I sent four nearly identical mails today, one each to MEPs Bendt Bendtsen, Anne E. Jensen, Morten Løkkegaard, and Jens Rohde at their respective europarl.europa.eu email addresses.

I chose these four, since they are listed as the 4 Danish MEPs who voted against certain amendments to ACTA (mentioned by Marietje Schaake on Reddit) in 2010 according to votewatch.eu here (please adjust the search criteria to match those relevant to you).

Below is the text of the mail to Bendt Bendtsen, wherein I identify myself as a Danish Conservative voter (the three others are from an allied party, where I identify my political stance with are more general term), but also as a somewhat tech savvy internet user, thus wanting an explanation for the past negative vote, clarification on their current stance on ACTA ratification, and offering assistance in understanding (and hopefully, eventually, agreeing with) the huge public opposition. If I get the time later, I will translate into English in the comments – if someone else wants to do so for me, they shall be most welcome

Subject: Tidligere afstemning om ændringer til ACTA

Kære Hr. Bendtsen,

I henhold til http://www.votewatch.eu/cx_vote_details.php?id_act=1189&euro_vot_valoare=-&euro_vot_rol_euro_grup=&euro_vot_rol_euro_tara=&vers=2&order_by=euro_parlamentar_nume&order=ASC&last_order_by=euro_parlamentar_nume&limit=0&offset=0&nextorder=ASC&euro_tara_id=17&euro_grup_id=&euro_vot_valoare=-&euro_vot_rol_euro_grup= ser jeg, at De stemte imod ændringsforslag til ACTA d. 24.11.2010.

Som konservativ vælger, men også som moderne internetbruger med omfattende teknologisk viden, vil jeg gerne udbede mig en forklaring på dette, samt sikre mig, at De ikke er fejlinformeret, såfremt De påregner at stemme for at ratificere ACTA i sin nuværende form.

Skulle dette være tilfældet, står jeg gerne til rådighed med henblik på at påvise, hvorfor ACTA i sin nuværende form, som den forholder sig til spørgsmål af elektronisk karakter, er aldeles uacceptabel, samt hvorfor dens udfærdigelse og ratificering har været, er og vil være et groft uanstændigt anslag mod både demokratiske grundprincipper og basale frihedsrettigheder.

Alvorligst,

Sune Mølgaard
Risskov, Århus

N.B.: Being in a hurry, I opened the message body of the mail to Anne E. Jensen with “Kære Hr. Bendtsen,”, instead of personalising the opening to her. I sent a follow-up email apologising for this, but requesting her answer none the less.

Let me start by stating that I don’t know if Google enjoy any Common Carrier (or other, similar) protections, but if not, it shouldn’t be all too hard for them to block access by IP addresses from known SOPA/PIPA proponents, plus, if they want to play hardball, any US Administration addresses as well.

Same goes for all other protesters.

As an additional nugget of legislative gold, I would assume that if they blocked the Administration, said Administration would need to institute and document a way of circumventing said blockade in order to get anything meaningful business done, which could be an interesting subject for a DMCA complaint, since SOPA/PIPA seem to assume that DNS filtering constitutes an effective means of restricting access…

I am not a US citizen, and thus, even if I was a lawyer, my expertise would not be in US law, but comments are more than welcome!

Dear international readers: Please excuse another Danish post, but a formidable Danish politician, whom I had the fortune to meet on a few occasions, has sadly passed away. This is an admittedly sorry excuse for an obituary for a man whom I admired greatly.

Jeg følger ikke synderligt meget med i politik længere, og ej heller, når det kommer til stykket, danske nyheder generelt. Dermed er det først i dag gået op for mig, at Kresten Philipsen er død. For min egen part er jeg ked af, at jeg ikke har haft anledning til at møde ham i efterhånden mange år, idet jeg gerne ville have haft fortalt ham, at han har foranlediget en større forståelse hos mig for det saglige arguments magt, samt for vigtigheden af respekt for politiske modstandere, end han sikkert selv har været klar over, særligt da jeg næppe antager, at han ville kunne huske mig, medmindre han blev mindet om det, og så nok næppe som andet end en typisk gymnasiast, der ikke havde bedre begreb om politik end de fleste andre af mine studentikose aldersfæller, men hvad jeg senere er blevet opmærksom på, ud fra hans måde at agere på i de få, korte situationer er, at skulle man gøre sig forhåbninger om at vinde hans respekt på det politiske plan, så skulle man kunne redegøre for sin holdning – både hvad angår baggrund, argumenter for, og særligt imod.

Denne blog læses af ganske få, og således har jeg postet et mindeord på JV’s dertil indrettede side her, som jeg dog også vil gengive nedenfor:

Det er med sorg, at jeg har erfaret dette gode menneskes alt for tidlige død. I min gymnasietid var jeg, som det sig hør og bør for gymnasiaster, politisk engageret, og dertil enig med Hr. Philipsen angående mange politiske spørgsmål, men naturligvis også uenig hvad angår andre. De få gange, hvor jeg mødte ham personligt, og dertil talte politik, slog det mig, at han, høfligt, veltalende og alvorligt, var mere interesseret i at få mig til argumentere sagligt, end han egentlig (og med rette) var i at blive talt efter munden, eller det modsatte, af en ung gymnasiast, der endnu ikke havde haft tid til at forstå større perspektiver, end hvad han (altså jeg) nu engang alligevel følte, var rigtigt, uden yderligere forklaring.

Hvad jeg husker bedst, er dog hans engagement i forbindelse med Danmarks indtræden i Schengen-samarbejdet, der mødte en uanstændigt højlydt modstand fra et lille, omend skræmmende, mindretal i det sønderjyske, der tog en form af, hvad den traditionelle opfattelse af terrorisme sagtens kan beskrive, og det er således med lige dele beklagelse og vikariøs skam, at jeg må konstatere, at noget af det sidste, som han oplevede, var at det, som han dengang, med store personlige omkostninger, kæmpede for, desværre blev slået i stykker af hans tidligere partis uheldige afhængighed af, og resulterende leflen for, et parti der, mere eller mindre, er talerør for det mindretals misforståelse af, at national stolthed er ensbetydende med de mest afstumpede former for den slags nationalisme, der kun kan omtales negativt.

Kresten ville sikkert have søgt en anden løsning end min “langen ud efter” et politisk parti, men således kan jeg kun afslutte med, hvad jeg ønsker at sige med det forudgående, nemlig at Kresten var en stor mand og en stor politiker, som jeg altid vil se op til, uagtet at han desværre ikke er blandt os længere.

Det gør mig ondt på Danmarks, og særligt på Sønderjyllands, vegne, at Kresten ikke længere er her, men mest gør det mig ondt for hans familie, som jeg håber vil se denne nekrolog, såfremt de finder frem til den, som en hyldest til en mand, som de kan være stolte af!

While this might not be the most visited blogs of all times (especially since some of my previous posts were in Danish), I do happen to think that if I have reached just one person with any one post, it’s worth it, so here goes;

The swastika has been around as a cultural piece of imagery for something like 5,000 years or so, and has been seen across a multitude of locales during that period. For a short while – my memory is not one I would buy if offered, the German Nazi party made it’s headway in 1935 and convinced a nation that I still believe – and believe you me that they are now, weren’t aware that they were enabling a raging dictator.

However, the misappropriation of an ancient symbol was our collective fault, inasmuch as we let it be their coat of arms. For all the different uses that the proper swastika has served for so many years, they are but dust.

Hence, my suggestion is to front neo-nazis by regaining the swastika, as it, by all means, is just a way of wishing another person good luck…

Do you think that the neo-nazis could hold on to the swastika, if we took its old meaning back?

Under en diskussion på Facebook gik det op for mig, eller det blev mere klart for mig, at når jeg kritiserer kreationister for, bevidst eller ubevidst, at misforstå det videnskabelige begreb “en teori” (se evt. her angående det), så tillægger jeg dem måske skumle bagtanker, som slet ikke er deres skyld – i hvert fald læg-kreationisterne…

Bemeldte diskussion var sådan set affødt af det, efterhånden berømte, fejlcitat af Martin Luther King Jr. om ikke at glædes ved selv en fjendes dødsfald, og jeg kom ind i den, idet den herre, der havde sat citatet som status, blandt andet har markeret sig ved at tale negativt om de mange vrøvlere indenfor ernæring og sundhed, og en kommentator brugte, efter min mening fejlagtigt, lejligheden til at kritisere ham for at være meget kritisk overfor sådanne vrøvlere.

Nuvel, jeg gjorde, på vanlig udiplomatisk vis, opmærksom på, at jeg fandt den implicite sammenligning upassende, men der udfoldede sig så en videre diskussion, hvor jeg redegjorde for min opfattelse af, at medierne har udvandet begrebet “ekspert”, idet de synes at bruge det i betydningen “én, der har noget at sige om et emne, som journalisten ikke har begreb skabt om”, og det var her, at det gik op for mig, at tilhængere af diverse mere eller mindre vanvittige ernæringsråd, alternativ medicin og kreationisme muligvis har det tilfælles, at de sidestiller evidensbaseret videnskab med alle de andre ting som “blot teorier”.

Dermed gik det også op for mig, at det egentlig er ganske forfejlet, at det først er som studerende på en naturvidenskabelig uddannelse ved et universitet, at man bliver præsenteret for kurset “videnskabsteori”, idet vi dermed er et fåtal, der faktisk får indblik i, hvorledes en videnskabelig teori adskiller sig fra hverdagsbetydningen af ordet.

Dette fik mig yderligere til at tænke på, at selvom folkeskolerne underviser i matematik (eller i hvert fald regning), samt fysik/kemi på de senere klassetrin, så mindes jeg ikke selv, at jeg fik nogen undervisning i, hvad videnskab, formelt set er. Jeg fik så alt rigeligt af kristendomskundskab, som jeg skal skynde mig at sige, at jeg ikke foreslår at afskaffe fuldstændigt, omend jeg længe har ønsket at lade det være en del af en generel religionsundervisning, men her er min strøtanke så endelig:

Kunne man ikke forestille sig, at kristendomskundskab/religion i folkeskolen føres med over i et bredere fag, der passende kunne kaldes “Tro og Viden“?

Hvad synes du?

This might be one of the worst ideas I’ve ever heard of.

Basically, it’s a system to measure the stress level in the voice of whomever happens to call for help – in the present case case for military emergency response but with the possibility to expand into civil emergency services, to determine which calls should get priority if there is a back-log.

Now, for a military purpose, I can almost be persuaded to believe that military training for stressful situations might make this a useful metric, but for civil use, not so much.

I have had the distinct displeasure of calling ambulances for others a number of times, and as I have been taught that speaking calmly and responding to questions about details in a coherent manner, I usually make it a point to do just that – stay calm, leveled and objective, not letting the specific “badness” of the situation interfere with my attempt to convey the precise scope and nature of the emergency.

Now, the article says that the system has a very low error margin when tested on previous calls, where the prioritization of the operator in question is known. I take that to mean that it would make the same choice that the operator did. What is not mentioned is if said operator relied more on the apparent stress level of the caller or on the specifics of what was reported to make the choice of priority for the dispatch. I could, given data, easily be persuaded that the operator used the same metric as the system, and that said metric might not be the best.

A case would be an incident that took place when my oldest younger sister worked as a tourist guide in Turkey and I was there to visit. During the pick-up for departure, and elderly lady had a heart attack, and some other people in the bus stated that they were proficient in CPR, so we agreed that my sister would keep the other guests calm and alert her colleagues to the fact that the bus might be delayed, so they would have a chance to inform the airport of a number of delayed passengers, they would administer CPR, and I would call for an ambulance.

In the case of a heart attack, immediate first aid, in the form of CPR is paramount, so I had to work out this division of tasks quickly and then go on with my own. I found a local who could give me a number for the nearest hospital, called them, explained the situation and had the local describe where we were.

During all this, I made a conscious effort to keep as calm as possible, in order to understand and be understood by the local and the hospital. Furthermore, I had delegated the actual act of CPR to others who said that they were proficient in it (sadly, it turned out that they were not), so to my own mind, I think I came off as rather collected and coherent to both the local and the hospital – hardly with any significant stress level apparent, since I didn’t know the woman, but was aware that it was serious, so I should stay calm.

If a system as the one mentioned had been in place, and if the priority of the call would be set by the stress level, I rather doubt that it would have been given a sufficient level of priority, whereas a hysterical parent to a child with a minor cut on a finger or some such would probably score much higher.

In summary, I might be able to understand an argument that this could be useful in military situations, where one would expect every caller to have at least some experience and/or training in/for emergency situations, but for the civil populace, this idea is about as bad as they come…

If the reader remembers the days of Windows 95 and NT, she should also remember the teardrop attacks.

It would appear that some brave MS programmer pined for those days of remote BSODs, and thus has reintroduced this beloved feature in the SMB2 protocol driver in Vista and Windows 7.

Kudos!

I saw this comment on a slashdot.org article tonight.

In essence, it’s an explanation of the US tax system, explained in the setting of “beer for 10 people” by a professor in economics.

While one may (rightfully) question the quality of a great many slashdot comments, I find this one rather profound.

I’d say it could be adapted to many other countries’ tax schemes with an equivalent conclusion – perhaps because politicians worldwide seem to be more eager to please the readers of daily newspapers, than to listen to sensible science…

Update 11:12 – link fixed. Thank you Thode :-$

Hejsa,

Jeg har netop modtaget et tilbud om at købe Danmarks sidste polarmønt, hvilket fører til to modsatrettede spørgsmål:

1) Kan jeg, såfremt jeg køber denne mønt, være sikker på, at I opsporer og destruerer alle andre eksemplarer?

og

2) Hvis ikke, vil I så venligst undlade at sende uopfordrede og løgnagtige “tilbud” til min adresse?

Med venlig hilsen,

Sune Mølgaard
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX

Presumably due to a DNS foul-up on my part, my last few posts weren’t moved from a now defunct server onto the new one. Bummer

All is not lost, however, since there was a constructive comment to one article by my good friend Therese, who happens to have a more informative post than my usual ramblings on her blog, so if you can read Danish, do yourself a favour and sample her blog at http://www.version2.dk/blogs/theresehansen