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
tisdag 26 maj 2009
tisdag 19 maj 2009
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).
torsdag 14 maj 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.
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.
onsdag 6 maj 2009
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.
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.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)
