I bet you didnt know that

lmimmfn

Candie wrote: »

Renowned physicist and indoor sportsman Albert Einstein, once suspected by his teachers of being slow and expelled from school for bad behaviour, may be the genius who gave us the theory of relativity and the father of modern physics, but it turns out he was a bit of a pervy sex pest too.

His many documented affairs (including one with his sister-in-law) aside, Al was also a flasher.

His personal letters kept at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reveal Al's "Oops, my robe fell open!" technique for assessing whether or not a woman was game. He'd wear his silk robe in the presence of his target, let it 'accidentally' fall open, and examine the reaction of the observer to the wonders revealed. If (as was usual) they were less than impressed, he'd apologise and sort himself out, but if he suspected any interest he'd see how far he could get. He had a robe he was particularly fond of that used for the exercise.

I wonder if Al was Hugh Hefners style crush.

i heard of his pervy nature before, but i wonder in the sense that he was one of the smartest people to have ever lived if that provided pulling power( i know he was married( more than once ) but that didnt seem to bother him ), im sure some women have found his intellect attractive.

On a more curious note, if he was alive today and in his mid 20's and just released his "Annus mirabilis papers", considering the absolute genius he was do you think women would be throwing themselves at him?

I still think humans just go for physique unfortunately.

FanadMan

lmimmfn wrote:

i heard of his pervy nature before, but i wonder in the sense that he was one of the smartest people to have ever lived if that provided pulling power( i know he was married( more than once ) but that didnt seem to bother him ), im sure some women have found his intellect attractive.

lmimmfn wrote:

On a more curious note, if he was alive today and in his mid 20's and just released his "Annus mirabilis papers", considering the absolute genius he was do you think women would be throwing themselves at him?

lmimmfn wrote:

I still think humans just go for physique unfortunately.

I'm thinking that if he was in his 20's today he'd be a Sheldon Cooper lol.....or in jail for sexual assault.

pickarooney

Digital Solitude wrote: »

Isn't the 20th April reserved for other celebrations?

Yes. Hitler's birthday.

AndyBoBandy

pickarooney wrote: »

Yes. Hitler's birthday.

Also my OH's birthday

Dtp1979

lmimmfn wrote: »

On a more curious note, if he was alive today and in his mid 20's and just released his "Annus mirabilis papers", considering the absolute genius he was do you think women would be throwing themselves at him?

I still think humans just go for physique unfortunately.

I dunno, Leonard pulled penny. I'm sure there's hope for us all

DEFTLEFTHAND

Lucifer and Satan are separate entities

Lucifer 'the morning star' rebelled against God and Jesus Christ, with his sidekick Satan.

Fallen Angels

Omackeral

Mi-wadi is made by Mineral Water Distributors.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Finland was the only country in Europe occupied by the Nazis that saved all its Jewish population from death. Indeed, their Jewish soldiers fought alongside the occupying forces against the Soviet Union which had annexed 10% of Finnish territory at the beginning of the war.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/unrecognized-courage_us_58efcfc8e4b048372700d695

IvyTheTerrible

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Lucifer and Satan are separate entities

Lucifer 'the morning star' rebelled against God and Jesus Christ, with his sidekick Satan.

Fallen Angels

There are seven "princes of Hell", Lucifer and Satan are two, but the seven also include Beelzebub - who is also known as Lord of the Flies!

Pharoah Ramses the second of Egypt is also known as Ramses the Great, with good reason. Regarded as the greatest and most powerful Pharoah of the Egyptian Empire, he was the author of the first peace treaty in history (with the Hittites), defeated the Sherden sea pirates, gained repossession over much previously held Egyptian territories and from his appointment as Prince Regent at age fourteen, presided over a vast program of building - including many temples, the most well known being the temple of Abu Simbel. He had a massive list of accomplishments to his name, and was respected as a warrior who fought alongside his men in many campaigns. His mummified remains now reside at the Egypt Museum in Cairo, having been found in 1881. He reigned for over 60 years, and lived to over 90.

In 1974, a routine appraisal of his mummy revealed problems with accelerated decay, and an infestation of insects that were threatening the integrity of the otherwise well preserved remains, and it was decided to send his mummy to Paris for treatment to prevent further damage.

The French authorities insisted that any person alive or dead entering France must have a valid passport, and so the Egyptians issues the mummy with a passport, giving his occupation as "King - Deceased".

French protocol led to the mummy having a Royal welcome at the airport, where it was greeted on a red carpet by the French president, Giscard D'Estaing as well as the Egyptian Ambassador to France, and heralded by a military band before being given a police escort to the French Archaeological centre.

So 3000-ish years after his death, Ramses The Great could add being the first mummy to hold a current passport to his list of achievements.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Brazil was one of the allies in World War I, declaring war on the Central Powers in 1917. They had plans to send a large army to fight, most likely against the Turks, but this plan was cut short by the end of the war in 1918. Had the First World War lasted longer, Brazil might have played a key part.

suicide_circus

Omackeral wrote: »

Mi-wadi is made by Mineral Water Distributors.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/7e/0e/c0/7e0ec0677df4ab503a02ea73bc192bcd.jpg

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

At the outbreak of the Korean War, the US approached Latin American countries asking for military assistance in the conflict. Most turned down the request (Even Brazil, which had sent a small army to the Italian Front in the Second World War) but the conservative Colombian president, despite being engaged in a civil war with liberals in his own country, agreed to help. So a small army of Colombians fought in Korea.

Other countries that sent troops include Turkey (Which sent more than anyone except for the US and Britain) and Ethiopia. To this day, South Koreans are very fond of Turkey, often saying it's a 'brother country'.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

At the outbreak of the Korean War, the US approached Latin American countries asking for military assistance in the conflict. Most turned down the request (Even Brazil, which had sent a small army to the Italian Front in the Second World War) but the conservative Colombian president, despite being engaged in a civil war with liberals in his own country, agreed to help. So a small army of Colombians fought in Korea.

Other countries that sent troops include Turkey (Which sent more than anyone except for the US and Britain) and Ethiopia. To this day, South Koreans are very fond of Turkey, often saying it's a 'brother country'.

The full list on the side of the south was
United Nations
Republic of Korea
United States
United Kingdom
Australia
Belgium
Canada
Colombia
Ethiopia
France
Greece
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Philippines
South Africa
Thailand
Turkey

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

The 1918 outbreak of 'Spanish Flu' killed more people than the First World War had. It wasn't called the 'Spanish Flu' because it began in Spain. It was because most European countries censored news of the epidemic to keep up war morale. Spain was neutral, so the media reported openly on it, including when the king almost died from the illness. So the name stuck, despite Spain suffering no more than any other country.

Cianmcliam

Yourself isit wrote: »

There's a tribe that can't see blue, but can tell different shades of green more readily than westerners.

Supposedly they were shown a colour wheel with green squares and one obvious (to us) blue squares and found it difficult to see the blue.

This article has the colour wheel.

http://www.sciencealert.com/humans-couldn-t-even-see-the-colour-blue-until-modern-times-research-suggests

There's also a colour wheel with all greens, one slightly different. I can't see that at all but they find it immediately

I think they are confusing attention and inferences with visual perception. A much more conclusive test would be an embedded figures test, like the ones we do for colour blindness. You put a pictogram or coloured number or letter in among the colour you want to compare. If they can identify the picture/letter/number then they can see the colour.

Whether they see the colour difference as significant or worthy of comment is a different question. Personally I think the people running these studies know the hypothesis isn't true but use tricks like the many optical illusions we know so well that confound how our brain pre-processes data and eliminates unimportant details so as not to lead to a glut of sensory information that ties up the brains executive functioning.

It's a quirky optical illusion all the same but I seriously doubt it stands up to any closer scrutiny. The children of people that migrate don't fail to see colours.

Wibbs

Cianmcliam wrote: »

It's a quirky optical illusion all the same but I seriously doubt it stands up to any closer scrutiny. The children of people that migrate don't fail to see colours.

Yes CC, but such children wouldn't be good controls for this sort of thing. Take language for example. Different languages have different unique sounds, or lack of them and if someone isn't absorbing these nuances from early on can struggle.

EG The sounds in English for I and E are more obvious compared to in Spanish. Native Spanish speakers can find difficulty in discerning the difference even after years in an English speaking country. To them "ship" and "Sheep", "Shít" and "Sheet", "Peas", "Peace" and "Píss" may be easily confused. This built in cultural "ear" seems to be set at quite the young age and has been shown to be a concrete, repeatable thing(the German/English V and W another example). Children of Spanish/English speaking parents will hear the differences, whereas native Spanish speaking kids wouldn't. This goes double for more tonally based languages such as many Asian languages.

Even within English we can see perception differences in spelling for example. Many people can mix up "then/than" in spelling, because in sound, at least for those folks, they sound identical, or identical enough to be confusing and leading to the spelling mistake. So there may be something similar going on with colour perception/naming along cultural lines. Equally there may well be something lost in translation, like the examples I referred to in Ancient Greek writings, when read by the modern eye.

Four Phucs Ache

Guide dogs for the blind are trained to only go toilet on command.

Cianmcliam

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes CC, but such children wouldn't be good controls for this sort of thing. Take language for example. Different languages have different unique sounds, or lack of them and if someone isn't absorbing these nuances from early on can struggle.

EG The sounds in English for I and E are more obvious compared to in Spanish. Native Spanish speakers can find difficulty in discerning the difference even after years in an English speaking country. To them "ship" and "Sheep", "Shít" and "Sheet", "Peas", "Peace" and "Píss" may be easily confused. This built in cultural "ear" seems to be set at quite the young age and has been shown to be a concrete, repeatable thing(the German/English V and W another example). Children of Spanish/English speaking parents will hear the differences, whereas native Spanish speaking kids wouldn't. This goes double for more tonally based languages such as many Asian languages.

Even within English we can see perception differences in spelling for example. Many people can mix up "then/than" in spelling, because in sound, at least for those folks, they sound identical, or identical enough to be confusing and leading to the spelling mistake. So there may be something similar going on with colour perception/naming along cultural lines. Equally there may well be something lost in translation, like the examples I referred to in Ancient Greek writings, when read by the modern eye.

Sure, hasn't it been shown that infants learn certain sounds in Chinese that adults find extremely difficult to pick up when they are exposed to them, and that infants only pick up the sound differences from an actual human, a recording won't do?

But then verbal communication is a very new adaptation we don't even share with other apes. It's a highly specific niche that depends on very automated and instant recognition of small differences in the human voice that has to filter out the inherent differences between human voices.

Visual perception on the other hand is of course extremely ancient, going back much further into our evolutionary past, hundreds of millions of years before humans or culture existed.

Speaking of apes, a good analogy is how most people see almost no difference in chimp faces. They are all pretty much interchangeable unless you are a zookeeper or researcher that has constant interaction with them. That doesn't mean we can't even see the actual differences that chimps obviously do, just that for most people the visible differences are filtered out as extraneous.The tests used to show people can't see blue are probably more similar to 'pick out the chimp' line ups.
We can tell a vast number of human faces apart because we have a specific brain region that rapidly processes faces when they are in the correct vertical orientation. It's not about what we can and can't see, it's about the pre-processing of the sensory data into significant/non-significant.

By using embedded figures instead of a colour line up you can actually test the processing of the raw sensory experience, not the hierarchy of significant details that are of practical use in a particular culture. If we couldn't actually see differences in ape faces we could never learn to tell them apart like zookeepers do.

Yourself isit

Cianmcliam wrote: »

I think they are confusing attention and inferences with visual perception. A much more conclusive test would be an embedded figures test, like the ones we do for colour blindness. You put a pictogram or coloured number or letter in among the colour you want to compare. If they can identify the picture/letter/number then they can see the colour.

Whether they see the colour difference as significant or worthy of comment is a different question. Personally I think the people running these studies know the hypothesis isn't true but use tricks like the many optical illusions we know so well that confound how our brain pre-processes data and eliminates unimportant details so as not to lead to a glut of sensory information that ties up the brains executive functioning.

It's a quirky optical illusion all the same but I seriously doubt it stands up to any closer scrutiny. The children of people that migrate don't fail to see colours.

The first test was a colour wheel with a very obvious, to us, blue. There's probably no need for more complex tests at that stage.

I would have been dubious about this theory before the empirical evidence.

Here's the wheel.

https://static.businessinsider.com/image/54f0d6daecad047826cb7819/image.jpg?_ga=1.204429399.637204088.1492471594

Cianmcliam

Yourself isit wrote: »

The first test was a colour wheel with a very obvious, to us, blue. There's probably no need for more complex tests at that stage.

There is, the embedded figures test would show if they actually perceive a difference in colour rather than whether they consider the differences significant enough to register and report.

Just say you had a photo of five people and asked a variety of subjects to point out the different one. Some people might say the child is different to the rest who are adults. Other people might say the Asian person is different to the others who are Africans. Yet other people might say the woman is different to all the rest who are men. You are not testing what they can actually see, only what they see as significant, which is a wholly different question.

Yourself isit

Cianmcliam wrote: »

There is, the embedded figures test would show if they actually perceive a difference in colour rather than whether they consider the differences significant enough to register and report.

Just say you had a photo of five people and asked a variety of subjects to point out the different one. Some people might say the child is different to the rest who are adults. Other people might say the Asian person is different to the others who are Africans. Yet other people might say the woman is different to all the rest who are men. You are not testing what they can actually see, only what they see as significant, which is a wholly different question.

You saw the wheel right? All the greens were the same. The only difference was the blue. I'm not sure how they couldn't process that blue as the significant difference.


Then there's this

https://static.businessinsider.com/image/54f0d74deab8ea2c35cb7819/image.jpg?_ga=1.205086679.637204088.1492471594

Westerners don't see the green square that's different but this tribe does.

Cianmcliam

Yourself isit wrote: »

You saw the wheel right? All the greens were the same. The only difference was the blue. I'm not sure how they couldn't process that blue as the significant difference.


Then there's this

https://static.businessinsider.com/image/54f0d74deab8ea2c35cb7819/image.jpg?_ga=1.205086679.637204088.1492471594

Westerners don't see the green square that's different but this tribe does.

All they need to do to remove doubt is an embedded figure test, can they see the outline of a tree or a schematic face or letter in their language in blue among green surroundings. That would exclude problems with the framing of the questions or priming the subjects. But they don't seem to have done that. I would bet the subjects would pass this test easily. But the results would not be publishable.

BTW I see the green box that is different!

Yourself isit

Cianmcliam wrote: »

All they need to do to remove doubt is an embedded figure test, can they see the outline of a tree or a schematic face or letter in their language in blue among green surroundings. That would exclude problems with the framing of the questions or priming the subjects. But they don't seem to have done that. I would bet the subjects would pass this test easily. But the results would not be publishable.

BTW I see the green box that is different!

Which one?

I don't see how your embedded test is any more convincing than this, and probably less so. The squares are the same sizes, the same shape (obviously), same exact shade except for the clearly different blue. Maybe they used the colour blind test too but I can't see how it would be more scientific.

That said I'm sure they got causality wrong. This tribe are a forest tribe, they don't grow up seeing blue so they don't name it. It's not that lack of naming causes them not to see blue but not experiencing it as they develop that causes them to not see it and not name it.

Duckworth_Luas

The first battle of the US Civil War, Bull Run, took place on a farm in Manassas, Virginia owned by wholesale grocer Wilmer McLean.

Having witnessed the conflict close up, McLean decided to sell his property and move his family to what he thought was a safe distance from the theater of war in northern Virginia.

Coincidentally, over three years later, in the living room of his new home in Appomattox, Virginia, General Robert E. Lee surrendered to General Ulysses S. Grant.

It is often said that the war began in his front yard and ended in his front parlor.

McLean, having had part of his previous residence destroyed be a Union artillery shell, now had to witness Union officers, such as Sheridan and Custer, strip the furnishings of his new house as souvenirs.

Glenster

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

The first battle of the US Civil War, Bull Run, took place on a farm in Manassas, Virginia owned by wholesale grocer Wilmer McLean.

Having witnessed the conflict close up, McLean decided to sell his property and move his family to what he thought was a safe distance from the theater of war in northern Virginia.

Coincidentally, over three years later, in the living room of his new home in Appomattox, Virginia, General Robert E. Lee surrendered to General Ulysses S. Grant.

It is often said that the war began in his front yard and ended in his front parlor.

McLean, having had part of his previous residence destroyed be a Union artillery shell, now had to witness Union officers, such as Sheridan and Custer, strip the furnishings of his new house as souvenirs.

I watched that netflix doc too! AAAAAAAAAAAAA samesies!

pickarooney

Yourself isit wrote: »

Which one?

I don't see how your embedded test is any more convincing than this, and probably less so. The squares are the same sizes, the same shape (obviously), same exact shade except for the clearly different blue. Maybe they used the colour blind test too but I can't see how it would be more scientific.

That said I'm sure they got causality wrong. This tribe are a forest tribe, they don't grow up seeing blue so they don't name it. It's not that lack of naming causes them not to see blue but not experiencing it as they develop that causes them to not see it and not name it.

None of them has ever looked up?

tomwaterford

Yourself isit wrote: »

Which one?
.

One at 2 o clock appears lighter to me on first viewing?*

Shenshen

Cianmcliam wrote: »

I think they are confusing attention and inferences with visual perception. A much more conclusive test would be an embedded figures test, like the ones we do for colour blindness. You put a pictogram or coloured number or letter in among the colour you want to compare. If they can identify the picture/letter/number then they can see the colour.

Whether they see the colour difference as significant or worthy of comment is a different question. Personally I think the people running these studies know the hypothesis isn't true but use tricks like the many optical illusions we know so well that confound how our brain pre-processes data and eliminates unimportant details so as not to lead to a glut of sensory information that ties up the brains executive functioning.

It's a quirky optical illusion all the same but I seriously doubt it stands up to any closer scrutiny. The children of people that migrate don't fail to see colours.

I think the key sentence in the article is "Or, more accurately, they probably saw it as we do now, but they never really noticed it."

Human thinking and perception seem to be very closely interlinked with language, and if there's no specific word for something, it doesn't get noticed as much. But there is a massive difference between seeing something and noticing something!

Mr.Plough

The world's largest French speaking urban area is Kinshasa (capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo), which recently surpassed Paris.