Slashdot Mirror


Einstein- Husband, Lover and Father

evilsheep writes "A large collection of correspondence shedding light on Einstein's personal life and perspectives was made public today by The Albert Einstein Archives at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Spanning almost 3500 pages, the correspondence encompasses letters to and from his first and second wives and children between the years 1912- 1955.This newly released batch of letters fill in details to create a 'higher resolution' image of Einstein beyond what was previously known of his personal life. The collection has been in the Einstein Archives at the Hebrew University for many years, but was not made public in accordance with the will of Einstein's stepdaughter, Margot, who specified that they not be revealed until 20 years after her death. Margot died in July 1986. Einstein wrote almost daily letters to his second wife Elsa and to her daughter Margot whilst away from home about delivering and listening to boring lectures, playing music with friends, or trying to stop smoking."

215 comments

  1. Wow! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

    So Albert Einstein is actually human. For all these years, I thought he existed only in Apple's "Think Different" advertisements.

    1. Re:Wow! by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      In line with Steve Jobs' relentless pursuit of perfection, he realized that it may add more sales if the adorable scruffy looking guy in the ads (nicknamed 'Al' by insiders) had a suitable backstory that could be drawn upon in future ad campaigns.

      There is some talk that the character is loosely based on an obscure German physicist, but Apple has so far failed to comment on any speculation.

    2. Re:Wow! by rovingeyes · · Score: 1
      So Albert Einstein is actually human...

      Yes and tabloids like slashdot love to "take a look" at our idol's personal life.

    3. Re:Wow! by megaditto · · Score: 4, Interesting
      A different perspective on Einstein being human:

      Many thousands of scanned pages (PDF) from the FBI at http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/einstein.htm

      Synopsis:
      An investigation was conducted by the FBI regarding the famous physicist because of his affiliation with the Communist Party. Einstein was a member, sponsor, or affiliated with thirty-four communist fronts between 1937 and 1954. He also served as honorary chairman for three communist organizations.


      Also note in part 1b the Army claims LASERs cannot be built ;-)
      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    4. Re:Wow! by b1t+r0t · · Score: 1

      So Albert Einstein is actually human. For all these years, I thought he existed only in Apple's "Think Different" advertisements.

      Oh yeah? Well I thought he was just this random guy that Slashdot used as the icon for their "science" section.

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    5. Re:Wow! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, J. Edgar Hoover was big Einstein fan. Probably because of the hair. :)

    6. Re:Wow! by Filtrid · · Score: 0

      Wait... maybe he isn't humain, dint they say that when he died ... during autopsy they found that his brain had a cropcycle alike shape wich seemed to show that he could think diffrently!, Sshhhh keep it quiet guys, these docs are just a detournation of the U.S gov to make us think he is humain..... thats why it took 20 years to get them released, took em 20 years to write them!, OMG lets all hide! the FBI is on us!

    7. Re:Wow! by Filtrid · · Score: 0

      "Without the thought of you, I would no longer want to live among this sorry herd of humans." Oh he wrote that to his first wife too!

    8. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also note in part 1b the Army claims LASERs cannot be built ;-)

      Part 1B is 92 some pages. Scanning through, I didn't stumble upon that claim.

      Can you point it out, or at least give some idea where in the document to look?

    9. Re:Wow! by megaditto · · Score: 1

      Read those about a year ago; it was in part 1 for sure, but don't quite remember if that was 1a or 1b.

      The part you are looking for is about Prof. Einstein examining equipment producing a photon ray capable of shooting down shells and blinding pilots. They have good 5 pages on it as I recall, including a kooky newspaper clipping about Einstein't 'death ray', as well as official FBI reports, inquiry letters to the army scientists, and their replies. I think that was right after Stalin's letter was first mentioned.

      Anyways, what gagged me up was them saying 'no such thing could be done'

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    10. Re:Wow! by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      Occasionally I'll see folks quoting Einstien on political matters- to be brief, I agree with very little, if anything, Einstien said on politics.

      So I always point out to these folks that Einstein was a well-known physicists-not so much a politician.

      They usually have no response.

      Heh

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    11. Re:Wow! by Walter+Carver · · Score: 1

      Reports, reports... Einstain was a communist, and probably Hawking is a terrorist. This is a not a flame, but the US government was then using the "term" 'communist' like they are using now the word 'terrorist'.

  2. Biographies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    One hopes that the discovery of new correspondence will result in some more up-to-date biographies. My favourite, Albrecht Folsing's Albert Einstein: A Biography is only 13 years old, but recent archival findings suggest a need for an update, and these letters reinforce the need all the more.

    Personally, I'd like a biography that focuses more on Einstein's role in the Cold War. Was he really a moonbat like some conservatives now accuse?

    1. Re:Biographies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Was he really a moonbat like some conservatives now accuse?"

      Nice try, liberal...

    2. Re:Biographies by ChrisGilliard · · Score: 1
      --
      No Sigs!
    3. Re:Biographies by famebait · · Score: 1

      yup, by now it is clear beyond all doubt that general relativity has a clear liberal bias, and needs to be weighed against a solid dose of creationism for physics to become "balanced".

      --
      sudo ergo sum
  3. stopping smoking by kisrael · · Score: 4, Funny

    "You don't have to be Einstein to know smoking is bad for you... but it doesn't hurt!"

    --
    SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    1. Re:stopping smoking by frosty_tsm · · Score: 3, Funny

      You beat me to it. I was going to try something like:

      Inspirational Phrases Based on Einstein's Weaknesses:
      - Even Einstein had trouble with math.
      - Einstein was one of the best minds of the 20th century, but couldn't figure out a way to quit smoking.

    2. Re:stopping smoking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did E. smoke cigarettes? Or just the pipe we see in the famous photo?

    3. Re:stopping smoking by Jekler · · Score: 1

      I find it astounding that he was so brilliant he discovered that smoking was bad 60 some odd years before we knew it. I mean wasn't that the driving force behind some of the charges against tobacco companies? That they confused us poor consumers so we had no idea it was even bad?

    4. Re:stopping smoking by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Even one of the pre-USA English kings claimed tobacco was unhealthy. But nobody outside of the tobacco companies knew how unhealthy because the tobacco companies hid the facts about how tobacco causes cancer.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    5. Re:stopping smoking by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A little known factoid about Albert Einstein's smoking habit was that he would walk down Nassau Street (the main drag in Princeton, no pun intended) looking for cigarette butts to smoke. This was when wifey cut off his supply of cigs.

    6. Re:stopping smoking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've actually had a boss comment to me that he was surprised that I was such an intellectual (his assessment, not mine) and yet I still smoked. Now I have the perfect defense to that reasoning!

    7. Re:stopping smoking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're such an intellectual, then why do you smoke?

    8. Re:stopping smoking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From various sites:

      Einstein felt that pipe smoking facilitated his mental clarity when working on a difficult project. Many pictures of him at work show that he favored billard-shaped pipes. Pipe smokers often like to recite one of his most relevant quotes: "I believe that pipe smoking contributes to a somewhat calm and objective judgment in all human affairs"

    9. Re:stopping smoking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That they confused us poor consumers so we had no idea it was even bad?"

      Einstein smoked a pipe.

      In moderation, most studies have shown that pipe smokers, on average live LONGER than the general populus. Poor confused consumers.

    10. Re:stopping smoking by pjay_dml · · Score: 1

      May I recommend The Tobacco Conspiracy?

  4. misleading by preppypoof · · Score: 3, Interesting
    the summary seems to paint the picture that einstein was both a great physicist and a great person...but FTA:
    Particular attention is dedicated to Einstein's relationship with his son, Eduard. Einstein found his son's schizophrenia difficult to accept, and on more than one occasion expresses the idea that it would have been better off if Eduard had not been born.
    1. Re:misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is that misleading? You seem judgmental to me.

    2. Re:misleading by GuruBuckaroo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have a stepbrother with schizophrenia. I've seen the effect it has on his father, my mother, and all of those around him. I've also thought that it may have been better that he never been born. Doesn't mean I wish he hadn't, but it certainly would have been easier.

      For years, his father watched him deteriorate, and could get no help for him. No-one treated his problem as serious - until he put an axe in his girlfriend's back. Since then, he has spent his life in institutions (thankfully not prison, which would be no help at all). He cannot live alone, has almost no social skills, and is very easily shaken into paranoid episodes - which cause him to quit taking his meds, which make it all worse. Yet through it all, his father has remained supportive, trying his best to cope with his son's illness, and my mother as well - who volunteered into this relationship, knowing (but perhaps not really knowing) how bad it could get. They do not wish he were never born. But still, perhaps it would have been better... How would you feel, if this were your son?

      Thoughts such as these do not make a person less noble. They make him human.

      --
      Poor means hoping the toothache goes away.
    3. Re:misleading by grapeape · · Score: 3, Informative

      You have to remember though that Schizophrenia was not even defined until 1908 at the time the Eduard was institutionalized those suffering from Schizophrenia were just concidered flat out nuts. Freudian Theory was the "new science" and sas so outside the realm of Freudianisim that it was like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Though diagnosis was fairly defined treatment was nearly non-existant. Combine this with probablity of Albert having Aspergers himself and his feeling while not right by todays standards were clearly understandable in relation to the time and setting.

    4. Re:misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Einstein did not have Aspergers. That's just a load of crap put forward by the Aspergers "we're better than the NTs" circle jerk^W^W support groups.
      He had many relationships, and was a decent speaker and writer. That doesn't sound much like Aspergers to me.

    5. Re:misleading by Joebert · · Score: 1

      Doesn't make Einstein any less great in my eyes.

      It suggests that Einstein himself too, was mildly schizophrenic, he was merely able to distract himself, from himself, through his work & smoking.
      He likely felt that his son should have been able to do the same.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    6. Re:misleading by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's more than human. It's rational.

      I only have the resources to raise a finite number of children well. I intend to screen all the fetuses of my potential future wife for some of the more serious genetic diseases. I won't bring one into this world if it is going to have a miserable or unproductive life.

      If we had inifinite resources, it would be different. But since we don't, it is actually MORE moral to raise 3 healthy children than to raise 2 healthy children and 1 miserable, diseased child who will die young.

      I decide which conditions are worth inducing miscarriage by imagining if I would commit suicide if such a condition is afflicted on me.

      Einstein seems to have had similar ideas, but not enough information (genetic testing) to act on them.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    7. Re:misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It suggests that Einstein himself too, was mildly schizophrenic

      There is no evidence whatsoever that he ever experienced any symptoms of schizophrenia.

    8. Re:misleading by hackstraw · · Score: 1


      Although Asperger's syndrome is a fad right now, and fairly commonly self diagnosed here on slashdot for people to make themselves feel better (sic), from what I have read about Einstein, he seems healthy to me, with no exceptions.

      Yes, I did a cursory Google search, and it did have a number of hits, but it seems in question at best. Also on the list of newly rediagnosed Asperger's syndrome people is Mozart, which to my understanding is of Mozart and Asperger's is completely wrong.

      And while I'm offtopic, also regarding schizophrenia, yes, it may have been labeled for the first time around 1900, and until then, many people just called them "nuts", well, that is true today, but more commonly referred to ass "crazy". Schizophrenia is #1 on the layman's term of "crazy", with #2 being those that are on the manic upswing of bipolar disorder. A vast majority of homeless people fall into these two categories.

      Its crazy.

    9. Re:misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "miserable"

      I would rather be miserable than dead. Some of the greatest thinkers and artists were miserable.

      Who are you to choose?

    10. Re:misleading by Joebert · · Score: 1

      He merely learned how to control his schizophrenia.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    11. Re:misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, a pro-lifer is in our midst!

      Who is he NOT to choose?

      every sperm is sacred?

    12. Re:misleading by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Imagine if Stephen Hawking's parents had done that. I'm glad they didn't.

      I can empathize with it, but man -- humanity as a whole has certainly benefitted from the labors of people that were depressed, ill, confined to wheelchairs, etc. At least, they have in recent history.

      OTOH, imagine if there were a way to detect that your child would be Dumb as opposed to Brilliant. No one wants their kid to be below average ... (man, that's a scary line of thought to go down.).

    13. Re:misleading by Tekzel · · Score: 1

      He (and the mother jointly) has every right in the world to choose, prior to a certain point (undetermined at this time in my opinion), whether to birth a child and raise them as a lifelong commitment that will not be able to ever be self sufficient, etc. Why would someone be required to subject themselves to that if there are alternatives? Mostly, in my opinion, this issue is decided based on religious ideals, with the religions folk MOSTLY being on the side of conceive naturally and deal with the consequences. My response, is live YOUR life according to YOUR religious ideals and let me live mine according to my lack thereof. With the exception being, if my decisions directly impact you, then presto we have laws!

      Personally, I find it inhumane, evil and barbaric in this day and age as we learn so much more about genetics to carry a fetus to term that you know will have this horrible disease that can be detected prior to birth (maybe even repaired in the womb one day). I can tell you, if I had the choice of being born with these terrible mental conditions or physical conditions or not being born at all, I would choose the latter. Either way, there is also the parent to consider. You can't make the decision FOR them that the child should be born with all the conditions anyway just because the child may want to be born anyway. Thats a decision for them to make.

    14. Re:misleading by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      I totally understand that. Abraham Lincoln was terribly depressed--nearly suicidal.

      But, for all the Stephen Hawkings, consider all the children who were either not conceived, or not afforded the right to go to college, because all their parents financial resources were tied up with retarded older siblings. How many of those would have been geniuses if given the chance?

      You can't play the "what if" game in only one direction.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  5. Einstein's wife by generic-man · · Score: 5, Interesting
    http://extempore.livejournal.com/136440.html?threa d=2964216#t2964216

    In one letter, written in 1914, less than two years before Einstein revolutionized science with the publication of his theory of relativity, he tried to impose extraordinary conditions of marriage on his first wife, Mileva. He told her:

    1) You will expect no affection from me and you will not reproach me for this;

    2) You must answer me at once when I speak to you;

    3) You must leave my bedroom or study at once without protesting when I ask you to go;

    4) You will promise not to denigrate me in the eyes of my children, either by word or by deed.
    ---
    In another letter, he wrote: "I treat my wife as an employee whom I cannot fire. I have my own bedroom and avoid being alone with her."

    It's in a journal, so it's probably true. I wonder if this is actually provable with dead-tree sources (the article the poster cites is not on the web).
    --
    For more information, click here.
    1. Re:Einstein's wife by MustardMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow, a blog that quotes "news articles" from a year, and doesn't even tell you what publication those articles are in. I'm convinced. I'd love to see a REAL source for these quotes - because if they are true, that dude was a right bastard.

    2. Re:Einstein's wife by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of this guy. Hey, maybe we have another Einstein in the making... or maybe not.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    3. Re:Einstein's wife by tinkerghost · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You might also want to remember that in 1912, Civil War veterans were still being wed to 14 year old girls in arranged marrages.
      For all of the screaming you hear about the sacred institution of marriage, it was strictly a political and financial arrangement up until about a hundred years ago or so. The only use the church has for marriage is that it allows tracking of a paternal lineage by creating a 'blessed' family tree - allowing inconvienent bastards to be tossed asside unless extrememly useful.

    4. Re:Einstein's wife by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The main thing I got out of watching "Genius Week" on Biography Channel was that Einstein, Newton and the 3 others were real shits of human beings. Although presented fairly, the back-to-back nature of the genius episodes made for a nearly inescapable conclusion that is even more obvious when viewed again as repeat episodes.

    5. Re:Einstein's wife by twodave · · Score: 1

      I hope your aren't meaning to imply that the bible itself was written about a hundred years ago or so, because it speaks quite differently about marriage than your claim of it being "strictly a political and financial arrangement".

    6. Re:Einstein's wife by generic-man · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9611/25/christies.einstein /

      Found it! Thank you, CNN (and Google).

      --
      For more information, click here.
    7. Re:Einstein's wife by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 1

      I have heard those bits of trivia before... must have been in Discover magazine's big Einstein issue last year; I think in reference to a book that should be in publication now.

      --
      Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
    8. Re:Einstein's wife by Eccles · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're right!

      12 Biblical Principles of Marriage

            1. Marriage consists of one man and one or more women (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).
            2. Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).
            3. A man might chose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man's wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or his [half-]sister (Lev 18:11, 20:17), nor the mother (Lev 20:14) or the sister (Lev 18:18) of a woman who is already his wife. The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the Biblical mindset.
            4. If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned (Deut 22:13-21).
            5. A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29) - unless she was already a fiancé, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town (Deut. 22:23-27).
            6. If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow (Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).
            7. Women marry the man of their father's choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17).
            8. Women are the property of their father until married and their husband after that (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).
            9. The value of a woman might be approximately seven years' work (Gen 29:14-30).
          10. Inter-faith marriages are prohibited (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).
          11. Divorce is forbidden (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).
          12. Better to not get married at all - although marriage is not a sin (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    9. Re:Einstein's wife by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      Well damn... what a bastard.

    10. Re:Einstein's wife by SdnSeraphim · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It is all in how you look at things. I don't know how Jews interpret the passages referenced, but the two "New Testament" references cited (aside from #11 and 12) are only pointing to the "Old Testament" reference about which Jesus was being questioned (the idea of brothers successively marrying their sister-in-law if no children produced).

      As for #11, this is a bad thing? If divorce were an OK thing emotionally and socially, then this could rightly be a criticism. But divorce is neither. Jesus said only for sexual immorality is divorce an option. What Jesus was trying to eliminate is legalistic thinking of what marriage had become. Divorce was easy and it could have the effect of making women destitute. Marriage is supposed to be more than a contract, and most christians do not think of it as a contract.

      The "better not to marry" question is not about marriage particularly, but about salvation. The first cite is about how it would be better not to marry than to commit adultery. Looking at this statement from a Christian religious perspective, it is true. It would be better to have salvation than to commit adultery (any sin really). This is not unlike the studied concept that inventors and other scholars do less work and have fewer "breakthroughs" _after_ they get married. Maybe Einstein shouldn't have been married, he might have had another breakthrough.

      The second cite is more to the point of the criticism. But again, what is St. Paul saying. It would be good not to get married, but because the sexual urge is strong, please get married as it is better to find salvation in marriage than to forsake salvation. What about the not getting married aspect? It again is about salvation. Marriage, family, children take up a lot of time. If you were not married you could devote this time to religious pursuits. This is what St. Paul is expressing.

      The third cite of #12 (I Cor 7:27-28) is actually about divorce (When criticizing it might be best not to blindly cite what others have put together, and to not even cite the original source). What is most instructive is what was left out of the cites from I Cor 7:32-34, 7:38. Passages 35-37 and 39-40 give St. Paul's reasonings behind those cites. Those reasonings I have condensed above.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right on a subject on which the established authorities are wrong. - Voltaire
    11. Re:Einstein's wife by praksys · · Score: 1

      Apart from (2) there is nothing all that bad about any of these conditions. She was certifiably nuts, he wanted to leave her, and she wanted him to stay. In that context (1) and (3) are entirely reasonable. He was just requiring that she leave him alone when he asked her to, and not bitch about the fact that he didn't love her anymore. As for (4), that sounds reasonable under any circumstances.

      That just leaves (2). Maybe he just got sick of getting the silent treatment.

    12. Re:Einstein's wife by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you shouldn't reply like a bastard in the first place, moron!

    13. Re:Einstein's wife by pNutz · · Score: 1

      To think that a man would treat his wife like this in 1914. To think.

      --
      Death and danger are my various breads and various butters.
    14. Re:Einstein's wife by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Given that popular bits like the Commandments come from the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is part of the Bible, I don't think you can truly blithely dismiss all reference to it. Regardless, however, I think it would be hard to deny that the concept of marriage in the Judeo-Christian world has changed (for the better) since OT or even NT times, and that the notion of a love marriage is fairly recent. Watch "Fiddler on the Roof" for an example of the world and thus marriage changing out from under a man.

      You might also agree that part of the reason for the change in marriage is because of a change in some ways for the worse: family members are spread out and separated, so those family bonds are looser. Who I married would have been much more important to my parents if we all lived in the same house or compound, worked the same plot of land the (extended) family had worked for generations, etc. If I didn't love my wife, it would matter less if she was just one member of a large household.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    15. Re:Einstein's wife by fm6 · · Score: 1

      There were a lot of strange issues with Einstein's first marriage. I wouldn't judge the whole episode based on one document.

    16. Re:Einstein's wife by On+Lawn · · Score: 1

      For all of the screaming you hear about the sacred institution of marriage, it was strictly a political and financial arrangement up until about a hundred years ago or so.

      Not too bad on accuracy, but two problems: 1) It never stopped being a financial and political arrangement, 2) contradictory evidence exists such as early Jewish law as well as ancient fables record romance as a direct influence on marriage.

      The only use the church has for marriage is that it allows tracking of a paternal lineage by creating a 'blessed' family tree

      Actually, the use the church and state have for marriage is encouraging people to take responsibility for children before they are born. Marriage is a political arrangement because of the potential for children who are then governed by the parents. Such governance establishes a family as a political unit. As a unit they are financial held as one for the same reason.

      allowing inconvienent bastards to be tossed asside unless extrememly useful.

      That was the problem of not being married. Were marriage as cheap and useless as you say, there would be much more abandonment than that.

    17. Re:Einstein's wife by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      1) You will expect no affection from me and you will not reproach me for this;

      2) You must answer me at once when I speak to you;

      3) You must leave my bedroom or study at once without protesting when I ask you to go;

      4) You will promise not to denigrate me in the eyes of my children, either by word or by deed.


      I don't get all the righteous indignation over these conditions. It sounds like basic respect to me; something sadly missing in modern western marriage. It is painful to see married men demeaned and dehumanised like they are, it is pitiful. If Einstein lived today I'm quite sure he'd be as single as I. At a cetain threshold level of intelligence you can see through all the crap to the core reality of life, it is pretty depressing. Smoking helps with that, especially knowing it will hasten the process.
    18. Re:Einstein's wife by caifan · · Score: 1

      and maybe Einstein had a good reason to do this, perhaps he was mad of her for something she did. But it's speculation, we couldn't know without having more information.

    19. Re:Einstein's wife by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In one letter, written in 1914, less than two years before Einstein revolutionized science with the publication of his theory of relativity, he tried to impose extraordinary conditions of marriage on his first wife, Mileva. He told her:

      1) You will expect no affection from me and you will not reproach me for this;

      2) You must answer me at once when I speak to you;

      3) You must leave my bedroom or study at once without protesting when I ask you to go;

      4) You will promise not to denigrate me in the eyes of my children, either by word or by deed.
      ... Doesnt sound extraordinary, sounds more like he was trying to keep a good marriage. Imagine if you will that you are trying to figure out how to explain a paradox caused by your formulas. The answer is almost formed after 2 months of frustrated notes and thinking and your wife enters your private study. Your reaction will probably not be friendly, hostile would be an understatement. Rules 1-3 sounds like he is has passion about his work, and had the tendency to blow up if he is thinking about a frustrating problem.

      Rule 4 is just him knowing what the perception of his passion would have on people. In appearence all he would be doing is sitting on his ass and producing in 2 months-4 years of work an equation. An equation that his wife will probably not understand. How would your wifes reaction be if you show her 1 equation after 2 months stuck in your den while being agressive at any intrusion
    20. Re:Einstein's wife by feepness · · Score: 1

      9. The value of a woman might be approximately seven years' work (Gen 29:14-30).

      And the cost of a wife is a lifetime of hard labor!

    21. Re:Einstein's wife by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      I can't be bothered to refute all of your statements (some are even true), but I'll address two to demonstrate the lack of completion of your statements. I'd advise the moderators to investigate more before modding him up.

      9. The value of a woman might be approximately seven years' work (Gen 29:14-30).

      In point of fact, the value of an extraordinarily beautiful women (in the eyes of the laborer) was 14 years, although the bargain was for only 7. Keep reading for a chapter or so, and it's all there.

      11. Divorce is forbidden (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).

      Correct, under certain circumstances. Those circumstances? If you marry a virgin, consummate the marriage, her parents have proof that she's a virgin, and then disparage her saying she wasn't in fact a virgin. So yes, if you meet all those criteria, and are therefore a lying bastard, you're on the hook for supporting her for the rest of your life. This is explained in the preceding verses of Deut 22, starting at about verse 13. The Matthew reference says that divorce is allowed for reasons of adultery, while the other references from the gospel only disallow remarriage. Note that women weren't allowed to remarry under any circumstances based on those references. The writings of Paul (one of them anyway) do agree with what you said. But you're down to one quote to support your statement.

      Those are the two I knew were incorrect or incomplete off the top of my head, although I had to do some reading for the divorce reference.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    22. Re:Einstein's wife by swiftstream · · Score: 1

      I found various fragments of what the blogger cites in news articles from Nov. 1996, including e.g. a couple articles in the NYT. Apparently an auction of some of his personal papers was held at that time.

      One of the best parts of being a uni. student is free access ot Lexis Nexis et al....

      --
      Be a PATRIOT--because the only thing we have to fear is the lack thereof.
    23. Re:Einstein's wife by generic-man · · Score: 1

      Google revealed this CNN article from November 1996, also about an auction of Einstein's personal papers.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    24. Re:Einstein's wife by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Note that it's a cut and paste, not a list derived especially for these circumstances. The issue was how Christianity and Christian society have viewed marriage in the past. It's very clear both from the historical record and from attitudes reflected in the Bible that women have been viewed as akin to possessions or at best, second-class citizens, with marriage often being much like a purchase. The modern view of marriage, with its equality and basis in love, is not particularly supported by the Bible.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    25. Re:Einstein's wife by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3)"

      Yee-haw! Permission to fool around!

      Wait a minute, when you read these passages, they are nothing but historical accounts of men who had concubines. There is nothing implying this is okay, just that it happened.

      I'm not a religious type myself. There are plenty of logical arguments about many aspects of religion without stretching the truth to the breaking point.

  6. CNN's Article by fdiskne1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    CNN also has an article on the release of the letters:
    http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/10/israel.e instein.reut/index.html

    Looks like he wasn't a true geek! He had six girlfriends in addition to his wife.

    --
    But why is the rum gone?
    1. Re:CNN's Article by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1
      Looks like he wasn't a true geek! He had six girlfriends in addition to his wife.
      Cut him some slack. He couldn't have proper geek relationships, since this was years before the Internet and thinly disguised "women" in chatboxes.
    2. Re:CNN's Article by not+already+in+use · · Score: 5, Funny

      Start talking quantum physics to a woman and it's not long before the clothes come off.

      --
      Similes are like metaphors
    3. Re:CNN's Article by kisrael · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's the trouble with women, the faster you know they are, the harder it is to know where to find 'em.

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    4. Re:CNN's Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Einstein wasn't a geek, but anyone who cares about his old letters sure is. It's nerdy enough to be into his physics writing, but why does anyone care what he wrote to his wife and kids so long ago? Who cares?

    5. Re:CNN's Article by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Seriously, I think details like this are a Good Thing, because they help counteract the stereotypes about scientists, usually either "frustrated geek who can't get laid" or the basically sexless "mad genius working alone in his lab." In the case of Einstein, who is surely the most recognizable scientist in the public mind, another, only slightly more complementary stereotype has been created: the secular saint, the gentle, wise old man who spouted (pseudo-)profound sayings but couldn't tie his shoelaces. The more people realize that scientists are, you know, people, who when they're not busy being mad geniuses pretty much do the same things everybody else does, the better.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    6. Re:CNN's Article by Gospodin · · Score: 1

      ...and if that doesn't work, just wait and eventually you'll quantum tunnel through her underwear!

      --
      ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
    7. Re:CNN's Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best. Post. Ever!

    8. Re:CNN's Article by mattsucks · · Score: 1

      That's the trouble with women, the faster you know they are, the harder it is to know where to find 'em.

      Wrong physicist :-)

    9. Re:CNN's Article by williw · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's the trouble with women, the faster you know they are, the harder it is to know where to find 'em.

      Wrong physicist :-)


      And that's why he got so much tail, because he never believed in that stuff. They just gravitated toward him.

    10. Re:CNN's Article by William+Robinson · · Score: 1
      He had six girlfriends in addition to his wife.

      Aha, I see. That explains why he could visualize curvatures in different dimensions.

  7. Why should we care about Einstein's letters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...anymore than caring about some professional writer's take on physics?

    1. Re:Why should we care about Einstein's letters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because he was actually a fascinating individual with some brilliant insights into a lot more than just Physics.

      It's odd how many people make comments like this. Because he was a brilliant physicist, you think that he can't possibly have anything interesting to say on any topic other than Physics? Believe it or not, a person can be brilliant in a particular professional field, and actually still be brilliant in others areas as well.

  8. Higher Resolution by Kesch · · Score: 4, Funny
    batch of letters fill in details to create a 'higher resolution' image of Einstein


    I thought PBS already made a better resolution picture Einstein when they began broadcasting their shows in HD. Does this mean I can get him in 1080p now?
    --
    If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
    1. Re:Higher Resolution by texaport · · Score: 1
      I've got pictures. Wearing white pumps before Labor Day.

      And it is fair game, since the article is about "shedding light on Einstein's personal life."

  9. Re:Does it have the part where he fucks his cousin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

    Check out cousin marriage. You might be surprised that this isn't illegal and/or controversial. If you're going to complain about the man, find something valid to complain about.

  10. Re:Please fix the title! by Dis*abstraction · · Score: 1

    Wouldn’t a colon be more appropriate, viz. “Einstein: Husband, Lover, and Father”?

  11. ... and computer gamer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Come on.. Throw the game-geek shut-ins a bone!

  12. First Daughter? by Mr+Foobar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Didn't Einstein have a daughter from his first marriage that basically disappeared, and whom nobody really knows what happened to her? I always found it curious that such a smart man could also have such a lousy private life.

    Do these letters say anything about her?

    --
    -> I dislike sigs...
    1. Re:First Daughter? by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 1
      I always found it curious that such a smart man could also have such a lousy private life.
      Funny...I recall reading about quite a few "smart people" with lousy private lives, but not that many with good ones (maybe my memory is somewhat selective, though). Some obsessed over their work too much, some lacked other skills needed to support a good private life (like money management, interpersonal skills, etc.). Just because somebody is really, really good in a particular field doesn't mean that they can handle everyday life.
      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    2. Re:First Daughter? by blamanj · · Score: 2, Informative

      The first daughter came before Einstein and Mileva married, which is why she disappeared. The assumption is that she was put up for adoption to avoid scandal. No one knows for sure what happened to her.

      There's even a book about it.

    3. Re:First Daughter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've also read about a lot of smart people with lousy private lives, but I think that's because nobody CARES if you have a good private life. There isn't a book or a newspaper article about a family life which is average.

    4. Re:First Daughter? by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

      It's generally known that a genius has mostly a few aspects of intelligence underdeveloped whereas the others are overdeveloped.
      Many genius have been characterized with poor social skills, which doesn't surprice me as social interaction takes alot of energy and focus.

      Could a genial person with great social abilities fe. be able to disconnect from the social distractions to fully concentrate on another task requiring alot of inverted and solitary work and time?

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    5. Re:First Daughter? by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I always found it curious that such a smart man could also have such a lousy private life.

      Give me a good reason why high intelligence should lead to a good private life, really. For one, being very good at school is not the best way to get liked - nobody likes to feel stupid. In fact, I think there's an evil circle where lack of social contact leads to poor social skills which lead to lack of social contact, and nerds seem to get the worst of it. A retarded kid has greater chances to be included on the pity factor than a nerd.

      For better or worse, you think different. Often you think deeper, which means being more "responsible" and not doing all the crazy things that seem to strike some people like lightning. Sometimes it's very hard to "think down" to your peer's level - you're simply thinking on different levels and that makes it really hard to build those tight personal connections. In lack fo a better term, that the chemistry is lacking. Nevermind if you're so bright you skip ahead classes - losing a lot of the normal social circle.

      Some go completely introvert in their own intelligence and think they're superior to everyone else. Arrogance is not a good way to build good private lives. Nor does being intelligent equate to being interesting or funny. In fact, logic is often too serious, cold and calculating to make good social conversation. Does intelligence help you tell a good joke? Liven up a party? Not from what I've seen.

      And do you want to know the worst part of a rational analyzing brain? It corrupts emotion. If you got a brain that will analyse why you're happy now, why you like him as a friend, why you are falling in love with that girl, you crush the emotion. If you're not able to funnel that into your work, or some other way to just enjoy and saviour the moment, saviour the feeling then your private life will suck.

      The worst case I can recollect is Taylor (from Taylorism) that was so fixated on timetracking that he tracked himself having breakfast. All in the name of logic and efficiency. You're just not supposed to know the $/kg price of your fishing hobby. You're not supposed to be logical all the time, or even most of the time.

      I've seen many people that appear to be very happy - though they aren't particularly successful at love, fortune or otherwise. To me that sums up to "ok, but could have been a whole lot better" which is logic speaking. They are happy - irrationally happy - but happy none the less. I envy them.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:First Daughter? by Oswald · · Score: 1

      Honestly, although you make some good points, in general it sounds like you've confused being smart with being a Vulcan.

    7. Re:First Daughter? by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "I always found it curious that such a smart man could also have such a lousy private life."

      Being smart does not have much to do with ones ability to handle relationships, "smart" or "intelligence" is not a global capacity that applies to all domains of functioning.

      There are many people who think he most likely had aspergers syndrome.

  13. So does TIME by blamanj · · Score: 1

    The article there also includes excerpts from some of the letters.

  14. Re:Please fix the title! by megaditto · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    And a Commie, don't forget that terrorist was a Commie.

    --
    Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
  15. Re:Does it have the part where he fucks his cousin by Pancake+Bandit · · Score: 1

    Please learn to keep an open mind. In many societies, marrying your cousin is a common practice. Generations of inbreeding among cousins is necessary before birth abnormalities become statistically important, so the practice is more a social deviance than a health concern in the United States.

  16. Re:Please fix the title! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A confusing headline is less than useless. If the author can't get the headline correct, why should anybody read the article? It makes me think I'll have to slog through an article by another idiot-author who doesn't know how to use a comma.

  17. Re:Does it have the part where he fucks his cousin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I meant "healthy" in the emotional and mental sense, not physical.

    With that said, would you stick it in your cousin?

  18. Re:Please fix the title! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's funny, I read it and wondered if he was a husband, lover and father to the same person. I lost a lot of respect for him, but then I realised I just couldn't comprehend sentences very well. It seems like you have the same problem.

  19. Re:Please fix the title! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and a comma before "and":

    This seems to no longer be a requirement of English grammar. It's the way most of us were taught to write, but both are allowed. "A, B, and C" -or- "A, B and C" are apparently both acceptable these days.

  20. Re:Einstein; inhumane? by GabrielF · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually, these new documents seem to change his public image for the better. He used to be known as a completely uninvolved and irresponsible father, but these documents show that at least later in life he really cared about his second wife and one of his kids. People change as they get older. Einstein certainly wouldn't have signed the famous letter to Roosevelt advocating the development of the atomic bomb after the war - although one could certainly argue about whether that means anything.

  21. Did his first wife write his papers or not? by kbonin · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.pbs.org/opb/einsteinswife/

    r/e Mileva Maric

    I found this fascinating - Einstein is an iconic figure, so criticism is not taken well, but I found these to be a fascinating read. No idea how good the underlying sources are, but if there is any merit to them, he may not deserve a good deal of the credit he is given. Reminds me of Tesla vs. Marconi or Tesla vs. Edison.

    1. Re:Did his first wife write his papers or not? by pla · · Score: 1

      No idea how good the underlying sources are,

      Not very good.

      Every few years another anti-intellectual feel-good women's lib line of BS like that comes up, whether it involves Einstein's wife as some hidden genius behind her man, or Bach's wife Maria as the true composer, or that Mary Sidney ghost-wrote most of Shakespeare's works, or just a large to-do about a relatively talentless woman "chauvinistically ignored" by her peers such as Hildegarde von Bingen.


      If someone finds proof, not pointless conjecture based on (in this case) nothing more solid than that Mileva Maric considered herself something of a mathematician - I'll gladly reconsider my stance. But until that magic diary entry saying "Today Mileva showed me how to get around that pesky bit in Maxwell's equations" appears, don't go mucking around with history just because some people consider it too male-heavy.

    2. Re:Did his first wife write his papers or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm, what about the co-author credit she recieved on the inital publishing of the papers which first included the theory of relativity.

      Not a thank you, not a "mad props to my wife" but a CO-AUTHOR credit, as in this paper was written by BOTH my wife and I.

  22. Einstein = believer of Communism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Such lovely logic there. We talk down to you because you are totally fucking stupid.

  23. Re:Does it have the part where he f*** his cousin by captainbeardo · · Score: 1

    You can still marry your cousin in Colorado. Yee-Haw!

  24. Re:Einstein; inhumane? by Chicken04GTO · · Score: 1

    you've obviously never tried to raise a child with serious impediments like schizoprhenia.
    wishing the child had never been born does not make one evil, only human. and how do you draw the conclusion of "denied sympathy?" simply because he voiced a desire any parent in that situation might also voice?

  25. Einstein - Husband, Lover, Father and... by Psiklonik · · Score: 0

    ....Gold Medalist Winner (Underwater Basketweaving, Speed Macrame & Theory of Relativity Triathalon)

    --
    /sig "Shop smart! Shop S-Mart!" /endsig
  26. Re:Does it have the part where he fucks his cousin by dfn5 · · Score: 1
    You might be surprised that this isn't illegal and/or controversial. If you're going to complain about the man, find something valid to complain about.
    From your link...

    In some jurisdictions this would be considered illegal as incest.

    Some think it's acceptable. Some think it's not. Sounds controversial to me.

    --
    -- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
  27. Obligatory joke by photonic · · Score: 3, Funny
    I heard to following story about Einstein and his wife, who was apparently very pretty. Could be an urban legend...

    Wife to Einstein:
    Imagine that we would have kids together: they might be as smart as you and as pretty as me.

    Einstein to wife:
    But what if they would be as ugly as me and as stupid as you?

    --
    karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
    1. Re:Obligatory joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it wasn't his wife that his was talking too, it was some model or actress during some dinner

    2. Re:Obligatory joke by captaint · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, it was George Bernard Shaw, not Einstein. The actual quote was closer to "But what if they had my looks and your brains?"

    3. Re:Obligatory joke by Bradlegar+the+Hobbit · · Score: 2, Informative

      The better known context of that story is George Bernard Shaw and Dorothy Parker. Apparently Parker was into eugenics at the time and suggested to Shaw they get together and have a baby.

      "With my body and your brains," she said, "she would a brilliant playwright!"

      "Yes," replied Shaw, "but what if the child had my body and your brains?"

      --

      I haven't lost my mind; it's backed up on a CD-R somewhere
    4. Re:Obligatory joke by 1iar_parad0x · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe his first wife was a classmate of his. While she may not be as famous as her husband, she did earn a physics degree from ETH Zurich.

      --
      What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
    5. Re:Obligatory joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, her name was Mileva Maric Einstein.

    6. Re:Obligatory joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ho hum That was G. B. Shaw. not Einstein.
      Now let's not have any Oscar Wilde dragged up and attributed to Einstein!

      But-

      Did you know that Einstein was also a crackhead, bank robber and child molester?

      And he also invented Teflon, cheezewhiz and the Pringles Potato-chip.
      He once taught Roger Tory Peterson how to identify birds by just looking at their feet alone!

      Quite a man!

      As they say, "Nothing to see here folks- move along"

  28. Re:Einstine = believer of God by YoungFelon · · Score: 0, Informative
    This is quite a troll. However, here are some relevant quotes from wikipedia:
    In response to the telegrammed question of New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in 1929: "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid 50 words." Einstein replied "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."
    "I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand"
  29. Re:Does it have the part where he f*** his cousin by zolaris · · Score: 1

    Sweet I have this cousin that went to U.C. Boulder... heh, just kidding.

  30. Dyslexia - The Myth Exploded? by Petersko · · Score: 1

    I'm willing to bet that the pages will show no evidence of dyslexia. And yet thousands of people will choose to ignore it, and go on believing that Einstein was, in fact, dyslexic.

    1. Re:Dyslexia - The Myth Exploded? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be interested to know how letters could show evidence of dyslexia.

    2. Re:Dyslexia - The Myth Exploded? by Petersko · · Score: 1

      "I would be interested to know how letters could show evidence of dyslexia."

      Common symptoms of dyslexia include poor handwriting, bizarre spelling, directionality and sequencing issues, and transposition of letters. When you write a few thousand pages, if you're dyslexic, it'll show.

    3. Re:Dyslexia - The Myth Exploded? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fair enough, but I suppose my point was supposed to be that absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. What leads you to believe that Einstien was not dyslexic?

    4. Re:Dyslexia - The Myth Exploded? by Petersko · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, but I suppose my point was supposed to be that absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. What leads you to believe that Einstien was not dyslexic?

      And the plural of anecdote is not "proof". (Not my quote - I don't remember where I got it from, but it rings true)

      There are thousands of sites claiming Albert Einstein is dyslexic. However, they all seem to either make the claim without reference, or reference somebody else who made the claim without reference.

      The Cambridge press biography, "Subtle is the Lord" makes no mention of dyslexia, and none of the papers made available from his early childhood showed any evidence (which is why I suspect none of the new ones will). Interviews with his family and teachers have also failed to bring forth anything to suggest he is dyslexic.

      I believe this story persists because people want it to be true. Organizations dedicated to helping people with dyslexia LOVE having big names associated with the problem - it's very inspiring.

      But for Albert Einstein to be dyslexic and excel where he did just doesn't make any sense. There's no evidence - just a bunch of unsupported anecdotes - ones that don't even refer to events or examples. Just baseless claims.

  31. "I do not believe in a personal God" by WilliamSChips · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Personal God meaning the God that orders destruction the way the Christian and Muslim gods seem to do.

    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    1. Re:"I do not believe in a personal God" by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      Or, in nerdier terms that we can all understand, "anthropomorphic."

  32. Offtopic. Tesla's Birthday! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With all due respect to Einstein, what I really want to see today is a story covering Nikola Tesla's 150th anniversary (he was born 150 years ago today, July 10th 1856).

    1. Re:Offtopic. Tesla's Birthday! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I was in Serbia recently, and their 100 Dinar notes have one of Teslas formula imprinted right on them! I was impressed - finally something useful rather than a dumb picture, on currency.

    2. Re:Offtopic. Tesla's Birthday! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      I have no idea why Tesla is the scientist that time forgot.

      I learned of Tesla when I was 15. I was looking through a catalog and my uncle saw me looking at the Tesla Coils, he asked if I knew anything about him. I didn't. My uncle proceeded to give me a short history of Tesla and his work. After that I picked up a couple of books by and about him and learned as much as I could.

      Tesla was easily more important to the progress we saw in the 20th century than Einstein was. AC current, AC motors and AM radio were used more than general relativity for things that affected the daily lives of regular people. We even use the 60Hz AC that Tesla designed nerly a century ago.

      Hell, I even went to George Westinghouse middle school and once a year there was George Westinghouse day and they never even mentioned Tesla. Edison and Westinghouse really shortchanged Tesla. It seems that now, even history is shortchanging him.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    3. Re:Offtopic. Tesla's Birthday! by illtud · · Score: 1

      what I really want to see today is a story covering Nikola Tesla's 150th anniversary (he was born 150 years ago today, July 10th 1856).

      Hear hear. The UK's Independent covered it yesterday FWIW. Not the greatest article, but it was a two-page spread in the news section.

  33. Re:Does it have the part where he fucks his cousin by Pancake+Bandit · · Score: 1

    In many cases, cousins who marry didn't grow up together or have much of a childhood relationship. The only difference between them marrying and two unrelated people marrying is the social stigma associated with it. Even if they did grow up together, who are we to judge peoples' choices in that respect? It's like developing a relationship later in life with an old childhood friend.

  34. Re:Einstine = believer of God by richdun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For those not simply trolling, another who thinks religion and science and well connected is Gerald Schroeder, who wrote an excellent couple of books on the subject. My favorite is The Science of God. Schroeder is an Israeli physicist (MIT educated if memory serves), and Genesis scholar.

    His main assertions are that neither top scientists nor top theologians often understand the other, and that much of the debate stems from dogged stubornness in current beliefs - think of how the Catholic Church once thought it heresy to teach the heliocentric instead of the geocentric universe, when today we know that it's really all just a matter of perspective, but that centering the universe on Earth or the Sun is not such a great idea. He really knows his science (leaves you behind very quickly if you don't grasp relativity and cosmology well, but kindly gives you a warning before diving into the particulars) and Genesis, and tries not to take a stand on one explanation or another - simply says the two aren't incompatible, especially if you acknowledge that the point of both is to seek the truth (or Truth, your choice).

  35. Why Criticize? by mcguiver · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sure Einstein had some faults, but don't we all? Instead of reading these correspondences with criticizem for his faults lets just be greatful that we have so much information on him so we can learn from his genius as well as his blunders. Here's to the memory of a great man!!!!

    1. Re:Why Criticize? by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      Its easy for geeks to take the moral high ground since nobody would ever sleep with them much less get married. Here's to knocking off a peice!

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
  36. Always misleading... by dr7greenthumb · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Einstein is always depicted as an flawless icon in our pop culture. Great Physicist yes but 214,000 people might disagree on the great person part.

    1. Re:Always misleading... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      Comments like "he was a great person" are ALWAYS going to be subjective. Great by what standards? Overall though, I think it's safe to say that "most people" regard Einstein as a great person.
      Even many of those living in Japan in WWII might not have held the atomic bomb against Einstein personally. If he hadn't agreed to work on the project, it's not like it would have just gone away. It was designed by a group of scientists, and eventually, they would have gotten a team who would come up with the same basic design with or without Einstein.

      Furthermore, war is war. Even if I'm on the losing end, I don't think it makes sense to take away from the "greatness" of one among the opposing force, just because they outsmarted or overpowered me. (Many people from the Union army in our Civil War still acknowledged the "greatness" of General Robert E. Lee.)

    2. Re:Always misleading... by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      In as much as Einstein didn't build or drop the bomb, I'm not quite clear about why you'd blame him. He didn't even write the leter to President Roosevelt, Leo Szilard did. (Arguably nitpicky, sure.) Einstein *signed* it because there was a very real concern that Germany would get the bomb first. I don't think it speaks negatively about Einstein that he didn't want to see the Third Reich the sole owners of that kind of power. Do you?

      Whether the bomb should have been dropped or not depends a lot on how much you feel it was a ploy to scare the Soviets. (Dropping the bomb was certainly a less costly (for us and for them) route to forcing the Japanese surrender than an invasion, however. That's undisputed. But, again, the question is: did we need to even do that? Historians are still arguing about what happened, so I'm hesitant to pass a very firm judgement there.)

    3. Re:Always misleading... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      The notion that we didn't need to exploit every means at our disposal to fight the Japanese is simply direspectful to the Japanese. They were a highly motivated and highly sophisticated enemy. They were (and still are) a force to be reckoned with. Second guessers tend to gloss over this.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:Always misleading... by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      The question there isn't "Did we need all of our weapons?" so much as "Did we have a viable surrender on the table before the atomic bombings?"

      Now, we *could* have beaten them at that point without nuclear weapons. That's no disrespect, that's just how things were. (Early in the war it was certainly touch-and-go. Once our war machine got rolling, once we got experience fighting, and especially once the European front was won, the Japanese were simply facing overwelming odds. To say that we needed every means at are disposal at that point is just silly. It's not a matter of respect, it's a matter of recognizing when two sides aren't fairly matched anymore.) For one thing, we were literally starving them to death by submarine warfare. (Remember the U-boats? We were succeeding with a similar tact against Japan.) I've heard estimates that they could have survived maybe six months to a year before they would have been forced to capitulate from pure starvation.

    5. Re:Always misleading... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The notion that we didn't need to exploit every means at our disposal to fight the Japanese is simply direspectful to the Japanese. They were a highly motivated and highly sophisticated enemy. They were (and still are) a force to be reckoned with. Second guessers tend to gloss over this.

      While in the general sense of the war at large I can wholeheartedly agree, you are the one glossing over the specific circumstances involved when the decision to use the bomb was being made. Specifically:
      1) Germany had already lost, thus closing an entire front of the war and freeing the Allied forces to focus on Japan.
      2) Nearly all of Japan's land aquisitions in Asia had been rolled back.
      3) The Japanese navy had been annihilated, and all of their significant bases through the Pacific had been captured.
      4) The above combined allowed the Allied fleet to attack the island of Japan with impunity from the sea and air. If Japan was such a force to be reckoned with, where was the retaliation for the firebombing of Tokyo? The answer is that they could not retaliate; they did not have the capability. And with no allies remaining, and a naval blockade around the country to boot, they could not aquire it.

      So all that remained was to end the war by getting Japan to surrender. That's not an easy thing to do, sure, but with the enemy nearly defeated and with all potential for offense gone, the "we need to exploit every means to win" just doesn't hold. There were in fact several options:
      1) Nuke a city or two. If they went off, pretty much a sure thing. Not even the Japanese believed they could survive losing a whole city to a single bomb. Obviously this is the way we went, and obviously it worked.
      2) Demonstration of nukes off-shore. Probably would have worked, but the "you will lose a city for every one of these we drop" message wouldn't have been quite as immediate, and with our limited supply this was a gamble. While this option was heavily lobbied for by some cabinet members, it was rejected as a bluff we couldn't afford to make.
      3) Land invasion. In this case, "force to be reckoned with" would have certainly applied to be sure. This was a very scary option, and the one usually juxtaposed to the bomb in order to make the bomb look like the kinder option. However what I've seen of discussions regarding this show that while a plan was drawn up it was not in serious running as an option. Much like (though obviously to a lesser extent) our currently existing plans for the invasion of Canada, this was a contingency not a fore-runner option.
      4) Conditional surrender. Japan actually made an offer of conditional surrender, but we dropped the nukes without attempting to even learn what terms they wanted. It appears as though the main concession they wanted was to keep an at least ceremonial role for their Emperor in order to save face, which McArhtur ended up giving them anyway. There are various arguments why conditional surrender was less desireable, but it was an option. Sadly one that was considered even less than invasion.
      5) Wait for Russia to declare war on Japan. Our joint chiefs were certain that once Russia entered the war, Japan would surrender unconditionally -- not even the Japanese believed they could resist the combined might of the U.S. and Russian war machines. Of course at this point they would be surrendering to both us and the Russians, which has it's own negative side. This possibility seems to have weighed heavily on the decision to end the war ASAP by using the bomb. Remember that WWII rolled directly into the Cold War, with Russia and the U.S. emerging from the war as the top powers in the world. Option 1 thus had the additional advantage -- which you'll notice had nothing to do with Japan -- of demonstrating our new super-weapon to the Russians.

      I'm not saying that the decision was easy, I'm not saying the decision to drop the bombs was wrong. I'm saying it's complex, there were in fact more options available to us, the actual reasons for pic

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:Always misleading... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Like I said.

      You're pretty much trivializing Japan. They've got cahones of steel and their own outlook on life. Surrender for their officer corps was really not an option. The entire Pacific war, and Okinawa in particular pretty handily demonstrates this.

      Even after the second nuke, more hardcore holdouts in the officer corps tried to prevent the Emperor's surrender.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    7. Re:Always misleading... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      You ignore every salient detail of the situation, and then say I'm trivializing Japan. You're trivializing the entire war, Japan included. Their steel cohones are not in question; they were proven beyond doubt during the Pacific campaign that nevertheless ended with their navy providing low-cost homes to fish. Their outlook on life included loyalty to the Emperor -- this is why allowing the Emperor to remain as head of State, even if he had no real power, was important enough to make the main concession for surrender -- and a coup by the officer corps would thus have failed if it had succeeded. But it didn't succeed in the first place, the officer corps may not have wanted to surrender but they represented neither the government nor the people of Japan, and when the Emperor said lay down your arms, the people did.

      You're trivializing Japan by thinking their "outlook on life" starts and ends with the kamikaze, and this alone defines the decision to bomb.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  37. Re:Please fix the title! by rgravina · · Score: 1

    I've always thought "A, B and C" is the correct way of doing it. The "A, B, and C" method is much easier to print out of for loops, however :)

  38. Re:Please fix the title! by bohemian72 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's not exactly new. I was taught to not put the comma before the 'and' and that was about 20 years ago. It came as a surprise to me to find out that most people were taught the other way.

    --
    The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.
  39. Because if his first wife was co-author of the... by CyberLord+Seven · · Score: 3, Interesting
    ...1905 papers we should give her credit in the history of physics. Her name should be as well known as his.

    I personally don't care about his personal life, but I am intrigued by the idea that Marie Curie may not have been the only phenomenal woman of her generation. That women of the last century did NOT have access to a potentially phenomenal role model disturbs me.

    I don't care how much pussy he got or where it came from, but my image of him is hurt IF it is true that his first wife helped him and generations of young women were deprived of a role model.

    --
    We have always been at war with Eurasia!
  40. Re:Does it have the part where he fucks his cousin by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    By your rational marrying your sister would be okay if you never met her before (adopted, whatever). Pretty creepy if you ask me.

    --
    Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

    http://financialpetition.org/
  41. privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not to pull the privacy cat out of the bag but.. at what point do we draw the line for dead people's privacy? do we just allow anyone to open up our emails after we die because some distant relative says its ok?

    1. Re:privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Destroy the stuff you don't want out now. Then you don't have to worry about it. If its already out, too late.
      Another thing that may work as well is a will stating explicitly that you want your stuff destroyed.
      Well that, and someone carrying out your request exactly.

  42. Re:Please fix the title! by SeanAD · · Score: 1

    I was taught that using the comma after the and is acceptable just as not using it is. However, since the purpose of the comma is to serve the same purpose as using "and" (in the example of A, B and C), using a comma after B is redundant and, thus, unnecessary.

    Also, getting back to the topic of Einstein wishing his son had not been born, no human is above being human(and all the emotions and fallabilites that go with it). Wishing one's son wasn't born is hardly on par with removing the son's life, something many have done but Einstein did not. Hardly worth finding fault in the man.

  43. Re:Please fix the title! by shreevatsa · · Score: 1

    It's not a question of "no longer"; it has been debated for several years. See Serial comma.

  44. Re:Does it have the part where he fucks his cousin by nla0 · · Score: 1

    yes !

  45. Re:Does it have the part where he fucks his cousin by Pancake+Bandit · · Score: 1

    Ah, except that's when recessive genes start to become a concern.

  46. How is this science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a beef: this story is not about science. It is about history, or perhaps about history of science, but it is not about science.

  47. Re:Please fix the title! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It could also be "Einstein: Husband, Lover, and Father" (don't forget that a colon can do the trick as well.) Regardless, the dash used is probably incorrect.

  48. Re:Because if his first wife was co-author of the. by twodave · · Score: 1

    I wasn't aware that one of the necessities of having a role model scientist was that of said role model being the same sex. I wouldn't say anyone was "deprived". There are many people who don't reach the public eye yet do great things, and we aren't upset about that. There are plenty of good and bad examples alike around to discern truth and goodness from. That said, I'm not advocating the theft of anyone's work, I just think the above point was somewhat over-dramatized. I don't think all women between the ages of 8 and 80 are feeling robbed by this possibility.

  49. For more on Albert Einstein by iritant · · Score: 3, Informative

    Great article! If, however, you happen to be in Switzerland at any time during the next couple of months there is an Albert Einstein exhibit at the History Museum in Bern. There are audio tours given in all languages, and it covers both his scientific achievements and his personal life. The exhibit attempts to explain his achievements in a way that uninitiated would understand, and it succeeds somewhat. For more info see http://www.bhm.ch/en/ausstellungen_sonder_01.cfm

  50. Smartest man? by sciencecneisc · · Score: 1

    Is it so improbable that Einstein took advantage of his celebrity status and embraced the women flocking to him? What may be shocking is how he treated his wives but he did act honest. Personally I wouldn't get cuckolded. I do understand that schizo is a bad life for a large amount of the time. I think we need to hear more summaries of the letters.

  51. Re:Please fix the title! by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

    However, since the purpose of the comma is to serve the same purpose as using "and" (in the example of A, B and C), using a comma after B is redundant and, thus, unnecessary.

    This very much depends on the sentence structure. For example:

    My favorite sandwiches are turkey, ham and cheese and tuna fish.

    vs

    My favorite sandwiches are turkey, ham and cheese, and tuna fish.

  52. Re:Always misleading... Now overly simplistic. by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From your link
    "The Americans anticipated losing many soldiers in the planned invasion of Japan, although the actual number of expected fatalities and wounded is subject to some debate and depends on the persistence and reliability of Japanese resistance and whether the Americans would have invaded only Kyushu in November 1945 or if a follow up landing near Tokyo, projected for March of 1946, would have been needed. Years after the war, Secretary of State James Byrnes claimed that 500,000 American lives would have been lost--and that number has since been repeated authoritatively, but in the summer of 1945, U.S. military planners projected 20,000-110,000 combat deaths from the initial November 1945 invasion, with about three to four times that number wounded. (Total U.S. combat deaths on all fronts in World War II in nearly four years of war were 292,000.) However, these estimates were done using intelligence that grossly underestimated Japanese strength being gathered for the battle of Kyushu in numbers of soldiers and kamikazes, by factors of at least three. Many military advisors held that a worst-case scenario could involve up to 1,000,000 American casualties.

    The atomic bomb hastened the end of the Second World War in Asia liberating hundreds of thousands of Western citizens, including about 200,000 Dutch and 400,000 Indonesians ("Romushas") from Japanese concentration camps. Moreover, Japanese troops had committed atrocities against millions of civilians (such as the infamous Nanking Massacre), and the early end to the war prevented further bloodshed.

    Supporters also point to an order given by the Japanese War Ministry on August 1, 1944. The order dealt with the disposal and execution of all Allied POWs, numbering over 100,000, if an invasion of the Japanese mainland took place.[30] It is also likely that, considering Japan's previous treatment of POWs, were the Allies to wait out Japan and starve it, the Japanese would have killed all Allied POWs and Chinese prisoners.

    In response to the argument that the large-scale killing of civilians was immoral and a war crime, supporters of the bombings have argued that the Japanese government waged total war, ordering many civilians (including women and children) to work in factories and military offices and to fight against any invading force. Father John A. Siemes, professor of modern philosophy at Tokyo's Catholic University, and an eyewitness to the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima wrote:
    "

    Einstein actually did almost no work on the Atomic Bomb project. Had he not wrote the letter it may have been dropped six months later but it would have been developed. Are the deaths of over 200,000 people tragic? Yes. Is the choice between 200,000 plus deaths and possible over a million deaths anything but terrible? Had Japan not attacked China, had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor, or had Japan surrendered when it was clear the war was lost then those deaths would have been avoided.
    The simple truth is that the decision to develop and to drop the Atomic bomb was made by human beings. Roosevelt and Truman are regarded as two of the greatest leaders of their time. They where also known for being extremely humane men.
    Didn't the government of Japan have the responsibility to protect it's citizens? Shouldn't they have made decisions that would been in the best interest of their population? In the end all the death of Japanese citizens where the responsibility of the Japanese government.

    I guess it is easy to feel superior to the men that decided to drop the Atomic bombs than to try to understand why it happened.
    So I take it that you would have chosen to over one million dead from Japan, China, Korea, UK, US, and Indonesia over dropping the Atomic Bombs? I wonder how the million plus people that would have died then would feel about you?

    History is only simple if you don't think about.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  53. Re:Does it have the part where he fucks his cousin by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    Blah blah blah.

    I wouldn't screw my cousin, it's gross as hell, because I share the same taboo you do.

    But that's what it is -- a taboo. Not every culture shares it. Many don't.

    I can understand that. You just keep saying the equivalent of "evil! taboo! dirty!"

    You must understand your own cultural context before you can judge others.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  54. Re:Always misleading... Now overly simplistic. by king-manic · · Score: 1

    The people who died in the nuclear blast and the resultant radiation did not deserve it. Japan however did. The society needed to be humbled and it actually could use some more humility. Japan is not some hapless victim. They were ruthlessly evil in their conquest of Asia. Most asian countries still hold a grudge against japan. Look at it this way, The JApanese were preparing for a conditional surrender. They meant to keep some of the land they conquered and bargain for the survival of their monarchy. This proccess would likly take months. In the course of those montsh thousands of JApanese and american soldiers would die, major centers in japan would continue to be bombed, and Japans rapist army would still be raping and pillaging in the few locatiosn they still held. As well the russians would be have pressed ever closer. The death toll would have been equal to the death toll of the two bombs but just more spread out and nations that are soverign may have remaind under Japanese control. A quicker end to war was preferable. The civillians deatsh regrettable and the blow to the JApanese psyche was well deserved and not nearly great enough for their crimes.

    --
    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
  55. Re:Please fix the title! by itguru_81 · · Score: 1

    I was somewhat enlightened to this dilemma in a recent Business Communications class. The instructor flat out told us that English classes and Business Communication are two entirely different animals. Things that are approrpiate in "essays" or "stories" are not necessarily seen as appropriate in analytical reports, letters, memos, etc. This included grammar. One of the issues we discussed was comma placement as noted here. I am coming to accept that there really are to different types of writing and that they can both be used. But it sure does not help many people who are looking for the gold standard way of doing things.

  56. Re:Does it have the part where he f*** his cousin by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

    Actually, you can marry your first cousin in many many states.

    Disclaimer: my wife is in no way related to me by blood. I swear.

    --
    ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
  57. I completely disagree. by CyberLord+Seven · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The value of seeing someone similar to yourself excelling in a given field does wonders for self esteem and self confidence.

    If Einstein's first wife participated in the 1905 papers and was never given credit for such an incredible accomplishment, women were indeed deprived of a role model.

    Yes, women can look to Victor Weisskopf, Richard Feynman, and Wolfgang Pauli for inspiration, but it is NOT the same, especially considering that a woman, Mileva Einstein, may have co-authored the greatest physics papers of the twentieth century.

    --
    We have always been at war with Eurasia!
  58. Re:Does it have the part where he fucks his cousin by willabr · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, it's all relative.

  59. Re:Because if his first wife was co-author of the. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    I wasn't aware that one of the necessities of having a role model scientist was that of said role model being the same sex.

    That's okay, it's pretty common for males in a male-dominated society with plenty of male role models to fail to see the significance of the sex of said role models. Yet I'm sure that if you think about what you know about role models in general, starting with those basic role models that define how we perceive gender roles -- i.e. our parents -- then you should see how having same-sex role models in professional fields can be important.

    Then consider what happens when there are very few or no same-sex role models in a given field, and the opposite sex role models are of the often vocalized opinion that members of your sex are not suitable for that field. I mean, this goes on even today, but think of what it was like more than fifty years ago. In this context a strong same-sex role model is even more important as they can serve as a powerful counterexample to the naysayers.

    I don't think all women between the ages of 8 and 80 are feeling robbed by this possibility.

    Um, yeah, because if this is true most of them don't know about it -- I'd never heard it before either. That wouldn't alter the fact that they were robbed, even if the impact this had on their lives would in most cases be small. Certainly there are cases where it could have been very big.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  60. What you won't find in his letters by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2, Insightful

    is that when my mother was a child, he helped carry her books for her at Princeton after school - my grandmother was working there at the time.

    Basically, he was a nice guy to kids, is what I'm trying to say, no matter what other quirks he may have had.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:What you won't find in his letters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't seem like he treated his children that nice...Maybe he had something else in mind for your mother.

    2. Re:What you won't find in his letters by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      My mother was really young, I think she was 7 or 8, so I kind of doubt it.

      And one thing the letters show is that he did have more feelings for his kids than we had assumed previously, however distracted he might have been by science.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  61. Re:CNN's Article or what quantum physics is for by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Start talking quantum physics to a woman and it's not long before the clothes come off.

    Ah, but for a true discourse on quantum physics, you need to make sure it's not just you taking off your clothes, but that both participants interact on an equal level.

    In other words, in addition to charm, beauty, and truth, you need to make sure she also takes her clothes off as well.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  62. Re:Does it have the part where he fucks his cousin by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

    Okay you have convinced me....

    I for one welcome our cousin-fucking overlords!

    --
    Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

    http://financialpetition.org/
  63. Einstein hated his past by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From reading one of the biographies of Einstein, it seems quite apparent that Einstein despised his Jewish heritage and even renounced the Jewish faith. It seems quite odd that the Israelis would place him as a martyr for one who hated them so much.

  64. Einstein was equal to Edison. by NRAdude · · Score: 0

    They both stole their intellect from the people that labored under them.

    --
    without prejudice
  65. Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He cannot live alone, has almost no social skills, and is very easily shaken into paranoid episodes - which cause him to quit taking his meds, which make it all worse.

    Not to diminish the suffering of your family, no less the girlfriend; but that sounds exactly like the average slashdotter!

    Good thing I'm below average!

  66. Re:Please fix the title! by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Excellent example of how to use commas, commas and "and", and "and."
    Wouldn't have thought of it without your example.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  67. Re:Please fix the title! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not that it isn't required; mostly people are lazy and don't bother putting it there.

    Perhaps it's just my perception, but there are slight differences in the meanings depending upon the punctuation. "A, B, and C" would indicate "A AND B AND C" whereas "A, B and C" seems to indicate "A OR [B AND C]." Further, the absent serial comma after B hints at more choices after C, i.e. "A, B and C, and D" as if B and C must be considered as a single unit.

  68. Einstein and Godel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    From the Wikipedia entry on Kurt Gödel:
    Einstein often worried about his friend--and sometimes found his behavior utterly exasperating. One November day in 1952, a colleague encountered Einstein on the street, and noting his unusually perturbed expression, inquired what was wrong.

            "Gödel has gone completely crazy!" was the reply.
            "Why, what has he done now?"
            Einstein explained: "He voted for Eisenhower!"
     
    It's quite easily the funniest Einstein anecdote I've heard. :)
  69. Re:Please fix the title! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, this is why I prefer the Oxford comma. It can cause ambiguities, but IMHO this happens less often than with the alternative.

    Of course, if people actually cared about these things, they would use a more sensible means of list-grouping, such as parentheses. Thus:

    My favorite sandwiches are (turkey, (ham and cheese), and tuna fish).

    It's intuitively quite readable, and you can make it backwards-compatible by leaving off the parens. And when you speak the sentence aloud, then you can indicate grouping of elements by using pauses and word stress... just like you already do.

  70. Re:Does it have the part where he fucks his cousin by rolyatknarf · · Score: 1
    "With that said, would you stick it in your cousin?"

    Yes, yes I would. She looks like Jessica Alba.

  71. Husband, Father, Lover? by thewesterly · · Score: 1

    Einstein: Husband, Father, and Lover

    But not, apparently, to the same people.

    1. Re:Husband, Father, Lover? by joshier · · Score: 1

      Yes I agree, the whole story just screams incest, I find it really disturbing.

  72. Re:Does it have the part where he fucks his cousin by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    In other words you can't even intellectually recognize and work around your ingrained taboos.

    Sad, but common, you disgusting pork-eater. ;)

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  73. Re:misleading GuruBuckaroo by JavaManJim · · Score: 1

    Hang in there Guru, I fully understand your situation. A friend next door has a daughter with that. A separate reality there. I guess we have to live with people like that and somehow we grow from the experience.

    Jim

  74. Re:Please fix the title! by rolyatknarf · · Score: 1
    "don't forget that a colon can do the trick as well"

    Now that's disgusting!

  75. Re:Einstein; inhumane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Einstein certainly wouldn't have signed the famous letter to Roosevelt advocating the development of the atomic bomb after the war

    Well duh. When he and Szilard wrote the letter, people who knew about nuclear fission thought that Germany had a serious WMD program that was a threat to the world. After the war, it turned out that they weren't actually working on a nuclear bomb at all (not because the Nazis were nice guys, but because Heisenberg was either an idiot or a brilliant traitor). Oops, guess that whole Manhattan Project wasn't actually necessary.

    Now why does that scenario sound vaguely familiar?

  76. Imagine that.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...about delivering and listening to boring lectures, playing music with friends, or trying to stop smoking."

    Einstein was a blogger...

  77. Cool true story about Einstein...and my dad by notaprguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My father played Viola as a chile and into college. When he was in college he was introduced to Einstein and ended up getting together with him and some others several times over to play music. Einstein was a violin player and apparently enjoyed getting together with friends and young people to play music. My father, who is no 76, was in his early 20's. He said they never talked about physics or math but that they did talk a lot about music, some politics and some religion. He said Einstein was very fun...good sense of humor...somewhat of a joker...but also very intense and somewhat competitive about music if someone made a mistake.

  78. Re:Einstine = believer of God by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

    Theology doesn't seek the truth. It assumes it already has the truth (faith). Science really is a search for truth.

    And it is pretty obvious which method of searching for an understanding of the universe is working. How many priests would it take to put a man on the moon? How many soul-searching monks, pouring over ancient texts would it take to create a nuclear reactor?

    If there is any truth in religion, there isn't much to show for it.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  79. Re:Please fix the title! by chucken · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't a colon be more appropriate, viz. "Einstein: Husband, Lover, and Father"?

    For a moment there I saw 'colon' and thought you were calling him an arse. No, seriously....

  80. Re:Please fix the title! by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

    And amusingly, I managed to manufacture an example very similar to one provided in Wikipedia's page on the Serial Comma (as linked elsewhere in this decidedly offtopic thread).

  81. Re:Please fix the title! by kaens · · Score: 1

    LISP is a great language.

  82. Re:Does it have the part where he ... by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 1

    Why not just look at "George Lucas in Love"?

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5058529870 025933880

    8 minutes and 44 seconds - its the last few seconds that you want to look at.

    --
    Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
  83. Re:Please fix the title! by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 1

    I was taught the same thing, but I now think its wrong.

    Pardon the pun, but it (dropping the comma) just doesn't "add up"

    "a, b and c" seems almost like "a, (b and c)" - 2 items, like in your "ham and cheese" example ... whereas ...

    "a, b, and c" is obviously "a, b, c" - three items.

    Its sort of like the problem with a date like "07-10-2006". Is it today, July 10th, or is it October 7th? Sometime the only way to tell is to try to find a date that has a day greater than 12 in it and work it backwards. Much easier to write 2006-07-10, but if someone abbreviates the year, we're back to the same problem, but worse. Is 06-07-10 July 10th, 2006, June 7th, 2010, or what?

    You'd have to be an Einstein to figure it out :-)

    --
    Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
  84. Re:Offtopic. Tesla's Birthday! Tesla vs. Edison by bubbaD · · Score: 1

    Shortchanged is not the word, Edison purposefully discredited Tesla and his ideas, and Tesla, not being the ruthless businessman that Edison was, ended up poor and insane. He was not just forgotten, he was (figuratively) buried alive.
    I think one can compare them to Gates with DOS vs Gary Kildall and CP/M.
    "Maybe if Edison was smarter he wouldn't perspire so much!" N. Tesla

  85. Re:Always misleading... Now overly simplistic. by Zachary+Kessin · · Score: 1

    Well when the atomic bomb project was started most of the people on it were woried about Germany (many of them were Jews who had fleed from Nazi Germany, including Einstein himself). Also the Einstein letter was written by Leo Szlard or at least at his urging, who convinced Einstein to sign it. Szlard was an old student of Einstein's from when they were both in Berlin.

    --
    Erlang Developer and podcaster
  86. Re:Einstine = believer of God by master_p · · Score: 1

    Ok, I'll bite:

    Can we please stop with all the hoolabaloo about religion and science being equal? look around you and see that reality is far more complex than the silly bible stories tell.

    Many great scientists believe in some religion, but it is only a form of centimental reaction causing stress relief...especially as they get older, their views change and many adopt a stand that previously condemned.

  87. so i guess conservatives should be denouncing him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just like how they denounced clinton and such. you know...be consistent.

  88. Self- and remote-diagnosis are shams. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    A friend of mine has some kind of personality disorder which he and his family thought for a long time was Asperger's. It's like he never learned quite how to act around other people, or to realize when he's talking a bit too loudly. But no, when he got diagnosed, it turns out that yes, he does have *something*, but it's not Asperger's. (I think it was PDD-NOS; they gave him drugs, which seem to have helped him quite a bit.)

    It's ridiculous to remotely diagnose historical figures with these things, which aren't even that rigorously defined for people living now, being seen in person by an actual psychiatrist. I'm not quite of the encyclopedia dramatica school of thought, but I do think that the syndrome has been overly romanticized, and it feels pretty tasteless.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  89. Re:Einstein hated his past- NOT! by sita · · Score: 1

    This is a blatant lie.

    Einstein did not practice the Jewish religion but maintained a strong secular Jewish identity. He was a card carrying zionist. Among other things, he went on fundraising tours for the establishment of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem with Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organization and later the first president of Israel.

    And, no, unlike so many of his generation, he is no martyr.

  90. Re:Always misleading... Now overly simplistic. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    You are right. Einstein's letter was written in the summer of 1939! Frankly for most people Japan wasn't even on most peoples minds back then. The Navy was the only group in the government that really considered them a threat. In many ways it was just one more form of racism that existed during WWII. Japan was so sure that the US couldn't compete with the Samurai spirit that it would beg for peace after one defeat. The US didn't think Japan was a threat since all they could do was make cheap copies. The times where very different back then and racism was everywhere.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  91. Re:Does it have the part where he fucks his cousin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me give you a hint.

    It is taboo for Germans, Americans, and the Swiss.

    The guy was a social fuck up, he stoel stuff from his wife (ideas), he was a bad father, husband, and friend, and commited a socail taboo.

    Sounds like a great guy to me.

  92. Better answer. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    Or let me put it this way: everything I'm talking about and that you say "trivializes" Japan were the actual factors that our government and military were discussing when deciding to drop the bomb. So if you think "steel cojones" is all you need to say to justify the bomb and none of the other factors I discuss are important, well, Harry Truman, his cabinet, and the leaders of the military disagreed with you.

    In particular, General McArthur disagreed with you. Say whatever you want about him and his later career; he faced and defeated Japan militarily in the Pacific theatre, and then successfully lead them into becoming a peaceful democracy in the reconstruction. I think it's safe to say that McArthur understood the Japanese as "steel cojones" warriors and their "outlook on life" as well as anyone in the West did. And he believed that we could have ended the war weeks earlier simply by accepting a conditional surrender that allowed the Emperor to remain, and that dropping the bomb was militarily unnecessary.

    However, as I have already stated, military concerns vis a vis the surrender of Japan were not the only issues that influenced the decision. Like it or not, that's historical fact.

    So please abandon the simplistic revisionist history that does nothing but make it easier to feel good about WWII. It is still possible to have an accurate and nuanced view of history and agree with the dropping of the bomb; the difference being that you don't turn an incredibly difficult moral dilemna into a childish "we must beat the bogeyman" scenario with only one valid choice. The real world isn't like that, in WWII Japan or in a future scenario where the lessons of WWII will be invaluable.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  93. Re:Does it have the part where he fucks his cousin by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    Oops, I should be careful of this, I didn't mean to imply he wasn't an asshole. Lots of geniuses -- and non-geniuses who can nontheless be respected -- are assholes. You don't have to respect him for his personal life to respect him for his work.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  94. Re:his first wife WAS INDEED co-author of the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, of course she deserved most of the credit!
        Most major scientists have since admitted this.

      But to put things in perspective, he taught her how to iron shirts using black-body radiation, and to boil water at precisely 100 degrees Celsius. Not exactly a parlour trick, n'est-ce-pas?

        Alas, too little credit has been given to Einstein's domestic abilities and talents.

  95. Re:Dyslexia - My Thx Ethpleded! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most experts believe the great man also had Asperger's, Tourette's and when in private, exhibited symptoms of flatulence and the occasional burst of Halitosis.

    Medically, he was a walking time-bomb.

  96. Re:stopping smoking - FOUND URL! (please read) by iamcf13 · · Score: 1

    Even one of the pre-USA English kings claimed tobacco was unhealthy.

    'A Counterblaste To Tobacco' by King James I of England:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Counterblast_to_Tob acco

    A 'modernized' version of the text of it can be read here:

    http://64.176.112.65/kjcounte.htm

    The original Elizibethan version can be read here:

    http://www.la.utexas.edu/research/poltheory/james/ blaste/

    Enjoy! :)