OSC's later writing. His columns are not only right wing but he writes right-wing fantasy novels in which the liberals who hate America reveal their true terrorist natures by assassinating the President and splitting off from the "real" USA. He's a Bushie asshat.
* - 91% of the book is taken nearly word-for-word from the Harry Potter novels with almost no citations or even quotation marks around direct quotes. This is the main problem and anyone with a passing familiarity with the word "plagiarism" should see the problem here.
* - Unlike most other Harry Potter reference works out there, only a tiny percentage of the book is original scholarship. During the trial, JKR pointed out other books written about HP that she is okay with and even likes very much. All of these involved original research into etymology, mythology, etc, rather than simple regurgitation of material from JKR's works.
* - The reason that JKR did not pursue this earlier was that it was available for free on the web; no attempt to profit from the copy-and-pasting of her content was made. Since Van Der Ark announced his intention to sell this book, she and the lawyers for her, Scholastic, and Warner Brothers have made several attempts to reason with him about the content and what would be acceptable, but neither he nor his publishing house have been willing to make any changes at all. They have been downright belligerent in some respects.
* - Even with 91% of the book being JKR's work rather than Van Der Ark's, the small percentage that is his original work contains several factual errors.
And thats pretty damning.
Obviously it would be copywrite violation to publish a book that went "I read to my child and he went to sleep." It seems clear that 91% (assuming that figure is accurate) far exceeds reasonable fair use.
The other portions to me are immaterial. This is not relating to the out of control IP law out there... this is fundamental. The fact that she didn't exert her rights when the activity was non-commercial or that she didn't object to other books using some of her words is irrelevant.
Because "works" in this case is a means by which they can get caught?
If I was going to be as corrupt/incompetent as this administration, I'd try to limit how much that criminality/idiocy could be directly documented for criminal proceedings/historical study.
Civilization 4, Fallout or The Elder Scrolls are better candidates for the "finest sandbox-game series" than GTA will ever be.,
You'd have an argument if those are sandbox games, but thats highly disputable.
Elder Scrolls has the best argument, but I would argue both Fallout and Elder Scrolls are actually simply RPGs with larger worlds than most computer versions. The thing is that even if you're doing nothing, you're still advancing one of the primary components of the game/plot (gaining XP/equipment whatever). Plus, you're still in the framework; there isn't the ability to experiment in the same way. Then again, someone else might simply have a broader definition than I do. To me the Civ games aren't even close to sandbox games (there's only a handful of final outcomes as interesting/addicting as those games are), but something like the Sims or large scale single player RPGs have an argument.
However, the idea that those three games are 'better candidates' is highly subjective as well. Those three games all have gamer 'street cred' but when I think sandbox, I don't think any of them (I'd think Wing Commander: Privateer if I wanted to be l33t) and the commercial/mainstream/widespread appeal doesn't compare. But to each their own.
Technology is beneficial at times. This is not one of them. My precinct has never had trouble with optical scanning ballots (fill in the circle with a little marker, feed it into the machine). In terms of speed of counting, security and cost, these voting machines are inferior to techniques as simple as the ones that graded your history test in 8th grade.
I see no meaning in #1. Even if true, it would not demonstrate ID (it would suggest an extra-terrestrial origin of life perhaps but if anything would undercut the arguments ID puts forward)
#2 is actually telling because it demonstrates the logical fallacy ID proponents are depending on.
2. The first form of life was a photosynthetic autothroph....The second one is a fair test since it is a direct opposite to the common origin of life theories which predict a chemosynthetic heteratroph (or chemosynthetic autotroph in one particular scenario).
There is no evolution/ID binary necessity. If evolution is wrong, that does not make ID right. Thats exactly what ID proponents are depending on... they create false 'problems' with evolution and then essentially say "we're the only other game in town."
If Intelligent Design were true, we'd see similarities and patterns in the design of a variety of species. Even similar design patterns in the genetic code and make-up across a variety of species on various levels.
Says who? If I do interior design, I can use plaid paint in one room and polka dotted wall paper in another.
Additionally, similarities and patterns is ill-defined and non-instructive Horses and cows both have four legs. This does not in any way demonstrated the existence of a "designer". Indeed, it could easily be evidence of evolution since four legs provides stability that does not exist with 2 or 3.
Really, well, I think it's interesting that numerous species cited as transitional forms later fail the test often turning out to be contemporaries.
So what? I- Darwin is not Lord of Evolution. Aspects of the theory that he popularized (he didn't even invent it, he just did major work in the field and his work was well known) may be wrong. That doesn't invalidate evolution.
II - "Intermediate forms" do exist.
III - Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Even if every change required an 'intermediate form' not finding it doesn't demonstrate its nonexistance.
IV - Even if evolution was conclusively debunked that does not prove Intelligent Design.
The PI=3 thing is much like the earth being flat... something that no one ever seriously advocated, yet is often brought up as "proof" of the Bible being useful for proving the absurd.
No one has ever seriously advocated the earth is flat? There's some papal writing you might want to check for that one. A literal reading does require it (Matthew 4:8, Daniel 4:10-11, Job 38:13, Job 37:3) but let's use another example. What about that the earth circles the sun (heliocentric model)? A literal reading of the Bible requires a geocentric viewpoint. See Joshua 10:12-13, Ecclesiastes 1:5, 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalms 93:1, Psalms 19:4-6, etc etc.
Scientists were persecuted for putting forth a heliocentric model despite scientific proof. Indeed, there are those who still advocate a geocentric viewpoint. People got over it. In every developed part of the world except the US, evolution is not controversial; their people got over it Its time we did the same. Evolution is fact.
"Yes, of course I do. Ooh...wanna go to the museum? The fossils are wicked cool!"
"So, you admit that God was not involved in the creation of man, then."
"Say what now?!?!"
That's when life got ugly. All Christians want to say is that clearly the evolutionary process is going on all around us, but God is the architect behind it all. Not good enough, apparently. Evolution is strictly random. As such God cannot be involved. Unfortunately, saying God did not create man is tantamount to saying "There is no God." That's quite a pickle, don't you think? What's a politician to say?
There is an inherent contradiction in believing evolution and believing in God, but I believe that is the point.
No actually thats not what happened. Science has never spoken to the existence or non-existence of God, regardless of what some believers or non-believers want to believe. God by definition exists outside the system or in every aspect of the system. We therefore have no means of detecting him empirically (because one requires contrast to see something. If we had no way of detecting anything at all (in anyway) outside the atmosphere, we couldn't detect our planet moving, or if some quantum of energy exists in every piece of space and matter(it'd be the baseline).
Similarly, evolution - or any other natural phenomenon can not disprove the intervention of God.
If we assume that God exists, then it follows that he defined the universe and its rules. The reason we're in 3(4)-D is because God willed it so. The reason that the world is rational is because thats how God set it up. The reason mutations happen is because God set it up this way.
When one programs some agent that learns or changes its behavior depending on how its used and/or its success/failure, you are still the cause of the evolution because you set the rules (and likely provided the input). Maybe you could have programmed a static (say) chess player that was just as good, but just because you chose to allow it to improve itself to that level doesn't mean you didn't create it.
This is applicable to any natural system. If I run a program and control the data and the logic that manipulates it, I can know the outcome of any singular portion. If we accept the world is predictable (a presupposition of science) and rational and we accept that God set the starting point and those rules, then everything occurred because he wanted it to (barring perhaps free will). Even quantum reactions may be ruled by an underlying predictability we don't yet understand... or maybe God is just rolling d20s.
I just went and read the verse since I'm not familiar with it. Seems as though it is describing a metal part, not espousing the value of pie.
If you stop to think for a second I don't think they had the technology to make a metal object so large that had a material thickness of ZERO. In fact I don't think we have the technology today either, although you could probably get pretty close.
Your starting assumption is that the Bible is wrong. My starting assumption for any argument is that people are being honest and as accurate as they can be unless I see evidence or get the impression otherwise.
Aside: I really enjoy reading these passionate bigoted debates because it's so easy to find technical mistakes as people jump on straw men ON BOTH sides. I'll probably find one for the other side further down this thread. I have a background in computer science and engineering and have worked in a tool and die shop in the aerospace industry. One of the ROOKIE mistakes in designing metal forming molds for sheet metal parts is to forget to take into account the THICKNESS OF THE PART!
Oh yeah, and the book of Kings is Old Testament, way before Jesus' time.
If you're going to debate seriously you've got to study both sides with an open mind.
According to the literal Bible theology, men did not simply write the Bible, God wrote it through them. Since God is incapable of error, the Bible can contain no errors.
If we accept the Bible contains simplifications - for say the technological or scientific understanding of the culture that the Bible emerged from - then one no longer is espousing a literal Bible interpretation. This - much more reasonable - outlook allows that perhaps men who still generally believed that the rats who came out of the cracks in the walls were spontaneously generated by filth (as opposed to from other rats) weren't ready for a discussion of scientific theory that would not be proven until a few millennia(sic?) later. Similarly, if the Bible is allowed to be inexact, because exactness is a perfection - unless one see it as a general moral philosophy of what God wants one to do (primarily love one another in the Christian version) rather than a prescription on how to live each aspect of one's life.
Its not just "Darwinists" that force their anti-Jesus dogma on the education system. I had a similar experience in my childhood.
Given a circle with a radius of 10, whats the circumference? Some would say thats its 10 * 2 * "pi"!
But what is this pi? They can't even define it;its completely irrational! Meanwhile they suppress the controversy. When I put down a much more reasonable answer - 60, because the literal Bible tells me the circumference of a circle is 2*r*3, I was marked wrong! The Nazis used these numbers to build their war machine and concentration camps and its being taught to children far to young to understand its deceptiveness. Inquiring minds are led to a literally endless and patternless series of numbers intended to confuse and dull the mind.
Joe Biden has an overinflated sense of importance. Thats what this comes down to. He loves having his name in the news and doesn't seem to mind if its over being dumb.
Settlements are rarely public, and a part of the settlement often prohibits talking about the settlement.
As to tracking legal action, there's no real way to do so. If there was, for instance, we could track those the RIAA/MPAA are threatening and those tactics would be much less effective.
They claim to be able to track a person, but motion sensors can not do this. They only track (wait for it)... motion! Take my obfuscation example to the next step. Ten people walk to the water cooler in groups of two or three at about the same time. After a few minutes of immobility, singles and doubles leave the cooler. Even presuming the system is sophisticated enough to tell the difference between Andre the Giant Sales Rep and the two underfed interns walking next to each other down the hall, it would not be possible to determine identity.
I'm all for privacy, but lets be real. There's no way that motion sensors provide comparable data to video. Tracking movement, while still invasive to privacy, is just short of useless in terms of security. You can't tell if someone is shoulder surfing, or taking that framed picture of Chuck Norris off someone's desk, or judo chopping their boss from motion sensors. Indeed, the identity of the person on the screen is unknown as well. If two people walk towards each other and pass each other in the hall, that would be essentially identical to them walking up to each other and turning around - identity obfuscated.
Interesting tool for traffic analysis, sure. Alternative to security cameras? Not so much.
George Orwell/Eric Blair was British. I think its safe to assume that was the primary reason he chose England. After that I would actually put forth that the UK was the least totalitarian power in Europe and especially so given the recent history at the time of the writing (1948). If he intended to chose a society where one would be 'justifiably paranoid', the UK would have been a very odd choice given the other nations he had available to him (Communist Eastern Europe especially but also Franco's Spain, the recently fallen fascist Italy or Japan, etc). I'm pretty sure you couldn't be more wrong.
To be fair, the SCotUS didn't say 'should' they said 'could'. I still disagree with their ruling but they left it up to the elected officials on whether it was wise to do so.
Ugh IV of Big Cave recorded sound too but the recording only lasted as long as it took for the sound rebounding off the far wall to come back to him. Sure his didn't have the longevity of later attempts, but he came up with a technique that could playback his vocalizations! Given future advances in technology, it may be possible to retrieve this early recordings....
So this gentleman came up with a way to make marks on paper that in the future would be able to direct the creation of music and/or sound? So did 9th century monks, when they codified musical notation. A computer can translate those marks on paper to sound too. While this gentleman surely deserves some credit for automating this process, without the ability to playback his sound...
While the the door locking answer isn't completely straightforward, it's also not all that difficult.
The reality is that today the suburban household is relatively safe. There are hundreds of thousands of burglars and other criminals floating around the city, but many less are known to target the suburbs, and many of those are aimed at apartments with no picket fence to climb (and thus have no effect on a middle class homeowner).
It's not that the suburban house is inherently more secure against thieves than urban apartments; the numerous crimes reported in recent years are just as dangerous as their Windows equivalents. But most security experts agree that criminals these days are driven by financial incentives, and it's far more profitable to target the least protected and most accessible domiciles...... .
The article's facts are reasonable but not a very well reasoned argument on why to not run anti-viral software. If the suites were so intrusive/resource consuming as to truly hinder normal use, it would at least start a debate. However, just because you live in a quiet neighborhood doesn't mean you leave your keys in your car when you go into the corner store.
Anyone want to explain to me how I, a resident of Massachusetts, am subject to the laws of Kentucky? Forget whether anonymity is generally protected by the 1st Amendment (which I believe it is according to the SCOTUS and common sense), simple lack of jurisdiction makes this fail.
Even if the law was framed as a requirement by Kentucky website "operators", if the operator is also anonymous, how do you prove he's a Kentucky resident (and thus subject to this law)?
But mathematicians John Pfaltzgraff of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and Thomas DeLillo and Alan Elcrat, both of Wichita State University in Kansas, say they had the basic strategy--and a formula--first. Crowdy heard Elcrat talk about that work in 2003, but he says the American trio didn't realize the relevance of the Schottky groups. The Americans' formula, published in 2004, involves the multiplication of an infinite number of terms, which goes haywire if the holes are too close together. Crowdy's formula replaces that product with an obscure beast known as Schottky-Klein prime function. Crowdy says his formula will never fail. "I'm very skeptical" of that claim, says Pfaltzgraff.
Has Crowdy proven that his technique will never fail? The original article claimed that Crowdy overcame the obstacle of holes in the polygon... but at best it seems he overcame having holes too close together. In reality you have four iterations:
Crowdy over came holes that are "too close" together. The three Americans deserve credit for overcoming the multiple hole obstacle. The mathematicians in the 1920s overcame a single hole problem The original mathematicians deserve credit for the formula in general.
The only way, IMO, that Crowdy deserves an equal amount of credit to the Americans is if his formula is actually universal. The additional functionality seems much smaller than that contributed by the three Americans.
Slashdot Mirror
OSC's later writing. His columns are not only right wing but he writes right-wing fantasy novels in which the liberals who hate America reveal their true terrorist natures by assassinating the President and splitting off from the "real" USA. He's a Bushie asshat.
And thats pretty damning.
Obviously it would be copywrite violation to publish a book that went "I read to my child and he went to sleep." It seems clear that 91% (assuming that figure is accurate) far exceeds reasonable fair use.
The other portions to me are immaterial. This is not relating to the out of control IP law out there... this is fundamental. The fact that she didn't exert her rights when the activity was non-commercial or that she didn't object to other books using some of her words is irrelevant.
Yes we wouldn't want books or TV shows about serial killing, or books and movies about rapists, let alone movies about cannibalism.
Because "works" in this case is a means by which they can get caught?
If I was going to be as corrupt/incompetent as this administration, I'd try to limit how much that criminality/idiocy could be directly documented for criminal proceedings/historical study.
Well we meant to backup up all these terrible incriminating emails but wouldn't you know it, there was a technical glitch.
You'd have an argument if those are sandbox games, but thats highly disputable.
Elder Scrolls has the best argument, but I would argue both Fallout and Elder Scrolls are actually simply RPGs with larger worlds than most computer versions. The thing is that even if you're doing nothing, you're still advancing one of the primary components of the game/plot (gaining XP/equipment whatever). Plus, you're still in the framework; there isn't the ability to experiment in the same way. Then again, someone else might simply have a broader definition than I do. To me the Civ games aren't even close to sandbox games (there's only a handful of final outcomes as interesting/addicting as those games are), but something like the Sims or large scale single player RPGs have an argument.
However, the idea that those three games are 'better candidates' is highly subjective as well. Those three games all have gamer 'street cred' but when I think sandbox, I don't think any of them (I'd think Wing Commander: Privateer if I wanted to be l33t) and the commercial/mainstream/widespread appeal doesn't compare. But to each their own.
Technology is beneficial at times. This is not one of them. My precinct has never had trouble with optical scanning ballots (fill in the circle with a little marker, feed it into the machine). In terms of speed of counting, security and cost, these voting machines are inferior to techniques as simple as the ones that graded your history test in 8th grade.
#2 is actually telling because it demonstrates the logical fallacy ID proponents are depending on.
There is no evolution/ID binary necessity. If evolution is wrong, that does not make ID right. Thats exactly what ID proponents are depending on... they create false 'problems' with evolution and then essentially say "we're the only other game in town."
Says who? If I do interior design, I can use plaid paint in one room and polka dotted wall paper in another.
Additionally, similarities and patterns is ill-defined and non-instructive Horses and cows both have four legs. This does not in any way demonstrated the existence of a "designer". Indeed, it could easily be evidence of evolution since four legs provides stability that does not exist with 2 or 3.
So what?
I- Darwin is not Lord of Evolution. Aspects of the theory that he popularized (he didn't even invent it, he just did major work in the field and his work was well known) may be wrong. That doesn't invalidate evolution.
II - "Intermediate forms" do exist.
III - Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Even if every change required an 'intermediate form' not finding it doesn't demonstrate its nonexistance.
IV - Even if evolution was conclusively debunked that does not prove Intelligent Design.
No one has ever seriously advocated the earth is flat? There's some papal writing you might want to check for that one. A literal reading does require it (Matthew 4:8, Daniel 4:10-11, Job 38:13, Job 37:3) but let's use another example. What about that the earth circles the sun (heliocentric model)? A literal reading of the Bible requires a geocentric viewpoint. See Joshua 10:12-13, Ecclesiastes 1:5, 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalms 93:1, Psalms 19:4-6, etc etc.
Scientists were persecuted for putting forth a heliocentric model despite scientific proof. Indeed, there are those who still advocate a geocentric viewpoint. People got over it. In every developed part of the world except the US, evolution is not controversial; their people got over it Its time we did the same. Evolution is fact.
No actually thats not what happened. Science has never spoken to the existence or non-existence of God, regardless of what some believers or non-believers want to believe. God by definition exists outside the system or in every aspect of the system. We therefore have no means of detecting him empirically (because one requires contrast to see something. If we had no way of detecting anything at all (in anyway) outside the atmosphere, we couldn't detect our planet moving, or if some quantum of energy exists in every piece of space and matter(it'd be the baseline).
Similarly, evolution - or any other natural phenomenon can not disprove the intervention of God.
If we assume that God exists, then it follows that he defined the universe and its rules. The reason we're in 3(4)-D is because God willed it so. The reason that the world is rational is because thats how God set it up. The reason mutations happen is because God set it up this way.
When one programs some agent that learns or changes its behavior depending on how its used and/or its success/failure, you are still the cause of the evolution because you set the rules (and likely provided the input). Maybe you could have programmed a static (say) chess player that was just as good, but just because you chose to allow it to improve itself to that level doesn't mean you didn't create it.
This is applicable to any natural system. If I run a program and control the data and the logic that manipulates it, I can know the outcome of any singular portion. If we accept the world is predictable (a presupposition of science) and rational and we accept that God set the starting point and those rules, then everything occurred because he wanted it to (barring perhaps free will). Even quantum reactions may be ruled by an underlying predictability we don't yet understand... or maybe God is just rolling d20s.
According to the literal Bible theology, men did not simply write the Bible, God wrote it through them. Since God is incapable of error, the Bible can contain no errors.
If we accept the Bible contains simplifications - for say the technological or scientific understanding of the culture that the Bible emerged from - then one no longer is espousing a literal Bible interpretation. This - much more reasonable - outlook allows that perhaps men who still generally believed that the rats who came out of the cracks in the walls were spontaneously generated by filth (as opposed to from other rats) weren't ready for a discussion of scientific theory that would not be proven until a few millennia(sic?) later. Similarly, if the Bible is allowed to be inexact, because exactness is a perfection - unless one see it as a general moral philosophy of what God wants one to do (primarily love one another in the Christian version) rather than a prescription on how to live each aspect of one's life.
Its not just "Darwinists" that force their anti-Jesus dogma on the education system. I had a similar experience in my childhood.
Given a circle with a radius of 10, whats the circumference? Some would say thats its 10 * 2 * "pi"!
But what is this pi? They can't even define it;its completely irrational! Meanwhile they suppress the controversy. When I put down a much more reasonable answer - 60, because the literal Bible tells me the circumference of a circle is 2*r*3, I was marked wrong! The Nazis used these numbers to build their war machine and concentration camps and its being taught to children far to young to understand its deceptiveness. Inquiring minds are led to a literally endless and patternless series of numbers intended to confuse and dull the mind.
Teach the controversy!
Joe Biden has an overinflated sense of importance. Thats what this comes down to. He loves having his name in the news and doesn't seem to mind if its over being dumb.
Settlements are rarely public, and a part of the settlement often prohibits talking about the settlement.
As to tracking legal action, there's no real way to do so. If there was, for instance, we could track those the RIAA/MPAA are threatening and those tactics would be much less effective.
They claim to be able to track a person, but motion sensors can not do this. They only track (wait for it)... motion! Take my obfuscation example to the next step. Ten people walk to the water cooler in groups of two or three at about the same time. After a few minutes of immobility, singles and doubles leave the cooler. Even presuming the system is sophisticated enough to tell the difference between Andre the Giant Sales Rep and the two underfed interns walking next to each other down the hall, it would not be possible to determine identity.
I'm all for privacy, but lets be real. There's no way that motion sensors provide comparable data to video. Tracking movement, while still invasive to privacy, is just short of useless in terms of security. You can't tell if someone is shoulder surfing, or taking that framed picture of Chuck Norris off someone's desk, or judo chopping their boss from motion sensors. Indeed, the identity of the person on the screen is unknown as well. If two people walk towards each other and pass each other in the hall, that would be essentially identical to them walking up to each other and turning around - identity obfuscated.
Interesting tool for traffic analysis, sure. Alternative to security cameras? Not so much.
;)
George Orwell/Eric Blair was British. I think its safe to assume that was the primary reason he chose England. After that I would actually put forth that the UK was the least totalitarian power in Europe and especially so given the recent history at the time of the writing (1948). If he intended to chose a society where one would be 'justifiably paranoid', the UK would have been a very odd choice given the other nations he had available to him (Communist Eastern Europe especially but also Franco's Spain, the recently fallen fascist Italy or Japan, etc). I'm pretty sure you couldn't be more wrong.
To be fair, the SCotUS didn't say 'should' they said 'could'. I still disagree with their ruling but they left it up to the elected officials on whether it was wise to do so.
Ugh IV of Big Cave recorded sound too but the recording only lasted as long as it took for the sound rebounding off the far wall to come back to him. Sure his didn't have the longevity of later attempts, but he came up with a technique that could playback his vocalizations! Given future advances in technology, it may be possible to retrieve this early recordings ....
So this gentleman came up with a way to make marks on paper that in the future would be able to direct the creation of music and/or sound? So did 9th century monks, when they codified musical notation. A computer can translate those marks on paper to sound too. While this gentleman surely deserves some credit for automating this process, without the ability to playback his sound...
While the the door locking answer isn't completely straightforward, it's also not all that difficult.
... ..
The reality is that today the suburban household is relatively safe. There are hundreds of thousands of burglars and other criminals floating around the city, but many less are known to target the suburbs, and many of those are aimed at apartments with no picket fence to climb (and thus have no effect on a middle class homeowner).
It's not that the suburban house is inherently more secure against thieves than urban apartments; the numerous crimes reported in recent years are just as dangerous as their Windows equivalents. But most security experts agree that criminals these days are driven by financial incentives, and it's far more profitable to target the least protected and most accessible domiciles.
.
The article's facts are reasonable but not a very well reasoned argument on why to not run anti-viral software. If the suites were so intrusive/resource consuming as to truly hinder normal use, it would at least start a debate. However, just because you live in a quiet neighborhood doesn't mean you leave your keys in your car when you go into the corner store.
Anyone want to explain to me how I, a resident of Massachusetts, am subject to the laws of Kentucky? Forget whether anonymity is generally protected by the 1st Amendment (which I believe it is according to the SCOTUS and common sense), simple lack of jurisdiction makes this fail.
Even if the law was framed as a requirement by Kentucky website "operators", if the operator is also anonymous, how do you prove he's a Kentucky resident (and thus subject to this law)?
Do you really want to be tied down to one robot for the rest of your life?
Has Crowdy proven that his technique will never fail? The original article claimed that Crowdy overcame the obstacle of holes in the polygon... but at best it seems he overcame having holes too close together. In reality you have four iterations:
Crowdy over came holes that are "too close" together.
The three Americans deserve credit for overcoming the multiple hole obstacle.
The mathematicians in the 1920s overcame a single hole problem
The original mathematicians deserve credit for the formula in general.
The only way, IMO, that Crowdy deserves an equal amount of credit to the Americans is if his formula is actually universal. The additional functionality seems much smaller than that contributed by the three Americans.