Slashdot Mirror

Volume is an often-quoted reason for going with Intel over AMD, but I don't think I buy it. It's true that Intel has much more manufacturing capacity than AMD, but they also have greater outstanding contracts. AMD is constantly expanding their manufacturing capacity, and are in the process of building another huge fab in Dresden - I think AMD could easily meet Apple's projected demands, particularly since they've got a year or so to do it. Bear in mind that 1M CPUs / quarter is less than 10% of Fab 30's capacity, let alone AMD's total chip-manufacturing capacity.

I suspect Intel just cut Apple a better deal than AMD was willing to, particularly since Apple wants desktop, mobile, consumer electronics, and flash chips. Dealing with only one supplier for all 4 segments may be the cheapest and easiest option. Cringely has an interesting take on the deal, speculating that Apple went to Intel not for technology reasons, or for financial reasons, but for business reasons. Apple and Intel each have something the other wants, and that's better than a straight cash-for-CPUs deal that Apple would get with AMD.

• China attacks Taiwan (which they are already threatening to do)
• The U.S. supports Taiwan's military (which it already does)
• China restricts export trade or places embargoes against the U.S. in retaliation
• Prices on Chinese imported goods shoot through the roof

We already know Wal-Mart is bad for small business, merchant exploitation, competition, and even larger suppliers, so I am in favor of anything that might allow good companies like Vlasic retain their ability to meet profit margins and pay their workers. I personally abhor and refuse to visit any of the Wally World constructs (or any of the other Mega-Lo-Marts) in favor of internet shopping and my wife's constant pursuit of the 1/2 price grocery store trip via coupon and sale shopping (not there yet, but getting closer). I also encourage anyone I work with or hang with to do the same, pointing out the examples above and following with the straight-forward explanation of how our family manages to avoid the ninth level of Hell.

I guess these guys didn't see the latest NOVA. It talked about how the CO2 escaped to the top of the lake and eventually spilled over the lake. This resulted in instantly killing an entire village by suffocation.

Here is the Link to the story I was talking about.

Have you seen this

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/m initextlo/tr_show01.html#10

?

As to the technocracy argument, I can't see how you can have a centrally planned economy without that. In fact it reminds me of the "Road to Serfdom" - one of the themes of that is that planning is essentially poisonous to free societies. I'm not sure I'd go that far - none of the democratic socialist countries ended up as tyrannies, but they all seemed to have fairly lacklustre economic performance compared to the US and its imitators.

I can accept they shirking argument though - one trip on British Rail is enough to convince you of that its a real danger.

This is incorrect - wrongful imprisonment compensation is by state. There's a chart available at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/burd en/etc/chart.html. It doesn't include federal payouts, which there is a bill under consideration for up to $50,000 a year.

There are other remedies, such as filing suits for false arrest and malicious prosecution, but these carry very high burdens of proof, and are often not successful.

Having been wrongfully jailed for a brief time (only days), I can say that none of this really covers what's necessary. In addition to the expenses associated with imprisonment (lost wages, therapy, etc.), there's also the fact that there's pretty much no way to punish those responsible. Were you brutalized by the police or jailers? Physically coerced into making a confession? I would place bets that the police, prosecutors, and corrections officers will receive little or no punishment. Sadly, the problem goes right to the top - if they were to punish those who gave the orders, several police chiefs, former chiefs, and head wardens in major cities would be in jail.

A friend of mine who was falsely imprisoned for 9 days in Philadelphia still has emotional scars five years later. She won't call the police for anything.

Sorry for ranting - folks are regularly exonerated after years and years of imprisonment, but very few people seem interested in tackling the root of the problem. It's just one of my buttons that gets pressed.

What good is it to find the decayed, dessicated remains of Copernicus? Maybe the people searching for his bones should be looking for things of more historical importance, like manuscripts or the like. Writings by Archimedes were found recently that are a fascinating glimpse into his method. PBS did a NOVA special on it recently: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/archimedes/. Much more interesting than if they had found his empty, dusty skull.

I haven't read the article, nor am I at all informed as to the specifics of this case. However, they may be able to find a relative with the same mitochondrial DNA or the same Y-chromosome as Copernicus. Both of these pass unchanged from generation to generation.

A person only inherits mitochondrial DNA from his mother. Using this principle, if we know someone who has descended entirely maternally from a common female ancestor of both him and Copernicus, we can check to see if it is Copernicus.

The same thing goes for Y-chromosomes and men. This is done surprisingly frequently with historical figures. It was done with the Thomas Jefferson/Slave thing and also with Anastasia Romanov. There is a caveat, however. You cannot distinguish between relatives, so even if it tests positive, it could be Copernicus's brother or another relative in the same genetic umbrella.

-Mark

Economic conservatives endorsed Kerry mainly because Bush was and is so incredibly bad. The damage from Bush deficits will be with us for years to come.

Clinton, while less than perfect, at least had some economic sense. Republicans now attribute his success to luck. From Clinton's 2000 DNC speech: "The Republicans said then they would not be held responsible for the results of our economic policies. I hope the American people will take them at their word."

He creates a charitable organization which goes out and buys the Gulf Stream tax free and leases it back to the rich guy for pittance.

There is a thing called "economic substance doctrine" which says

...that a transaction must have a meaningful economic purpose or investor risk to be legitimate. A correlation to the economic substance doctrine is the business purpose doctrine, which says a shelter should have a legitimate business purpose outside of the tax savings. The question of whether to codify -- or write into law -- an "economic substance rule" is at the heart of the current controversy over legislative efforts to address the abusive tax shelter problem.

(from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tax/ shelter/faqs.html#ecsub)

Such manipulations would continue to be illegal under the FairTax.

His objective in commencing this project 12 years ago was to come up with a power solution for developing nations

Most advertising is inherently dishonest because it has to compete with scammers. Not all advertising is corrupt, though.

Glamourizing clothing and "accessories" (see MTV) is evil as it targets those least able to make sound decisions. Marketers have caught on to this, see the "Merchants of Cool".

THAT is a nasty piece of social engineering, and I don't mean "social engineering" in the computer sense.

Check out PBS's offerings. There are a number of programs that tend to be quite informative, and less infotainment. Granted, some aren't strictly news in the "Film at eleven" sense of the term, but then again, if you want any kind of depth you are pretty much going to have to wait a little while.

I also read during the 2004 election, that the people that were most informed about the election were people that got their news from places like the "Daily Show"

Better than that, The Daily Show won a Peabody award. Twice. I agree, that is pretty sad statement on contemporary journalism when a self-described "fake news show" wins over real news shows.

-Ted

Check out PBS's offerings. There are a number of programs that tend to be quite informative, and less infotainment. Granted, some aren't strictly news in the "Film at eleven" sense of the term, but then again, if you want any kind of depth you are pretty much going to have to wait a little while.

I also read during the 2004 election, that the people that were most informed about the election were people that got their news from places like the "Daily Show"

Better than that, The Daily Show won a Peabody award. Twice. I agree, that is pretty sad statement on contemporary journalism when a self-described "fake news show" wins over real news shows.

-Ted

Check out PBS's offerings. There are a number of programs that tend to be quite informative, and less infotainment. Granted, some aren't strictly news in the "Film at eleven" sense of the term, but then again, if you want any kind of depth you are pretty much going to have to wait a little while.

I also read during the 2004 election, that the people that were most informed about the election were people that got their news from places like the "Daily Show"

Better than that, The Daily Show won a Peabody award. Twice. I agree, that is pretty sad statement on contemporary journalism when a self-described "fake news show" wins over real news shows.

-Ted

Try Jim Lehrer's News Hour. It's usually a few lengthly segments with really good focus. These are also available online: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/ Jeff

You might have read it in the article "No Joke: Daily Show Viewers Follow Presidential Race, or maybe here (in the Comedy Shows Matter section), or maybe in this transcript from a Bill Moyers interview with John Stewart.

Lessons from Vietnam: The Credibility Gap

The MSM* was permanently changed by the Vietnam war and its aftermath, including the Watergate scandal and the Nixon impeachment. [As commenter Jon Ravin points out in the interest of accuracy, Nixon was never actually impeached, but resigned when his impeachment became inevitable.] The experiences of that time explain much of the agenda journalism of the MSM today, but I would submit that they have not only forgotten the most crucial lesson from Vietnam, but their failure to remember will ultimately destroy them as a uniquely important and powerful force in our society.

First some history; During the years of the troop escalation in Vietnam, ultimately topping out at over 550,000 American military personal, the Pentagon and the White House, still fighting the last war in terms of Public Relations, continually measured our success in the war by pointing to "body counts". Using an outdated model of war in which the media play the role of conveyors of information controlled by the Pentagon and the administration, daily body counts of enemy combatants were touted as evidence, in the infamous words of General Westmoreland, that we could see "the light at the end of the tunnel." From 1965 on, we were, according to the daily body counts, winning the Vietnam war. When the Tet offensive took place in January of 1968, the reason the public was so shocked and ready to see our military victory as a defeat was that the expectations of victory "right around the corner" were crushed. We never knew that the North Vietnamese, post-Tet, were ready to sue for peace; all we knew was that an enemy who was supposedly being decimated was able to launch a major offensive. The conclusion was that either our military and the administration were incompetent, or that they had been lying to us all along. This lead to the "Credibility Gap". No longer would our press, feeling with some justification that they had been used and lied to, allow themselves to be so gullible. From this point on , the press almost universally saw themselves in an adversarial role against the military and the Executive branch of government.

It is important to note that the Pentagon and White House were only doing what had always been done in war time. The purpose of news in war time is to support the morale of the home front and to that end, propaganda has always been an important aspect of warfare. Unfortunately for the Johnson and Nixon administrations, while the nature of war hadn't really changed, the nature of our media had. We had close to real time news emanating from the battlefields of Vietnam. Reporters could see that there were attacks not being reported, injuries and deaths of Americans being swept under the rug, and constant reports of impending victory which were easily refuted.

This is extremely relevant to our war effort today. The military realizes that we are fighting a new kind of war, which includes a significant public relations aspect on the home front. The MSM does not yet recognize that fact; they are still fighting the last war.

We are winning in Iraq and have been for some time. When

Talkorigins is quite open that it exists to debunk the lies and distortions of creationists by pointing out the misunderstandings of the science involved. The fact is that speciation has been observed both in the wild and in the lab. For example lab experiments involving fruitflies (a favourite of scientists because of its short reproductive cycle) have shown that when subjected to different food supplies for an extended period that flies were 'speciated', ie. they didn't repoduce with members of the other group even when together http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fE videnceSpeciation.shtml.
Some examples from outside the lab:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_0 52_05.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.ht ml
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.h tml#morphological_intermediates_ex3

Anyway this whole macroevolution as seperate from microevolution (where one's provable and one's supposedly not) is an invention of creationists. Macroevolution relies on the exact same processes as microevolution, the only requirement is some (usually environmental) factor to create seperate breeding groups of a species. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html

You can remain in your blissful ignorance by convincing yourself that evolution is a religion and that it cannot be observed for all I care. Just don't try and force your beliefs on other people by arguing for it not to be taught in a science classroom, where it belongs.

This has been quite intelligently commented on NerdTV Ep4 Juicy bits.
He mentions AOL initial business model to have content providers pay AOL rather than AOL paying the providers and how they totally missed the opportunity to rule the internet.
Not a totally stupid idea...

There is a ton of examples of speciation, and there are good explanations for numerous forms of this happening.

"Ring species" are the most glaring example: These happen where there's creatures that breed a bit left and right in a ring around an unsuitable habitat (often east-west around the entire world). At one end, there will be two "species" of birds (non-interbreeding populations), yet these are genetically connected through the ring. If the "middle" of the ring died (the other side of the earth), the genetic connection would disappear and they would be two species.

Ring species have often initially been classified as two species, BTW, as the populations were not interbreeding.

Examples: Salamanders, greenish warblers.

Eivind.

Out of curiosity, how would you design an experiment that would demonstrate that macro-evolution was false? You said: "Macro-evolution is, as you point out, a theory, but it is a testable and falsifiable theory...". I'm just wondering how you would go about doing that. Any suggestions?

I'm not aware of any fossil evidence showing half-way mutated species. If someone knows of some, could they provide a link to a reputable website detailing this evidence?

2) Gestation periods are rediculous, it is totally the opposite of what SHOULD have evolved.
The more developed an organism is when born, the greater its chances of survival. Humans seem to buck this trend by being virtually helpless when born, even after a long gestation. An explanation for this is that the full development of the brain takes a long time, but the end result is worth it.

3)Animals in "heat", again, another pointless "advancement", what advantage does this have to anything?
Conceive the next generation at the same time and they will be born at roughly the same time. It's curious how often this coincides with the greatest availability of food.

Also.. how did trees evolve? what do plants actually gain? I mean... plants don't have any sort of survival instincts.
Prick yourself with a splinter of Greenheart, pick some nettles or go eat some deadly nightshade, then tell me plants have no survivalist tendencies. The surviving mutations in plants are those that increase the chances of the plants' survival. In the game of natural selection, survival is the only prize, and the competition is never over.

And just a side question, what stopped our evolution? Why don't wee see anymore advances? Even slight? Also... no known mutation is good, Sure people like to point out sickle cell anemia, but that seems to be considered a disability.
Where did you get the idea that evolution has stopped? It's running as fast as ever, maybe faster if you believe everything written about climate change. The reason you can't usually see it is that it is slow[1]. A thousand generations may not be enough to produce noticeable changes.Advances do happen, see here for an example. This also handily disproves your assertion than there are no good mutations. Sickle cell anaemia is a double edged sword, but still interesting. It is possible that further mutation could retain malaria (?) resistance without the debilitating effects normally present.

I would just like to point alot of people towards Cardinal Ratzingers "In the Beginning"[....]
ITYM Pope Benedict XVI:).

[1]A noteworthy exception is bacteria, where a thousand generations can pass in a fortnight.

PBS ran a documentary on this a few years ago. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_plague/index. html

What's a sea hen?

A sea hen is nautical slang for a woman who goes to sea. She would often be the wife of a captain but in this context, a prostitute.

Pairing "sea hen" with "Black Gown", i.e. a clergyman , would be a slur on the clergy.

Franklin's detailed apology for his mistake is a peerless example of his subtle humour, which was often mistaken for gravitas.

..Think of it as a gift to future generations. There was a Secrets of the Dead episode about this on PBS which was pretty interesting. Mystery of the Black Death

From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_0 11_01.html

Evolution of the Eye:

When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?

If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?

Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.

Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Bilogists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

My own personal opinion is that this is something we've brought upon ourselves. Both citizens and corporations who are not in the electricity business.

I've never understood why some industries allow things to happen that cause themselves to suffer while a small set of industries make enormous profit.

... did they get the idea for this article from Cringely's most recent column?

just watched this last night from PBS's Nova ScienceNow
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3214/02.ht ml

Is this the same infallible judicial branch of "3/5ths Human" and "Jim Crow" fame?

Just because the US Government (Executive branch, Judicial branch, or otherwise) says that something is legal, does NOT mean that it is morally defendable.

The adjective "American" used to be synonymous with something besides money, bullying and warmongering.

Might I suggest some light viewing: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/vi ew/

What does this have to do with p2p again? :)

They have just-in-time inventory

At my previous job, WalMart was one of our biggest customers. Not only do they not have a warehouse or stockroom at any of the stores (Stuff is taken off of the truck, and almost instantly brought onto the sales floor), everything is ordered automatically. Their computer system tracks what is selling, and what isn't. Items that sell good are continued to be stocked, poor selling items are dropped automatically, without any human intervention. I'm sure that managers are able to override some things, but the vast majority of it is automatic.

And like another poster said, when you do business with WalMart, you tailor your systems to meet their specifications. We had to redo most of our computer system to match with theirs. It ended up costing the company nearly a hundred thousand dollars, but the business that it provided was well worth the cost.

On an offtopic note, has anyone ever seen the "WalMart Cheer"? They do it at all of their corporate meetings, and the store employees do it every morning at opening, and every night at closing. It's hilarious.

I think that PBS' Triumph of the Nerds documentary has the definitive account of this moment.. (it at least rings true for my ears..)

http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part2.html

contains the relevant transcript. What's so ironic is that the QDOS that Microsoft bought, (all rights for 50k!), to become PC/MS-DOS, was an admitted ripoff of CP/M and that most industry veterans considered the CP/M OS far superior..

Finally historically, it's worth noting that a Digital Research OS WAS offered for IBM PCs, CP/M-86. It was unfortunately an extra cost option, when PC-DOS was included for free..

As a coincidence, Cringely just posted the latest episode of NerdTV (torrent file: http://pbs.org/cringely/nerdtv/mp4-torrent/redir/h ttp://distribution.nerdtv.net/video/ntv007/ntv007. mp4.torrent)

where he interviews Dan Drake, co-founder of Autodesk. AD bought Nelson's company and tried to get Xanadu to work, but as Drake puts it, it was 3 orders of magnitude from completion. Interesting interview.

This is so old, PBS has already reported about it on Nova.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3214/01.ht ml

What bugged me was that at the intro to the episode the narrator, a bad comic if I've ever seen one and an anchor dragging down a once good program, spoke of the work as the greatest work since creation. The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel was then flashed on the screen showing the 'Creator's' hand outstreached to the reaching hand of his creation, Adam. IMO it stank of lip service to the American fundamentalist neoconservatives.

There have been some great shows on PBS recently, a cut above "MythBusters" it would seem, for example Secrets of Lost Empires. The "Gods from Space" thing is utterly pathetic, especially as it implies the only smart folks were the Euros, if the South Americans did anything spectacular, well they must have had help from outer space. Ridiculous.

Umm, the MITers were disproving the MythBusters, not the other way around. For a show with a little more credibility, check out PBS where they actually get real scientists and engineers to see if they can replicate ancient technological feats on Secrets of Lost Empires. Conclusion: Not so simple.

Umm, the MITers were disproving the MythBusters, not the other way around. For a show with a little more credibility, check out PBS where they actually get real scientists and engineers to see if they can replicate ancient technological feats on Secrets of Lost Empires. Conclusion: Not so simple.

Sweet. It'll give us another chance to test the Stadium Sponsor Curse.

The truth is people don't have time to investigate every purchase or offer they're made. And often the more desperate someone is the more eager they are to grasp at straws that purport to offer a way out of their desperation. Just watch the televangelists who sell prayer rags for debt relief.

Methinks it isn't as clearcut as you'd suggest: Reality Bytes: Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked. I mean if you can't trust PBS and MIT...?

Many years ago, we (Meow Media, Inc - parent company of Persian Kitty's Adult Links) were sued by Jack Thompson in what later became a landmark sixth circuit court of appeals first amendment case. Granted, we were vindicated after two years of legal expenses... but it still cost us several hundred thousand dollars in attorney fees, expert witness fees, and appeals fees (which required a second set of attorneys).

While Jack Thompson's lawsuit was grinding its way through the court of appeals, another copy-cat attorney by the name of John DeCamp decided to sue us (Meow Media) for the Columbine shootings!

Soon, every attorney with expensive car payments was jumping on the bandwagon, in [what I perceive as] an effort to collect a "nusiance" settlement from us and other defendants. In fact, this practice became so common and popular that PBS FrontLine ran a feature story on our collective plights.

Fortunately, when the Court of Appeals ruled in our favor on the Paducah lawsuit (and reaffirmed this when they rejected the appeal for reconsideration), the other defendants were quick to drop their lawsuits, else face an action sounding in tort. However, that too required attorney fees and retainers for each case, in each particular venue.

For those of you who have not yet gone through lengthy and cumbersome litigation... there is not much you can do to recover the costs involved with defending yourself from most tort litigation. Sure, we could turn around and sue the families of the deceased children who were killed by the shooter... but that's not exactly good publicity, nor does it make for a sympathetic jury.

So here I sit today, a few hundred thousand dollars poorer, watching history repeat itself.

The truth is Einstein was not a healthy man.

First off his wife helped him come up with the e=mc^2 theory, yet she received no credit for it.

In the original publishing of the theory in 1905 she was credited with co-author credits

Einstein himself spoke to her as an equal in respect to science. He all but admits to collaborating with her on his 1905 papers which made him famous.

In a 1901 letter he refers to the theory of relativity as "our work"

Another small piece of Einstein history that few people know is the terms of his divorce from his first wife (The woman mentioned above) was that she received all prize money when he wins a Nobel prize for the theory of relativity. He agreed to this and in fact Einstein never saw any of the money when he won the Nobel prize.


Einstein awarded Nobel PrizeAfter seven nominations, Albert wins the 1921 medal for physics. He gives the prize money to Mileva, per their 1919 divorce agreement. It is the smallest cash award since the Nobel Prize was created, worth about $348,000 (in 2003 USD).


Sorry, I can't link to it but it is in the PBS timeline.

The kicker is that after his divorce from the woman who helped make him famous, the guy married his cousin. Yup, his COUSIN!!!!

cousin fucker

So there you have it folks, the man so many think of as a symbol of modern science not only stole ideas (or at the very least refused to acknowledge getting help) from his wife but also decided that it would be fun to screw his cousin.

The truth is Einstein was not a healthy man.

First off his wife helped him come up with the e=mc^2 theory, yet she received no credit for it.

In the original publishing of the theory in 1905 she was credited with co-author credits

Einstein himself spoke to her as an equal in respect to science. He all but admits to collaborating with her on his 1905 papers which made him famous.

In a 1901 letter he refers to the theory of relativity as "our work"

Another small piece of Einstein history that few people know is the terms of his divorce from his first wife (The woman mentioned above) was that she received all prize money when he wins a Nobel prize for the theory of relativity. He agreed to this and in fact Einstein never saw any of the money when he won the Nobel prize.


Einstein awarded Nobel PrizeAfter seven nominations, Albert wins the 1921 medal for physics. He gives the prize money to Mileva, per their 1919 divorce agreement. It is the smallest cash award since the Nobel Prize was created, worth about $348,000 (in 2003 USD).


Sorry, I can't link to it but it is in the PBS timeline.

The kicker is that after his divorce from the woman who helped make him famous, the guy married his cousin. Yup, his COUSIN!!!!

cousin fucker

So there you have it folks, the man so many think of as a symbol of modern science not only stole ideas (or at the very least refused to acknowledge getting help) from his wife but also decided that it would be fun to screw his cousin.

The truth is Einstein was not a healthy man.

First off his wife helped him come up with the e=mc^2 theory, yet she received no credit for it.

In the original publishing of the theory in 1905 she was credited with co-author credits

Another small piece of Einstein history that few people know is the terms of his divorce from his first wife (The woman mentioned above) was that she received all prize money when he wins a Nobel prize for the theory of relativity. He agreed to this and in fact Einstein never saw any of the money when he won the Nobel prize.


Einstein awarded Nobel PrizeAfter seven nominations, Albert wins the 1921 medal for physics. He gives the prize money to Mileva, per their 1919 divorce agreement. It is the smallest cash award since the Nobel Prize was created, worth about $348,000 (in 2003 USD).


Sorry, I can't link to it but it is in the PBS timeline.

The kicker is that after his divorce from the woman who helped make him famous, the guy married his cousin. Yup, his COUSIN!!!!

cousin fucker

So there you have it folks, the man so many think of as a symbol of modern science not only stole ideas (or at the very least refused to acknowledge getting help) from his wife but also decided that it would be fun to screw his cousin.

The truth is Einstein was not a healthy man.

First off his wife helped him come up with the e=mc^2 theory, yet she received no credit for it.

In the original publishing of the theory in 1905 she was credited with co-author credits

Another small piece of Einstein history that few people know is the terms of his divorce from his first wife (The woman mentioned above) was that she received all prize money when he wins a Nobel prize for the theory of relativity. He agreed to this and in fact Einstein never saw any of the money when he won the Nobel prize.


Einstein awarded Nobel PrizeAfter seven nominations, Albert wins the 1921 medal for physics. He gives the prize money to Mileva, per their 1919 divorce agreement. It is the smallest cash award since the Nobel Prize was created, worth about $348,000 (in 2003 USD).


Sorry, I can't link to it but it is in the PBS timeline.

The kicker is that after his divorce from the woman who helped make him famous, the guy married his cousin. Yup, his COUSIN!!!!

cousin fucker

So there you have it folks, the man so many think of as a symbol of modern science not only stole ideas (or at the very least refused to acknowledge getting help) from his wife but also decided that it would be fun to screw his cousin.

That is bribery.

The general figure that is thrown around is that 90% of cases are settled through plea bargains.

There have been court cases which have called 'leniancy' and 'plea bargains' as the bribery that they are, but if those decisions were allowed to stand, the criminal justice system would grind to a halt under the caseload.

here's some guy's book/rant, where he brings up the topic of total immunity. Pretty much the ultimate bribe: We'll forgive your past crimes if you tattle on someone else.

Immunity, by the way, is a holy grail of sorts in the law making biz. Various industries are always trying to get language slipped into a bill that will grant them immunity from lawsuits.

Bribes make the world go round

English-speakers already have enough trouble understanding each other due to dialect differences. I hope that in 40 years when I am 84 my age-influenced babble and drooling will still be understood by the youth.

Pah! Who am I fooling, by that time, us old farts will be telling impossible tales of when we had music.
Do you speak American?