A grende charrada

Estou a preencher o meu Curriculum Vitae, a coisa agora tem que ser feita num formulário electrónico próprio.

Do referido formulário constam dois campos: "Actuais interesses de investigação" e "Área de actividade científica".

É impressão minha ou trata-se da mesma coisa?

Onde é que a malta que faz estas cenas compra os charros?

A loja do mestre André

Foi na loja do Mestre André
que eu comprei um pifarito,
tiro, liro, lir'um pifarito,
Ai olá, ai olé,
Foi na loja do Mestre André.
Ai olá, ai olé,
Foi na loja do Mestre André.

Foi na loja do Mestre André
que eu comprei um pianinho,
plim plim plim, um pianinho,
tiro, liro, lir'um pifarito,
Ai olá, ai olé,
Foi na loja do Mestre André.
Ai olá, ai olé,
Foi na loja do Mestre André.

Foi na loja do Mestre André
que eu comprei um tamborzinho,
tum tum tum, um tamborzinho,
plim plim plim, um pianinho,
tiro, liro, lir'um pifarito,
Ai olá, ai olé,
Foi na loja do Mestre André.
Ai olá, ai olé,
Foi na loja do Mestre André.

Foi na loja do Mestre André
que eu comprei uma campaínha,
tlim tlim tlim, uma campainha,
tum tum tum, um tamborzinho,
plim plim plim, um pianinho,
tiro, liro, lir'um pifarito,
Ai olá, ai olé,
Foi na loja do Mestre André.
Ai olá, ai olé,
Foi na loja do Mestre André.
Foi na loja do Mestre André
que eu comprei uma rabequinha,
Chiribiri-biri, uma rabequinha,
tlim tlim tlim, uma campainha,
tum tum tum, um tamborzinho,
plim plim plim, um pianinho,
tiro, liro, lir'um pifarito,
Ai olá, ai olé,
Foi na loja do Mestre André.
Ai olá, ai olé,
Foi na loja do Mestre André.

Foi na loja do Mestre André
que eu comprei um rabecão,
Chiribiribão, um rabecão,
Chiribiri-biri, uma rabequinha,
tlim tlim tlim, uma campainha,
tum tum tum, um tamborzinho,
plim plim plim, um pianinho,
tiro, liro, lir'um pifarito,
Ai olá, ai olé,
Foi na loja do Mestre André.
Ai olá, ai olé,
Foi na loja do Mestre André.

És mas é uma ganda tóino é o que é

Ainda no programa da Maria Elisa sobre os grandes portugueses esteve um grande português, Catedrético do Departamento de História da Universidade de Coimbra. Deu um grande responso à Maria Elisa, ali à frente do público todo do prime time, por ela o ter apresentado como Professor e não como Doutor. Dizia ele que lá em Coimbra têm essa tradição.

Ou eu percebi mal (o que pode ser o caso), ou então no Instituto Superior Técnico temos exactamente a mesma tradição, está convencionado que nos devemos dirigir a quem pertence à carreira docente universitária por "Professor" ou "Professor Doutor" em circunstâncias mais formais, já se a pessoa a quem nos dirigimos pertencer à carreira de investigacção o título a usar é o de "Doutor". Nas portas dos gabinetes os investigadores universitários têm escrito "Doutor" por extenso, e os meros doutorados (como eu) têm escrito "Dr." abreviado. Aliás no meu caso eu nem tenho o nome na porta.

Em Inglaterra nas portas têm escrito "Dr", "Prof" ou "FRS" (Fellow of the Royal Society), mas nas conversas usa-se apenas o primeiro nome. O John Pendry (FRS) que é candidato ao prémio nóbel da física, no Imperial, é tratado por toda a gente por "John" e chega-lhe bem.

Um colega meu, português, aluno dele teve um grande choque quando chegou ao Imperial e viu a secretária chama-lo com um simples e sonoro "Johhhhhnnnnn". Consta que se recuperou.

E tudo isto para poder chamar "Faxista" ao José Hermano Saraiva!

Grandes Portugueses: o baile está armado

Ó meus grandes asnos, votem no Marques Mendes, ou no caralho que vos foda, mas deixem o Oliveira de Santa Comba dormir descansado na campa. Razão tem o RAP que aquela merda está transformada numa grande palhaçada, e que isso é inaceitável porque é concorrência desleal aos programas dele, que de resto, como a Maria Elisa reconheceu, têm maiores audiências.

como diria o maradona: a paneleirada como uma mera questão epistemológica

O Bruno Sena Martins cita aqui uma frase que merece análise:

Não vai passar a música a tentar perceber se "é gajo ou gaja", descontraia e deixe isso para as crónicas do João César.

No fundo ele coloca o cerne do acto sexual numa certa entrega ao prazer e coloca a questão de saber o género de quem propícia esse prazer ao nível da epistemologia.

Em se tratando de epistemologia eu espero que o João Miranda concorde.

Por Deus

«"A vida humana deve ser protegida desde o início. Aliás, existem mais razões para a proteger do que para preservar tantos animais e vegetais que, hoje, são alvo (e ainda bem) das preocupações ambientalistas.", Francisco Sarsfield Cabral, segundo o Blogue do Não.

Por Deus, digam-me que eu não posso interpretar isto como: "Quem vai votar Sim no próximo referendo sobre o Aborto está a tratar o feto humano como algo de menor importância que os animais". É que não é raro andar com o Sarslield Cabral no eléctrico 15 e receio que me dê alguma coisinha má da próxima vez que o vir.» maradona

As coisas que um gajo descobre quando o blogger vai pró caralho

[ 12-10-2006 ] As Bolsas de Pos-Doutoramento que forem lacradas até ao final de Janeiro de 2007 poderão ter inicio em data a escolher pelos candidatos mas nunca anterior a 1 de Março de 2007.

Grandes Britânicos: Mary Queen of Scots

Grandes Portugueses: José Gil

José Gil (Muecate, Moçambique 1939) é um filósofo e ensaista português. Os seus trabalhos são em língua francesa e portuguesa. Estudou em França, nomeadamente com o filósofo Gilles Deleuze. Leciona filosofia na Universidade Nova de Lisboa e no Colégio International de Filosofia (Collège international de Philosophie) em Paris.

in pt.wikipedia.org

Grandes diálogos

- A mim nada me move contra os homosexuais.
- Pois, se calhar, já vai sendo altura de assumir isso.

Carla Hilário Quevedo

A grande contribuição da Carla Hilário Quevedo para a blogosfera lusa foi a invenção do vocábulo endolinque.

When science and theology meet, Catholic Church ready to reject intelligent design by Declan Butler

Este é um debate em que eu sempre me manifestei com alguma relutância, sabe deus porquê, mas a abrunho pediu-me para chamar a vossa atenção para o seguinte texto da Nature e é com todo o gosto que eu aqui vos deixo este belo naco de prosa. Não querem lá ver que há por aí quem queira ser mais papista do que o próprio Papa.

Nature 443, 10-11(7 September 2006); Published online 6 September 2006

Religion is religion, science is science, and good fences make good neighbours. That seems likely to be the thrust of an expected clarification by the Roman Catholic Church of its position on biological evolution, according to a prominent biologist who spoke at a retreat on the topic held last weekend by Pope Benedict XVI.

This outcome would be a blow to supporters of intelligent design who had hoped that factions in the Vatican sympathetic to their ideas might prevail in an internal feud over evolution that has opened since the death of Pope John Paul II in April last year. That could have given a global axis to what has been largely a US cultural phenomenon.

John Paul II perhaps did more than any pontiff to reconcile faith and science, declaring in 1980 that there was no contradiction between the two. He subsequently described darwinian evolution as more than a hypothesis, and in 1992 officially rehabilitated Galileo Galilei, admitting the Church's fault. Benedict XVI, however, has long been more ambiguous on the topic. In his first mass as Pope, he stated that "we are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution".

Last year, the prominent Cardinal Christoph Schönborn wrote an article in The New York Times expressing doubts about darwinism. He also seemed to advocate intelligent design, a movement whose advocates seek to give creationism scientific credibility by arguing that the complexity of science can be explained only by divine intervention in the process of evolution.

Although Schönborn has since back-pedalled on the way his ideas were expressed in the article, the piece fuelled rumours that Rome, which currently endorses darwinian evolution and rejects any literal interpretation of biblical creation, might instead endorse intelligent design.

Speculation increased last month when Schönborn announced that creation and evolution would be the topic of the Pope's annual retreat, to be held in Castel Gandolfo near Rome. As a former cardinal and German theology professor, Joseph Ratzinger has long held this informal gathering, where he discusses a hot topic with his past students. But the retreat has taken on new significance since Ratzinger became Pope.

Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, which represents the intelligent-design movement, welcomed the choice of topic in a press release published on the institute's website last week. In it he wrote: "What's good about all this is that they're taking up the issue seriously...it will be conducted at a very high level and I think it should give cheer to people who are critics of Darwinism."

Schönborn was one of four invited speakers at the meeting, which also included Robert Spaemann, a conservative German philosopher, and Paul Erbrich, a Jesuit priest who questions the random nature of evolution. The fourth speaker, the only working scientist present, was Peter Schuster, a molecular biologist and president of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

In a break with tradition, the proceedings of the meeting will be published later this year, says Schuster, with a preface written by the Pope. The message will be to promote dialogue between faith and reason, Schuster says. Given the power struggles within the Church, however, the precise outcome of the overall debate is impossible to predict, he says: "We have to wait."

But discussions at the meeting suggest that the Church will probably affirm a form of theistic evolution, which posits the general principle that biological evolution is valid, although set in motion by God. At the same time, it seems likely to reject the fundamental intelligent-design principle that God was a watchmaker, intervening in the details. "Intelligent design as an intervention of God during evolution will not be an outcome," predicts Schuster. "I got the impression that there was general agreement that evolutionary biology is a undeniable science and not a hypothesis."

The Pope in particular "immediately accepted that theology is not going to interfere with science", Schuster adds. "He is not a scientist, but I was surprised by the sharpness of his intellect. He wanted to be informed; he was very interested in science."

But although there is likely to be agreement that the Church should not attempt to question the basic theory of evolution, those at the meeting were also adamant that science should not stray into theology. Schuster says there was a wide desire to address the Church's concern that darwinism is being extrapolated as a wider metaphysical stance. This argues that we are random products of evolution, and that there is therefore no need for God. "I agree that, as in science, everyone should stay within their realms of competence," says Schuster.

Sem comentários

(com a devida vénia para o Santiago)

Listen to your teacher. Repeat after me:
I won't grow up,
(I won't grow up)
I don't want to go to school.
(I don't want to go to school)
Just to learn to be a parrot,
(Just to learn to be a parrot)
And recite a silly rule.
(And recite a silly rule)
If growing up means
It would be beneath my dignity to climb a tree,
I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up
Not me!
Not I,
Not me!
Not me!
I won't grow up,
(I won't grow up)
I don't want to wear a tie.
(I don't want to wear a tie)
And a serious expression
(And a serious expression)
In the middle of July.
(In the middle of July)
And if it means I must prepare
To shoulder burdens with a worried air,

I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up
Not me,
Not I,
Not me!
So there!
Never gonna be a man,
I won't!
Like to see somebody try
And make me.
Anyone who wants to try
And make me turn into a man,
Catch me if you can.
I won't grow up.
Not a penny will I pinch.
I will never grow a mustache,
Or a fraction of an inch.
'Cause growing up is awfuller
Than all the awful things that ever were.
I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up,
No sir,
Not I,
Not me,
So there!

I won't grow up!
(I won't grow up)
I will never even try
(I will never even try)
I will do what Peter tells me
(I will do what Peter tells me)
And I'll never ask him why
(And I'll never ask him why)

We won't grow up!
(We won't grow up)
We will never grow a day
(We will never grow a day)
And if someone tries to make it
(And if someone tries to make it)
We will simply run away
(We will simply run away)

I won't grow up!
(I won't grow up)
No, I promise that I won't
(No, I promise that I won't)
I will stay a boy forever
(I will stay a boy forever)
And be banished if I don't!
(And be banished if I don't)

And Never Land will always be
The home of beauty and joy
And neverty
I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up
Not me!
Not me!
Not me!
Not me!
No sir!
Not me!

JPPiana da noite

"São coisas que se pensam e não se dizem.", como diria o outro, é todo um programa.

É Triste Ser-Se Crescido

(Carlos Tê / Rui Veloso)

É triste ser-se crescido
E não ter mais rédea solta
Ir descobrir o sentido
Do mundo à nossa volta

É triste dizer adeus
Aos nossos velhos cantinhos
E ouvir a nossa mãe
A mandar-nos ir sózinhos

Triste é trocar os calções
Por colarinho apertado
Ter cartão de identidade
Já com outro penteado

É triste ser responsável
Guardar horas na cabeça
Ter tantas obrigações
Que fazem andar depressa

Aí como é bom recordar
Esse tempo de criança
às vezes queria parar
Crescer muito também cansa

We shall not indulge in anti americanism

grandes portugueses II

"Eu tenho dois amores"
(pois, pois eu como bom macho português percebo muito bem este rapaz)

Grandes Portugueses

Não questionamos a pátria!

"Correia de Campos pediu aos médicos para «que assumam uma visão democrática e progressista no que se refere à protecção da saúde sexual e reprodutiva da mulher e à Interrupção Voluntária da Gravidez em meio hospitalar como um acto médico cuja legalidade não pode mais ser adiada» e afirmou que se vencer o 'não' no referendo sobre a despenalização da IVG, o Governo «fará cumprir a lei actual» (LUSA via PÚBLICO ONLINE, 16.10.2006).

Quanto a Correia de Campos, pergunto-me se fará cumprir a lei actual -- ou a nova, pós-referendo -- respeitando as convicções individuais e a liberdade, tal como preconiza o Primeiro-Ministro. Ou será que os médicos que são contra a IVG terão de realizar esse actos médicos mesmo que tal seja contra as suas convicções individuais? Não há aqui, tal como no serviço militar, o direito a uma figura semelhante ao objector de consciência?" in Bloguítica

As piores posições sobre o aborto não são as de quem de nós discorda, mas aquelas que resultam das indiçações do líder espiritual ou de pressões de grupo para que se seja progressista, dispensando qualquer análise crítica. Sem querer abusar do tom paternalista, o meu conselho é que aos cronistas do costume o leitor prefira outras fontes onde o aborto é discutido sem grandes estados de alma, sem ataques pessoais, sem distorções e com o desenvolvimento que o problema merece.

Suspeito que se podem estar a avizinhar alterações por aqui.

Fornicar à moda antiga

Ela: Naquele tempo a cópula era praticada em grande medida a seco.
Ele: Sim! É verdade, um pouco de vaselina ou algum tempo gasto em perliminares (aqui deliro) teria, nessa altura, ajudado a trazer muita felicidade a alguns casamentos.

(Em boa verdade não sou detentor da totalidade dos direitos de autor deste micro-diálogo.)

Socorro ajudem-me

Está a dar o "Pedro, o milionário" e eu não tenho loiça para lavar.

O que vai nas caixas de comentários deste blogue

Chamada de atenção para o debate que decorre nesta caixa de comentários entre a abrunho e a Cristina Silva. Eu ultimamente ando tão chalado que prefiro estar calado.

A voz às damas.

Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change

Climate change is real

There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is
occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001). This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.

The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life on Earth – in their absence average temperatures would be about 30 centigrade degrees lower
than they are today. But human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases – including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone,
and nitrous oxide – to rise well above pre-industrial levels. Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000
years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth
century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the average global surface temperatures will continue to increase to between 1.4
centigrade degrees and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990 levels, by 2100.

Reduce the causes of climate change

The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.

(...)

As nations and economies develop over the next 25 years, world primary energy demand is estimated to increase by almost 60%. Fossil fuels, which are responsible for the majority of carbon dioxide emissions produced by human activities, provide valuable resources for many nations and are projected to provide 85% of this demand (IEA 2004). Minimising the amount of this carbon dioxide reaching the
atmosphere presents a huge challenge. There are many potentially cost-effective technological options that could contribute to stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations. These are at various stages of research and development. However barriers to their broad deployment still need to be overcome.

Carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere for many decades. Even with possible lowered emission rates we will be experiencing the impacts of climate change throughout the 21st century and beyond. Failure to implement significant reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions now, will make the job much harder in the future.

Prepare for the consequences of climate change

Major parts of the climate system respond slowly to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. Even if greenhouse gas emissions were stabilised instantly at
today’s levels, the climate would still continue to change as it adapts to the increased emission of recent decades. Further changes in climate are therefore unavoidable. Nations must prepare for them.

The projected changes in climate will have both beneficial and adverse effects at the regional level, for example on water resources, agriculture, natural ecosystems and
human health. The larger and faster the changes in climate, the more likely it is that adverse effects will dominate. Increasing temperatures are likely to increase the frequency and severity of weather events such as heat waves and heavy rainfall. Increasing temperatures could lead to large-scale effects such as melting of large ice sheets (with major impacts on low-lying regions throughout the world). The IPCC estimates that the combined effects of ice melting and sea water expansion
from ocean warming are projected to cause the global mean sea-level to rise by between 0.1 and 0.9 metres between 1990 and 2100. In Bangladesh alone, a 0.5 metre
sea-level rise would place about 6 million people at risk from flooding.

Developing nations that lack the infrastructure or resources to respond to the impacts of climate change will be particularly affected. It is clear that many of the world’s poorest people are likely to suffer the most from climate change. Long-term global efforts to create a more healthy, prosperous and sustainable world may be severely hindered by changes in the climate.

(...)

Conclusion

We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the
issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies. As national science academies, we commit to working with governments to help develop and implement the national and international response to the challenge of
climate change.

G8 nations have been responsible for much of the past greenhouse gas emissions. As parties to the UNFCCC, G8 nations are committed to showing leadership in addressing
climate change and assisting developing nations to meet the challenges of adaptation and mitigation.

We call on world leaders, including those meeting at the Gleneagles G8 Summit in July 2005, to:
· Acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing.
· Launch an international study to explore scientifically informed targets for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and their associated emissions scenarios,
that will enable nations to avoid impacts deemed unacceptable.
· Identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. Recognise that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost.
· Work with developing nations to build a scientific and technological capacity best suited to their circumstances, enabling them to develop innovative solutions to mitigate and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, while
explicitly recognising their legitimate development rights.
· Show leadership in developing and deploying clean energy technologies and approaches to energy efficiency, and share this knowledge with all other nations.
· Mobilise the science and technology community to enhance research and development efforts, which can better inform climate change decisions.

Documento assinado pelas Academias Brasileira, Canadiana, Chinesa, Francesa, Alemã, Indiana, Italiana, Japonesa, Russa, do Reino Unido e dos EUA.

and now for something completelly different

Este post é de facto muito interessante de uma cajadada só mata uma carrada de coelhos ...

como diria a carina: mind the gap between the rain and the platform

Para o Pedro Vieira