Incels overlap with almost every "Bad opinion" you might imagine.
It doesn't just mean a person who can't get laid, it can also imply a real community with a shared culture that happens to include several different kinds of hate.
>However, the normal convention when stating a nationality or, for instance, saying one is from Berlin, would be to leave out the indefinite article "ein." Though JFK's intention would have been, and was, understood by Berliners, he should have said, Ich bin Berliner.
Funny how in an article about common misconceptions a myth like that gets to live on (by being replaced with a new one).. I can't speak for Berlinerisch, as I've never lived in Berlin myself, but in standard German both versions - with and without the indefinite article - are 100% correct.
The version suggested in the article might be slightly more common ("Ich bin Berliner"), but for JFK's speech I'd even go as far and say his version was better, simply because it stresses that he's "ein Berliner", just like all the other people listening to his speech.
As I said, though, both versions are correct, and neither of them sounds better/worse.
(Sorry, no source, but I know a bit of German.)
I'm also German, living near Berlin, and I had to analyze Kennedy's speech in an exam at school.
I fully agree that "Ich bin ein Berliner" was the correct variant. The alternative phrase "Ich bin Berliner" wouldn't have fit well into the context of his speech.
I think the indefinite article adds emphasis. (I’m definitly not a grammar expert but I’m German.) He not just somehow happens to be a Berliner, he affirms to be a Berliner.
(I have an alternate hypothesis: like all Germans I heard that sentence a few dozen times, saw it again and again repeated on TV. Maybe the sentence just made that usage correct by sheer force of its existence. I would say that’s unlikely, but it’s possible. What I’m sure about, though, is that everyone who listened to JFK knew what he wanted say.)
Is it perhaps the same difference as between "I am English" and "I am an Englishman"?
Presumably you'd need to be a true bilingual to tell if they feel the same, and even then, your thought processes aren't going to be the same as either type of monolingual.
> Is it perhaps the same difference as between "I am English" and "I am an Englishman"?
Yes, that's a very good analogy.
If you say "Ich bin Berliner", it just means that you live in Berlin. I doesn't put any emphasis on identifying with a certain group of people. It merely says that you belong to this group, maybe just by accident.
However, if you say "Ich bin ein Berliner", especially in the context of his speech, it means that you identify yourself with the group, i.e. with the people of Berlin.
That's why I disagree with that point of the Wikipedia article. "Ich bin ein Berliner" was a perfect formulation. I guess Kennedy got the help of a native German speaker or had a very good translator.
This is so opposite to the view that we were all taught in North America (namely that Kennedy's statement was a gaffe that made him a laughingstock) that I wonder how the misconception even arose. No one ignorant of German would have come up with the idea that JFK said he was a jelly doughnut, but from what you guys are saying, no one who knows German would have thought that either. Perhaps it was clever Soviet disinformatsia!
>I've never lived in Berlin myself, but in standard German both versions - with and without the indefinite article - are 100% correct
I find this intriguing as my German language instructor (we focussed on grammar and technical language but also did conversational German) informed me that "Ich bin ein Berliner" was simply wrong and that it was a kindergarten style mistake - as I blushed and corrected myself "Ich bin Patent-prüfer".
Maybe I missed his point, but first of all, yes, hospitals do have waiting rooms - just (obviously?) they're not filled in the middle of the night, as only people with, well, emergencies tend to go to the hospital in the middle of the night.
Secondly, e.g. going to the dentist is almost guaranteed to be an hour's wait (at least where I live), even if you have an appointment. Say, you do have an appointment for 1500, then what many people around here do is, check in at 1455, ask how long the wait might be, and then actually leave to do some shopping or similar and come back in whenever their wait is nearly over.
So really, I don't see how this could be superior to any other system.. And is he pleasantly surprised at the 250ish Euros or did he consider it too high? In case of the latter, I don't know why he doesn't have German insurance in the first place. I currently pay less than that amount per year (though that's the public health care kind, not the private one, which arguably would be more expensive, but also better), and IANAL, but I think if he lives here [in Germany] he is forced by law to have some kind of health insurance.
Don't want to come across as too negative, but I just thought I'd give you the other side of the story as well. (I currently live in Germany and I am covered under public health care.)
> And is he pleasantly surprised at the 250ish Euros or did he consider it too high?
He was very pleasantly surprised. In response to a comment on his post, the author wrote:
"According to newchoicehealth.com, an abdominal ultrasound in a major American city costs $340 on average at the cheapest service providers. At hospitals it’s much more expensive – $1350 at the Massachusetts General Hospital.
And that’s just the ultrasound — without the ER fees, the blood tests, the surgeon consultation, etc, that I also received in Munich. So I think 265 euros is extremely cheap."
(warning: going a little off topic here, sorry)
Might I ask how you got started in the first place? I've got a fairly reasonable background regarding the theory of it [programming], I know the principles of OO and basic algorithms, etc., but in school we don't cover the actual writing of code. (And even if we did, it's probably safe to assume it'd go nowhere near as far as I'd like it to.)
Anyway, I picked up some Ruby lately, worked through a bunch of tutorials, and it's been going decently - at first much too easy for someone like me, then challenging, but then there's stuff I just don't know how to do.
On the one hand, I've repeatedly had big problems with blocks in Ruby - I can't seem to grasp why to use such a weird format when you could just use regular loops instead.
On the other hand, and much more importantly, I don't really know where to go from there. I can't write any real programs, and I'd like to get into Rails eventually (as a gateway to Web developing as a whole).
Edit: Out of the tutorials that I did, this one[1] was the one I liked most, as it had a lot of cool tasks that you could just try and solve for yourself, it really helped me get the basics down. However, none of the tutorials have gone any deeper than that one, and as I'm sure you'll agree, I'm not exactly a programmer yet after that tutorial :)
Additionally, I've started to read this[2] book, but it appears to follow a really strange direction and is generally not very pleasurable to read (IMO). And, again, the moment it tries to explain blocks to me I just stand there puzzled.. dropped it after I hit that point, as I did with all the other materials I've tried out so far.
Again sorry for hijacking the thread and apologies for being unable to offer any advice on your situation. Regards
Edit2: Alright, just saw you've been a developer for longer than I've even used a computer :)
So I suppose you can't answer this question either, bah. Wish there were more people that didn't get into programming either 1950 or at age 5. Really, where does someone start nowadays when they're 20 and have no clue.
Since I am coming from a long background of embedded programming, I guess my starting point is different.
But, since my last company loved hiring bright college kids with 0 experience (and I was usually in charge of training them), I have to say. Work with someone experienced.
You can re-invent the wheel a thousand times, but you will get much better if you learn from someone else.
And until you do that, I have found a few blogs/videos that show how professional developers write a simple site, start to finish. Since they annotate the process, you really get to understand not just the how but also the why.
So IMHO best:internships second:the blogs above third: programming yourself (and if you ever decide to switch to embedded programming and move to Israel, I can hook you up ;)
Anyone have any idea what those 'scars' are that are only visible in x-ray wavelengths? I'd try and find out myself, but I'm not qualified enough to even know where to start looking or what to look for. :/
To me the Xray was the most surprising. Where's all that XRay come from? Is it like the microwave radiation where it's left over from the Big Bang? And like you said, where do the scars come from?
This isn't about IMDB, it's about Studio Briefing.
And regardless of whether you consider it garbage or not, it might have had value to other people - which is why they were using it, I suppose - and it appears Google has been unreasonable in taking it off the index / shutting down the ads. Either that, or we're just hearing one side of the story.
"Either that, or we're just hearing one side of the story."
And likely that's all we'll ever hear.
Ads are bad enough, but to be de-indexed, with no way to know why or how to fix it is scary from a business point of view. It could, and does, happen to anyone.
"It is now known that any prolonged human presence deeper in space would need to be behind a shield of the effective strength of two feet of lead, which would weigh 400 tonnes for a small capsule."
Uhm, the first thing that comes to my mind - regardless of whether this black hole propulsion might actually work - is the amount of lead we have available. Just building the spaceship seems to be just as much a problem as accelerating it..
Sure, and I admit I have no idea how much lead building such a spaceship might take, but keep in mind 2 things:
1) "More than half of the lead currently used comes from recycling." (from your article) - Once the spaceship is built and has left Earth, the lead is essentially gone (for the time being), so the more of those we build, the fewer lead we will have to recycle, and it will get even more difficult to build additional ones.
2) 400 tons for a small capsule, and consider they're proposing a spaceship in which multiple people could live in autonomously, i.e. they need places to live in, but also room to grow food, process their waste, etc. So I'd guess it's much higher than you seem to have assumed.
Oh and btw, I'm fairly certain we also need much of that lead on earth - hence why we're producing so much of it in the first place, so it's not like we have some spare lead in the order of magnitude of, say, 10000s (I'm really just guessing here, though) of tons lying around collecting dust.
For 1) That's going to be true of any resource that's used in spaceship construction. If you're building interstellar ships at such a scale that you might conceivably run out of stuff to build them out of, it's a fair assumption that you have the capability to go and mine the rest of the rocky planets in the solar system.
2) That 400 tons is not going to scale up with volume. Density of lead is around 650 lbs/ft3. Let's say you have a big ship, a mile in diameter. And let's be generous and put a 4 ft shell of lead around the whole thing. 4/3pi(5280^2-5286^2) * 650 * 1/2000 = 57000 tons of lead = 52000 metric tons. A drop in the bucket, tiny compared to the amount of steel and other material that would make up the rest of the structure. (Annual steel production is around 100 times more than of lead. We won't be running out of it either.)
The bottom line is that unless you're talking about transuranics or other extremely rare elements, or are building things at comically large scales (ie: thousands of ships) amount of construction material is not going to be a limiting factor in starship design.
I assume that we'll somehow solve this one with a 'force' field of some sort in the future. Think about it. The Earth isn't surrounded by lead, but we are still protected from the radiation. I imagine that if we can harness a black hole for propulsion we can somehow use it for power too??? Then we just use some of the power to create a magnetic field that blocks/reflects/deflects the radiation.
> The Earth isn't surrounded by lead, but we are still protected from the radiation.
A thick atmosphere accomplishes roughly the same effect as a few feet of lead. A magnetic field could deflect incoming charged particles, but I'm not sure if a "shield" is feasible, due to any side effects that such a magnet might have.
I was under the impression that the Earth's magnetic field was doing the majority of the work. IIRC, the reason that Mars has no atmosphere is probably due to lack of a (or just a weakened) magnetic field, causing solar winds to strip away the atmosphere.
One thing the author doesn't address is why use lead at all? We know that Earth's magnetic field is what protects us here on the ground. If we could manufacture black holes, doesn't it seem possible that we could manufacture a magnetic field powerful enough to surround said ship and protect it?
Earth is big, so all of that flux is pretty spread out. I wouldn't want to be close to a small portable magnet able to generate that size of magnetic field.
But hey, we're talking about highly hypothetical situations, so I'm sure we could make it work.
Effective shielding against cosmic radiation is possibly an even greater problem in interplanetary travel than propulsion.
The solution will probably come from materials science, but at the moment I don't think there's enough effort being concentrated on this problem to solve it in my lifetime.
Would placing the spaceships crew behind its black hole engine provide adequate shielding from cosmic radiation and blue-shifted photons/particles? Killing two birds with one black hole, so to speak.
Also, wouldn't being in such proximity to a black hole negate the need for time dilation effects of speed anyway? If you can build black holes, speed is meaningless as you essentially have a stasis machine. You could travel at .1c, reach Alpha Centauri in 40+ years and never even age a day if you can get close enough to the event horizon.
Actually space is ~130,000 degrees (slightly less, disappointing I know) because it's 3 dimensional, not 2D.
However I was talking about a vehicles design here, and suggesting an engine-in-front design rather than an engine-behind. Like the humble car, an engine-in-front design may protect the driver from nasty impacts, in this case blue-shifted gamma rays and microscopic particles that have been blue-shifted to the point that your ship is in a giant particle collider. If you could hide the crew in a sort of eclipsed position behind (in relation to the direction of momentum) the event horizon would act as a shield. This would mean you only had to harden equipment against radiation, rather than find a way to protect the crew themselves.
IMO though, if you've built a black hole, you might as well be moving something big, as in either a planet, small moon, or giant colony. On these scales the need to travel fast would become redundant, your colony ship could be so big it could literally house a world. Then an organisation like NASA would essentially become a planetary bus-driver association.
> Actually space is ~130,000 degrees (slightly less, disappointing I know) because it's 3 dimensional, not 2D.
That's what I was thinking, but it came out in a 2D manner. How embarrassing. ^^;;
> an engine-in-front design may protect the driver from nasty impacts, in this case blue-shifted gamma rays and microscopic particles that have been blue-shifted to the point that your ship is in a giant particle collider.
Ah, I thought that we were talking about other radiation (solar,background,gamma,etc) in space. In that case, you can't really hide 'behind' something because there isn't necessarily a single source to hide from. Even if only nearby solar radiation was a problem, if you ended up in a binary star system, you would have two sources to 'hide' from.
> IMO though, if you've built a black hole, you might as well be moving something big, as in either a planet, small moon, or giant colony.
I thought that the LHC was supposed to create miniature black holes. Though they're supposed to immediately dissipate, I don't think we've necessarily crossed the boundary of 'able to move whole planets' just because we're able to create a black hole.
You don't actually need to use lead. The key phrase there is "effective strength" so if you have a massive supply of energy at your fingertips, it may be feasible to divert some of it towards the creation of an artificial magnetosphere similar to Earth's own.
Of course you could also use water (obviously in much greater volume), which is a good thing to have in large quantities anyway while you're in space, and is evidently not all that uncommon, at least throughout our solar system.
Anyone else feel their lineup is extremely.. non-Apple-y now?
It used to make a lot of sense - to me anyway - how they arranged their iPods from cheap(ish)/only basic features to the luxury-versions with more features.
I.e., shuffle -> play music;
nano -> all of shuffle's features + view album covers, song texts, song titles to the music, calendar;
iTouch -> all of nano's features + the whole smartphone without phone thing
But now, ever since the introduction of the iPhone 3G, this doesn't hold true any more.
The iTouch is supposed to have all the features of the nano plus more - but now it doesn't have a camera?
The only reason to give the nano a camera and not the iTouch would be to distinguish it from the iPhone and market it as a gaming device. But then it doesn't make sense how the basic model of the iTouch has a slower processor and GPU than the iPhone.
I don't know, but from these oddities in the lineup I'd almost go as far and predict more changes to come very shortly. Either push the iTouch more in the gaming niche and make the nano the new multimedia device (as opposed to just audio in the first two generations of it), or push the iTouch more into the all-in-one direction - which would mean there ought to be a new iPhone as well in order to keep the two apart.
Not sure if I'm making sense here, but right now the nano, iTouch, iPhone lineup is quite counter-intuitive and almost non-transparent (yes, choice is not always a good thing).
I don't know whether I'd like to think this was done with Jobs' approval or not. Jobs' approval means that the guy made a major oopsie. Without Jobs' approval would imply that the guy really is the one holding Apple together.
You're right. The way to tell is how much difficulty you are having in explaining how the whole line-up/hierarchy works.
I think it goes against one of the Apple-y things that I quite like. Make something people like enough to pay for. Don't build a product based on cross subsidies, non-transparent pricing, customer lock-in (not sure about this one), etc. That concept (I think) keeps Apple grounded. If they can make something that users are willing to pay enough for to make Apple a profit, they make money. If they can't they don't.
I think you're overcomplicating things a bit. They all play music and that's still what most people buy iPods for. You still have basically three categories of device: small size, mid-sized, large. The amount of storage space included mostly matches the physical size of the device. The extra features on different models isn't really that important. Seems like they just need to give owners of older models some reason to upgrade and it doesn't really matter that much what those features are.
one of the problems apple had about the time jobs came back was a confusing product line. nobody had the discipline to say "no," so there were a bunch of nearly identical competing products. novices had trouble picking one.
this current situation isn't nearly as bad as that one was, but it's definitely headed in that direction.
Most of the value in YC comes from meeting interesting (read: influential) people, learning a thing or two, and, seeing how important it is to know people to get a job, networking - surely it can't hurt to know people if you're running your own business, I'd even go as far and say it's more important than if you were just on the lookout for a regular job.
