Camil Stoenescu's blog

One day Trurl the constructor put together a machine that could create anything starting with n. When it was ready, he tried it out, ordering it to make needles, then nankeens and negligees, which it did, then nail the lot to narghiles filled with nepenthe and numerous other narcotics. The machine carried out his instructions to the letter. Still not completely sure of its ability, he had it produce, one after the other, nimbuses, noodles, nuclei, neutrons, naphtha, noses, nymphs, naiads, and natrium. This last it could not do, and Trurl, considerably irritated, demanded an explanation.

"Never heard of it," said the machine.

"What? But it’s only sodium. You know, the metal, the element…"

"Sodium starts with an s, and I work only in n."

"But in Latin it’s natrium."

"Look, old boy," said the machine, "if I could do everything starting with n in every possible language, I’d be a Machine That Could Do Everything in the Whole Alphabet, since any item you care to mention undoubtedly starts with n in one foreign language or another. It’s not that easy. I can’t go beyond what you programmed. So no sodium."

"Very well," said Trurl and ordered it to make Night, which it made at once—small perhaps, but perfectly nocturnal. Only then did Trurl invite over his friend Klapaucius the constructor, and introduced him to the machine, praising its extraordinary skill at such length, that Klapaucius grew annoyed and inquired whether he too might not test the machine.

"Be my guest," said Trurl. "But it has to start with n."

"N?" said Klapaucius. "All right, let it make Nature."

The machine whined, and in a trice Trurl’s front yard was packed with naturalists. They argued, each publishing heavy volumes, which the others tore to pieces; in the distance one could see flaming pyres, on which martyrs to Nature were sizzling; there was thunder, and strange mushroom-shaped columns of smoke rose up; everyone talked at once, no one listened, and there were all sorts of memoranda, appeals, subpoenas and other documents, while off to the side sat a few old men, feverishly scribbling on scraps of paper.

"Not bad, eh?" said Trurl with pride. "Nature to a T, admit it!"

But Klapaucius wasn’t satisfied.

"What, that mob? Surely you’re not going to tell me that’s Nature?"

"Then give the machine something else," snapped Trurl. "Whatever you like." For a moment Klapaucius was at a loss for what to ask. But after a little thought he declared that he would put two more tasks to the machine; if it could fulfill them, he would admit that it was all Trurl said it was. Trurl agreed to this, whereupon Klapaucius requested Negative.

"Negative?!" cried Trurl. "What on earth is Negative?"

"The opposite of positive, of course," Klapaucius coolly replied. "Negative attitudes, the negative of a picture, for example. Now don’t try to pretend you never heard of Negative. All right, machine, get to work!"

The machine, however, had already begun. First it manufactured antiprotons, then antielectrons, antineutrons, antineutrinos, and labored on, until from out of all this antimatter an antiworld took shape, glowing like a ghostly cloud above their heads.

"H’m," muttered Klapaucius, displeased. "That’s supposed to be Negative? Well… let’s say it is, for the sake of peace. … But now here’s the third command: Machine, do Nothing!"

The machine sat still. Klapaucius rubbed his hands in triumph, but Trurl said:

"Well, what did you expect? You asked it to do nothing, and it’s doing nothing."

"Correction: I asked it to do Nothing, but it’s doing nothing."

"Nothing is nothing!"

"Come, come. It was supposed to do Nothing, but it hasn’t done anything, and therefore I’ve won. For Nothing, my dear and clever colleague, is not your run-of-the-mill nothing, the result of idleness and inactivity, but dynamic, aggressive Nothingness, that is to say, perfect, unique, ubiquitous, in other words Nonexistence, ultimate and supreme, in its very own nonperson!"

"You’re confusing the machine!" cried Trurl. But suddenly its metallic voice rang out:

"Really, how can you two bicker at a time like this? Oh yes, I know what Nothing is, and Nothingness, Nonexistence, Nonentity, Negation, Nullity and Nihility, since all these come under the heading of n, n as in Nil. Look then upon your world for the last time, gentlemen! Soon it shall no longer be…"

The constructors froze, forgetting their quarrel, for the machine was in actual fact doing Nothing, and it did it in this fashion: one by one, various things were removed from the world, and the things, thus removed, ceased to exist, as if they had never been. The machine had already disposed of nolars, nightzebs, nocs, necs, nallyrakers, neotremes and nonmalrigers. At moments, though, it seemed that instead of reducing, diminishing and subtracting, the machine was increasing, enhancing and adding, since it liquidated, in turn: nonconformists, nonentities, nonsense, nonsupport, nearsightedness, narrowmindedness, naughtiness, neglect, nausea, necrophilia and nepotism. But after a while the world very definitely began to thin out around Trurl and Klapaucius.

"Omigosh!" said Trurl. "If only nothing bad comes out of all this…"

"Don’t worry," said Klapaucius. "You can see it’s not producing Universal Nothingness, but only causing the absence of whatever starts with n. Which is really nothing in the way of nothing, and nothing is what your machine, dear Trurl, is worth!"

"Do not be deceived," replied the machine. "I’ve begun, it’s true, with everything in n, but only out of familiarity. To create however is one thing, to destroy, another thing entirely. I can blot out the world for the simple reason that I’m able to do anything and everything—and everything means everything—in n, and consequently Nothingness is child’s play for me. In less than a minute now you will cease to have existence, along with everything else, so tell me now, Klapaucius, and quickly, that I am really and truly everything I was programmed to be, before it is too late."

"But—" Klapaucius was about to protest, but noticed, just then, that a number of things were indeed disappearing, and not merely those that started with n. The constructors were no longer surrounded by the gruncheons, the targalisks, the shupops, the calinatifacts, the thists, worches and pritons.

"Stop! I take it all back! Desist! Whoa! Don’t do Nothing!!" screamed Klapaucius. But before the machine could come to a full stop, all the brashations, plusters, laries and zits had vanished away. Now the machine stood motionless. The world was a dreadful sight. The sky had particularly suffered: there were only a few, isolated points of light in the heavens—no trace of the glorious worches and zits that had, till now, graced the horizon!

"Great Gauss!" cried Klapaucius. "And where are the gruncheons? Where my dear, favorite pritons? Where now the gentle zits?!"

"They no longer are, nor ever will exist again," the machine said calmly. "I executed, or rather only began to execute, your order…"

"I tell you to do Nothing, and you… you…"

"Klapaucius, don’t pretend to be a greater idiot than you are," said the machine. "Had I made Nothing outright, in one fell swoop, everything would have ceased to exist, and that includes Trurl, the sky, the Universe, and you—and even myself. In which case who could say and to whom could it be said that the order was carried out and I am an efficient and capable machine? And if no one could say it to no one, in what way then could I, who also would not be, be vindicated?"

"Yes, fine, let’s drop the subject," said Klapaucius. "I have nothing more to ask of you, only please, dear machine, please return the zits, for without them life loses all its charm …"

"But I can’t, they’re in z," said the machine. "Of course, I can restore nonsense, narrowmindedness, nausea, necrophilia, neuralgia, nefariousness and noxiousness. As for the other letters, however, I can’t help you."

"I want my zits!" bellowed Klapaucius.

"Sorry, no zits," said the machine. "Take a good look at this world, how riddled it is with huge, gaping holes, how full of Nothingness, the Nothingness that fills the bottomless void between the stars, how everything about us has become lined with it, how it darkly lurks behind each shred of matter. This is your work, envious one! And I hardly think the future generations will bless you for it…"

"Perhaps… they won’t find out, perhaps they won’t notice," groaned the pale Klapaucius, gazing up incredulously at the black emptiness of space and not daring to look his colleague, Trurl, in the eye. Leaving him beside the machine that could do everything in n, Klapaucius skulked home—and to this day the world has remained honeycombed with nothingness, exactly as it was when halted in the course of its liquidation. And as all subsequent attempts to build a machine on any other letter met with failure, it is to be feared that never again will we have such marvelous phenomena as the worches and the zits—no, never again.

                                                                            (Stanislaw Lem – Ciberiada)

Motivele sunt simple – vârstă de pensionare cât mai mică, pensii cât mai mari, în condițiile în care Franța are cea mai scăzută vârstă de pensionare din Europa. Desigur, există destui nostalgici ai socialismului multilateral dezvoltat, astăzi numit, mai nou, „progres social”.

Pentru cine este curios să vadă cum era perceput comunismul, în 1968, de către studenți francezi, poate arunca o privire aici.

Agenția britanică de cercetări media TNS a realizat un studiu în 46 de țări, pe un eșantion de 50 000 de persoane, cu vârste cuprinse între 16 și 60 de ani, studiu menit a oferi un tablou relevant și sugestiv cu privire la impactul pe care Internetul îl are asupra populației globului în ceea ce privește timpul și tipul activităților desfășurate online.

Interviewing almost 50,000 consumers across 46 countries, including all BRIC and most N-11 markets, Digital Life is the largest, most comprehensive study of the Global Digital Consumer, ever. These markets represent 88% of the global Digital population; we cover markets from where Digital is close to ubiquitous to those beginning their digital journey whether through PC at home, mobile or internet cafés.

Principalele concluzii ale studiului sunt următoarele:

• cea mai „conectată” țară este Norvevia, unde 94.8% din populație beneficiază de acces la Internet, la polul opus situându-se Tanzania, țara cu cea mai scăzută rată de acces – doar 1.6%; în SUA, 76.3% dintre americani sunt conectațila Internet, la fel 79.1 dintre germani, 72.6% dintre japonezi, spre deosebire de 27.2% dintre mexicani, 31.6% dintre chinezi sau doar 6.9% dintre indieni;
• activitățile desfășurate online ocupă primul loc în ierarhia timpului alocat zilnic: 61% dintre utilizatori accesează zilnic Internetul, 54% dintre aceștia se uită la TV, 36% ascultă radio și doar 32% citesc presa scrisă. Bineînțeles, procentele variază în funcție de țară – 82% dintre americanii conectați folosesc zilnic Internetul, dar doar 22% dintre indienii cu acces la Internet se conectează zilnic la respectiva rețea globală;
• malaezienii sunt cei care au, în medie, cei mai mulți „prieteni” virtuali (233), urmați de brazilieni (231); totodată malaezienii petrec cel mai mult timp în rețele sociale – 9 ore pe săptămână. Spre deosebire de aceștia, japonezii au cele mai puține prietenii virtuale – doar 29, în medie. Nici americanii nu stau rău la acest capital, cu o valoare medie de 178; prin contrast, francezii au aproape de două ori mai puțini amici virtuali, „doar” 95.
• un rezultat oarecum surprinzător, dar explicabil din perspectivă sociologică, este acela că piețele emergente, în mediul virtual, depășesc clar pe cele consacrate în ceea ce privește bloggingul și rețelele sociale – de pildă, 4 din 5 utilizatori de Internet din China (adică 88%) și 51% din cei din Brazilia au scris cel puțin un articol pe blogul personal, comparativ cu doar 32% dintre utilizatorii americani de Internet. Desigur, în valori absolute comparația nu-și are rostul – având în vedere gradul diferit de penetrare al Internetului în țările respective și piramida demografică diferită;

1. Timpul alocat Internetului, comparativ cu celelalte mijloace media (televiziune, radio, ziare):

2. Cu toate că, la nivel global, socializarea virtuală nu este la fel de populară – în termeni procentuali – precum mesageria electronică, rețelele sociale atrag cel mai mare volum de trafic:

Mai multe detalii – aici.

Adunând date cu privire la 165 de țări, date culese între 1810 și 1984, Jörg Baten încearcă să identifice – într-un studiu preliminar intitulat „Global height trends in industrial and developing countries, 1810-1984: An overview” – factorii ce influențează înălțimea medie a unei populații, de-a lungul unei perioade de timp destul de lungi pentru a putea fi surprinse tendințele generale (5-6 generații, de pildă). Dintre acești indicatori, cel mai important se dovedește a fi venitul mediu pe cap de locuitor (GDP per capita) – strâns legat, dar nu identic, de valoarea produsului intern brut (GDP) – dincolo de criterii ereditare și particularități naționale sau regionale. Acolo unde nu existau date s-au folosit interpolări liniare și estimări bazate pe informații din alți ani sau din țările învecinate.

De ce este înălțimea importantă, dincolo de considerente culturale și estetice? Deoarece este un indicator foarte bun al bunăstării materiale și al calității generale a vieții:

Human stature is now a well-established indicator for the biological standard of living, as it is typically correlated with health, longevity, and nutritional quality. Only few exceptions come to mind, such as the Japanese who consumed very little protein before the economic boom of the 1960s and had short statures. But the Japanese achieved relatively high longevity values by investing in personal hygiene and health-related education.

Cu alte cuvinte, cu cât sunt mai înalți locuitorii unei țări, cu atât aceștia trăiesc mai bine (alimentație mai bogată, viață mai lungă șamd).

Succint, ideile cheie ale studiului sunt următoarele:

• Africa, cea mai săracă zonă a lumii, acum ca și în secolul XIX, este singurul continent în care înălțimea locuitorilor nu a cunoscut creșteri semnificative, ba chiar a scăzut în zona subsahariană:

• La nivel global, înălțimea medie a crescut în ritm continuu:

Figure 2 has the very first estimates of a world height trend 1870-1984, Beta-Version 1.0, and a number of world region trends for the 1810-1984 period. Those are arithmetic averages of 165 countries, often with very bold interpolations. Further versions of this paper should also compare weighted averages (although China and India then dominate the global series). But the result looks relatively plausible, comparing the individual world regions with the existing available literature for individual countries.

In general, we can distinguish four groups of world regions.

(1) The industrial countries and those Eastern European and central Asian countries that were socialist at some point in time had a strong upward trend after the 1880s. It is remarkable, however, that after the First World War (when the Soviet Union was created), the differential between those two winner groups increased (Komlos 1999; Mironov 2006).

(2) In contrast, the Latin American countries and those in the Near East and North Africa started at relatively high levels in the 19th century, but had only a modest height growth during the 20th century (Salvatore 2005)

(3) East Asia and Sub Saharan Africa started on a relatively low level in the 19th century and ended up not far from the global average. Remarkably, Africa is the only world region with a consistent height decline over the last two decades. (Moradi 2005)

(4) Finally, two world regions that started low and ended on a low level are South and Southeast Asia. Especially the former had almost no upward trend since the late 19th century, whereas Southeast Asia started at lower height levels which subsequently increased somewhat (Brennan/McDonald/Shlomowitz 1994a, 1994b, 1997, 2000, Guntupalli/Baten 2006). The lacking protein (and milk in particular) might have played a special role, whereas in East Asia there was a growing consumption in Northern and Eastern China and South Korea, for example.

În loc de încheiere – concluzia finală, cu o foarte interesantă referire la Europa de Est și la „binefacerile” aduse de către regimul comunist țărilor de aici:

We find that most of the anthropometric divergence between today’s industrial and developing countries took place after the 1880s. The Eastern European and Central Asian countries also experienced some height increase 1880-1917 (before they became socialist in two major waves). The height increase continued later, although they achieved slightly lower levels and growth rates than the Western industrial countries. Latin American and the Near East/North Africa region had impressive levels until 1880, but only modest growth thereafter. South Asia had a disappointing development, and also South East Asia grew only modest. Africa did not perform as bad as perhaps expected in the 1900-1965 period, but had a terrible height decline since then.

Documentul original poate fi găsit aici.

Citim, zâmbim, ne întristăm și aproape nu ne vine a crede:

Vineri 17 septembrie seara şi sîmbătă 18 septembrie dimineaţa Realitatea TV a transmis în mod repetat următoarea informaţie:

Casa matematicianului Babeş Bolyai din Timişoara nu poate fi reabilitată deoarece nu se află pe lista monumentelor istorice. Matematicianul Babeş Bolyai a descoperit teoria geometriei neeuclediene.[…]

Dacă cineva îşi propunea să inventeze un text cît mai semnificativ pentru starea actuală de incultură în care se află o mare parte a populaţiei, greu ar fi putut să nimerească unul mai potrivit decît cel de mai sus. Dar faptul cel mai grav, generator de comic involuntar, este inventarea unui matematician, pe nume „Babeş Bolyai“, obţinut prin combinarea a două nume de savanţi reali: Victor Babeş şi János Bolyai. „Babeş“ nu este deci prenumele marelui matematician „Bolyai“ – cum crede redactorul respectivului post de televiziune şi cum cred poate mulţi alţii. Mă bazez pe faptul că elevii nu află în şcoală despre existenţa geometriilor neeuclidiene şi deci nici despre autorii acestor geometrii. Nu ştiu care este situaţia lui Victor Babeş, un pionier al bacteriologiei, coautor al primului tratat de bacteriologie din lume, publicat la Paris. Bănui că e mai bună decît a lui Bolyai, bacteriologia şi microbiologia par a fi mai cunoscute decît geometria, dar mă tem că nici despre el nu prea se află în şcoală. Redactorul cu pricina, în mod evident, este la fel de ignorant în materie de Babeş ca şi în materie de Bolyai; el auzise de Universitatea al cărei nume alătură cele două cuvinte, de unde a dedus că primul este prenume, iar al doilea nume; faptul că între ele era o cratimă a trecut neobservat sau pur şi simplu nu i s-a sesizat semnificaţia (alt semn de incultură). Dar, cine ştie? Nu cumva redactorul televiziunii nu a făcut decît să preia prostia altuia? Această eventualitate a unei ştafete de bazaconii (preluarea necritică a unei bazaconii tot bazaconie este) agravează situaţia. Amploarea ignoranţei nu poate fi evaluată, dar o putem bănui, din moment ce timp de atîtea ore, bazaconia a fost prezentă pe ecran. Dacă acum îl avem pe matematicianul Babeş, mîine l-am putea avea pe bacteriologul Bolyai – totul e posibil.[…]

Din Dilema Veche.

PS  Unul dintre motivele pentru ca nu (mai) am imbecilizor televizor de ani buni.

Pe 3 octombrie 1990 Republica Federală Germania (Bundesrepublik Deutschland) se reunea cu Republica Democrată Germania (Deutsche Demokratische Republik), sfârșindu-se astfel o divizare veche de 41 de ani și, odată cu aceasta, Războiul Rece. Europa modernă se năștea, iar Tratatul de la Maastricht, semnat doi ani mai târziu, va consacra aceste realități în nou-creata entitate a Uniunii Europene.

Reunificarea Germaniei a fost în mod formal recunoscută și aprobată – de către cele patru puteri victorioase în Al Doilea Război Mondial – prin Tratatul reglementărilor finale cu privire la Germania, semnat la Moscova pe 12 septembrie 1990; de aceea tratatul respectiv se mai numește și „Tratatul doi plus patru” – cei patru plus cele două state germane:

The Federal Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic, the French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America,
Conscious of the fact that their peoples have been living together in peace since 1945;

Mindful of the recent historic changes in Europe which make it possible to overcome the division of the continent;

Having regard to the rights and responsibilities of the Four Powers relating to Berlin and to Germany as a whole, and the corresponding wartime and post-war agreements and decisions of the Four Powers;

Resolved, in accordance with their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

Recalling the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, signed in Helsinki;

Recognizing that those principles have laid firm foundations for the establishment of a just and lasting peaceful order in Europe;

Determined to take account of everyone’s security interests;

Convinced of the need finally to overcome antagonism and to develop cooperation in Europe;

Confirming their readiness to reinforce security, in particular by adopting effective arms control, disarmament and confidence-building measures; their willingness not to regard each other as adversaries but to work for a relationship of trust and cooperation; and accordingly their readiness to consider positively setting up appropriate institutional arrangements within the framework of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe;

Welcoming the fact that the German people, freely exercising their right of self-determination, have expressed their will to bring about the unity of Germany as a state so that they will be able to serve the peace of the world as an equal and sovereign partner in a united Europe;

Convinced that the unification of Germany as a state with definitive borders is a significant contribution to peace and stability in Europe;

Intending to conclude the final settlement with respect to Germany;

Recognizing that thereby, and with the unification of Germany as a democratic and peaceful state, the rights and responsibilities of the Four Powers relating to Berlin and to Germany as a whole lose their function;

Represented by their Ministers for Foreign Affairs who, in accordance with the Ottawa Declaration of 13 February 1990, met in Bonn on 5 May 1990, in Berlin on 22 June 1990, in Paris on 17 July 1990 with the participation of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland, and in Moscow on 12 September 1990;

Have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE 1

(1) The united Germany shall comprise the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic and the whole of Berlin. Its external borders shall be the borders of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic and shall be definitive from the date on which the present Treaty comes into force. The confirmation of the definitive nature of the borders of the united Germany is an essential element of the peaceful order in Europe.

(2) The united Germany and the Republic of Poland shall confirm the existing border between them in a treaty that is binding under international law.

(3) The united Germany has no territorial claims whatsoever against other states and shall not assert any in the future.

(4) The Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic shall ensure that the constitution of the united Germany does not contain any provision incompatible with these principles. This applies accordingly to the provisions laid down in the preamble, the second sentence of Article 23, and Article 146 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany.

(5) The Governments of the French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America take formal note of the corresponding commitments and declarations by the Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic and declare that their implementation will confirm the definitive nature of the united Germany’s borders.

Mai multe detalii – aici, aici și aici.

Until 1980, fewer than 1 in 10 people were obese. Since then, rates have doubled or tripled and in almost half of OECD countries 1 in 2 people is now overweight or obese. If recent trends continue, projections suggest that more than 2 out of 3 people will be overweight or obese in some OECD countries within the next 10 years.

Obesity is more common among the poor and the less educated. In several OECD countries, women with little education are 2 to 3 times more likely to be overweight than more educated women, but smaller or no disparities exist for men.

Key facts:

• One in 2 people is now overweight or obese in almost half of OECD countries. Rates are projected to increase further and in some countries 2 out of 3 people will be obese within ten years.
• An obese person incurs 25% higher health expenditures than a person of normal weight in any given year. Obesity is responsible for 1-3% of total health expenditures in most OECD countries (5-10% in the United States).
• A severely obese person is likely to die 8-10 years earlier than a person of normal weight.
• Poorly educated women are 2 to 3 times more likely to be overweight than those with high levels of education, but almost no disparities are found for men.
• Obese people earn up to 18% less than non-obese people.
• Children who have at least one obese parent are 3 to 4 times more likely to be obese.
• A comprehensive prevention strategy would avoid, every year, 155 000 deaths from chronic diseases in Japan, 75 000 in Italy, 70 000 in England, 55 000 in Mexico and 40 000 in Canada.
• The annual cost of such strategy would be USD 12 per capita in Mexico, USD 19 in Japan and England, USD 22 in Italy and USD 32 in Canada. The cost per life year gained through prevention is less than USD 20 000 in these 5 countries.

Surse: Obesity and the Economics of Prevention: Fit not Fat și The Economist.