Anonymous asked: I have a German one: Milchbart, which translates to "milk moustache" and refers to the moustache kids often get when drinking milk. It can also be used to refer to a young, inexperienced person (the person sporting the Milchbart himself)
That’s adorable and I love it!
Although, my German is rusty. Is ‘bart’ beard? Or has it expanded to cover all facial hair? Not that I don’t LOVE the idea of a milk beard…
'Bart' is all facial hair, 'Schnurrbart' means mustache.
In Dutch it is actually “melksnor”, which does literally mean milk moustache.
Anonymous asked: Is racism severe in your country/neighbourhood/work environment?
Racism here is sneaky. It hides behind “tolerance”. We’re such a “tolerant” country and because it’s been said often enough for people to believe it they also believe there is no way they could possibly be racist. Racism hides behind micro aggressions here. Lots and lots of Us vs. Them and “if you don’t like it here, go back to where you came from”. It makes it nearly impossible to talk about racism because people here refuse to believe that they could be racist because we are good people and we are so good at “tolerating” people who are different.
Please reblog this if its alright to come to you for advice or to just rant. Thank you.
oh my. I remember that gross gross rum. Then again it was the first time I had rum. Maybe I’d like it more now that I am ~experienced~
I actually like it a lot more than other Rums I’ve had. But maybe that is just my inexperience with rum.
Humans Without Work
Here’s a cartoon sketch of a reblog/exchange from a couple days ago:
- Article: Burger making robot will make human employees unnecessary.
- Me: But the jobs are more important than burger-making efficiency.
- placeofpluto : Only if you assume jobs are attached forever to quality of life.
(you can see the actual exchange here.)
It’s a good point. One can envision possible futures in which humans do little or none of the work required for food, shelter, and all the necessities, and yet they are all fairly provided those necessities. If one views job-displacing robots as a step in this direction, then they’re really not a bad thing, right?
As always, my current reading affects my thoughts on this…
I’m not very far into a little primer on the philosophy of Karl Marx. I may be missing some subtlety here, but it seems to me that Marx has a pretty unique view of work, often referred to as “Creative Work”. Where he sees animals laboring for the necessities they need, he sees humans transferring the goal/value from the necessities to the work itself (maybe including artifacts produced by the work).
Even further, it’s something about this process of going from valuing survival to valuing “work for survival” that makes us human! Without this, says Marx, we’d simply be a clever animal with no more consciousness than they have.
My other book is semi-singularitarian sci-fi: "Glasshouse" by Charles Stross. He’s writing about just such a future as that explained above. Material necessities are easily met. The humans in this book (and other, similar books by Stross) are primarily engaged in having relationships, and doing bits of creative, but non-necessary work (designing new cocktails, genetically engineering spiders to weave complicated garments…)
I don’t know if it’s intentional, but I have trouble relating to the characters in Stross’ stories (though, I continue to read them for the rich ideas). They just seem so free of danger, and free of purpose. I feel distaste the same as the distaste I feel when someone claims the existence of calculators means they don’t need to learn math. It just feels lazy, and somehow detached in an unfair way from its roots. (To be fair, what I want in my fiction may not be what I want in my life…)
Does this mean I agree with Marx? Is humanity with no work a sort of non-humanity? It’s too early to tell. I know some things about myself that lean the other way too:
- Offer me a burger that’s faster at the same price and I will buy it.
- Offer me a one-hour shorter workday for the same pay and I will take it.
I can’t help but try to do things the easiest way… just like everyone else I guess. But if I were given the opportunity to take this to its limit, and have all my necessities provided for free… well, I would do it, but would it really by good for me? I have doubts.
MY reaction was mostly concerned with work that one needs to do in order to sustain their own lives. However, work can have many other definitions, in its most basic form it is performing actions towards a goal. When talking about employment the goal is often to sustain oneself in life, with disregard of any other goals the job fulfills.
However, doing things for a goal can take many shapes. In your example of the glass house above you see that work is performed to please the senses. In life you will encounter numerous volunteers who work in the community, clubs or with charity organizations. That these volunteers don’t make a living doing these things, does not mean that they don’t work; they still fulfill actions with a goal in mind.
While our primary needs in live need to be fulfilled, people won’t stop ‘working’ when they are. When people have time on their hands, they start to pick up wonderful projects, and do not, as some people tend to argue, stay in front of the TV all day.
With time and no worries, people will start to work to achieve other goals than just living. And is this not what makes us human? A constant drive to make live better through our own actions.
Tagged by the wonderful naturallogofx
Rules: Just insert your answers to the questions below. Tag at least 10 followers
Birthday: Nov. 24
Height: ~185 cm
Time Zone: CEST
What time and date is it there: August 30, 2014 at 11:09
Average hours of sleep I get each night: 8 hours
The last thing I Googled was: Can’t remember, I don’t really use google that much.
My most used phrase(s): I don’t know
First word that comes to mind: tea
What I last said to a family member: dagdag
One place that makes me happy & why: On the top of a mountain, because that is just an awesome place to be.
How many blankets I sleep under: One or two, in cold winter maybe three.
Favourite beverage(s): beer, lemon-drink, wodka-ginger ale
The last movie I watched in the cinema: Boyhood
Three things I can’t live without: (excluding the obvious) Some nice food, a bike and my phone.
Something I plan on learning: SysML (I am learning it actually)
A piece of advice for all my followers: Don’t only ask yourself what can happen if you do, also ask yourself what won’t happen if you do, what can happen if you don’t and what won’t happen if you don’t.
You all have to listen to this song: Somewhere in the between - Streetlight manifesto
My blog(s): womeninspace
A Drop Of Power Makes Hydrogen Fuel From Water
Scientists have made a breakthrough in generating hydrogen gas fuel by splitting water with small amounts of electricity.
Stanford University researchers report that they have disassembled water molecules into gaseous hydrogen and oxygen with the electromotive force of a single AAA battery. Both gaseous products are flammable and hydrogen is considered a viable power source for electricity production and vehicles. In fact, the first hydrogen fuel cell cars will be available for purchase in the US beginning in 2015.
The Stanford group also accomplished the low-power water splitting, a process called water electrolysis, without the expensive precious metals typically used. They put two electrodes in a beaker of water and sent current through them, which broke the liquid into the two gases.
Yeah.. as others have commented as well, not so much a breakthrough. Also I find it almost a feat that the article doesn’t mention the carbon nanotubes sidewalls which form the principle structure for these electrodes. I’m not sure how expensive it is to produce carbon nanotubes these days, but my guess is that it will make these electrodes a bit less cheap.