Naucni radovi zanimljivi za siru javnost

[Prospero]

izgleda da je vojničev rukopis bar delimično dešifrovan...

 

This article attempts to offer a partial solution to this enigma. Drawing on salient historical examples of cryptoanalysis and decipherment, including the decoding of Egyptian hieroglyphs and of the Cretan Linear B script, I adopt a hitherto untried approach to the decoding of the VM so as to identify a number of plants and matching plant names in the Voynich text, on the basis of comparison with early herbal manuscripts and medieval plant nomenclature. This results in the provisional decoding of 10 words, and the identification of the approximate sound values of a total of 14 of the Voynich symbols and clusters. These are arguably the first words and signs in the manuscript to be convincingly identified, with results which could potentially offer a springboard for the full decoding and eventual decipherment of the manuscript as a whole. The purpose in publishing these results is to elicit peer review of the analysis, and to stimulate further research, as a step towards an eventual full translation of this intriguing document.

[Lezilebovich]

nije ni čudo što se teško dešifruje, kada pisac verovatni nije bio skroz koncentrisan

[Prospero]

Prisoners 'could serve 1,000 year sentence in eight hours' Future biotechnology could be used to make prisoners feel as if they were serving a 1,000 year sentence, a team of scientists claim

 

 

Ms Roache said drugs could be developed to distort prisoners' minds into thinking time was passing more slowlyPhoto: ALAMY

 

 

By Rhiannon Williams

 

3:01PM GMT 14 Mar 2014

 

 

Future biotechnology could be used to trick a prisoner's mind into thinking they have served a 1,000 year sentence, a group of scientists have claimed.

 

Philosopher Rebecca Roache is in charge of a team of scholars focused upon the ways futuristic technologies might transform punishment. Dr Roache claims the prison sentence of serious criminals could be made worse by extending their lives.

 

Speaking to Aeon magazine, Dr Roache said drugs could be developed to distort prisoners' minds into thinking time was passing more slowly.

 

"There are a number of psychoactive drugs that distort people’s sense of time, so you could imagine developing a pill or a liquid that made someone feel like they were serving a 1,000-year sentence," she said.

 

A second scenario would be to upload human minds to computers to speed up the rate at which the mind works, she wrote on her blog.

 

"If the speed-up were a factor of a million, a millennium of thinking would be accomplished in eight and a half hours... Uploading the mind of a convicted criminal and running it a million times faster than normal would enable the uploaded criminal to serve a 1,000 year sentence in eight-and-a-half hours. This would, obviously, be much cheaper for the taxpayer than extending criminals’ lifespans to enable them to serve 1,000 years in real time."

 

Thirty years in prison is currently the most severe punishment available in the UK legal system.

"To me, these questions about technology are interesting because they force us to rethink the truisms we currently hold about punishment. When we ask ourselves whether it’s inhumane to inflict a certain technology on someone, we have to make sure it’s not just the unfamiliarity that spooks us," Dr Roache said.

 

"Is it really OK to lock someone up for the best part of the only life they will ever have, or might it be more humane to tinker with their brains and set them free? When we ask that question, the goal isn’t simply to imagine a bunch of futuristic punishments – the goal is to look at today’s punishments through the lens of the future."

[Shan Jan]

Ima jedna epizoda star treka kad ovako nesto urade majlsu. Lepo opisano koliko je sjeban bio posle toga. Jes, ustedeo si vreme ali trauma je tu. Mogli bi malo vise da gledaju kako da uklone uzorke kriminala umesto da smisljaju nove kreativne kazne. 

[Indy]

Philosopher Rebecca Roache is in charge of a team of scholars focused upon the ways futuristic technologies might transform punishment

 

 

Pitam se kako li su prošli ethics approval board, ako je u pitanju neki grant. Ipak, možda će mi prof Peter Singer to uskoro objasniti.   

[gospa buba]

nije ni čudo što se teško dešifruje, kada pisac verovatni nije bio skroz koncentrisan

 

bio je alternativno skroz koncentrisan ^_^

 

 

buffalo, ne radi drugi link, izlaze neke extenzije. sad da mrem od radoznalosti <_<

Edited March 15, 2014 by thermal bug

[Indy]

Comic Sans is Evil
 
Fonts are not just about aesthetics – they affect the way we digest information and can even sway our opinions

THIS year, experiments at the Large Hadron Collider unveiled a fundamental aspect of reality: Comic Sans is the most divisive font in the world.  When physicist Fabiola Gianotti announced the possible discovery of the Higgs boson in July, her presentation slides were dominated by the rounded typeface. Reactions ranged from outrage to calls for it to be renamed Comic Cerns.

The fuss illustrates a home truth: that there's a lot more to typography than meets the eye. In fact, certain fonts can elicit surprising effects on readers - they influence memory, attention and even political views. So how to spot these manipulative characters?

Typeface designers have always understood that fonts can subtly affect readers, and go to a lot of trouble to hone their creations. "I don't envy them," says Domenica Genovese, a graphic designer in Baltimore, Maryland. For one thing, they must ensure that every possible pairing of letters works aesthetically. "If just one pair doesn't work, they have to start from scratch."

Part of the rationale for such efforts is readability. Even subtle differences in a font's appearance can slow a reader down, as Cyril Burt at University College London and his team discovered in 1955. They asked children to read passages in various "workhorse" fonts that populate books, newspapers and magazines. Although some of these fonts look practically identical to the untrained eye, differences soon emerged. Bodoni, for instance, took longer to read than Times New Roman (try for yourself).

It would be easy to assume that legibility also makes it easier to remember what you read, but in 2010 we discovered otherwise. Danny Oppenheimer at Princeton University and colleagues asked people to memorise a printed list of 21 features that characterised three species of fictional alien. The team found that although groups presented with the list in an ornate font had a harder time reading it, they remembered far more details about the aliens than groups who read the same information in a plain typeface such as Times New Roman. Oppenheimer later found the same effect among school students - they retained course materials better when it came packaged in a brow-furrowing font.

A font that is more awkward to read might also subtly influence your perception of your own abilities. At least that is what was hinted at in a small study in 2008 by Hyunjin Song and Norbert Schwartz at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. They asked a group of people to review two descriptions of an exercise routine - one in the common and plain font Arial, the other in the more difficult-to-read Brush Script, which is meant to evoke painted letters. When questioned afterwards, the participants reported that the exercise would take longer and feel more of a chore when set out in Brush Script than in the easy Arial.

When Song and Schwartz asked other groups to read a recipe printed in Mistral, a font which apes cursive handwriting, the readers felt that preparing the dish would take longer and require a higher level of skill than when it was printed in Arial.

Hard-to-read fonts may affect our views in other ways, too. We are often prone to interpreting information based on our existing world view rather than by weighing up the evidence in front of us - an effect called confirmation bias. To explore whether fonts could influence this effect, psychologist Jesse Lee Preston of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign asked a group of self-identified liberals and conservatives to read an identical argument in favour of capital punishment. Those who digested it in an easy font were more likely to report a view that reflected their instinctive political leaning than the group given the text in a difficult typeface, who described the argument as complicated and subtle.

Font of all knowledge
In a second experiment, participants were asked to read fake court documents for a mock trial. When the documents were in more awkward fonts, they were more likely to disregard irrelevant information. Preston speculates that making the information harder to read forces people to give things more thought and attention.

That makes sense to Oppenheimer, and could also help to explain why a hard-to-read font can prime us to think an exercise routine or recipe is difficult. Stumbling over trickier type can alert you to the idea that you might not have mastery over the material you are reading, he argues.

The idea that switching from easy to difficult typefaces triggers different cognitive processes ties in with evidence from fMRI studies conducted by Stanislas Dehaene at the Collège de France in Paris and colleagues. His team watched people's brain activity as they read a series of words that became harder to decipher.

When reading is easy, we skip the individual letters and instead turn the task over to the section of the brain devoted to pattern recognition. But when we trip over a word, it forces the brain to engage a different processing area: the dorsal parietal cortex, where the letter-by-letter reading mechanism is based, says Dehaene. This area has also been linked with attention and memory.

 

So what does that tell us about Comic Sans? Oddly enough, it lends ammunition to those who might support its use in physics presentations. Despite the font's simplistic, hand-lettered appearance, the people in Oppenheimer's study reported finding Comic Sans trickier to read than Times New Roman or Arial. So a Comic Sans fan might argue that using it to announce the Higgs boson could have nudged people into paying more attention.

Still, choosing a font with less baggage might have been prudent. "Comic Sans, like any other font design, has a personality. This design is friendly and a bit childish-looking," says Mark Solsburg at FontHaus, an online font store based in Ann Arbor. "It's appropriate for children's books and fast-food menus."

Oppenheimer goes further. "This was a massive scientific discovery," he says. "Many people think it deserved gravitas. Using Comic Sans was like showing up to a funeral in a Hawaiian shirt."

Sally Adee is a feature editor at New Scientist

[Indy]

Using Comic Sans was like showing up to a funeral in a Hawaiian shirt."

 

Oni to kažu kao da je to nešto loše.

 

 

 

[расејан]

Using Čomić Sans was like showing up to a funeral in a Hawaiian shirt."

 

 

Како сам ја то данас прочитао.. и све нешто мислим да сам на некој политичкој теми :) и не капирам шта ја то у ствари читам.

 

Е, два дана на башти, вишак кисеоника...

[Budja]

Your Ancestors, Your Fate By GREGORY CLARK Inequality of income and wealth has risen in America since the 1970s, yet a large-scale research study recently found that social mobility hadn’t changed much during that time. How can that be?

The study, by researchers at Harvard and Berkeley, tells only part of the story. It may be true that mobility hasn’t slowed — but, more to the point, mobility has always been slow.

When you look across centuries, and at social status broadly measured — not just income and wealth, but also occupation, education and longevity — social mobility is much slower than many of us believe, or want to believe. This is true in Sweden, a social welfare state; England, where industrial capitalism was born; the United States, one of the most heterogeneous societies in history; and India, a fairly new democracy hobbled by the legacy of caste. Capitalism has not led to pervasive, rapid mobility. Nor have democratization, mass public education, the decline of nepotism, redistributive taxation, the emancipation of women, or even, as in China, socialist revolution.

 

To a striking extent, your overall life chances can be predicted not just from your parents’ status but also from your great-great-great-grandparents’. The recent study suggests that 10 percent of variation in income can be predicted based on your parents’ earnings. In contrast, my colleagues and I estimate that 50 to 60 percent of variation in overall status is determined by your lineage. The fortunes of high-status families inexorably fall, and those of low-status families rise, toward the average — what social scientists call “regression to the mean” — but the process can take 10 to 15 generations (300 to 450 years), much longer than most social scientists have estimated in the past.

We came to these conclusions after examining reams of data on surnames, a surprisingly strong indicator of social status, in eight countries — Chile, China, England, India, Japan, South Korea, Sweden and the United States — going back centuries. Across all of them, rare or distinctive surnames associated with elite families many generations ago are still disproportionately represented among today’s elites.

Does this imply that individuals have no control over their life outcomes? No. In modern meritocratic societies, success still depends on individual effort. Our findings suggest, however, that the compulsion to strive, the talent to prosper and the ability to overcome failure are strongly inherited. We can’t know for certain what the mechanism of that inheritance is, though we know that genetics plays a surprisingly strong role. Alternative explanations that are in vogue — cultural traits, family economic resources, social networks — don’t hold up to scrutiny.

Because our findings run against the intuition that modernity, and in particular capitalism, has eroded the impact of ancestry on a person’s life chances, I need to explain how we arrived at them.

Let’s start with Sweden, which — like Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway — is one of the world’s most equal societies in terms of income. To our surprise, we found that social mobility in Sweden today was no greater than in Britain or the United States today — or even Sweden in the 18th century.

Sweden still has a nobility. Those nobles no longer hold de facto political power, but their family records are stored by the Riddarhuset (House of Nobility), a society created in 1626. We estimate that about 56,000 Swedes hold rare surnames associated with the three historic tiers of nobles. (Variations on the names of the unfortunate Rosencrantz and Guildenstern of “Hamlet” are on the list.)

Another elite group are Swedes whose ancestors — a rising educated class of clerics, scholars, merchants — Latinized their surnames in the 17th and 18th centuries (like the father of the botanist Carolus Linnaeus). Adopting elite names was limited by law in Sweden in 1901, so a vast majority of people holding them are descended from prominent families.

Given the egalitarian nature of Swedish society, one would expect that people with these elite surnames should be no better off than other Swedes. That isn’t so. In a sample of six Stockholm-area municipalities in 2008, rich and poor, we found that the average taxable income of people with noble names was 44 percent higher than that of people with the common surname Andersson. Those with Latinized names had average taxable incomes 27 percent higher than those named Andersson.

Surnames of titled nobles (counts and barons) are represented in the register of the Swedish Bar Association at six times the rate they occur in the general population (three times the rate, for untitled-noble and Latinized surnames). The same goes for Swedish doctors. Among those who completed master’s theses at Uppsala University from 2000 to 2012, Swedes with elite surnames were overrepresented by 60 to 80 percent compared with those with the common surname prefixes Lund- and Berg-.

 

Over centuries, there is movement toward the mean, but it is slow. In three of the Royal Academies of Sweden, half of the members from 1740 to 1769 held one of the elite surnames in our sample; by 2010, only 4 percent did — but these surnames were held by just 0.7 percent of all Swedes, so they were still strongly overrepresented. In short, nearly 100 years of social democratic policies in Sweden, while creating a very egalitarian society, have failed to accelerate social mobility.

What if we go back even further in time — to medieval England?

We estimate that one-tenth of all surnames in contemporary England can be traced to the occupation of a medieval ancestor — names like Smith (the most common surname in the United States, England and Australia), Baker, Butler, Carter, Chamberlain, Cook, Shepherd, Stewart and Wright. Tax records suggest that most surnames became heritable by 1300.

We compared the frequency of these common surnames in the population as a whole against elite groups, as drawn from several sources, including membership rolls at Oxford and Cambridge, dating as far back as 1170, and probate records from 1384 onward.

We found that late medieval England was no less mobile than modern England — contrary to the common assumption of a static feudal order. It took just seven generations for the successful descendants of illiterate village artisans of 1300 to be incorporated fully into the educated elite of 1500 — that is, the frequency of their names in the Oxbridge rolls reached the level around where it is today. By 1620, according to probate records, people with names like Butcher and Baker had nearly as much wealth as people with high-status surnames like Rochester and Radcliffe.

Take Chaucer. A commoner by birth — his name probably comes from the French word for shoemaker — he became a courtier, a diplomat and a member of Parliament, and his great-great-grandson was even briefly considered heir to the throne during the reign of Richard III.

Of course, mobility, in medieval times as now, worked both ways. Just as Chaucer’s progeny prospered, other previously well-off families declined. The medieval noble surname Cholmondeley was, by the 19th century, held by a good number of farm laborers.

In any generation, happy accidents (including extraordinary talent) will produce new high-status families. It is impossible to predict which particular families are likely to experience such boosts. What is predictable is what the path to elite status will look like, and the path back to the mean. Both happen at a very slow pace.

For all the creative destruction unleashed by capitalism, the industrial revolution did not accelerate mobility. Looking at 181 rare surnames held by the wealthiest 15 percent of English and Welsh people in the mid-19th century — to be clear, these were not the same elite surnames as in the medieval era — we found that people with these surnames who died between 1999 and 2012 were more than three times as wealthy as the average person.

If your surname is rare, and someone with that surname attended Oxford or Cambridge around 1800, your odds of being enrolled at those universities are nearly four times greater than the average person. This slowness of mobility has persisted despite a vast expansion in public financing for secondary and university education, and the adoption of much more open and meritocratic admissions at both schools.

What about America, the self-proclaimed land of opportunity?

We selected a sampling of high- and low-status American surnames. The elite ones were held by descendants of Ivy League alumni who graduated by 1850, exceptionally wealthy people with rare surnames in 1923-24 (when public inspection of income-tax payments was legal) and Ashkenazi Jews. The low-status names were associated with black Americans whose ancestors most likely arrived as slaves, and the descendants of French colonists in North America before 1763.

We chose only surnames closely correlated with these subgroups — for example, Rabinowitz for American Jews, and Washington for black Americans.

We used two indicators of social status: the American Medical Association’s directory of physicians and registries of licensed attorneys, along with their dates of registration, in 25 states, covering 74 percent of the population.

In the early to mid-20th century we found the expected regression toward the mean for all of these groups, except for Jews and blacks — which reflects the reality of quotas that had barred Jews from many elite schools, and of racial segregation, which was not fully outlawed until the 1960s.

Starting in the 1970s, Jews began, over all, a decline in social status, while blacks began a corresponding rise, at least as measured by the doctors’ directory. But both trends are very slow. At the current rate, for example, it will be 300 years before Ashkenazi Jews cease to be overrepresented among American doctors, and even 200 years from now the descendants of enslaved African-Americans will still be underrepresented.

Family names tell you, for better or worse, a lot: The average life span of an American with the typically Jewish surname Katz is 80.2 years, compared with 64.6 years for those with the surname Begay (or Begaye), which is strongly associated with Native Americans. Heberts, whites of New France descent, live on average three years less than Dohertys, whites of Irish descent.

But to be clear, we found no evidence that certain racial groups innately did better than others. Very high-status groups in America include Ashkenazi Jews, Egyptian Copts, Iranian Muslims, Indian Hindus and Christians, and West Africans. The descendants of French Canadian settlers don’t suffer racial discrimination, but their upward mobility, like that of blacks, has been slow.

Chen (a common Chinese surname) is of higher status than Churchill. Appiah (a Ghanaian surname) is higher than Olson (or Olsen), a common white surname of average status. Very little information about status can be surmised by the most common American surnames — the top five are Smith, Johnson, Williams, Brown and Jones, which all originated in England — because they are held by a mix of whites and blacks.

Our findings were replicated in Chile, India, Japan, South Korea and, surprisingly, China, which stands out as a demonstration of the resilience of status — even after a Communist revolution nearly unparalleled in its ferocity, class hatred and mass displacement.

Hundreds of thousands of relatively prosperous mainland Chinese fled to Taiwan with the Nationalists in the late 1940s. Under Communist agrarian reform, as much as 43 percent of all land was seized and redistributed. The Cultural Revolution of 1966-76 saw purges of scholars and other former elites and “class enemies.”

In China, there are only about 4,000 surnames; the 100 most common are held by nearly 85 percent of the population. Yet we were able to identify 13 rare surnames that were exceptionally overrepresented among successful candidates in imperial examinations in the 19th century. Remarkably, holders of these 13 surnames are disproportionately found now among professors and students at elite universities, government officials, and heads of corporate boards. Social mobility in the Communist era has accelerated, but by very little. Mao failed.

These findings may surprise two groups that are often politically opposed: those who believe that certain “cultures” are higher-achieving than others and those who attribute success to family resources and social networks.

Culture is a nebulous category and it can’t explain the constant regression of family status — from the top and the bottom. High-status social groups in America are astonishingly diverse. There are representatives from nearly every major religious and ethnic group in the world — except for the group that led to the argument for culture as the foundation of social success: white European Protestants. Muslims are low-status in much of India and Europe, but Iranian Muslims are among the most elite of all groups in America.

Family resources and social networks are not irrelevant. Evidence has been found that programs from early childhood education to socioeconomic and racial classroom integration can yield lasting benefits for poor children. But the potential of such programs to alter the overall rate of social mobility in any major way is low. The societies that invest the most in helping disadvantaged children, like the Nordic countries, have produced absolute, commendable benefits for these children, but they have not changed their relative social position.

The notion of genetic transmission of “social competence” — some mysterious mix of drive and ability — may unsettle us. But studies of adoption, in some ways the most dramatic of social interventions, support this view. A number of studies of adopted children in the United States and Nordic countries show convincingly that their life chances are more strongly predicted from their biological parents than their adoptive families. In America, for example, the I.Q. of adopted children correlates with their adoptive parents’ when they are young, but the correlation is close to zero by adulthood. There is a low correlation between the incomes and educational attainment of adopted children and those of their adoptive parents.

These studies, along with studies of correlations across various types of siblings (identical twins, fraternal twins, half siblings) suggest that genetics is the main carrier of social status.

If we are right that nature predominates over nurture, and explains the low rate of social mobility, is that inherently a tragedy? It depends on your point of view.

The idea that low-status ancestors might keep someone down many generations later runs against most people’s notions of fairness. But at the same time, the large investments made by the super-elite in their kids — like those of the Manhattan hedge-funders who spend a fortune on preschool — are of no avail in preventing long-run downward mobility.

Our findings do suggest that intermarriage among people of different strata will raise mobility over time. India, we found, has exceptionally low mobility in part because religion and caste have barred intermarriage. As long as mating is assortative — partners are of similar social status, regardless of ethnic, national or religious background — social mobility will remain low.

As the political theorist John Rawls suggested in his landmark work “A Theory of Justice” (1971), innate differences in talent and drive mean that, to create a fair society, the disadvantages of low social status should be limited. We are not suggesting that the fact of slow mobility means that policies to lift up the lives of the disadvantaged are for naught — quite the opposite. Sweden is, for the less well off, a better place to live than the United States, and that is a good thing. And opportunities for people to flourish to the best of their abilities are essential.

Large-scale, rapid social mobility is impossible to legislate. What governments can do is ameliorate the effects of life’s inherent unfairness. Where we will fall within the social spectrum is largely fated at birth. Given that fact, we have to decide how much reward, or punishment, should be attached to what is ultimately fickle and arbitrary, the lottery of your lineage.

Gregory Clark is a professor of economics at the University of California, Davis, and the author of “The Son Also Rises: Surnames and the History of Social Mobility.”

Blog:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/your-fate-thank-your-ancestors/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

I papir:

http://economics.uchicago.edu/workshops/Clark%20Gregory%20Surnames%20and%20a%20Theory%20of%20Social%20Mobility-Chicago.pdf

 

 

 

Bilo bi zanimljivo da se PPP prikljuci projekti jer je prilicno multidiscplinaran.

Istorija i politikologija (MM, Arbetimann, Historian, Buffalo), sociologija (Kampokei), ekonomija (MayDay, moja malenkost).

 

Da vidimo da li je Srbija egalitarna, da li su nas Turci, I svetski rat i komunisti ucinili jednakima, ili su preci svinjarskih trgovaca jos uvek u prednosti.

 

Ko je jaci?

Jovanovici, Petrovici ili Nikolici?

[MancMellow]

Blog:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/your-fate-thank-your-ancestors/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

I papir:

http://economics.uchicago.edu/workshops/Clark%20Gregory%20Surnames%20and%20a%20Theory%20of%20Social%20Mobility-Chicago.pdf

 

 

 

Bilo bi zanimljivo da se PPP prikljuci projekti jer je prilicno multidiscplinaran.

Istorija i politikologija (MM, Arbetimann, Historian, Buffalo), sociologija (Kampokei), ekonomija (MayDay, moja malenkost).

 

Da vidimo da li je Srbija egalitarna, da li su nas Turci, I svetski rat i komunisti ucinili jednakima, ili su preci svinjarskih trgovaca jos uvek u prednosti.

 

Ko je jaci?

Jovanovici, Petrovici ili Nikolici?

 

Teško je to u Srbiji odrediti, a, to mogu odmah da ti kažem, na forumu bi to izazvalo ogromnu frku, a čak i kad bih rekao zašto i to bi izazvalo lavinu (u negativnom smislu). Nemamo nobility, nemamo čak ni nekakav surogat nobility kao u US. Dalje, prezimena su se menjala, a i u mnogo manjem stepenu nego negde drugde su vezana za zanimanja. Nekakve elite su doživljavale totalna rasula (ona priča o diskontinuitetima). Ali, jedna od poenti članka koliko mi se čini je da postoji prednost nature u odnosu na nurture, a s tim tek ne znam šta bi. Mislim, jasno mi je na mikroprimerima šta to znači, ali na nivou nacije/društva ne znam odakle bi se počelo. 

 

Dalje, ako zanemarimo švedski primer, ovi u US i UK koje pominje se dobrim delom odnose i na etnicitet u nekom pogledu. Procesi koji se tiču tog aspekta (čak bih rekao u celoj ex-YU) su mnoooogo različiti u odnosu na bilo šta u UK, US ili Švedskoj (pa i Kini dobrim delom)

[djili]

Nature vs. nurture meni se iz ovoga cini da bas nurture pobjedjuje. Tacnije pare i networking. Oni sa vise love salju djecu u bolje skole, udaju se i zene medjusobno, ukljucuju se u odgovarajuce krugove... Od dvoje ljudi slicne pameti onaj sa boljom skolom i boljim vezama ide dalje.

 

Plus, novi bogatuni vole da se orode sa tradicionalnom visom klasom, i sve ostaje isto.

Edited March 24, 2014 by djili

[Budja]

Teško je to u Srbiji odrediti, a, to mogu odmah da ti kažem, na forumu bi to izazvalo ogromnu frku, a čak i kad bih rekao zašto i to bi izazvalo lavinu (u negativnom smislu). Nemamo nobility, nemamo čak ni nekakav surogat nobility kao u US. Dalje, prezimena su se menjala, a i u mnogo manjem stepenu nego negde drugde su vezana za zanimanja. Nekakve elite su doživljavale totalna rasula (ona priča o diskontinuitetima). Ali, jedna od poenti članka koliko mi se čini je da postoji prednost nature u odnosu na nurture, a s tim tek ne znam šta bi. Mislim, jasno mi je na mikroprimerima šta to znači, ali na nivou nacije/društva ne znam odakle bi se počelo. 

 

Dalje, ako zanemarimo švedski primer, ovi u US i UK koje pominje se dobrim delom odnose i na etnicitet u nekom pogledu. Procesi koji se tiču tog aspekta (čak bih rekao u celoj ex-YU) su mnoooogo različiti u odnosu na bilo šta u UK, US ili Švedskoj (pa i Kini dobrim delom)

 

1. Nemanje nobilitija i razlicitost procesa u ex-YU - odlicno za motivaciju! Drugaciji kontekst, nije samo puka replikacija. Diskontinuitet - odlicno. Poenta je tu za Kinu, i pored diskontinuiteta prezime, tj. poreklo, je vazno.

2. Menjanje prezimena jeste metodoloski problem.

 

Sto se frke tice, tu ne vidim problem, istrazivanje je sasvim legitimno i zanimljivo a interpretacija (s obzirom da je u pitanju ipak korelacija, a ne fokusiranje na mehanizme) moze da saceka drugu priliku.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Budja

[MancMellow]

1. Nemanje nobilitija i razlicitost procesa u ex-YU - odlicno za motivaciju! Drugaciji kontekst, nije samo puka replikacija. Diskontinuitet - odlicno. Poenta je tu za Kinu, i pored diskontinuiteta prezime, tj. poreklo, je vazno.

2. Menjanje prezimena jeste metodoloski problem.

 

Sto se frke tice, tu ne vidim problem, istrazivanje je sasvim legitimno i zanimljivo a interpretacija (s obzirom da je u pitanju ipak korelacija, a ne fokusiranje na mehanizme) moze da saceka drugu priliku.

 

1. ok, priznajem, varijetet, može da bude i korisno

2. Ima još metodoloških pitanja. Da li se radi za etnicitet ili za prostor tj neku državu? Ja sam radio jedno mikroistraživanje za jedan moj paper sad u oktobru za vodeće srpske državnike posle WW1.Za većinu se ne može naći ništa za više od 4 generacije unazad. Dobro, kapiram prezimena su bitna statistički, ali to nam govori koliko su izvori za ovo nepouzdani da bismo izvodili statističke zaključke na nivou šire zajednice. Ali ok, slažem se da bi vredelo pokušati makar kao izazov ili potvrda jedne od vladajućih teza moderne sroske istoriografije o tektonskim poremećajima u srpskom društvu i posledicama po isto u proteklih 100-tinjak godina. 

Edited March 24, 2014 by MancMellow

[betty]

Comic Sans is Evil

 

 

cern to switch to comic sans

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(aprililili!)