Como evitar fake news, imagenes falsas, photoshop y demas scams en la media de internet

Video: france24english

Y cuidado, porque muy pronto, podrías creerte esto y pasar a ser una oveja engañada mas:

Video: buzzfeedvideo

Y ahora la parte divertida:

Video: Azerrz

Video: Azerrz

Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? – 4 Parts

PRIMERA PARTE: EL LADO MORAL DEL HOMICIDIO

Si tuvieras que elegir entre

(1) matar a una persona para salvar la vida de otras cinco personas y,

(2) no hacer nada aunque supieras que cinco personas morirían ante tus ojos si no hicieras nada:

¿Qué harías? ¿Qué sería lo correcto?

Ese es el escenario hipotético que el profesor Michael Sandel usa para iniciar su curso sobre el razonamiento moral. Luego de que la mayoría de los estudiantes votara por matar a una persona para salvar la vida de otras cinco, Sandel presenta tres acertijos morales similares, cada uno ingeniosamente diseñado para hacer la decisión más difícil. A medida que los estudiantes se ponen de pie para defender sus opciones conflictivas, queda claro que las suposiciones detrás de nuestro razonamiento moral a menudo son contradictorias, y la pregunta de qué es correcto y qué está mal no siempre está en blanco y negro.

SEGUNDA PARTE: UN CASO SOBRE CANIBALISMO

Sandel presenta los principios del filósofo utilitarista, Jeremy Bentham, con un conocido caso del siglo XIX que involucra a cuatro náufragos. Después de diecinueve días perdidos en el mar, el capitán decide matar al más débil entre ellos, el joven grumete, para que el resto pueda alimentarse de su sangre y su cuerpo para sobrevivir. El caso fija un debate en el aula sobre la validez moral del utilitarismo, y su doctrina de que lo correcto es lo que produce “el mayor bien para el mayor número”.

PRIMERA PARTE: PONERLE PRECIO A LA VIDA

Hoy, las empresas y los gobiernos usan la lógica utilitaria de Jeremy Bentham bajo el nombre de “análisis de costo-beneficio”. Sandel presenta algunos casos contemporáneos en los que se utilizó el análisis de costo-beneficio para poner un valor en dólares en la vida humana. Los casos dan lugar a varias objeciones a la lógica utilitaria de buscar el mayor bien para el mayor número.

¿Deberíamos dar más peso a la felicidad de la mayoría, incluso si la mayoría es cruel o innoble?

¿Es posible resumir y comparar todos los valores usando una medida común como el dinero?

SEGUNDA PARTE: CÓMO MEDIR EL PLACER

Sandel nos presenta a Jhon Stuart Mill, un filósofo utilitarista que intenta defender el dicha corriente contra las objeciones planteadas por los críticos de la doctrina. Mill argumenta que buscar el mayor bien para el mayor número es compatible con la protección de los derechos individuales, y que el utilitarismo puede hacer espacio para una distinción entre placeres superiores e inferiores. La idea de Mills es que el mayor placer siempre es el placer preferido por una mayoría bien informada. Sandel prueba esta teoría al reproducir videoclips de tres formas muy diferentes de entretenimiento: Shakespeares Hamlet, el reality show Fear Factor y The Simpsons. Los estudiantes debaten qué experiencia proporciona el mayor placer, y si la defensa de Mills del utilitarismo es exitosa.

En: youtube/harvarduniversity

Run, Hide, Fight – Campañas para enfrentar tiroteos en Universidades Estadounidenses

A estas alturas es ridículo pensar que en las universidades de países latinoamericanos ocurran este tipo de tragedias. Sin embargo en los Estados Unidos los simulacros y practicas para enfrentar situaciones en las que se dan tiroteos al azar son algo común. En el fondo de todo esto hay un serio problema con la Segunda Enmienda de la Constitución de los EE.UU. la cual, como derecho de las personas, permite que los Estadounidenses tengan el derecho a portar armas para su protección.

Un tema debatible desde que un sector de la población señala que esta enmienda es pétrea y no debería modificarse o interpretarse, mientras que otro indica que los tiempos cambian y se necesita una acción madura y acorde con la actual situacion de la sociedad para limitar este derecho dados los trágicos eventos que se cuentan desde el tiroteo en Columbine, la tragedia de la escuela primaria Sandy Hook,  pasando por la masacre de Las Vegas en 2017, hasta el ultimo tiroteo en Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida este ultimo mes de febrero de 2018.

En serio, para que un civil necesitaría un arma semi-automática que dispara decenas de balas en solo segundos? Cual es la necesidad? Para que convertir un rifle normal en uno automático? Tiene sentido? Pues no. Ahora se indica que quieren armar a los profesores en escuelas y universidades para enfrentar este problema. Sin embargo esa no es la solución en la sociedad aunque tal vez sea la solución para las manufactureras de armas y la Asociación Nacional del Rifle (NRA) que financia las campañas políticas especialmente  de los representantes y senadores Republicanos para que estos, una vez en el poder, promuevan leyes que beneficien a este sector de la producción.  Armar a todo el mundo solo va a beneficiarlos a ellos, y eso es terrible.

Por otro lado, los Republicanos siempre que suceden estas desgracias tienden a ofrecer “prayers” u oraciones para las victimas: “My condolences and prayers for the victims and their families”. Siempre lo mismo. Nunca dicen: “My condolences to the victim’s families. This time I’ll make sure to take a quick action in both chambers of the Congress in order to strike this problem”. Jamas dirian eso! Lo que deberían hacer en lugar de ello es tomar acción de una buena vez para debatir el tema del control de armas en el pais de forma madura, reflexiva y autocritica.

Profesores, símbolo de autoridad en las escuelas, ahora estarán armados al mismo estilo de una cárcel. Si, las escuelas ahora parecerán cárceles. El Director sera el Alcaide, los profesores serán guardias de seguridad y los estudiantes asemejaran a reos o convictos. No es eso aterrador?

Republicanos, en una interpretación básica de la Constitución de los Estados Unidos, culpan al tirador; mientras que los Demócratas culpan a las políticas permisivas y laxas que permiten a cualquier persona adquirir un arma como si fuera a comprar una gaseosa o el pan de la mañana. Lo cierto es que tanta discusión va a caer en saco roto, se van a olvidar y hasta que ocurra otro nuevo incidente, el tema volverá a discutirse sin ningún viso de solución mas aun en pleno gobierno Republicano.

Presidente de Servir renunció: Indulto quiebra los principios del Estado

Juan Carlos Cortés presentó su carta de renuncia a la premier Mercedes Aráoz. “Me debo a mi mismo y a mi familia la coherencia y el respeto a mis propios valores morales”, dijo.

Juan Carlos Cortes, ex presidente ejecutivo de Servir. Imagen: https://prod.media.larepublica.pe/720×405/larepublica/imagen/2017/12/26/noticia-funcionario-servir.jpg

Juan Carlos Cortés Carcelén, presidente ejecutivo y miembro del Consejo Directivo de la Autoridad Nacional del Servicio Civil, dio a conocer este martes su renuncia irrevocable al cargo en un oficio dirigido a la presidenta del Consejo de Ministros, Mercedes Aráoz.

Según argumenta el funcionario, su decisión es una respuesta que condice a los principios que defiende y que no convergen con el indulto humanitario que otorgó el presidente Pedro Pablo Kuczynski al exdictador Alberto Fujimori.

“Considero que lo que ha sucedido el día 24 de diciembre (…) quiebran no solo las bases del Estado de Derecho, sino principalmente esos principios que estamos obligados como funcionarios públicos a promover y defender”, expresó.

Como se recuerda, a pocas horas de la Nochebuena, el mandatario otorgó el indulto y derecho de gracia a Fujimori, quien venía cumpliendo una condena de 25 años por los delitos de La Cantuta, Barrios Altos y secuestros al periodista Gustavo Gorriti y el empresario Samuel Dyer.

“En mi vida como servidor del Estado me he regido por principios éticos que hoy se sienten socavados y me obligan a tomar esta decisión. Me debo a mi mismo y a mi familia la coherencia y el respeto a mis propios valores morales”, acotó.

En el transcurso del día han presentado sus renuncias otros funcionarios del Ministerio de Justiciapor estar disconformes con el otorgamiento del beneficio presidencial.

En: larepublica

Se le descubrió la mentira a fujimorista Salaverry en Canal N, entrevista con Mavila Huertas 19/Dic/2017

Department of Homeland Security planning to collect social media info on all immigrants

The Department of Homeland Security has moved to collect social media information on all immigrants, including permanent residents and naturalized citizens.

new rule published in the Federal Register last week calls to include “social media handles and aliases, associated identifiable information and search results” in the department’s immigrant files.

BuzzFeed News first reported the new rule on Monday. It is set to go into effect on Oct. 18 after a public comment period.

According to BuzzFeed, the new rule could also affect U.S. citizens who communicate with immigrants on social media by making their conversations the subject of government surveillance.

Read more at: thehill

Estos son los nuevos ministros de PPK, luego de la cuestión de confianza denegada a Zavala por parte del Congreso Fujimorista

  • Mercedes Aráoz es la Jefa del Consejo de Ministros.
  • José Manuel Hernández es ratificado como ministro de Agricultura.
  • Fernando D’Alessio, juramenta como nuevo ministro de Salud. 
  • Idel Vexler, Nuevo ministro de Educación. (posibles modificaciones en la Nueva Ley Universitaria, vinculo con la USMP, y erradicación del enfoque de genero en la educación escolar peruana)
  • Enrique Mendoza, juramenta como nuevo ministro de Justicia. (posibilidad de indulto a Alberto Fujimori)
  • Carlos Basombrío juramenta y se mantiene en la cartera del Ministerio del Interior.
  • Claudia Cooper, nueva ministra de Economía y Finanzas reemplaza a Fernando Zavala.
  • Jorge Nieto Montesinos es ratificado en el Ministerio de Defensa.
  • Ricardo Luna juramenta y se mantiene como ministro de Relaciones Exteriores.
  • Alfonso Grados se mantiene en la cartera del Ministerio de Trabajo y Promoción del Empleo.
  • Pedro Olaechea, congresista de Peruanos por el Kambio, es ratificado en el Ministerio de la Producción.
  • Eduardo Ferreyros se mantiene como ministro de Comercio Exterior y Turismo.
  • Cayetana Aljovin se mantiene en el Ministerio de Energía y Minas.
  • Carlos Bruce Montes de Oca, nuevo Ministro de Vivienda Construcción y Saneamiento.
  • Bruno Giuffra, se mantiene a la cabeza del Ministerio de Transportes y Comunicaciones.
  • Ana María Choquehuanca se mantiene como ministra de la Mujer y Poblaciones Vulnerables.
  • Elsa Galarza juramenta como ministra de Ambiente.
  • Salvador del Solar se mantiene en el Ministerio de Cultura.

Leer: ¿Por qué causa polémica Idel Vexler en el ministerio de Educación?

Trump Moves to End DACA and Calls on Congress to Act

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Tuesday ordered an end to the Obama-era program that shields young undocumented immigrants from deportation, calling it an “amnesty-first approach” and urging Congress to pass a replacement before he begins phasing out its protections in six months.

As early as March, officials said, some of the 800,000 young adults brought to the United States illegally as children who qualify for the program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, will become eligible for deportation. The five-year-old policy allows them to remain without fear of immediate removal from the country and gives them the right to work legally.

Mr. Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who announced the change at the Justice Department, both used the aggrieved language of anti-immigrant activists, arguing that those in the country illegally are lawbreakers who hurt native-born Americans by usurping their jobs and pushing down wages.

Mr. Trump said in a statement that he was driven by a concern for “the millions of Americans victimized by this unfair system.” Mr. Sessions said the program had “denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same illegal aliens to take those jobs.”

Protests broke out in front of the White House and the Justice Department and in cities across the country soon after Mr. Sessions’s announcement. Democrats and some Republicans, business executives, college presidents and immigration activists condemned the move as a coldhearted and shortsighted effort that was unfair to the young immigrants and could harm the economy.

“This is a sad day for our country,” Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook founder, wrote on his personal page. “It is particularly cruel to offer young people the American dream, encourage them to come out of the shadows and trust our government, and then punish them for it.”

Former President Barack Obama, who had warned that any threat to the program would prompt him to speak out, called his successor’s decision “wrong,” “self-defeating” and “cruel.”

“Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn’t threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us,” Mr. Obama wrote on Facebook.

Both he and Mr. Trump said the onus was now on lawmakers to protect the young immigrants as part of a broader overhaul of the immigration system that would also toughen enforcement.

But despite broad and longstanding bipartisan support for measures to legalize unauthorized immigrants brought to the United States as children, the odds of a sweeping immigration deal in a deeply divided Congress appeared long. Legislation to protect the “dreamers” has also repeatedly died in Congress.

Just hours after the angry reaction to Mr. Trump’s decision, the president appeared to have second thoughts. In a late-evening tweet, Mr. Trump specifically called on Congress to “legalize DACA,” something his administration’s officials had declined to do earlier in the day.

Mr. Trump also warned lawmakers that if they do not legislate a program similar to the one Mr. Obama created through executive authority, he will “revisit this issue!” — a statement sure to inject more uncertainty into the ultimate fate of the young, undocumented immigrants who have been benefiting from the program since 2012.

Conservatives praised Mr. Trump’s move, though some expressed frustration that he had taken so long to rescind the program and that the gradual phaseout could mean that some immigrants retained protection from deportation until October 2019.

The White House portrayed the decision as a matter of legal necessity, given that nine Republican state attorneys general had threatened to sue to halt the program immediately if Mr. Trump did not act.

Months of internal White House debate preceded the move, as did the president’s public display of his own conflicted feelings. He once referred to DACA recipients as “incredible kids.”

The president’s wavering was reflected in a day of conflicting messages from him and his team. Hours after his statement was released, Mr. Trump told reporters that he had “great love” for the beneficiaries of the program he had just ended.

“I have a love for these people, and hopefully now Congress will be able to help them and do it properly,” he said. But he notably did not endorse bipartisan legislation to codify the program’s protections, leaving it unclear whether he would back such a solution.

Mr. Trump’s aides were negotiating late into Monday evening with one another about precisely how the plan to wind down the program would be executed. Until Tuesday morning, some aides believed the president had settled on a plan that would be more generous, giving more of the program’s recipients the option to renew their protections.

But even taking into account Mr. Trump’s contradictory language, the rollout of his decision was smoother than his early moves to crack down on immigration, particularly the botched execution in January of his ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

In addition to the public statement from Mr. Sessions and a White House question-and-answer session, the president was ready on Tuesday with the lengthy written statement, and officials at the Justice and Homeland Security Departments provided detailed briefings and distributed information to reporters in advance.

Mr. Trump sought to portray his move as a compassionate effort to head off the expected legal challenge that White House officials said would have forced an immediate and highly disruptive end to the program. But he also denounced the policy, saying it helped spark a “massive surge” of immigrants from Central America, some of whom went on to become members of violent gangs like MS-13. Some immigration critics contend that programs like DACA, started under Mr. Obama, encouraged Central Americans to enter the United States, hoping to stay permanently. Tens of thousands of migrants surged across America’s southern border in the summer of 2014, many of them children fleeing dangerous gangs.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, indicated that Mr. Trump would support legislation to “fix” the DACA program, as long as Congress passed it as part of a broader immigration overhaul to strengthen the border, protect American jobs and enhance enforcement.

“The president wants to see responsible immigration reform, and he wants that to be part of it,” Ms. Sanders said, referring to a permanent solution for the young immigrants. “Something needs to be done. It’s Congress’s job to do that. And we want to be part of that process.”

Later on Tuesday, Marc Short, Mr. Trump’s top legislative official, told reporters on Capitol Hill that the White House would release principles for such a plan in the coming days, input that at least one key member of Congress indicated would be crucial.

“It is important that the White House clearly outline what kind of legislation the president is willing to sign,” Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said in a statement. “We have no time to waste on ideas that do not have the votes to pass or that the president won’t sign.”

The announcement was an effort by Mr. Trump to honor the law-and-order message of his campaign, which included a repeated pledge to end Mr. Obama’s immigration policy, while seeking to avoid the emotionally charged and politically perilous consequences of targeting a sympathetic group of immigrants.

Mr. Trump’s decision came less than two weeks after he pardoned Joe Arpaio, the former Arizona sheriff who drew intense criticism for his aggressive pursuit of unauthorized immigrants, which earned him a criminal contempt conviction.

The blame-averse president told a confidante over the past few days that he realized that he had gotten himself into a politically untenable position. As late as one hour before the decision was to be announced, administration officials privately expressed concern that Mr. Trump might not fully grasp the details of the steps he was about to take, and when he discovered their full impact, would change his mind, according to a person familiar with their thinking who was not authorized to comment on it and spoke on condition of anonymity.

But ultimately, the president followed through on his campaign pledge at the urging of Mr. Sessions and other hard-line members inside his White House, including Stephen Miller, his top domestic policy adviser.

The announcement started the clock on revoking legal status from those protected under the program.

Officials said DACA recipients whose legal status expires on or before March 5 would be able to renew their two-year period of legal status as long as they apply by Oct. 5. But the announcement means that if Congress fails to act, immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children could face deportation as early as March 6 to countries where many left at such young ages that they have no memory of them.

Immigration officials said they did not intend to actively target the young immigrants as priorities for deportation, though without the program’s protection, they would be considered subject to removal from the United States and would no longer be able to work legally.

Officials said some of the young immigrants could be prevented from returning to the United States if they traveled abroad.

Immigration advocates took little comfort from the administration’s assurances, describing the president’s decision as deeply disturbing and vowing to shift their demands for protections to Capitol Hill.

Marielena Hincapié, the executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, called Mr. Trump’s decision “nothing short of hypocrisy, cruelty and cowardice.” Maria Praeli, a recipient of protection under the program, criticized Mr. Sessions and Mr. Trump for talking “about us as if we don’t matter and as if this isn’t our home.”

The Mexican foreign ministry issued a statement saying the “Mexican government deeply regrets” Mr. Trump’s decision.

As recently as July, Mr. Trump expressed skepticism about the prospect of a broad legislative deal.

“What I’d like to do is a comprehensive immigration plan,” he told reporters. “But our country and political forces are not ready yet.”

As for DACA, he said: “There are two sides of a story. It’s always tough.”

In: nytimes