If a politician says "I took the initiative in creating the Panama canal", they are NOT claiming that they personally broke out a shovel, flew south and dug something. They are NOT saying that they invented digging or canals. They are NOT saying that the canal was their idea or that they drew up the plans or any such thing. So when Bush says he "took the initiative in removing Saddam Hussein from power" (don't think he's ever put it like that, just using a theoretical example), do you think he's not taking credit for it? Despite the fact that he didn't come up with the battle plan, didn't fight, and wasn't present when Saddam was captured?
Gore took credit for all the work done by hundreds, if not thousands, of engineers with that self-serving statement. If he had said something like "I took the initiative in funding the Internet in its earliest form", or even "I took the initiative in Congress to work with some brilliant minds in creating the Internet", no one would've been insulted or offended. But he didn't, and that's one of the reasons he's not President today.
My job involves persisting tick data from a Reuters feed for large investment company and the amount of data we collect every day for 16 exchanges in Europe is huge. Something like 25Gb (growing exponentially) and that's being selective about which stocks to capture. I think you just answered your own question. Anything that requires that kind of storage on a daily basis isn't going to be cheap to provide access to. And since Joe Daytrader isn't going to care, but companies creating new investment products will, I can't see the viability of providing access to that data for free. That doesn't mean someone won't (or hasn't) done it, just that it seems like the kind of thing that someone would charge for access to.
FDR ran for re-election the third time in 1940. The US wasn't in a war at that time, so I'm not sure why you even bring him up. And when he ran for a fourth term in 1944, we were in a major world wide conflict, and he still had to be re-elected. He didn't just say "OK, I'm still President, everyone get back to work."
I think I'm missing something, because with a properly designed REST interface that any decent web app programmer can do in their sleep, it shouldn't matter what language or framework you use on the server. The client will pass information back and forth all day, and everyone's happy.
Oh, wait, we're talking about both Microsoft developers AND RoR developers. Nothing decent there at all. Answered my own question, never mind.
I stand corrected. Someone on the Internet said that someone else might think an obscure section of an unpopular law, that might not exist, might grant the President the power to cancel elections. So yeah, guess that's his evil plan after all. You've convinced me, congratulations.
Assuming there's an election, and the USA doesn't find itself in a state of emergency so Dubya doesn't have to call an election. Also assuming that a rogue planet doesn't come hurtling through the solar system, smashing into Mars and knocking the earth-moon system out of its orbit and plunging us all into the sun. Cause that's about as likely as Bush not "calling an election".
Here's a hint about the American system: the president doesn't call elections in the first place, so he can't stop one from happening in the second. He has no legal authority to do so, so no one would listen to him if he tried. There's a reason no one's ever tried that before. Even Lincoln had to run for re-election during the Civil War (and almost lost!); there's simply no way to stop the process.
Why doesn't he get his employer to host a "sponsor a developer" project, to allow users of Open Source software to contribute funds to support those projects? After all, it's all about the developers, right?
He's not talking about an OS that can run on multiple devices, but is run from multiple devices. So that your phone, your PC, your laptop, your media center, all appear as one distributed device.
That's the next step in operating system development.
I'll concede the point about English and Spanish, since we seem to be arguing over semantics. When I spoke of English, I was referring to Modern English, which is vastly different from Old English (modern speakers of Icelandic would probably have an easier time understanding speakers of Old English than modern English speakers would).
I never said trade didn't exist, I said that trade by sea didn't. By which I mean, exclusively by sea. It's a reflection on how much easier it is to navigate the globe today than it was 1000 years ago, which makes our modern society MUCH different from our ancestors at that time.
No, I wasn't aware of Cordoba, so I'll modify my statement about democracies to be "1000 years ago democracies and republics were rare and somewhat novel; today, they're practically expected, especially by people from developed nations".
And again, we're arguing over semantics. The fact remains it was a widely held belief, even by the intelligencia of the time, that the sun orbited the earth. Again, this is show the vast difference between our culture and that of our ancestors.
The aristocracy couldn't write, but they could afford to have clerics (why do you think that word and "clerk" are so alike?) do their writing for them. Again, Charlemagne was notable because he could write, even if only limitedly.
Argue all you want, but people 1000 years ago were completely different from the people of today in their outlook, thoughts, preconceived notions, every area that can be thought to encompass culture. Fears, hopes, dreams, and loves remain constant, of course, but to argue that 1000 years is not a long time in the course of human development ignores everything that has happened, and changed, in the last 1000 years.
I stand by my point: the English language did not exist. If you traveled through time to 1008, you would not be able to converse with the inhabitants of what is now considered "England" (let alone Wales, Cornwall, Scotland, Canada, America, Australia, and countless other Anglophone nations). Same thing with Spanish, an ancient dialect of Castilian would have as much in common with the Latin I learned in middle school as it would the modern Spanish of today.
There was absolutely zero ocean going trade between Europe and China. The trade that did exist required at least (as you put it) a "hop and a jump" over what is now the Suez Canal. In no way could a ship leave England and sail directly to China.
I said no democracies or republics existed at the time (except Iceland). I said nothing about whether they existed in the past. It was a reflection on the difference in society between then and now, not a judgment on their form of government.
I think you reversed concepts there. Geocentrism puts the earth at the center, and was the prevailing view until Copernicus published his book on heliocentrism.
So at least you grant me this one, wonderful for me.
As I said, "most of Europe" was Roman Catholic. Smaller parts were Orthodox, and smaller still were areas that were still pagan. By this time even the Vikings were Christians (at least on paper), and the Orthodox church had a stronger hold on what is commonly thought of as Western Asia, not Europe.
Communication by letter was reserved for the landed aristocracy, whether over water or land. It was a far cry from the height of the Roman empire when soldiers in Britain could write home and ask their mothers to send more socks (yes, letters stating that have been found).
Eleanor of Aquitane, who lived several hundred years after the time we're talking about, is reported to have remarked that she feared for her son John's reputation in history. Not because he was a bad man, but because priests wrote the history books. To this day, he's known as "Evil King John", even though he gave us the Magna Carta. If that isn't a paramount example of how dependent even the aristocracy was on priests to do their reading and writing for them, I don't know what is.
Incorrect, Harold and his army managed to get past the lone sentry when two of his men thrust their spears up through spaces in the bridge and pierced the sentry's groin. The English swarmed over the Vikings while they slept, and slaughtered them all. It ended the Viking age.
Too bad for them they couldn't repeat their success against the Normans 10 days later. But good for me, since one of my ancestors came over with William and fought at Hastings (he's mentioned in the Domesday book as having done so).
You're kidding, right? Let's look at the world of 1008 AD, and you tell me if it sounds ancient:
The English language didn't exist. There were no ocean-going trade routes between Europe and East Asia. Iceland had just had their first allthing, but other than that there were no democracies or republics in existence. Spain was a Muslim province. Oh, and the Spanish language didn't exist, either. The wild notion that the earth orbited the sun, and not the other way around, would not have scientific and mathematical constructs to support it for another 531 years. The Roman Empire still existed (at least its Eastern Half). The only religion in most of Europe was Roman Catholicism (the Vikings converted in the previous century). The average person never traveled more than seven miles from the place of his or her birth, and could not conceive of communicating with people more than shouting distance away. They couldn't even write, only priests could (Charlemagne was notable as one of the only medieval rulers who could sign his own name).
About 33 generations have passed since 1008. If you don't think that's a long time, when was the last time you spoke with your great-great-grandfather in person? He was only four generations removed, and he was probably dead before you were born. 1000 years is a freakishly long time in terms of human life, culture, and advancement.
This should be interesting. I wonder if we'll find out one of the Native American Tribes was heavily interbred with some vikings. I don't know, are there any famous blonde Native Americans?
Microsoft "won" because they ran on cheaper hardware. In no way was their software superior. Spoken like someone who's never had to deliver a TCO report to his boss. You can't ignore the fact that Windows 95 ran on cheap hardware and was almost as good as the other OSes you listed. After all, that was the attraction of both FreeBSD and Linux: you could a UNIX (or UNIX-like) OS on commodity hardware.
I've always suspected that one of the reasons for Europe and the Middle East's preeminence through much of history was the Mediterranean Sea and the easy trade routes provided by it. The Phoenicians, Greeks, Carthaginians, and Romans all made great use of the sea in building their empires; I doubt any of them would've been half as successful without it.
Recently, ancient chicken DNA from South America was found to be most closely related to Polynesian chickens. The two species are closely linked, yes. But you can easily tell them apart by a simple test: the Polynesian chickens have a sweet, pineapplily after taste.
Los Angeles. One Wilshire, or one of a few select locations nearby, again with private interconnects to One Wilshire. Yeah, about that: keep in mind that One Wilshire sits right on top of the (very active) Wilshire fault. The building is supposed to be seismic-safe up to 7.0 on the Richter scale, but it's still something to consider when weighing your options.
I used to work at a place in Beverly Hills that sat on the other end of the Wilshire fault. When I pointed out to my boss that his choice for the new data center sat on the same faultline as the office, he about crapped himself. Ah, memories, they'll keep me warm in my old age.
.... nobody can understand when you write that way;
Especially when you have to spell words correctly so they can translate. Do you know how many Americans are bilingual English-Spanish these days? Methinks you did not think your cunning plan all the way through.
For what it's worth, I attended the Landmark Forum in Austin several years ago, and found it to be mostly New-Agey gobbledygook. There were some interesting things about it (like the Zen koans they used to explain how people let their preconceived notions cloud their judgment), but for the most part it was harmless stuff. That said, the people who were devotees of it were all just a little bit "off", though I could never quite put my finger on how exactly. Now that you've pointed out the connection to Scientology, their behavior makes more sense to me.
Islam extends Christianity extends Judaism extends Zoroastrianism Judaism actually existed before Zoroastrianism, or were at least contemporaneous (Moses lived in approximately 13th century BCE, Zoroaster as late as 11th century BCE up to 6th century BCE). However, the former integrated some ideas from the latter during the Jews' captivity in Babylon. Specifically, much of the apocalyptic imagery and the concept of demons were taken for Zoroastrianism.
But that's nothing new, religions always share concepts with each other. Within another century or so, if there isn't one already, there'll be a breakaway sect of Scientology who will preach that L. Ron was the sixth in the line of Islamic prophets.
Slashdot Mirror
People didn't learn that lesson too quickly. Broderick used that same trick in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, three years later.
Gore took credit for all the work done by hundreds, if not thousands, of engineers with that self-serving statement. If he had said something like "I took the initiative in funding the Internet in its earliest form", or even "I took the initiative in Congress to work with some brilliant minds in creating the Internet", no one would've been insulted or offended. But he didn't, and that's one of the reasons he's not President today.
FDR ran for re-election the third time in 1940. The US wasn't in a war at that time, so I'm not sure why you even bring him up. And when he ran for a fourth term in 1944, we were in a major world wide conflict, and he still had to be re-elected. He didn't just say "OK, I'm still President, everyone get back to work."
So, what was your point exactly?
I think I'm missing something, because with a properly designed REST interface that any decent web app programmer can do in their sleep, it shouldn't matter what language or framework you use on the server. The client will pass information back and forth all day, and everyone's happy.
Oh, wait, we're talking about both Microsoft developers AND RoR developers. Nothing decent there at all. Answered my own question, never mind.
(Just kidding, of course.)
I stand corrected. Someone on the Internet said that someone else might think an obscure section of an unpopular law, that might not exist, might grant the President the power to cancel elections. So yeah, guess that's his evil plan after all. You've convinced me, congratulations.
Here's a hint about the American system: the president doesn't call elections in the first place, so he can't stop one from happening in the second. He has no legal authority to do so, so no one would listen to him if he tried. There's a reason no one's ever tried that before. Even Lincoln had to run for re-election during the Civil War (and almost lost!); there's simply no way to stop the process.
Why doesn't he get his employer to host a "sponsor a developer" project, to allow users of Open Source software to contribute funds to support those projects? After all, it's all about the developers, right?
He's not talking about an OS that can run on multiple devices, but is run from multiple devices. So that your phone, your PC, your laptop, your media center, all appear as one distributed device.
That's the next step in operating system development.
I'll concede the point about English and Spanish, since we seem to be arguing over semantics. When I spoke of English, I was referring to Modern English, which is vastly different from Old English (modern speakers of Icelandic would probably have an easier time understanding speakers of Old English than modern English speakers would).
I never said trade didn't exist, I said that trade by sea didn't. By which I mean, exclusively by sea. It's a reflection on how much easier it is to navigate the globe today than it was 1000 years ago, which makes our modern society MUCH different from our ancestors at that time.
No, I wasn't aware of Cordoba, so I'll modify my statement about democracies to be "1000 years ago democracies and republics were rare and somewhat novel; today, they're practically expected, especially by people from developed nations".
And again, we're arguing over semantics. The fact remains it was a widely held belief, even by the intelligencia of the time, that the sun orbited the earth. Again, this is show the vast difference between our culture and that of our ancestors.
The aristocracy couldn't write, but they could afford to have clerics (why do you think that word and "clerk" are so alike?) do their writing for them. Again, Charlemagne was notable because he could write, even if only limitedly.
Argue all you want, but people 1000 years ago were completely different from the people of today in their outlook, thoughts, preconceived notions, every area that can be thought to encompass culture. Fears, hopes, dreams, and loves remain constant, of course, but to argue that 1000 years is not a long time in the course of human development ignores everything that has happened, and changed, in the last 1000 years.
I stand by my point: the English language did not exist. If you traveled through time to 1008, you would not be able to converse with the inhabitants of what is now considered "England" (let alone Wales, Cornwall, Scotland, Canada, America, Australia, and countless other Anglophone nations). Same thing with Spanish, an ancient dialect of Castilian would have as much in common with the Latin I learned in middle school as it would the modern Spanish of today.
There was absolutely zero ocean going trade between Europe and China. The trade that did exist required at least (as you put it) a "hop and a jump" over what is now the Suez Canal. In no way could a ship leave England and sail directly to China.
I said no democracies or republics existed at the time (except Iceland). I said nothing about whether they existed in the past. It was a reflection on the difference in society between then and now, not a judgment on their form of government.
I think you reversed concepts there. Geocentrism puts the earth at the center, and was the prevailing view until Copernicus published his book on heliocentrism.
So at least you grant me this one, wonderful for me.
As I said, "most of Europe" was Roman Catholic. Smaller parts were Orthodox, and smaller still were areas that were still pagan. By this time even the Vikings were Christians (at least on paper), and the Orthodox church had a stronger hold on what is commonly thought of as Western Asia, not Europe.
Communication by letter was reserved for the landed aristocracy, whether over water or land. It was a far cry from the height of the Roman empire when soldiers in Britain could write home and ask their mothers to send more socks (yes, letters stating that have been found).
Eleanor of Aquitane, who lived several hundred years after the time we're talking about, is reported to have remarked that she feared for her son John's reputation in history. Not because he was a bad man, but because priests wrote the history books. To this day, he's known as "Evil King John", even though he gave us the Magna Carta. If that isn't a paramount example of how dependent even the aristocracy was on priests to do their reading and writing for them, I don't know what is.
Incorrect, Harold and his army managed to get past the lone sentry when two of his men thrust their spears up through spaces in the bridge and pierced the sentry's groin. The English swarmed over the Vikings while they slept, and slaughtered them all. It ended the Viking age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge
Too bad for them they couldn't repeat their success against the Normans 10 days later. But good for me, since one of my ancestors came over with William and fought at Hastings (he's mentioned in the Domesday book as having done so).
You're kidding, right? Let's look at the world of 1008 AD, and you tell me if it sounds ancient:
The English language didn't exist.
There were no ocean-going trade routes between Europe and East Asia.
Iceland had just had their first allthing, but other than that there were no democracies or republics in existence.
Spain was a Muslim province. Oh, and the Spanish language didn't exist, either.
The wild notion that the earth orbited the sun, and not the other way around, would not have scientific and mathematical constructs to support it for another 531 years.
The Roman Empire still existed (at least its Eastern Half).
The only religion in most of Europe was Roman Catholicism (the Vikings converted in the previous century).
The average person never traveled more than seven miles from the place of his or her birth, and could not conceive of communicating with people more than shouting distance away. They couldn't even write, only priests could (Charlemagne was notable as one of the only medieval rulers who could sign his own name).
About 33 generations have passed since 1008. If you don't think that's a long time, when was the last time you spoke with your great-great-grandfather in person? He was only four generations removed, and he was probably dead before you were born. 1000 years is a freakishly long time in terms of human life, culture, and advancement.
If they include Night Goblin Fanatics as a class, I'm in. Those little buggers would be awesome in PvP!
Leeeeroy Jenkins's got nuttin on them!
No kidding. I hate even using a mouse, if I don't have to. The fewer times I have to take my fingers away from 'asdf-jkl;', the happier my wrists are.
Very true. The Silk Road is a good case study of that. But it is a lot easier (even today) to send cargo by sea than by just about any other method.
I've always suspected that one of the reasons for Europe and the Middle East's preeminence through much of history was the Mediterranean Sea and the easy trade routes provided by it. The Phoenicians, Greeks, Carthaginians, and Romans all made great use of the sea in building their empires; I doubt any of them would've been half as successful without it.
I used to work at a place in Beverly Hills that sat on the other end of the Wilshire fault. When I pointed out to my boss that his choice for the new data center sat on the same faultline as the office, he about crapped himself. Ah, memories, they'll keep me warm in my old age.
.... nobody can understand when you write that way;Especially when you have to spell words correctly so they can translate. Do you know how many Americans are bilingual English-Spanish these days? Methinks you did not think your cunning plan all the way through.
Interesting stuff, I did not know that. Thanks!
For what it's worth, I attended the Landmark Forum in Austin several years ago, and found it to be mostly New-Agey gobbledygook. There were some interesting things about it (like the Zen koans they used to explain how people let their preconceived notions cloud their judgment), but for the most part it was harmless stuff. That said, the people who were devotees of it were all just a little bit "off", though I could never quite put my finger on how exactly. Now that you've pointed out the connection to Scientology, their behavior makes more sense to me.
I'm pretty sure Landmark Education came from est, not Scientology. They use a lot of bogus group training sessions, but no emeters and such.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmark_Education#History
But that's nothing new, religions always share concepts with each other. Within another century or so, if there isn't one already, there'll be a breakaway sect of Scientology who will preach that L. Ron was the sixth in the line of Islamic prophets.