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