There are a large number of hatch-back tents. My grandparents used to travel with one which was bigger than this, though also more complex. It added a small vestibule where one could stand up and change clothes while still being 'inside'.
Does the paper go into the corresponding trends in other industrialized countries? If automation were the key to union membership decline then surely it would be seen elsewhere. A quick search found http://www.samf.aau.dk/~jlind/tekster/IJES%20article%20on%20Ghent%20system.htm which says that union membership in Denmark, Sweden, and Finland peaked in the 1980s and 1990s at 80% of the labor force.
That link points out that in those countries unemployment insurance was done voluntarily, through the unions. This of course makes union membership more attractive. The paper goes on to say "This seems to indicate that unions in the three countries may be facing this additional threat on membership losses in addition to the tendencies known from other countries, such as industrial restructuring, welfare state interventions, individualisation and globalization."
Many old typewriters didn't have a 0 or 1 key; people used 'o' or 'l' instead. If your teacher is old enough, then she probably had a few decades of typewriter use. Almost certainly doesn't explain why Jill Harness used it here.
From Earnshaw's Theorem, there's no way to use static magnets to cause levitation on their own. You either need active controls or you need some sort of physical support. Otherwise it will slide to the side (or perhaps top/bottom). You can use wires if they are nearly horizontal to prevent that action, or use posts under the bed. It's cooler to point under the bed and point out the lack of support.
You can get around Earnshaw's Theorem with superconductors, if you want to sleep over a large pool of liquid nitrogen. Perhaps someday, with room-temperature superconductors, we'll all be able to sleep on floating beds.
It's even more worse than I thought. Here's a picture of a camel pulling a carriage: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/wtc.4a02882/ and another at http://luirig.altervista.org/flora/maps/jpgt.php?pid=177458 . Notice how the load is placed on a back of the camel? This ambulance picture assumes that a camel is like a horse, where the collar is put forward, on the shoulders, to pull a load. Also, see how low the carriages are relative to the camel? This ambulance mockup picture has a horrible sense of perspective. Or it would put the patient at 5 feet above the ground. How is a patient supposed to climb into it, and if the patient is invalid, how many people does it take to life the person there?
That's cute, but given the person in Arabic attire and the high likelihood that it's mean for a Muslim country, there should be Red Crescent either in place of or in addition to the Red Cross.
"shot in neighboring Romania..." There are two other countries and 1,000 miles between Kazahkstan and Romania. That's about the distance between New York and Florida.
dancinbojangles: It's probably that your eye expects a blur but the camera is fast enough that there isn't one. In the US a TV shows about one new image every 1/30th of a second (1/29.97 to be precise). If you take an image which is 1/30th of a second long then there will be some blurring. A camera can take an image in less time; say, 1/1000ths of a second if the light is good enough.
In that case you're seeing very crisp images, but your eye doesn't expect that. Since the framerate is just at the threshold of perception, you end up interpreting it as "a paper doll or claymation figure." If the TV had a higher frame rate, then it would be less of a problem since your eye would end up processing several projected images, which ends up giving a blur effect.
@Jolly. A reason for 48 frames per second is because its twice the current 24 frames per second. Note though that most projectors show the same image twice or three times because, as you say, 24fps is less than 30fps so would be noticeable. While upping the frame rate to 30fps might be a technical solution, it's easier to double the frame rate. This makes it easy to still play films made for 24fps, and hand-drawn cartoons which have only 12 or 6 unique frames per second.
@Gustav V: Thanks for the elaboration! In my English dialect I still say 'sir' and 'ma'am', even to teenagers. The last has gotten me into trouble in California when a woman didn't think she was old enough to be called 'ma'am.' I don't think the association with the English word 'hen' is all that big given the Swedish words 'slut' and 'fart'. ;)
Personally I love that Swedish, like English, does not have feminine and masculine forms, other than archaic remnants like "den gode mannen." Research like that at http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~lera/papers/gender.pdf has convinced me that there are "effects of grammatical gender on people's descriptions of objects, their assessments of similarity between pictures of objects, and their ability to remember proper names for objects." "The arbitrary designation of a noun as masculine or feminine ... can have an effect on how people think about things in the world."
Or http://www.frontiersin.org/cultural_psychology/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00244/abstract : Jakobson (1959) reports: “The Russian painter Repin was baffled as to why Sin had been depicted as a woman by German artists: he did not realize that ‘sin’ is feminine in German (die Sünde), but masculine in Russian (rpex).” Does the grammatical gender of nouns in an artist’s native language indeed predict the gender of personifications in art? In this paper we analyzed works in the ARTstor database (a digital art library containing over a million images) to measure this correspondence. This analysis provides a measure of artists’ real-world behavior. Our results show a clear correspondence between grammatical gender in language and personified gender in art. Grammatical gender predicted personified gender in 78% of the cases, significantly more often than if the two factors were independent.
That's why I don't like that Swedish words like "vetenskapsman" ('knowledge-man' = 'scientist') or "ombudsman" have "man" so tied to the name. Interestingly, some people in English will write 'ombudsman' as 'ombud.'
Ummm, inflation? Looking around now I came across 'In the late 1970s, I went to one prom. I bought an "expensive" dress for the time, $125. (my girlfriends spent under $100);'
According to one inflation calculator, "What cost $250 in 1978 would cost $826.10 in 2010." $100 then is $330 now.
This 'unimaginable' $500 prom dress is well within that range.
Assuming the mother got married 20 years ago, that $800 wedding dress would now cost $1230. I found "In 2012, the average cost of a wedding dress is between $900-$1,280."
The relative costs of prom dresses and wedding dresses hasn't appreciably change over the last few decades, only the price tag.
Abdul: this is proposed change to general use, not a legal change. There is no talk of fines for not using the proposed alternatives.
The best context to see this is to compare it to Sweden's "You reform" in the 1960s. Sweden has singular 'you' ("du") and a plural 'you' ("Ni"), rather like 'you' vs. 'you all' in the US South dialect. (Yes, "Ni" was capitalized.)
However, unlike in Southern English, "Ni" was often used to refer to a single person, and "du" was reserved for close family and for children. This somewhat like in Spanish, where "usted" is the plural form of 'you' but it's also used in singular form for formal cases.
Sweden before the 1960s was more formal. People would be referred to by their job title, like "Engineer Svensson" or "Bus Driver Hurtig" and even listed in the phone book by job title, not name. "Ni" was part of that formality, but it also had a tinge of classism. In one story around the time, a woman dropped her scarf. A man picked it up and said "'Ni' have dropped this." The woman replied coldly "I am not 'Ni' to you", meaning I think that "I am not your servant so don't use 'Ni' to refer to me."
In the 1960s, the newspaper Dagens Nyheter, the head of the National Board of Health and Welfare, and others started pushing for a language reform. They decided unilaterally to use 'du' instead of 'ni', in the interests of increased social democracy and equality. This reform was successful, and now 'Ni' is only rarely used for the singular second person.
You could still use it if you wanted to, but people would look at you funny, like if you wore a Norfolk suit around town now.
This proposal for the gender neutral 'hen' is in the same vein. It's a push for more equality in the language by removing cases where you must otherwise artificially insert gender into the conversation.
Personally, I want a gender-neutral term. At the very least I wouldn't have to say "What a beautiful baby! How old is .. he? she?" The many proposed terms in English don't feel like a good fit to the language, but the proposed one for Swedish sounds reasonable to my foreign ears.
There are a large number of hatch-back tents. My grandparents used to travel with one which was bigger than this, though also more complex. It added a small vestibule where one could stand up and change clothes while still being 'inside'.
That link points out that in those countries unemployment insurance was done voluntarily, through the unions. This of course makes union membership more attractive. The paper goes on to say "This seems to indicate that unions in the three countries may be facing this additional threat on membership losses in addition to the tendencies known from other countries, such as industrial restructuring, welfare state interventions, individualisation and globalization."
You can get around Earnshaw's Theorem with superconductors, if you want to sleep over a large pool of liquid nitrogen. Perhaps someday, with room-temperature superconductors, we'll all be able to sleep on floating beds.
Geoduck: Agreed!
In that case you're seeing very crisp images, but your eye doesn't expect that. Since the framerate is just at the threshold of perception, you end up interpreting it as "a paper doll or claymation figure." If the TV had a higher frame rate, then it would be less of a problem since your eye would end up processing several projected images, which ends up giving a blur effect.
Personally I love that Swedish, like English, does not have feminine and masculine forms, other than archaic remnants like "den gode mannen." Research like that at http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~lera/papers/gender.pdf has convinced me that there are "effects of grammatical gender on people's descriptions of objects, their assessments of similarity between pictures of objects, and their ability to remember proper names for objects." "The arbitrary designation of a noun as masculine or feminine ... can have an effect on how people think about things in the world."
Or http://www.frontiersin.org/cultural_psychology/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00244/abstract : Jakobson (1959) reports: “The Russian painter Repin was baffled as to why Sin had been depicted as a woman by German artists: he did not realize that ‘sin’ is feminine in German (die Sünde), but masculine in Russian (rpex).” Does the grammatical gender of nouns in an artist’s native language indeed predict the gender of personifications in art? In this paper we analyzed works in the ARTstor database (a digital art library containing over a million images) to measure this correspondence. This analysis provides a measure of artists’ real-world behavior. Our results show a clear correspondence between grammatical gender in language and personified gender in art. Grammatical gender predicted personified gender in 78% of the cases, significantly more often than if the two factors were independent.
That's why I don't like that Swedish words like "vetenskapsman" ('knowledge-man' = 'scientist') or "ombudsman" have "man" so tied to the name. Interestingly, some people in English will write 'ombudsman' as 'ombud.'
Anyway, there's a more complete discussion of the 'hen' topic at Language Log at http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3898 .
According to one inflation calculator, "What cost $250 in 1978 would cost $826.10 in 2010." $100 then is $330 now.
This 'unimaginable' $500 prom dress is well within that range.
Assuming the mother got married 20 years ago, that $800 wedding dress would now cost $1230. I found "In 2012, the average cost of a wedding dress is between $900-$1,280."
The relative costs of prom dresses and wedding dresses hasn't appreciably change over the last few decades, only the price tag.
The best context to see this is to compare it to Sweden's "You reform" in the 1960s. Sweden has singular 'you' ("du") and a plural 'you' ("Ni"), rather like 'you' vs. 'you all' in the US South dialect. (Yes, "Ni" was capitalized.)
However, unlike in Southern English, "Ni" was often used to refer to a single person, and "du" was reserved for close family and for children. This somewhat like in Spanish, where "usted" is the plural form of 'you' but it's also used in singular form for formal cases.
Sweden before the 1960s was more formal. People would be referred to by their job title, like "Engineer Svensson" or "Bus Driver Hurtig" and even listed in the phone book by job title, not name. "Ni" was part of that formality, but it also had a tinge of classism. In one story around the time, a woman dropped her scarf. A man picked it up and said "'Ni' have dropped this." The woman replied coldly "I am not 'Ni' to you", meaning I think that "I am not your servant so don't use 'Ni' to refer to me."
In the 1960s, the newspaper Dagens Nyheter, the head of the National Board of Health and Welfare, and others started pushing for a language reform. They decided unilaterally to use 'du' instead of 'ni', in the interests of increased social democracy and equality. This reform was successful, and now 'Ni' is only rarely used for the singular second person.
You could still use it if you wanted to, but people would look at you funny, like if you wore a Norfolk suit around town now.
This proposal for the gender neutral 'hen' is in the same vein. It's a push for more equality in the language by removing cases where you must otherwise artificially insert gender into the conversation.
Personally, I want a gender-neutral term. At the very least I wouldn't have to say "What a beautiful baby! How old is .. he? she?" The many proposed terms in English don't feel like a good fit to the language, but the proposed one for Swedish sounds reasonable to my foreign ears.