Camões 1st Literary Writing Contest

Check the rules and visit the websites here!

Camões 1st Writing Competition

Attention from teacher Ângela Lopes

Bang the button

Legionnaires' disesase

Legionnaires' disease is a severe form of pneumonia — lung inflammation usually caused by infection. Legionnaires' disease is caused by a bacterium known as legionella.

You can't catch Legionnaires' disease from person-to-person contact. Instead, most people get Legionnaires' disease from inhaling the bacteria. Older adults, smokers and people with weakened immune systems are particularly susceptible to Legionnaires' disease.

The legionella bacterium also causes Pontiac fever, a milder illness resembling the flu. Separately or together, the two illnesses are sometimes called legionellosis. Pontiac fever usually clears on its own, but untreated Legionnaires' disease can be fatal. Although prompt treatment with antibiotics usually cures Legionnaires' disease, some people continue to experience problems after treatment.

Symptoms

By Mayo Clinic Staff

Legionnaires' disease usually develops two to 10 days after exposure to legionella bacteria. It frequently begins with the following signs and symptoms:

• Headache
• Muscle pain
• Chills
• Fever that may be 104 F (40 C) or higher

By the second or third day, you'll develop other signs and symptoms that may include:

• Cough, which may bring up mucus and sometimes blood
• Shortness of breath
• Chest pain
• Gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhea
• Confusion or other mental changes

Although Legionnaires' disease primarily affects the lungs, it occasionally can cause infections in wounds and in other parts of the body, including the heart.

 .— may produce signs and symptoms including fever, chills, headache and muscle aches. Pontiac fever doesn't infect your lungs, and symptoms usually clear within two to five days

A mild form of Legionnaires' disease — known as Pontiac The bacterium Legionella pneumophila is responsible for most cases of Legionnaires' disease. Outdoors, legionella bacteria survive in soil and water, but rarely cause infections. Indoors, though, legionella bacteria can multiply in all kinds of water systems — hot tubs, air conditioners and mist sprayers in grocery store produce departments.

Although it's possible to contract Legionnaires' disease from home plumbing systems, most outbreaks have occurred in large buildings, perhaps because complex systems allow the bacteria to grow and spread more easily.

How the infection spreads

Most people become infected when they inhale microscopic water droplets containing legionella bacteria. This might be the spray from a shower, faucet or whirlpool, or water dispersed through the ventilation system in a large building. Outbreaks have been linked to a range of sources, including:

• Hot tubs and whirlpools on cruise ships
• Cooling towers in air conditioning systems
• Decorative fountains
• Swimming pools
• Physical therapy equipment
• Water systems in hotels, hospitals and nursing homes

Although legionella bacteria primarily spread through aerosolized water droplets, the infection can be transmitted in other ways, including:

• Aspiration. This occurs when liquids accidentally enter your lungs, usually because you cough or choke while drinking. If you aspirate water containing legionella bacteria, you may develop Legionnaires' disease.
• Soil. A few people have contracted Legionnaires' disease after working in the garden or using contaminated potting soil.

When to see a doctor

See your doctor if you think you've been exposed to legionella bacteria. Diagnosing and treating Legionnaires' disease as soon as possible can help shorten the recovery period and prevent serious complications. For people at high risk, prompt treatment is critical.

Not everyone exposed to legionella bacteria becomes sick. You're more likely to develop the infection if you:

• Smoke. Smoking damages the lungs, making you more susceptible to all types of lung infections.
• Have a weakened immune systemLegionnaires' disease can lead to a number of life-threatening complications, including:
  • Respiratory failure. This occurs when the lungs are no longer able to provide the body with enough oxygen or can't remove enough carbon dioxide from the blood.
  • Septic shock. This occurs when a severe, sudden drop in blood pressure reduces blood flow to vital organs, especially to the kidneys and brain. The heart tries to compensate by increasing the volume of blood pumped, but the extra workload eventually weakens the heart and reduces blood flow even further.
  • Acute kidney failure. This is the sudden loss of your kidneys' ability to perform their main function — filtering waste material from your blood. When your kidneys fail, dangerous levels of fluid and waste accumulate in your body.
  
  When not treated effectively and promptly, Legionnaires' disease may be fatal, especially if your immune system is weakened by disease or medications. as a result of HIV/AIDS or certain medications, especially corticosteroids and drugs taken to prevent organ rejection after a transplant.
• Have a chronic lung disease such as emphysema or another serious condition such as diabetes, kidney disease or cancer.
• Are 50 years of age or older.

Legionnaires' disease is a sporadic and local problem in hospitals and nursing homes, where germs may spread easily and people are vulnerable to infection.

Follow us on Facebook

The classroom of the future

Teens and plastic surgeries

Personally, I don't believe that plastic surgery is the best or the rigth type of intervention for young people and I honestly believe that a lot of the things that motivate people, especially youngsters are issues created by the society.
All the girls in TV shows, magazines, catalogues and others are always very thin, which is the idea we have of perfection: tall, to be a super skinny size O, blond or burnet or with any other characteristics that most people don't have; blue or green eyes, a nose which isn't too big or small, lips that have a certain shape...
As human beings we cannot change our DNA to have the image and size we want for our body. A lot of young people, especially teenage girls end up having phsycological problems and eating disorders to avoid feeling "ugly".

by Marta Lontrão, 11º L

Personally, I don't think I would ever do a plastic surgery, because we should accept our bodies just the way they are. I honestly think that changing your body is a real mistake.

My point is: we should embrace our looks and be confident with what we have, I can say I'm against surgeries where the only use is to please a bunch of strangers. 

To finish, the only type of surgeries that should be allowed are those that can help your health.

by Rogério Maurício, 11º L

O'Captain my Captain

Oxford New Words

New words in Oxford Dictionaries

                                                                                                                          www.Time.com

World War I

https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/first-world-war-centenary

28th July 1914

The London Olympics Film 1948 Part 1 - Olympic History

Why I Love Learning But I Don't Really Like School

So you want to get a degree? Seems simple, right? Everybody seems to tell us that it's what we need to increase our chances of getting a job, that it provides us with an opportunity to be successful, and will remove a lot of stress from our lives. Education is the key. Our parents tell us to make them proud. But, at the same time, what society tells us is: 'Sorry kids, you're either going to have to get a job or go to Uni. Oh, but Uni is probably going to cost you more so you'll need to do both. Also we don't have enough jobs for you'. It all seems pretty messed up to me.

I don't think we need to go to school to get an education and, sadly, sometimes, school actually gets in the way of learning.

The drive to question things and learn how they work is part of human instinct; walking silently in straight lines and sitting in chairs bent over a paper using no more than your hand muscles and brain is not. Humans are born with a drive to learn.

We need to completely reformulate our entire educational system; children need to identify and learn to use the abilities that they have been endowed with.

We need to learn how to learn: it is not enough to shovel information into our heads and have us dig around for it, to regurgitate it on the exams. The world we live in is constantly changing for this to actually work.

"Everybody's a genious but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will spend its whole life thinking it's stupid", said Mr. Einstein. And it's true. It's how unfair the educational system actually is! Different people have different abilities. Why are we all being tested the same way? How is intolerance fair for people growing up? You shouldn't be telling kids struggling that they are failures for missing a year of school of their lives. You should support them!

Tolerance is the key and there's almost no room for it in school!

Ana Margarida Correia, nº 2, 10º L

Private Schools vs State Schools

Nowadays there is a lot of discussion among people about which type of school offers the best educational system: private or state schools? Because there's not a correct answer (it's a matter of opinion), I interviewed some people to know what they think.

It's obvious who answered what. Rich, naive and ignorant people answered private - maybe because they couldn't attend a state school; maybe they think they are superior and too rich to do it. These people told me all about the great facilities, the outrageous teachers and the quality of the students. This is all true indeed, but what people didn't tell me was the amount of money they pay for having their kids attending private schools or the coldness and antipathy of teachers and staff. Even though, I have to agree that the teaching is much more strict and rigid, there is much more discipline and order.

Not so rich people answered state schools - maybe because they couldn't afford attending a private one. They told me that the environment is very different, the teachers are sensitive to students because they are aware of money and family issues. They often help kids, not only by giving them a good education, but also by talking to them and giving them support. However, the teaching there is messy and sloppy.

I talked to Eva, a girl that has been through both: public and state schools. She believes that in private schools you have a minor vision of real life, they protect the students too much; in their world everyone is wealthy enough to have brand-clothing and new IT equipment, while in state schools there is more sense of reality and a global vision of life. She also agrees that in state schools the teachers are often better and nicer, very helpful to everything the students need.

There is not a true or false answer but I'm sure we all agree that people who put their kids in private schools are wealthy enough and ignorant enough to do it!

Joana Almeida Flor, nº 15, 10º L

Roll House

 What about to live in a Roll?

 There are some that have a dream: to live in a Roll!

 Is it possible, may you ask? Yes it is!         

 There are lots of roll houses, but they are usually in a cool dry place, to better conservation of the roll.

 We leave here the ‘How to make a roll house’ research:

 „First, they said, you have to dig into the roll. Then, you build a bed, chairs, table and windows. You have to be very careful with the door, as it has to be made of sugar. Otherwise, it will react with the flour.”

And there you are! Go out in the wild and bake your own flour house!

by Duarte Benard da Costa, nº 11,10º L

Alexander Search

World Day of Poetry

Here And There

Here is the same as there, my friend, 
All places in this world are like. 
If doomed thy life in grief to spend, 
What change can then thy fate amend, 
What from thy sou! the pain can strike? 

When pain doth wound the tired heart 
And grief doth tire the fevered eye, 
Some joy indeed the world's great art 
May to thy pained soul impart- 
What's this if joy in thee not lie? 

When on my restless couch I lie 
And count the throbbing of my breath, 
I see the joy of earth and sky 
Yet hate it alI; why should not I 
So keep my coward mind from death? 

True joy comes not from outward show 
But in our deepest soul doth rest. 
What matter if the sun can glow 
And stars at night look sweetly so 
When hearts are by their grief opprest? 

For when the darkness weighs thy thought, 
And night doth fall upon thy soul, 
Are not again thy sorrows brought? 
Is not thy mind in shadows caught? 
Do fears not back upon thee roll? 


I cannot do but hope; as mine 
Thy mind I see to hopes doth bend; 
I in my land and thou in thine 
We suffer both - our griefs entwine. 
Here is the same as there, my friend.

A film review - INVICTUS

Film Review

Invictus by Clint Eastwood

The film Invictus, directed by Clint Eastwood, stars Morgan Freeman playing the main role as former South African president Nelson Mandela and Matt Damon playing the role of South Africa’s national rugby team captain as François Pienaar. The genre of the film is widely up for discussion, but it is commonly classified as sport, drama, history and even as biography. Stirring is the word that best defines the movie. Perfect if you want to watch it with your family, once it gives a pretty soft and optimistic overlook on South Africa’s situation at the time.

The film starts back then when Mandela’s first takes office as President of South Africa, after decades of apartheid regime rule and in the year of the preparation for the 1995 World Rugby Cup that would be hosted in that same country. The national rugby team called the Springboks, which had mostly whites on its players list and was still seen by blacks as an apartheid symbol, was almost loathsome and likely to be disbanded. And then comes Mandela with a solution for both Springboks and the country: to keep Springboks team of which Afrikaners felt proud and to gather prestige and international recognition for South Africa by winning the Rugby World Cup, thus reuniting both black and white South Africans.

The film was overall stirring. Here the intention of the director of the film was very clear, making it remarkably inspiring. This intention can be seen not only by the small and somehow subtle episodes that take place in the film – such as that one in which both black and white bodyguards of Mandela are playing rugby with each other and the other one which is divided into smaller ones interlaced with the final match showing a kid edging a police car, between scenes, where two policemen are listening to the match on the radio –, but obviously by the plot itself as well. With the exception of a few Freeman’s exaggerations playing Mandela with extreme happiness, the performance of the cast was very good. Yet, you might find it a little bit disappointing if, like me, you were expecting a keener insight on the social effects of the fall of the apartheid regime. But if not, then great! It might suit you just perfectly!

In conclusion: if you’re more headed to watch a film for the entertainment it provides you and the inspiration it gives you, then it’s an optimum choice; if, on the other hand, you are more headed to watch cleverer, more complex films, then you might get a little disappointed, but it’ll be fun if you just want to spend a good time with your family watching a film and, who knows, perhaps you’ll find yourself dreaming after watching it.

João Martins, nº 14 - 11º B

Socialising in the sky

SOCIAL media is nothing new for the airline industry. Most carriers understand that peer-to-peer social networks like Facebook and Twitter offer a cost-effective and direct means of engaging with passengers—typically for service updates, conflict resolution and marketing. Even longstanding sceptics like Ryanair now pay their staff to interact with customers on social media. The airlines don’t always get it right, of course, but they are no more prone to blunders than anyone else. And yet one thing has been noticeably lacking from the industry’s social media landscape: a means for passengers to converse with one another not before or after their flight, but during it. Virgin America has now changed that by launching what it claims is the world’s first in-flight social networking app.

"Here on Biz" allows business passengers to connect to their accounts on LinkedIn, a popular professional networking website. Geo-location technology then checks whether any acquaintances in their LinkedIn network happen to be at their gate, on their plane, or indeed on another Virgin America flight. Passengers connect to the network via the airline’s Wi-Fi service; use of the app will be free until July.

It is easy to imagine practical benefits from such tools. Instant messaging facilities are commonplace in offices, enabling colleagues to relay questions and comments without leaving their desks. But, on an aircraft, colleagues flying in different rows (or, devastatingly, different cabins) have few opportunities to interact. The concept can further be expanded into more ambitious territory. When travelling by air to conferences, Gulliver has previously sat within earshot of fellow delegates whom he only later realised were attending the same event. These apps could make pre-conference introductions and networking easier. One day, they may even help do away with the dreaded name-badge.

Moreover, in-flight social apps need not be restricted to business functions. Here on Biz also allows passengers to connect to their Facebook and Twitter accounts, making conversations with non-work friends possible. Two old school chums might spontaneously discover that they are en route to the same Caribbean holiday resort. Someone circling over Heathrow might ping passengers on the aircraft ahead, asking how long they have been delayed. Depending on the type of application, hitherto unacquainted people may also decide to chat with one another. One rather ambitious app, Wingman, already allows frisky travellers to flirt with each other. 

David Cush, Virgin America's chief executive, last year admitted that his airline had been “a little bit behind” in mobile technology. He should be praised for experimenting with this novel facility. But there will be plenty of critics too. Although cramped space and boredom will compel some travellers to seek out associates, others would surely prefer to be left alone. Here on Biz has privacy settings that hide your presence. But business travellers are increasingly expected to be on-call all the time. Peace and quiet in the skies could become an ever-more elusive concept.

Nonetheless, on-board socialising is an experiment worth trying. Along with business conferencing, idle chit-chat and dating, peer-to-peer gaming might also become commonplace. That would surely be a hit with young travellers, as well as more mature poker or bridge players. And for the airlines themselves, on-board digital conversations present new opportunities to eavesdrop on and better understand their customers, enabling them to respond with advice or—less appealingly—unsolicited marketing (Qantas already monitors what people say in its lounges via a tool called Local Measure).

There are pros and cons, then, and there will always be blunders. Last year, Virgin America allowed its customers to send drinks to fellow passengers via their seat-back entertainment systems. The airline said it would help male passengers “get lucky” in the skies. Many female travellers found the idea creepy. But with on-board Wi-Fi becoming more commonplace—and, in the case of carriers like Norwegian Air Shuttle and Turkish Airlines, free of charge—socialising in the sky is here to stay. 

THE ECONOMIST

February 21st, 2014

Episódio n.º6 - Sexta às 9 - Informação - RTP

Episódio n.º6 - Sexta às 9 - Informação - RTP

Meditatio

When I carefully consider the curious habits of dogs

I am compelled to conclude

That man is the superior animal. 

When I consider the curious habits of man

I confess, my friend, I am puzzled. 

Ezra Pound (1885-1972)

The Beatles Live Ed Sullivan 9 Feb 1964 (Complete)

50 years ago

Cotonete - Beatles chegaram aos EUA há 50 anos

http://entertainment.time.com/2014/02/13/the-beatles-invasion-50-years-ago-thursday-feb-13-1964-friday-feb-21-1964/

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

12th February 1809 - 15th April 1865

Short Biography

TRAGÉDIA DO MECO - FERNANDO TORDO

I agree with Fernando Tordo.
Nowadays hazing and bullying mean joking! "We were only joking! It was only a joke!" The one who does not fit in and does not play the same way is set aside and humiliated. Parents pay for their children to be humiliated! 

Nobody stops to think that our freedom ends when our neighbour's begins.

Hazing is bullying, different from freshmen initiation

Hazing is the practice of rituals and other activities involving harassment, abuse or humiliation used as a way of initiating a person into a group. Hazing is seen in many different types of social groups, including gangs, sports teams, schools, military units, and fraternities . Hazing is often prohibited by law and may comprise either physical or psychological abuse. It may also include nudity or sexually-oriented offenses.

Wikipedia

CARTA ABERTA A UM DUX

Dux:

Ando aqui com esta merda entalada há já algum tempo. A ouvir as diferentes versões, a pensar nas dúvidas e a pôr-me no lugar das pessoas. Tento pôr-me no lugar dos pais dos teus colegas que morreram. Mas não quero. É um lugar que não quero nem imaginar. É um lugar que imagino ser escuro e vazio. Um vazio que nunca mais será preenchido. Nunca mais, Dux. Sabes o que é isso? Sabes o que é "nunca mais"?

A história que te recusas a contar cheira cada vez mais a merda, Dux. Primeiro não falavas porque estavas traumatizado e em choque por perderes os teus colegas. Até acreditei que estivesses. Agora parece que tens amnésia selectiva. É uma amnésia conveniente, Dux. Curiosamente, uma amnésia rara resultante de uma lesão cerebral de uma zona específica do cérebro. Sabias Dux? Se calhar não sabias. Resulta normalmente de um traumatismo crânio-encefálico. Portanto Dux, deves ter levado uma granda mocada na cabeça. Ou então andas a ver se isto passa. Mas isto não é uma simples dor de cabeça, Dux. Isto não vai lá com o tempo nem com uma aspirina. Já passou mais de 1 mês. Continuas calado. Mas os pais dos teus colegas têm todo o tempo do mundo para saber a verdade, Dux. E vão esperar e lutar e espremer e gritar até saberem. Porque tu não tens filhos, Dux. Não sabes do que um pai ou uma mãe é capaz de fazer por um filho. Até onde são capazes de ir. Até quando são capazes de esperar.

Vocês, Dux... Vocês e os vossos ridículos pactos de silêncio. Vocês e as vossas praxes da treta. Vocês e a mania que são uns mauzões. Que preparam as pessoas para a vida e para a realidade à base da humilhação, da violência e da tirania. Vou te ensinar uma coisa, Dux. Que se calhar já vai tarde. Mas o que prepara as pessoas para a vida é o amor, a fraternidade, a solidariedade e o civismo. O respeito. A dignidade humana e a auto-estima. Isso é que prepara as pessoas para a vida, Dux. Não é a destruí-las, Dux. É ao contrário. É a reforçá-las.

Transtorna-me saber que 6 colegas teus morreram, Dux. Também te deve transtornar a ti. Acredito. Mas devias ter pensado nisso antes. Tu que és o manda-chuva, e eles também, que possivelmente se deixaram ir na conversa. Tinham idade para saber mais. Meco à noite, no inverno, na maior ondulação dos últimos anos, com alerta vermelho para a costa portuguesa? Achavam mesmo que era sítio para se brincar às praxes, Dux? Ou para preparar as pessoas para a vida? Vocês são navy seals, Dux? Estavam a preparar-se para alguma missão na Síria? Enfim. Agora sê homenzinho, Dux. E fala. Vá. És tão dux para umas coisas e agora encolhes-te como um rato. Sabes o que significa dux, Dux? Significa líder em latim. Foste um líder, Dux, foste? Líderes não humilham colegas. Líderes não "empurram" colegas para a morte. Líderes lideram por exemplo. Dão o peito e a cara pelos colegas. Isso é um líder, Dux.

Não sei o que isto vai dar, Dux. Não sei até que ponto vai a tua responsabilidade nesta história toda. Mas a forma como a justiça actua neste país pequenino não faz vislumbrar grande justiça. És capaz de te safar de qualquer responsabilidade, qualquer que ela seja. Espero enganar-me. Vamos ver. O que eu sei é que os pais que perderam os filhos precisam de saber o que aconteceu. Precisam mesmo, Dux. É um direito que eles têm. É uma vontade que eles precisam. Negá-los disso, para mim já é um crime, Dux. Um crime contra a humanidade. Uma violação dos direitos humanos fundamentais. Só por isso Dux, já devias ser responsabilizado. É tortura, Dux. E a tortura é crime.

Sabes, quero me lembrar de ti para o resto da vida, Dux. Sabes porquê? Porque não quero que o meu filho cresça e se torne num dux. Quero que ele seja o oposto de ti. Quero que ele seja um líder e não um dux. Consegues pereceber o que digo, Dux? Quero que ele respeite todos e todas. Que ele lidere por exemplo. Que ele não humilhe ninguém. Que seja responsável. Que se chegue à frente sempre que tenha que assumir responsabilidades. Que seja corajoso e não um rato nem um cobardezinho. Que seja prudente e inteligente. E quero me lembrar também dos teus colegas que morreram. Porque não quero que o meu filho se deixe "mandar" e humilhar por duxezinhos como tu. Não quero que ele se acobarde nem se encolha perante nenhum duxezinho. Quero que ele saiba dizer "não" quando "não" é a resposta certa. Quando "não" pode salvar a sua dignidade, o seu orgulho ou até a sua vida. Quero que ele saiba dizer "basta" de cabeça erguida e peito cheio perante um duxezinho, um patrãozinho, um governozinho ou qualquer tirano mandão e inseguro que lhe apareça à frente. É isso que eu quero, Dux. Quem o vai preparar para a vida sou eu e a mãe dele, Dux. Não é nenhum dux nem nehuma comissão de praxes. Sabes porquê, Dux? Porque eu não quero um dia estar à espera de respostas de um cobarde com amnésia selectiva. Não quero nunca sentir o vazio dos pais dos teus colegas. Porque quero abraçar o meu filho todos os dias da minha vida até eu morrer, Dux. Percebeste? Até EU morrer. EU, Dux. Não ele.

http://youtu.be/PHt31NNV0k0

Paulo Pereira

How a short story is outlined

Short Story

Technology and jobs

The effect of today’s technology on tomorrow’s jobs will be immense - and no country is ready for it

INNOVATION, the elixir of progress, has always cost people their jobs. In the Industrial Revolution artisan weavers were swept aside by the mechanical loom. Over the past 30 years the digital revolution has displaced many of the mid-skill jobs that underpinned 20th-century middle-class life. Typists, ticket agents, bank tellers and many production-line jobs have been dispensed with, just as the weavers were.

For those, including this newspaper, who believe that technological progress has made the world a better place, such churn is a natural part of rising prosperity. Although innovation kills some jobs, it creates new and better ones, as a more productive society becomes richer and its wealthier inhabitants demand more goods and services. A hundred years ago one in three American workers was employed on a farm. Today less than 2% of them produce far more food. The  millions freed from the land were not consigned to joblessness, but found better-paid work as the economy grew more sophisticated. Today the pool of secretaries has shrunk, but there are ever more computer programmers and web designers.

Remember Ironbridge

Optimism remains the right starting-point, but for workers the dislocating effects of technology may make themselves evident faster than its benefits. Even if new jobs and wonderful products emerge, in the short term income gaps will widen, causing huge social dislocation and perhaps even changing politics. Technology’s impact will feel like a tornado, hitting the rich world first, but eventually sweeping through poorer countries too. No government is prepared for it.

Why be worried? It is partly just a matter of history repeating itself. In the early part of the Industrial Revolution the rewards of increasing productivity went disproportionately to capital; later on, labour reaped most of the benefits. The pattern today is similar. The prosperity unleashed by the digital revolution has gone overwhelmingly to the owners of capital and the highest-skilled workers. Over the past three decades, labour’s share of output has shrunk globally from 64% to 59%. Meanwhile, the share of income going to the top 1% in America has risen from around 9% in the 1970s to 22% today. Unemployment is at alarming levels in much of the rich world, and not just for cyclical reasons. In 2000, 65% of working-age Americans were in work; since then the proportion has fallen, during good years as well as bad, to the current level of 59%.

Worse, it seems likely that this wave of technological disruption to the job market has only just started. From driverless cars to clever household gadgets, innovations that already exist could destroy swathes of jobs that have hitherto been untouched. The public sector is one obvious target: it has proved singularly resistant to tech-driven reinvention. But the step change in what computers can do will have a powerful effect on middle-class jobs in the private sector too.

Until now the jobs most vulnerable to machines were those that involved routine, repetitive tasks. But thanks to the exponential rise in processing power and the ubiquity of digitised information (“big data”), computers are increasingly able to perform complicated tasks more cheaply and effectively than people. Clever industrial robots can quickly “learn” a set of human actions. Services may be even more vulnerable. Computers can already detect intruders in a closed-circuit camera picture more reliably than a human can. By comparing reams of financial or  biometric data, they can often diagnose fraud or illness more accurately than any number of accountants or doctors. One recent study by academics at Oxford University suggests that 47% of today’s jobs could be automated in the next two decades.

At the same time, the digital revolution is transforming the process of innovation itself, as our special report explains. Thanks to off-the-shelf code from the internet and platforms that host services (such as Amazon’s cloud computing), provide distribution (Apple’s app store) and offer marketing (Facebook), the number of digital startups has exploded. Just as computer-games designers invented a product that humanity never knew it needed but now cannot do without, so these firms will no doubt dream up new goods and services to employ millions. But for now they are singularly light on workers. When Instagram, a popular photo-sharing site, was sold to Facebook for about $1 billion in 2012, it had 30m customers and employed 13 people. Kodak, which filed for bankruptcy a few months earlier, employed 145,000 people in its heyday.

The problem is one of timing as much as anything. Google now employs 46,000 people. But it takes years for new industries to grow, whereas the disruption a startup causes to incumbents is felt sooner. Airbnb may turn homeowners with spare rooms into entrepreneurs, but it poses a direct threat to the lower end of the hotel business—a massive employer.

No time to be timid

If this analysis is halfway correct, the social effects will be huge. Many of the jobs most at risk are lower down the ladder (logistics, haulage), whereas the skills that are least vulnerable to automation (creativity, managerial expertise) tend to be higher up, so median wages are likely to remain stagnant for some time and income gaps are likely to widen.

Anger about rising inequality is bound to grow, but politicians will find it hard to address the problem. Shunning progress would be as futile now as the Luddites’ protests against mechanised looms were in the 1810s, because any country that tried to stop would be left behind by competitors eager to embrace new technology. The freedom to raise taxes on the rich to punitive levels will be similarly constrained by the mobility of capital and highly skilled labour.

The main way in which governments can help their people through this dislocation is through education systems. One of the reasons for the improvement in workers’ fortunes in the latter part of the Industrial Revolution was because schools were built to educate them—a dramatic change at the time. Now those schools themselves need to be changed, to foster the creativity that humans will need to set them apart from computers. There should be less rote-learning and more critical thinking. Technology itself will help, whether through MOOCs (massive open online courses) or even video games that simulate the skills needed for work.

The definition of “a state education” may also change. Far more money should be spent on pre-schooling, since the cognitive abilities and social skills that children learn in their first few years define much of their future potential. And adults will need continuous education. State education may well involve a year of study to be taken later in life, perhaps in stages.

Yet however well people are taught, their abilities will remain unequal, and in a world which is increasingly polarised economically, many will find their job prospects dimmed and wages squeezed. The best way of helping them is not, as many on the left seem to think, to push up minimum wages. Jacking up the floor too far would accelerate the shift from human workers to computers. Better to top up low wages with public money so that anyone who works has a reasonable income, through a bold expansion of the tax credits that countries such as America and Britain use.

Innovation has brought great benefits to humanity. Nobody in their right mind would want to return to the world of handloom weavers. But the benefits of technological progress are unevenly distributed, especially in the early stages of each new wave, and it is up to governments to spread them. In the 19th century it took the threat of revolution to bring about progressive reforms. Today’s governments would do well to start making the changes needed before their people get angry.

The Economist

Victorian Britain

Chidren in coal mines

Immigration Debate in The UK

PM sets out key areas for discussion with other EU members, saying UK needs changes to way migrants can claim benefits

Rowena Mason, political correspondent

Sunday 5 January 2014

David Cameron will consider pushing for a cap on workers from Europe and make cutting immigration a top priority as he seeks to renegotiate Britain's relationship with Brussels.

The prime minister said the UK needs changes to the way migrants can claim benefits and the number coming over to work, as he set out key areas for discussion with other EU members. Speaking on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show on Sunday, he said all options are on the table in terms of pushing for a cap on the number of immigrants from new entrants to the EU.

His comments come after a row last month when the Liberal Democrats condemned as illegal Home Office proposals to bring in a limit of around 75,000 EU migrants per year.

Cameron insisted he has already made progress on renegotiation, which he wants before putting the issue of Britain's EU membership to a referendum vote by the end of 2017. However, he said much more needs to be done on the issue of immigration and suggested he was willing to raise the issue of a cap in Brussels.

"We need change on claiming benefits, we need changes on free movement. I've said we want to get Britain out of the idea that there's an ever-closer union in the European Union – we don't want an ever-closer union, we want to have trade and co-operation, not an ever-closer union."

After talking about ways to limit immigration from other member states, Cameron was asked about his red lines in negotiations. He replied: "I've already said to you this morning some of the things that we need to sort out. I could add to those we need more flexibility, we need more competitiveness, we need less cost added, particularly to our small businesses. We need to fix all of those things. They will all be part of this renegotiation, and I've given myself – I think rightly – the referendum must be held by the end of 2017. It will be," he said.

Among the changes he wanted to see, Cameron said he would work to stop child benefit being claimed by migrants for their children abroad. "I don't think that is right and that is something I want to change," he said.

"It's a situation that I inherited … I think it will take time because we either have to change it by getting agreement from other European countries – and there are other European countries who, like me, think it's wrong that someone from Poland who comes here, who works hard, and I am absolutely all in favour of that, but I don't think we should be paying child benefit to their family back at home in Poland.

"Now, to change that, you've either got to change it with other European countries at the moment, or potentially change it through the treaty change that I'll be putting in place before the referendum we will hold on Britain's membership of the EU by the end of 2017."

The prime minister said it was also absolutely achievable to stop new members without tighter restrictions on migration in place joining the EU, suggesting he could veto accessions if not. "That is absolutely achievable because every time a new country joins the European Union, there has to be unanimity around the council table in Europe about what the arrangements are. So Britain will be able to insist for future countries joining, we'll be able to insist on a tougher, more robust regime."

Asked whether he would ever campaign for Britain to leave the EU if he does not get what he wants, Cameron insisted his goals were feasible. "I believe I will get what I want. I am launching this process because a) I think it is right for Britain – I don't think the relationship works at the moment, I want it to work better; and b) I think it is achievable because the rest of Europe, because you've got 18 countries now in a single currency, they need change – they need more common taxes, they need more common banking unions – they need change and as they need change we should be able to get change too. So this is doable, it is achievable and it is good for Britain."

Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, responded on Twitter with a cutting putdown, saying: "David Cameron seems to be trying to sound like me. But the thing is, I believe in what I say." Speaking later, on the Sky News Murnaghan programme, Farage said the coalition was still not doing enough. He suggested that only people earning the national average wage should be allowed into Britain and they should have to wait five years before claiming jobless benefits.

He said: "We should be selective. The single most important criteria should be that we want people coming to this country who have got a skill to bring, who economically are going to earn more than £27,500."

http://theguardian.com/

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/05/cameron-cap-european-migrants-uk-negotiations-eu

As Isaac Asimov described 2014 in 1964

2014 described by Isaac Asimov in 1964

Are men, not women, better multitaskers?