Quote a comment

2 Antworten

Wenn Du "they" verwendest, mus es "scientists' "(mit Apostroph hinter dem s heißen. Dies ist offensichtlich ein Hausaufgabe oder Ähnliches, wohl im Zusammenhang mit "Brave New World"? Hast du das Zitat verstanden und willst nun Ideen haben? ---- Nur als Anmerkunng: Nicht nur Politiker sollten (mit) entscheiden darüber, was in der Wissenschaft erlaubt und was nicht erlaubt sein soll. Politiker sind nur in seltenen Fällen wirklich Experten, und ob alle Politiker MORALentscheidungen richtig treffen, ist sicher fraglich.

Hallo,

wie Bswss schon schreibt, muss es wg. they hier

scientists' heißen.

Ich bin der Meinung, im zweiten Satzteil sind auch Politiker (Mehrzahl) gemeint. Wenn das so ist, müsste es auch dort politicians' heißen.

Mein Kommentar: So ist das in der Realität wohl. Ob es aber sinnvoll ist, dass die Politik(er) entscheiden, welche wissenschaftliche Errungenschaften verwendet werden dürfen und welche nicht, steht auf einem anderen Blatt. Denn erstens sind Politiker in der Regel "nicht vom Fach" und zweitens besteht die Gefahr von "Machtmissbrauch und Korruption". Andererseits ist es sicherlich gut, dass es überhaupt eine "Kontrollinstanz" gibt, sozusagen "als Schutz vor Dr. Frankenstein". Vielleicht sollte diese "Kontrollinstanz" aber "breitgefächert" sein.

:-) AstridDerPu

Englisch! Muss hier ein Komma hin?

Hallo!

Ich bräuchte mal eure Hilfe bei folgendem Satz.

As I have keenly followed the fascinating developments of this field, I always returned to the intersection of media, communications and politics and made it subject to numerous papers in my Political Sciences courses as well as the topic of my upcoming bachelor thesis.

Brauche ich ein Komma vor as well as? Bitte nur mit Begründung antworten! Vielen Dank!

...zur Frage

It as preparatory object?

Im Internet steht diese Erklärung: It is used as a preparatory object when the object of a verb is an infinitive expression or a clause with an adjective or noun complement. --> das verstehe ich nicht!

Zum Beispiel: I find it difficult to talk to her. --> I find to talk to her difficult.

Wo ist hier überhaupt das object des verbes?

Kann jemand diese Thematik erklären?

...zur Frage

Bungeecord: f you wish to use ip forwarding please enable it in your bungeecord config as well! Was tun?

Immer wenn ich auf meinen Nitrado-Server will steht if you wish to use ip forwarding please enable it in your bungeecord config as well da! Was kann ich tun. Remove auch zur not Bungeecord! Hilfe bitte!

...zur Frage

Wie ist dieser englische Witz zu verstehen?

What did the duck say to the bartender?

put it on my bill

...zur Frage

Summary + Characterisation, korrektur, dringend?

Summery's: The shortstory ‚Patricia’ written by Fraser Sutherland deals with two friends, where the boy has a crush on the girl, but never told it, until a spring dance in their school comes. He forces himself to ask her, to go with her to the dance and does it, but she declines his question and at the end, both go not to the dance and go different ways too.

oder ..

The shortstory ‘Patricia’ written by Fraser Sutherland deals with two friends, where the boy has a crush on the girl, but never told it. In their school there goes a spring dance and the boy forces himself to ask her, to go with her to the dance, does it, but she just diclines his question and at the end, both of them, go not to the dance and go different ways too

was wirkt besser und richtiger, zumindest einigermaßen?

Characterisation The following text is a characterisation of the boy, one of the two main characters in the story ‘Patricia’.

The boy is a student around 16 or 17 years, how it could be assumed, because he is close to his final exams (l. 55) and his voice breaks and so ‘He [is] changing’(fg.l. 19). Furthermore the character seems to be very sporty and active, just look at the scene, where he stands in front of the mirror and ‘[looks] at himself’ and his muscles (fg.l.5) - what means, that he must be ambious too, because he worked hard, to get them. The boy could be characterized as really attentive, how the behavior shows it, related to Patricia (fg. l.7-19). ‘He [spend] an hour talking with her’ and ‘[think] a lot about asking her to go [with him]’, but he have not the guts to say directly, that he wants to go with her to the spring dance, what makes him not self-confident.

To sum it up, the boy is ambious as related to Particia, but calm, without selfconfidence, but (Mir fällt nicht ein, wie es genau zusammenfassen könnte :x)

...zur Frage

Hilfe bei Übersetzung/ Korrektur?

Hallo, danke das sie sich Zeit nehmen. Kann mir einer meinen Text in gutes Englisch verbessern ?

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

What is skynet? It's a new mass surveillance technology in China. It is a way for the government to monitor the population at any time on any day. But does total surveillance not affect the population negatively? The fact is that mass surveillance greatly influences and restricts people's privacy.

 Does surveillance have a positive impact on people's behavior? Does it make humans automatsch better? Total surveillance limits the lifestyle of the individual human. In public, man must behave as the state dictates. He has to cut back on his own needs in order to seize the same opportunities as other sections of the population. If he does not, he has to reckon with restrictions in social and professional life by the state. In Xingiung, who are pioneers of total mass surveillance, there is a social credit score that spikes people's behavior and places them in a ranking. If one does not behave according to the guidelines and rules, one falls down in the ranking. This inferior rank can cause disadvantages in job application, job, home and credit. In the long run, it does not make a person better, because as a person you need a break to have time for yourself.

Furthermore, mass surveillance affects the human psyche. Constant surveillance puts pressure on the people by the state, as it always has to behave according to the guidelines. This results in fear of failure. Other psychological consequences are behavioral disorders that build on the fear of failure. People become more unhappy and their potential for aggression increases. Man becomes a ticking time bomb to the state, because they can exercise their aggression in a dangerous way. Through constant monitoring, bad mental illnesses, such as paranoia, develop. Normally, people behave individually and do not have to pretend. Through constant surveillance, he is forced by the state to behave differently or against his will. Therefore, the individuality of individual citizens is limited. Man has a right to the free decision that is limited by it. As a result, the loyalty and acceptance of the state is called into question. So an oppositional opinion is formed against the state, which does not make the citizen a better person.

In conclusion we conclude that state mass surveillance only makes man as an individual better in a short time: In the long run, this system is in a dead end, because it has many physical and mental, as well as social negative consequences for humans in the long run.

...zur Frage

Was möchtest Du wissen?