Smartphones are no longer the only objects to integrate technology Android. Indeed, the It's been a while since I wanted to write this article on We know that many The potpourri of corruption in the government of cure definitely was uncovered with the expulsion of Carlos Mateo Balmelli, who predictably, once made public outside the harassment because of angurria most luguistas leaders, who kept to press charges and businesses with the binational Itaipu. The liberal Matthew was marginalized by the government archbishop, largely because he refused to satisfy the appetite of sycophants Lugo environment, as evidenced by the latest revelations. The former director of Itaipu got dirty in the management of the binational social costs, and can say that the stench dismissed by the shenanigans of the priest was finally exposed. Indignation, that ability that we humans to express our anger at an event or personal or social behavior that goes against the basic principles of ethics and justice1 has increased worldwide. What evil could be interpreted as a trend, it is rather a result, a result that expresses the terrible inequity in society. In October 2010, Stéphane Hessel2, a French diplomat of 94 years published an essay entitled: Although cookbooks are exhaustively, with cooking times of foods, the truth is that they change depending on the height at which we are. Mexico City is about 2,450 meters higher than any New York kitchen. When the water boils in New York is always a little warmer than when it bubbles up in Mexico City. And is that the altitude affects this because, according to altitude, there is more or less pressure. When the kuhn rikon dampfkochtopf on a liquid, boiling point also increases. To be at a pressure of 1 atmosphere, water boils at 100 degrees. But at a pressure of 217 atmospheres, the boiling point reaches its maximum value: 374 degrees. So imagine how slow it can be cooking a stew to 5,000 meters. The truth is that some very complete cookbook add this extra information in their recipes. E even be used in domestic food thermometers to ensure that, for example, meat is well made. There are also cookers steam to be used in mountain (usually in fields base). Conversely, if you use a microwave, you take less time to cook on top of a mountain to sea level. This is because the liquids evaporate quickly at high altitudes. Although cookbooks are exhaustively, with cooking times of foods, the truth is that they change depending on the height at which we are. Please enter the code shown in the picture. If next time you want to avoid this control, login above or, if you have not registered, register. My brother and I always argue, and once spoke of "strong claims" where I usually say that do not have to be absolutely certain. I put the example to say that "water boils at 100 ° C" is a very strong statement and is therefore less likely to be true. My brother insisted on that, that water boils at 100 ° C and it's true. However, under atmospheric pressure (as well said Sergio) the temperature at which water boils varies. So that water boils at 100 ° C is less true to say "water, as a rule, boils at 100 ° C in an atmospheric pressure of X". Thus I argued about the imprecision of categorical statements such as "killing is wrong" or "it's involved." It is clear that all have views, nuances and related parts. So things are not so simple or obvious as to affirm without two or three words and believe us we have 100% of the reason, when in fact, I would say 99% that there is nothing to 100%. Following your reasoning, your categorical statement that "all have views, nuances and related parts" is unlikely to be true, so it certainly has strong claims. But if there are strong claims, maybe one of them is yours, so who knows .. Um .. is an interesting and complex that of "truth", I'm glad you've taken. But I've always thought that there are certain areas where there is "truth." First of all, I refer to a very interesting reflection of St. Thomas Aquinas. "Clearly there is truth. He who denies that there is truth, truth known to exist. If therefore there is no truth, it is true that truth does not exist." So your thinking of "nothing is 100%" contradicts itself, because if that were true, it would be something true. And yet he says that there is nothing true ¿? Contradiction is a false statement. True, it's pretty overwhelming, but somehow, within the message, incorporates many words that add uncertainty to the claim, such as views, nuances and relative. Maybe in my statement quantity of words is emphatic, but not so content. At no time do not deny the existence of something. Simply deny the existence of something than 100%. Who has said that things just are or are not? No other degrees or magnitudes? That's what I mean when I express to 100%. Your car is not 100% blue still you say that "my car is blue" or be killed is 100% wrong when you say "killing is wrong." Killing, as the case may be fine (without going further, to live we have to kill other living things to feed them. Is that bad?). That is, do not deny that nothing can exist, simply deny the fact that something, anything, can be 100% of its definition and all. Therefore, I believe that when a more detailed statement, most likely to be true. "My car is a blue hue on the outer skin that makes doors, sides, roof, front and back" is more accurate to say "my car is blue." Because your car has parts that are not blue interior, exterior parts that are not blue, has parts like crystals that have no apparent color and also your car "is not" blue, in any case, your car is blue. And that's without going to discuss what kind of blue can be the color of the car .. If you say that the paintwork of your car reflects light at a wavelength of 450-495 nm between saying you would not be an absolute truth?. In this comment you've made things clearer Aylos, yet I still think that there is a contradiction. For example, with what you said about the blue car and about killing (very good examples), we agree that there are nuances in what we regard as "truth." Imagine even that everything is shades or quantities (is what your statement says you?). Your approach would be true in all areas (or that's what he implies, "simply deny the fact that something, anything, can be 100% of its definition and absolute"). Then, this approach would not have shades or magnitudes would be 100% true (do not tell me this is a lie, because it is so, if that is not true 100%, while there should be something that has no variables) . And that same approach, being 100% true and not contain figures or levels, is destroying the claim that all truths are nuanced, magnitudes or levels. xdd if, with that you're still leaving things even clearer. Then again, maybe if the car is dirty or over time, quality and quantity of reflection varies so it is hard to even say exactly how much it reflects. Besides, I doubt that all the car's body reflects the light SAME WAY. Surely, even you could make a statistical, parties have more impurities that would reflect different wavelengths. Cendrero, if it is true that it is paradoxical. It is similar to Socrates' famous comment "just do not know anything", so, you know something, you know nothing, and that's more than nothing. But the claim is protected in part, because by saying that "99% sure that nothing is 100%" give room for the 1% that could be precisely the failure of self-assertion. That is, contemplate that possibility, but as something more "improbable" that not impossible. Anyway I do not think that this law applies to anything and situation, however, at the level of society, I think many times we make such mistakes, say things like absolute and unchanging when in fact there are many even points should be discussed. If you now you go out and tell people if water boils at 100 ° C, almost everyone will say "yes", but the politically correct answer would be "if, as a general rule." That is, adding that "general rule" we understand that sometimes it is possible that the water grass at 100 ° C, so we make a mistake much lower compared to the first statement. Yes, that deep down we do not say exactly the truth, but truth is more acceptable than the other. Nor speak of complexity of the claim as to "amount" of information. Because under that premise, I could give you a list 461534684 descriptive details of a lie, and it would still be a lie (just elaborate would be a lie). We could say that everything is based on accuracy and appreciation of the statement, the more accurate and valuable is less likely to contain an error (not to mention the fact that we want to tell a lie on purpose). It's a bit like the laws and how they are written. In essence a law may say "killing is wrong", but if we say only that, there are hundreds and thousands of lakes within the law itself a breach plowing so easily simply be absurd (as he said about killing animals for live). Therefore, the law requires many details to be more effective. We say it is illegal to kill a person when they commit a murder (for example), defining murder as crime against human life, of a very specific, that is to kill a person concurring circumstances such as premeditation, price, reward or promise of remuneration and cruelty, deliberately and inhumanly increasing the pain of the victim. So we went from a "killing is wrong" a definition much more complex and somewhat successful than it actually is wrong. Well, I say today's asinine, if zero is the temperature at which water freezes and 100 to the seething, which is displaced is the scale of temperature at different altitudes?. Does the pressure inside the thermometer is always the same because it is sealed at the factory pressure or vacuum inside and did not mind the pressure because he always expands or contracts the vacuum mercury?. I've seen in the wiki than 0 º C and 100 correspond to congelaciÃon and boiling but P = 1 atm. So now I have clarified myself, the boiling pt up or down depending on the pressure =