That's one possible translation. Another is that they don't know which people were doing the spying.
For that matter, my wager would be that they can't even prove which organization was doing the spying. All they can really prove is that they were spied upon, and possibly a few IP addresses.
Sorry, but evolution of living things into separate "species" has been observed in the laboratory. There's a bit of a problem with that, because the creatures observed were microbes, and "species" is a bit peculiar when applied to microbes, but it *has* been observed.
I doubt that it's been observed on anything larger than a microbe, because there are problems with time scale. And if you want to get fast evolution, you need stresses that will kill off a large part of the populations that you are working with, so you need quite large populations.
Why wouldn't I claim that Linnaean Taxonomy falls apart. He made a large number of errors, some quite basic.
OTOH, I admit that I have trouble when I try to consider a trout as more like a cow than like a shark. I accept that it is true, because I'm philosophically a cladist, but I still have trouble with it.
You are assuming that "kind" is a well-defined term. This, however, is not true. When species split, in the first few generations, there is no observable difference between them, and they can, in fact, still interbreed. Something, however, acts to separate the two lines of descent. Over time differences between the populations in the two lines accumulate until the members of the two populations either cannot or will not interbreed. At THAT point one can start to talk of them as two separate species. During the entire intervening period the "kind" of each population is in a sort of superpositon of states. If the barriers between them collapse, then they will likely merge back into the same species.
And then there are "ring species" where the two "kinds" at the opposite ends of their range are different species, but as you move toward the middle they become more and more similar until at the midpoint of the range they are clearly the same species. There is (was?) a butterfly that lives on the East Coast, the West Coast, and in the center of the US. It can breed continually all across the country. But the butterflies of this species that ive on the West Coast cannot interbreed with those that live on the East Coast.
The "kind" of any individual is not well defined without a total knowledge of its environment, and sometimes not then.
Sorry, but that's not the most general form of the statement. In it's most general form evolution is actuall a corrolary of thermodynamics, and what it says is that in any environment the most stable forms will tend to be those that persist. As the environment changes, which forms are most stable may also change.
This doesn't mention sources of variation, it only talks about selection. And as such it applies to inanimate objects as well as to living objects. When you apply it to living objects on Earth (as currently known) you can start to talk about sources of variation as those that modify either the genetic code or mechanisms for interpreting the genetic code. If you restrict in in a different way you can start to talk about the evolution of atomic forms in stars, or the evolution of stars.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution talks about large multicellular life on Earth. He accepted sources of variation as given, because he could observe that they were present, but he had no idea of the sources of the variation. (The Modern Synthesis had an overly strong idea about the nature of inheritance, so while it was presented in it's time as representing Darwin's Theory of Evolution, corrected, it was actually less well founded, as was, in fact wrong, as things like neutral drift, epigenetic modifications, etc. eventually showed. But it wasn't far wrong, just overly strict as to what was possible.)
Well, I believe that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was consistent with epigenetic modification, though I'm not sure. I'm rather certain that the "Modern Synthesis" (around 1950-60) isn't.
?? What is your evidence? Sources current during his lifetime, please. Official trial transcripts would seem to be likely, but I have heard that they aren't in the legal records, despite both the Romans and the Jews keeping extensive legal records. This *could* be wrong, but I've never heard of a source to show it.
OTOH, I will admit that there were almost certainly several people in Judea at that time named Joshua (Jesus) and that it is quite likely that one of them came from Nazereth. I just know of no reliable evidence that shows this to be a fact. I'll even admit that there was lots of political insurrection at that time period, and that politics and religion were tightly intertwined. So it's not improbably that J. from Nazereth was involved in such, if he existed.
But my real suspicion is that he was a false front, if not totally fictitious, as the doctrines seem to be similar to the doctrines of the Essenes from a couple of centuries prior to that. Still, I see no real reason to doubt the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, I just don't see any real reason to believe in it.
OTOH, divity is something else. It means different things to different people. To me the fictional Jesus of Nazareth appears to have been operating out of being in direct touch with the divinity, which I consider to be a level of the human mind, and thus, as Jesus said, present in all people. (Mind you, that connection is treacherous, and often leads to inappropriate beliefs as well as to appropriate ones. And telling which is which is also treacherous.)
OK. I've looked at Octave. It doesn't seem to like utf8. It makes it difficult to determine the character class of a character within a string. I'll grant that you CAN, but it appears quite difficult to split a string in the way that I need, which includes keeping the "split-at" boundary values. Possibly this is a result of it's inherent capability for parallelism. Mailing list comments as late as 2014 indicate that unicode characters in comments cause problems.
Etc. It is heavily biased towards numerical and statistical manipulations. That's not what I'm doing. A lot of what I'm doing is inherently serial, but many of the serial steps can be done in parallel. D's std.concurrency seems a MUCH better match than does Octave. And it handles unicode quite well. And it allows "easy" manipulation of strings of utf8 chars, including determining their general character class (in unicode terminology).
Even with that said, I would like something a bit more dynamic. And there's a reason that I put "easy" in quotes. I wish the Linux version of Objective C were more active and better documented. That might give D some competition. Or that Python were better at handling parallel execution. For some reason languages that SHOULD be better at parallel execution seem to miss the boat. Go should be such a good language, but it doesn't actually implement concurrency. Racket Scheme has all the needed features to program concurrently...but it doesn't implement it. Etc. (Is there a Scheme that actually implements concurrency? Does facilitate handling of utf8 strings [including determination of the general character class of a character]? Is there a decent way to generate program documention [for developers, not for end users].) I'd even consider Vala, except that it doesn't look like it will ever get out of beta.
The highly specialized languages always make assumptions about what I'm doing that aren't accurate, and this has, so far, always rendered them unusable.
Three ring binders are lousy binding. Spiral bound is better, but more difficult. Plastic spines are the best compromise that I've found, since I don't want to do the "weight the pages together, slather the spine with glue, cover the glue with gauze, another layer of glue, "Damn, forgot the covers", more glue and gauze, dry overnight, check, dry another day, cover the back with tape process, and the printer won't handle folio printing (unless I reformat everything to fit on a landscape layout in two columns...with all that includes in the way of reordering pages).
But experimental evidence seems to show that people learn and remember better when reading from a paper copy than when reading from an ebook.
When you say "Youtube" you introduce a centralized locus of control.
So far no search engine is able to select works on a topic with good editing, much less a decent plot structure. I think they're closer to being able to select by stylistic markers.
So, no, I don't see it as sounding silly. I see you as presenting cardboard arguments.
If you haven't noticed that changes in society render old works non-topical, then you can't have read much from Gutenberg. Mind you, one doesn't always want something current, but if you don't get it occasionally, your mind becomes stagnant.
I won't speak to the rest of your points, but I, personally, would *never* buy a Kindle. I might consider a tablet computer. Or some other e-book reader. So far I don't like them, despite their advantages.
You're probably right, but John W. Campbell, Jr. and Lester del Rey were two of the good ones. H. Gold wasn't bad. Magazines made the good editors more obvious. I don't like Eric Flint. He seems to change stories just for the sake of changing them, without understanding what he's altering.
No, that's Julia, at least for the portion of problem space that I was considering. It allows parallel execution over matricies of many kinds of operation. Perhaps it's also Mathlab. I don't know and have never used Mathlab. For my purposes, however, it's parallel execution capabilities were not flexible enough. I've ended up in the process of writing a multi-thread program in D. (In particular I'm using std.concurrency.) I would have preferred a language where more libraries were easily accessible, though in every other way D appears to be a superior language for my part of the problem space.
Welllll... I wasn't aware of private gun ownership having anything to do with the collapse of the USSR, but I can't prove that it didn't. I can't validly argue against your point, but I also can't accept it without either more evidence, or a consistent causative model that would predict that rather then use it as post hoc justification. As far as I recall, nobody predicted that the USSR would collapse because of private gun ownership, and no one used that argument as an explanation at the time.
Julia is an excellent design for a specific range of problems. I was considering using it for a couple of days, so I looked over the design. It is good for handling matricies of identical types of element doing the same thing on each entry. This is a pretty broad class of problem, but it's far from descriptive of all problems, and even within that class I'm skeptical that they will ever be able to optimise some of the operations.
OTOH, I must admit that I didn't even consider using R. I wasn't considering a statistical problem. Julia is plausibly optimal over a much larger portion of problem space than is R. (Note that I'm not talking about the current implementation of either, but rather the implementation as it approaches it's design limitations.)
That said, for the areas where R is more nearly optimal, I would expect it to be shorter and clearer. This is a side effect of it's narrower focus of coverage of problem space.
It's considerably worse than that, it's stupidly counterproductive. If DefCon is held somewhere else next year, it will just put the US to a lot more trouble.
As to the first part, if they are incorporated in the US there's an arguable case for that. As for the second, I'd instead target those who wrote the import/export laws, rather than those who, in obeying them, purchase legally imported goods.
OTOH, given that treason is defined quite specifically in the constitution, they may be traitors, but they haven't committed treason.
Sorry, but his summation seems about right to me. Not that I have any belief that you COULD have done anything except make things worse.
As for publicly complaining, yes, various people did that from all sides. And it was totally ignored, whenever the govt. felt like ignoring it, and without any consequence to the govt. folk either actual in the present or plausible in the future.
At one point the "right to bear arms" was an important defense against the power of the government. It hasn't been for over a century, and its importance has been monotonicly declining during that entire period. Please remember that during most of its lifetime the proportion of the populace owning guns in the USSR was higher than in the US.
I think that the crucial turning point was when "a well organized militia" became interpreted as a militia organized and run by the government. OTOH, I'm not real sure what our cities would be like if they were dominated by competing rival private militia. The interpretation may have been a practical necessity, even if it's a violation of the original intent.
IIUC, he said it was larger than legal size. This makes digitizing it difficult.
OTOH, another poster said that actual professional photographic businesses would be willing to reporduce it, that the only problem was with "end user" places like WalMart and CopyMat. I don't know, YMMV. Personally I'd be tempted to digitize it in pieces, and stictch the pieces together digitally, though getting the rotation exactly identical in each segment while scanning is a big problem. You also need to either use specialized software or to scan in such a way that there's a bit of overlap between scans along each edge (except, obviously, the external ones).
Is it related to the hotspot? My understanding was that Hawaii, itself, was in the process of moving off the hotspot.
I guess the only way to check would be with sonar based around seismograph signals, but there MIGHT be some other way. If it's not related to the hotspot, then I think Maui is probably eroding away, but there's still a chamber of magma underneath that hasn't yet emptied. If that's the answer, then the eruptions of the volcano would tend to result in a generalized lowering of the elevation of the rest of the island. (These processes take a few centuries, though. Canada is still lifting up from the removal of the weight of the glaciers after the last ice age.)
This is the correct answer. The Hawaian islands form over a "hot spot" under the sea floor that doesn't move with the plate. When the plate moves enough, a new volcanic vent appears. The entire chain of islands is the result of this process. Note that Hawaii, "The big island" is currently over the hot spot, and all the other islands are no longer active. The further away (in a line!) from the hot spot they are, they more they've eroded, so the smaller they are.
I don't know that he's ever actually *said* that he backs it, but he refused to allow it to be killed when it was possible. (I will grant that he's a pretty funny backer, but that's true about most of his programs.)
You can't get high speed rail to work and also make lots of stops. It doesn't work. It's best if you never stop at all. Trains have a HUGE amount of momentum. The Los Angelas to Las Vegas high speed rail makes a certain amount of sense, as a demonstration project. But the plans that I heard appeared to come too close to the bleeding edge. (No, I don't consider Mag-Lev to be reasonable.) But there's a reasonable amount of traffic from Los Angelas to Los Vegas, and it's only planned to stop at the end points. This means you only have to accelerate the trains once per trip.
Please note that frequent stops even has a big impact on local commuter trains that are DESIGNED to stop frequently, and are far from high speed.
The actuality is that there were routes of upwards mobility for serfs as individuals. They were rarely successful, but they did exist. The military and the church.
It's also true that the legal rights, as well as the practical rights, of serfs differed from "country" to "country" as well as from century to century. (Countries, as such, didn't exist until the latter part of the middle ages, even though there were areas which later became countries. Counties, Barronies, and Fiefs are more about the early part of the middle ages [post Attilla].) Note that Charlemagne claimed to be king of what is now France, Germany, and parts in between, but he didn't collect taxes over that area. He was given "gifts" in exchange for governmental favors. And there were independent tribes that didn't acknowledge him. I think those "independent tribes" lasted through the period when his "kingdom" was divided up among his heirs.
Slashdot Mirror
That's one possible translation. Another is that they don't know which people were doing the spying.
For that matter, my wager would be that they can't even prove which organization was doing the spying. All they can really prove is that they were spied upon, and possibly a few IP addresses.
Sorry, but evolution of living things into separate "species" has been observed in the laboratory. There's a bit of a problem with that, because the creatures observed were microbes, and "species" is a bit peculiar when applied to microbes, but it *has* been observed.
I doubt that it's been observed on anything larger than a microbe, because there are problems with time scale. And if you want to get fast evolution, you need stresses that will kill off a large part of the populations that you are working with, so you need quite large populations.
Why wouldn't I claim that Linnaean Taxonomy falls apart. He made a large number of errors, some quite basic.
OTOH, I admit that I have trouble when I try to consider a trout as more like a cow than like a shark. I accept that it is true, because I'm philosophically a cladist, but I still have trouble with it.
You are assuming that "kind" is a well-defined term. This, however, is not true. When species split, in the first few generations, there is no observable difference between them, and they can, in fact, still interbreed. Something, however, acts to separate the two lines of descent. Over time differences between the populations in the two lines accumulate until the members of the two populations either cannot or will not interbreed. At THAT point one can start to talk of them as two separate species. During the entire intervening period the "kind" of each population is in a sort of superpositon of states. If the barriers between them collapse, then they will likely merge back into the same species.
And then there are "ring species" where the two "kinds" at the opposite ends of their range are different species, but as you move toward the middle they become more and more similar until at the midpoint of the range they are clearly the same species. There is (was?) a butterfly that lives on the East Coast, the West Coast, and in the center of the US. It can breed continually all across the country. But the butterflies of this species that ive on the West Coast cannot interbreed with those that live on the East Coast.
The "kind" of any individual is not well defined without a total knowledge of its environment, and sometimes not then.
Sorry, but that's not the most general form of the statement. In it's most general form evolution is actuall a corrolary of thermodynamics, and what it says is that in any environment the most stable forms will tend to be those that persist. As the environment changes, which forms are most stable may also change.
This doesn't mention sources of variation, it only talks about selection. And as such it applies to inanimate objects as well as to living objects. When you apply it to living objects on Earth (as currently known) you can start to talk about sources of variation as those that modify either the genetic code or mechanisms for interpreting the genetic code. If you restrict in in a different way you can start to talk about the evolution of atomic forms in stars, or the evolution of stars.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution talks about large multicellular life on Earth. He accepted sources of variation as given, because he could observe that they were present, but he had no idea of the sources of the variation. (The Modern Synthesis had an overly strong idea about the nature of inheritance, so while it was presented in it's time as representing Darwin's Theory of Evolution, corrected, it was actually less well founded, as was, in fact wrong, as things like neutral drift, epigenetic modifications, etc. eventually showed. But it wasn't far wrong, just overly strict as to what was possible.)
Well, I believe that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was consistent with epigenetic modification, though I'm not sure. I'm rather certain that the "Modern Synthesis" (around 1950-60) isn't.
?? What is your evidence? Sources current during his lifetime, please. Official trial transcripts would seem to be likely, but I have heard that they aren't in the legal records, despite both the Romans and the Jews keeping extensive legal records. This *could* be wrong, but I've never heard of a source to show it.
OTOH, I will admit that there were almost certainly several people in Judea at that time named Joshua (Jesus) and that it is quite likely that one of them came from Nazereth. I just know of no reliable evidence that shows this to be a fact. I'll even admit that there was lots of political insurrection at that time period, and that politics and religion were tightly intertwined. So it's not improbably that J. from Nazereth was involved in such, if he existed.
But my real suspicion is that he was a false front, if not totally fictitious, as the doctrines seem to be similar to the doctrines of the Essenes from a couple of centuries prior to that. Still, I see no real reason to doubt the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, I just don't see any real reason to believe in it.
OTOH, divity is something else. It means different things to different people. To me the fictional Jesus of Nazareth appears to have been operating out of being in direct touch with the divinity, which I consider to be a level of the human mind, and thus, as Jesus said, present in all people. (Mind you, that connection is treacherous, and often leads to inappropriate beliefs as well as to appropriate ones. And telling which is which is also treacherous.)
OK. I've looked at Octave. It doesn't seem to like utf8. It makes it difficult to determine the character class of a character within a string. I'll grant that you CAN, but it appears quite difficult to split a string in the way that I need, which includes keeping the "split-at" boundary values. Possibly this is a result of it's inherent capability for parallelism. Mailing list comments as late as 2014 indicate that unicode characters in comments cause problems.
Etc. It is heavily biased towards numerical and statistical manipulations. That's not what I'm doing. A lot of what I'm doing is inherently serial, but many of the serial steps can be done in parallel. D's std.concurrency seems a MUCH better match than does Octave. And it handles unicode quite well. And it allows "easy" manipulation of strings of utf8 chars, including determining their general character class (in unicode terminology).
Even with that said, I would like something a bit more dynamic. And there's a reason that I put "easy" in quotes. I wish the Linux version of Objective C were more active and better documented. That might give D some competition. Or that Python were better at handling parallel execution. For some reason languages that SHOULD be better at parallel execution seem to miss the boat. Go should be such a good language, but it doesn't actually implement concurrency. Racket Scheme has all the needed features to program concurrently...but it doesn't implement it. Etc. (Is there a Scheme that actually implements concurrency? Does facilitate handling of utf8 strings [including determination of the general character class of a character]? Is there a decent way to generate program documention [for developers, not for end users].) I'd even consider Vala, except that it doesn't look like it will ever get out of beta.
The highly specialized languages always make assumptions about what I'm doing that aren't accurate, and this has, so far, always rendered them unusable.
Three ring binders are lousy binding. Spiral bound is better, but more difficult. Plastic spines are the best compromise that I've found, since I don't want to do the "weight the pages together, slather the spine with glue, cover the glue with gauze, another layer of glue, "Damn, forgot the covers", more glue and gauze, dry overnight, check, dry another day, cover the back with tape process, and the printer won't handle folio printing (unless I reformat everything to fit on a landscape layout in two columns...with all that includes in the way of reordering pages).
But experimental evidence seems to show that people learn and remember better when reading from a paper copy than when reading from an ebook.
When you say "Youtube" you introduce a centralized locus of control.
So far no search engine is able to select works on a topic with good editing, much less a decent plot structure. I think they're closer to being able to select by stylistic markers.
So, no, I don't see it as sounding silly. I see you as presenting cardboard arguments.
If you haven't noticed that changes in society render old works non-topical, then you can't have read much from Gutenberg. Mind you, one doesn't always want something current, but if you don't get it occasionally, your mind becomes stagnant.
I won't speak to the rest of your points, but I, personally, would *never* buy a Kindle. I might consider a tablet computer. Or some other e-book reader. So far I don't like them, despite their advantages.
You're probably right, but John W. Campbell, Jr. and Lester del Rey were two of the good ones. H. Gold wasn't bad. Magazines made the good editors more obvious. I don't like Eric Flint. He seems to change stories just for the sake of changing them, without understanding what he's altering.
No, that's Julia, at least for the portion of problem space that I was considering. It allows parallel execution over matricies of many kinds of operation. Perhaps it's also Mathlab. I don't know and have never used Mathlab. For my purposes, however, it's parallel execution capabilities were not flexible enough. I've ended up in the process of writing a multi-thread program in D. (In particular I'm using std.concurrency.) I would have preferred a language where more libraries were easily accessible, though in every other way D appears to be a superior language for my part of the problem space.
Welllll... I wasn't aware of private gun ownership having anything to do with the collapse of the USSR, but I can't prove that it didn't. I can't validly argue against your point, but I also can't accept it without either more evidence, or a consistent causative model that would predict that rather then use it as post hoc justification. As far as I recall, nobody predicted that the USSR would collapse because of private gun ownership, and no one used that argument as an explanation at the time.
You just picked the wrong animal, otherwise you are correct. At the top of the food chain is the microbe. Just like at the bottom.
Remember, you have more microbe cells in your body than human cells.
Julia is an excellent design for a specific range of problems. I was considering using it for a couple of days, so I looked over the design. It is good for handling matricies of identical types of element doing the same thing on each entry. This is a pretty broad class of problem, but it's far from descriptive of all problems, and even within that class I'm skeptical that they will ever be able to optimise some of the operations.
OTOH, I must admit that I didn't even consider using R. I wasn't considering a statistical problem. Julia is plausibly optimal over a much larger portion of problem space than is R. (Note that I'm not talking about the current implementation of either, but rather the implementation as it approaches it's design limitations.)
That said, for the areas where R is more nearly optimal, I would expect it to be shorter and clearer. This is a side effect of it's narrower focus of coverage of problem space.
It's considerably worse than that, it's stupidly counterproductive. If DefCon is held somewhere else next year, it will just put the US to a lot more trouble.
As to the first part, if they are incorporated in the US there's an arguable case for that. As for the second, I'd instead target those who wrote the import/export laws, rather than those who, in obeying them, purchase legally imported goods.
OTOH, given that treason is defined quite specifically in the constitution, they may be traitors, but they haven't committed treason.
Sorry, but his summation seems about right to me. Not that I have any belief that you COULD have done anything except make things worse.
As for publicly complaining, yes, various people did that from all sides. And it was totally ignored, whenever the govt. felt like ignoring it, and without any consequence to the govt. folk either actual in the present or plausible in the future.
At one point the "right to bear arms" was an important defense against the power of the government. It hasn't been for over a century, and its importance has been monotonicly declining during that entire period. Please remember that during most of its lifetime the proportion of the populace owning guns in the USSR was higher than in the US.
I think that the crucial turning point was when "a well organized militia" became interpreted as a militia organized and run by the government. OTOH, I'm not real sure what our cities would be like if they were dominated by competing rival private militia. The interpretation may have been a practical necessity, even if it's a violation of the original intent.
IIUC, he said it was larger than legal size. This makes digitizing it difficult.
OTOH, another poster said that actual professional photographic businesses would be willing to reporduce it, that the only problem was with "end user" places like WalMart and CopyMat. I don't know, YMMV. Personally I'd be tempted to digitize it in pieces, and stictch the pieces together digitally, though getting the rotation exactly identical in each segment while scanning is a big problem. You also need to either use specialized software or to scan in such a way that there's a bit of overlap between scans along each edge (except, obviously, the external ones).
Is it related to the hotspot? My understanding was that Hawaii, itself, was in the process of moving off the hotspot.
I guess the only way to check would be with sonar based around seismograph signals, but there MIGHT be some other way. If it's not related to the hotspot, then I think Maui is probably eroding away, but there's still a chamber of magma underneath that hasn't yet emptied. If that's the answer, then the eruptions of the volcano would tend to result in a generalized lowering of the elevation of the rest of the island. (These processes take a few centuries, though. Canada is still lifting up from the removal of the weight of the glaciers after the last ice age.)
Bingo!
This is the correct answer. The Hawaian islands form over a "hot spot" under the sea floor that doesn't move with the plate. When the plate moves enough, a new volcanic vent appears. The entire chain of islands is the result of this process. Note that Hawaii, "The big island" is currently over the hot spot, and all the other islands are no longer active. The further away (in a line!) from the hot spot they are, they more they've eroded, so the smaller they are.
I don't know that he's ever actually *said* that he backs it, but he refused to allow it to be killed when it was possible. (I will grant that he's a pretty funny backer, but that's true about most of his programs.)
You can't get high speed rail to work and also make lots of stops. It doesn't work. It's best if you never stop at all. Trains have a HUGE amount of momentum. The Los Angelas to Las Vegas high speed rail makes a certain amount of sense, as a demonstration project. But the plans that I heard appeared to come too close to the bleeding edge. (No, I don't consider Mag-Lev to be reasonable.) But there's a reasonable amount of traffic from Los Angelas to Los Vegas, and it's only planned to stop at the end points. This means you only have to accelerate the trains once per trip.
Please note that frequent stops even has a big impact on local commuter trains that are DESIGNED to stop frequently, and are far from high speed.
The actuality is that there were routes of upwards mobility for serfs as individuals. They were rarely successful, but they did exist. The military and the church.
It's also true that the legal rights, as well as the practical rights, of serfs differed from "country" to "country" as well as from century to century. (Countries, as such, didn't exist until the latter part of the middle ages, even though there were areas which later became countries. Counties, Barronies, and Fiefs are more about the early part of the middle ages [post Attilla].)
Note that Charlemagne claimed to be king of what is now France, Germany, and parts in between, but he didn't collect taxes over that area. He was given "gifts" in exchange for governmental favors. And there were independent tribes that didn't acknowledge him. I think those "independent tribes" lasted through the period when his "kingdom" was divided up among his heirs.