Classical music, part I

I’ve often posted some not very well known classical pieces/composers in my ‘Promoting the unknown‘-series (in some cases though, the music in those posts has been well known, however the specific interpretations have not). I’ve started thinking that since quite a few of my readers (as well as ‘googlers’) probably know very little (/about) classical music, it might also be a good idea to introduce you (them) to some of the more well-known ‘mainstream’ stuff, as what is ‘well-known’ stuff for a guy like me might not be for you guys. I’ve therefore decided to start a new series of posts that will try to deliver some of the really good stuff, whether it’s well known or not. This post would probably also be a great link to have at hand when you (again) meet people who openly state that they think that ‘classical music is a little bit boring, isn’t it‘?

This post, and presumably the posts that are to follow, are best read/watched/listened to when you have an hour or more to spare. If you don’t at the moment, you can either stop reading right now and come back to this post when you do, or (to those who haven’t stopped reading…) select a sample or two from the pieces below and let that suffice for now. This post contains 3-4 hours worth of wonderful music, so do come back if you can’t manage it all in one go and/or haven’t heard any of this stuff before.

If you listen to a piece with more than one part, it might be a good idea to let the next part of the piece buffer while you’re listening to what is soon to become the previous part, that way you avoid to have to stop listening for more than a few seconds at most when switching from part to part. As you might imagine, there’s a lot of ground to cover: I’ve decided that the first part in this series is to cover nothing but a few of the best (in some cases: excerpts from) piano concertos. I’ve tried to pick from a wide range of musicians, but of course a lot of composers (and a lot of pieces) didn’t make the ‘list’. When possible, I’ve posted ‘live videos’ where you can see the musicians play, however in some cases I decided that no such youtube recordings were good enough for me to post them here; in these cases I’ve posted ‘pure music videos’ without any visual aspects.

Any comments, both about the desirability of me undertaking this endeavour on this blog in the first place, as well as more general remarks, are of course most welcome; post in Danish if you wish.

Ok, here goes…

Chopin’s 1st piano concerto, 2. mvt.:

-ll- 2. piano concerto, 2. mvt. (yes, I like the 2. movements of his piano concertos, but the reason why I haven’t posted the first movement of this piece is solely because I’ve been unable to find a decent version of this piece on youtube. I own a wonderful version by Jean-Yves Thibaudet and Valery Gergiev, but I don’t find it worth the hassle/risk to put it up online):

…

Grieg’s Piano Concerto, op. 16 (I have to add here that Dinu Lipatti’s version of this piece – here are links to part 2, part 3, part 4 – is godly and far superior to this one. This is one of the cases of ‘choose the version with both audio and visual over the audio only version’. If you don’t care about the visual, don’t even bother with the interpretation below, just go right ahead and listen to Lipatti’s version, it’s by far the best interpretation of this piece I’ve ever heard, and it’s surely one of the reasons why he’s widely considered one of the finest pianists of the 20th century):

…

Rachmaninoff’s 2. piano concerto:

…

Beethoven, 5th piano concerto (Emperor concerto – I like Brendel better, but this is still very good and Brendel’s recording of this is not on youtube, as far as I’ve been able to ascertain):

…

The first half of Tchaikovsky’s Piano Concerto no. 1 (as is the case with all other embedded you-tube videos: If you want to hear ‘related stuff’, or in this case just the rest of the concerto, just (double?)click the youtube-icons below to go to youtube and follow the appropriate links. I find the first two movement to be far the ’strongest’ re. this piece:

…

Robert Schumann’s Piano Concerto:

…

Liszt’ 2. piano concerto:

…

Mozart’s piano concerto no. 21:

How much is an average US politician worth?

If you’re talking about the guys from Washington (House and Senate): More than 6 millions!

Short version:

Longer version:

Net worth, both Democrats & Republicans from House or Senate:
25th percentile = $228,006
Median = $791,004
75th percentile = $2,962,519
Mean = $6,438,210

Razib gives you even more details at the link, you can find the data here. The numbers above are from the full sample, do notice the difference between the mean and the median: Some of the people in the top of the list has a lot of money. If you remove a few of the ‘outliers’, ie. the politicians with a net worth north of 50 mil $ and those with a negative net worth, which Razib has done in his post, it has a sizeable impact on the stats.

I wonder what the Danish numbers look like. I’m pretty sure all relevant variables are significantly lower. I also wonder how the above numbers compare with those of the top civil servants. Do remember that the average age of Senators is 63 (House: 57); you’d expect most of them to have a sizeable net worth as they are on average pretty close to their retirement age (that’s not to say that these numbers aren’t completely insane…).

In the US, most of the ‘people’s representatives’ are millionaires close to their retirement age.

Why culture matters (…a continuing series)

Would you ever see something like this in Denmark?

Failblog.

De der banker

Staten har nu aktiebeholdninger i 19 børsnoterede danske banker, ejerandele i syv andelskasser og i 39 garantsparekasser. Alt i alt har staten nu andele i halvdelen af de 130 danske pengeinstitutter.

…

Staten står nu med aktier og garantbeviser for 608 millioner kroner.

I første omgang skal staten bare opbevare aktierne. Men på sigt skal de sælges igen.

- Det er ikke sådan at staten skal være involveret i bank- eller pengeinstitutvirskomhed. Så dem skal vi ud af, når vi vurderer, at det er en fornuftig beslutning, siger Henrik Bjerre-Nielsen.

180-grader, der også på lederplads udtaler sig i skarpe vendinger mod regeringens politik.

…

Jeg mindes for nogle måneder siden at have kaldt regeringens politik for “en delvis implicit nationalisering af finanssektoren“. Der er ikke noget overraskende i den her udvikling, snarere tværtimod – og mht. at staten “selvfølgelig” vil afhænde sig aktierne igen; jeg vil se det, før jeg tror det. Det er jo ikke ligefrem fordi man har haft travlt med at sælge statens aktier i for eksempel Post-Danmark (tværtimod) eller SAS.

Hvis vi i dag skrev 1989 i stedet for 2009, så ville den førte politik på dette område (altså den politik, der føres i dag) formodentligt være betydeligt nærmere den, DKP ville vælge at implementere dengang, hvis de havde flertal (se linket til mit tidligere indlæg herover for kort at se, hvad DKP’s mål var dengang), end den socialdemokraterne ville have ønsket at gennemføre med et flertal – der var jo trods alt allerede en Nationalbank og omfattende regulering af banksektoren, og omfattende international regulering af kreditmarkederne var også just blevet implementeret så småt på daværende tidspunkt (Basel 1-aftalen er fra 1988), så hvor meget mere kunne S lige ønske sig at smadre kreditmarkedet regulere denne sektor?

Hvis Løkke taber næste valg, hvor mange vil så vædde med, at den borgerlige opposition ved det følgende valg vil gå til valg på bl.a. skattelettelser (her er for øvrigt et relevant link i den sammenhæng), privatiseringer og liberalisering af erhvervssektoren? I så fald var det måske en ide at huske på, hvad de foretog sig, dengang de var ved magten. Man tror næsten, det er løgn, men at de er i gang med at nationalisere banksektoren er faktisk kun toppen af isbjerget.

Quote of the day

This, fundamentally, has been my problem with the science of global warming – the denial of the messiness of it all. We have been told that “The Science is Settled” by men in white coats in ivory towers, and that we are “denialists” and unworthy of being listened to, if we dare to question the process or to state the obvious – that science is a messy and uncertain process and that as a consequence of being a very hard problem, modelling the climate is going to give answers with huge margins of error and huge unpredictability. (Nicholas Naseem Taleb would say it’s a system highly susceptible to Black Swans, and he would be right).

Which was why, when I was cc’ed on an e-mail last Thursday stating that there was a huge leak of data from CRU at the University of East Anglia, I pretty much knew what it contained and I haven’t been remotely surprised by anything we have learned. There is lots of politics, lots of bad work, lots of crufty code, and lots of uncertainty and disagreement.

The scandal here, is the pretence that this was ever not so. The careerist political side of this unit, mixed in with an unholy political alliance of Greens, Luddites, politicians with hidden agendas or at least vested interests in Climate Change being real, managed to create an environment in which the normal competition and disagreement between teams of scientists has not been allowed to take place. To even suggest that climate scientists behave like other scientists and to ask them to fully explain their work, has been to be opposed to their noble efforts to save the planet. “The Science is Settled” means that this is not necessary.

We have learned little in the last week that we should not have been already aware of, but perhaps now that it is out in the open, we can have a proper debate. This should hopefully be a relief, and if we are going to discuss policy for the whole world, it is required to be entirely out in the open.

…

Michael Jennings. The link has more.

Climate-gate ctd. – the next step…

Today, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies’ refusal – for nearly three years – to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding “ClimateGate” scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries’ freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer codes and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK’s East Anglia University.

Chris Horner. The link has more. Here’s an excerpt from today’s WSJ:

when we’ve asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he “won’t dignify that question with a response.” Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he “did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way,” but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions. For the record, too, our purpose isn’t to gainsay the probity of Mr. Mann’s work, much less his right to remain silent.

However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.

En af mange grunde til, at de danske avisers oplagstal falder og falder…

Samtlige nekrologer jeg har læst, inklusiv Ritzaus, er afkortede referater af Modkrafts egen – Modkraftredaktør er død skrevet af Rune Eltard-Sørensen – manden der kastede maling på udenrigsministeren i 2003.

- Kim Møller. Hvis du googler forfatteren, hvad jeg tvivler på bare en eneste af de involverede journalister har gjort, er det øverste link, der popper op, dette. Måske ikke den smarteste person at bruge som sandhedsvidne til at beskrive en person fra den yderste venstrefløj.

Quote of the day

“Most pundits, professional and amateur, consider a genius as someone who can articulate one’s platform more effectively than themself. An idiot is someone who effectively articulates the other side.“

Eric Falkenstein, quoted here. In my experience there’s no symmetry here; most people do just fine without the word ‘effectively’ in the last sentence – but it’s still a funny quote with some truth to it.

So what does that make me: A genius or an idiot? For most/all readers, probably neither.

Share of world GDP by region, 1969-2009

You can read more about these numbers at Mark Perry’s blog. The world’s real GDP has more than trippled during this period.

…

Update: A commenter at Carpe Diem has added a link to the graph below in the comments section, taking the population variable into consideration as well. The graph is quite big, so I’ve only added a small version – click to see it in a higher resolution. Do note that the variable ‘Asia’ is not the same as the one used in the graph above, as The Middle East is included in the latter but not the former, a region which incidentally has experienced substantial population growth during the period in question. Also note that the x-variable is not smooth but rather changes interval from left to right at 1950.

Those hacked emails…

It has been all over the blogs recently. Just like Kurrild-Klitgaard, I don’t know much about this stuff. You can read the mails here (do note that there are a lot of mails). Some interesting remarks by Pa Annoyed here:

Incidentally, the revelations seem to indicate that with the exception of Mann (who seems a bit of a barm-pot), the unwillingness to publish isn’t intended as fraud or a cover-up, but because they don’t want to provide the material for sceptics to “abuse” as they see it. They see the little tricks and manipulations they do as normal scientific practice necessary to get a genuine signal out of difficult data, but know that the sceptics won’t present it that way. Perhaps the way that butchers don’t want sausage-eaters to see the inside of real slaughterhouses. Ordinary people will misunderstand, and enemies will use it as ammunition. They have a hard enough time already with sceptics, why give them free help?

They genuinely believe they’re doing the right thing, and that their methods are justified, but know that the reality could be used against them. In science, the easiest person to fool is yourself. These people are fooling themselves, and are throwing away large parts of the scientific method that were developed to stop us doing precisely that. They know the rules, but they don’t understand the ‘why’ of them. And so they hide what they’re doing with clear consciences.

My current guess actually is that it wasn’t hackers. I think that as part of the FOIA process, while they were still arguing over whether they had to comply, they had some people go through the email archive pulling out the relevant data just in case they did have to give it up. I suspect that the people who did that may have collected up anything that they thought looked juicy. And when the appeal results came down that they didn’t, on spurious grounds, somebody decided to take the law into their own hands.

Unfortunately, if that is so, there are probably only a very few suspects to question. But I expect it also means that the emails are 100% genuine.

…

For an example of the “tricks and manipulations” PA is talking about, see this post or go directly to the source by following this link for more. More on the matter at hand here and here – the first link is a selection of some of the ‘juicy’ mails from my top link, the second is an interesting ‘case study’ analyzing a particular bit of email correspondance in some detail. Carsten Valgreen also provides good comments (in Danish) here.

Nerdtests

Jeg forsøgte at embedde et billede af mine resultater fra Nerdtest 2.0 ude i min sidebar, men det lykkedes ikke, så jeg lod det være ved et link til resultaterne nederst i sidebar’en (nede ved ’sider’). Har set at et par læsere allerede har set nærmere. Tænkte jeg også lige så godt kunne bringe resultaterne her, nu hvor jeg ikke kunne få sidebar-funktionen til at gøre, som jeg ville:

Slightly Dorky Nerd King

Har twitteret (tweetet?) resultater fra testen en gang tidligere, dengang var jeg Kinda Dorky Nerd King, men der var vist ikke stor forskel på de enkelte scores. Testen er lidt over-the-top på enkelte områder og flere “relevante” områder, jeg kunne komme i tanke om, er slet ikke behandlet, men den er meget sjov. Bring meget gerne Jeres egne resultater fra testen i kommentarsektionen herunder.

Retten til at brokke sig…

Jarl bringer det gode gamle hvis du ikke stemmer, har du ikke ret til at brokke dig “argument” på banen (igen).

Scott Adams take:

Det er da dem, der stemmer, ikke dem, der ikke stemmer, der om nogen har mistet retten til at brokke sig! Grunden til at jeg ikke stemmer, er at jeg ikke har nogen at stemme på. Hvis ikke det forhold, at ingen liberale politikere stiller op ved valget, er noget at brokke sig over, hvad er så? Og hvis du selv har været med til at vælge forbryderne politikerne, der foretager sig de tossede ting, politikere nu engang gør, hvorfor mener du så også, at du har mere ret til at brokke dig over det, de foretager sig, end folk som ikke har, fordi politikernes politik var uspiselig for dem, har? Det giver jo ingen mening.

Give me a fucking break! At sige at jeg ikke må brokke mig, fordi jeg ikke stemmer, minder i mine øjne en del om et argument om, at voldtægtsofre der har gjort modstand ikke må beklage sig efterfølgende over, at episoden var traumatisk for dem, fordi det havde været meget mindre smertefuldt for dem, hvis de bare havde holdt kæft og spredt benene.

How the internet has changed everything, example # 67785

Or is it: I live in the future!

Incidentally, I also thought about calling the post Stupid commentators looking like complete morons, chess edition… but decided against it.

Today, you have former World Champions commenting live on games taking place in Moscow while they are in Hungary (or Texas). You have former contestants to the chess crown debating the motives and ideas behind the moves being played with other grandmasters and strong players, while they are sitting in their homes in ie. Amsterdam. You can see the moves being played mere seconds after they have been played, and you can analyze them using computers stronger than any human alive as the moves are being played.

This was the best you could hope for 14 years ago:

The commentary makes me want to kill myself. Or them. Yeah, them, definitely them.

Market penetration rates, cannabis edition

A little bit of data:

Via Mark Perry. Do note that this is a bad measure of overall consumption today (if a guy smoked pot sometime in the sixties or seventies, he’s still included in this statistic).

Sesquipedalian loquaciousness

I’ve just been rewatching a few episodes of Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister. If you don’t understand the headline, here’s the link.

I’ll probably mention the series again at a later point in time, even if I’m pretty sure I’ve done it here on this blog at least once before. If I was only allowed to recommend one tv-show out of all the shows out there, this one would be somewhere on the absolute top of that list. Some wonderful quotes from the series:

Sir Humphrey: To put is simply, Prime Minister, certain informal discussions took place involving a full and frank exchange of views, out of which there rose a series of proposals, which on examination proved to indicate certain promising lines of inquiry, which when pursued lead to the realization that the alternative courses of action might in fact, in certain circumstances, be susceptible of discreet modification, leading to a reappraisal of the original areas of difference, and pointing a way to encouraging possibilities of compromise, and cooperation, which, if bilaterally implemented with appropriate give and take on both sides, might, if the climate were right, have a reasonable possibility at the end of the day of leading, rightly or wrongly, to a mutually satisfactory resolution.
Jim Hacker (after a long pause): What the hell are you talking about?
Sir Humphrey: We did a deal.

Sir Humphrey’s speech above (from the episode Power to the People) took 46 seconds from start to finish. Here are two other memorable Humphrey-quotes from the series (the first one is from the episode Man Overboard, the second is from the episode The Ministerial Broadcast):

Sir Humphrey: It is characteristic of all committee discussions and decisions that every member has a vivid recollection of them, and that every member’s recollection of them differs violently from every other member’s recollection, consequently we accept the convention that the official decisions are those and only those which have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials; from which it emerges with an elegant inevitability that any decision which has been officially reached would have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials, and any decision which is not recorded in the minutes has not been officially reached, even if one or more members believe they can recollect it; so in this particular case, if the decision had been officially reached, it would have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials, and it isn’t so it wasn’t.

…

Sir Humphrey: You see, Party figures can be very unreliable, Prime Minister.
Jim Hacker: Evidently.
Sir Humphrey: May I suggest a compromise?
Jim Hacker: What?
Sir Humphrey: Well, it’s clear that the Committee has agreed that your new policy is really an excellent plan; but in view of the doubts being expressed, may I propose that I recall that after careful consideration, the considered view of the Committee was that, while they considered that the proposal met with broad approval in principle, that some of the principles were sufficiently fundamental in principle, and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice that in principle it was proposed that the sensible and prudent practice would be to submit the proposal for more detailed consideration, laying stress on the essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, the principal of the principal arguments which the proposal proposes and propounds for their approval … In principle.
Jim Hacker: What?
Sir Humphrey: Don’t refer to your Grand Design in your television broadcast on Friday.

California fact of the day

Now the government has started looting people’s safety deposit boxes:

San Francisco resident Carla Ruff’s safe-deposit box was drilled, seized, and turned over to the state of California, marked “owner unknown.”

“I was appalled,” Ruff said. “I felt violated.”

Unknown? Carla’s name was right on documents in the box at the Noe Valley Bank of America location. So was her address — a house about six blocks from the bank. Carla had a checking account at the bank, too — still does — and receives regular statements. Plus, she has receipts showing she’s the kind of person who paid her box rental fee. And yet, she says nobody ever notified her.

[...]

Ruff discovered the loss when she went to her box to retrieve important paperwork she needed because her husband was dying. Those papers had been shredded.

And that’s not all. Her great-grandmother’s precious natural pearls and other jewelry had been auctioned off. They were sold for just $1,800, even though they were appraised for $82,500.

[...]

The bank has reached a settlement with Ruff and continues to update its unclaimed property procedures as laws change. . . .

California law used to say property was unclaimed if the rightful owner had had no contact with the business for 15 years. But during various state budget crises, the waiting period was reduced to seven years, and then five, and then three. Legislators even tried for one year. Why? Because the state wanted to use that free money.

…

This quote seems apt:

If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have.

Gerald Ford (a quote often misattributed Thomas Jefferson).

Quote of the day

I had almost the exact same experience in April of 1989. I drove across from the crossing near Hannover, and was struck by the nastiness of the border procedures (even though I’d expected them). Then I was deeply disturbed by my first sight of the Wall, even though I knew its history well. I got to it near midnight, which didn’t help, but still, I was struck by how furious and disgusted I was at the sight of the thing – and the accompanying searchlights, razor wire, guard towers, and so on. How anyone could look at it and not immediately think “horrible high security prison camp”, I couldn’t say.

And I crossed on foot through Checkpoint Charlie the next day, was similarly robbed of 30 West-marks, and couldn’t spend them, either. I had a foul bratwurst for lunch, and thought that on that evidence alone there must be something seriously off when the Germans were unable to produce a decent sausage. I saw the goose-stepping guards at the Unknown Soldier tomb (in the company of some appalled Brits who swore under their breath), and at the Friedrichstrasse U-bahn platform (an island inside an island) I watched in shock as the booted, armed, long-coated guard went strolling along the catwalk above us, watching the crowd. “I’ve seen this movie”, I kept thinking.

I ended up buying a book in the Volksbuchhandlung as a souvenir, after similar being yelled at by the cashier woman for trying to shop without a hand basket, the way the sign said I had to. I dropped a copy of “Amnesty International: A Biography of Lies” into it, and the handle fell off.

And at the end of the day, the guard back at the checkpoint informed me that I could not leave with any DDR currency. “Was soll Ich denn tun?” I asked him, and he replied flatly in thickly accented English: “Enchoy a ress-taurant”. I walked out a couple of blocks away and gave my currency to the first East German couple pushing a baby carriage I saw.

I, too, thought that I’d definitely seen evil right in front of me. I’ve never had reason to think differently.

…

Derek Lowe’s comment to this post. Read the original post as well.

I’m too young to remember the fall of the Wall, I was 4 years old at that point in time, and it didn’t stick even if in retrospect I’d have liked it to (and even if I do remember personal events that took place before that, which I do), however I did spend a little time, not much; a couple of days at most, in Berlin sometime at the beginning of the 90′es. I don’t remember the exact year, but it was almost certainly less than 5 years after the Wall had fallen. My family went to Poland that year – in car – and on the way I saw both the remains of the Berlin Wall and Auschwitz. I have never been to Berlin since then, but what I took with me from that trip could probably be boiled down to the thought that Berlin was just an ugly, battered big city – probably due to the fact that we spent most (/all?) our time in the Eastern parts of the city. A lot of the inefficiencies and quirks of ‘the old system’ was still in place in Eastern Europe at that time: For instance, it took us more than four hours to cross the (German-)Polish border, and my dad twice had to bribe (‘pay a fine to…’) policemen from the traffic police with cash in order to avoid ’spending the night in jail’ – the last time it happened was very close to the (…again German-Polish-) border on our way home, and my dad had a pretty good idea how those policemen made most of their income. He was furious; they demanded a lot of money. One other thing I remember from that trip is the fact that the roads in Eastern Europe at that time were in a horrible shape: one road in particular stood out because it was made of concrete, not asfalt. Every 100 yards or so there would be this ‘thunk’ sound, as the tires passed from one ‘chunk’ of road to the next. The road was probably first established during Hitler’s major infrastructure projects, and it didn’t look like much had happened since the war. And anyway, how and why would you even try to make a trip in a car like this one ‘convenient’ – most people driving that kind of car would probably be (almost) happy if it didn’t break down altogether while they were driving…

The situation has changed a lot since then. Now’s as good a time as any to remember that, and be grateful for that. Even if you’ve never lived on the wrong side of the barbed wire.

Promoting the unknown

As always, if you want to listen to the pieces, do give them a short while to buffer first, so that they don’t ‘cough’ while playing. You do not want music like this to ‘cough’.

A few samples from Liapunov’s etudes:

Annie Fischer playing Brahms:

Danskere og IT – nogle tal

1) 86 pct. af danske familier har computer i deres hjem.

2) 83 pct. -ll- har internet – 76 pct. har bredbånd. 98 pct. af alle par med børn har adgang til pc i hjemmet.

3) 3/4 af alle danskere anvender internet dagligt eller næsten dagligt. Fire ud af fem bruger internet mindst en
gang om ugen.

4) To ud af tre danskere handler på nettet.

5) 9 pct. af befolkningen (ca. 360.000 personer i alderen 16-74 år) har aldrig brugt en pc. 72 pct. af dem er mellem 60 og 74 år.

6) Næsten hver anden kvinde (49 %) har aldrig brugt et regneark til udregninger, og 28 % har aldrig flyttet/kopieret en mappe eller fil.

7) 33 procent af de danskere, der bruger internettet, læser blogs, mens andelen af danskere, der blogger, er 18 procent. De tilsvarende tal for sidste år var 22 og 9 procent.

8 ) I 2009 var andelen af danskerne, der inden for de sidste tre måneder havde benyttet nettet til at søge ‘helbredsmæssig information’, 46 procent.

9) 39 pct. af internetbrugerne (ca. 1,4 millioner danskere) spiller eller downloader spil, musik, film, tv-serier eller billeder fra nettet.

10) Hver anden internetbruger er tilknyttet en social netværkstjeneste. 95 procent af de danskere, der er tilknyttet en netværkstjeneste, er tilknyttet Facebook.

11) 95 % af alle danskere har en mobiltelefon. 87 pct. af alle over 60 år har en mobiltelefon.

…

Fra denne nye dst-publikation om Befolkningens brug af internet – 2009

Quotes of the day

An ignorant person is one who doesn’t know what you have just found out.

…

The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that’s out always looks the best.

…

Half our life is spent trying to find something to do with the time we have rushed through life trying to save.

…

everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

…

Will Rogers