Bye bye

Thanks to all other students and to Mary Tåqvist for a reaily great course. I am definitely going to miss it a lot!

/Lars F

It's time to bury the comma

Today, the dot (.) is used as decimal separator in the English speaking world while the comma (,) is used in most other countries, such as continental Europe and the Nordic countries [1]. This difference can be an annoyance as well as a source of potentially serious errors. Therefore, it would be beneficial to once and for all replace the ‘continental’ comma usage with the technically and scientifically more widespread dot usage. In this text, five proper reasons will be highlighted.

Firstly, it is illogical that specifically the decimal sign is different across the world, when almost everything else connected to maths stays the same throughout much of the globe. The rules of arithmancy, algebra and calculus are the same (e.g. independently of geographical location, 5-2=3), the operators (i.e. mathematical symbols) are the same and the same stays true for the way we write numbers (at least in Western countries). Then, it seems logical that also a sign as vital as the decimal separator should remain the same.

Secondly, most Nordic and continental Europeans are, already, quite accustomed to the Anglo-Saxon way of splitting decimals from integers: look at pocket calculators, thermometers, scales, voltmeters et cetera… Then, it would also be much less confusing for children if they could write the same symbol (i.e. ‘.’) on paper as they see on the screen of their calculators.

Thirdly, a whole lot of other things have been standardised, at least throughout the European Union. For example, the period of daylight saving has quite recently been standardised this way. The other most well known example, at least for Britons and the Irish, is the official adoption of the SI system replacing the foot and yard with the metre, the pounds per square inch with the Pascal, the pint with the litre and so on. Then, one may think, the rest of Europe, could give their commas up.

Forthly, by avoiding using different decimal signs, it would be possible to avoid mistakes. For example, it’s definitely safer to ignite 5.000 g hydrogen gas than to ignite 5,000 g. People accostomed to one usage may – quite easily – be confused when having to switch to the other.

Fifthly, certain computer programs have their own configuration concerning the decimal separator, and hence do not use the standard configuration defined in the operating system. So, on the same computer sometimes the comma should be used and sometimes the dot is demanded. Confusing? Risks making mistakes? Probably.

Another complication is that the sign not used as a decimal separator is often used as a thousands separator (as in 5,000 g). This makes it all even fuzzier. However, this is a relatively small problem in scientific contexts since powers of ten or prefixes are usually preferred (as in 5 ∙ 10³ g or 5 kg). Besides, since the advent of computers this confusing usage has luckily somewhat declined. Still, this could be an source of consternation for people dealing with, for example, economics.

So, the bottom line is that it would certainly be logical to fully abandon the comma usage as decimal separator. In scientific contexts, the shift has largely already taken place; I always use the dot as decimal separator, also when writing in Swedish. I believe society as a whole would benifit from a complete change. Besides, it is easy to implement; only the textbooks in school need to be slightly altered. So let’s bury the comma. Long live the dot!

References

[1] Decimal separator. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator (reviewed 18th of May 2009).

The increasing surveillance in today's society

For once, the topic of the week is about an issue that even I can’t judge black or white: The issue of the increasing surveillance throughout Society. Nobody would say something like the more surveillance – the better. Meanwhile, a very limited number of people would argue for no surveillance at all. In this text, I will try to elaborate on what I think is a reasonable degree of surveillance. Assuming the world could be split into a ‘real’ and a ‘virtual’ world makes the analysis somewhat easier.

In the ‘real’ world, violence exists. People become raped, beaten and even killed. Due to this, many means to counteract these severe crimes could easily be justified. One expedient that is readily used – at least in larger cities – is surveillance cameras, which indeed are as much Orwellian as they could be; no doubt they constitute an infringement on the personal integrity. However, I believe, we must accept this infringement in order to save lives and serious injuries. That doesn’t mean it’s unproblematic. The truth is quite the contrary. Therefore, the new technology that allows persons being identified only upon certain sounds (e.g. someone squealing) or other disturbances is very promising.

In the so-called ‘virtual’ world (the name is a misnomer, since just because this ‘world’ is based on computers doesn’t mean it’s not real) the situation is different. As most young people are too well aware of, a very limited percentage of crimes on the Internet has anything to do with violence. Therefore, in this case, the pros of surveillance do not outweigh the cons. Besides, there is also another difference: In the ‘real’ world it would – at least in theory – be possible to track a person throughout an arbitrarily large number of hours by asking arbitrarily many people if and where they have spotted the person in question; one is indeed not disguised when moving around in society. In front of your computer, however, the situation could be another; here you could be truly private.

Furthermore, there is definitely a zone of transition between the two worlds, since so much of the transactions (in shops, buses, trains, et cetera) are nowadays digitalised. This is a major issue; it would be possible to have an almost complete coverage of a person’s behaviour simply by looking at his/her credit card account. What is more, the question is complicated by the fact that most card users probably want to have a posteriori access to the record – perhaps even through the Internet… A natural solution in this case, would certainly be that the card customer could choose that all records could be deleted on purpose or even immediately following a transaction.

Instead of legislating that Internet access providers have to record for example all sent e-mails, it would be more appropriate the do the opposite: no record at all should be the rule. Generally, the police have enough to do with ‘real’ crimes. Even though recording e-mailing and surfing habits would solve some crimes, this does not justify a wholesale recording of the digital life of all citizens.

To summarise, surveillance and digital recording ought to be at a minimum, except where the risk of violence validates exceptions. Indeed, I would welcome surveillance cameras on certain places even in a town like Karlstad. But, cameras with disguising abilities would be most welcome due to the strongly improved integrity.

Grades are great! The more the better.

The Centre-Right Swedish Government is going to reintroduce grades in the Swedish compulsory school through grades 6 to 9 (henceforth called ‘secondary school’). However, in the first five years (henceforth called ‘primary school’) there will only written comments will be given. However, real grades are beneficial in a multitude of ways as will be highlighted below.

Firstly, grades are provide an incentive to the students. Hence, grades given earlier will, to some extent mean, more studying and hence better educated children. This would be highly benificial especially when subjects subject to windows of opportunity are regarded, for example languages.
Secondly, by introducing grades (and accompanying tests) in each subject in secondary school, it will be possible to resolve the concoctions called ‘natural science orientation’ and ‘social science orientation’ into the individual subjects (e.g. biology, physics and chemistry). This would indeed be valuable, since each subject would then be paid proper attention. Besides, it would make it easier for the students to choose in what area to specialise – e.g. make the selection to the Swedish Gymnasium (students aged 16-19) easier.

Thirdly, grades help keeping focus on acquiring knowledge rather than irrelevant matters as caps and chewing gums. In primary school, introducing grades forces focus to be shifted from what may sometimes look like a day care service to more of education - i.e. acquiring quantifiable knowledge. School will become more of School – a centre for learning.

Forthly, grades will make parents informed in a considerably more concrete way. Today’s talks to the parents could certainly be useful, but real grades can give the true picture in brief. This way, parents may become more involved in the studies.

It is also very beneficial that the new scale consists of six grades (rather than four as today), since the grades will then be more accurate. There will be less need to resort to lottery to single out students for very popular programmes in Gymnasium and at university.

However, it must be pointed out what would not be a good grading system: a relative one. This is because by using relative grades, it is normally assumed that the acquired knowledge follows a normal distribution, which may not be the case. Besides, using relative grades would bring the risk of teachers using a normal distribution locally at a school or even in a single class, which would – for obvious reasons – be highly unfair to the students. In addition, it would make accurate comparisons between schools virtually impossible. Therefore, grades must be absolute in the sense that they should be related to certain learning goals; each student must be graded totally independently of the grades of the other students once the learning goals and hence the grading criteria have been decided.

Critics often argue that grades as early as primary school would make school be all about grades. But, that’s fine – as long as the grades accurately reflect acquired knowledge. But what about those students left behind getting low grades? The point, as seen by Minister of Education Jan Björklund, is that grades will help detect weak students. I agree that this would indeed be the case – not just in secondary school, but in primary school as well. By detecting students whose achievments are weak, it is possible to help her/him at an early stage instead of as often today postponing the problems until age age of 14.

To sum up, grades are useful in many ways. For the subjects, for society – because of better education and – of course for the students and their parents. Grades are great! The sooner the better.

The issue of climate change - why is action so sluggish?

This blog assignment is about a very vital issue: climate change. However, I disagree with Ms Tåqvist that this issue would be just a ‘trend’. Actually, the scientific community was well aware of the issue in the eighties and the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has reportedly expressed concerns about the issue. Already in the nineties, this was the big environmental issue.

There are really good reasons for it to be. In many ways it is the most complex environmental issue humanity has ever faced. This is due to the fact that almost every activity causes emissions of gases (especially CO2) that have the potential of changing the climate. Other environmental problems were - in a way or another – easier dealt with since all of society was not affected. Moreover, the principle of substitution was much more applicable. For example, the toxic and bioaccumulating polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were used in many different applications especially from the fifties through much of the seventies. However, it was possible to replace these compounds with less harmful chemicals. The same principle applies to the CFCs that were a major reason behind the ozone hole. It was possible to forbid, i.e. phase out, these chemicals. With CO2, the situation is totally different. CO2 is non-toxic in it self (it is added to water to make soft drinks). No one could ever forbid the gas itself; it is exhaled by all animals every time they breathe, and captured by all plants and algae in photosynthesis creating the foundation for the food chain.

However, something must be done about the use of fossil fuels that cause the atmospheric CO2 content to rise steadily since this could make too much of a good thing – increase the temperature on Earth with a concomitant sea level rise. It should be remembered, however, that without the natural greenhouse effect the mean temperature on Earth would be about 30 ° C lower than what it is today.

It is easy to state that people have been slow in realising the issue of climate change. Furthermore, there is certainly a difference between being aware of climate change and truly realising the palpable consequences and what one can do oneself to reduce ones emissions of greenhouse gases. From this, another crucial step is required to actually do something. Most people are yet stuck in the first phase (or globally perhaps not even that). Meanwhile people’s ordinary lives go on, using buses, cars, buying things from all over world, eating meat and so on. What comes tomorrow (or later this day) feels more essential than what happens perhaps several decades away. This readily explains why it is not passable to rely on the general public to solve the huge climate issue.

Moreover, politicians intermittently encourage consumption of goods and services, thus encouraging further emissions. Sometimes feelings become involved, as when the Swedish minister for Agriculture rhetorically asked about taking away meatballs from children, upon commenting the methane emissions caused by the meat industry.

To tackle the emission of greenhouse gases, bold political decisions are needed. However, this is certainly not easily done, since many nations tend to give short term economic growth greater significance than much more vital long-term environmental issues. Decisions are definitely needed to make it economically unfavourable to emit CO2, methane and other green house gases. First with that measure, people start changing behaviour. Economy rules, also in our everyday lives. For example, when the petroleum price was lowered this year, the consumption of ethanol by ‘green drivers’ plummeted. Thus hard economic stimuli are called for. Only this could reduce emissions and hence preserve a climate not too different from today.

The fascination of a TV series...?

This blog assignment is somewhat tricky, since I do neither shun TV altogether, nor do I follow any TV series. But then, you may ask, why?

Firstly, there are many other things to do than to watch television, things often in a way providing more. For example, if you place yourself in front of your computer you can accomplish much more than what is possible in front of your television set where you can meekly take in what is being said (with the exception of teletext of course).

Secondly, it is easy to argue that the real world is as interesting as fiction, especially in the spring and summer when nature is awake. Since I have a botanical interest, the real world and nature is simply more attractive than made-up stories.

Besides, what are those highly adored series about? Aren’t they filled with intrigues, love, sex, drinking, smoking…? Compare that to a nice jogging trip in the wood listening to birds singing, seeing the sunlight dazzling down between the pines and spruces, or perhaps, in late summer perhaps gather bilberries and lingonberries. I remember that last year, a huge number of days when I did place myself in front of the television set, my eyes and attention was devoted to the great botanical encyclopaedia Nya Nordiska Floran (‘New Nordic Flora’).

However, I must admit that when I was young, I for a decade watched more or less every episode of Rederiet [‘the Shipping’]. It is perhaps hard to logically explain why, but I could perhaps simply say that I got stuck once I started, even though the affairs in the series became increasingly more artificial and excessive.

Another alternative to television is actually television itself, though in a modern form: watching afterwards via the Internet. This excellent service, free once you have scrupulously paid your license, has in many aspects replaced the VCR, making watching much more flexible.
Although many channels more or less only broadcast series or simplistic magazines, there are many interesting programmes as well, at least in the public service television. For example, a few weeks ago a programme about nature’s triumph in the radioactive Chernobyl area was broadcasted. I was simply mesmerised. However, a complication is that Swedish television tends to send the best programmes between six and seven p.m., a time I often prefer to spend in the wood. Therefore, the Internet or the VCR are undeniably gifts.

Summarising, there are many good alternatives to watching TV series: surfing the net, roaming in the wood, reading books … or as I do right now, writing a blog…

Raising children of today

What is first and foremost important when raising children is to somehow make sure, the children do not fall into a fundamentally wrong path. However, this could probably be done in a countless number of ways, many of which are not desirable. For example, it would be appropriate to make the children want to refrain from smoking or drinking alcohol. One can easily depict improper ways of ‘teaching’ them these messages, i.e. making the eleven-year-old boy or girl so heavily drunk so that he/she would never wish to drink alcohol again. However, I consider this method too dramatic and too infringing on the integrity of the child. It would probably be better to somehow verbally point out consequences of being drunk – also if it would de facto be less efficient.

I am sure that most parents in the western world do agree on the main objective above. However, some may argue that this has become more difficult due to the decline of Christianity here in northern Europe. This is certainly the case: In a deeply religious family, it is in many occasions a simple matter to point out what is right and what is wrong.

A secondary objective when raising children, but nonetheless essential, would be to give the child as many experiences from life as possible. Not tragedies in the first place, but many positive experiences like fishing, hiking in the woodland, travelling, reading, et cetera. But of course, there should also be time for computer gaming and watching television, but this part is nonnegotiably rather easy for most parents of today. There is nothing wrong with television and computers per se, but a teenager lounging in front of his/hers computer for several hours every day may not be very fruitful on the long term.

Finally, I would like to shortly stress one objective, which should not be part of raising a child: That girls and boys should do the same kind of things and play with the same kind of toys. This objective, though common in Sweden today, is not much more than unqualified nonsense. Boys and girls are, by nature, different – in their brains as well as in the rest of their bodies. This is not something that is possible to transform – nor is it desirable.