Contra la fantasia

(By: Santiago Alba Rico)

El mundo tiene límites; la fantasía no. Genios voladores, transformaciones mágicas, mesas que se llenan solas de comida, duendes que atraviesan las paredes, hadas que hacen desaparecer gigantes (o profetas que separan las aguas del mar con un bastón): los mitos y los cuentos apartan, con un sésamo o un abracadabra, los obstáculos que la geología y la historia colocan en el camino de los humanos. Perrault, los hermanos Grimm, Andersen, Hoffmann, eran grandes fantasiosos que se sacudían las estrecheces del mundo sublunar con ensoñaciones al galope. Pero hay que tener cuidado, porque también Jerjes, que mandó azotar el mar, era un fantasioso, y también lo era Tze Huan-Ti, primer emperador de China, que castigó a una montaña por cortarle el paso; y lo eran Hernán Cortés y Napoléon y Cecil Rhodes. También lo fue Hitler: “un Estado que en la época del envenenamiento de las razas se dedica a cultivar a sus mejores elementos raciales, tiene un día que hacerse señor del mundo”. Y un gran fantasioso es también, claro, el presidente de la multinacional Monsanto: “el glisofato es 100% biodegradable e inocuo para la salud”. Y lo es asimismo -grande, inmensa fantasía- Dominique Strauss-Kahn, el máximo dirigente del FMI: “es posible conciliar la protección social con el crecimiento económico”.

Olvidamos a menudo, en efecto, que vivimos en un mundo dominado, y no liberado, por la fantasía. Hace 70 años, el delirio de la pureza racial y la superioridad aria desbarató Europa y mató a 60 millones de obstáculos en todo el planeta. ¿Y qué pasa hoy con el capitalismo? ¿Derretir los glaciares, descorchar las montañas, perforar los fondos marinos cada vez más deprisa e ilimitadamente? ¿Liberar los vicios individuales para que produzcan bienestar general? ¿Confiar en una solución tecnológica que repare retrospectivamente todos los daños que los “medios de destrucción” ocasionan en su búsqueda de “crecimiento”? ¿Tener siempre un carro nuevo, una casa nueva, un cuerpo nuevo? ¿Estar a favor al mismo tiempo de la igualdad y la desigualdad, de los pobres y de los ricos, del derecho y de la tortura, de la democracia y de la dictadura? Cuando la fantasía, que ignora los límites, pedalea en el aire, sin medios para materializarse, recurre a la magia, como en los cuentos, y hace reír de gozo liberador. Cuando la fantasía, que ignora los límites, dispone de dinero, armas, policía -y aplica cálculos matemáticos y procedimientos racionales de organización y penetra en la tierra como los dientes de una excavadora- el mundo mismo, con sus árboles, sus montes y sus niños, cruje de dolor. Con medios grandes, como los que poseía Hitler, un sueño abstracto puede suprimir millones de criaturas concretas antes de chocar contra la pared; con medios enormes, como los que posee el capitalismo, la pared última, condición de toda existencia y también de toda ensoñación, está a punto de venirse abajo. A esta intervención material de la fantasía, a través del poder o la riqueza, los antiguos griegos la llamaban hybris , el exceso sacrílego, la insubordinación blasfema contra los límites humanos, y era castigada por los dioses con una catástrofe -una “revolución”- que devolvía el mundo a su equilibrio original. Los tiranos, los ricos, los fantasiosos ejecutivos acababan en el Hades haciendo rodar piedras o girando en ruedas de fuego.
El problema de la fantasía capitalista es que apenas si genera una fantasía contraria de justicia automática. Nos gusta, nos parece seria, nos resulta apetecible. Se nos antoja real. Es normal: el capitalismo, que gasta 1 billón de dólares en armas, gasta la mitad de esa cifra en publicidad -con sus carros circulando libremente por carreteras desérticas, sus imperativos terroristas de inmediatez pura y sus accesos mágicos a la salud, la belleza, el prestigio, la felicidad.

Lo contrario de la fantasía, que no reconoce límites, es la imaginación, encadenada a los guisantes y los pañuelos, una facultad muy antigua, muy modesta, muy doméstica, que ha sobrevivido en las circunstancias más adversas (¡incluso bajo el nazismo!) y que, como la memoria, está a punto de sucumbir a la fantasía mercantil. Mientras la fantasía vuela, la imaginación va a pie; mientras la fantasía pasa por encima de todas las criaturas, la imaginación tiene que enhebrarlas una por una para llegar más lejos. En sus trabajosos recorridos horizontales, de un guisante a un guijarro a un pañuelo a un juguete a un niño, empieza desde muy cerca y, por así decirlo, interesadamente: “ese niño podría ser mi hijo”. Luego, de cuerpo en cuerpo, vasta red ferroviaria, ya no puede detenerse y sigue rodando a ras de tierra hasta abarcar potencialmente el conjunto de los seres, que son incontables pero no infinitos .

¿Para qué sirve la imaginación? Básicamente para ponerse en el lugar exacto del otro y para ponerse en el lugar probable de uno mismo. Mediante la pedestre imaginación sentimos como propio el dolor o la felicidad de los demás: eso que llamamos compasión y amor. Bajo el nazismo, nos cuenta Tzvetan Todorov, hubo hombres y mujeres que, no pudiendo soportar el sufrimiento de los judíos, se subían de un salto a los vagones de la muerte (porque saltar al fuego puede ser también un acto reflejo) para compartir con ellos su destino. Pero la imaginación sirve también, al revés, para meter al otro en nuestro propio pellejo. En Madrid, en el año 2010, muchas personas duermen en la calle cubiertas por cartones y a medida que se agrave la crisis su número aumentará. Cuando pasamos al lado de una de ellas jamás se nos ocurre pensar que eso podría ocurrirnos también a nosotros sino que nos dejamos llevar por la fantasía absurda de que nuestros méritos o nuestros dioses excluyen por completo esa posibilidad. Para representarnos el dolor ajeno hace falta imaginación; para representarnos nuestro dolor, nuestra vejez, nuestra muerte futura hace falta también imaginación. Sin imaginación, como se ve, todo es fantasía; y la fantasía asegura los beneficios de Monsanto, la BP y el Banco de Santander, así como nuestra mansedumbre frente a su hybris destructiva.

Las leyes de la oferta y la demanda son injustas: diez hombres piden pan y el mercado da diez chocolatinas a uno solo. Pero es sobre todo una gran fantasía. Porque el mercado sueña irresponsablemente con una oferta infinita y porque -como decía Georgescu-Roegen, pionero en bio-economía- no tiene en cuenta la demanda de las generaciones futuras.

En un textito de 1908, el gran escritor hispano-paraguayo Rafael Barrett parafraseaba la famosa declaración de Montesquieu. Amar a los desconocidos, dar la vida por lo completamente ajeno, es lo más sublime a lo que uno puede aspirar. Está bien amar a la propia familia, pero es mejor el que se sacrifica por la patria, más grande y menos nuestra. Pero es mejor el que se sacrifica por la humanidad, más grande aún y más desconocida. Pero hay algo todavía mejor. Si hubiera -añade Barrett- “otra alma más alta y más profunda que en su seno abrazase el alma de la humanidad misma, el acto supremo sería sacrificar lo que de humano hay en nosotros a la realidad mejor”. Lo cierto es que esa realidad existe y no es Dios: es -concluye el escritor- “la humanidad futura”, cuyas demandas, en efecto, no caben en el mercado.
Esa humanidad futura, en todo caso, no nos es completamente desconocida. A través de nuestros hijos y nuestros nietos podemos ya imaginarla y seguirla generación tras generación, de peldaño en peldaño, con nuestro propio cuerpo, hasta por lo menos (es lo más lejos que yo he llegado) el año 14.825.

Lo raro -qué raro- es que a la fantasía destructiva del mercado la llamen realismo y a la preocupación por nuestros amigos y sus hijos la llamen utopía .

Lara Logan, You Suck

(by: Rolling Stone Magazine)

Lara Logan, come on down! You’re the next guest on Hysterical Backstabbing Jealous Hackfest 2010!

I thought I’d seen everything when I read David Brooks saying out loud in a New York Times column that reporters should sit on damaging comments to save their sources from their own idiocy. But now we get CBS News Chief Foreign Correspondent Lara Logan slamming our own Michael Hastings on CNN’s «Reliable Sources» program, agreeing that the Rolling Stone reporter violated an «unspoken agreement» that journalists are not supposed to «embarrass [the troops] by reporting insults and banter.»
Anyone who wants to know why network television news hasn’t mattered since the seventies just needs to check out this appearance by Logan. Here’s CBS’s chief foreign correspondent saying out loud on TV that when the man running a war that’s killing thousands of young men and women every year steps on his own dick in front of a journalist, that journalist is supposed to eat the story so as not to embarrass the flag. And the part that really gets me is Logan bitching about how Hastings was dishonest to use human warmth and charm to build up enough of a rapport with his sources that they felt comfortable running their mouths off in front of him. According to Logan, that’s sneaky — and journalists aren’t supposed to be sneaky:

«What I find is the most telling thing about what Michael Hastings said in your interview is that he talked about his manner as pretending to build an illusion of trust and, you know, he’s laid out there what his game is… That is exactly the kind of damaging type of attitude that makes it difficult for reporters who are genuine about what they do, who don’t — I don’t go around in my personal life pretending to be one thing and then being something else. I mean, I find it egregious that anyone would do that in their professional life.»
When I first heard her say that, I thought to myself, «That has to be a joke. It’s sarcasm, right?» But then I went back and replayed the clip – no sarcasm! She meant it! If I’m hearing Logan correctly, what Hastings is supposed to have done in that situation is interrupt these drunken assholes and say, «Excuse me, fellas, I know we’re all having fun and all, but you’re saying things that may not be in your best interest! As a reporter, it is my duty to inform you that you may end up looking like insubordinate douche bags in front of two million Rolling Stone readers if you don’t shut your mouths this very instant!» I mean, where did Logan go to journalism school – the Burson-Marsteller agency?
But Logan goes even further that that. See, according to Logan, not only are reporters not supposed to disclose their agendas to sources at all times, but in the case of covering the military, one isn’t even supposed to have an agenda that might upset the brass! Why? Because there is an «element of trust» that you’re supposed to have when you hang around the likes of a McChrystal. You cover a war commander, he’s got to be able to trust that you’re not going to embarrass him. Otherwise, how can he possibly feel confident that the right message will get out?
True, the Pentagon does have perhaps the single largest public relations apparatus on earth – spending $4.7 billion on P.R. in 2009 alone and employing 27,000 people, a staff nearly as large as the 30,000-person State Department – but is that really enough to ensure positive coverage in a society with armed with a constitutionally-guaranteed free press?
And true, most of the major TV outlets are completely in the bag for the Pentagon, with two of them (NBC/GE and Logan’s own CBS, until recently owned by Westinghouse, one of the world’s largest nuclear weapons manufacturers) having operated for years as leaders in both the broadcast media and weapons-making businesses.
But is that enough to guarantee a level playing field? Can a general really feel safe that Americans will get the right message when the only tools he has at his disposal are a $5 billion P.R. budget and the near-total acquiescence of all the major media companies, some of whom happen to be the Pentagon’s biggest contractors?
Does the fact that the country is basically barred from seeing dead bodies on TV, or the fact that an embedded reporter in a war zone literally cannot take a shit without a military attaché at his side (I’m not joking: while embedded at Camp Liberty in Iraq, I had to be escorted from my bunk to the latrine) really provide the working general with the security and peace of mind he needs to do his job effectively?
Apparently not, according to Lara Logan. Apparently in addition to all of this, reporters must also help out these poor public relations underdogs in the Pentagon by adhering to an «unspoken agreement» not to embarrass the brass, should they tilt back a few and jam their feet into their own mouths in front of a reporter holding a microphone in front of their faces.
Then there’s the part that made me really furious: Logan hinting that Hastings lied about the damaging material being on the record:
«Michael Hastings, if you believe him, says that there were no ground rules laid out. And, I mean, that just doesn’t really make a lot of sense to me… I mean, I know these people. They never let their guard down like that. To me, something doesn’t add up here. I just — I don’t believe it.»
I think the real meaning of that above quote is made clear in conjunction with this one: «There are very good beat reporters who have been covering these wars for years, year after year. Michael Hastings appeared in Baghdad fairly late on the scene, and he was there for a significant period of time. He has his credentials, but he’s not the only one. There are a lot of very good reporters out there. And to be fair to the military, if they believe that a piece is balanced, they will let you back.»
Let me just say one thing quickly: I don’t know Michael Hastings. I’ve never met him and he’s not a friend of mine. If he cut me off in a line in an airport, I’d probably claw his eyes out like I would with anyone else. And if you think I’m being loyal to him because he works for Rolling Stone, well – let’s just say my co-workers at the Stone would laugh pretty hard at that idea.
But when I read this diatribe from Logan, I felt like I’d known Hastings my whole life. Because brother, I have been there, when some would-be «reputable» journalist who’s just been severely ass-whipped by a relative no-name freelancer on an enormous story fights back by going on television and, without any evidence at all, accusing the guy who beat him of cheating. That’s happened to me so often, I’ve come to expect it. If there’s a lower form of life on the planet earth than a «reputable» journalist protecting his territory, I haven’t seen it.
As to this whole «unspoken agreement» business: the reason Lara Logan thinks this is because she’s like pretty much every other «reputable» journalist in this country, in that she suffers from a profound confusion about who she’s supposed to be working for. I know this from my years covering presidential campaigns, where the same dynamic applies. Hey, assholes: you do not work for the people you’re covering! Jesus, is this concept that fucking hard? On the campaign trail, I watch reporters nod solemnly as they hear about the hundreds of millions of dollars candidates X and Y and Z collect from the likes of Citigroup and Raytheon and Archer Daniels Midland, and it blows my mind that they never seem to connect the dots and grasp where all that money is going. The answer, you idiots, is that it’s buying advertising! People like George Bush, John McCain, Barack Obama, and General McChrystal for that matter, they can afford to buy their own P.R. — and they do, in ways both honest and dishonest, visible and invisible.
They don’t need your help, and you’re giving it to them anyway, because you just want to be part of the club so so badly. Disgustingly, that’s really what it comes down to. Most of these reporters just want to be inside the ropeline so badly, they want to be able to say they had that beer with Hillary Clinton in a bowling alley in Scranton or whatever, that it colors their whole worldview. God forbid some important person think you’re not playing for the right team!

Meanwhile, the people who don’t have the resources to find out the truth and get it out in front of the public’s eyes, your readers/viewers, you’re supposed to be working for them — and they’re not getting your help. What the hell are we doing in Afghanistan? Is it worth all the bloodshed and the hatred? Who are the people running this thing, what is their agenda, and is that agenda the same thing we voted for? By the severely unlikely virtue of a drunken accident we get a tiny glimpse of an answer to some of these vital questions, but instead of cheering this as a great break for our profession, a waytago moment, one so-called reputable journalist after another lines up to protest the leak and attack the reporter for doing his job. God, do you all suck!

Cisco Announces the Cius, the BlackBerry of Tablets

Cisco announced this afternoon that in 2011 it will be launching an
Android-based tablet, named the Cius, aimed squarely at the business market.

Cisco has always been an enterprise-focused company, and the Cius is its shot at bringing businesses on board the tablet bandwagon. Video conferencing, the product which Cisco is perhaps best known for, is front and center both literally and figuratively – there’s a 720p-capable cameras on the front of the Cius, in addition to the 5 megapixel camera on the back.

In an effort to get the Cius into briefcases and suitcases all over the world, the 7-inch device weighs only 1.15 pounds. The Cius will ship with 3G capability, WiFi, eight-hour battery life, HD audio and video out, and tight integration with all of Cisco’s other business applications as well as the huge Android market.

There’s no word yet on what the device will cost, but it promises to make Android a little more business-friendly and to make getting things done on the road a little easier . Even if it won’t have all the great entertainment of the iPad, maybe that’s a good thing for business users.
(Photo: Courtesy Cisco)

Read More http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/06/cisco-announces-the-cius-the-blackberry-of-tablets/#ixzz0sLP6IurD

Sequía mental, incapacidad total para escribir

(By: Edgar Estrada)

Llevo ya unos cuantos días que no puedo escribir, no literalmente si no a lo que me refiero es que no tengo la capacidad de expresar lo que vengo pensando en los últimos días de mi vida. (penal a favor de E.U.A.)

Exactamente eso, expresar lo que tantas ganas de tengo de decir y la incapacidad de expresarlo, porque cuando no tienes nada que expresar simplemente no lo haces, pero no sientes en el pecho esa necesidad imperiosa de hablar, de escribir, de gritar.

Entonces, me encuentro aquí, con todas la posibilidades tecnológicas, millones de conceptos agolpados en mi cerebro, una profunda crítica al mundo que vivo, a mi abstracta realidad, tan ajena a todo lo que busco en la vida y en silencio.

Finalmente espero que este momento de pseudo expresión me permita comenzar a elucubrar algunas líneas sobre otras y finalmente abrir la llave a la expresión escrita.

Sexual Assaults Add to Miseries of Haiti’s Ruins

Although, this is a very hard story to tell and to read, I want to make a special mention on the talent of Deborah Sontag from the New York Times for her wrtting and human skills. Is well known The Times has the greatest writers along US but I just wanted to shared this story which writting elements I found delicious.

(By:Deborah Sontag, New York Times)

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — The 22-year-old woman, wearing a gauzy blue dress that she had changed into after her release, spoke in a whispery voice.
Perhaps the worst part of the whole ordeal, she said, was the place where her kidnappers had chosen to imprison her. That they abducted her was terrifying. That they raped her, repeatedly, was too horrendous to absorb just yet.
But stashing her in the ruins of a home? Making her crawl on her stomach beneath a collapsed slab into a destroyed house where they hid her in a pocket of rubble? That was torture, she said.
“Since I had not slept under any roof since the earthquake, I was so scared I could not breathe,” said the woman, Rose, who requested that her full name be withheld.
Rose’s kidnappers told her brother-in-law, who delivered the ransom of about $2,000, that they would kill her if she talked. She had no intention of doing so. But police investigators showed up at the family house in the Delmas 33 neighborhood shortly after her release, and a reporter from The New York Times happened upon the scene, later accompanying Rose to a women’s health clinic at the family’s request.
Being present when Rose and her family were grappling with the horror of her ordeal offered a firsthand glimpse inside the vulnerability that many Haitians, and particularly women, feel right now. Sleeping in camps, on the street and in yards, many feel themselves at the mercy not only of the elements but of those who prey on others’ misery.
So many cases of rape go unrecorded here that statistics tell only a piece of the story. But existing numbers, from the police or women’s groups, indicate that violence against women has escalated in the months after the Jan. 12 earthquake. Kidnappings are rare, but they, too, have increased, and “the threat is constant,” said Antoine Lerbours, a spokesman for the Haitian National Police.
Malya Villard, director of Kofaviv, a grass-roots organization that supports rape victims, said that the presence of thousands of prisoners who escaped during the earthquake aggravated an environment where insecurity and despair feed on each other.
“It’s an ideal climate for rape,” she said.
Ms. Villard said that Kofaviv’s two dozen case workers, in Port-au-Prince, had counseled 264 victims since the earthquake, triple the number in an equivalent period last year. Arrests for rape are fewer — 169 countrywide through May, but more arrests have been made in the last few months than during the same period last year.
Since the earthquake, international relief groups have expressed concerns about violence against women, especially in the camps under their watch. Poor or nonexistent lighting, unlockable latrines, adjacent men’s and women’s showers and inadequate police protection have all been problems.
Recently, security in eight big camps has improved, with joint Haitian-United Nations police posts or patrols; about 100 Bangladeshi policewomen arrived late last month to deal with gender-based violence at three of them. But there are about 1,200 encampments throughout Haiti, and this city’s battered neighborhoods are largely left to their own defenses, too.
Rose and her relatives recently moved back to their properties when the owner of the property where they were squatting threatened the tent city residents with eviction. Their homes have been marked with a yellow stamp by surveyors, meaning they are damaged but fixable. Rose and her relatives sleep outside them, fitfully. They were scared of the “young thugs in Mafia sunglasses,” Rose’s cousin said, even before Rose’s abduction.
On May 10, Rose, a statuesque woman who is learning to be a beautician, went out to buy some cookies. A police officer whom she knew beckoned her to sit in his unmarked car, she said. She did. Then two men ordered the officer out of the car, taking his gun and driving off with Rose.
The men shoved her into the back, and made her lie face down. She does not know what neighborhood they took her to; it was empty and rubble-filled, and had many destroyed houses. When she protested entering one, they slapped her, she said, and forced her to squeeze through the collapsed entrance. They pushed her into a crawl space beneath a fallen ceiling.
“I was scared mute,” she said. “Only when they raped me did I scream. It hurt.”
Clutching her pelvis as she talked, Rose said that the men had taken turns, raping her seven times. “Or maybe eight,” she said, shutting her eyes.

Read the full story on the following link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/world/americas/24haiti.html?pagewanted=2&ref=todayspaper

Guille Franco le teme a Messi

(By:ESPN Deportes)

Guillermo Franco

A cuatro días de enfrentar a Argentina, el Guille Franco ya se da por derrotado pues asegura que es imposible detener a Lionel Messi, la única forma es: «Pegándole un tiro».

Getty ImagesFranco es el centro delantero de Tri y lleva cero goles en la justa mundialista

Y el periodista argentino parado a mi lado hace una cara de sorpresa. Queda en shock al escuchar al naturalizado mexicano.

–Pero Guille, vos sos hombre de Dios– le dice.
«Si. Vamos a pedir a Dios y a orar, pero cómo paras a un crack como él, es imposible es el mejor jugador del mundo. Tiene mil variantes, con diferencia de velocidad, frena, arranca es un grandísimo jugador», asegura.

–¿Te das por vencido antes de enfrentarlo?
Y responde molesto: «Quien te dijo que no podemos».

–Tú. Acabas de decir que no hay forma de pararlo.
«¿Cómo lo paras?» cuestiona entonces el jugador.
Y la respuesta del reportero de «yo no juego, yo escribo», lo deja más molesto. Porque el Guille no acepta críticas.
 
«Yo juego pero esa es la realidad. Eso se ve todos los fines de semana. Vamos a hacer nuestro trabajo y ya veremos cómo frenarlo pero en este caso Messi tiene mucha calidad y es difícil detenerlo. Es un gran jugador», dijo.

Aunque lo tacha del mejor jugador del mundo, tampoco se atreve a decir si es mejor de lo que fue en su momento Diego Armando Maradona.
«Nunca me gustaron las comparaciones. Diego fue lo que fue y Messi es un excelente jugador, el mejor del mundo, pero las comparaciones no me gustan», dijo.

Pese a todos los elogios para Messi, Franco recuerda por un momento que camiseta viste en Sudáfrica y dice que la selección mexicana tendrá oportunidad de revertir la historia de hace cuatro años cuando Argentina los eliminó en la misma instancia en el Mundial de Alemania 2006.
«El fútbol siempre te da revanchas y en este caso el Mundial también y ya nos prepararemos como debe ser», para enfrentar a Argentina.

«Esperemos que esta vez nos toque a nosotros y que Dios incline la balanza hacia nosotros y hagamos un gol como el de Maxi Rodríguez para dejarlos fuera», dijo.
Aunque recalca en que es difícil encontrar puntos débiles en la selección argentina. «Todos son figuras, es una selección muy fuerte y es candidata al título».

Pero no la pone como única favorita al título. «Está entre las mejores, junto con Alemania y por ahí también están Holanda y Brasil que siempre son candidatos a ser campeones».

El Guille no sabe cómo frenar a Messi, pero después de todo recuerda que el domingo vestirá la camiseta verde y remata: «Qué lindo sería lograr el objetivo de estar en cuartos de final».

Making Cheetos: It Ain’t Easy Being Cheesy

(by: Wired.com)

It ain’t easy being cheesy. Mr. Cheetah first made this sage observation back in the ’80s, and it certainly still applies to the manufacture of his favorite bright-orange snack. Turning a hunk of cornmeal into a knobby Cheeto may take only a few minutes, but it requires a fine-tuned industrial dance that leaves no room for error. Frito-Lay’s quality-control folks will not tolerate anything less than maximum crunchiness.

.cheetos_row {clear:both;}

Giant hopper.
MINUTES ELAPSED

0:00 to 1:00
Gritty cornmeal stored in a silo is pumped about 100 yards through a pneumatic tube into a Cheetos manufacturing plant. (Frito-Lay has 14 fried-Cheeto plants in 11 states.) The cornmeal then enters a giant hopper , where it awaits its rapid transformation into one of America’s most beloved snacks.

Entering the extruder.

1:00 to 1:10
Gobs of cornmeal are fed into an extruder , which rubs the meal between two metal plates. The friction melts the starch in the corn and causes the moisture to heat up. When it passes its boiling point, the meal “pops,” creating the Cheetos shape. The craggy bits are then spit out of the extruder, flying 3 feet at high velocity before hitting a safety cage and dropping onto a conveyor belt.

Conveyor belt.

1:40 to 2:40
The Cheetos move through a piping-hot pan of vegetable oil, much like an amusement-park log flume. The oil not only imparts a fatty flavor but also fries the snack’s moisture content down below 2 percent—a key to crunchiness. Once suitably cooked, the pieces go back on a conveyor belt .

#bigbottom{margin-bottom:70px;}

Ready to ship.

8:00 to 9:00
The puffs hit a tumble drum, where strategically located nozzles spray a mixture of oil and powdered cheese onto the Cheetos from all sides. The cheese, which Frito-Lay buys pre-spiced in 50-pound sacks (the company won’t say from whom), looks like the stuff used in boxed macaroni-and-cheese products.
9:00 to 19:00
The pieces are dropped onto a last conveyor belt, where any remaining moisture steams off as they cool to room temperature. The finished Cheetos are then moved toward the packaging area, to be  

bagged, boxed, and shipped .

Tasting panel.

Quality Control
Every half hour, an in-house lab analyzes the chemical composition of samples pulled from the cooking line to verify that the Cheetos have the right density and nutritional content. Then, every four hours, a four-person panel convenes to inspect and taste the snacks, comparing them to perfect reference Cheetos sent from Frito-Lay headquarters.



Algunas causas de la infidelidad

Estos son algunas causas del porque se da la infidelidad en la pareja:

-La infancia: la manera en como se vivió en la infancia, determina las formas de conducta de la familia y la persona en la edad adulta.Por lo tanto una persona que de niño fue desatendido, extremadamente sobreprotejido, inseguro, proveniente de una familia disfuncional, o en donde no hay la promoción de valores y principios, es más probable que cuando mayor sea infiel a su pareja.

– Vacío: la soledad, el aislamiento, deseperenza o una depresión sin explicación, provocan inestabilidad en los matrimonios.Cuando aparece ese sentimiento de vacío en una de las partes, la persona tiende a seguir buscando a su «pareja ideal», y aunque no sabe lo que realmente quiere, es infiel.

– Otro de los factores que provoca la infidelidad se refiere a la elección de la propia pareja.- después de un tiempo, él o ella se dan cuenta de que no son compatibles y tal vez durante un tiempo pudieron sobrellevar la situación, pero después fue imposible.

-Búsqueda de nuevas experiencias: esto ocurre sobretodo en personas que no han tenido relaciones con otras personas.

-El sentimiento de menosprecio:una vez que ha pasado la etapa de enamoramiento en la pareja, ésta se enfrenta a la realidad, olvidando a aquella persona que tanto se idealizaba, ahora sus conductas ya no son placenteras en la convivencia, por lo que se defraudan las expectativas. Por otro lado hay un abondono mutuo en la pareja, centrándose cada uno en sus objetivos personales y no en los de ambos, así que si aparece otra persona que los haga sentir más valorados, se elige inconscientemente como nueva compañera.

– La monotonía: esta es uno de los más grandes enemigos en la relación de pareja. Un matrimonio sumido en la rutina y en el aburrimiento esta más vulnerable, por lo tanto si llega alguien que ofrece un panorama distinto, lleno de encantos, novedades, riesgos y demás cosas de que carece la relación conyugal, es muy probable que se acepte.

– La vida sexual deficiente: aunque no es el único elemento en la relación de pareja, si es muy importante, por lo que si una de las partes no se siente satisfecho sexualmente tiende a buscar fuera de la relación la satisfacción sexual que no encuentra en su pareja, a pesar de amarla. El que ella o él no satisfagan al otro o no quiere llevar a cabo sus fantasías sexuales, le crea un sentimiento de enojo y venganza , llevándolo(a) a tener relaciones sexuales con otra persona.

-Interferencia de la familia(padres): otro factor que influye para que la infidelidad se de es la intervención de los padres en la vida matrimonial de sus hijos, lo cual viene de la mano con la dependencia emocional de la pareja.Ya que al no establecerles límites, provoca que halla sentimientos de abandono y poco valor hacia el otro, llevándolo a buscar una relación extramarital.

-Ya no sienten lo mismo:cuando el enamoramiento que existía en un pricipio en la pareja se ha ido acabando y se vive en el hastío de una relación, mientras que al mismo tiempo una de las partes necesita seguir satisfaciendo su necesidad de seguir enamorado, es muy común que busque vivir nuevamente ese sentimiento con otra persona.

-No perder la idealización de la pareja: otro factor causante de la infidelidad es cuando una de las partes desea que su pareja la siga idealizando y para evitar modificar esa imagén elige como amante a una persona totalmente opuesta. Con ella es con quien llevan a cabo todas sus fantasías sexuales y no con la pareja.

-Miedo a perder la libertad:cuando la pareja es asfixiante o una de la partes tiene miedo a perder su independencia y quedar atrapados en una relación, intenta sentirse libre cometiendo actos de infidelidad.

-Por lo que se tiene: en muchas ocasiones, también se llega a ser infiel, cuando uno de la pareja por haber obtenido poder, dinero y una posición social, siente que se ha ganado el derecho a tener un mayor potencial sexual con el sexo opuesto.

-Cuando la pareja lo permite porque sabe que la relación esta mal: se da sobre todo cuando ambos se dan cuenta de las deficiencias de su relación, y por lo tanto estan de acuerdo en que los dos o a veces uno tenga relaciones extramaritales con otra persona, de tal forma que con ella pueda satisfacer lo que le hace falta en su relación con su pareja estable.

Relaciones de pareja en las Sociedades Latinoamericanas. Editorial Camus. 2008. Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Why Gadget Makers Should Target Late Adopters

 (By: Wired.com)

If you believe the standard theory about how new gadgets like the iPad succeed, it’s all up to the early adopters. These are the die-hard gear hounds like me who buy anything new. Early adopters are only a small slice of the market—an estimated 13.5 percent—but high tech marketers usually target them first. Get the early adopters excited, the thinking goes, and they’ll talk up the gizmo to their friends, eventually persuading the great mass of the market to buy.

In contrast, there are the people on the far end of the adoption curve: the laggards. They’re the 16 percent of the population who wait for years to pick up on a new gadget. Why bother with them? They’re going to sit on their hands, glowering at the new and refusing to buy. Marketers generally ignore them, assuming laggards are irrelevant to the early success of a high tech invention.

But this view might be precisely wrong. If you believe recent work by Jacob Goldenberg, an Israeli marketing academic, laggards might be a crucial high tech demographic.

Read Wired on the iPad. Get the entire magazine, plus exclusive video, audio, slideshows, and more. Download now.

How could this be? Goldenberg offers the following thought experiment. Imagine that John is a laggard who buys a Walkman and listens to it while he jogs every day. Eventually, the Discman comes along, but John doesn’t upgrade because he doesn’t see anything wrong with his Walkman and doesn’t want to rebuy his music on CD. Then MiniDisc players come along, but John still holds on to his Walkman. Then, 16 years after he bought his portable tape deck, MP3 players become the hot new thing.

By now, though, John is finally starting to feel self-conscious about his huge, bulky Walkman, and maybe it’s starting to break down. He’s finally ready to buy a new music player, so he becomes—ironically—one of the first people to get an iPod.

This, as Goldenberg and his colleague Shaul Oreg put it, is the “leapfrog effect.” A laggard, merely by behaving like a laggard, can wind up becoming one of the most avant-garde of early adopters.
“We realized that the definition of laggard is wrong,” Goldenberg says. “In the case of multiple generations of products, they can just skip generations. So they can also be first.”

Nice theory, but is it true? To test it, Goldenberg surveyed 105 people in 2003 to find out what sort of portable audio players they owned. Bingo: Fully 10 percent had done exactly what Goldenberg predicted—they’d jumped from a cassette player straight to an MP3 player. Another 23 percent hadn’t bought anything yet to replace their cassette player, so presumably they, too, could leapfrog, possibly even becoming the folks who buy the next new new thing.

Goldenberg argues that the economic impact of leapfrogging laggards is huge. By his calculations, if only 10 percent of laggards leapfrog, their purchases can drive profits from a new gadget 89 percent higher than they would be without leapfrogging. “And that can be the difference between succeeding and not succeeding,” he says.

If Goldenberg is right, marketers have made a colossal error by snubbing laggards. Instead, they ought to be frantically figuring out how to market to them. After all, early adopters don’t need much convincing. But if you can figure out how to tip just 1 percent of laggards into the “buy” category, the upside is huge. What’s more, Goldenberg thinks word-of-mouth recommendations from laggards are supremely persuasive: If John can handle that new gizmo, anyone can, right?

Which brings us to the iPad. Many geeks I know shrugged when Apple finally showed it off. It doesn’t do anything better than their iPhone or laptop, so they can’t figure out why anyone would want one.
Sure, but what if you’re a laggard who never bought an iPhone or even a laptop? Imagine, for example, all the older consumers who’ve never bought a home computer because they’re baffled by mouses and device drivers. (That’s probably 30 percent of older consumers, by the way.) But now their kids are taking digital pictures and videos of the grandkids, and they’d like something that lets them easily see this stuff, something with an intuitive interface that they can carry around with them. They’re ready to leapfrog to something radically new.