the blog only robots read. Are you a ROBOT????

Hello robots? How is the family?

Guess what, if you don't post anything new, google drops your ranking like hot potatoes. So here is something new.

I know that google is trying to bring some sense to the Internet, which is not a bad thing. I myself am victim of cloaking. You know, when some site steals your content to drive traffic to it, but, surprise, your text is not there when you click on the link and you end up with a page laden with advertisement. It often relates to porno sites or things you disagree with!

There is an area in google where such things can be reported. Which, again, is a good thing.

However, do not expect much.

I don't know how long it takes for action to be taken, but it does not look good.

I reported a site that violates two basic principles for inclusion in google, which, if violated, result in delisting.

One is using the same word, or concept, in a page, in very unnatural text. The same thing that got BMW's German site delisted once, for a few days anyway.

The other is having the same site copied over and over, with different domains.

Well this particular site violated these principles on both counts, and I reported it over two months ago. Just to make sure the information was received, I reported the same situation a few other times. The sites are still there, nice and dandy with good ranking too!

So before you get flustered with your site or name appearing associated with porno sites or content, calm down. It might take a while for the violator to be removed...

I saw a very peculiar ad on this week's US News and World Report. I don't know whether it was published elsewhere. It asks who owns oil companies. Then it goes at great length to say that common folks, like you and me, are the owners of oil companies, because most oil company shares are held by mutual funds, IRAs, retirement funds of all sorts etc. So, according to the ad, we should all rejoice upon the fact that oil companies are making the big bucks with the rise in oil prices.

This looks just like George Bush father trying to sound like a tough Texas college athlete on his youth, Obama's wife saying her husband snores, and Al Gore trying a few ridiculous dance steps to show he is a 'normal being', not a stiff.

Delve deeply into the matter, and you will find out that oil prices are not going through the roof because of PRODUCT supply and demand mechanisms, but rather, because of unrestricted and immoral speculation in commodities exchanges all over the world. Depending on what pundit you hear, speculation would account for as much as 30% of price. It is not the price of oil that is uncontrolled, it is the price of paper...

The question to ask is, who is speculating so much? Rather unfortunately, you will find that companies in the oil business are largely responsible for such speculation. In other words, they make money from sale of the product, then with the profit earned, they speculate some more and drive the price up, up, and up. This is really a feedback mechanism, and I don't see it stopping. It is greed to the nth degree.

The ad goes on to say that most shares are not owned by management. It fails to say that management does in fact receive millions, if not billions of dollars in cash profit share or bonus payments every year, before dividends are declared. So their interest is to extract as much profit as possible from oil prices, and walk alway with their mounds of cash.

These folks, who are not regular Joes, are making money now. The regular folks, whom the ad identify as the real owners of oil companies through mutual funds, reap no immediate benefit from such ownership. Sure, they might have a better retirement twenty years down the line, but even that is questionable. If oil prices continue rising so much, the ugly head of inflation will eat up much of the earnings from IRA's, retirement or mutual funds.

Do not be fooled, regular folks.

Financial authorities worldwide should consider whether or not futures, options and derivative markets are any good for humanity. I know it is not going to happen, but the suggestion is made. It seems that the next commodity on target is rice...

Well, this year marks the 40th anniversary of Jim Clark`s untimely death at the wheel of a Formula 2 car. The American Racer magazine published a 'what if' article, speculating what would have happened to Clark, had he not died so early, at 32 years of age.

'What if' scenarios for dead drivers are one of those wonders of life. Nice to put together, but totally useless. I tried a few of these with Ayrton Senna, and in the end, the experience is more painful.

The article concludes, like I did with some of my Senna scenarios, that Clark might have ended world champion in 1968, 1970 and 1972, in other words, replacing Graham Hill, Jochen Rindt and Emerson Fittipaldi. It is based on the premise that Clark would remain a Lotus loyalist to the end of his career, concluding that perhaps Clark would have retired after his fifth world title in 1972. It saw a 1973 title as a possibility.

Clark had won the South African GP of 1968, the first race of the year, before death took him away in Germany. The race was significant not only because it was Clark's last GP, and the one in which he overtook Fangio's record of 24 wins. It was also the end of sponsorless Formula 1.

Curiously, it was the very Lotus team that began the trend of carrying conspicuous non-racing related commercial sponsorship in cars, when the Lotuses came in Red, White and Golden livery as of Spain.

You might say, so what? I think this is important, considering the long term Clark career. For Clark was not your regular Jackie Stewart or Graham Hill, who did OK under the spotlights of TV, or talking to throngs of fans, and chatting on the radio. Clark did not fully adapt to fame, and in my analysis, he would not have taken too well to the age of commercial sponsorship.

Sure, in formative years sponsors did not milk dry drivers like they do today, but I believe two years of sponsor commitments would have damaged Clark's desire to continue in the game. I basically think that yes, he might have won the 1968 title, but Stewart would still come out on top in 1969, which might have been Clark's last season. I do not see him going on to 1970 and forward.

Whether Clark would have moved to another team, I do not know. Full commercial sponsorship was widespread only around 1972, so there may have been a few teams around in which Clark would probably feel less pressured.

Thus, in my scenario, we would still end with a 3-time Clark champion, with probably 30-32 victories under his belt. And still alive today.

It turns out that the current economic crisis can be attributed to the real estate bubble. Before that, there have been a few stock market bubbles. Bubbles galore, bubbles bonanza. A lot of air.

This remind me of a story. When running for reelection, George Bush the elder made a stop at a super market, and was marveled by the 'new price scanning' technology he was witnessing. I suppose the man had not been to a supermarket for many a year, for there was nothing new about the technology by which time he noticed. Let us say Bush the elder, like many politicians, live in a bubble too.

So the government seems to wake up to the fact that the entire financial industry needs regulation. Good for them. But they do not need only regulation, but caps. Greed has to be stopped on its tracks, because it is the cause of these so called bubbles.

I have not read the entire 218 page document, but one thing I know. If the government does not establish caps for credit card APRs, to a reasonable amount such as 12 or 13%, the crisis will continue. Credit cards with 30% APRs in the American economy are almost criminal, meaning modern time slavery - especially now that bankruptcy rules have changed.

SUVs are the most popular vehicles in the USA today, although $4 to $5 a gallon gas might kill American appetite for such gas guzzling machines. Strangely enough, although there are races for pretty much all type of road vehicles, from cars, to pick-up trucks, to tractor trailers, to grass mowers and motorcycles, there has never been a circuit race series for SUV's. At least I have not seen one.

It would probably be a grand spectacle, with vehicles of all makes vying for honors. Fans would be able to root for their favorite SUV brand at Daytona, Watkins Glen, Laguna Seca and Talladega.

I guess most SUV drivers, who are quite used to drive their heavy vehicles at great pace, frequently ask: "Why is there no race series for my favorite mode of transportation?" After all, they feel like regular Jeff Gordons and Tony Stewarts using their powerful wheels to cut across regular cars, at great speed and abandon, at I95 and elsewhere.

Well SUV driver, do you know why there are no race series for SUVs? Due to their high center of gravity, all SUV's are very unstable making turns in high speeds, and tend to roll over easily. This property is not exclusive to the Suzukis of the 80's. All SUV's suffer from the problem, it is inherent to the type of design. SUV's ARE DANGEROUS AT GREAT SPEEDS!!!!!V-E-R-Y D-A-N-G-E-R-O-U-S.

Which means that when you are driving your SUV like a nut on the road, daydreaming you are Mario Andretti, you are no only placing your life and your kid's life in danger, but also the lives of all drivers on the road who still drive 'boring', unfashionable cars. SUV's should be driven at sedate pace, and turns, especially tight ones, should be made extremely carefully, at low speeds.

If you bought your SUV thinking it is a NASCAR racer, a high performance vehicle, you have been duped, dude. Easy on the accelerator. Let me drive by in my Mini-Cooper...

If you don't believe me, read on

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=CENTER+OF+GRAVITY+SUV&btnG=Google+Search

This year's presidential election has brought the prejudice issue to the limelight in a big fashion. The supposed front runner status of Barack Obama makes the country get goosebumps, a Rodney King `we can all get along` feeling. There is a widespread feeling that we have finally overcome the problem, after all, many white people have left the race card aside to lend their support to a man of a different racial group, in national politics.

I would like to discuss prejudice from a different, rare angle, for it is normally discussed from a black-white perspective.

I am Brazilian, and I have been in the USA for 32 years. When I arrived in the country I soon learned that I was now a being from a different planet when I was happily greeted by the words "coffee beano" by one of my classmates in gym class, a couple days after starting High School.

I am white, light skinned and very tall, so I do not fit the American white stereotype of a latino. But I soon found out that my superficial white appearance does not last long. All it takes is opening my mouth and saying my name. Once the accent spurts out, and my name, Carlos, is pronounced, I soon become a bug eating, tree-top living, samba dancing and soccer playing humanoid to my white counterpart, and sifted out and laid aside as a class B acquaintance.

It just happens that 30 odd years down the line, I have not gotten rid of my accent, because I suspect a hearing impediment in speaking frequencies makes it difficult for me to perfectly reproduce English sounds accentless. So I still have a perceptible accent, and I am still treated with some distance by white Americans.

At least I have the benefit of being a man, because Brazilian women are instantly profiled as sex crazed hot mamas, whose main aim in life is walking around in string bikinis and flirting with any man they find.

So, one would think Hispanics would embrace us Brazilians wholeheartedly. Guess what? No they don't. We are not one of them either. They treat us with some distance (especially we, light skinned Brazilian), as if we get some type of break they don't get. Which is entirely the opposite, arguably. In other words, we are also blanquitos, and we are also seen with some reservation by Hispanics in general. And most Argentines basically treat us as the inferior Northern monkeys.

African-Americans, I found out, were also not that bullish on us Brazilians. I realized that out real fast, as soon as I got to college two years after arriving in the USA. Most African Americans treat us on the superficial white appearance, as an object of suspicion. The reverse prejudice most white Americans report today, guess what, we get it too, big time, and in double dose!! We get it for being white and for being foreign. Accent or no accent.

Orientals try very hard to fit into White-American society, so they also keep a safe distance from us Brazilians, after all, we can spoil their blending efforts. A guilty by association type of thing, you know.

So there it is. We are the subject of prejudice from all major racial groups in American society. I have never met any Native-American, so I will refrain from passing judgment. Maybe they fancy Brazilians. Could it get worse? You bet.

Even a lot of Brazilians who try to hard to fit into any of the above groups, also hold some prejudice against Brazilians in the USA. Hardened by years of ill treatment by all of the above groups, they lash out their anger and frustration against other Brazilians, claiming lack of unity and sense of community, selfishness, and myriad other things, while they live on their melting pot bubble, aiming to belong.

Thus, it is not surprising that a large number of first and even second generation Brazilians end up clinging to their own small groups, their cocoonish ghettos, even after being in the country for decades.

We do know a thing or two about prejudice and about being a minority...

A recent item on the news will probably go unnoticed by most people, due to its seeming irrelevance in the wider context of things, especially in the midst of global economic turmoil. I am referring to the sale of Jaguar to Tata Motors.

Most Americans are quite aware of what Jaguar is, in fact the brand is an object of desire for many people in the country. They are unable to measure, however, the significance of the name for the British.

The British motor industry was once a proud one, boasting a large number of manufacturers such as Austin, MG, Rover, Triumph, Hilmann, Humber, Morris, Sunbeam, in addition to luxury car manufacturers and high performance autos such as Rolls Royce, Bentley, Daimler, Aston Martin, and Jaguar, and dozens of sports cars manufacturers such as Lotus, Bristol, TVR, Morgan. Gross mismanagement, labor problems, quality issues, poor design practices, market developments and British Leyland meant the demise of most of these brands, and the sale of others to foreign concerns.

This meant that eventually Jaguar was sold to Ford. The impact of such sale was not that bad, considering that Ford also built cars in England for many years so the deal was considered "close to home".

Under Ford ownership, the brand proved to be less profitable than previously thought, and as Ford is strapped for cash, the brand was put for sale. For half the price paid 17 years ago, when the dollar was mighty and strong.

Although a notch down from Rolls Royce, Bentley and Daimler, Jaguar ownership was nonetheless prestigious. Additionally, Jaguar was a prominent name in race tracks, having won Le Mans many times during the fifties, resuming race tracks activities in 1976, which resulted in two more Le Mans victories, plus a couple of world sports car championships. Until recently, Jaguar was the only foreign brand to have won a NASCAR race. Eventually, Ford decided to feature the brand in Formula 1, positioning it against other luxury car manufacturers Mercedes and BMW. The Formula 1 branding was a major disaster and after five years, the team was closed and assets sold to Red Bull, blemishing Jaguar's racing heritage.

One cannot say that India looks at British imperial times with fondness, in fact many of the country's woes today can be traced back to imperial times. By the time India got its independence from Britain, it had a huge population, and was one of the poorest countries on Earth, with seemingly unsolvable problems.

A few decades down the line, the very huge size of the Indian market and globalization made the country - or at least part of it, the wealthy part - a player in the business world.

So it must be with a lot of pride from the Indian side, and great disgust and sadness from the British side, that venerable Jaguar and Land Rover brands were sold to the Indian Tata Group. A sort of reverse imperialism.

This is more or less the equivalent of the American Cadillac brand being sold to an Iranian company.

In principle I have nothing against ISO standards. Trying to achieve seamless quality seems a good thing, especially in the globalized world in which we live. Thus, the standardization of procedures appears to be almost necessary, to ensure quality transcends cultures, borders, etc.

However, in the language business the writers of ISO standards have concocted one particularly silly standard that rather than ensuring quality, has the potential of causing havoc. The standard does preserve cosmetic quality, but jeopardizes essential quality.

I have been a US based translator for 26 years, and concentrate most of my work in the Portuguese-English and English-Portuguese language pairs. ISO standards, however, dictate that in order to ensure the quality of translation work, translations should always be done by native speakers. As I was born in Brazil, according to ISO I am no good as a translator into the English language, because I carry the burden of my native language syntax, weird constructions, poor vocabulary and my texts are never going to sound American.

There is an element of truth to that. Except it reduces translation work to literary and publication level translation, applications that correspond to a minimum percentage of commercial translation needs. Plus, it removes the art, individual skills, talent and experience from translation work. It makes translation work sound like an exact science, based on a set of rigid and quantifiable parameters, which it isn't.

In ISO's view, an English native speaker translator is always going to write a better text than, let's say, a Portuguese native speaker such as myself. Always. This shows very shortsight and lack of knowledge of the translation business and market. It even shows lack of understanding of the world in general. My brother, who is not a translator, is not a native speaker of English, yet he has occasionally taught college level English comp courses, has written several college Chemistry textbooks and his English, today, is much better than his Portuguese. According to ISO, he would be no good as a prospective translator, even though his English is much better than most native speakers' in the land.

It so happens that a very large percentage of English native speakers who translate from Portuguese into English, are in fact, translators of Spanish, who believe they can handle Portuguese due to the proximity of the Iberian languages. They might have lived in Mexico or Spain, have been educated in Argentina, and in fact, can understand about 75% of Portuguese texts. They are likely to produce beautiful English texts, which will make it look like the ISO folks are right on. Cosmetically, on the surface, the translation will be wonderful.

The problem lies deep inside, with the 25% "they don't get". The translator might dance around the issue, write beautiful English text, but fail to understand the context, in fact, sometimes miss the entire point of the text he/she is translating, because his or her knowledge of Portuguese is almost anecdotal. He or she has never lived, or possibly even been to Brazil or Portugal, in fact, probably does not even speak the language. The English might be flawless, but have nothing to do with the essence of the original. Which, of course, can generate several problems of a legal or business nature.

In an ideal world, translation work should always involve an editor, but given the pricing pressures on the industry, almost no one these days includes editing as a choice, therefore, one often sees aberrations, which carry the ISO seal of approval. Cosmetically nice, essentially flawed.

So much for standards.