Slashdot Mirror
The Riddle of Baghdad's Battery
Jodrell writes "The BBC has an interesting article about a 2,200 year old battery discovered in Iraq in 1938. It is basically a clay pot containing a copper/iron core immersed in an electrolye solution (probably acidic vinegar). The article talks about how this priceless artifact as well as many others, from the same civilisation that invented writing and the wheel, could be threatened by the impending war."
The same is true, of course, of England, and Spain, and Germany, and America (North and South). The Christian faith and the migrations of Roman, Germanic, and British people erased the cultural legacies of the peoples there.
They didn't say they were.
The article talks about how this priceless artifact as well as many others, from the same civilisation that invented writing and the wheel, could be threatened by the impending war.
They say specifically that the artifacts are in danger from the war, not the civilization. Nowhere do they imply that the civilization that created them is the same culture that inhabits Iraq now.
Did it confict with the European idea that they were the center of science and religion?
Actually, in a roundabout way, you are on the right track. One of the tenets of Orientalism is that Oriental cultures by definition are degenerate and in decline. Occidental cultures are, in contrast, always progressive, especially after the 14th Century CE. Occidental cultures are all European countries and their descendant cultures that are ruled by people who have European origins -- a notable exception being Slavs. So, the point is because this supposed technology rose from an Oriental culture it is either the product of interaction with ascendant Occidental culture or an anamoly. In either case, it must be erased. See Richard Perle and Wolfowitz for the contemporary personification of academics who think this way. It's called "the colonizer's model of the world."
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
No. Electricity was first described by ThalesofMiletus around 600 BCE. He polished amber with fur, to produce static electricity, and this is where we get the word 'electricity' from, from the greek word for Amber.
I don't see how they can assume these are batteries when there is no evidence of wires or mechanical devices that would use the electricity.
Just because you aren't powering a Walkman with it, doesn't make the device not a battery. It doesn't have to have x amount of charge to be a battery. If it allows chemical energy to be converted to electrical energy, there's your battery.
Will they happen by selling Harpoon missiles and anthrax bacteria to Saddam Hussein, like Rumsfeld did when he was Reagan's special envoy to the middle east?
And while you're at it, tell me why Sadam needs to be off the country, if not for US control of oil. US don't need oil from Iraq, they get most of theirs from Venezuela and Kuwait (you didn't believe the USA helped kuwait out of good will back in '91, do you?). It's not about getting oil, it's about CONTROLLING oil.
One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
Just some clever mettalurgy here....
The pillar you are referring to is in Delhi and its mystery has apparently been solved
Apparently the metal had a high hydrogen content and formed a coating of "misawite" .
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
yea and liberals who loved clinton going into kosovo because he was freeing people from a dictator now think the US has no right to police the world..
OK, please correct me if I'm mistaken, because I was fairly young when the Kosovo thing occurred, but it seems to me that atrocities were being commited at the very time we entered Kosovo. Our motives were fairly pure in that we as a country weren't "getting" anything out of liberating the people there--we were honestly just trying to help.
As I understand it, Sadamm has committed endless atrocities, but the very worst ones were committed in the past. Why are we only going in now? So that we can get cheap oil? Because Bush holds a grudge against this guy ("he tried to kill my dad")? Because we can't find Osama and so need an easy scapegoat to bring down in his stead?
If I honestly believed that the only (or even primary) reason we were going to Iraq was to make life better for the Iraqi people, then I think I wouldn't be as hard on Bush as I have been.
And look at Afghanistan. All these months after our liberation there and have we really done that much good? Warlords are still running amock; the only place they don't have any real power is Kabul. Are we really interested in helping the oppressed of the world or are we just so blindingly scared of terrorism that we're willing to lash out at the first country the President looks at funny?
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.