What is Digg?28 Comments
- JCSaint, on 10/11/2007, -1/+26That was back when you couldn't patent a ham sandwich so you actually had to know what you were doing.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=26183&in_page_id=34
The 55-page patent, which has been filed in the US and Europe, covers the 'simultaneous toasting of a bread component'.
Garnishes of lettuce, onions and tomatoes, as well as salt, pepper and ketchup, are inserted into a cavity in a 'sandwich delivery tool'.
The 'bread component' is placed over the cavity and the assembly tool is inverted to tip out the contents. Finally, the filling is placed in the 'bread component'.
It explains: 'Often the sandwich filling is the source of the name of the sandwich; for example, ham sandwich.' - speerross, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18I find it very interesting that a man regarded as one of the most intelligent ever lived was a pacifist socialist who rejected state authority whereas we have Neo-Con totalitarians in power who can't put proper sentences together.
- captinherb, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13FTA "...get a doctoral degree, which he hoped might get him promoted from a third- to a second-class examiner at the patent office."
Wow, I had no idea the patent office was such a tough gig. Doctorate just to get a chance at a second-class examiner. - Scynet, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Aye, but I think science needs "idols" like Einstein to maintain popularity. Less people become interested in science if it has no benefits. I'm not talking about money, but about childhood dreams which are made when a kid notices how famous someone was/is and wants to achieve the same status. Most kids don't dream about doing something, but about being something. Especially in science when the "doing something" part often makes no sense to them (formulas, equations etc.).
- zirth, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Here is an interesting essay by Einstein called "Why socialism?"
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm
"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights."
True 1949, more so today. - mirshafie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6No. Not ALL kids base their interests just on "becoming something" or "being someone". In fact, anyone that chooses to study science just to be recognized is potentially dangerous for the entire scientific field. There's way too many "scientists" out there that purposefully do bad science so that their work will be recognized as a break-through. If you don't have a true passion for science, then we're all better of without you.
- speerross, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7@obrysii
Seems your referring to Deism. I was going to bring this up earlier in relation to Einstein as many of the things he said can be interpreted as Deist. Deism is the belief in a supreme being that does not intervene in Human activity (largely because we are so insignificant). This is obviously a very abstract concept and it is usually suggested that Einstein interpreted a Deist God as the cosmos themselves (reflecting his interest in physics) and their intricate inner workings. A lot of this is dealt with in "The God Delusion" By Richard Dawkins. Einstein's possible Deist beliefs are obviously a far cry from a Christian God and really essentially the same as Atheism in my eyes. To call Achalemoipas incorrect in saying Einstein was an atheist would itself imho be incorrect, but it would also be incorrect to brush by some of the things he said that could be interpreted along Deist lines. - speerross, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7That school did not challenge or stimulate him in other ways apart from his subjects of interest? as it is generally with people, they enjoy some subjects over others and therefore concentrate on them. I challenge you to name one person who is a brilliant Mathematician, Physicist, Fiction Author, Political Theorist, Philosopher and Business Manager.
@heinousjay
See your point, but he did speak out against use of them. It took someone else to pull the trigger and the discovery that led to the atomic bomb has plenty of other applications - SEMW, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4OK, a few points to clear up here. The "Einstein was crap at Maths" "Einstein failed high school" myths have been rather comprehensively debunked. To wit, the source of them (from http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1115185.htm):
> In 1896, which was Einstein's last year at the school in Aargau, the school's system of marking was reversed.
> A grading of "6", which had previously been the lowest mark, was now the highest mark. And so, a grading of "1",
> which had been the highest mark, was now the lowest mark.
> And so, anybody looking up Einstein's grades would see that he had scored lots of grades around "1" - which
> under the new marking scheme, meant a "fail".
Also, @obrysii: You seem to be under the impression that "Spinoza's God" is just another view of divine monotheism. It isn't. It's an allegory for Pantheism. Have a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism_controversy. - steveoco, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Here comes the Einstein was Atheist/theist argument...
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4If you don't have the time to read the whole article, you can watch a condensed version of it in 30 seconds. ;)
http://adsoftheworld.com/media/tv/sim_global_education_einstein - thetango, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I'm in the middle (well, toward's the end) of reading this book. It's and excellent, well researched, and well-written biography of the most famous scientist in the world.
It starts with Einstein growing up in Europe, covers not only his scientific life, but his private life (his marriage to his cousin Elsa, his separation from his first wife Maric and the separation he endures from his children) and his political life too (his change in political views during the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany is particularily interesting).
It's a great book, by far one of the best biographies I've read of Einstein. It's right up there with Richard Rhodes' two books on the making of the Atomic and Thermonuclear Bombs.
- Gambit89, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Here are some of his writings on religion, science, etc.:
http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/ - rwash, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Ahh, but it is very interesting how the science is interrelated with the politics and philosophy. The choices of what to work on and where to take the life's work and how to spend your time are strongly related to the politics and philosophy. It is really interesting to see how some of the politics of various scientists have influenced (or been influenced) by the science produced. Einstein is a great example of this.
- heinousjay, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4He spoke out against the use after they were used. It's actually a fairly convoluted tale http://www.doug-long.com/einstein.htm
Regardless, I didn't post to speak ill of Einstein. I was merely pointing out that things are never as clear cut as ideals can make them seem. - Barryke, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@speerross
I think Deism and Einsteins concept of a god are different, not to be seen as one.
See it like this:
Lots of grey mass in harmony in a scull makes you. A soul.
Lots of atoms in harmony makes the universe. A soul. And as i see it, not persee conscious at all.
(one could go on)
Lots of ants in harmony makes a hive. A soal.
That 'soal' is nothing else than a series of smaller wholes using each other as their own function. The outcome, i call a soal. It doesn't have to "think" anything, you know.
(.. and on)
Lots of atoms in harmony makes the Earth. One couldn't communicate with the earth ofcourse, but still, its smaller wholes using each other as their own function. There are only two differences between that and our grey mass, being the scale and type of interactions. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Wasn't this a Nova episode a couple years back
- Error601, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3The science = interesting. Some scientists politics and philosophy = boring.
- Meowbiusfox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I digg pantheism and that whacky Einstein dude. .
0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, still
more relevant than any holy book,though they borrowed from this quite heavily as well. - obrysii, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7@Achalemoipas
Incorrect. He did not believe in a PERSONAL God. He fully supported the idea that there could indeed be a Divine Being, but not as we currently view God as.
To QUOTE Einstein: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." - rootofunity, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0meowbiusfox: probably one of the wisest comments thus far
Lets Also not forget:
∞ or 0
Or to be less abstract and in the light of Einstein you cant forget:
e = mc^2 - Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -10/+5I've never been a big fan when it comes to biographies of scientists. Unlike how it is in the arts, works of science are supposed to stand on their own merit, and not be valued from who made them. The persona of the scientist should not matter at all.
- heinousjay, on 10/11/2007, -10/+5I find it very interesting that this pacifist socialist gave us the tools to create the most destructive weapons we have. Apparently no one is perfect.
- Error601, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Deist close to atheist?? Not even close. Atheist is the irrational faith of non-existence. Atheist and hard scientists doesn't usually go well together since it violates logic philosophy which the basis of the scientific process. Agnostics are the logical ones. It goes right along the lines that a scientific theory cannot be disproved in whole but only said to not have sufficient evidence to prove at this time.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -13/+2Actually, Einstein was only brilliant as a Mathematician and a Physicist, he failed or got low marks all his other classes. What does that have to say about "pacifist socialist(s) who rejected state authority" now?
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is