You have to notice though, that there's a difference between the American constitution and the Swedish Grundlag in that the Swedish one doesn't enjoy the protection of a Supreme Court. In the U.S., proposed legislation can get struck down by the Supreme Court if found unconstitutional. In Sweden there is Lagrådet with a similar function, except it doesn't have the ability to overrule the Riksdag (the parliament that writes the laws). It can only issue recommendations to the Riksdag, who may very well decide to ignore them.
In other words, there's nothing to prevent the parliament from accepting legislature that blatantly conflicts with the constitution.
This. To grasp even basic quantum mechanics you need to know about linear algebra (to understand the bra/ket notation and why a*b doesn't equal b*a), improper integrals and complex functions (to understand the wave function) and preferably partial differential equations too (to derive the solutions of some simple cases). And that's just the beginning of it.
I really can't see an accurate description of quantum mechanics without quite heavy use of mathematics. This web course might very well be a good introduction to the subject, but if you really want to understand where quantum mechanics comes from, you'll need a bigger mathematical toolbox.
Piratbyrån were among the first to question the propaganda from record companies, politicians and lawyers. For that, they deserve respect and praise. They started the Pirate Bay, and they inspired the founders of the Swedish Pirate Party. Those organizations are today much more important than Piratbyrån, with the Pirate Bay being the largest bittorrent tracker in the world and the Piracy Party holding two seats in the European Parliament. Piratbyrån's disbandment will in practice have very little effect on the political struggle for online freedom.
That's alright however, because that's how it's supposed to work. It's in the spirit of copyleft - "here are our ideas, please copy them and do whatever you like with them. Build something better on top on what we've created, and share it with others." Piratbyrån simply have had their day, and that's not just my opinion but theirs as well. Co-founders Marcin de Kaminski and Rasmus Fleischer have both posted blog entries in Swedish to that same effect.
I'm sorry to hear about the loss of Ibrahim Botani, but I'm not sorry that Piratbyrån shuts down now, because they've already won. Their mission is accomplished, namely that they got the common people to discuss file sharing and Internet freedom. Other people can and will continue where they left off. I'd just like to say, thank you guys for all the things you've done. You've opened our eyes and been an inspiration for the whole world.
I would totally agree with your post if it wasn't for the small detail that this was an article published in Nature by a team of university scientists. It's not supposed to be commercially available yet - indeed, no one even knows if it ever will be. They're just exploring a novel way of constructing solar cells, that's all.
I hope more people share my opinion that finding and characterizing exoplanets is THE most exciting scientific field of our time. My elderly astronomy professor at Stockholm University said three years ago that he hoped to live to see the day when they discover alien life the first time.
His explained that all the evidence is out there - all we need is better instruments. With Kepler we can now find many more planets. If some of them turn out to be of roughly the same size as Earth and in the habitable zone, the next thing to do would be analyzing the atmospheric spectrum of the planet. Presence of free oxygen in such a spectrum would be a VERY strong indication of life. Oxygen is highly reactive and if not for the constant re-supplying of free oxygen by plants, the percentage of free oxygen in the atmosphere would be next to nothing.
Best thing of all is that the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope will be able to measure spectra from exoplanets (maybe just jovian planets though, not sure on the details so someone please enlighten me). This means that with extreme luck, the first discovery of alien life could come as soon as 2014 (not that I actually believe that, but just so you get a sense of the timescale.) Extra-terrestrial life has for a long time had a reputation of being a subject for philosophers and conspiracy theorists, but this isn't sci-fi or some far-flung ideas that will never work - this is real science and we're doing it now.
The next few decades could very well turn out to be the most exciting years ever in the history of astronomy. I just wish more people could realize how cool this really is.
You know who else couldn't tolerate poor grammar? Adolf Hitler. In Nazi Germany, people were brainwashed with nationalistic propaganda from an early age. The schools teached the importance of learning absolutely correct language, the true and pure German tounge.
Every time you're picking on someone's grammar, you're promoting nazism.
I still think we should decrease our use of energy, instead of inventing new ways to increase its production.
Dr. Pekka Paisti
Decreasing energy use is good, but it's not a solution to the world's energy problems.
For one thing, the world's population is growing every day, and energy use is going up whether we like it or not, just to keep those people alive. The decrease of energy consumption per capita will soon be eaten up by increased population.
More importantly, energy consumption is essentially a good thing. Sure there are unnecessary energy hogs - plasma screens, gas-guzzling SUVs, air conditioners - but there's more to it than that. Energy use allows us to light up and heat our houses, provide clean water for everyone, keep our food cold so it won't turn rotten, and so on. We sure used a lot less energy 100 years ago, but then again quite a lot of people froze to death in those days if there was a harsh winter. Same goes for the third world countries of today - if they are to improve their situation, they need to increase their energy consumption. It's not about luxury, it's about the basics that we in the western world take for granted.
The real solution is to find new and better energy sources which are cheap, renewable and effective. Energy consumption is not a bad thing per se, it only becomes so when the energy is produced in an environmentally harmful way (see: Deepwater Horizon). Solar energy has an enormous potential and therefore inventions like this are important for our future. This particular technology may or may not prevail in the end, but some kind of renewable energy can and will be our primary energy source in the future. The sooner we make the change, the better.
I would guess because a ban on books and newspapers simply doesn't seem as reasonable as a ban on electronics. Most people have no idea just how much or how little electronic devices interfere with the plane's onboard instruments, but few people question the ban. For some reason it's easier to accept that you have to turn your laptop off than that you have to stop reading your book.
Most of the accidents happen during take-off or landing. In case something happens, the captain may need the full attention of the passengers to inform or instruct them. If people sit using notebooks, listening to music, watching movies etc, this will become very much less effective.
Additionally, if a plane crashes, the less stuff lying around the better. Notebooks can become projectiles, earphone cords can become a hindrance for evacuation, and having your hands full is just generally a bad idea. Banning electronic equipment is a safety issue that has nothing to do with electricity itself, in much the same way as texting and driving.
Yeah, the Aztecs were totally wiped out because of their religion destabilized the society. Not because, you know, the Spaniards arrived with guns and horses and smallpox and conquered the country.
The argument of people refraining from violence for fear of God is pretty much discredited by now. Most people act nicely towards each other because of instinct - it is programmed into our genes to cooperate with other humans. The kind of people who would murder their neighbour for a pair of new shoes lack this instinct and are impaired in their ability to see the consequences of their actions. Fear of God doesn't stop them, because they aren't ruled by reason.
Look, this is not negotiable. You seem to think the status quo is some sort of laissez faire approach. It's not. The status quo is for government to rob from the capable and to give to the weak. And the only thing allowing that to continue is a thin line of collective morality, formed in an environment of relative abundance.
Yes. And that collective morality, coupled with said relative abundance, is exactly what has driven the development of civilizations, literacy and knowledge. The very fact that people haven't had to fend for themselves all the time is what has made it possible to rise above the apes and become modern humans. Things like public schools, universities, libraries and so on are all funded by, as you say, robbing the capable and giving to the weak.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "incapable dipshits". Disabled people? People with diseases or injuries? Or perhaps you mean ALL people currently without income (e.g. unemployed, children, students)? I doubt it would be very benificial for the economy to let these people die of hunger or become criminals. If you think more than 5 seconds about it you realize that today's leech might be tomorrow's provider.
I can't believe this got modded insightful. Even without the racist insinuations, it's just plain wrong.
First, evolution does not have a purpose, and we surely don't have a "duty of doing our part in evolution". Evolution is just a natural process. Saying we have a duty to evolution makes about as much sense as saying we should stop building airplanes because we're neglecting our duty to gravity.
Second, the idea that we need to "weed out" the undesired traits in the human species is wrong because evolution does not work that way. Major changes in the genome generally happen within small, isolated populations. With such a huge population as humans on Earth is, evolution will be an extremely slow process. The gene pool will be mixed and mingled and these undesired traits will come and go.
Third, it's not clear what would represent "good" and "bad" traits (let alone genes) in humans. For example, people suffering from sickle-cell disease are more resistant to malaria. It would also be extremly difficult and costly to determine which genes are good and which are bad. Evolution, on the other hand, doesn't care. It only cares about if the genes are good enough to let the individual survive and reproduce. For this reason, eugenics is generally considered a pseudoscience.
Fourth, and I really shouldn't have to mention this, no one in their sane mind wants a government that gets to decide who can reproduce and who can't. If you don't see why this is a bad idea, then maybe YOU should refrain from breeding because we surely don't want anyone who lacks imagination to reproduce, right?
I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact and was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.
Yes, I'm serious. I really do think "teh evil government" should poke their dirty fingers in the pie and make a law that forbids employers to monitor their employees in this way.
Why? After all, we have a freedom of contract. If you don't want to work there, just don't take the job, right?
Trouble is, after a while a significant share of all companies might require you to carry around a cellphone they can track. If you keep saying no to signing such contracts, your options will become more and more limited. In the end you might have no choice but to accept an unacceptable measure, or end up with no job at all.
Just because it's voluntary doesn't mean you have a choice.
You've misunderstood it a bit. This is not the parliament saying no to ACTA, this is the parliament saying "we want to see what's going on in there!". So in effect, it IS a no-brainer question which could be translated to "Do we want to give ourselves more power?" or perhaps even more accurate "Should we demand to be given the power we have the right to?"
You do have a point however - this is not ONLY a technical question regarding the secrecy of the ACTA negotiations, but it has also to do with the presumed content of the treaty itself. Many MEP:s are worried about draconian measures are part of the treaty.
Right now, in the European Parliament, sit two MEP's called Christian Engström and Amelia Andersdotter. They represent the Swedish Pirate Party, which got some 7% of the Swedish votes in the EP election last year. The reason the party got so many votes was that the Swedes finally had enough of all the repressive laws that were passed over their heads by the traditional parties. At least, that's why I voted for them. So while it's not perfect, the multiple-party system does allow for new parties fueled by discontent with the current situation.
The Pirate Party have played some part in fighting the ACTA agreement. Christian Engström keeps a blog where he reports on ACTA and other questions regarding your rights online.
I really don't get the problem. What is it that you want to achieve? Do you want to enter a typing competition or do you seek a career in live subtexting?
You have a really fast typing speed as it is now. Hey, 90 wpm ought to be enough for anybody. I see only two reasons why you should try to change your technique:
1) You experience pain while typing and want a more ergonomically correct positioning of your fingers.
2) You have an unusual job where it's really important that you type extremely fast.
If neither of these apply to you, you have nothing to worry about. Do something more worthwile with your time than trying to fix something that isn't broken.
Slashdot Mirror
If Slashdot had used sentence case in headlines, we could have distinguished Beer from beer, just like that.
You have to notice though, that there's a difference between the American constitution and the Swedish Grundlag in that the Swedish one doesn't enjoy the protection of a Supreme Court. In the U.S., proposed legislation can get struck down by the Supreme Court if found unconstitutional. In Sweden there is Lagrådet with a similar function, except it doesn't have the ability to overrule the Riksdag (the parliament that writes the laws). It can only issue recommendations to the Riksdag, who may very well decide to ignore them.
In other words, there's nothing to prevent the parliament from accepting legislature that blatantly conflicts with the constitution.
Haven't you seen the way most humans are remote controlled via small pocket devices and white cords jacked into their ears?
Actually one discipline is missing in that strip. There should be a philosopher to the right of the mathematician.
This. To grasp even basic quantum mechanics you need to know about linear algebra (to understand the bra/ket notation and why a*b doesn't equal b*a), improper integrals and complex functions (to understand the wave function) and preferably partial differential equations too (to derive the solutions of some simple cases). And that's just the beginning of it.
I really can't see an accurate description of quantum mechanics without quite heavy use of mathematics. This web course might very well be a good introduction to the subject, but if you really want to understand where quantum mechanics comes from, you'll need a bigger mathematical toolbox.
Piratbyrån were among the first to question the propaganda from record companies, politicians and lawyers. For that, they deserve respect and praise. They started the Pirate Bay, and they inspired the founders of the Swedish Pirate Party. Those organizations are today much more important than Piratbyrån, with the Pirate Bay being the largest bittorrent tracker in the world and the Piracy Party holding two seats in the European Parliament. Piratbyrån's disbandment will in practice have very little effect on the political struggle for online freedom.
That's alright however, because that's how it's supposed to work. It's in the spirit of copyleft - "here are our ideas, please copy them and do whatever you like with them. Build something better on top on what we've created, and share it with others." Piratbyrån simply have had their day, and that's not just my opinion but theirs as well. Co-founders Marcin de Kaminski and Rasmus Fleischer have both posted blog entries in Swedish to that same effect.
I'm sorry to hear about the loss of Ibrahim Botani, but I'm not sorry that Piratbyrån shuts down now, because they've already won. Their mission is accomplished, namely that they got the common people to discuss file sharing and Internet freedom. Other people can and will continue where they left off. I'd just like to say, thank you guys for all the things you've done. You've opened our eyes and been an inspiration for the whole world.
I would totally agree with your post if it wasn't for the small detail that this was an article published in Nature by a team of university scientists. It's not supposed to be commercially available yet - indeed, no one even knows if it ever will be. They're just exploring a novel way of constructing solar cells, that's all.
I hope more people share my opinion that finding and characterizing exoplanets is THE most exciting scientific field of our time. My elderly astronomy professor at Stockholm University said three years ago that he hoped to live to see the day when they discover alien life the first time.
His explained that all the evidence is out there - all we need is better instruments. With Kepler we can now find many more planets. If some of them turn out to be of roughly the same size as Earth and in the habitable zone, the next thing to do would be analyzing the atmospheric spectrum of the planet. Presence of free oxygen in such a spectrum would be a VERY strong indication of life. Oxygen is highly reactive and if not for the constant re-supplying of free oxygen by plants, the percentage of free oxygen in the atmosphere would be next to nothing.
Best thing of all is that the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope will be able to measure spectra from exoplanets (maybe just jovian planets though, not sure on the details so someone please enlighten me). This means that with extreme luck, the first discovery of alien life could come as soon as 2014 (not that I actually believe that, but just so you get a sense of the timescale.) Extra-terrestrial life has for a long time had a reputation of being a subject for philosophers and conspiracy theorists, but this isn't sci-fi or some far-flung ideas that will never work - this is real science and we're doing it now.
The next few decades could very well turn out to be the most exciting years ever in the history of astronomy. I just wish more people could realize how cool this really is.
You know who else couldn't tolerate poor grammar? Adolf Hitler. In Nazi Germany, people were brainwashed with nationalistic propaganda from an early age. The schools teached the importance of learning absolutely correct language, the true and pure German tounge.
Every time you're picking on someone's grammar, you're promoting nazism.
I still think we should decrease our use of energy, instead of inventing new ways to increase its production.
Dr. Pekka Paisti
Decreasing energy use is good, but it's not a solution to the world's energy problems.
For one thing, the world's population is growing every day, and energy use is going up whether we like it or not, just to keep those people alive. The decrease of energy consumption per capita will soon be eaten up by increased population.
More importantly, energy consumption is essentially a good thing. Sure there are unnecessary energy hogs - plasma screens, gas-guzzling SUVs, air conditioners - but there's more to it than that. Energy use allows us to light up and heat our houses, provide clean water for everyone, keep our food cold so it won't turn rotten, and so on. We sure used a lot less energy 100 years ago, but then again quite a lot of people froze to death in those days if there was a harsh winter. Same goes for the third world countries of today - if they are to improve their situation, they need to increase their energy consumption. It's not about luxury, it's about the basics that we in the western world take for granted.
The real solution is to find new and better energy sources which are cheap, renewable and effective. Energy consumption is not a bad thing per se, it only becomes so when the energy is produced in an environmentally harmful way (see: Deepwater Horizon). Solar energy has an enormous potential and therefore inventions like this are important for our future. This particular technology may or may not prevail in the end, but some kind of renewable energy can and will be our primary energy source in the future. The sooner we make the change, the better.
I would guess because a ban on books and newspapers simply doesn't seem as reasonable as a ban on electronics. Most people have no idea just how much or how little electronic devices interfere with the plane's onboard instruments, but few people question the ban. For some reason it's easier to accept that you have to turn your laptop off than that you have to stop reading your book.
Most of the accidents happen during take-off or landing. In case something happens, the captain may need the full attention of the passengers to inform or instruct them. If people sit using notebooks, listening to music, watching movies etc, this will become very much less effective.
Additionally, if a plane crashes, the less stuff lying around the better. Notebooks can become projectiles, earphone cords can become a hindrance for evacuation, and having your hands full is just generally a bad idea. Banning electronic equipment is a safety issue that has nothing to do with electricity itself, in much the same way as texting and driving.
Just out of curiosity, what's the air-speed velocity of your unladen desk?
And, GP, do you have the European or African market version?
I don't know that!
Yeah, the Aztecs were totally wiped out because of their religion destabilized the society. Not because, you know, the Spaniards arrived with guns and horses and smallpox and conquered the country.
The argument of people refraining from violence for fear of God is pretty much discredited by now. Most people act nicely towards each other because of instinct - it is programmed into our genes to cooperate with other humans. The kind of people who would murder their neighbour for a pair of new shoes lack this instinct and are impaired in their ability to see the consequences of their actions. Fear of God doesn't stop them, because they aren't ruled by reason.
Look, this is not negotiable. You seem to think the status quo is some sort of laissez faire approach. It's not. The status quo is for government to rob from the capable and to give to the weak. And the only thing allowing that to continue is a thin line of collective morality, formed in an environment of relative abundance.
Yes. And that collective morality, coupled with said relative abundance, is exactly what has driven the development of civilizations, literacy and knowledge. The very fact that people haven't had to fend for themselves all the time is what has made it possible to rise above the apes and become modern humans. Things like public schools, universities, libraries and so on are all funded by, as you say, robbing the capable and giving to the weak.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "incapable dipshits". Disabled people? People with diseases or injuries? Or perhaps you mean ALL people currently without income (e.g. unemployed, children, students)? I doubt it would be very benificial for the economy to let these people die of hunger or become criminals. If you think more than 5 seconds about it you realize that today's leech might be tomorrow's provider.
I can't believe this got modded insightful. Even without the racist insinuations, it's just plain wrong.
First, evolution does not have a purpose, and we surely don't have a "duty of doing our part in evolution". Evolution is just a natural process. Saying we have a duty to evolution makes about as much sense as saying we should stop building airplanes because we're neglecting our duty to gravity.
Second, the idea that we need to "weed out" the undesired traits in the human species is wrong because evolution does not work that way. Major changes in the genome generally happen within small, isolated populations. With such a huge population as humans on Earth is, evolution will be an extremely slow process. The gene pool will be mixed and mingled and these undesired traits will come and go.
Third, it's not clear what would represent "good" and "bad" traits (let alone genes) in humans. For example, people suffering from sickle-cell disease are more resistant to malaria. It would also be extremly difficult and costly to determine which genes are good and which are bad. Evolution, on the other hand, doesn't care. It only cares about if the genes are good enough to let the individual survive and reproduce. For this reason, eugenics is generally considered a pseudoscience.
Fourth, and I really shouldn't have to mention this, no one in their sane mind wants a government that gets to decide who can reproduce and who can't. If you don't see why this is a bad idea, then maybe YOU should refrain from breeding because we surely don't want anyone who lacks imagination to reproduce, right?
My apology is from here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7mIy97_rlo
It's kinda more funny when John Cleese says it.
Come to think of it, most things are more funny when John Cleese says them.
I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact and was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.
So rather than say "yay, Pink Floyd won!", we should be saying "what the fuck did EMI think they were doing?".
Hanging on in silent desperation is the English way.
Yes, I'm serious. I really do think "teh evil government" should poke their dirty fingers in the pie and make a law that forbids employers to monitor their employees in this way.
Why? After all, we have a freedom of contract. If you don't want to work there, just don't take the job, right?
Trouble is, after a while a significant share of all companies might require you to carry around a cellphone they can track. If you keep saying no to signing such contracts, your options will become more and more limited. In the end you might have no choice but to accept an unacceptable measure, or end up with no job at all.
Just because it's voluntary doesn't mean you have a choice.
OK, then we agree. This is dead on. If I hadn't posted already I would have modded you up.
You've misunderstood it a bit. This is not the parliament saying no to ACTA, this is the parliament saying "we want to see what's going on in there!". So in effect, it IS a no-brainer question which could be translated to "Do we want to give ourselves more power?" or perhaps even more accurate "Should we demand to be given the power we have the right to?"
You do have a point however - this is not ONLY a technical question regarding the secrecy of the ACTA negotiations, but it has also to do with the presumed content of the treaty itself. Many MEP:s are worried about draconian measures are part of the treaty.
There are exceptions.
Right now, in the European Parliament, sit two MEP's called Christian Engström and Amelia Andersdotter. They represent the Swedish Pirate Party, which got some 7% of the Swedish votes in the EP election last year. The reason the party got so many votes was that the Swedes finally had enough of all the repressive laws that were passed over their heads by the traditional parties. At least, that's why I voted for them. So while it's not perfect, the multiple-party system does allow for new parties fueled by discontent with the current situation.
The Pirate Party have played some part in fighting the ACTA agreement. Christian Engström keeps a blog where he reports on ACTA and other questions regarding your rights online.
I really don't get the problem. What is it that you want to achieve? Do you want to enter a typing competition or do you seek a career in live subtexting?
You have a really fast typing speed as it is now. Hey, 90 wpm ought to be enough for anybody. I see only two reasons why you should try to change your technique:
1) You experience pain while typing and want a more ergonomically correct positioning of your fingers.
2) You have an unusual job where it's really important that you type extremely fast.
If neither of these apply to you, you have nothing to worry about. Do something more worthwile with your time than trying to fix something that isn't broken.
If you don't like the restrictions, fine. Jailbreak your phone. Or choose a different platform.
Thanks, I think I'll do just that.