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."
I don't think it was saying they were. What it was saying was that the same people who invented the wheel and writing also invented this battery.
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
The article states:
Though this was hard to explain, and did not sit comfortably with the religious ideology of the time, he published his conclusions.
How did identifying it as a battery conflict with religious ideology of the time? I'm truly curious. Any suggestions?
I mean, it couldn't have been because there's no passage saying "And then God invented the battery and said it was good".
Did it confict with the European idea that they were the center of science and religion?
"It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
Under the right circumstances, ordinary pieces of metal (like plumbing) exposed to acid can make "batteries" by chance. More intriguing is the "un batteried" iron obelisk I recall hearing about in India--an iron monument that has resisted rusting for hundreds of years.
I think it's likely that the ancients put some vinegar in this metal container, discovered that it corroded badly, and threw it away.
Of course we can't rule out that they knew something about electricity, but I think we need some clay tablets describing the use of electric devices to confirm it before we can say "ancient battery" with confidence.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Just because the Europeans hadn't heard of electricity doesn't mean it wasn't known elsewhere.
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
This is the first war ever fought in the region in the last 2,000 years? Were people concerned about artifacts when Iran and Iraq were blowing the crap out of each other? Were people concerned when Saddam was constructing enormous builings for his personal use?
Perspective... It's not just for breakfast anymore.
No sig, sorry.
Similarily, when the Taleban was destroying ancient Buddha's should this have been a reason to invade all by itself?
I hate how every news article has to somehow relate to the cause of the day ...
correct me if i am wrong but it wasnt until the 1700's that humans discovered electricity and began trying to control it and use it.
You are wrong, that's the whole point of the artifact.
Humans had discovered electricity long before, but the knowledge was lost and took thousands of years to be discovered again. They obviously never pushed the tech as far as its been in recent centuries (it took many a genious to get us where we are now), but they had the basis for it...and it somehow got lost.
Now, if archeologist were allowed to dig up a bit more without Dubya bombing everything into oblivion, maybe we would learn much more about how advance early civilisations got.
BTW, your comment reeks of occident-centricism (just made that word up). The way you just assume that nobody could have thought of making a battery before Mr Volta...disgusting. Oh, and I guess aliens had to help the mayas build pyramids huh? 'cause those brown skinned savages could never be that smart...
Sigh
You can't take the sky from me...
Invading, during which time the facilities will most likely be destroyed, plus the cost of war and the problems it will generate in the world oil market will drive oil costs up for a long time. And that is without the additional affects of a possible Arab oil embargo to protest the war.
So, in conclusion, the war is not a good way to get the oil. Presumably, an oil man would know that. Why then, is he still pushing for war? Maybe because it's not about the oil?
To argue that a war should or should not be fought based on possible damage to historic artifacts is foolish. While such damage is a tragedy, it is nothing to the loss of human life. Personally, I'd be more concerned about the life of the night watchman at an archeological site than all the artifacts buried there.
You can argue whether war with Iraq is justified, whether it will (or will not) in the long run save more lives than it will take. You can argue about the U.S. motives for the war or any of a thousand other things, but the decision to go to war or not should have nothing to do with a people's historic contributions or lack thereof. While the preservation of artifacts should enter the discussion about how to prosecute a war (i.e. don't intentionally shell that museum), it is today's people that should be the concern - Iraqis, their neighbors, and the rest of the world community.
Everything else - ancient batteries or modern oilfields - they're just things.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
I think you mean:
George: "Tony, Tony, hurry, we found one"
Tony: "Yes georgie, I have my thumb already on the button"
George: "Shouldn't we first ring our friends and allies"
Tony: "Sure thing - I'll get on the phone right away to Italy, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Slovenia, Croatia, Japan and Kuwait!"
Government IS the problem.
No, no I'm pretty sure he means:
d =6 55&e=1&cid=655&u=/oneworld/20030227/wl_oneworld/10 32_1046349026
George: "Tony, Tony, hurry, we found one"
Tony: "Yes georgie, I have my thumb already on the button"
George: "Shouldn't we first ring our friends and allies"
Tony: "Sure thing - I'll get on the phone right away to all the countries in the world that we are bullying/bribing into supporting this war by either threatening veto's on attempts to get into NATO and withholding foreign aid or paying out ungodly amounts of bribe money!"
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&nci
In fact, I'd always considered it a sign of great personal strength, this desire to peacefully resolve conflicts even if it included the risk of grave personal harm.
When "personal harm" extends to millions of people, the logic changes just a bit. We're not on the playground anymore.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
You did stay in bed. America joined the war after Pearl Harbour, remember.
They way to make gas prices go down would be to declare that Iraq is indeed disarming and allow them to resume oil exports. This is the fastest, cheapest way to get the oil.
Wrong. This is the fastest way to reduce oil prices somewhat. It does nothing to gain control of the oil, which is the point that the "no war for oil" people are trying to get across.
The head of the INC, who hasn't been in Iraq since 1956, is already talking with US oil companies for access to the oil fields after the war. Cheney and Bush are oil barons. If the price of oil goes up, their friends and families benefit, since most people will pay through the nose anyway. If the price drops after the war, even better; the oil families will still rake in the cash, and the OPEC dictatorships will see their own economic base weakened by a drop in prices. Either way, the situation is win-win for certain powerful people and organizations. Western life is tied to oil as a common, essential resource. It is the source of our fuel and some of our most common materials.
Oil may not be the only factor, but it is a factor. However, to believe that anyone currently running the show in Washington is seriously concerned about the lives of Iraqis is pure naivete. Quite a few of the people currently in power helped support Saddam's war machine during the Iran-Iraq war, looked the other way while both sides used chemical weapons, didn't make a noise about his development of chemical and biological weapons (may have quietly helped, in fact) and didn't give a rat's patoot about the megalomaniac until he invaded the wrong country. Invading Iran was fine. It's not enough to say Bush I wasn't president for the Iran-Iraq war and thus Saddam's actions then weren't his problem, as he was vice-president during that period.
One only need look at that infamous picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand to know where freedom and human rights rank compared to political expediency in the minds of the cabal currently running the US.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
The US was partnered with the USSR when it was busy arming countries like Iraq.
Who is it 'partnered' (no idea what you mean with this) with now as it continues to spew arms all over the place including Saudi Arabia (another oppressive regime) and the rest of the countries it is bribing with arms into joining the coalition of the coerced?
Also, it is not proven that the US has helped arm any other country with weapons of mass destruction. This claim is pure conjecture on your part.
How about the Anthrax and Botulism that it has given to Iraq in the past? How about all of the F-16's and the attack helicopters and all of the other weapons of mass destruction it has given to all kinds of countries? What exactly do you require as proof?
It is bizarre reading these posts and seeing people quote as fact the propaganda of the American government and media.
What is truely bizarre is that you manage to write so much, but give no examples of this propaganda. While I agree with you that the American media has a tendancy not to question statements by American leadership, this post is another example of ignorance (and arrogance?) toward American media and Americans in general.
The real tragedy here is that many Europeans truely believe that America is a country filled with mindless drones who believe everything they read and that everything they read is a lie. This is simply not true.
Many Americans have differing beliefs, and many (american) media outlets do reflect this heterogenecity. Examples include the 100,000+ people that marched in San Francisco against military action in Iraq. Or last night, Dan Rather's interview with Saddam Hussein. Do you think the Bush administration wanted that aired? Many newspapers have written in editorial pages reservations about the Bush administration stance. Ignorance is everywhere, and perhaps that smell is coming from your own back yard and not your short wave radio...
-Sean
The reason we are doing this now is because when he violated the cease fire he signed (1992?) in 1998 clinton did nothing about it. Youre right now makes little sense but it makes more than in 5 more years it would have been right to do this 5 years ago. In 1998 when Iraq kicked out inspectors Clinton dropped a few bombs on them, looked good for him and he did not have to really commit to doing anything. In 1998 I did not see outrage we were bombing Iraq becuase in the minds of many Clinton is not an 'evil republican' so his motives must be true. The truth is we have more proof of WMD in Iraq than we had of mass graves in Kosovo...
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?
It will be a long process to reunite that country, but the taliban did support a man and shelter a man who plots every day to kill people. In addition to this you could be killed if youre a woman and too much of your face is showing. I just hope we do right by them and stay there long enough for a govt to hold (be it a monarcy, a tribal republic, or whatever)..