Critical reappraisal of Late Mesozoic-Cenozoic Central and North Atlantic, Caribbean and Mediterranean evolution

(l) The Pacific basin (Pacific area) may be regarded as moving eastwards like a double zip fastener relative to the continents and their respective plates (Pangaea area): opening in the East and closing in the West. This movement is tracked by a continuous mountain belt, the collision ages of which increase westwards. (2) The relative movements between the Pacific area and the Pangaea area in the W-E/E-W direction are generated by tidal forces (principle of hypocycloid gearing), whereby the lower mantle and the Pacific basin or area (Pacific crust = roof of the lower mantle?) rotate somewhat faster eastwards around the Earth's spin axis relative to the upper mantle/crust system with the continents and their respective plates (Pangaea area) (differential rotation). (3) These relative West to East/East to West displacements produce a perpetually existing sequence of distinct styles of opening and closing ocean basins, exemplified by the present East to West arrangement of ocean basins around the globe (Oceanic or Wilson Cycle: Rift/Red Sea style; Atlantic style; Mediterranean/Caribbean style as eastwards propagating tongue of the Pacific basin; Pacific style; Collision/Himalayas style). This sequence of ocean styles, of which the Pacific ocean is a part, moves eastwards with the lower mantle relative to the continents and the upper-mantle/crust of the Pangaea area. (4) Similarly, the collisional mountain belt extending westwards from the equator to the West of the Pacific and representing a chronological sequence of collision zones (sequential collisions) in the wake of the passing of the Pacific basin double zip fastener, may also be described as recording the history of oceans and their continental margins in the form of successive Wilson Cycles. (5) Every 200 to 250 m.y. the Pacific basin double zip fastener, the sequence of ocean styles of the Wilson Cycle and the eastwards growing collisional mountain belt in their wake complete one lap around the Earth. Two East drift lappings of 400 to 500 m.y. produce a two-lap collisional mountain belt spiral around a supercontinent in one hemisphere (North or South Pangaea). The Earth's history is subdivided into alternating North Pangaea growth/South Pangaea breakup eras and South Pangaea growth/North Pangaea breakup eras. Older North and South Pangaeas and their collisional mountain belt spirals may be reconstructed by rotating back the continents and orogenic fragments of a broken spiral (e.g. South Pangaea, Gondwana) to their previous Pangaea growth era orientations. In the resulting collisional mountain belt spiral, pieced together from orogenic segments and fragments, the collision ages have to increase successively towards the West. (6) With its current western margin orientated in a West-East direction North America must have collided during the Late Cretaceous Laramide orogeny with the northern margin of South America (Caribbean Andes) at the equator to the West of the Late Mesozoic Pacific. During post-Laramide times it must have rotated clockwise into its present orientation. The eastern margin of North America has never been attached to the western margin of North Africa but only to the western margin of Europe. (7) Due to migration eastwards of the sequence of ocean styles of the Wilson Cycle, relative to a distinct plate tectonic setting of an ocean, a continent or continental margin, a future or later evolutionary style at the Earth's surface is always depicted in a setting simultaneously developed further to the West and a past or earlier style in a setting simultaneously occurring further to the East. In consequence, ahigh probability exists that up to the Early Tertiary, Greenland (the ArabiaofSouth America?) occupied a plate tectonic setting which is comparable to the current setting of Arabia (the Greenland of Africa?). The Late Cretaceous/Early Tertiary Eureka collision zone (Eureka orogeny) at the northern margin of the Greenland Plate and on some of the Canadian Arctic Islands is comparable with the Middle to Late Tertiary Taurus-Bitlis-Zagros collision zone at the northern margin of the Arabian Plate.

Bits, Atoms, and Information Sharing: new opportunities for participation

The particular characteristics and affordances of technologies play a significant role in human experience by defining the realm of possibilities available to individuals and societies. Some technological configurations, such as the Internet, facilitate peer-to-peer communication and participatory behaviors. Others, like television broadcasting, tend to encourage centralization of creative processes and unidirectional communication. In other instances still, the affordances of technologies can be further constrained by social practices. That is the case, for example, of radio which, although technically allowing peer-to-peer communication, has effectively been converted into a broadcast medium through the legislation of the airwaves. How technologies acquire particular properties, meanings and uses, and who is involved in those decisions are the broader questions explored here. Although a long line of thought maintains that technologies evolve according to the logic of scientific rationality, recent studies demonstrated that technologies are, in fact, primarily shaped by social forces in specific historical contexts. In this view, adopted here, there is no one best way to design a technological artifact or system; the selection between alternative designs—which determine the affordances of each technology—is made by social actors according to their particular values, assumptions and goals. Thus, the arrangement of technical elements in any technological artifact is configured to conform to the views and interests of those involved in its development. Understanding how technologies assume particular shapes, who is involved in these decisions and how, in turn, they propitiate particular behaviors and modes of organization but not others, requires understanding the contexts in which they are developed. It is argued here that, throughout the last century, two distinct approaches to the development and dissemination of technologies have coexisted. In each of these models, based on fundamentally different ethoi, technologies are developed through different processes and by different participants—and therefore tend to assume different shapes and offer different possibilities. In the first of these approaches, the dominant model in Western societies, technologies are typically developed by firms, manufactured in large factories, and subsequently disseminated to the rest of the population for consumption. In this centralized model, the role of users is limited to selecting from the alternatives presented by professional producers. Thus, according to this approach, the technologies that are now so deeply woven into human experience, are primarily shaped by a relatively small number of producers. In recent years, however, a group of three interconnected interest groups—the makers, hackerspaces, and open source hardware communities—have increasingly challenged this dominant model by enacting an alternative approach in which technologies are both individually transformed and collectively shaped. Through a in-depth analysis of these phenomena, their practices and ethos, it is argued here that the distributed approach practiced by these communities offers a practical path towards a democratization of the technosphere by: 1) demystifying technologies, 2) providing the public with the tools and knowledge necessary to understand and shape technologies, and 3) encouraging citizen participation in the development of technologies.

A lei aplicável ao processo de arbitragem internacional

This paper is the author’s Master’s Thesis. It aims to study the content of lexarbitri, i.e. the relevant law regarding international arbitration. Under both Portuguese law and UNCITRAL model law, the seat’s legal provisions shall be applied at all times. Contrarily, French and Swiss legislations allow parties and arbitrators to apply any arbitration law to international arbitration, whether the seat law or a foreign arbitration law. There is not a sole understanding towards the criteria to determine the legal provisions that shall govern international arbitration. Traditionally, the lexarbitri would correspond to the arbitration law of the seat of the arbitration. The territorialist criteria remains in force under the majority of arbitration laws that the author has consulted. However, it has been criticized by several authorities in international arbitration, who suggest that the arbitration shall be governed by the law of the seat or of the place in which the award is to be enforcement, whichever better grants its enforcement – the cumulative doctrine; or the arbitration shall be governed by a set of provisions that make up the autonomous transnational legal, regardless of the legal provisions of the law of the seat – the transnational doctrine. The author intends to debate the three mentioned understandings regarding the lexarbitriand further explains why the territorialist criteria is the most adequate to the characteristics and demands of international arbitration, to the governing instruments in force and to the need for a useful award.