Scotland was under the same king as England but had its own Parliament. Charles (who was more Scottish than English, by any reasonable definition) tried to
impose English-style episcopal religion on the more radical-presbyterian Scots. This led to a War in Scotland (the Bishops' War) which eventually overflowed into what history confusingly calls The English Civil War.
Your points about Cromwell are accurate enough, I think, but my point was that Cromwell and his more extreme supporters only took power very late in the Civil War. The war (the English part of it, anyway) was not started by puritan extremists but it did provide the opportunity for those extremists to take over.
About the only thing I know with certainty about the English Civil War is that it's a very complex subject:-) I think describing the Parliamentarian side as "Puritan" is
a simplification too far. The Long Parliament was dominated by more moderate
opinion which was willing to reach a compromise with the King. It was only the
coup (Pride's Purge) of 1648 which brought the "puritans", and hence Cromwell, to
absolute power, thereby sealing the fate of the King.
It's a very interesting question as to what extent "ordinary" people were motivated by ideology, religion, or loyalty to fight on one side or the other. My impression is that "real people" had more ideological motivation than you give them credit for. This certainly appears to be the case if you look at the Scottish and Irish theatres, which is where the "English" Civil War really started.
What do you mean by saying that the Civil War was "not much of a Civil War"?
Given that it involved assorted armies rampaging around the country for the best part of a century, and fighting pitched battles and sieges throughout that time, I think one would have to describe it as a full-scale civil war. (Some historians actually describe it as two separate civil wars with a brief period of peace in between.)
As for Cromwell being unpopular with "the British people", I don't think there was a referendum. Charles II had some pretty absolutist tendencies, as well as a grudge against the people who killed his father, and Cromwell and the other regicides were demonised after the Restoration. At least one surviving regicide was hanged, drawn and quartered.
I think you mean "Restoration". But what about the revolution of 1688? Constitutional
historians usually make a bigger fuss over that than over "The English Revolution" or
whatever-you-callit.
Iirc, in general relativity orbits decay slowly due to the emission of
gravitational radiation. (Does this explain why the Enterprise can't remain in
orbit around a planet for more than a couple of hours without engine power?)
Although interesting, the survey was slightly screwed up by lack of clarity of in the question. Some interpreted it as asking for something false which other people believe to be true, others
as something true which other people believe to be false. (Thus both "there is a God" and "there
is not a God" were posited as dangerous ideas by non-believers.)
A more interesting interpretation is an idea you _hope_ is false but are afraid might be true.
I would suggest the following as a dangerous idea: the benefits of liberal democracy are
wholly dependent on the immoral economic exploitation of the third world and the unsustainable
exploitation of limited planetary resources.
I certainly hope it's false. I would like to believe that the prosperity of the West could
be exported to the rest of the world and we could all live happily ever after. But I have this nagging, nasty fear that it's all a
short-lived dream based on turning a blind-eye to ruthless economic imperialism and the laws of science.
Curiously, that quotation from Einstein represents a failure of his own imagination. Specifically, he would never have said it if he could have imagined how many people would subsequently abuse it as an excuse for their own ignorance.
Happy New Year to one and most.
I'll never get the hang of it. According to my wife (so I'm not a real geek, ok) there are actually _loads_ of colours and they're all _different_. Every time I dress the kids it's "You can't mix pink and red etc.". Wtf? They're just different shades of the same colour. Well, yes, to a _guy_.
Well put, especially in an article referring to China, which has certainly not been reluctant to do a bit of exploring, colonizing and conquering of its own.
Actually federal aviation regulations require that all civilian aircraft have a
redundant subsystem that automatically returns them to low altitude in the event
of a total engine failure.
My policy is "read the wikipedia article, read the discussion page". The
real wisdom of wikipedia lies in the _process_ revealed on the discussion
and history pages, not in the current-product.
I only listen to loud music on my MP3 player while
taking exercise. I figure that sacrificing my hearing for my heart is a good trade-off.
What worries me is that I often listen to spoken-word material on the bus, and to hear it I have to crank the volume up to levels that would be uncomfortable to listen to in a silent room. So are my fellow passengers and I all being deafened every morning by the ordinary background noise of travelling by bus?
In theory we could observe neutrinos from eras before electromagnetic-recombination, which would push the "observable" universe much further back towards the actual origin of the Big Bang - as far back as the point where the universe was optically thick even for neutrinos.
As of this precise moment I'd be happy to pay the
BBC licence fee just for the right to watch
British Channel 4. British people will surely know
why. Others probably won't care. Except for a few
die-hard Douglas Adams fans.
Totally off-topic but - I recently got talking to a
philosophy graduate who actually walked into the local unemployment office one day and saw a sign
reading "philospher wanted". It was a short-term translation job on a "Sophie's Choice" game - which in his case turned into a career.
Slashdot Mirror
Scotland was under the same king as England but had its own Parliament. Charles (who was more Scottish than English, by any reasonable definition) tried to impose English-style episcopal religion on the more radical-presbyterian Scots. This led to a War in Scotland (the Bishops' War) which eventually overflowed into what history confusingly calls The English Civil War.
Your points about Cromwell are accurate enough, I think, but my point was that Cromwell and his more extreme supporters only took power very late in the Civil War. The war (the English part of it, anyway) was not started by puritan extremists but it did provide the opportunity for those extremists to take over.
About the only thing I know with certainty about the English Civil War is that it's a very complex subject :-) I think describing the Parliamentarian side as "Puritan" is
a simplification too far. The Long Parliament was dominated by more moderate
opinion which was willing to reach a compromise with the King. It was only the
coup (Pride's Purge) of 1648 which brought the "puritans", and hence Cromwell, to
absolute power, thereby sealing the fate of the King.
It's a very interesting question as to what extent "ordinary" people were motivated by ideology, religion, or loyalty to fight on one side or the other. My impression is that "real people" had more ideological motivation than you give them credit for. This certainly appears to be the case if you look at the Scottish and Irish theatres, which is where the "English" Civil War really started.
What do you mean by saying that the Civil War was "not much of a Civil War"?
Given that it involved assorted armies rampaging around the country for the best part of a century, and fighting pitched battles and sieges throughout that time, I think one would have to describe it as a full-scale civil war. (Some historians actually describe it as two separate civil wars with a brief period of peace in between.)
As for Cromwell being unpopular with "the British people", I don't think there was a referendum. Charles II had some pretty absolutist tendencies, as well as a grudge against the people who killed his father, and Cromwell and the other regicides were demonised after the Restoration. At least one surviving regicide was hanged, drawn and quartered.
I think you mean "Restoration". But what about the revolution of 1688? Constitutional historians usually make a bigger fuss over that than over "The English Revolution" or whatever-you-callit.
The majority of Commonwealth citizens live in republics. Actually the majority of Commonwealth citizens live in _one_ republic.
Wasn't it Haldane who replied to that question with a muttered "a rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian" ?
Iirc, in general relativity orbits decay slowly due to the emission of gravitational radiation. (Does this explain why the Enterprise can't remain in orbit around a planet for more than a couple of hours without engine power?)
Although interesting, the survey was slightly screwed up by lack of clarity of in the question. Some interpreted it as asking for something false which other people believe to be true, others as something true which other people believe to be false. (Thus both "there is a God" and "there is not a God" were posited as dangerous ideas by non-believers.)
A more interesting interpretation is an idea you _hope_ is false but are afraid might be true. I would suggest the following as a dangerous idea: the benefits of liberal democracy are wholly dependent on the immoral economic exploitation of the third world and the unsustainable exploitation of limited planetary resources.
I certainly hope it's false. I would like to believe that the prosperity of the West could be exported to the rest of the world and we could all live happily ever after. But I have this nagging, nasty fear that it's all a short-lived dream based on turning a blind-eye to ruthless economic imperialism and the laws of science.
Curiously, that quotation from Einstein represents a failure of his own imagination. Specifically, he would never have said it if he could have imagined how many people would subsequently abuse it as an excuse for their own ignorance. Happy New Year to one and most.
I'll never get the hang of it. According to my wife (so I'm not a real geek, ok) there are actually _loads_ of colours and they're all _different_. Every time I dress the kids it's "You can't mix pink and red etc.". Wtf? They're just different shades of the same colour. Well, yes, to a _guy_.
Quite, and he probably didn't check the voting figures for the SNP in the last election either. (Hint: it was less than 50%)
It's not "Massachussetts" that sounds silly, it's the people who live there.
I think the phrase we're searching for is "She'll be right".
I've seen Seinfeld sub-titled in Arabic.
Ok, but you've got admit he's right that we still ride donkeys.
Well put, especially in an article referring to China, which has certainly not been reluctant to do a bit of exploring, colonizing and conquering of its own.
Actually federal aviation regulations require that all civilian aircraft have a redundant subsystem that automatically returns them to low altitude in the event of a total engine failure.
My policy is "read the wikipedia article, read the discussion page". The real wisdom of wikipedia lies in the _process_ revealed on the discussion and history pages, not in the current-product.
There's the brute force method. It only takes a month to run.
I only listen to loud music on my MP3 player while taking exercise. I figure that sacrificing my hearing for my heart is a good trade-off.
What worries me is that I often listen to spoken-word material on the bus, and to hear it I have to crank the volume up to levels that would be uncomfortable to listen to in a silent room. So are my fellow passengers and I all being deafened every morning by the ordinary background noise of travelling by bus?
In theory we could observe neutrinos from eras before electromagnetic-recombination, which would push the "observable" universe much further back towards the actual origin of the Big Bang - as far back as the point where the universe was optically thick even for neutrinos.
As of this precise moment I'd be happy to pay the BBC licence fee just for the right to watch British Channel 4. British people will surely know why. Others probably won't care. Except for a few die-hard Douglas Adams fans.
Presumably it's absent from the headline because the article is about the fast-ignition facility, not these inertial-confinement facilities.
Totally off-topic but - I recently got talking to a philosophy graduate who actually walked into the local unemployment office one day and saw a sign reading "philospher wanted". It was a short-term translation job on a "Sophie's Choice" game - which in his case turned into a career.
Really? Here in Denmark I bought a cheap-as-dirt made-by-chinese-political-prisoners CD-R/RW MP3 car stereo at my local supermarket over a year ago.