miércoles, 3 de noviembre de 2010

Legalising marijuana in California

US Elections 2010: California rejects legal marijuana

Voters in California have rejected a ballot proposition that would have made it the first US state to legalise marijuana for personal use.

With one-fifth of precincts counted, projections by CNN suggested 56% had voted against Proposition 19.

Adults would have been able to possess up to 28g (1oz) of cannabis, and local authorities would also have been able to permit commercial growing.

The legalisation would have put the state at odds with federal drug laws.

Proposition 19 was the highest-profile of the 160 ballot measures being decided in 37 states in Tuesday's mid-term elections.

Other measures dealt with abortion, tax cuts and health care reform.

'Tremendous victory'

Growing and selling marijuana for medicinal purposes has been legal in California since a similar vote in 1996. Since then, 14 other states and Washington DC have followed suit.

Supporters of Proposition 19 had argued that ending the prosecution of people with small quantities of cannabis would have freed up police to tackle violent crime and helped combat powerful drug cartels.

They also argued that it would have allowed the state to regulate the cultivation and distribution of the drug, and profit from its taxation. A recent report estimated California's crop to be worth about $14bn (£8.7bn).

But opponents - including every major newspaper, both the Democratic and Republican parties, and the two leading candidates for state governor - said it was a badly-written law that would cause chaos.

And last month, US Attorney General Eric Holder warned he would "vigorously enforce" federal drug laws if Proposition 19 passed.

After the first results of Tuesday's ballot came in, Richard Lee, a leading proponent of Proposition 19, said: "The fact that millions of Californians voted to legalise marijuana is a tremendous victory."

"We have broken the glass ceiling. Proposition 19 has changed the terms of the debate and that was a major strategic goal."

"With limited resources this time around we were able to build an enormously powerful coalition.... This coalition will only continue to grow in size and strength as we prepare for 2012."

In other ballot measures on Tuesday, voters in Massachusetts rejected a chance to lower the state sales tax from 6.25% to 3%.

Oklahomans meanwhile supported making English their state's "common and unifying language", requiring that people have a government-issued photo ID in order to vote, and prohibiting state courts from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases.

In Washington state, voters rejected a proposal by Bill Gates's father to bring in personal income tax for those earning over $200,000 (£125,000). Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer was a leading opponent.


CURSO DE INGLÉS B1 SUBVENCIONADO

CURSO DE INGLÉS PARA TRABAJADORES EN ACTIVO
88 HORAS
DE LUNES A VIERNES DE 20.30-22.30
NIVEL B1: PRE-INTERMEDIO

REQUISITOS: NOMINA DE NOVIEMBRE 2010
DNI
TARJETA SEGURIDAD SOCIAL
FORMULARIO DE INSCRIPCIÓN

sábado, 23 de octubre de 2010

MUSIC QUOTES

Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life. ~Berthold Auerbach

Music is what feelings sound like. ~Author Unknown


Music is the mediator between the spiritual and the sensual life.
~Ludwig van Beethoven


Music's the medicine of the mind. ~John A. Logan


Music is the universal language of mankind. ~Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Outre-Mer

Music expresses that which cannot be said and on which it is impossible to be silent. ~Victor Hugo

Rock music in its lyrics often talks ahead of the time about what's going on in the country. ~Edmund G. Brown

FCE. UNIT 2. GERUNDS AND INFINITIVES

Gerunds and Infinitives

1CUANDO UN VERBO TIENE FUNCIÓN DE SUJETO >

INFINITIVO CON “TO”O GERUNDIO

Playing basketball takes up too much of her time.

To play basketball for UConn is her favourite fantasy.

2CUANDO UN VERBO TIENE FUNCIÓN DE OBJETO>

INFINITIVO CON “TO”O GERUNDIO

Her favorite fantasy is to play basketball for UConn.

Her favorite fantasy is playing basketball for UConn.

3DETRÁS DE UN SUSTANTIVO

> INFINITIVO CON “TO

Her desire to play basketball for UConn became an obsession.

I could never understand her desire to play basketball for UConn.

Ejemplos de sustantivos

advice
appeal
command
decision
desire
fact
instruction
motivation

opportunity
order
permission
plan
possibility
preparation
proposal
recommendation

refusal
reminder
request
requirement
suggestion
tendency
wish

4

DETRÁS DE UN ADJETIVO >

INFINITIVO CON “TO”

She was hesitant to tell the coach of her plan.

She was reluctant to tell her parents, also.

But she would not have been content to play high school ball forever.

Ejemplos de adjetivos

ahead
amazed
anxious
apt
ashamed
bound
careful
certain
content
delighted

determined
disappointed
eager
eligible
fortunate
glad
happy
hesitant
liable
likely

lucky
pleased
proud
ready
reluctant
sad
shocked
sorry
surprised
upset

5DETRÁS DE UNA PREPOSICIÓN

> + GERUNDIO

a. She wrote a newspaper article about dealing with college recruiters.

b. She thanked her coach for helping her to deal with the pressure.

Two prepositions, except and but, will sometimes take an infinitive.

a. The committee had no choice except to elect Frogbellow chairperson.

b. What is left for us but to pack up our belongings and leave?

6CUANDO TIENEN FUNCIÓN DE OBJETO DIRECTO >

GERUNDIO, INFINITIVO CON “TO”O INFINITIVO SIN “TO”, SEGÚN GRUPO

GRUPO 1 : VERBOS SEGUIDOS DE INFINITIVOCON “TO”

Emotion

care
desire
hate

hate
like
loathe

love
regret
yearn

Choice or Intent

agree
choose
decide
decide
expect

hope
intend
need
plan
prefer

prepare
propose
refuse
want
wish

Initiation, Completion, Incompletion >

begin
cease
commence
fail

get
hesitate
manage
neglect

start
try
undertake

Mental Process

forget
know how

learn

remember

Request and Promise

demand
offer

promise
swear

threaten
vow

Intransitives

appear
happen

seem

tend

Miscellaneous ( = otros)

afford
arrange

claim
continue

pretend
wait

GRUPO II : VERBOS SEGUIDOS DE PRONOMBRE + INFINITIVO CON “TO”

Example : I begged him to let me the flan.

Communication

advise
ask*
beg*
challenge
command
convince

forbid
invite
order
permit
persuade
promise*

remind
require
tell
warn
urge

Instruction

encourage
help

instruct
teach

train

Causing

allow
cause
choose

force
get
hire

need*
would like*

Miscellaneous

dare*
expect*

trust
prepare*

want*

GRUPO III: VERBOS + GERUNDIO

Initiation, Completion and Incompletion

anticipate
avoid
begin
cease
complete

delay
finish
get through
give up
postpone

quit
risk
start
stop
try

Communication

admit
advise
deny
discuss

encourage
mention
recommend

report
suggest
urge

Continuing Action

continue
can't help

practice
involve

keep
keep on

Emotion

appreciate
dislike
enjoy
hate
like

love
mind
don't mind
miss
prefer

regret
can't stand
resent
resist
tolerate

Mental Process

anticipate
consider
forget

imagine
recall
remember

see
can't see
understand

GRUPO IV : VERBOS SEGUIDOS DE GERUNDIO O INFINITIVO SIN “TO” (CASI DIFERENCIA DE SENTIDO)

attempt
begin
continue
hate

like
love
neglect
prefer


can't stand
stand
start

GRUPO V : VERBOS SEGUIDOS DE GERUNDIO O INFINITIVO CON “TO” (CON DIFERENCIA DE SENTIDO)

Forget

Remember

Stop

Try

Regret

Mean

I forgot to lock the door

I forgot locking the door

I remembered to invite him

I remembered inviting him

I stopped to talk to him

I stopped talking to him

I tried to do it but I couldn’t

I tried doing it just in case.

I regret to tell you that…

I regret telling you that…

I didn’t mean to hurt you

It meant working a lot

Se me olvidó cerrar la puerta

Se me olvido que había cerrado la puerta

Recordé invitarle

Recordé que le había invitado

Me paré para hablar con él

Paré de hablarle

Lo intenté pero no lo conseguí (proeza)

Lo intenté por si a caso (experiencia)

Lamento decirte que….

Lamento haberte dicho que…..

No fue mi intención herirte´.

Eso suponía mucho trabajo

GRUPO VI : VERBOS SEGUIDOS DE PRONOMBRE + GERUNDIO (acción en curso)

Example: I felt him coming towards me ( sentí como venía hacia mí)

Verbs Involving Senses

feel
hear
listen to

look at
notice
observe

overhear
see
watch

GRUPO VII : VERBOS SEGUIDOS DE PRONOMBRE + INFINITIVO SIN “TO”(acción terminada)

a. We watched him clear the table. (ví como quito la mesa)

b. They heard the thief go through the door. (oyerón como entró el ladrón)

c. We helped her finish the homework. ( la ayudamos a terminar el trabajo)

GRUPO VII: PASSIVE MEANINGS : INFINITIVE CON “TO” O “GERUNDIO” SEGÚN LOS VERBOS

a. Children are made to work hard in Japan ( obligan a los niños a trabajar duro en Japón)

b. You are not allowed to smoke in here (no te està permitido fumar aquí)

c. He is believed to be the criminal ( se cree que él es el criminal)

d. Your car needs cleaning ( Tienes que limpiar el coche)

e. I am not used/accustomed to cleaning ( no estoy acostumbrado a limpiar)

GRUPO VIII: CON ALGUNAS EXPRESIONES IDIOMÁTICAS

a. There is no point in going there . ( no sirve de nada ir allí?

b. It’s worth working hard (merece la pena trabajar duro)

GRUPO IX : EXPRESIONES + INFINITIVO SIN “TO”

a. I’d better go, it’s getting late. (mejor sera que me vaya, se està haciendo tarde)

b. I’d rather do it myself (prefiero hacerlo yo)

c. Let me tell you ( dejame que te diga)

d. Do they make you wear a uniform to school? (Tienes que llevar uniforme en el colegio)

e. I have a decorator paint my flat ( Me pinta el piso un decorador)

f. I got my hair cut ( Me he cortado el pelo)

FCE CLASS.UNIT 1. THE ROYAL ORDER OF ADJECTIVES

jueves, 21 de octubre de 2010

THE NEW YORK TIMES (ARTICLE, LEVEL B2+)

The New York Times

October 9, 2010

Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

By JOHN MARKOFF

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. — Anyone driving the twists of Highway 1 between San Francisco and Los Angeles recently may have glimpsed aToyota Prius with a curious funnel-like cylinder on the roof. Harder to notice was that the person at the wheel was not actually driving.

The car is a project of Google, which has been working in secret but in plain view on vehicles that can drive themselves, using artificial-intelligence software that can sense anything near the car and mimic the decisions made by a human driver.

With someone behind the wheel to take control if something goes awry (MALFUNCTIONING/NON FUNCTIONAL))and a technician in the passenger seat to monitor the navigation system, seven test cars have driven 1,000 miles without human intervention and more than 140,000 miles with only occasional human control. One even drove itself down Lombard Street in San Francisco, one of the steepest and curviest streets in the nation. The only accident, engineers said, was when one Google car was rear-ended(COLLIDED/ HIT/RUN INTO) while stopped at a traffic light.

Autonomous cars are years from mass production, but technologists who have long dreamed of them believe that they can transform society as profoundly as the Internet has.

Robot drivers react faster than humans, have 360-degree perception and do not get distracted, sleepy or intoxicated, the engineers argue. They speak in terms of lives saved and injuries avoided — more than 37,000 people died in car accidents in the United States in 2008. The engineers say the technology could double the capacity of roads by allowing cars to drive more safely while closer together. Because the robot cars would eventually be less likely to crash, they could be built lighter, reducing fuel consumption. But of course, to be truly safer, the cars must be far more reliable than, say, today’s personal computers, which crash on occasion and are frequently infected.

The Google research program using artificial intelligence to revolutionize the automobile is proof that the company’s ambitions reach beyond the search engine business. The program is also a departure from the mainstream of innovation in Silicon Valley, which has veered(CHANGED/SWITCHED) toward social networks and Hollywood-style digital media.

During a half-hour drive beginning on Google’s campus 35 miles south of San Francisco last Wednesday, a Prius equipped with a variety of sensors and following a route programmed into the GPS navigation system nimbly(AGILELY) accelerated in the entrance lane and merged into fast-moving traffic on Highway 101, the freeway through Silicon Valley.

It drove at the speed limit, which it knew because the limit for every road is included in its database, and left the freeway several exits later. The device atop (AT THE TOP OF)the car produced a detailed map of the environment.

The car then drove in city traffic through Mountain View, stopping for lights and stop signs, as well as making announcements like “approaching a crosswalk” (to warn the human at the wheel) or “turn ahead” in a pleasant female voice. This same pleasant voice would, engineers said, alert the driver if a master control system detected anything amiss(MALFUNCTIONING/NON FUNCTIONAL)) with the various sensors.

The car can be programmed for different driving personalities — from cautious, in which it is more likely to yield to another car, to aggressive, where it is more likely to go first.

Christopher Urmson, a Carnegie Mellon University robotics scientist, was behind the wheel but not using it. To gain control of the car he has to do one of three things: hit a red button near his right hand, touch the brake or turn the steering wheel. He did so twice, once when a bicyclist ran a red light (DIDN’T STOP AT THE RED LIGHT)and again when a car in front stopped and began to back into a parking space. But the car seemed likely to have prevented an accident itself.

When he returned to automated “cruise” mode, the car gave a little “whir(SOUND)meant to evoke going into warp(BENT OUT)/TWISTED) drive on “Star Trek,” and Dr. Urmson was able to rest his hands by his sides or gesticulate when talking to a passenger in the back seat. He said the cars did attract attention, but people seem to think they are just the next generation of the Street View cars that Google uses to take photographs and collect data for its maps.

The project is the brainchild of Sebastian Thrun, the 43-year-old director of the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, a Google engineer and the co-inventor of the Street View mapping service.

In 2005, he led a team of Stanford students and faculty members in designing the Stanley robot car, winning the second Grand Challenge of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, a $2 million Pentagon prize for driving autonomously over 132 miles in the desert.

Besides the team of 15 engineers working on the current project, Google hired more than a dozen people, each with a spotless driving record, to sit in the driver’s seat, paying $15 an hour or more. Google is using six Priuses and an Audi TT in the project.

The Google researchers said the company did not yet have a clear plan to create a business from the experiments. Dr. Thrun is known as a passionate promoter of the potential to use robotic vehicles to make highways safer and lower the nation’s energy costs. It is a commitment shared by Larry Page, Google’s co-founder, according to several people familiar with the project.

The self-driving car initiative is an example of Google’s willingness(DESIRE) to gamble on technology that may not pay off for years, Dr. Thrun said. Even the most optimistic predictions put the deployment of the technology more than eight years away.

One way Google might be able to profit is to provide information and navigation services for makers of autonomous vehicles. Or, it might sell or give away the navigation technology itself, much as it offers its Android smart phone system to cellphone companies.

But the advent (COMING/ARRIVAL)of autonomous vehicles poses thorny (NOT EASY)legal issues, the Google researchers acknowledged(RECOGNIZED

/DECLARED). Under current law, a human must be in control of a car at all times, but what does that mean if the human is not really paying attention as the car crosses through, say, a school zone, figuring that the robot is driving more safely than he would?

And in the event of an accident, who would be liable(LIKELY, PROBABLE)— the person behind the wheel or the maker of the software?

“The technology is ahead of the law in many areas,” said Bernard Lu, senior staff counsel for the California Department of Motor Vehicles. “If you look at the vehicle code, there are dozens of laws pertaining to(CONCERNING) the driver of a vehicle, and they all presume to have a human being operating the vehicle.”

The Google researchers said they had carefully examined California’s motor vehicle regulations and determined that because a human driver can override(NEUTRALIZE) any error, the experimental cars are legal. Mr. Lu agreed.

Scientists and engineers have been designing autonomous vehicles since the mid-1960s, but crucial innovation happened in 2004 when the Pentagon’s research arm began its Grand Challenge.

The first contest ended in failure, but in 2005, Dr. Thrun’s Stanford team built the car that won a race with a rival vehicle built by a team from Carnegie Mellon University. Less than two years later, another event proved that autonomous vehicles could drive safely in urban settings.

Advances have been so encouraging that Dr. Thrun sounds like an evangelist when he speaks of robot cars. There is their potential to reduce fuel consumption by eliminating heavy-footed(AKWARD) stop-and-go (MAKING DRIVERS TO STOP) drivers and, given the reduced possibility of accidents, to ultimately build more lightweight vehicles.

There is even the farther-off prospect of cars that do not need anyone behind the wheel. That would allow the cars to be summoned(CALLED) electronically, so that people could share them. Fewer cars would then be needed, reducing the need for parking spaces, which consume valuable land.

And, of course, the cars could save humans from themselves. “Can we text twice as much while driving, without the guilt?” Dr. Thrun said in a recent talk. “Yes, we can, if only cars will drive themselves.”