Category Archives: New of the world

The Guardian open its doors to bloggers

The Guardian, one of the mass media more open to experimenting with new forms of journalism, has created a platform that allows playback of your items directly to blogs and external media.
The newspaper has developed a WordPress plug-in to play your content on blogs. Each item has embedded advertisements, marketed by The Guardian.
Thus, its content is published on the internet in a legal manner while opening a new form of monetization.


But it is also a finding that the information is no longer consumed only with portals and centralized sites. The content travels and is distributed by the inertia of the users who consume it.
The Guardian makes it a condition of your use does not remove or text links and not to remove the ads that are embedded in the article.
More information about installation here.

Free content vs Paid content

In the last year has opened a rift between the large media groups. On the one hand, The Guardian has been positioned as a medium that doesn’t belive in paying for information on the Internet. Although I should clarify that it has the advantage that their losses be covered by hefty gains in the other areas of its parent company, Guardian Media Group.



News Corporation, however, leads to the voices that call for payment information on the Internet. Analysts such as Clay Shirky has already made clear that it will fail. But Murdoch seems convinced that achieved success where others have failed.Others believe that people have never paid for the news, have always been subsidized.
Wall Street Journal and Financial Times are building a solid business online payment. They have the advantage of providing news and expert analysis, and currently do not have quality free alternatives. This means that many companies are willing to pay for their news.
As usual, the real revulsives come from start-ups. Flattr, a micro-network to support more like content, is a good example.


Fukushima winds

“The situation at the Fukushima Daiichi plant is slowly stabilising, step by step, and the emission of radioactive substances is on a declining trend,” Prime Minister Naoto Kan told a press briefing today.

“A month has passed. We need to take steps towards restoration and reconstruction,” he said.

One month has passed. One month  after the tsunami waves that invaded the northwest coast and  hit the Japanese central Fukushima affecting their reactors. The biggest tragedy Japanese in years, and the fourth potential earthquake on the Richter scale with more than 11,000 dead and 16,000 missing people was the worst it could happen. But we all were wrong. One month later the winds of Fukushima still blowing but not exactly good news. The Japanese government the first day of the nuclear accident estimated the severity of Fukushima at level 5 on the scale that evaluates nuclear accidents, today they decided to place it to Level 7.

Hidehiko Nishiyama, a deputy director-general of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA), said the decision to raise the severity of the incident from level 5 to 7 – the same as the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine in 1986 – was based on cumulative quantities of radiation released.

A level 7 incident means a major release of radiation with a widespread health and environmental impact, while a 5 level is a limited release of radioactive material, with several deaths, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Fukushima ain’t an “accident without significant impact, ” as stated by Tokyo for weeks, nor is it an “accident with off-site risk, “as held for a month. Fukushima is a “major accident”, a level seven. International experts insisted for weeks that the accident should be classified at least as a level 6 on the international INES scale. Until yesterday, Japan still maintained the level 5, similar to the accident at Three Mile Island in Harrisburg (USA, 1979), in which there was little escape.

Despite increasing gravity, NISA has insisted on separating the Chernobyl accident: “There are many differences, ” said spokesman NISA, including that you can still work with the nuclear issue or abroad is significantly lower . The estimate of the amount emitted by Fukushima is 10% of Chernobyl and gave the French Institute of Radiology on 24 March.

Lam Ching-wan, a chemical pathologist at the University of Hong Kong and member of the American Board of Toxicology, said this level of radiation was harmful.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/12/japan-battle-fukushima-one-month

Anyway we didn’t learn nothing from one month ago, it seems.” It’s a reassessment the radiation released into the atmosphere peaked from March 15 to 16. Radiation is still being released, but the amount now has fallen considerably,” said NISA’s Nishiyama.

Now the area is higher than one month ago. The risk seems the same. The evacuation area was expanded. What has changed since a month ago to today?

One month ago the Fukushima winds were empty of radiation. Today the wind in Fukushima blows radioactive material everywhere..

Thirteen days after the tsunami

Today is the 24th of March of 2011, thirteen days after the The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami was a 9.0 magnitude undersea megathrust earthquake off the coast of Japan that occurred at 14:46 JST (05:46 UTC) on Friday 11 March 2011. The epicenter was approximately 72 kilometers (45 mi) east of the Oshika Peninsula of Tōhoku. This earthquake was the beginning of a human accident at Fukushima I Nuclear Plant.

The Japanese National Police Agency has officially confirmed 9,523 deaths, 2,755 injured, and more than 16,000 people missing across eighteen prefectures, the equivalent of a province in Japan, as well as over 125,000 buildings damaged or destroyed. The earthquake and tsunami caused extensive and severe structural damage in Japan including heavy damage to roads and railways as well as fires in many areas, and a dam collapse.But the main problem was around 4.4 million households in northeastern Japan were left without electricity and 1.5 million without water.

Many electrical generators were taken down, and at least three nuclear reactors suffered explosions due to hidrogen gas that had bulit up whithin their outer containment buildings. On 18 March, the International Atomic Energy Agency described the crisis as “extremely serious.” On 18 March, Japanese officials designated the magnitude of the danger at reactors 1, 2 and 3 at level 5 on the 7 point International Nuclear Event Scale (INES). French experts designated the Crisis at the level 6 of INES, taking the example that Chernobyl was designated at level 7.

The Fukushima I Nuclear accident were a are a series of ongoing equipment failures and releases of radioctive materials at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, following the tsunami on 11 March 2011. The plant comprises six separate boiling water reactors maintained by the Tokyo Electric Powet Company (TEPCO). Reactors 4, 5 and 6 had been shut down prior to the earthquake for planned maintenance Residents within a 20 km radius of the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant and a 10 km  radius of the Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant were evacuated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_tsunami_2011