Instead, let me ask you, who are still subscribed to this RSS (is there anybody out there?), a numerical favor for a small study I'm running. Don't use Excel, a calculator or a Fortran program, just think on a random number between 1 and 20, and share it with me in the comments section.

Don't worry, it's not a "tell me a number and I tell you what kind of person you are" kind-of-thing.

Think on a number before coming to the page, and then write it on the comments section.

Thanks!

(And see you soon again! I see a light at the end of the tunnel...)

When are you poor?

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:00:00 +0000

Two weeks ago I’ve had the opportunity to start reading this excellent blog, View from the Sidewalk, which provides the world with a unique perspective on the homeless problem: that of someone who is currently homeless. And this fired on my brain a question that I cannot answer yet: when are you poor?

I mean, in Spanish we translate poor as “pobre”, and also translate homeless as “pobre” (although a literal translation would be “sin hogar”, but since this is a two-word phrase, we still prefer “pobre” for daily speech). And that makes sense for us, since people who are poor usually don’t own masonry houses, i.e., they’re homeless.

Last time I checked the Peruvian economical info at the CIA World Factbook, I found that 54% of the population live bellow the poverty line, meaning that more than 14 million people is poor, at least according to the World Bank definition. 14 million people living with less than 2 USD a day! 60 USD (6000 yen) a month!

I think I’d feel poor even earning much higher figures than those…

Most of Peruvian poor people live in the Andes. They have a small space they call their land, where they farm potatoes, corn, etc., and they also have some few animals, cows, chickens, pigs, etc., which they milk or otherwise eat. They don’t sell much of their crops because they need them to eat and survive and because when they do they don’t get much money for them (remember: less than 60 USD a month!). They don’t have a TV, they don't know DVD, they don’t go to the doctor, and most of them don’t know how to read. But they’re somehow happy.

I’m not trying to say that since they’re happy we shouldn’t try to reduce poverty. We should keep fighting! But I want to focus on how they’re used to it, know how to live with it and don’t expect much more. And I ask myself if I would be that happy living with just 60 USD a month.

Of course not! I’d be crazy living on just 1000 USD a month!

And that’s why I cannot answer that question: “when are you poor?” Michael Brown, the homeless guy writing the aforementioned blog, is lucky because he has a job (a low wage job, but a job nevertheless), he’s educated, he’s a computer literate, he knows he has rights, and he’s fighting to overcome homelessness. For me, he’s not “pobre”.

I suppose each of us has his and her own poverty line. I mean, maybe I could overcome living even on just 500 USD a month, but I know many other people who couldn’t. They’d feel defenseless and worn out. Maybe being poor is just a state of mind, if you feel that you can survive and that you can overturn your condition, then you’re not poor. If you feel happy, then you’re not poor.

I think that’s the answer. You’re poor when you feel poor.

I-Pod Pro 2005 XP (Human Ear Professional Edition)

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 05:30:00 +0000

What do you think about the packaging design by Apple? Do you really care about it? I mean, do you keep the box for any reason? Apparently Apple consumers do, so they love the metrosexual packaging that comes with their products.

I actually don't care that much, but I must accept that Apple's visual is by far cleaner and with a greater attention to detail than Microsoft's. And apparently some people at Microsft think the same.

The following video was prepared by some guys at the Microsoft Marketing Department for an internal meeting with their designers. I think they hate their marketing guidelines!

Enjoy!

Diamonds are not forever

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:00:00 +0000

I know you all girls die for receiving a 1-carat-diamond engagement ring from Prince Charming. And I know some of you may have actually received one. Probably even one or two received a nice 2-carat family-treasure ring that was once worn by the groom’s grandma but, I’m pretty sure, none of you have received a 100 year old diamond engagement ring. Have you? I know you haven’t. And you know why? Because the concept that offering a diamond ring was THE symbol of engagement was INVENTED some when during the 1940s…

By that year one South African company, De Beers, controlled 90% of the diamond production and almost 100% of its declining market. It was just natural that after the huge world depression few people could afford to buy luxurious goods. So, in 1938 Harry Oppenheimer, the 29-year-old son of the founder, traveled to New York and hired N. W. Ayer, a leading advertising company, to create a new image for diamonds among Americans. The target was to make them buy more expensive pieces than the 80-dollar-ones they were buying in average.

Ayer did a great job by identifying that it should focus on strengthening the association of diamonds with romance. It would be crucial to inculcate young men that diamonds were a gift of love: the larger and finer the diamond, the greater the expression of love. It would be also crucial to get young women view diamonds as an integral part of romantic courtship.

To change their mindset this way, Ayer focused on the rather new medium of movies, and movie stars were given diamonds to use as symbols of indestructible love. They also set up a weekly service called “Hollywood Personalities” that offered magazines and other media information (and pictures) of celebrities and their diamonds. Four color ads on exclusive magazines, showing diamonds before paintings by Picasso, Dali and others, showed that this stones were unique works of art.

The plan worked and by 1941 the sale of diamonds increased by 55%. Diamonds were being sold that well that by 1950 a new threat raised: that of a secondary market of used diamonds. So Ayer (yes, it was Ayer, not Ian Fleming nor James Bond) came with its most famous line: “Diamonds are forever”. Even though diamonds can in fact be shattered, chipped or incinerated to ash, the concept of eternity was the one that De Beers needed to attribute diamonds its magical quality. And of course, to discourage women of selling their diamonds.

By 1979 De Beers was selling in the USA more than US$2.1 billion, nearly a hundredfold since its 1939 figures: just US$23 million.

De Beers has created such a perfect monopoly that, even though commodity prices tend to fluctuate a lot (see precious metals as gold or silver), diamond prices are extremely stable. But don’t fool yourself. If you try to make business by buying and selling diamonds, you won’t be able to, unless you buy to De Beers (or one of its wholesalers) and sell directly to the public. In 1970 a British magazine did an experiment: it bought a £400 diamond and tried to sell it nine years later, after a 300% inflation. Instead of selling it on £1200, they couldn’t get more than £500. In 1971 they bought another one at £2600. One week later the maximum buy offer they could get was a £1000 one. Their conclusion? “Diamond investments have proved to be very poor”. Big jewelry companies such as Tiffany & Co. and similar have a no-buy policy on diamonds. They actually don’t want to offend their costumers by buying back from them diamonds at half their original price.

In July 2004, De Beers pleaded guilty to the charge of “conspiracy to fix prices for industrial diamonds” and now, after 10 years and a payment of a US$10 million fine, they are trading again in the American market. Its size today? US$500 million in industrial stones and US$60 billion in diamond jewelry. Annually. Great deal, isn’t it?

What was not such a great deal was your buying of a diamond for your bride.

Ladies, enjoy your diamonds while they last for diamonds are not forever.

___________________________________________
The information presented here was obtained from the following sources, and you’re invited to visit their pages:
- Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond?
- Wikipedia: De Beers
- De Beers Group
- Diamonds, Gold, and South Africa
- The History Behind the De Beers Diamond Cartel

Good bye rooster, welcome dog!

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 11:00:00 +0000

Last was a good year for me but a bad one for the world. I was accepted as a master’s student here in Japan, my family earnings surpassed again (thanks God!) my family expenses, we all enjoyed good health (if you don’t count mosquito bites and a few colds), and I can finally say I’m living a rather comfortable (though austere) life. The world, on the other side, was affected by strong earthquakes, by the worst hurricane season in North America, by many plane accidents (including one in Peru), by increasing petroleum prices (which I think will never go back to the 1990’s levels), by the American decision to build a new sort of Berlin Wall separating the US from Mexico (now I understand why they vetoed the UN resolution declaring the Israel Wall illegal!) and by many other natural and human-made disasters. It was actually not a good year for us as an Earth Community.

With that on sight, I may only say to the world, ganbatte kudasai!

(And of course: good bye, Year of the Rooster; welcome, Year of the Dog!)

Mr. Bush, tear down this wall!

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:30:00 +0000

In 1987 Ronald Reagan, referring to the Berlin Wall, challenged Mikhail Gorbachev with his famous line (he was an actor after all) “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Two years later, in 1989, the infamous wall was finally torn down…

The Berlin Wall (155 km long) was probably the most visible sign of the cold war, and a symbol of the inability of the communist state to keep its citizens from leaving when they could. It was an icon of totalitarianism.

What would you call then now the American attempt to build a 1000 km wall along the US-Mexican border?

They say they want to keep immigrants (and terrorists) from entering illegally to the US, therefore keeping the peace in that country. Congressman Duncan Hunter complained that “illegal aliens continue to funnel directly into many of our local communities and adversely impact our way of life by overwhelming our schools, inundating our healthcare system and, most concerning, threatening our safety”. Let me ask you if those words don’t sound similar to you to those arguments used by the Eastern German Propaganda Machinery to justify the erection of the Berlin Wall: “It all worked without a hitch! The measures to ensure peace caught our enemies entirely by surprise. The measures were solidly prepared. They were carried out with studied calm and exemplary order… A power has developed in Germany that can stand against barbaric militarism… Walter Ulbricht established peace in 1961 when he closed the doors to the provocations of warmongers and front city hyenas by bringing order to Potsdamer Platz”

Once bitten, twice shy?

No, we have a better one in Spanish: “el hombre es el único animal que tropieza dos veces con la misma piedra”, man is the only animal that trips twice over the same stone…

When will we learn from our past?

Proven: Eminem Music is a Torture

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 06:30:00 +0000

While I enjoyed Eminem’s Stan, I actually don’t like most of his music. And apparently the US Government thinks that nobody does, for they’re using his music as a secret torture device in Afghanistan… I surely know many other artists whose music I would use as torture weapons!

In any case, his performance in 8 Mile was pretty good. Even if you don’t like his music, you may enjoy that movie.

Anyway, as they say, different strokes for different folks!

Is Ahmadinejad really wrong?

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:00:00 +0000

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad caused international outcry by declaring that the Holocaust is a myth:

They have fabricated a legend under the name Massacre of the Jews, and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves… If somebody in their country questions God, nobody says anything, but if somebody denies the myth of the massacre of Jews, the Zionist loudspeakers and the governments in the pay of Zionism will start to scream… If Germany and Austria believed that Jews were massacred during World War II, a state of Israel should be established on their soil… Our proposal is this: give a piece of your land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska so they (the Jews) can create their own state.

As you can imagine, his comments were condemned immediately by Israel and later by the European Union and the USA. What else could you expect, don’t you think?

The problem is he had at least two valid points, but he lost them with his there-was-no-massacre comments. First, he asked why did Europeans and Americans pay for their mistakes during WWII at expense of the Palestinians. I mean, let’s say that I have a fight with my neighbor at the left, and I kill all the cats living at his place. Why should I solve the problem by making my neighbor at the right receive all the cats in the neighborhood? Sorry if you didn’t like the cats example, but you got what I think.

And by the way, as far as I remember, the original plan (before settling for Palestine) was for creating an Israeli country in part of Uganda…

Of course Israel replied instantaneously. They always do. They’re experts in doing so… Again, I have nothing against them – how could I? –, but it has always troubled me that for them the main Hitlerian Master Plan was not about conquering Europe but about wiping Jews from the world. Of course I don’t care about what anyone thinks, but the problem is that they want everybody else to think like them…

And that was his second point. You can’t say anything against Israel or the Holocaust without finding yourself buried under tons of Zionist responses… And exactly, he did get buried under those responses…

I’m not an anti-Semite – before you put that tag on me –, and I condemn equally all the massacres: Jews during WWII, 70,000 people by terrorism in Peru, 5,000 people in the WTC, American Indians during the conquering of the “Wild West”… But I’m getting tired of having special programs every year on TV about the holocaust… in Peru! I mean, Peru is in South America, and we were not even slightly involved in WWII, but still we have to “remember” the tragedy year after year…

Sorry my Jewish friends, but you’re getting the opposite of what you want. I’m on your side, you know? I don’t like anybody killing anybody. But, as we say in Spanish, tanto va el cántaro al agua que al fin se rompe, "so many times the water pitcher goes to the well that it finally breaks". And your water pitcher is starting to break on me…

BTW, don’t you think that Arab Presidents should have something like a Minister in Common Sense or a Minister in Western Ways to help them avoid making these comments, so they don't get bombed?

Fujimori Extradition Case

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 05:00:00 +0000

This is an update to my last post. I’d appreciate if you read that one first.

I have new information about the Fujimori case, and I wanted to share it with you.

First, there are 22 extradition charges against him. These are the same charges presented by the Peruvian government to Japan and, because of the lack of time, I suppose they don’t consider any additional proof or witness testimony.

According to the international extradition regulations, and the extradition treaty signed among Peru and Chile, if this country finds that there is enough evidence to judge Fujimori according to the Chilean laws (with imprisoning time of over one year), he would be extradited to Peru. BUT he could only be judged in Peru for those charges accepted by Chile.

Let me explain this point with yesterday’s first ruling. Chilean legislation doesn’t consider that “abandonment of office” deserves more than one year of jail (only a fine), and therefore that charge was not accepted. If any of the other charges were accepted, Fujimori would be sent to Peru BUT he could not be charged of “abandonment of office”.

The most important charge of those 21 remaining is homicide. It could mean over 10 years of jail for him. But again, it must be proved that under the Chilean legislation he is guilty. And if we consider the Pinochet case (former Chilean dictator), the Peruvian position doesn’t seem solid enough. Chilean Court ruled that Pinochet is guilty of only one of all the homicide charges presented against him and, in that single case, that was the verdict because the government presented a document signed by Pinochet demonstrating that he knew about the case. Unfortunately, as far as I know, there’s no similar proof that Fujimori ordered the Barrios Altos and La Cantuta homicides. This will mean that if the Court doesn’t find solid proof of Fujimori’s implication on those homicides, he could not be judged by those in Peru…

As I mentioned before, some of the other charges are well documented, but again, those charges wouldn’t send him to jail for more than 3-4 years (and even then, he could ask the sentence to be suspended because he’s a first-timer).

Now, can you explain me why he didn’t go back to Peru if he knew that there was no solid evidence against him?

The answer is simple: one, because he doesn’t trust the Peruvian Courts (he considers that they would face much political pressure to rule him guilty of all the charges), two, because this way he’s making a shield against the future. Again, if he’s extradited for 5 or 6 of all charges, he could never be charged with any of the other 16 or 17 again.

Isn’t that clever?

Unfortunately for him, he was probably not expecting to be imprisoned until the extradition ruling. It may have been one of the scenarios analyzed, but probably the less likely to him...

Once again, I’m not discussing here the guilt or innocence of Fujimori, but only the extradition case and the implications of his arrive in Chile. I’d appreciate any comment on these last two points.

Thanks for the visit!

The Devil’s Advocate

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 08:00:00 +0000

On my last post I was explaining my thesis on how I think you could classify the different opinions we Peruvians have about Fujimori, according to our own personal backgrounds. Some people were nice enough to leave their comments and, reading them, you can recognize the different opinions most of us have about him:

Some of us really hate him, think that he was the worst president we had ever seen, are sure that the criminis lessa humanidad (crimes against humanity) which he has been charged are true, and think that he should die in jail
Some others praise him, think that he was the best president Peru has ever had, and think that he should be allowed to take the presidency again
Finally, some few of us think that, while he did much good for our country, he should be judged to clarify if he had (or not) penal responsibility on those crimes: were they true, he should be incarcerated, in any other case, he should be allowed to run for presidency as he wishes

Charges against Fujimori

I won’t repeat myself, and you can find a list of some of the good things done by Fujimori’s Government in my previous post and, of course, in his personal page as well. Let me list now some of the crimes he has been charged with:

Abandonment of Office: he faxed his resignation from Tokyo to the Peruvian Congress
Homicide: he is accused of responsibility in the extrajudicial execution in 1991 of fifteen people at a fund-raising party in a poor tenement in Lima's Barrios Altos district, and the “disappearance” in 1992 of nine students and a professor from La Cantuta University. Both crimes were directly executed by the Grupo Colina, a death squad purportedly run by Vladimiro Montesinos
Embezzlement: he is accused of embezzling state funds to help finance his re-election

You can read more at the Fujimori Extraditable web page, and at the US Department of State Country Reports of Human Rights Practice.

There are many other things that are said about him (like “when he flown to Japan, his luggage was full of stolen money” or “he stole a thousand million dollars that is hidden in encrypted Swiss bank accounts”), but none of them is credible (and therefore the Government has not pressed charges under any of those descriptions), so we won’t refer to those here.

I’m not a lawyer (and have no legal experience whatsoever), but I do know that we need to differentiate political responsibility from penal responsibility. Fujimori was the Head of State and, of course, is politically responsible for everything that happened during his presidency: both the good and the bad things. So, in this respect, he is of course accountable for the occurrence of all the crimes mentioned. The bad news is that political responsibility doesn’t send anybody to jail. So, courts are trying to find proof that he has also penal responsibility. Unfortunately they haven’t been lucky so far, and all of the charges presented (at least, on the extradition papers sent to Japan) seem to exhibit probative deficiencies.

Weak charges, poor documentation

El Comercio, Peruvian main newspaper, and from which it cannot be said that is favoring Fujimori, published an interesting article last Sunday exploring the problems on the accusations: “Cuadernillo presentado al Japón exhibía deficiencias probatorias”. There’s no English version of that note, but you can read a rough translation here. Ricardo Uceda, author of that article, comments that while the main and most important charges against Fujimori are those related to the Barrios Altos and La Cantuta cases, there is no enough proof that he ordered both crimes. Ricardo Mac Lean, a renowned lawyer, expressed in an internal memo to the Foreign Affairs Ministry (the one that is in charge of the extradition process) that “he feels embarrassed that we’re sending to Japan a 700-page document with no substantial proof”. Government’s external legal advisor, White & Case, stated also that the document had no good probative value.

On the embezzlement case, the Kroll Report failed to find any of the illicit bank accounts in which it was said that Fujimori hid the stolen money.

Some of the other cases, on the other side, are robust enough, but they would mean a maximum of 3-4 years in jail, sentence that, according to Peruvian law, can be suspended.

Please, take note that I’m not saying that Fujimori is innocent. I just want to state the fact that there are no conclusive proofs (as his detractors claim) that he’s responsible of any of the crimes against humanity attributed to him.

Why did he go to Chile?

While I don’t know for sure, I have some theories about why he decided to abandon his comfortable Japanese auto-exile, to fly to the land of Peruvian southern neighbor, Chile.

First of all, I’m pretty sure that he knows that the charges against him (contained on the extradition papers) were weak. Had they had any concrete proof of any of the attributed crimes, his best shot would have been to stay in Japan, for they don’t extradite Japanese citizens (he has the citizenship for he never renounced to it). He left Japan because he’s sure that no fair trial can find penal responsibility on him.

Second, he wants to be president again (to clean up his image, according to him), and he’s been in campaign over the last months. He promised to his followers that he would return to Peru before the elections and, with this trip, he can say that “he’s delivering his promises, for he’s now closer to Peru”.

Third, he knows about the recent problems between Peru and Chile and wants to make a profit from them. He thought that he would not be incarcerated (at least not in such a short time span) and that he would be able to continue his political campaign. Being in prison until a Chilean judge decides if he’s extraditable was probably one of the analyzed scenarios, but he may have decided that the probability of this (being incarcerated) was low.

Fourth, if the extradition judge decides that there’s no enough proof for an extradition, he would claim that “a fair trial has found him innocent”, and would therefore use this as a tool on his defense in Peru.

Fifth, if Chile finally decides to extradite him to Peru, he can claim that he’s a Japanese citizen and would ask to be sent back to Japan.

I don’t know what he’s thinking, of course, but this seems as the most plausible scenario to me.

What do you think?

Alberto Fujimori

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:00:00 +0000

How to explain Fujimori to someone who hasn't lived in Peru? He was a famous and renowned Peruvian president, who suddenly decided to resign the presidency while in Japan... by sending a fax (later he sent a hard copy to the Peruvian Embassy in Japan). Why was the Peruvian Government asking Japan for his extradition? Why didn't the Japanese Government accepted to do that? Why is he in Chile now?

To answer some of those questions, we have to go back to 1990 and before. By then, Peru was finishing one of the worst presidential periods its people has ever seen. In words of Wikipedia: "Alan García (born May 23, 1949 in Lima) was President of Peru from 1985 to 1990. His presidency was marked by bouts of hyperinflation, social turmoil, human rights violations, increasing violence, increase of blackouts in Lima, international financial isolation, a failed attempt to confiscate the 2 main banks and economic downturn". Let me give you just one macroeconomic figure, so you can see what we're talking about: Inflation. In 2004 Peru had an inflation of about 3.5%, the USA had 2.5%, Brazil 7.6% and Malaysia 1.3%. During the whole Garcia presidency (5 years), Peru had an accumulated inflation of... 2,200,000%!!! (yes, two million two hundred thousand percent!!!)

Fujimori inherited a country in a very bad shape and he decided that, in order to solve the critic (economic and social) problems quickly, he had to fight the cancer by cutting on the healthy tissue. And he did. He chose Vladimiro Montesinos as his personal advisor and effective head of the Intelligence Agency and, taking some measures that wouldn't be accepted on a fully democratic regime, he accomplished (among others) the following:

Peru was reinserted in the global economic system and attracted foreign investment
International currency reserves were built up from nearly zero (at the end of García's term in office) to almost USD$10 billion a decade later
Total GDP growth between 1992 and 2001, inclusive, was 44.60%
FAO reported Peru reduced undernourishment by about 29% from 1990-92 to 1997-99
End the fifteen-year reign of terror of Sendero Luminoso and the arrest of their leader, Abimael Guzmán
Solution of the Japanese Embassy Hostage Crisis
Signature of a Peace Treaty with Ecuador, after a century of border dispute

So, if Fujimori did so much good, why does the Government want to send him to jail?

This is a tricky question, and I'll try to answer it dividing Peruvian people in the following groups:

Traditional politicians (and their entourage)
They lost most of their power when Fujimori was in charge of the presidency. They are in charge of the country again and, controlling the Congress, they are making this their political vendetta.

Younger than 28 years old (who were 13 or younger at the end of Garcia's government)
They don’t remember how hard were the living conditions before Fujimori, taking all the good he did as granted. So, if all the good is not extraordinary, they will fight all the bad. As I mentioned before, Fujimori took many measures that would be considered as illegal or non-democratic during his presidency, and the young people consider he must be judged (in a trial) by what he did.

People who suffered from Fujimori's policies (people who lost their jobs, a relative, etc.)
Many people lost their governmental jobs after the privatization process started by Fujimori (people who were not prepared to work on an open market environment), and many other were shot dead on anti-terrorism raids by the military forces (even though the great percentage of deaths caused by the armed forces occurred during the two previous governments)

People who benefited from Fujimori's policies (stable social environment, increased security, stable economic conditions, etc.)
We're not talking about the people who benefited illegally when Fujimori was in charge, but about all the people who enjoyed a better lifestyle then, than when Alan Garcia. These people benefited from foreign investments, studied in pacified universities, and enjoyed the increased security in the country.

It's easy to understand that the first three groups would like to see Fujimori in a court. The fourth, of course, would like to see him back in the presidency. In fact, Fujimori's approval rate remains in 15-20%, while president Toledo's approval is well bellow 8%

After his resignation, Fujimori remained in self-imposed exile in Japan, country from which he can not be extradited because he has Japanese citizenship (his parents registered him with the Japanese consular authorities in Peru as an infant). Several senior Japanese politicians have supported Fujimori, partly because of what they consider his decisive action in ending the 1997 Japanese embassy crisis.

Despite being safe in Japan, on November 6th Fujimori arrived in Santiago de Chile on a private aircraft and was arrested 12 hours later. What is he doing there? Why did he decide to travel to a Peruvian neighboring country? Was he actually trying to arrive to Peru, as he purposely proclaimed many times, in order to participate in the 2006 national elections? Only time will tell.

The Future of the Oil Industry: Conclusions

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 03:00:00 +0000

THE FUTURE OF THE OIL INDUSTRY
Conclusions

So, is the Hubbert Peak Theory right? Is it flawed? Are we running out of Petroleum anytime soon? Over the last few weeks we've been talking about the Petroleum Industry, we've analyzed the Hubbert Peak Theory, its possible implications, and also the point of view of its detractors... I certainly hope I had given you enough information to help you form (if you hadn't already) your own personal opinion on this subject.

The basic points on this disquisition were:

Petroleum is a cheap but non-renewable energy source
Our society is highly energy dependant
When a resource is scarce, its price goes up
There's no sign of society becoming less energy dependant, but there are many signs that petroleum is becoming harder to extract
We have not found any other energy source that is as cheap as petroleum

M. King Hubbert developed a theory trying to correlate petroleum availability with petroleum extraction rate. He pointed that we don't need to run out of petroleum to be in trouble: as soon as demand surpasses supply, prices would skyrocket. And, as demand shows no sign of deflating, this moment will coincide with the peak on petroleum production. The question (that remains open) is: are we reaching the peak?

Detractors discovered some flaws on this theory, basically on the mathematical side. They argue that the fact that the USA petroleum production followed a bell shape doesn't mean that the world's production has to follow the exact same shape. They also point out that Hubbert followers themselves cannot predict the exact moment of the peak: they have miscalculated it many times over the last decade.

So, who's right?

As far as I'm concerned, both are. Hubbert followers do us a great favor by pointing out that we're depending too much on a non-renewable resource. They also show us that petroleum production is becoming more difficult (and expensive) every day, and that if we don't change our society habits, we may face big trouble.

Hubbert detractors help us clarify some points: first, there's no way to know exactly when we're going to reach the peak. Or, for that matter, if the peak found is the only peak (the real behavior, they say, can have many peaks). They also point out that society can solve the problem following the laws of the free market: if petroleum is expensive and someone finds a cheaper energy source, we're going to turn to it.

There's almost no doubt that we're going to consume all our petroleum reserves over the next century. There's also no doubt that as production decreases, prices will raise. And, as in any economic analysis, there's no way to know (today) if nowadays' petroleum high prices are the result of this process (meaning, we have reached the peak in oil production), or if it's just a hiccup.

But there's something that we can say for sure: the cheap oil era is (almost) over. If we don't change our habits, and if we don't find a replacement for petroleum, we're going to crash a hard wall. We may have the time, we may have not, so, isn't it dumb to close our eyes to this reality?

Please, review the following links before you go. They have great information on the Hubbert Peak Theory, its implications, and what we can do, now. There's even one petroleum company (Chevron) that has candidly started a campaign that addresses the end of the oil era. Were the end of the cheap oil era far-far away, would a petroleum company have started such a campaign?

The Future of the Oil Industry: Part 4

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:00:00 +0000

THE FUTURE OF THE OIL INDUSTRY
Part 4: Hubbert Peak Critique

So far we've been talking about the Petroleum Industry, the Hubbert Peak Theory, and its possible implications (if proven right). Today we're going to review some of the arguments of those who oppose to the Hubbert Peak Theory.

Michael Lynch

First on the list is Michael Lynch, who analyzes the mathematical inconsistencies of the Hubbert Peak Model, declaring that they're actually so many that the complete model is wrong. He says that "the current school of Hubbert modelers have not discovered new, earth-shaking results but rather joined the large crowd of those who have found that large bodies of data often yield particular shapes, from which they attempt to divine physical laws". He also says that their work is "based heavily on assumptions that the available evidence shows to be wrong. They have repeatedly misinterpreted political and economic effects as reflecting geological constraints, and misunderstood the causality underlying exploration, discovery and production".

According to Lynch, the fact that the US petroleum production curve follows a bell-shaped curve, only shows that in a closed system, demand determines production, not geology. He explains that exponential growth and decline are completely normal behaviors, and that the fact that the US curve followed that famous bell curve is not proof of the existence of any immutable, natural or scientifically-determined law.

Mark Brandly

In his article Will We Run Out of Energy?, Brandly analyzes David Goodstein's book Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil and, with it, the Hubbert Peak Theory. "The problems with Goodstein's conclusions, and this applies to Hubbert's followers in general, begin with his reliance on empirical findings to generate the Hubbert curves. He projects decreases in the rate of growth of oil production into the future and then estimates the date of Hubbert's peak and the resulting decline in available oil. However, empirical findings do not always support this thesis".

According to Brandly, the fact that some countries' production curves had more than one pike, or that they didn't follow an exact bell-curve, makes the Hubbert's mathematical analysis a flaw.

On the other hand, Brandly explains why he thinks that Market Forces can solve the problem:

First, higher oil prices will lead to more exploration and the discovery of new oil fields.

Second, higher prices provide an incentive to improve production and exploration technology. Better exploration technology will make it easier to find more oil and improved production technology will increase the reserves in existing oil fields.

Third, rising oil prices increase oil reserves even without any additional exploration or changes in technology. Reserves are the estimated amounts of discovered economically viable oil production. At higher prices it's profitable to recover more of the oil available in previously discovered fields. We therefore have more oil reserves simply by having higher oil prices.

Sustainable Oil / Magma Oil

The Open Source Energy Network addresses "the theory in circulation that oil is not solely of organic origin, but that there may be another mode of origin as well from deeper in the crust, involving magma". According to this site, there's plenty of evidence that Petroleum may be a renewable resource:

Oil being discovered at 30,000 feet, far below the 18,000 feet where organic matter is no longer found
Wells pumped dry later replenished
Volume of oil pumped thus far not accountable from organic material alone according to present models
In Situ production of methane under the conditions that exist in the Earth's upper mantle

Others

Marshall Brain thinks that there will not be a peak, because we will switch smoothly to other technologies as petroleum prices rise.

Chris Bennett says that the world has plenty of oil, and we're not running out of it, at least not soon.

Lee Raymond (CEO of ExxonMobil) believes that the world's supply of oil will rise (and that demand will slow and prices drop)

So, what shall we believe? Are we running out of petroleum anytime soon? Or aren't we? Are new technologies going to solve this problem on their own? Are we going to perceive the crisis? Are we going to live in a new Wild-West a la Blade Runner, fighting for fuel? Or is it going to be a smooth transition?

Well, that's a question I'm still trying to answer. I have some ideas that I'll explain on the last part of this series. But first, please, if you have any thoughts on the Hubbert Peak or in the future of petroleum, let me know about them. ___________________________________________

The data mentioned here was obtained from the following sources, and you're invited to visit their pages:
- Wikipedia (Hubbert Peak)
- Gas Resources Corporation
- Ludwig Von Mises Institute
- Open Source Energy Network
- Marshall Brain's Blog
- Peak Oil Debunked
- World Net Daily
- Times On Line

The Future of the Oil Industry: Part 3

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 08:00:00 +0000

THE FUTURE OF THE OIL INDUSTRY
PART 3: The Scenarios

As we’ve discussed before (please refer to Part 1 and Part 2 on these series before continuing), the immediate consequence of an oil shortage would be an increase in its price and, therefore, serious economic problems. Let’s review the possible scenarios of the future we may be facing.

Catastrophe

We’re talking of course of the worst case scenario. Here the consequences of reaching the Peak Oil would be tremendous. The shortage of the production of oil and the growing needs of it would clash into an economic and social nightmare. Petroleum price would skyrocket pulling along all the other prices. Our food production industries wouldn’t be able to cope the shortage of its main energy source (remember, we spend 10 calories of petroleum-based energy for every calorie of food eaten!), and therefore the decreasing supply of oil would cause modern industrial agriculture to collapse, leading to a drastic decline in food production, food shortages and possibly even mass starvation.

The suburbs living-concept would prove unsustainable, because of its high dependency on the automobile (and therefore petroleum) for everyday transportation. Suburbians would be unable to afford fuel for their cars, and would be forced to move to higher density, more walkable areas.

Of course the environment would be affected as well. Because of the lack of its most efficient energy source, people may turn into those less environmentally friendly energy sources that still have significant reserves on our planet (such as coal). This would increase global warming (who needs the Kyoto Protocol if there’s a major worldwide economic crisis?), as well as health and developmental problems.

Recession

The second scenario assumes: a) A slow petroleum depletion rate; b) Stable world energy needs (better yet, diminishing ones) and c) A smooth (but quick) transition to alternative energy sources.

There has always been a close correlation between oil price spikes and economic decline and so, recession due to higher energy process is likely to occur. Crisis of the early 1970s was associated with the OPEC embargo, which triggered higher petroleum prices in the USA. After the Peak Oil, however, since it would be impossible to increase petroleum supply, no fix would be found and petroleum prices would escalate.

Higher oil prices, however, would turn alternative energy sources (such as hydrogen, solar cells, tidal energy, biofuels, etc.) economically attractive, and studies and investigations on them would flourish. Unfortunately, it would take many years to develop these technologies for mass consumption, and they would be more expensive (per unit of energy) than today’s petroleum.

Smooth Transition

This is the most positivist scenario. Here, petroleum would deplete very slowly, leaving time for new technologies to develop. In this scenario people is aware of the problem from the very beginning, and Universities and Research Institutes are focusing on these new technologies, with a conscious backing of the industry and government.

Developed nations would be also analyzing how to help petroleum producing nations (such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, Venezuela and others) to live in a non-petroleum era. New industries would be established on those countries so that they can generate wealth from non-conventional sources.

Nevertheless the cheap energy era would be over, and we all would have to either consume less (changing our lifestyles), or pay more for it.

In Part 4 we’re going to review the arguments of people who oppose to the Hubbert Peak Theory so, please, don’t commit suicide until we finish this discussion. The end may be not that near…

See you again!
___________________________________________
The data mentioned here was obtained from the following sources, and you’re invited to visit their pages:
- Wikipedia (Implications of Peak Oil)
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas
- Wolf at the Door
- World Energy Council
- Newsweek
- Slate

The Future of the Oil Industry: Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:00:00 +0000

THE FUTURE OF THE OIL INDUSTRY
PART 2: The Hubbert Peak

Renewable energy sources are those that can be replenished naturally in a short period of time and, as we’ve seen before, petroleum would need millions of years to form. This is why we call it a non-renewable resource: one that cannot be replaced once it is consumed. If this is true then the most important question that we should be making is when are we going to run out of it? In 1956 a Shell geologist, M. King Hubbert, presented a paper at a meeting of the American Petroleum Institute proposing that the total amount of extracted oil over time would follow a logistic curve. According to this curve, once we have extracted half of the total available oil we would reach its peak (known as the Hubbert Peak or the Peak Oil) and, after that, production will inevitably decline.

Hubbert predicted that the oil production in the continental USA would peak between 1965 and 1970, prediction that was proven true after 1971, for production in the USA has been decreasing since then. It’s said that if the politically created oil shocks of the 1970s hadn’t happened, Hubbert’s prediction that the world’s petroleum production would peak by 2000 would have been also proven correct. Many scientists believe that the world’s peak oil has been delayed for about 10 years, and this would mean that we’re about to reach that time.

So, when are we running out if it?

As Life After the Oil Crash puts it: the issue is not one of "running out" so much as it is not having enough to keep our economy running. In this regard, the ramifications of Peak Oil for our civilization are similar to the ramifications of dehydration for the human body. The human body is 70 percent water. The body of a 200 pound man thus holds 140 pounds of water. Because water is so crucial to everything the human body does, the man doesn't need to lose all 140 pounds of water weight before collapsing due to dehydration. A loss of as little as 10-15 pounds of water may be enough to kill him.

If we consider additionally that the world’s population is growing exponentially and that our industrialized world employs more energy than before (see Part 1), we can see that if we reach the point in which the shortfall between demand and supply is as little as 10-15 percent, we could face serious economical impacts.

So, when are we reaching the Peak Oil Point? The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas estimates that it will be reached by year 2008.

Petroleum companies, even though claim publicly that we are very far from the Peak Oil, have started trying to secure as much global reserves as they can:

December 1998: BP and Amoco merge
April 1999: BP-Amoco and Arco agree to merge
December 1999: Exxon and Mobil merge
October 2000: Chevron and Texaco agree to merge
November 2001: Phillips and Conoco agree to merge
September 2002: Shell acquires Penzoil-Quaker State
February 2003: Frontier Oil and Holly agree to merge
March 2004: Marathon acquires 40% of Ashland
April 2004: Westport Resources acquires Kerr-McGee
April 2005: Chevron-Texaco and Unocal merge
June 2005: Royal Dutch and Shell merge
July 2005: China begins trying to acquire Unocal

What would be the consequences of the Peak Oil?

If we cross the Peak Oil, we would face a serious oil shortage, which effects will depend on the rate of decline and the development and adoption of alternatives. If no alternatives are developed, we would not be able to satisfy our energy needs, which in turn would lower our living standards. Scenarios range from doomsday scenarios to faith in the market economy and new technologies to solve the problem but, in any case, petroleum will be a scarce resource and then its price it’s going to rise.

I thought petroleum companies were pushing prices up…

Yes, it’s a common view. Of course, the fact that petroleum companies are among the most profitable businesses in the world doesn’t help. But they’re actually rich because the price of the petroleum is rising, and it’s not the other way around. Let’s put it this way: petroleum is the most important energy source that we have today, but there are many others who would love to occupy its place. If petroleum prices rise too much, the other energy sources will become cheap in comparison, and could take a piece of the pie. And, believe me: Oil Companies don’t want to share a single crumb of the pie!

The problem is that petroleum prices have escaped from their control. The world is consuming more and more oil, and Oil Companies are producing at almost their maximum capacities. The fact that they’re not able to put more petroleum on the market (controlling its price) is clear evidence that we may be reaching the Peak Oil…

In Part 3 we’re going to see the different scenarios for the world in case we’re reaching the Peak Oil.

See you here back soon!
___________________________________________
Some of the data mentioned here was obtained from the following sources, and you’re invited to visit their pages:
- Wikipedia (Hubbert Curve)
- Wolf at the Door
- Hubbert Peak of Oil Production
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas
- San Francisco Chronicle

The Future of the Oil Industry: Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:00:00 +0000

THE FUTURE OF THE OIL INDUSTRY
PART 1: Petroleum? What is it?

The word Petroleum comes from the Greek words Petra and Oleum, meaning rock oil. It’s also known as crude oil, naphta and black gold. Petroleum is an important primary energy source, and is also raw material for plastics, solvents, pesticides and other chemical products.

There are many theories explaining the origins of the Petroleum, but let’s stick to the one that’s the favorite of most geologists. According to them, ancient vegetation and prehistoric animals’ remains were compressed and heated over millions of years under thick sedimentary layers of material, metamorphosing first into a waxy material (the kerogen), and then into oil. This oil accumulated into porous rocks forming reservoirs or oil fields, from which the liquids are recovered.

Once we find one of those oil fields, the extraction stage starts. With the help of highly specialized equipment we drill wells until we reach the reservoir. If the pressure is high enough, petroleum will flow by itself without the help of any pumping work. This is called primary oil recovery, and usually we can extract up to 20% of the total volume this way.

When the pressure drops, we need to either install a pump inside the reservoir, or to inject water or gas to maintain pressure. This is called secondary oil recovery and we can get an additional 5 to 15% of petroleum from the field.

Tertiary oil recovery will reduce petroleum’s viscosity in order to pump more of it. There are many techniques to do this but, as they all are very expensive, they won’t be applied unless the oil price is high enough to compensate the costs. Tertiary recovery allows another 5% to 15% of the reservoir's oil to be recovered.

So far, we don’t have either the means or the expertise to recover a full 100% of the petroleum of any given oil field.

What happens to petroleum once extracted?

Once extracted, petroleum goes into refineries where it is boiled to separate the different phases. Basically we heat the petroleum to a temperature where all the light gases (methane, ethane, propane, etc.) evaporate, so we can take and store them. After this, we raise the temperature a little bit more, and we get gasoline. After all of it is stored, we repeat the cycle and we get jet fuel, kerosene, diesel, gasoil, paraffin wax and finally asphalt.

So, we use petroleum just as a fuel, to build roads, and to make plastics. Don’t we?

Even if it’s not easy to see, oil provides more energy than we can imagine, and it’s therefore a substantial part of almost any given human activity. According to Dale Allen Pfeiffer, in the United States 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to feed each American (as of data provided in 1994). Agricultural energy consumption is broken down as follows:

31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer
19% for the operation of field machinery
16% for transportation
13% for irrigation
08% for raising livestock (not including livestock feed)
05% for crop drying
05% for pesticide production
08% miscellaneous

If we consider the additional energy we spend on packaging, refrigeration, transportation to retail outlets, and household cooking, we’ll see that we spend nearly 10 calories of fossil fuels to produce 1 calorie of food eaten!

But we’re not talking only about food…

The construction of an average car consumes the energy equivalent of approximately 27-54 barrels, which equates to 1,100-2,200 gallons, of oil. Ultimately, the construction of a car will consume an amount of fossil fuels equivalent to twice the car’s final weight
The production of one gram of microchips consumes 630 grams of fossil fuels. According to the American Chemical Society, the construction of single 32 megabyte DRAM chip requires 3.5 pounds of fossil fuels in addition to 70.5 pounds of water
The construction of the average desktop computer consumes ten times its weight in fossil fuels
The Environmental Literacy Council tells us that due to the "purity and sophistication of materials (needed for) a microchip, the energy used in producing nine or ten computers is enough to produce an automobile"

Being our society so dependant on petroleum, we can understand why it is called black gold, why everybody is following with much interest the fluctuations of its price, and why many people are getting desperate after it has surpassed the 50 dollar per barrel barrier. Of course we can understand also why so many wars have been ignited on its name...

Please stay tuned for Part 2. We're going to try to answer the questions: is petroleum an infinite resource? Are we running out of petroleum? Are petroleum companies really pushing prices up?

See you here soon!
___________________________________________

Some of the data mentioned here was obtained from the following sources, and you’re invited to visit their pages:
- Wikipedia (Petroleum)
- Shell Exploration & Production
- Eating Fossil Fuels
- Life After the Oil Crash
- American Petroleum Institute
- US Energy Information Administration

The Future of the Oil Industry: Introduction

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:00:00 +0000

THE FUTURE OF THE OIL INDUSTRY
INTRODUCTION: The Chain Letter

Two or three weeks ago I received an email from a good friend asking me (and many other people) to “stop buying petrol and gasoline from the two major Petroleum Companies to force them to lower their fuel prices”. This email started a brief discussion with another friend, with whom we were trying to decide if this was a nice project, or if it was only a plain hoax…
___________________________________________

Subject: GAS PRICES

Pretty good idea to lower gas prices...

I hear we are going to hit close to $3.00 a gallon by the summer Want gasoline prices to come down? We need to take some intelligent, united action. Phillip Hollsworth, offered this good idea:

This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the "don't buy gas on a certain day" campaign that was going around last April or May! The oil companies just laughed at that because they knew we wouldn't continue to "hurt" ourselves by refusing to buy gas. It was more of an inconvenience to us than it was a problem for them. BUT, whoever thought of this idea has come up with a plan that can really work.

Please read it and join with us!

By now you're probably thinking gasoline priced at about $1.50 is super cheap. Me too! It is currently $1.97 for regular unleaded in my town. Now that the oil companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned us to think that the cost of a gallon of gas is CHEAP at $1.50-$1.75, we need to take aggressive action to teach them that BUYERS control the marketplace.... not sellers.

With the price of gasoline going up more each day, we consumers need to take action. The only way we are going to see the price of gas come down is if we hit someone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their gas! And we can do that WITHOUT hurting ourselves. How? Since we all rely on our cars, we can't just stop buying gas. But we CAN have an impact on gas prices if we all act together to force a price war.

Here's the idea:

For the rest of this year, DON"T purchase ANY gasoline from the two biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL. If they are not selling any gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit. But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of Exxon and Mobil gas buyers. It's really simple to do!! Now, don't wimp out on me at this point... keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people!!

I am sending this note to about thirty people. If each of you send it to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300)... and those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000) ... and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth generation of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers! If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends each, then 30 million people will have been contacted! If it goes one level further, you guessed it..... THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE!!!

Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people and DON"T purchase ANY gasoline from EXXON and MOBIL. That's all. (If you don't understand how we can reach 300 million and all you have to do is send this to 10 people.... well, let's face it, you just aren't a mathematician. But I am... so trust me on this one.)

How long would all that take? If each of us sends this email out to ten more people within one day of receipt, all 300 MILLION people could conceivably be contacted within the next 8 days!!!

I'll bet you didn't think you and I had that much potential, did you!

Acting together we can make a difference. If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on.

PLEASE HOLD OUT UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $1.30 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN. THIS CAN REALLY WORK
___________________________________________

What I'm planning to do today is just explain why that email is a plain hoax (or chain letter, as you wish), and state some of the questions that the reading of it may rise. On the forthcoming days I'll try to answer those same questions, on my very personal point of view. But before continuing let me warn you that I used to work for one of the Seven Sisters, so you may find my thoughts a little bit biased. Nevertheless is my wish that you form your own opinion on the subjects that we're going to address, and I only hope that you consider the facts that I’m going to express here as part of your own thinking process...

First of all, there’s no mathematician called Phillip Hollsworth on the Internet. If you google his name on the net the only thing you’re going to get is different versions of the above chain letter. Scientists usually publish many papers through their lives, and it’s very rare to find one with no single reference on the net.

Second, he claims to be a mathematician, but his plan for reaching 300 million people by email is very ambitious, considering there are only about 328 million active Internet users in the world according to Nielsen NetRatings. If you consider additionally that not everybody forwards chains, that some people are going to receive it more than once, and that not everybody accesses their email accounts on a daily basis, you will conclude as me that his claim that this mail can reach 300 million people in 8 days is excessively optimistic.

But let’s be positive and let’s assume that the letter actually finds its way, that it reaches hundreds of millions, and that everybody stops buying fuel from those two companies (which by the way have merged in the largest petroleum company in the world: ExxonMobil). Would this action effectively and permanently drive prices down? I’m sorry to say it but the answer is no. If everyone stopped buying from the largest company, the smaller ones would run out of stock, and would have to do our dirty work by buying from them anyway. And we'd probably pay even more for gas, since we would be paying for an additional link in the chain.

So, can we do anything to lower gas prices? Or are they going to stay at today’s level? Are petroleum companies really pushing prices up? Is the opening of Iraqi oil fields going to stabilize prices? Can we keep using our beloved SUVs? Can’t we migrate to renewable energy sources and forget about this oil nightmare?

Those are some of the questions that we’ll try to answer over the next days.

See you here soon!
___________________________________________

For better analysis of the above chain letter, please visit BreakTheChain.org and Rumor Mill.

The Four S’s

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 05:00:00 +0000

Last week I had the unique chance to attend an important International Conference held in Osaka and, while there, I was invited to the Gala Dinner… to take pictures of the event! The dinner was very nice and full of gaijin scientists, and when the President of the Organizing Committee decided to address some words to everybody, nobody cared and almost everyone kept talking. I must admit I felt a little bit embarrassed myself, for I felt it was a little bit rude. I mean, there was this respectable old guy thanking everybody for having came to the Congress from all over the world and blah blah blah, and he wasn’t receiving the attention he ought.

A Japanese Professor who was just sitting next to me, a little bit drunk, told me that he too felt bad for this lack of respect. "You know", he said to me, "we Japanese always respect the Rule of the Four S’s when we’re on a meeting". "The Four S’s?" I asked, "what do they stand for?" "The first S is for Silence", he explained, "for we never make any noise with cell phones, chairs, pens or anything. The second is for Shut Up, for we don’t say a word while someone else is speaking. The third one stands for Sit down, for we just sit and listen to the orator". "And the last one?" I asked after ten seconds of silence. "The last one?" he replied, "the last S stands for Sleep..."

I couldn’t agree more.

Spam Me!

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:00:00 +0000

I'm stealing Quique’s greatest idea (for I’m sure he won’t mind), and I think you should do the same. Take a look!
________________________

Dear Spammers:

I don’t want to be rude with you - as many other sites usually are - by posting on this page fake email addresses (for your crawlers to lose time sending email to inexistent addresses), so I’m attaching a list of some valid ones that you can surely use.

This is a list of addresses that belong to some companies (mostly Peruvian ones) that have annoyed me lately by sending me spam. I hope your crawlers find this e-mail addresses (e-mail, email, electronic-mail, electronic mail) so you can send spam among you without annoying me any more. Please note that I’m kindly repeating many times the words “e-mail” and “address” (and some slight variations of both) so your crawlers don’t have any problem finding them. I’m doing my best to help you here!

peruavisos@speedy.com.pe
enviosefectivosperu@yahoo.es
support@credoninc.com
Sales@proquis.com
Quality@proquis.com
ventas@matriservice.com
fidelr@matriservice.com
capacitacionminera@solomineria.com.pe
capacitacion-minera@solomineria.com.pe
jurisprudenciacivil@jurisprudenciacivil.com
juriscivil@speedy.com.pe
dilnerc@viabcp.com
servicios@mibanco.com.pe
mercaperu@mail.terra.com.pe
peruavisos@speedy.com.pe
superofertas_lima@gmail.com
diamanteperu@terra.com.pe
edificioguadalquivir@yahoo.es
laboratorio@telefonica.net.pe

Sincerely yours,

Me.

________________________
Update:
Hahaha! I’m adding here the email addresses of the blog-spammers that have just sent spam to this blog... within 15 minutes of writing this post!!! (Man! They’re fast!). I suppose I don't have to warn you NOT to visit those pages... I haven't erased them just because today I'm enjoying this...
support@noadwaresupport.com
business@noadware.net
affiliates@noadware.net
support@sam-freedom.com
support@holygrailofmarketing.com

I Kiss You vs Numa Numa Dance

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 09:00:00 +0000

Two friends of mine reminded me lately about these two memes and, even though they happened in different years, they’re both funny (in a way)…

I Kiss You

On year 1999 a Turkish guy named Mahir Cagri became the first internet celebrity by creating a personal web page in broken English. His most famous lines were “Welcome to my home page! I kiss you!”, “I live alone! I have home – car” and of course his open invitation to women “Who is want to come TURKEY I can invitate . She can stay my home”. This page is reported to have received half million hits just on its first three days on the net thanks to word of mouth. Mahir posted many pictures of him playing ping pong, the accordion, and wearing a red Speedo, that were as naïve as his writing. He became so famous that he was invited to the USA were he was a guest at the Rosseane Show, and had interviews with the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, Wired Magazine, Forbes, C-NET and others. He even has an entry on Wikipedia! This year, his page was ranked one of the top 10 fads of the decade by C-NET. Check by yourself!

The second story is a little bit longer, but it is worth it so please, check the links to understand the whole stuff. There are many videos so, please, be patient...

Numa Numa Dance

On year 2003 a Moldovan band called O-Zone recorded Dragonstea Din Tei, a song that became a hit in Moldova that year and a summer hit in Europe next year. Some people in Japan liked that song and made a Flash Video featuring some dancing cats, with images and text interpreting the lyrics into similar sounding English or Japanese words. Check that version here.

Gary Brolsma, a New Jersey teenager, saw that Japanese version on the Internet and, bored one day, decided to make his own silly video for his friends. His energetic lip-syncing version was first uploaded to the Internet on December 12th 2004, and became an instant hit counting up to eight million views and popping up on hundreds of websites. Please, check his video (called Numa Numa Dance) here.

That video appeared later on ABC’s Good Morning America, NBC’s The Tonight Show and VH1’s Best Week Ever. Many parodies have been appearing on the internet, of which these are the most famous ones:

By the way, O-zone finally did a presentation on the Japanese TV, in which they used parts of the Flash Video. See that presentation here.

Conclusion: if you want to be really famous you can either do something really great (like finding the cure for Cancer), or just post something silly on the Internet. Good luck!

Risk Assessment and Management Responsibility

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:00:00 +0000

First and foremost, my heart is with the American people, most especially with the people from New Orleans who have lost a loved someone, a friend, a home, anything, everything. There’s nothing I can do from here to make things better, except to tell you that my heart is with you all.

I’ve been following the news coming from the USA with much sorrow. Things are going really bad for the people who couldn’t (or didn’t want to) move from the Capital of Jazz when Katrina was predicted to hit the city, and many Americans are blaming the government for not acting faster in solving the crisis. It’s true; many things seem to have gone wrong: The city emergency plan considered the use of school and municipal buses in the event of an evacuation, but they weren’t deployed; people was sent to the Superdome, but no food nor water was available for everybody, and security there was minimum; the Federal Government (Bush et al) responded too slowly to the disaster when a quick response was needed; and so on. Days before the catastrophe, it was known that Katrina could cause a real major emergency in New Orleans, but emergency plans were not executed. So, who’s to blame? The ones who did not activate the Emergency Plan on time? Or the ones who did not grant the resources to manage the crisis in a timely manner?

Ok, let me introduce you to another approach: Risk Assessment. When you deal with many risks (from the management of a gas station to the management of a whole country) and have a tight budget (as it always happens), you should prioritize your resources by using them where they are most necessary. How do you do this? You classify your risks by their magnitude and their likelihood, and assign a priority degree, from high to low. Then, you assign your resources to the higher risks, because there’s where you can be hit harder. In the case of the USA, this assessment was already done by the Federal Emergency Management Agency before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and listed the three most likely catastrophic disasters that they faced by then: a terrorist attack on New York, a major earthquake in San Francisco and a hurricane strike on New Orleans.

This is how things happen: first, you do a Risk Assessment, then the Top Management analyses the data, and assigns resources to deal with the higher risks, and then a team is assigned to manage those resources and to “fix the risks”. When that’s done, you repeat the cycle, until all the risks are below a sound level. But then, what had happened in the USA? The analysis was done but the resources were allocated somewhere else (Irak?), and the higher risks were not faced. Result? From those three, two have already happened.

I used to work for a huge international corporation. If that company was in the position of the USA, meaning having two major crises from three already identified major risks, without having assigned adequate resources to face them, the Top Management would be history. Gone. Kaput. Because, you know what?, this is NOT how you face risks. This is not satisfactory Management.

I will say no more about this. Many Americans are discussing right now and realizing where the responsibilities lay. I only hope that the souls of those who lost their lives on New Orleans rest in peace, and that everybody else can resume his or hers normal live pretty soon.

Once again, my heart is with you New Orleans.

The Day After Tomorrow

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:00:00 +0000

Did you happen to see The Day After Tomorrow? It was a really bad movie about global warming (and then a sudden glacial age, but I didn’t get that). It was a fantastic (I mean, difficult to believe) story that made us all laugh because of how fast the global warming was depicted to occur.

Well, those laughs can now become tears...

I live in the city where the Kyoto Protocol was signed (and agreed). A total of 153 countries (accounting for over 61% of global emissions) ratified the treaty thereafter, with the notable exception of the USA (They signed the Protocol here in Kyoto, but then decided not to ratify it, because it would cause much harm to their industries, and because it was not proved that there was a global warming happening...)

Now, after the tragic events at New Orleans that follow a series of terrible hurricanes hitting North America, after a El Niño getting worse year by year, after the glaciers in Peru that are retreating 20 meters every year (yes, 20 meters every year), after finding that the North Polar Cap has shrunk more than 20 percent since 1979, can the USA, Australia and all the countries that have not ratified the treaty, continue doing nothing? Can they really keep saying that the world is not changing? That it’s not getting warmer year after year? That economical reasons are beyond world climate health?

For our good, I hope not.

Please, ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Maybe you won’t know how good it was, but your grandchildren will.

Yesterday was the BlogDay!

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:00:00 +0000

Don't ask me how, but someone (with a huge imagination) found out that the word Blog looks like 3108, and from there, every 31/08 (August 31st) will be called the BlogDay.

Anyway, don't expect it to be a holiday. If you're a blogger, you're supposed to post at least 5 links of pages that you find interesting, but have nothing to do with your usual blogging themes. So, here's my list:

Dooce Heather Armstrong's blog, which got her fired from her job. Did you ever heard about beeing dooced? This is the place!
David Byrne Yes, it's David Byrne's blog! And while being there, take a look at Radio DavidByrne
GoogleBlog Yes, the blog of the guys at Google. Cool Google news that you can know, even before the geekiest Chris...
Blogger Templates Got bored of your plain template? This is the place to look for a new one! Works well only with Blogspot. Sorry

And these two are in Spanish (sorry!):

Vero Linda Pechocha The cutest intelligent girl's blog you could ever find (kawaiiiiii...)
Monos y Monadas Yes, the famous humor magazine best covers!

Enjoy!

I´m not famous... Am I?

noreply@blogger.com (Giancarlo) — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 04:00:00 +0000

Hey! I was not expecting this! I don't know how it happened, and I don't know how to make it happen again. But it's a cool once in a lifetime experience!

The main newspaper in my country, El Comercio, has just published this week's Blogs of Note list and Desde Japón, my blog in Spanish, is mentioned there!!! (Click here for an automatic translation of El Comercio).

A rough translation says: "Desde Japón - Log book by Giancarlo Flores, a young student that has been studying in Kyoto for a year, telling us his adventures in the Japanese society. His blog lets us know some of the little unpublished aspects of the experiences of the Peruvians living in Japan".

Short but cool, ain't it?