CEP emite informe crítico sobre Reforma Tributaria y dice que no tendrá impacto en reducir la desigualdad -
Osea, ¿Según el CEP la reforma tributaria no sirve porque no afectará la manera en que se mide la desigualdad?
Considerando que esa afirmación fuera verdad (que no es el tema ahora), en mi opinión que un índice no sea afectado importa poco si la desigualdad efectivamente disminuye. El problema acá parece ser la huincha y la forma de argumentar del CEP, basado en un índice, le quita validez al mismo.
“Los indicadores que habitualmente se utilizan para compararnos con los países de la OCDE no sufrirán mayores cambios en el corto plazo. Esto es así, porque el índice en el que nos comparamos es el coeficiente Gini después de impuestos y transferencias monetarias”, explica el informe.
Agrega que el grueso de esa reducción en la mayoría de los países de la OCDE “se explica por transferencias monetarias y mucho menos por la estructura tributaria. Pero en Chile éstas no van a aumentar significativamente con la reforma tributaria, ya que el grueso de ella se va a destinar a bienes y servicios que los hogares reciben sólo indirectamente (y, por lo tanto, no son consideradas en el indicador Gini que compara a los países OCDE en desigualdad)”.
La Universidad Pública -
Después de leer esta columna pensé justamente en un ejemplo paradigmático de una universidad privada, pero con una vocación pública innegable, toda vez que es administrada por una corporación sin fines de lucro (a la estadounidense): la Universidad Federico Santa María.
Pero claro, tal y cual como lograron que la Corporación Santa Cecilia vendiera su participación accionara en SOPROLE y PROLESUR a Fonterra, también pueden lograr que una corporación modifique sus estatutos y comience a priorizar… “el avance económico del país”, por ejemplo (con todas las posibles interpretaciones que esta frase pudiera tener).
Y esta garantía institucional no puede darse en términos del derecho privado, porque el derecho privado siempre permite que, concurriendo todas las voluntades privadas que deban concurrir, los términos de una relación (el contrato, los estatutos de una corporación) sean modificados. Por eso, no es suficiente que una universidad privada desempeñe en los hechos alguna función pública. Debe hacerlo sujeta a un régimen que hace imposible para su controlador cambiar la orientación pública de la universidad, intervenir en su gobierno, afectar la posición de sus académicos.
When I heard that my 21-year-old son, a student at Harvard, had been stopped by New York City police on more than one occasion during the brief summer he spent as a Wall Street intern, I was angry.
On one occasion, while wearing his best business suit, he was forced to lie face-down on a filthy sidewalk because—well, let’s be honest about it, because of the color of his skin. As an attorney and a college professor who teaches criminal justice classes, I knew that his constitutional rights had been violated.
As a parent, I feared for his safety at the hands of the police—a fear that I feel every single day, whether he is in New York or elsewhere.
Moreover, as the white father of an African-American son, I am keenly aware that I never face the suspicion and indignities that my son continuously confronts. In fact, all of the men among my African-American in-laws—and I literally mean every single one of them—can tell multiple stories of unjustified investigatory police stops of the sort that not a single one of my white male relatives has ever experienced.
What I Learned About Stop-and-Frisk From Watching My Black Son - The Atlantic
Nature Publisher Requires Authors To Waive "Moral Rights" To Works - Slashdot -
p>En Chile una claúsula como esa no sería aplicable porque los derechos morales son irrenunciables
cranky_chemist (1592441) writes “Megan O’Neil has published a story on the Chronicle of Higher Education’s website noting some unusual language in the license agreement between authors and Nature Publishing Group. ‘Faculty authors who contract to write for the publisher of Nature, Scientific American, and many other journals should know that they could be signing away more than just the economic rights to their work, according to the director of the Office of Copyright and Scholarly Communication at Duke University. Kevin Smith, the Duke official, said he stumbled across a clause in the Nature Publishing Group’s license agreement last week that states that authors waive or agree not to assert “any and all moral rights they may now or in the future hold” related to their work. In the context of scholarly publishing, “moral rights” include the right of the author always to have his or her name associated with the work and the right to have the integrity of the work protected such that it is not changed in a way that could result in reputational harm.’ Nature Publishing Group claims the waivers are required to ensure the journal’s ability to publish formal retractions and/or corrections. However, the story further notes that Nature Publishing Group is requiring authors at institutions with open-access policies to sign waivers that exempt their work from such policies.”
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Notes from a humorous brainstorming session following the exposure of Cuban Twitter: http://nyr.kr/1mNiUHl
“5. The head of the Africa Team brings the room up to speed on Project Subsistence Farmville.
6. Presentation outlining Project KremlinCupid, a dating site aimed at certain newly single Russian government officials to channel their lust away from other lands and toward other people.”
Photograph by David Lees/Getty.
Usually happens when you argue with idiots
What type of stay-at-home dad are you? Take the humorous quiz: http://nyr.kr/Pc7bEf
3. In the middle of Music Together, your little one has a meltdown, due to intense clanging. As you provide comfort, an admiring mother says, “My husband could never do what you do.” How would you respond?
(a) “I could never do what he does … hence,” and gesture to your screaming kid.
(b) Nurse your child with the milk every man is rumored to have, whispering, “If I can do it, anyone can.”
(c) “Interesting. What else can’t he do?”
(d) “Between the maracas, wailing, and that godforsaken ‘Don Alfredo’ song, I didn’t hear a thing you just said.”
Photograph by Peter Dazeley/Getty.
The era of Facebook is an anomaly -
People seem very afraid of their kids creating different identities on different social networks. Why are teens doing this, and should their parents be concerned?
No, in fact, this is one of the weird oddities about Facebook. Let’s go back to Usenet. People had multiple nicks, they had a field day with this. They would use these multiple “identities” to put forward different facets of who they were. It wasn’t to say that they were trying to be separate individuals. Who you are sitting with me today in this professional role with a shared understanding of social media is different than how you talk to your mom. She may not understand the same things you and I are talking about. At the same time, if you were talking about your past, I’d have none of it and your mother would have a lot of it. This is this moment where you think about how you present yourself differently in these different contexts, not because you’re hiding, but because you’re putting forward what’s relevant there.
The idea of real names being the thing that leads you — that’s not actually what leads us in the physical space. We lead with our bodies. We adjust how we present our bodies by situation. We dress differently, we sit differently, we emote differently. The thing about having everything linked to this universal identifier as though that’s real is just not real. That’s not how this works.
That’s one of the things that teenagers struggle with about Facebook: how to deal with multiple contexts simultaneously. Usually we address context collapse using alcohol in face-to-face environments, like at weddings. Online we don’t have that, so we have to deal with a lot of awkwardness. So of course people are going to have multiple identities.
I got a problem using Google+.
Of course is that nobody uses (ohhh, that’s new!). But, Why?
If you think, one reason could it be that you can’t get data out of Google+.
I kind of understand why is that. It is like: This is the information WE own (you create, it, ok, but as you put it into our service, now we control the way you can share it). That is a change of paradigm since the “all data is yours” , a change that was provoked mainly by Facebook (and in a less degree Twitter), but we all know that.
So the idea of Google is to make your data to stay on Google+ so you need to get into it to access it.
What I really don’t understand is: Why is so hard to get data into Google+?
Because other reason why people don’t use Google+ is because there is nothing to see there.
If you get to Google+ it is almost empty, not just of people, but of content. It has content shared by corporations, but not by people.
Why is that?
Mainly because the API lets you post just in Pages.
So Google doesn’t want you to get your content out of Google+, but they don’t want you to post to it either!
Possible explanations are:
a) Google wants you to get into Google+ not just to consume content, but to share it (or get into any other Google property: you can share content to Google+ from many of other Google properties).
b) Google doesn’t want to have a lot of automated posted content on Google+ (because you can post content from some badges in some pages, at least the ones that think adding the code to share in Google+ worth the effort, which are not many). Now you can post on Google+ but you need to make the decision to share every time, without the API you can’t decide it once and let a robot do it every time for you.
c) Google wants to control where the contents come from. Again, I can think of one exception to the “no automatic posting in Google+” rule: Blogger (the blogging platform they own).
If Google wants to people start using Google+ they need to at least let them add content so when you pass by (like if you want to HangOut) you find reasons to stay there.
A Twitter war on Stephen Colbert -
Ohh, and BTW: I think Suey Park is racist, because she just defends interests of Asians. Why she doesn’t stand for the rights of Hispanics?
He also notes that the entire episode exposes how difficult it is to win Twitter outrage wars:
The weaponised hashtag also takes power from the people who are trying to mock it - Twitter doesn’t discriminate between earnestness and parody. People making fun of the humorlessness and bad faith of the hashtag end up keeping it in the “trending” column.