For some reason, a bunch of people in Japan want to learn Swedish. ^^ It's a bit charming actually, but are there any language resources out there? I set out on a small quest to find some.
Since I work and study at the Computer Science department at KTH, the first thing I thought of was Lexin, Stava and Granska.
Lexin is a Swedish to many-languages dictionary, it's a good tool both for us Swedes who sometimes need to check our spelling twice, or when translating Swedish. Give it a try, it's the best Swedish dictionary that is available for free.
Lexin also offers a set of images, marked with the Swedish names for the things in the picture. Like the ones you get in elementary school books. The text is in Swedish, but try out the 33 image sets.
Stava is a spelling tool and also some grammar checking is done. I think one of the creators hinted me that it did beat Microsoft Word's Swedish grammar checking in a scientific test. So although it looks simple, it's far superior to anything I have found on the web. The only drawback is that it is in Swedish, but it's fairly easy to make out which buttons to press and how it suggests change of spelling.
Granska is a grammar checking tool, it's fairly new compared to the previous two tools. And to be honest, I only know that it has proven to be very good at detecting a grammatic mistake called "särskrivning" in Swedish. For example, unlike English, Swedish is very liberal when it comes to forming new words by using two words and turning them into a single word. "Get" goat, "Ryggsäck" rucksack and "Tillverkare" maker can be turned into "Getryggsäckstillverkare" Goat rucksack maker. This is a perfectly legal word, although rather strange. The language group at the CS department is responsible for this and it aims to aid non-native speakers of Swedish.
I think this is all the CS department has to offer at the moment. So I set out onto the world wild web for more resources.
Stockholm School of Economics has a good 40 page introduction to Swedish. It's free and basic.
Leif Stensson has made a quick guide to Swedish grammar, although not finished it gives some insight into Swedish grammar.
FSI has a rather large collection of audio files for practising pronunciation, I checked out the first one and it was quite al right. This is in fact the only good audio resources I did find.
Transparent Language has a Swedish Proficiency Test on line, it's not very extensive but might give you a hint. It's not easy though, so study for a while before looking at it.
I hope you get some help using these links, and good luck on your Swedish studies. Att lära sig Svenska är en utmaning, men en utmaning som i slutänden troligen ger dig en hel del glädje.
Sunday, 9 September 2007
Sunday, 2 September 2007
Unix Party pin?
Yesterday I watched the movie Contact, based on a novel by Carl Sagan. I found it rather interesting, but that's not why I am making this post. On one of the computer monitors at the antenna array in New Mexico, there is a pin. Saying "Unix Party". I am not American, but I think it resembles to a political party pin, used during US elections. I have done some research about it, but I haven't found anything. Does anyone know anything about this? I would be happy to know more about this little novelty.
I took a photo of the screen. It's a bit blurry, but you can clearly make out "Unix Party".
I took a photo of the screen. It's a bit blurry, but you can clearly make out "Unix Party".
Friday, 31 August 2007
Respecting and understanding differences
Lars Vilks has recently become rather famous. I have never cared much for his art, it's a bit too strange for my taste. How ever, lately, conservative Muslims have reacted with anger to his latest work. Apparently, Vilks thought that it would be a good piece of art to make a statue of the prophet Muhammed. Swedish law allows you to publish, make, etc. all sorts of things. We call it freedom of speech, basically you are allowed to do most things if the intent is not to offend. Vilks intent can be discussed, but most likely he is trying to get some attention along with creating a debate on whether or not you can mock anything. To be honest, the statue is rather silly and deserve little attention.
Personally, I think you have the right to make fun of anything. As long as the sole intent is not to offend or humiliate a living person or group of individuals. In a democratic society you can make blows and take blows. Making something holy and making it taboo is not the way of an open society. If I was Vilks I'd make a piece of art mocking most religions. That way, I'd think it was more fair. And perhaps there would be some debate among believers (concerning why some burn flags and others ignore it as a silly piece of art) instead of focusing on a single religion.
As I mentioned earlier, it really deserves little attention. The right thing to do is to protest peacefully at the publisher and criticise those who you do not agree with. An excellent example is the protest in Örebro, they were aimed at the paper and Vilks. I don't agree with them on whether or not it should be published, but it was nicely done and they showed their point of view.
As with all things, there is also the wrong thing to do. For example, if you would go and burn flags. You are no longer criticising Vilks and the paper that published his works. You are instead blaming a group of people, who most of them don't give a damn about Vilks, of being the source of your discontent. Doing so is no longer a protest, but an attack on an open society. You could also proceed to threatening the artist and thus placing you and your beliefs above Swedish law, thereby eliminating all doubts that you are not a citizen who believes in freedom of speech (apart from your own freedom to do and say what ever you like of course). Why not burn a doll of a man who had nothing to do with the whole thing, apart from being the same nationality as the artist.
Why can't fanatics act rationally? Why are they so blinded that they can't see how they should show their point of view (without being considered to be mental cases that are better off locked away from society)? Well, I guess that's what makes them fanatics.
Personally, I think you have the right to make fun of anything. As long as the sole intent is not to offend or humiliate a living person or group of individuals. In a democratic society you can make blows and take blows. Making something holy and making it taboo is not the way of an open society. If I was Vilks I'd make a piece of art mocking most religions. That way, I'd think it was more fair. And perhaps there would be some debate among believers (concerning why some burn flags and others ignore it as a silly piece of art) instead of focusing on a single religion.
As I mentioned earlier, it really deserves little attention. The right thing to do is to protest peacefully at the publisher and criticise those who you do not agree with. An excellent example is the protest in Örebro, they were aimed at the paper and Vilks. I don't agree with them on whether or not it should be published, but it was nicely done and they showed their point of view.
As with all things, there is also the wrong thing to do. For example, if you would go and burn flags. You are no longer criticising Vilks and the paper that published his works. You are instead blaming a group of people, who most of them don't give a damn about Vilks, of being the source of your discontent. Doing so is no longer a protest, but an attack on an open society. You could also proceed to threatening the artist and thus placing you and your beliefs above Swedish law, thereby eliminating all doubts that you are not a citizen who believes in freedom of speech (apart from your own freedom to do and say what ever you like of course). Why not burn a doll of a man who had nothing to do with the whole thing, apart from being the same nationality as the artist.
Why can't fanatics act rationally? Why are they so blinded that they can't see how they should show their point of view (without being considered to be mental cases that are better off locked away from society)? Well, I guess that's what makes them fanatics.
Sunday, 29 July 2007
Pro-life?
I just can't understand how you can be Pro-life and debate that life is sacred and all. Then go home and just eat a piece of meat and don't think about how you just choose to kill a living being. A living being, very well capable of more "living" than a foetus.
All lives are not equal, that's just the way it is. We don't value strangers as much as friends. We'd rather see the entire Nazi party hanged in 1933 than to let them live and cause the killing of millions of innocents. Not considering everyone and everything equal is not a sin, it's natural, and human. Do the quiz below (the parents agree in the case of foetus abortion below, so the choice is entirely yours, which is more sinful?), don't tell me that you have a hard time deciding on which lives to spare. If you do, you are the one who is having a problem with your ethics, not me.
Note:
I should have included, a man and a man as number six, but I was busy trying to draw something that vaguely resembled the text. I am not an artist in any way.
All lives are not equal, that's just the way it is. We don't value strangers as much as friends. We'd rather see the entire Nazi party hanged in 1933 than to let them live and cause the killing of millions of innocents. Not considering everyone and everything equal is not a sin, it's natural, and human. Do the quiz below (the parents agree in the case of foetus abortion below, so the choice is entirely yours, which is more sinful?), don't tell me that you have a hard time deciding on which lives to spare. If you do, you are the one who is having a problem with your ethics, not me.
Note:I should have included, a man and a man as number six, but I was busy trying to draw something that vaguely resembled the text. I am not an artist in any way.
Monday, 23 July 2007
Panorama of the view from the "Math tower"
The mathematics department resides in the clock tower at KTH. Therefore it's is called the "Math tower" by the students. You have access to a balcony just above the clock and I have been planning on taking a panorama from there. The outcome was not perfect, there are some ugly seams. But they are not that bad. I want a sunny clear day, perhaps in the winter. That might be perfect for a view of Stockholm.
Link to a the larger version (even though you can spot the seams easier).
Link to the larger version.
Link to a the larger version (even though you can spot the seams easier).
Link to the larger version.
Friday, 20 July 2007
Panorama of Rynningeviken
Yesterday I took myself time to process one of the panoramas from my trip to Örebro and Lindesberg back in early June. I have gotten a lot better but I still have a lot to learn. I am not at all pleased with the look of a 220 degree panorama. I really should read up on more general info on panoramas before processing the other two panoramas I have from that trip. The outcome is linked below.
(As usual Google won't allow me to upload obscenely large images, so here is a link to the real deal)
(As usual Google won't allow me to upload obscenely large images, so here is a link to the real deal)
Thursday, 12 July 2007
SvD on science or when journalism goes bad
Today, three scientist posted an article in Göteborgs-Posten, a fairly large Swedish paper where they claim that a rather new Swedish anti-hangover pill Revigör has no effects on hangovers what so ever. I will translate some parts of the article, trying to shorten it down.
"Worried about a hangover? No problem, now Swedish doctors have developed an effective medicine that makes you feel well the day after! This is the message brought to you by Revigör advertisement."
"Revigör comes at a price of 50 SEK and each box contains three pills which ingredients are vitamins, sugar, salt and coffein. But there are no proofs of living up to it's claims."
These are the main things the scientists point out.
First, to have been developed by a Doctor Haglund, yet this person has not published any scientific articles or papers regarding the effect of alcohol. Although Revigör claims that he "has dedicated his life" to the effects of alcohol.
Secondly, Revigör claims to be "a result of Swedish research" and "to have been tested and shown good results in a double-blind placecontrolled study done by doctors from Karolinska Institutet and Uppsala University". Yet, no such study has ever been published. The scientists contacted the owner of the company that produces Revigör and asked for the study. He replied that it was a company secret and that they only share it with business partners. All that are familiar with how science in all forms in conducted, know that you can never make any claims related to an unpublished study. You can't just say "I have proof, but I won't show it". The scientists then point out that it's of economic interest to the company whether or not the study is correct and that one therefore could doubt their motives on keeping it secret.
The scientists the proceed to explaining how it is possible to sell a product that has scientific claims of medical effect and no proofs, in Sweden. This is due to the company labeling their product as vitamins and nutritions instead of medicine. Thus bypassing the Swedish laws and regulations on medicinal products.
Lastly the scientists implies that a people taking medication against hang-overs might be more likely to drink more. They supply no proof of this, but argues that this is not something of good. Especially since Revigör can be sold to people already drunk and that Revigör states "Revigör should not be used to increace alcohol consumption".
It all seems rather well, until Svenska Dagbladet decides to make an article regarding this. They choose "Scientists warns about hangover medicine" as a headline, the original headline was "Hangover medicine is a scam". Thus doing the classic "Scientists warn of X", which is rather popular in the Swedish press. The article mainly focuses on a very poor statement made by Fredrik Spak, one of the scientists. He says "To fool consumers into believing that they can drink any amount of alcohol without the effects of a hangover can in the end lead to addiction", this part, I can't understand. This is not at all what is claimed in the original article, no mention of addiction is made. Either Spak is out of his league and making claims he can not back up or the journlist at SvD has screwed up totally when quoting him (which judging by the rest of the article is not entirely unlikely).
This, however spurred a couple of angry comments by readers and several bloggers have commented on "The evil scientists, who think drinking is bad". All this because of one statement and the fact that SvD switches the focus from the "medicine" being a scam to it being harmful. I have never experienced such a poorly written article. The original article consists to about 80% on debunking the claims of Revigör and about 10% to any possible effects a false medicine might have. Then why does the SvD article consist of the opposite proportions? Also, why does the readers immediately think that the scientists are against them drinking? At no point does any of them say that they shouldn't drink, the only comment is the one of Spark which is totally irrational. I believe that this big mess is partially SvD's fault. Do they have a science part of the paper? Did they even read the first article made by the scientists? I don't have a job for this summer and if SvD needs someone to help them establist some basic understanding on how to write articles about science and even more important, how to keep true to an original article. I am free, and not that expensive.
Now, due to bad journalism the only scientific fact is lost. Revigör makes scientific claims, yet cannot support them. Thus making it a perfect example of pseudoscience. And yet... why is neither the journalists at SvD or the Swedish bloggers upset about being lied to?
Links:
The original article in GP (in Swedish)
The article made on the subject by SvD (in Swedish)
Revigörs homepage (in Swedish)
"Worried about a hangover? No problem, now Swedish doctors have developed an effective medicine that makes you feel well the day after! This is the message brought to you by Revigör advertisement."
"Revigör comes at a price of 50 SEK and each box contains three pills which ingredients are vitamins, sugar, salt and coffein. But there are no proofs of living up to it's claims."
These are the main things the scientists point out.
First, to have been developed by a Doctor Haglund, yet this person has not published any scientific articles or papers regarding the effect of alcohol. Although Revigör claims that he "has dedicated his life" to the effects of alcohol.
Secondly, Revigör claims to be "a result of Swedish research" and "to have been tested and shown good results in a double-blind placecontrolled study done by doctors from Karolinska Institutet and Uppsala University". Yet, no such study has ever been published. The scientists contacted the owner of the company that produces Revigör and asked for the study. He replied that it was a company secret and that they only share it with business partners. All that are familiar with how science in all forms in conducted, know that you can never make any claims related to an unpublished study. You can't just say "I have proof, but I won't show it". The scientists then point out that it's of economic interest to the company whether or not the study is correct and that one therefore could doubt their motives on keeping it secret.
The scientists the proceed to explaining how it is possible to sell a product that has scientific claims of medical effect and no proofs, in Sweden. This is due to the company labeling their product as vitamins and nutritions instead of medicine. Thus bypassing the Swedish laws and regulations on medicinal products.
Lastly the scientists implies that a people taking medication against hang-overs might be more likely to drink more. They supply no proof of this, but argues that this is not something of good. Especially since Revigör can be sold to people already drunk and that Revigör states "Revigör should not be used to increace alcohol consumption".
It all seems rather well, until Svenska Dagbladet decides to make an article regarding this. They choose "Scientists warns about hangover medicine" as a headline, the original headline was "Hangover medicine is a scam". Thus doing the classic "Scientists warn of X", which is rather popular in the Swedish press. The article mainly focuses on a very poor statement made by Fredrik Spak, one of the scientists. He says "To fool consumers into believing that they can drink any amount of alcohol without the effects of a hangover can in the end lead to addiction", this part, I can't understand. This is not at all what is claimed in the original article, no mention of addiction is made. Either Spak is out of his league and making claims he can not back up or the journlist at SvD has screwed up totally when quoting him (which judging by the rest of the article is not entirely unlikely).
This, however spurred a couple of angry comments by readers and several bloggers have commented on "The evil scientists, who think drinking is bad". All this because of one statement and the fact that SvD switches the focus from the "medicine" being a scam to it being harmful. I have never experienced such a poorly written article. The original article consists to about 80% on debunking the claims of Revigör and about 10% to any possible effects a false medicine might have. Then why does the SvD article consist of the opposite proportions? Also, why does the readers immediately think that the scientists are against them drinking? At no point does any of them say that they shouldn't drink, the only comment is the one of Spark which is totally irrational. I believe that this big mess is partially SvD's fault. Do they have a science part of the paper? Did they even read the first article made by the scientists? I don't have a job for this summer and if SvD needs someone to help them establist some basic understanding on how to write articles about science and even more important, how to keep true to an original article. I am free, and not that expensive.
Now, due to bad journalism the only scientific fact is lost. Revigör makes scientific claims, yet cannot support them. Thus making it a perfect example of pseudoscience. And yet... why is neither the journalists at SvD or the Swedish bloggers upset about being lied to?
Links:
The original article in GP (in Swedish)
The article made on the subject by SvD (in Swedish)
Revigörs homepage (in Swedish)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
