Time Magazine: Man of the Millennium
Mentifex
1.SYS:> cd ram:
1.RAM DISK:> newshell
AmigaShell
New Shell process 2
2.RAM DISK:> df1:DU
SWAP
df1:Memes
plea copy
SWAP
1.RAM DISK:> rename plea man18sep98
1.RAM DISK:> Ed man18sep98
/^^^^^^^^^^^\ Syntax Strings Together a Thought /^^^^^^^^^^^\
/visual memory\ ________ semantic / auditory \
| /--------|-------\ / syntax \ memory |episodic memory|
| | recog-|nition | \________/------------|-------------\ |
| ___|___ | | |flush-vector | _______ | |
| /image \ | __|__ / \ _______ | /stored \ | |
| / percept \ | / \/ \/ Verbs \------|--/ phonemes\| |
| \ engrams /---|---/ Nouns \ \_______/ | \ of words/ |
| \_______/ | \_______/-------------------|---\_______/ |
Time Magazine: Man of the Millennium (The Envelope, Please!)
Let's do a little process of elimination here, shall we, netters?
Preggers is la pregunta for Time, The Weekly News Magazine. It's
gratters to you if you are still alive and about to be un-covered
and on-covered as the Time Magazine Man of the Millennium Y1K-Y2K.
The only plausible still-alive candidate seems to be Jimmy Carter,
given that Alexander Dubcek has been run off the road, but JEC III
must forfeit the Call of History for calling tobacco a legit crop.
Eliminandae sunt feminae in this millennium, but maybe, Jean D'Arc,
next time around and maybe masculinity has had its last good 1000.
If Art were all that mattered in life, Ludwig van Beethoven an die
Freude, but Art is a support function, not the main event in life.
Should it be a man of action or a man of ideas, a Napoleon or your
scheming skullduggering Metternich? The "Encyclopedia Cybernetica"
at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/7256/webcyc.html shows us
the choice we face in life between "vita contemplativa" or "activa,"
between thinking or acting. A man of action is more an expression
of his times than a "primum movens," a prime mover of civilization.
Attractive as the men of action are to our dreams and our fantasy,
methinks the thinkers outclass the brute forces of war and peace.
Thomas Jefferson was proposed a few years ago by what's-his-name,
the New York Times columnist, but the slave-keeper of Monticello
is too camp and I wouldn't bet a nickel on his likeness for Time.
Oliver Sparrow can attest, and history will record, that in 1950
Time Magazine aptly chose World-War-Two-winning Winston Churchill
as The Man of the Half Century, but not: "A Man for All Siecles."
Should it be a man who died alone and obscure in a New York hotel
room, the Jesuit tour-de-force thinker and paleontologist philo-
sopher Teilhard de Chardin? Look what they've done to his song
at http://www.math.tulane.edu/faculty_html/tipler/tipler2.html --
Frank Tipler's ("The Physics of Immmortality" Doubleday 1994)
Omega Point Theory based on the noosphere ideas of de Chardin.
Human history and cyborg futurity have only barely begun to
deal with the freakish outlandish Jesus Christ superstar ideas
of Teilhard de Chardin, so ... who are the other candidates?
Der Umschlag enthaelt 1844-1900 Friedrich Nietzsche, Uebermensch!
Peter da Silva
Though a lot could be said for Malthus. *sigh*
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com>
`-_-' "Har du kramat din varg idag?"
'U`
"Tell init(8) to lock-n-load, we're goin' zombie slaying!"
Joe Cosby
On 18 Sep 98 11:45:48 GMT, Mentifex wrote about Time Magazine: Man of the Millennium:
[snip]
>
> If Art were all that mattered in life, Ludwig van Beethoven an die
> Freude, but Art is a support function, not the main event in life.
>
I beg to differ, philistine.
[snip]
But. I vote for ME.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Cosby
Devout member of the Church of Amiga since 1990
"Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.
Boldness has genius, power and magic in it" - Goethe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John R. Mashey
alt.memetics,alt.postmodern,bionet.neuroscience,comp.ai,comp.arch,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,rec.arts.sf.science?
2) Why is comp.arch in that list?
3) Why do fewer computer architects read/post here as often as they used to?
[A: the signal/noise ratio keeps getting worse]
--
-john mashey DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer: I speak for me only...>
EMAIL: ma...@sgi.com DDD: 650-933-3090 FAX: 650-969-6289
USPS: Silicon Graphics/Cray Research 6L-005,
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd, Mountain View, CA 94043-1389
Jack Andrews
Talk about a sexist bunch of crap--------->"man of the millenium"
Paul Gowder wrote:
> in <6tu8hj$6ru$1...@news2.ispnews.com>, joec...@padbot.seatac.net (Joe Cosby) did something allowing me to incorporate a very witty verb in this line and produced:
> >
> >On 18 Sep 98 11:45:48 GMT, Mentifex wrote about Time Magazine: Man of the
> > Millennium:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >>
> >> If Art were all that mattered in life, Ludwig van Beethoven an die
> >> Freude, but Art is a support function, not the main event in life.
> >>
> >
> >I beg to differ, philistine.
>
> As do I. Shakespeare. Hands down.
>
> -Paul
--
Jack Andrews
http://www.primenet.com/~amiga Original Art
http://members.tripod.com/~artist_3/ Original VRML Art
http://www.primenet.com/~amiga/chronicpain1.html
Our Lives With Chronic Pain
(please contribute your "thoughts" to this site)
Let not the fierce sun dry one tear of pain before thyself
hast wiped it from the sufferer's eye.
H. P. Blavatsky (1831-1891)
Pat York
In article <36035DDB...@OntheNet.com.au>, to...@OntheNet.com.au wrote:
<For me, the one act by a single person that had greatest influence on the
<nature of this millennium was the burning of the Chinese fleet and the
<turning of the Chinese empire for outward looking to an enclosed "universe"
<oblivious and contemptous of the rest of the world.
--
Pat York
Look for "Lustman" in
the current REALMS OF FANTASY
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>Leonardo da Vinci is the most likely MotM, politically and socially.
>
>Though a lot could be said for Malthus. *sigh*
But only if they start publishing the second edition of his work,
instead of the first edition.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Tony Griffiths
>
> Peter da Silva wrote in alt.memetics:
>
> >Leonardo da Vinci is the most likely MotM, politically and socially.
Hmmm... Not sure L da V had much impact on the political _or_ social
environment of his time, or even later. Even his science was cloaked in
secrecy and didn't do much to spur others to advance at a greater rate.
For me, the one act by a single person that had greatest influence on the
nature of this millennium was the burning of the Chinese fleet and the
turning of the Chinese empire for outward looking to an enclosed "universe"
oblivious and contemptous of the rest of the world. This occurred at a time
when the plague (bubonic?) was sweeping through Europe and the nation states,
if you could call them that, were really constantly changing alliances of
ducal fiefdoms. The Europeans were afraid of sailing beyond the sight of
land for fear of falling off the 'edge' at a time when Chinese trading ships
were sailing all the way to the west coast of Africa and the Persian gulf.
Given the start in technology that China enjoyed at the time, and the power
of a highly organised and well administered state with a VERY LARGE (for the
time, I believe about 300 million is the estimate!) population, the Chinese
empire could EASILY have expanded west and cleaned up, much as the Mongols
under the Khans had done a few hundred years earlier.
This one act, in all probability, turned an early millennium "super-power"
into an insular declining state and finally a technology backwater later
dominated by the European powers determined to enforce their will by military
might. The boot could quite easily have been on the other foot!!!
Gerry Quinn
>Let's do a little process of elimination here, shall we, netters?
[--]
[--]
[--]
Many a true word spoken in jest...
- Gerry
----------------------------------------------------------
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
----------------------------------------------------------
Bjørnar Bolsøy
John R. Mashey <ma...@mash.engr.sgi.com> wrote:
> 1) Why is this posted to:
>
alt.memetics,alt.postmodern,bionet.neuroscience,comp.ai,comp.arch,comp.sys.a
miga.advocacy,rec.arts.sf.science?
>
> 2) Why is comp.arch in that list?
>
> 3) Why do fewer computer architects read/post here as often as they used
to?
> [A: the signal/noise ratio keeps getting worse]
Consider this, pshycological propagation and expanding
selectiveness - a common phase all people undergo at
certain stages in life.
Regards...
Joe Cosby
On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 19:27:21 -0700, Jack Andrews wrote about Re: Time Magazine: Man of the Millennium:
> What about the "Woman of the millenium"?
>
> Talk about a sexist bunch of crap--------->"man of the millenium"
>
Actually though, I think he mentioned Jean d'Arc in his original one.
winte...@jurai.net
> What about the "Woman of the millenium"?
> Talk about a sexist bunch of crap--------->"man of the millenium"
Be realistic. Most of millenial history has been written about and by men.
Trying to deny this is silly.
If the next thing you are going to say is "What about the african-amercian
man of the millenium." then my reply is: What about the most influential
tyrant of the millenium?
--
| Matthew N. Dodd |This space | '78 Datsun 280Z | FreeBSD/NetBSD/Sprite/VMS |
| win...@jurai.net |is for rent| '84 Volvo 245DL | ix86,sparc,m68k,pmax,vax |
| http://www.jurai.net/~winter | Are you k-rad elite enough for my webpage? |
Joe Cosby
On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:53:17 -0400, Pat York wrote about Re: Time Magazine: Man of the Millennium:
> Who is this person, Peter? Did this have to do with China's invasion of Japan?
>
> In article <36035DDB...@OntheNet.com.au>, to...@OntheNet.com.au wrote:
>
>
> <For me, the one act by a single person that had greatest influence on the
> <nature of this millennium was the burning of the Chinese fleet and the
> <turning of the Chinese empire for outward looking to an enclosed "universe"
> <oblivious and contemptous of the rest of the world.
>
I don't think they ever did, did they? The Mongols tried, in like the 13-
1400's. And Japan tried to invade China in I think the 1500's. (The
phrase 'their eyes were bigger than their stomachs' springs to mind.)
Peter da Silva
Tony Griffiths <to...@OntheNet.com.au> wrote:
>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
>> Peter da Silva wrote in alt.memetics:
>> >Leonardo da Vinci is the most likely MotM, politically and socially.
>Hmmm... Not sure L da V had much impact on the political _or_ social
>environment of his time, or even later.
I'm thinking more about the political and social environment of our time,
and how Leonardo's posthumous cult of personality effects the people who
go around picking Men of the Millenium to toss on magazine covers.
An oddball candidate would be Pope Gregory 13, without whom the millenium
would be about half a month later. As it nearly was in Russia.
And of course if your candidate hadn't existed we wouldn't be thinking
about milleniums right now at all. How's the chinese calendar laid out
anyway?
Andy Ylikoski
>From: pe...@baileynm.com (Peter da Silva)
>Subject: Re: Time Magazine: Man of the Millennium
[snips]
>Leonardo da Vinci is the most likely MotM, politically and socially.
>
My suggestion is the head of the American Revolution, George
Washington. He is the man who did the most for the benefit of the
human race.
>--
>In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com>
> `-_-' "Har du kramat din varg idag?"
And what is this?? The quotation is my second mother tongue, Swedish,
and it means:
"Have you hugged your wolf today?"
Wolves in Nothers Europe were shot. Wolfgang in Germany lives and is
going strong, as his breathren who hug wolves. Nowadays we have sweet
Pandora and devoted Bob Dylan lovers.
-- andy e ylikoski aka Kaddish
Jack Andrews
> In comp.arch Jack Andrews <am...@primenet.com> wrote:
> > What about the "Woman of the millenium"?
> > Talk about a sexist bunch of crap--------->"man of the millenium"
>
> Be realistic. Most of millenial history has been written about and by men.
> Trying to deny this is silly.
Exactly, that's the problem, "Most of millenial history has been written about and
by men"
>
> If the next thing you are going to say is "What about the african-amercian
> man of the millenium." then my reply is: What about the most influential
> tyrant of the millenium?
What does this mean?
>
> --
> | Matthew N. Dodd |This space | '78 Datsun 280Z | FreeBSD/NetBSD/Sprite/VMS |
> | win...@jurai.net |is for rent| '84 Volvo 245DL | ix86,sparc,m68k,pmax,vax |
> | http://www.jurai.net/~winter | Are you k-rad elite enough for my webpage? |
--
Floyd Diebel
>winte...@jurai.net wrote:
>
>> In comp.arch Jack Andrews <am...@primenet.com> wrote:
>> > What about the "Woman of the millenium"?
>> > Talk about a sexist bunch of crap--------->"man of the millenium"
>>
>> Be realistic. Most of millenial history has been written about and by men.
>> Trying to deny this is silly.
there's certainly no denying that, but this is an interesting statement.
are you saying past errors in documenting history justify excluding
women from the "man of the millenium" discussion? women have made
important contributions to our world as well as men, and excluding them
for the above reason seems short-sighted AT BEST.
>Exactly, that's the problem, "Most of millenial history has been written about and
>by men"
>
>> If the next thing you are going to say is "What about the
>> african-amercian man of the millenium." then my reply is: What about
>> the most influential tyrant of the millenium?
betty crocker?
>What does this mean?
i have no idea either.
-f
-----
fdi...@boulez.emrl.com
a/v composition and engineering.
Peter da Silva
Andy Ylikoski <ylik...@alpha.hut.fi> wrote:
>>In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com>
>> `-_-' "Har du kramat din varg idag?"
>And what is this?? The quotation is my second mother tongue, Swedish,
>and it means:
> "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
It's a long story.
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com>
`-_-' "Milloin halasit viimeksi suttasi?"
Maynard Handley
<am...@primenet.com> wrote:
> winte...@jurai.net wrote:
>
> > In comp.arch Jack Andrews <am...@primenet.com> wrote:
> > > What about the "Woman of the millenium"?
> > > Talk about a sexist bunch of crap--------->"man of the millenium"
> >
> > Be realistic. Most of millenial history has been written about and by men.
> > Trying to deny this is silly.
>
> Exactly, that's the problem, "Most of millenial history has been written
about and
> by men"
>
> >
> > If the next thing you are going to say is "What about the african-amercian
> > man of the millenium." then my reply is: What about the most influential
> > tyrant of the millenium?
>
> What does this mean?
I know Wittgenstein said "If I lion could talk, we would not understand
what he had to say", but was it also Wittgenstein who asked the question
"Do lions have history"?
The point is that history is NOT simply the passage of time. It is CHANGE
through the passage of time. No change means no history.
For better or worse, most of the significant change of this millenium has
been caused by white european males. How do you plan to deny this? By
raising bizarre questions about what "significant change" means? By
claiming that simply staying alive, giving birth and raising families
counts as "significant change"?
Maynard
--
My opinion only
Maynard Handley
> Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
> >
> > Peter da Silva wrote in alt.memetics:
> >
> > >Leonardo da Vinci is the most likely MotM, politically and socially.
>
> Hmmm... Not sure L da V had much impact on the political _or_ social
> environment of his time, or even later. Even his science was cloaked in
> secrecy and didn't do much to spur others to advance at a greater rate.
>
> For me, the one act by a single person that had greatest influence on the
> nature of this millennium was the burning of the Chinese fleet and the
> turning of the Chinese empire for outward looking to an enclosed "universe"
> oblivious and contemptous of the rest of the world. This occurred at a time
> when the plague (bubonic?) was sweeping through Europe and the nation states,
> if you could call them that, were really constantly changing alliances of
> ducal fiefdoms. The Europeans were afraid of sailing beyond the sight of
> land for fear of falling off the 'edge' at a time when Chinese trading ships
> were sailing all the way to the west coast of Africa and the Persian gulf.
>
> Given the start in technology that China enjoyed at the time, and the power
> of a highly organised and well administered state with a VERY LARGE (for the
> time, I believe about 300 million is the estimate!) population, the Chinese
> empire could EASILY have expanded west and cleaned up, much as the Mongols
> under the Khans had done a few hundred years earlier.
Well that's one theory.
Another theory is that it was precisely their
>highly organised and well administered state
that doomed them, that if one guy at the top said "stop the clocks" it
happened. Meanwhile European states were engaged in a Darwinian struggle
for survival and those that were stupid enough to attempt to stop the
clock were soon eaten up.
Jack Andrews
> Maynard
>
> --
> My opinion only
For starters we can consider American History (for starters)
I suggest you do some reading on the subject, and alter your bigoted sexist views.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abigail Adams (1744-1818) - Wife of President John Q. Adams, advocate of women's
rights
Alcott, Louisa May (1832-1888) - Seamstress, servant, teacher, Civil War nurse, and
finally, author and novelist
Marian Anderson (1902-1995) - First African American to sing leading role with
Metropolitan Opera, delegate to U.N.
Susan Brownell Anthony (1820-1906) - Napoleon of the women's suffrage movement,
mother of the 19th Amendment, abolitionist
Josephine Baker (1906-1975) - African-American international star, civil rights
activist, World War II heroine
Ida B. Wells Barnett (1869-1931) - African-American educator, newspaperwoman,
anti-lynching campaigner, founder NAACP
Clara Barton (1821-1912) - Civil War nurse, founder of the American Red Cross
Mary McLeod Bethune (1875-1955) African-American educator, founder of
Bethune-Cookman College, Daytona Beach, Florida,
Presidential advisor, recipient of Spingarn Medal
Sarah Bolton (1841-1916) - Noted Cleveland author of biographies, poetry and a
temperance novel
Mary Elizabeth Bowser ( 1839-?) - African-American Union spy in the Confederate
White House
Belle Boyd (1844-1900) - Confederate spy during the Civil War
Eliza Bryant (1827-1907) - African-American founder of the The Cleveland Home for
Aged Colored People
Martha Jane "Calamity Jane" Canary (1852-1903) - A lone woman in the wilds of the
Rocky Mountain west
Rachel Carson (1907-1964) - Marine biologist, science writer, and environmentalist
Rebecca Carter (1766-1827) - Pioneer woman of Cleveland
Carrie Chapman Catt (1859-1947) - Suffragette, founder of the League of Women
Voters
Cassie L. Chadwick (1857-1907) - Most infamous Cleveland financial con-artist
Bessie Coleman (1893-1926) - First African-American woman to get pilot's license
Dorothy Dandridge (1923-1965) - Actress, singer and dancer. Star of Carmen Jones
and Porgy and Bess
Isadora Duncan (1875-1929) - Mother of modern dance
Amelia Earhart (1897-1913) - Aviatrix
Mary Fields (1832?-1914) - African-American entrepreneur, stagecoach driver,
pioneer
Diana Fletcher (circa 1830's) - Daughter of a former slave and Kiowa mother,
activist, taught in black Cherokee school
Zelma Watson George (1903-1994) - African-American delegate to the U.N., opera
singer, speaker and educator
Abbie Burgess Grant (1839-1892) - Lighthouse keeper at Matinicus Rock and Whitehead
Light Stations in Maine, commissioned by U.S. Coast Guard
Charlotte Forten Grimke (1837-1890) - African-American writer, abolitionist and
educator
Sally Hemmings (1773-1835) - African American who sacrificed her freedom from
slavery for the love of President Thomas Jefferson
Adella Prentiss Hughes (1869-1950) - Founder of the Cleveland Orchestra and
Cleveland Music Settlement House
Jane Edna Hunter (1882-1971) - African-American social worker, attorney, founder of
Phyllis Wheatley Association of Cleveland
Zora Neale Hurston (1903-1960) - African-American writer from The Harlem Group,
influenced Toni Morrison and Alice Walker
Harriet Jacobs (1813-1897) - African-American escaped slave, author and
abolitionist
Rebecca Jackson ( ??) - African-American eldress of the Shaker sect in Cleveland
Sisseretta Jones (1869-1933) - African-American international vocal prima donna of
late 19th century, favorite of George Bernard Shaw and several presidents
Elizabeth Keckley (1820-?) Personal maid, best friend and confidant to Mary Todd
Lincoln. Wrote tell-all book after leaving Mrs. Lincoln's employ
Marie LaVeau (1796?-1863?) - African-American Voodoo Queen of New Orleans and
famous herbalist
Edmonia Lewis ( 1843-?) - First successful African-American sculptor
Ida Lewis (1842-1913) - Heroic lighthouse keeper of Rhode Island, commissioned by
U.S. Coast Guard
Mary Todd Lincoln (1818-1882) - Wife of President Abraham Lincoln, misrepresented
by popular history and maligned by her peers
Jenny Lind (1820-1887) - Swedish international opera star, brought to U.S. by P.T.
Barnum during Civil War
Juliette Gordon Low (1860-1927) - Founder of the American Girl Scouts
Clare Booth Luce (1903-1987) - Playwright, U.S. Congresswoman and ambassador to
Italy
Dolley Madison (1772-1849) - First Lady and doyen of Washington society
Biddy Mason (1818-1891) - Entrepreneur, one of first African-American women to own
land in California
Flora Stone Mather (1852-1910) - Cleveland philanthropist, founder of Flora Stone
Mather college at Western Reserve University for women; sponsored Goodrich House
for urban children
Susan McKinley (1848-1918) - First female African American doctor in New York State
Maria Mitchell (1818-1889) - Astronomer and first female professor of Vassar
College; inventor of marine navigational equipment
Annie Oakley (1860-1926) - World famous markswoman from Ohio Georgia O'Keeffe
(1887-1986) - Famed American artist who defied convention in both her art and her
private life
Mrs. George (Hannah?) Peake (1755-18??) - First African-American settler of
Cleveland
Eleanor Anna Roosevelt (1884-1962) - Wife of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, first
activist First Lady
Rebecca Rouse (1799-1887) - Cleveland humanitarian, temperance advocate,
abolitionist, founder of Beech Brook
Wilma Rudolph (1940-1994) - African-American Olympic Gold Medalist
Bessie Smith (1894-1937) - African-American blues singer
Valaida Snow (1900-1956) - African-American band leader and trumpet player
Belle Sherwin (1868-1955) - Cleveland suffragist, President of League of Women
Voters, social reformer
Belle Starr (1848-1889) - Confederate sympathizer and western frontierswoman and
outlaw
Susie King Taylor (1848-1912) - First African-American U.S. Army nurse during the
Civil War
Mary Church Terrell (1863-1954) - African-American lecturer, suffragette, civil
rights leader
Sojourner Truth (Isabella Baumfree) (1797-1883) - African-American abolitionist and
Civil War nurse, suffragette Harriet Tubman (1820?-1913) - Underground Railroad
conductor, Army scout, African-American suffragette
Rosetta Wakeman (1843-1864) - Posed as a male to serve in Union Army during Civil
War
Madame C.J. Walker (1867-1919) - African-American entrepreneur, millionaire and
philanthropist
Hazel Mountain Walker (1900-1980) - African-American attorney, principal, actress
at Karamu
Katherine Walker (1846-1931) - Lighthouse keeper at Robin's Reef, New York,
commissioned by U. S. Coast Guard
Phyllis Wheatley (1754-1785) - Mother of African-American women's literature, poet
David McWha
: On Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:03:26 -0700, Jack Andrews <am...@primenet.com> wrote:
: >winte...@jurai.net wrote:
: >
: >> In comp.arch Jack Andrews <am...@primenet.com> wrote:
: >> > What about the "Woman of the millenium"?
: >> > Talk about a sexist bunch of crap--------->"man of the millenium"
: >>
: >> Be realistic. Most of millenial history has been written about and by men.
: >> Trying to deny this is silly.
: there's certainly no denying that, but this is an interesting statement.
: are you saying past errors in documenting history justify excluding
: women from the "man of the millenium" discussion? women have made
: important contributions to our world as well as men, and excluding them
: for the above reason seems short-sighted AT BEST.
Actually, Time Magazine seems to use the term "man" pretty loosely. From when I
looked at the list of previous "men of the year" a few months ago I seem to
recall they chose women, groups of people (American scientists, if you can
believe it) and even the planet Earth once!
David
---
J A David McWha | email: ja...@cs.waikato.ac.nz
WarpEngine Group, | URL: http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/~jadm
Computer Science, | "Spleen is like shrapnel, only spelt
University of Waikato | differently."
Don Romero
Jack Andrews wrote in message <36031689...@primenet.com>...
>What about the "Woman of the millenium"?
And your nominee would be?????
>Talk about a sexist bunch of crap--------->"man of the millenium"
>> >>Ludwig van Beethoven
>> As do I. Shakespeare.
Issac Newton. (that from a Shakespeare and huge Beethovan fan.)
d.
--
MOI .... TIME's website of the millennium .... MOI
www.indy.net/~d9090/index.html
Paul Hsieh
> Jack Andrews wrote in message <36031689...@primenet.com>...
> >What about the "Woman of the millenium"?
>
> And your nominee would be?????
>
> >Talk about a sexist bunch of crap--------->"man of the millenium"
>
> >> >>Ludwig van Beethoven
>
> >> As do I. Shakespeare.
>
> Issac Newton. (that from a Shakespeare and huge Beethovan fan.)
Well for the men, I'll throw in:
- Andrew Wiley (proved Fermat's last theorem, possibly the greatest
intellectual feat of all time.)
- John von Neuman (inventor of the computer, the ultimate society
assisting invention of man.)
- Mikhail Gorbachev (made the greatest and most important peace in the
history of mankind.)
- Charles Darwin (for discovering probably the most fundamental law
governing life.)
For the women its a little harder. The only one I can think of of truly
monumentus consequence is:
- Marie Curie (discovered radiation, whose applications to modern science
are too numerous to name.)
Tony Griffiths
>
[snip]
> >
> > Given the start in technology that China enjoyed at the time, and the power
> > of a highly organised and well administered state with a VERY LARGE (for the
> > time, I believe about 300 million is the estimate!) population, the Chinese
> > empire could EASILY have expanded west and cleaned up, much as the Mongols
> > under the Khans had done a few hundred years earlier.
>
> Well that's one theory.
> Another theory is that it was precisely their
> >highly organised and well administered state
> that doomed them, that if one guy at the top said "stop the clocks" it
> happened. Meanwhile European states were engaged in a Darwinian struggle
> for survival and those that were stupid enough to attempt to stop the
> clock were soon eaten up.
Indeed, *ALL* empires have within them the seeds of their own downfall. That
is probably just as well as any power structure becomes corrupt over time
(dare I mention Lobby Groups, production subsidies, tax breaks, snouts in the
trough, pork barrelling, etc.) and need to be swept away. The same can be
said of the evolution of species with the most highly specialised (and
successful within the bounds of their environment) closest to extinction!!!
The collapse is not very pretty to watch, and even worse for the
participants...
However, with regards the MotM question, it is not a matter of who did the
thing that 'advanced' humanity most, it's who most 'affected' humanity in the
past 1000 years, be it for good or bad. There are all VERY subjective nouns
the meaning of which depends greatly on where one is standing.
Having some *omnipotent* dick-head at the top say "stop the clocks" when the
10,000 functionaries below him know full well they can't but they will try to
do so anyway, is simply a lesson that we need to learn and hopefully not
repeat. Unfortunately, the number of disasters this century alone caused by
kow-towing to a megalomaniac (political, religious, or economic) is adequate
example of how humans can turn off their critical thinks circuits and become
a mindless flock of "sheep".
Tony
Drox
> Actually, Time Magazine seems to use the term "man" pretty loosely.
> From when I
> looked at the list of previous "men of the year" a few months ago I
> seem to
> recall they chose women, groups of people (American scientists, if you
> can
> believe it) and even the planet Earth once!
Well, yes and no. They have honored people (and planets) that aren't
men in their "_____ of the Year" issues, but they don't call them men.
IIRC earth was "Planet of the Year".
-Drox
Drox
> For better or worse, most of the significant change of this millenium
> has
> been caused by white european males. How do you plan to deny this? By
> raising bizarre questions about what "significant change" means? By
> claiming that simply staying alive, giving birth and raising families
> counts as "significant change"?
If "simply staying alive, giving birth and raising families" was all
that women (or nonwhite, non-european males for that matter) did, you'd
have a point. For better or for worse, that's about all that most women
AND most men (if you leave out the giving birth part) accomplish in
their lives, and most men and women will never be honored on the cover
of Time.
A few women have accomplished remarkable things, but in the past
millenium most of them have gone unrecognized. On Time magazine covers
and in other places. Maybe that will change in the next millenium.
While it's nice to have those accomplishments recognized (and important
to the extent that other women may be motivated by them to also achieve
great things) that recognition is less important than the accomplishment
itself.
-Drox
Ketil Z Malde
> I suggest you do some reading on the subject, and alter your bigoted
> sexist views.
[...]
> Katherine Walker (1846-1931) - Lighthouse keeper at Robin's Reef, New York,
> commissioned by U. S. Coast Guard
Katherine Walker, the lighthouse keeper that changed History!
(BTW, we're not sexist bigots, I resent that term - we're just
politically unenlightened. Hope this helps!)
~kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
Maynard Handley
<am...@primenet.com> wrote:
> > My opinion only
>
> For starters we can consider American History (for starters)
>
> I suggest you do some reading on the subject, and alter your bigoted
sexist views.
>
And you think
> Alcott, Louisa May (1832-1888) - Seamstress, servant, teacher, Civil War
nurse, and
> finally, author and novelist
or
> Marian Anderson (1902-1995) - First African American to sing leading role with
> Metropolitan Opera, delegate to U.N.
or
> Sarah Bolton (1841-1916) - Noted Cleveland author of biographies, poetry and a
> temperance novel
changed history as much say Alfred Sloan or Cyrus McCormick or Edison or Bell?
Give me a break.
Jesus, I did not NOT say every woman in history sat at home and cooked.
I said that the big things that changed everyone's lives over the last one
thousand years were for the most part caused by white European (and in the
last 1/4 of those thousand years North American) males.
No disrepect to the women below, but I think the list proves my point.
I mean, for crying out loud. We're talking here about things like founding
the UN and you offer up "delegate to the UN". We're talking domestication
of electro-magnetic radiation and you offer up "lighthouse keeper".
Maynard
--
My opinion only
Patrick Juola
Paul Hsieh <q...@pobox.com> wrote:
>For the women its a little harder. The only one I can think of of truly
>monumentus consequence is:
>
>- Marie Curie (discovered radiation, whose applications to modern science
>are too numerous to name.)
Except that Mme. Curie didn't discover radiation -- she "merely"
discovered the elements of radium and polonium, following in Henri
Becquerel's discovery of radioactivity in pitchblende (and in
uranium).
If you're looking for world-shattering discoveries or inventions made
by women, you probably won't find them in the hard sciences. I'd
suggest the author of "The Tale of Genji," who invented the novel.
(Lady Murasaki? I've forgotten the spelling of her name.)
-kitten
Neil Rickert
>In article <6u6qrt$gsp$1...@news.indy.net>, d9...@indy.net says...
>> Issac Newton. (that from a Shakespeare and huge Beethovan fan.)
Certainly very important.
>Well for the men, I'll throw in:
>- Andrew Wiley (proved Fermat's last theorem, possibly the greatest
>intellectual feat of all time.)
I believe it is "Wiles". His feat was noteworthy, but let's not
overrate its importance.
>- John von Neuman (inventor of the computer, the ultimate society
>assisting invention of man.)
Very important for other things too. He easily beats Wiles, but
doesn't make it as MOTM.
>- Mikhail Gorbachev (made the greatest and most important peace in the
>history of mankind.)
One of history's losers. He will go down as a footnote.
>- Charles Darwin (for discovering probably the most fundamental law
>governing life.)
His work is important. But talk of evolution was already in the
air. I think the theory was inevitable even without Darwin. You
might want to give some credit to Linneaus whose classification
scheme helped to bring out the evidence for evolution.
Peter da Silva
Matthias Warkus
>
> >From: pe...@baileynm.com (Peter da Silva)
> >Subject: Re: Time Magazine: Man of the Millennium
> [snips]
> >
>
> My suggestion is the head of the American Revolution, George
> Washington. He is the man who did the most for the benefit of the
> human race.
<flame type=ridiculous>
Damn, and what about Rousseau, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Locke, all these,
the whole Lumières crowd, Kant, whoever, what the fuck about THEM?
</flame>
Or are you implying that George Washington's leading of the American
Revolution had some other benefit than just creating the first "modern"
(this can be argued) democracy in the world?
If yes, are you suggesting that the American hegemony has done us any
good?
If no, are you realising George Washington has invented neither
democracy nor sliced bread? If this was "Man of the Last Three
Millennia", I'd have a hard time deciding between Solon, Cleisthenes and
Pericles.
mawa
--
mailto:ma...@iname.com | ACME Frob Coil Oil ... makes bits go faster!
My site was cracked by some obscene idiots this summer. It will go up
on another server soon. 'mawaspace' on Angelfire is not mine anymore.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GAT/U d-(--) s:- a--- C++(++++)>$ P+(--) L++>++++>$ E++>+++ W++(-) N++
o? K w---(+) >M+ V-- PS+(++) PE(-)(--) Y+>++ >PGP++ t+(---)@ 5>+ X-@
>R+++@ tv(+) b+++(++++)>$ >DI+ D(--)(---) G++ e@(*)>++++ h! !y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Steven Correll
Tony Griffiths <to...@OntheNet.com.au> wrote:
>...That
>is probably just as well as any power structure becomes corrupt over time
>(dare I mention Lobby Groups, production subsidies, tax breaks, snouts in the
>...Unfortunately, the number of disasters this century alone caused by
>kow-towing to a megalomaniac (political, religious, or economic) is adequate
>example of how humans can turn off their critical thinks circuits and become
>a mindless flock of "sheep".
You posted this to comp.arch. If you're complaining about Microsoft operating
systems running on Intel X86 processors, you need to say so explicitly. :-)
--
Steven Correll == 1931 Palm Ave, San Mateo, CA 94403 == s...@netcom.com
Patrick Juola
Nowhere in the running. All she did was fill in a couple of
holes in the periodic table. Give credit to the guy that
invented the periodic table and discovered the holes for her
to fill....
-kitten
Ketil Z Malde
> Maynard Handley (hand...@ricochet.net) wrote:
> : Jesus
Jesus would of course qualify as Man of the Previous Millenium
> : I said that the big things that changed everyone's lives over the last one
> : thousand years were for the most part caused by white European (and in the
> : last 1/4 of those thousand years North American) males.
> your parenthesis, however, strikes me as the funniest things I've read
> in this thread.
I think he means that in the last 250 years, North American males have
also been very influential, in addition to the European ones, not that
only North Americans have been.
However, a millenium is a mighty long time, and I'd like to point out
that the Chinese invented stuff like paper, printing, compasses,
firearms, and of course a bunch of philosophies...unfortunately, they
don't seem to have retained the names of inventors (with the exception
of the philosophies), and a lot of that may have been in previous
millennia. No match for Jesus. :-)
And keep in mind that, even if for us white males it looks like most
important stuff were done by white European males, some people might
think that Lao-Tze were more important than Shakespeare, or that Haile
Selassie were greater leader than Napoleon. If it gets down to voting,
the fraction of white European votes isn't all that large, either.
Oh, well, the whole thing is a bit silly, I suppose. And off topic.
Patrick Juola
Ketil Z Malde <ke...@ii.uib.no> wrote:
>sm...@umich.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>
>> Maynard Handley (hand...@ricochet.net) wrote:
>
>> : Jesus
>
>Jesus would of course qualify as Man of the Previous Millenium
>
>> : I said that the big things that changed everyone's lives over the last one
>> : thousand years were for the most part caused by white European (and in the
>> : last 1/4 of those thousand years North American) males.
>
>> your parenthesis, however, strikes me as the funniest things I've read
>> in this thread.
>
>I think he means that in the last 250 years, North American males have
>also been very influential, in addition to the European ones, not that
>only North Americans have been.
>
>However, a millenium is a mighty long time, and I'd like to point out
>that the Chinese invented stuff like paper, printing, compasses,
>firearms, and of course a bunch of philosophies...unfortunately, they
>don't seem to have retained the names of inventors (with the exception
>of the philosophies), and a lot of that may have been in previous
>millennia. No match for Jesus. :-)
There's also not a continuous tradition of development and improvement;
Chinese printing technology stalled in the (European) high middle
ages and wasn't improved upon until the IMPORTATION of metal type.
Similarly, Leif Erikson "discovered" America in around 1000 CE, but
didn't follow it up, which is why Leif Erikson is relegated to a
historical footnote and Columbus is largely credited with being the
European who opened up the Americas to colonization.
And I still don't see what the hell this has to do with AI.
-kitten
Peter da Silva
The point is that the person who listed all these groundbreaking women
included a bunch of far less obvious examples and missed the obvious
ones like Marie Curie and Ada Lovelace.
MA Lloyd
>However, a millenium is a mighty long time, and I'd like to point out
>that the Chinese invented stuff like paper, printing, compasses,
>firearms, and of course a bunch of philosophies...unfortunately, they
>don't seem to have retained the names of inventors (with the exception
>of the philosophies), and a lot of that may have been in previous
>millennia. No match for Jesus. :-)
Some of them are preserved. Paper was invented in 105 by Ts'ai Lun.
Printing is prehistoric (think handprints on rock art) but Pi Sheng is
sometimes credited with movable type about 1050. And several important
Chinese innovations would qualify for the millenium before Jesus.
FWIW the most popular work playing this game is probably Michael H Hart's
The 100. His ordering can of course be debated, but it isn't too bad; I
doubt you can make a decent case for anybody he hasn't put in the top 25.
His entries in the top 25 that fall into this millenium are Newton,
Gutenberg, Columbus, Einstein, Pasteur, Galileo, Darwin, Copernicus,
Lavoisier, Watt, Faraday, Maxwell, and Luther.
Incidentally, when compiling lists like this you should try to avoid
the temptation to overestimate the importance of recent figures, with
few exceptions you don't have enough time depth to evaluate their
long term importance. This is a lot of what makes the Time Man of the
Year list so funny looking back on it.
-- MA Lloyd (mall...@io.com)
MA Lloyd
>The point is that the person who listed all these groundbreaking women
>included a bunch of far less obvious examples and missed the obvious
>ones like Marie Curie and Ada Lovelace.
No reason to limit yourself to the last two centuries or so. For the
whole millenium how about Catherine of Siena? Elizabeth I?
Catherine di Medici?
-- MA Lloyd (mall...@io.com)
Ciaran
Peter da Silva wrote in article <6u8h3b$3...@web.nmti.com>...
>Where's Marie Curie? I mean, really...
>
>--
>In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com>
> `-_-' "Milloin halasit viimeksi suttasi?"
> 'U`
> "Tell init(8) to lock-n-load, we're goin' zombie slaying!"
Looking at at your sig made me think of a couple of other significant
women - Lady Ada Augusta and Grace Hopper.
Actually Grace Hopper may be a oddy suitable woman to choose for
MotM. What with the Y2K problem and all :)
Cheers,
Ciaran
Gerry Quinn
>FWIW the most popular work playing this game is probably Michael H Hart's
>The 100. His ordering can of course be debated, but it isn't too bad; I
>doubt you can make a decent case for anybody he hasn't put in the top 25.
>His entries in the top 25 that fall into this millenium are Newton,
>Gutenberg, Columbus, Einstein, Pasteur, Galileo, Darwin, Copernicus,
>Lavoisier, Watt, Faraday, Maxwell, and Luther.
>
What about Shakespeare??? That list is ridiculously biased toward
scientists.
- Gerry
----------------------------------------------------------
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Cosby
On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:34:36 GMT, Steven Correll wrote about Re: Time Magazine: Man of the Millennium:
:) But it's self-explanatory, isn't it?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Cosby
Devout member of the Church of Amiga since 1990
"Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.
Boldness has genius, power and magic in it" - Goethe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Cosby
On 22 Sep 1998 22:39:53 +0200, Ketil Z Malde wrote about Re: Time Magazine: Man of the Millennium:
> sm...@umich.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>
> > Maynard Handley (hand...@ricochet.net) wrote:
>
> > : Jesus
>
> Jesus would of course qualify as Man of the Previous Millenium
>
> > : I said that the big things that changed everyone's lives over the last one
> > : thousand years were for the most part caused by white European (and in the
> > : last 1/4 of those thousand years North American) males.
>
> > your parenthesis, however, strikes me as the funniest things I've read
> > in this thread.
>
> I think he means that in the last 250 years, North American males have
> also been very influential, in addition to the European ones, not that
> only North Americans have been.
>
> However, a millenium is a mighty long time, and I'd like to point out
> that the Chinese invented stuff like paper, printing, compasses,
> firearms, and of course a bunch of philosophies...unfortunately, they
> don't seem to have retained the names of inventors (with the exception
> of the philosophies), and a lot of that may have been in previous
> millennia. No match for Jesus. :-)
>
> And keep in mind that, even if for us white males it looks like most
> important stuff were done by white European males, some people might
> think that Lao-Tze were more important than Shakespeare, or that Haile
> Selassie were greater leader than Napoleon. If it gets down to voting,
> the fraction of white European votes isn't all that large, either.
>
> Oh, well, the whole thing is a bit silly, I suppose. And off topic.
>
> ~kzm
> --
> If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
I would tend to vote for Lao-Tze, but he wasn't in this millenium...
Joe Cosby
Well my vote for Person of the Millenium (at least judged as most
significant, if not 'greatest') would be the founder of the Knights
Templar.
By establishing the basis for trade routes and banking, they formed the
basis for the social revolution of the Renaissance; and IMHO this led
in logical course to Republicanism (vs. imperial aristocratic government)
and also to the Scientific revolution.
Just my opinion.
Christian Bau
> FWIW the most popular work playing this game is probably Michael H Hart's
> The 100. His ordering can of course be debated, but it isn't too bad; I
> doubt you can make a decent case for anybody he hasn't put in the top 25.
> His entries in the top 25 that fall into this millenium are Newton,
> Gutenberg, Columbus, Einstein, Pasteur, Galileo, Darwin, Copernicus,
> Lavoisier, Watt, Faraday, Maxwell, and Luther.
Very often, you can take a name and then say "well, if he hadnt done it,
someone else would.". If Columbus hadnt (re)discovered the Americas,
someone else would. In the list above, Martin Luther would be the only one
not in this category, so that is a good reason to make him Man of the
Millennium.
Earl Pottinger
: In article <Pine.BSF.4.02A.98092...@dillinger.io.com>,
: MA Lloyd <mall...@io.com> wrote:
I have to disagree with you on atless two of them.
Gutenberg - Movable Type (Right?) Printing Blocks existed for atleast a
thousand years from China. If anyone was going to do it, it would have
been done earlier.
Einstien - I think that it takes a special type of mind to do thought
experiments at the level/details/new view that he did. It would have
taken years longer and this would have affected both the cold war as well
how the WWII ended.
Earl Colby Pottinger
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Visit our "Do-It-Yourself!" Website http://web.idirect.com :
: Easy, Fun & Affordable Webspace rental for less than $10 per month :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA Lloyd
>>FWIW the most popular work playing this game is probably Michael H Hart's
>>The 100. His ordering can of course be debated, but it isn't too bad; I
>>doubt you can make a decent case for anybody he hasn't put in the top 25.
>>His entries in the top 25 that fall into this millenium are Newton,
>>Gutenberg, Columbus, Einstein, Pasteur, Galileo, Darwin, Copernicus,
>>Lavoisier, Watt, Faraday, Maxwell, and Luther.
>>
>
>What about Shakespeare??? That list is ridiculously biased toward
>scientists.
He's much further down the list. That makes sense really, science has
had more impact on society than literature. And even if they were of
equal significance, while Shakespeare is probably the most important
figure in modern English literature, English isn't the only important
language. I'd put the great composers higher, and even the major visual
artists, though the latter are less universal.
-- MA Lloyd (mall...@io.com)
Peter da Silva
Fair enough. I'm a geek. I tend to think of scientists and engineers.
Rick Thomas
>FWIW the most popular work playing this game is probably Michael H Hart's
>The 100. His ordering can of course be debated, but it isn't too bad; I
>doubt you can make a decent case for anybody he hasn't put in the top 25.
>His entries in the top 25 that fall into this millennium are Newton,
>Gutenberg, Columbus, Einstein, Pasteur, Galileo, Darwin, Copernicus,
>Lavoisier, Watt, Faraday, Maxwell, and Luther.
Of that list, my money's on Gutenberg. Movable type lead to cheap
books (and perhaps more important, cheap pamphlets and cheap
newspapers.) That led to a dissemination of learning and,
consequently, political and economic power to the non-aristocratic
classes. In turn, that created the opportunities for all the rest of
those guys to do their things, and for all the rest of us to find out
about them.
Now that's what I call changing the course of history.
My 2 cents...
Rick
PS -- It's worth pointing out that Gutenberg himself was a lousy
businessman. If it had been left to him, the invention of movable
type would have been a mere footnote in the history books (which books
would themselves only exist in limited editions in aristocratic
libraries.) The people who really changed history were Gutenberg's
creditors, who, in an effort to recoup some of the money they had
lent him, took his idea and commercialized it.
Gerry Quinn
>
>>>The 100. His ordering can of course be debated, but it isn't too bad; I
>>>doubt you can make a decent case for anybody he hasn't put in the top 25.
>>>Lavoisier, Watt, Faraday, Maxwell, and Luther.
>>>
>>
>>scientists.
>
>He's much further down the list. That makes sense really, science has
>had more impact on society than literature.
But you can't say that if he didn't do it, nobody else would have -
unlike the scientists. Furthermore, I am not convinced that a society
without literature wold resemble ours more than a society without
science.
>And even if they were of
>equal significance, while Shakespeare is probably the most important
>figure in modern English literature, English isn't the only important
>language. I'd put the great composers higher, and even the major visual
>artists, though the latter are less universal.
>
Hasn't he been translated?
As for composers / visual artists, can you honestly say that if one
such was obliterated from history, he (she???) would leave a hole in
the common culture as big as the disappearance of Shakespeare would?
Craig Burley
> Andy Ylikoski schrieb:
> >
> > My suggestion is the head of the American Revolution, George
> > Washington. He is the man who did the most for the benefit of the
> > human race.
>
> Or are you implying that George Washington's leading of the American
> Revolution had some other benefit than just creating the first "modern"
> (this can be argued) democracy in the world?
> If yes, are you suggesting that the American hegemony has done us any
> good?
Well, thinking in terms of what he actually *said*, "benefit of the
human race", I think it's fair to at least consider that it might have
been the unique contribution of George Washington that he laid down
the foundations of a government, based not on powerful personal rule
but the rule of the individual citizen (via democratic republic) and
his private morality, and that this government, in basically the same
form, a century later, struck the most definitive worldwide blow
against the widespread practice of slavery.
That is, many (presumably) preceded Washington who ruled and refused
to allow slavery, and many *could* have followed.
But, if a personal-power-based government outlaws slavery in the
one instance, it can reinstate it in the next...and even if it
doesn't, other such governments need take no notice. Hence the
patchwork prevalence of slavery throughout the world for millenia,
and the likelihood of its continuing, ebbing and flowing in overall
predominance, throughout the centuries.
What Washington established, and Lincoln actually oversaw, was the
phenomenon of hundreds of thousands of free, relatively wealthy
*citizens* (not subjects) of a nation laying down their lives to
ensure that the freedoms they enjoyed would be enjoyed throughout their
nation, rather than being deprived of millions of those of a (generally)
different race via the legal mechanism of secession.
My impression is that *that* collective act got the world's attention
in a way that no single personal ruler could possibly have done.
And it seems to have been a lasting lesson, at least so far, temporary,
ludicrous definitions of "slavery" to which we're nowadays subjected
notwithstanding.
Other people I think are worth at least considering for putting on
a (long) list of "greatly influenced this millenium" are:
Hildegard von Bingen (a rather interesting life, scientifically as
well as religiously and musically speaking)
Nelson Mandela (hopefully the man of the next century or millenium)
Mary Baker Eddy (kinda like Mandela, though: a recent figure)
Whoever that King of England was who gave up the Battle of Hastings
circa 1066 (though maybe the guy who started the invasion should
really get the credit)
Charles Babbage (sp?)
--
"Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful."
James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson bur...@gnu.org
Peter da Silva
>But you can't say that if he didn't do it, nobody else would have -
It's hard to point to any particular literary figure as being really critical.
Shakespeare was a man of his times, and he didn't introduce a new artform so
much as develop it. How about Daniel Defoe, who wrote the first modern novel
(even if it was based roughly on real events, Selkirk and Crusoe were not at
all similar...).
>As for composers / visual artists, can you honestly say that if one
>such was obliterated from history, he (she???) would leave a hole in
>the common culture as big as the disappearance of Shakespeare would?
Beethoven, Bach, Mozart. And where would shopping malls be without Vivaldi?
David Brower
>mawa...@t-online.de (Matthias Warkus) writes:
>> Andy Ylikoski schrieb:
>> >
>> > My suggestion is the head of the American Revolution, George
>> > Washington. He is the man who did the most for the benefit of the
>> > human race.
>>
>> Or are you implying that George Washington's leading of the American
>> Revolution had some other benefit than just creating the first "modern"
>> (this can be argued) democracy in the world?
>> If yes, are you suggesting that the American hegemony has done us any
>> good?
I'd be hard pressed to say there was any 'American hegemony' until
about 1945. On the other hand, the existence of the American
democracy before and since then has been tremendously important as a
world example, and *has done the world good*
>Well, thinking in terms of what he actually *said*, "benefit of the
>human race", I think it's fair to at least consider that it might have
>been the unique contribution of George Washington that he laid down
>the foundations of a government, based not on powerful personal rule
>but the rule of the individual citizen (via democratic republic)...
I'll ignore the slavery point entirely, and just leave it to here.
It's widely thought the GW could have become "king" by near
acclamation, had he had the desire. That he did not was an important
point in world history.
A point can also be made that GW had significant historical influence
in his role as General. Leading the first successful revolution
against a monarchy and colonial power is a fairly significant piece of
work, independent of his later politics. The tactics used were novel
and important. He arguably won the war and the independence by *not*
fighting, and running away from confrontations against superior forces
he could not defeat in the field. This made it a long, drawn out,
inconclusive sort of suppression that even a monarchy couldn't afford
forever. The "stay alive" strategy has been the model for
innumberable independence movements since. (Some might wonder what
would have happened if Robert E. Lee had digested the import of this
approach and not sought offensive action.)
Personally, I'm not all that swayed by individual contributions.
Those who cite giants, even Newton, need to consider how delayed
discoveries would be in the absence of such people -- Galileo was
inching on discovering gravity, so other may have done it within 50
years of Newton, and Euler did independantly discover the techniques
of the calculus.
-dB
--
"It's hard to find a black cat in a dark room. | David Brower
Especially if the cat's not there. | dbr...@oracle.com
But we will!" | da...@acm.org
Dave Hansen
wrote:
>It's hard to point to any particular literary figure as being really critical.
>Shakespeare was a man of his times, and he didn't introduce a new artform so
>much as develop it. How about Daniel Defoe, who wrote the first modern novel
>(even if it was based roughly on real events, Selkirk and Crusoe were not at
>all similar...).
I thought Miguel de Cervantes earned that honor for "Don Quixote"
Regards,
-=Dave
Just my (10-010) cents
I can barely speak for myself, so I certainly can't speak for B-Tree.
Change is inevitable. Progress is not.
Dave Schreiber
In article <Pine.BSF.4.02A.98092...@dillinger.io.com>,
MA Lloyd <mall...@io.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>>What about Shakespeare??? That list is ridiculously biased toward
>>scientists.
>
>He's much further down the list. That makes sense really, science has
>had more impact on society than literature. And even if they were of
>equal significance, while Shakespeare is probably the most important
>figure in modern English literature, English isn't the only important
>language.
When it comes to Shakespeare, it isn't just a question of literature.
Shakespeare has had more influence on modern English than any other
individual. English was the language of the British empire, which
controlled of a large portion of the world's people and land at its
height. It is the language of the U.S., perhaps the strongest influence on
the rest of the world in this century. English is, for the moment at
least, the lingua franca of the world. It seems obvious (to this
Lutheran, at least) that the lives of more people today are affected on a
day-to-day basis by Shakespeare than by Luther.
>-- MA Lloyd (mall...@io.com)
--
Dave Schreiber "Can money pay for all the days
so...@dks2.net I lived awake but half asleep?"
^^^^^ ^^^^ -Primitive Radio Gods (SOaBPBwMiMH)
(For my e-mail address, swap the ^^^'d parts and remove the "2")
elow...@avalon.net
ma...@iname.com wrote: [removing bio-neuro-whatever-netgroup. Don't see the
point]
> Andy Ylikoski schrieb:
> >
> > >From: pe...@baileynm.com (Peter da Silva)
> > >Subject: Re: Time Magazine: Man of the Millennium
> > [snips]
> > >Leonardo da Vinci is the most likely MotM, politically and socially.
> > >
> > >Though a lot could be said for Malthus. *sigh*
> >
> > My suggestion is the head of the American Revolution, George
> > Washington. He is the man who did the most for the benefit of the
> > human race.
>
> <flame type=ridiculous>
> Damn, and what about Rousseau, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Locke, all these,
> the whole Lumières crowd, Kant, whoever, what the fuck about THEM?
> </flame>
>
Ha-ha.
Thinking of Locke made me think of Benjamin Franklin.
I think it's good to have electicity, don't y'all?
I cannot explain my thought processes. Hmmmm. I think someone else in the
thread had a list of people who contributed in a romantic/political/literary
way, but forgot Mme Curie? Anyhow, extra points for the "renaissance"
persons and whatnot. Diplomacy AND firefighting!
Ed.
--=--===-------==
But we have a whole 3 years to go til 2001! Why worry, something
important might happen!
--=-======-====-=
--- "de omnibus dubitandum" All is to be doubted - Descartes ---
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Mike Albaugh
: Well, thinking in terms of what he actually *said*, "benefit of the
: human race", I think it's fair to at least consider that it might have
: been the unique contribution of George Washington that he laid down
: the foundations of a government, based not on powerful personal rule
: but the rule of the individual citizen (via democratic republic)
I'll give you that his refusal of offered "kingship" was
an important event, but might it not have been something like
Caesar's refusal of the Roman "crown", that is, pro-forma?
: and
: his private morality, and that this government, in basically the same
: form, a century later, struck the most definitive worldwide blow
: against the widespread practice of slavery.
Which neatly ignores the point brought up in the book:
"Lies my teacher told me", that England had mostly outlawed
slavery and the threat of the extension of abolition to the
North American colonies may have been a contributing factor
in the revolution. That is, some of the "patriots" were fighting
to keep their slaves.
: But, if a personal-power-based government outlaws slavery in the
: one instance, it can reinstate it in the next...
Rule of law is "A good thing", but don't shine too bright
a light on Lincoln's behavior during the "War Between the States"/
"American Civil War" Even the name begs the question, and the
victors get to write the history books :-) What Lincoln and company
did to the Bill of Rights, Louis Freeh only _dreams_ of :-)
: Whoever that King of England was who gave up the Battle of Hastings
: circa 1066 (though maybe the guy who started the invasion should
: really get the credit)
Harald Hardrada (sp?) and William "The Bastard" aka
"The Conqueror" aka "Of Normandy". I don't fault Harald for "giving up"
what with him being dead of an arrow through the eye and all :-)
I was actually meaning to mention William, except that I was refraining
from continuing this thread. Without him, British history and the English
language would be quite differnet, as would French history, and with
Britain and France changed greatly, most of European history would be
very different. Where would modern Communism have been without Lenin's
German-sponsored train-ride during WWI? :-)
I am not well-enough schooled in history to speculate whether
"someone else" would have done much the same thing. At the time one
needed a marginally plausible claim (having to do with a trick played
on Edward the Confessor) as well as an army and chutzpah to go conquering
one's neighbor. Nobody else comes immediately to mind with exactly
the qualifications... :-)
: Charles Babbage (sp?)
Had little effect in his lifetime. Looking back to him as
some sort of founder and ignoring, say, Maurice Wilkes, is a bit
like lionizing Osborne and ignoring Gates, or dismissing Volta
because some Babylonian (counterfeiters?) had working electroplating
works some centuries BCE. :-)
Nope, my money is on William, or maybe on whichever pope
authorized the Inquisition and started off the chain of religious
wars among the Abrahamic faiths that has so plagued the world ever
since.
Mike
| alb...@agames.com, speaking only for myself
Ocelot
> Woof! Woof! Bark-bark, Rin-Tin-Tin, grrrr woof, woof!
Meow, meow meow, mew, mew-meow Sophocles meow "Snagglepuss at
Colonus". Moew mew meow-purr Hitler liked dogs mew meow.
Mew mew Monica and Socks, Meow-Meow-ME-OOOOWWWWWWW! Pant,
PANT! (cigar smoke). Bill Clinton: "Lion King", meow meow.
Cat-o the Elder, meow meow, "Delenda est Carthago, doggie-
wogs!".
Meow, meow female cats? Cat-her-ine the Great, meow-mew
knocked off retarded husband, purrrrrfect meow. Cat-her-ine
of Aragon, Cat-her-ine de Medici. Willa Cat-her, meow-meow,
"Death Comes to the Archbishop" Cat-holic priest meow. Elsa
meow "Born Free" meow. Minorities meow meow, Black Panthers
meow Cornell Veterinary School takeover meow 1967. Tiger
Woods, meow mew.
Meow entertainers, Cat Stevens (grrrrr, grrrr Salman Rushdie!
GGGGRRRR!), Tony Tiger mew meow.
Peter da Silva
Dave Hansen <dha...@btree.com> wrote:
>On 23 Sep 1998 17:36:17 GMT, pe...@baileynm.com (Peter da Silva)
>wrote:
>>It's hard to point to any particular literary figure as being really critical.
>>Shakespeare was a man of his times, and he didn't introduce a new artform so
>>much as develop it. How about Daniel Defoe, who wrote the first modern novel
>>(even if it was based roughly on real events, Selkirk and Crusoe were not at
>>all similar...).
>I thought Miguel de Cervantes earned that honor for "Don Quixote"
I suppose so, though I think it could be argued that it's got more in common
with older allegories and morality plays rather than novels...
(I'll agree that Don Quixote was probably a better work of literature)
Peter da Silva
Mike Albaugh <alb...@agames.com> wrote:
> I'll give you that his refusal of offered "kingship" was
>an important event, but might it not have been something like
>Caesar's refusal of the Roman "crown", that is, pro-forma?
Given his refusal to run for a third term as President, setting a precedent
that lasted until the middle of the 20th century before being broken and
then, because of his precedent, turned into law... no, I don't think so.
Patrick Juola
David Brower <dbr...@us.oracle.com> wrote:
>Craig Burley <bur...@tweedledumb.cygnus.com> writes:
>
>>mawa...@t-online.de (Matthias Warkus) writes:
>
>>> Andy Ylikoski schrieb:
>>> >
>>> > Washington. He is the man who did the most for the benefit of the
>>> > human race.
>>>
>>> Revolution had some other benefit than just creating the first "modern"
>>> (this can be argued) democracy in the world?
>>> If yes, are you suggesting that the American hegemony has done us any
>>> good?
>
>I'd be hard pressed to say there was any 'American hegemony' until
>about 1945.
The Monroe Doctrine dates back to the early 1800s; I'd say that it's
as clear an expression of the ideal of American hegemony as anything
can be in history.
And what does this have to do with AI?
-kitten
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>mawa...@t-online.de (Matthias Warkus) writes:
>
>> Andy Ylikoski schrieb:
>> >
>> > My suggestion is the head of the American Revolution, George
>> > Washington. He is the man who did the most for the benefit of the
>> > human race.
>>
>> Or are you implying that George Washington's leading of the American
>> Revolution had some other benefit than just creating the first "modern"
>> (this can be argued) democracy in the world?
>> If yes, are you suggesting that the American hegemony has done us any
>> good?
>
>Well, thinking in terms of what he actually *said*, "benefit of the
>human race", I think it's fair to at least consider that it might have
>been the unique contribution of George Washington that he laid down
>the foundations of a government, based not on powerful personal rule
>but the rule of the individual citizen (via democratic republic) and
>his private morality, and that this government, in basically the same
>form, a century later, struck the most definitive worldwide blow
>against the widespread practice of slavery.
The United States was, among industrialized nations, about the LAST to
eliminate slavery.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>In article <Pine.BSF.4.02A.98092...@dillinger.io.com>,
>MA Lloyd <mall...@io.com> wrote:
>
>> FWIW the most popular work playing this game is probably Michael H Hart's
>> The 100. His ordering can of course be debated, but it isn't too bad; I
>> doubt you can make a decent case for anybody he hasn't put in the top 25.
>> His entries in the top 25 that fall into this millenium are Newton,
>> Gutenberg, Columbus, Einstein, Pasteur, Galileo, Darwin, Copernicus,
>> Lavoisier, Watt, Faraday, Maxwell, and Luther.
>
>Very often, you can take a name and then say "well, if he hadnt done it,
>someone else would.". If Columbus hadnt (re)discovered the Americas,
>someone else would. In the list above, Martin Luther would be the only one
>not in this category, so that is a good reason to make him Man of the
>Millennium.
And I'll dispute that.
Columbus was the first person with royal patronage to sail to America
after the printing press became commonplace in Europe.
Luther was the first cleric to publically rebel against the Church of
Rome, with sufficient noble and merchant support to avoid immediate
execution for heresy, after the printing press became commonplace in
Germany (where it originated).
Mentifex
Information Age, right? Very truly yours Mentifex/Arthur who
started the thread-rot [Do you like my etymology of "woman"?], I
agree with Rick Thomas <rbth...@lilypad.rutgers.edu> who wrote:
> MA Lloyd <mall...@io.com> writes: [...]
>> His entries in the top 25 that fall into this millennium are Newton,
>> Gutenberg, Columbus, Einstein, Pasteur, Galileo, Darwin, Copernicus,
>> Lavoisier, Watt, Faraday, Maxwell, and Luther.
> Of that list, my money's on Gutenberg. Movable type lead to cheap
> books (and perhaps more important, cheap pamphlets and cheap news-
> papers.) That led to a dissemination of learning and, consequently,
> political and economic power to the non-aristocratic classes. In
> turn, that created the opportunities for all the rest of those guys
> to do their things, and for all the rest of us to find out about them.
> Now that's what I call changing the course of history. [...]
Johann Gutenberg was the Forrest Gump of our outgoing millennium,
starting the uptick which right now in 1998 rises exponentially
out of sight towards The Singularity of Vernor Vinge. Rick Thomas
makes it suddenly as plain as day: We owe it all to Gutenberg.
His stately portrait will grace THE collector's item issue of TIME
magazine and I am willing to bet individual pages from the manu-
script of the Mentifex Nolarbeit Theory Journal one-for-one against
any version of the Amiga computer that TIME will coverize Gutenberg.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/7256/booksrc.html Book Sources
/^^^^^^^^^^^\ Using Memes to Change the World /^^^^^^^^^^^\
/visual memory\ ________ / auditory \
| /--------|-------\ memetic / syntax \ | memory |
| | recog-|nition | memory \________/---|-------------\ |
| ___|___ | | | | _______ | |
| /image \ | __V___ ___V___ | /stored \ | |
| / percept \ | / meme \------/lexical\----|--/ phonemes\| |
| \ engrams /---|---/concepts\----/concepts \---|--\ of words/ |
| \_______/ | \________/ \_________/ | \_______/ |
Gerry Quinn
>On 23 Sep 1998 17:36:17 GMT, pe...@baileynm.com (Peter da Silva)
>wrote:
>
>
>>It's hard to point to any particular literary figure as being really critical.
>>Shakespeare was a man of his times, and he didn't introduce a new artform so
>>much as develop it. How about Daniel Defoe, who wrote the first modern novel
>>(even if it was based roughly on real events, Selkirk and Crusoe were not at
>>all similar...).
>
>I thought Miguel de Cervantes earned that honor for "Don Quixote"
>
What's so modern about the 'modern novel'? Despite the accretions of
literary theory, the novel (as depiction of fictitious events
befalling fictitious persons) was well developed in the ancient world.
Patrick Juola
>In article <360943a4...@192.168.2.34>, dha...@btree.com (Dave Hansen) wrote:
>>On 23 Sep 1998 17:36:17 GMT, pe...@baileynm.com (Peter da Silva)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's hard to point to any particular literary figure as being really critical.
>>>Shakespeare was a man of his times, and he didn't introduce a new artform so
>>>much as develop it. How about Daniel Defoe, who wrote the first modern novel
>>>(even if it was based roughly on real events, Selkirk and Crusoe were not at
>>>all similar...).
>>
>>I thought Miguel de Cervantes earned that honor for "Don Quixote"
>>
>
>What's so modern about the 'modern novel'? Despite the accretions of
>literary theory, the novel (as depiction of fictitious events
>befalling fictitious persons) was well developed in the ancient world.
Really? Find a novel prior to 1000ad that
a) Purports to tell events "realistically" (e.g. no allegories)
b) Is expressly about characters that are not supposed to
have existed (e.g. no epics about legendary heroes)
Both the _Bible_ and Homer's canon, for instance, are supposedly
about people who really existed and were treated as such by their
audiences.
I doubt you'll be able to.
-kitten
Chris Lawson
>>It's hard to point to any particular literary figure as being really critical.
>>Shakespeare was a man of his times, and he didn't introduce a new artform so
>>much as develop it. How about Daniel Defoe, who wrote the first modern novel
>>(even if it was based roughly on real events, Selkirk and Crusoe were not at
>>all similar...).
>I thought Miguel de Cervantes earned that honor for "Don Quixote"
For various reasons, Defoe's _Moll Flanders_ is widely regarded
as the "first novel." Obviously this is the sort of statement
that can be argued all day. _Don Quixote_, it was never meant to
be a realist piece. Like all fiction of its time it was
deliberately fantastical, and would therefore not be considered a
novel by some strict definitions. Having said that, modern
understanding of novels is that they certainly can be fantastical
in nature. So by modern standards, Cervantes may be back in the
game :-)
regards,
Chris Lawson
Craig Burley
> I'll give you that his refusal of offered "kingship" was
> an important event, but might it not have been something like
> Caesar's refusal of the Roman "crown", that is, pro-forma?
Hmm, I don't know my history very well...did Washington seek to
remain in office longer, shorter, or just as long as he was
electable to it?
> : and
> : his private morality, and that this government, in basically the same
> : form, a century later, struck the most definitive worldwide blow
> : against the widespread practice of slavery.
>
> Which neatly ignores the point brought up in the book:
> "Lies my teacher told me", that England had mostly outlawed
> slavery and the threat of the extension of abolition to the
> North American colonies may have been a contributing factor
> in the revolution. That is, some of the "patriots" were fighting
> to keep their slaves.
*Some* of them. Others were apparently trying very hard to ignore
that issue, and at least privately discussing the importance of
someday truly dealy with it, from what I've read.
But, "England" had not outlawed slavery in the same sense the USA
did one hundred years later, in precisely the sense I meant. That
a handful of English rulers outlawed it, and the *subjects* went
along with that, was nice, but exactly what might have kept things
from changing had, for example, England retained the colonies and
been forced, by the same sorts of economic and immigration pressures
the US experienced anyway, to undertaking the Building of a Nation
to preserve its wealth and status back home? Is it really fair to
say there was no enslavement of, e.g., Indians during the 19th
Century (and perhaps into the 20th)? (Perhaps; I'm just asking.
I think maybe they were no more "enslaved" than the "hired help"
that built the US railroad system around that time.)
I'm saying there's a difference between doing something via
legislative fiat, and doing something via the blood of the
citizens who participate in the decision. I doubt you can find
more than 3 out of 100 20-year-olds today who have anywhere
near the investment in US freedoms the way probably 80 out of 100
20-year-olds did in, say, 1948 (and probably they feel the same
way today).
> : But, if a personal-power-based government outlaws slavery in the
> : one instance, it can reinstate it in the next...
>
> Rule of law is "A good thing", but don't shine too bright
> a light on Lincoln's behavior during the "War Between the States"/
> "American Civil War" Even the name begs the question, and the
> victors get to write the history books :-) What Lincoln and company
> did to the Bill of Rights, Louis Freeh only _dreams_ of :-)
War is hell. And don't get me started on our "War on Drugs" or our
war on parents who actually are trying to raise their children "right".
> : Whoever that King of England was who gave up the Battle of Hastings
> : circa 1066 (though maybe the guy who started the invasion should
> : really get the credit)
>
> Harald Hardrada (sp?) and William "The Bastard" aka
> "The Conqueror" aka "Of Normandy". I don't fault Harald for "giving up"
> what with him being dead of an arrow through the eye and all :-)
I must have my facts a bit off, at the very least. I'm thinking
of some story I read about a key battle (which I *think* was
Hastings) being given up, after it'd gone on a long while, just
when things were turning England's way, due to some sense that
"God" was somehow saying "give up". Is that anything approaching
history, or am I misremembering (or remembering someone's fanciful
account)?
> I am not well-enough schooled in history to speculate whether
> "someone else" would have done much the same thing. At the time one
> needed a marginally plausible claim (having to do with a trick played
> on Edward the Confessor) as well as an army and chutzpah to go conquering
> one's neighbor. Nobody else comes immediately to mind with exactly
> the qualifications... :-)
I also recall the weather, and Vikings, having played fairly important
roles during that...perhaps the necessary confluence would not have
occurred at some other time. (How truly chaotic our history can be. :)
> : Charles Babbage (sp?)
>
> Had little effect in his lifetime.
I agree.
(Speaking of Vikings, I suppose I could nominate Tom Landry. :)
Craig Burley
> The United States was, among industrialized nations, about the LAST to
> eliminate slavery.
I don't have much knowledge about this, so: what nations were
considered industrialized at that time, and to what extent did
each undertake the sort of nation-wide building of vast
infrastructure that the USA undertook (and which apparently
contributed to its subsequent military might) over the next
150 years?
(It's my impression that it's fairly easy to eliminate slavery,
especially my legislative fiat, once the major task of building
is completed, the population is relatively stabilized, and the
available land relatively well-colonized. Otherwise I'd assume
there'd be difficulty convincing people to stay and work on
building infrastructure or doing the hard work of feeding those
who did, when freedom permitted them to find their fortunes
elsewhere.)
Peter O'Neill
On 24 Sep 1998, Patrick Juola wrote:
>
> Really? Find a novel prior to 1000ad that
>
> a) Purports to tell events "realistically" (e.g. no allegories)
> b) Is expressly about characters that are not supposed to
> have existed (e.g. no epics about legendary heroes)
>
> Both the _Bible_ and Homer's canon, for instance, are supposedly
> about people who really existed and were treated as such by their
> audiences.
>
> I doubt you'll be able to.
>
> -kitten
>
>
don't much like to reply to something that's going to be cross-posted, but
how about:
Petronius - Satyricon
Apuleius - Golden Ass
and then the Greek novels,
Achilles Tatius - Leucippe and Cleitophon
Heliodorus - Aethiopica
and several others.
Gerry Quinn
>In article <6udgpo$iil$2...@news.indigo.ie>, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>>
>>What's so modern about the 'modern novel'? Despite the accretions of
>>literary theory, the novel (as depiction of fictitious events
>>befalling fictitious persons) was well developed in the ancient world.
>
>Really? Find a novel prior to 1000ad that
>
> a) Purports to tell events "realistically" (e.g. no allegories)
> b) Is expressly about characters that are not supposed to
> have existed (e.g. no epics about legendary heroes)
>
>Both the _Bible_ and Homer's canon, for instance, are supposedly
>about people who really existed and were treated as such by their
>audiences.
>
Even if the Greeks believed in Oddyseus, the Romans surely knew that
Virgil made up the Aeneid! And then there are the writers such as
Longus of Lesbos, or Heliodorus.
It is my understanding that these novels were treated as a form of
drama or comedy, rather than as a specific genre. Nevertheless, they
(like more generic dramas or comedies) are made up stories about
fantastic adventures, generally with a soupcon of erotic content. Don
Quixote and Moll Flanders are their direct heirs...
Llew
I take it you have read him in the original. My experience is that
he translates particularly badly into English. My chief impression
of the chap is that he is a cool dude. His philosophy is about
being a cool dude. As for the content of what he is saying, that
pales into insignificance against the sheer pithness of quotes
from him. By far the most mellifluous writer. Just compare him
to Confucious (Analects). Either way though, I don't think I
would suggest him as the man of the (B.C.) millenium. You need
more than style.
L
Matthias Warkus
>
> Dave Schreiber wrote in alt.memetics:
>
> > English is, for the moment at least, the lingua franca of the world.
>
> batch of Germans who managed to get the nation of France and the
> French language named after them. But it's a Latin phrase.
>
> Kind of ironic, isn't it?
The Franks weren't Germans in the modern sense. They didn't only get France
named after them, the French are descendants of the Franks - don't believe
Asterix, the Gallic people are not the French's ancestors.
BTW, calling what you call "Germans" "Germans" is factually wrong - the modern
nation of Germany consists of several tribes, Germans, Saxons, Alemans,
Frisians, several kinds of Franks, etc. pp.
But about every nation except the Germans, who call their nation Deutschland,
use the name of a single tribe to designate the whole thing-um-a-jig.
Germany, Allemagne, Alemania, etc. pp.
"Lingua France" means "language of the Franks", but it actually was a kind of
businessmens' pidgin language --- French, Italian, all the Romanic languages and
perhaps German mushed together.
Was quite popular around ~1200 or so.
mawa
--
mailto:ma...@iname.com | ACME Frob Coil Oil ... makes bits go faster!
My site was cracked by some obscene idiots this summer. It will go up
on another server soon. 'mawaspace' on Angelfire is not mine anymore.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GAT/U d-(--) s:- a--- C++(++++)>$ P+(--) L++>++++>$ E++>+++ W++(-) N++
o? K w---(+) >M+ V-- PS+(++) PE(-)(--) Y+>++ >PGP++ t+(---)@ 5>+ X-@
>R+++@ tv(+) b+++(++++)>$ >DI+ D(--)(---) G++ e@(*)>++++ h! !y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Peter da Silva
Craig Burley <bur...@tweedledumb.cygnus.com> wrote:
>(It's my impression that it's fairly easy to eliminate slavery,
>especially my legislative fiat, once the major task of building
>is completed, the population is relatively stabilized, and the
>available land relatively well-colonized. Otherwise I'd assume
>there'd be difficulty convincing people to stay and work on
>building infrastructure or doing the hard work of feeding those
>who did, when freedom permitted them to find their fortunes
>elsewhere.)
It's my impression that most of the infrastructure building was done
by free men in the course of their finding their fortunes. The main
reason slavery hung on was because cotton production was so labor
intensive, and too many people were running off finding their fortunes
in the process of extending the infrastructure.
David B. Chorlian
>postm...@127.0.0.1 (Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin) writes:
>> The United States was, among industrialized nations, about the LAST to
>> eliminate slavery.
>I don't have much knowledge about this, so: what nations were
>considered industrialized at that time, and to what extent did
>each undertake the sort of nation-wide building of vast
>infrastructure that the USA undertook (and which apparently
>contributed to its subsequent military might) over the next
>150 years?
If we consider serfdom the European equivalent of slavery, it
was pretty much eliminated in Western Europe in all its forms
by 1815, courtesy of the French Revolution and Napoleon. It
persisted in Russia until the 1860's and, in some ways, past
then. The French eliminated slavery in the colonies as a result
of the revolution, and the British by 1850.
>(It's my impression that it's fairly easy to eliminate slavery,
>especially my legislative fiat, once the major task of building
>is completed, the population is relatively stabilized, and the
>available land relatively well-colonized. Otherwise I'd assume
>there'd be difficulty convincing people to stay and work on
>building infrastructure or doing the hard work of feeding those
>who did, when freedom permitted them to find their fortunes
>elsewhere.)
The above doesn't make much sense in the American context.
Note that the increasing conflict in the 1850's was because of
the opposition of free whites to the opening of the West to
slavery because they felt they would be excluded from the
opportunity to successfully farm; they DID NOT want the slaves
to do the work. Lincoln was elected because he both advocated
that the West be free of slavery AND that he was not an abolitionist.
The other areas of the world with significant slave populations
were Brazil, which didn't abolish slavery until 1888, and the
Carribean, where slavery in British colonies was abolished by
the 1850's.
It's important to understand that slavery was primarily connected with
intensive, plantation based agriculture producing cash crops, such
as sugar, indigo, tobacco, and cotton.
By the way Craig, if you don't have much knowledge, why bother to
publish your thoughts?
>--
>"Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful."
>James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson bur...@gnu.org
--
David B. Chorlian
Neurodynamics Lab SUNY/HSCB
chor...@spot.neurodyn.hscbklyn.edu
dav...@panix.com
Moggin
[re: banning slavery]
> I'm saying there's a difference between doing something via
> legislative fiat, and doing something via the blood of the
> citizens who participate in the decision.
Forget about Washington and Lincoln, then: your choice for MotM
should be Jefferson Davis.
-- Moggin
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>In article <dbrower.906574832@senna>,
>David Brower <dbr...@us.oracle.com> wrote:
>>Craig Burley <bur...@tweedledumb.cygnus.com> writes:
>>
>>>mawa...@t-online.de (Matthias Warkus) writes:
>>
>>>> Andy Ylikoski schrieb:
>>>> >
>>>> > My suggestion is the head of the American Revolution, George
>>>> > Washington. He is the man who did the most for the benefit of the
>>>> > human race.
>>>>
>>>> Or are you implying that George Washington's leading of the American
>>>> Revolution had some other benefit than just creating the first "modern"
>>>> (this can be argued) democracy in the world?
>>>> If yes, are you suggesting that the American hegemony has done us any
>>>> good?
>>
>>I'd be hard pressed to say there was any 'American hegemony' until
>>about 1945.
>
>The Monroe Doctrine dates back to the early 1800s; I'd say that it's
>as clear an expression of the ideal of American hegemony as anything
>can be in history.
The Monroe Doctrine basically declared sympathy toward (but not
necessarily support for) movements in Central and South America for
independence from European powers, plus active support to protect any
independent nations in that area from re-conquest by said European
powers.
So long as the Europeans were not involved, the United States under
the Monroe Doctrine was not particularly interested in the rest of the
hemisphere.
The US's commitments under the Monroe Doctrine could be entirely
fulfilled by naval force. The United States had demonstrated its
ability to effectively wage naval warfare (plus limited shock-troop
land actions) at a great distance beginning in 1801.
To me, that doesn't seem like much of a hegemony.
>And what does this have to do with AI?
THAT is a truly good question.
Urban Fredriksson
Dave Schreiber <now...@nowhere.gov> wrote:
> English was the language of the British empire, which
>controlled of a large portion of the world's people and land at its
>height.
I'd say French as the language of diplomacy has had more
importance.
> It seems obvious (to this
>Lutheran, at least) that the lives of more people today are affected on a
>day-to-day basis by Shakespeare than by Luther.
Apart from the fact that it's English and not some other
language, in what way does it have any importance? If
German was the most common language in the USA, what
else would be different?
Luther introduced new ideas, so without him or someone
like him things would be different. What would have been
as much different without Shakespeare?
--
Urban Fredriksson gri...@canit.se http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
Photo pages with: T400CN - photos and opinion,
Gallery (updated 1998 Sep 15 with Björkliden photos)
and (a bit) more at: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/1568/pix.html
Eric Hildum
outlawed using Japanese nationals as slaves within Japan, and exporting
Japanese nationals to be used as slaves.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
> Craig Burley wrote in alt.memetics:
>
> >mawa...@t-online.de (Matthias Warkus) writes:
> >
> >Well, thinking in terms of what he actually *said*, "benefit of the
> >human race", I think it's fair to at least consider that it might have
> >been the unique contribution of George Washington that he laid down
> >the foundations of a government, based not on powerful personal rule
> >but the rule of the individual citizen (via democratic republic) and
> >his private morality, and that this government, in basically the same
> >form, a century later, struck the most definitive worldwide blow
> >against the widespread practice of slavery.
>
> The United States was, among industrialized nations, about the LAST to
> eliminate slavery.
--
---------------------------
Eric Hildum
Eric....@Japan.NCR.COM
Maynard Handley
> postm...@127.0.0.1 (Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin) writes:
>
> > The United States was, among industrialized nations, about the LAST to
> > eliminate slavery.
>
> I don't have much knowledge about this, so: what nations were
> considered industrialized at that time, and to what extent did
> each undertake the sort of nation-wide building of vast
> infrastructure that the USA undertook (and which apparently
> contributed to its subsequent military might) over the next
> 150 years?
>
> (It's my impression that it's fairly easy to eliminate slavery,
> especially my legislative fiat, once the major task of building
> is completed, the population is relatively stabilized, and the
> available land relatively well-colonized. Otherwise I'd assume
> there'd be difficulty convincing people to stay and work on
> building infrastructure or doing the hard work of feeding those
> who did, when freedom permitted them to find their fortunes
> elsewhere.)
I'd say the issue is also one of the nature of the economy.
Slavery became a big deal because of the plantation economy system which
was a way to utilize these tracts of land in the Americas that had been
pinched from the locals. What then happened was that most of the Americas
had their own revolutions from Spain or Portugal.
However at that point the plantation economy did not stop---large estates
run for the benefit of the few through the labor of many with no choice
continued throughout the Americas.
So I guess the issue becomes
(a) Europe could abolish slavery because it was not an immediate
substantial threat to their economic system.
(b) The South likewise could not.
(c) The rest of the Americas could claim they had no slavery in some weird
legalistic sense, but only because they were using the locals for labor,
not so much Africans, and because their system was more like serfdom than
slavery, which is a pretty fine distinction.
However I don't see nation building as especially relevant to slavery.
Nation building is basically working hard now to build something
productive for the future. Since there is expected to be a largescale pay
off, you can pay the workers a decent wage right now to do the job. The
plantation economy is more a kind of keeping an inefficient system
sputtering along purely for the benefit of a few people with power.
Maynard
--
My opinion only
Jeff Iverson
wrote:
>Leonardo da Vinci is the most likely MotM, politically and socially.
>
>Though a lot could be said for Malthus. *sigh*
>
>--
>In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com>
> `-_-' "Har du kramat din varg idag?"
> 'U`
> "Tell init(8) to lock-n-load, we're goin' zombie slaying!"
I agree that da Vinci is a good candidate. My personal choice would be
Ayn Rand, author of "Atlas Shrugged" one of the most influential books
of all time. As a philosopher she developed Objectivism, and
championed Reason in the 20th century.
Cheers!
J5rson!
--
Jeffrey D. Iverson - Iverson Software Co.
The Directory of Computer Consulants & Developers
http://www.iversonsoftware.com/service.html
38 Downtown Plaza #3, Fairmont MN 56031, 507-235-9209
Larry Caldwell
> I suggest you do some reading on the subject, and alter your bigoted sexist views.
His view may be sexist, but it is also accurate. Maybe by the end of the
next millennium, women will have made a more profound contribution to
human culture.
-- Larry
Larry Caldwell
> I'd be hard pressed to say there was any 'American hegemony' until
> about 1945.
You need to read some history. Look up the Monroe Doctrine, the Spanish-
American War, Teddy Roosevelt, the Panama Canal and gunboat diplomacy for
starters.
-- Larry
Larry Caldwell
> Issac Newton. (that from a Shakespeare and huge Beethovan fan.)
No question.
For first runner up, I would pick James Clerk Maxwell.
-- Larry
Larry Caldwell
> On 23 Sep 1998 17:36:17 GMT, pe...@baileynm.com (Peter da Silva)
> wrote:
> >It's hard to point to any particular literary figure as being really critical.
> >Shakespeare was a man of his times, and he didn't introduce a new artform so
> >much as develop it. How about Daniel Defoe, who wrote the first modern novel
> >(even if it was based roughly on real events, Selkirk and Crusoe were not at
> >all similar...).
> I thought Miguel de Cervantes earned that honor for "Don Quixote"
And in English, the novel format was first written by Thomas Hardy.
-- Larry
G*rd*n
| > I suggest you do some reading on the subject, and alter your bigoted sexist views.
lar...@teleport.com (Larry Caldwell):
| His view may be sexist, but it is also accurate. Maybe by the end of the
| next millennium, women will have made a more profound contribution to
| human culture.
I don't see any reason to identify fame with culture. The
average mother has probably contributed more constructively
to human culture than all the great generals, politicians,
and other puff adders of this millennium or any other put
together. The leading characters of history -- "the sorry
register of man's crimes and follies" -- are by and large
its leading psychopaths and blowhards.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 9/10 } <-adv't
David Brower
I'd be hard pressed to compare any of that to the existence of
the very active, and very explicit european empires of the same
vintage. Asserting that there was "American Hegemony" in a
century dominated by the British Empire seems like pressing
a point for rhetorical obfuscation to me.
It there *was* "American Hegemony" in the 1800s, it was in
the successful application of Manifest Destiny and the suppression
of the natives in the CONUS. This was so successful that only
a handful of people in some of the affected regions, like Montana,
have any desire to opt out of the 20th century :-)
And back to one of the original points, the claim that the US was
the last of the industrial nations to outlaw slavery, we may admit
that as a fact. Then we might ask how lower castes in India, under
British rule, we in a state that could be described as anything
less than virtual slavery? Pot/Kettle/Black.
Now, if *one* of the NGs in this discussion was relevant, we could
try to move it there, but sadly, *none* do :-(
-dB
Craig Burley
> In article <y6u31xr...@tweedledumb.cygnus.com>,
> Craig Burley <bur...@tweedledumb.cygnus.com> wrote:
> >(It's my impression that it's fairly easy to eliminate slavery,
> >especially my legislative fiat, once the major task of building
> >is completed, the population is relatively stabilized, and the
> >available land relatively well-colonized. Otherwise I'd assume
> >there'd be difficulty convincing people to stay and work on
> >building infrastructure or doing the hard work of feeding those
> >who did, when freedom permitted them to find their fortunes
> >elsewhere.)
>
> It's my impression that most of the infrastructure building was done
> by free men in the course of their finding their fortunes. The main
> reason slavery hung on was because cotton production was so labor
> intensive, and too many people were running off finding their fortunes
> in the process of extending the infrastructure.
Well, I guess "African slaves built this nation" was another one of those
lies my teachers taught me. (Not that I entirely believed it anyway.)
(Note I did say "...or doing the hard work of feeding those who did",
by which I meant to include farming and, I guess, cotten production.)
Craig Burley
> In article <3606B2DA...@primenet.com>, am...@primenet.com says...
>
> > I suggest you do some reading on the subject, and alter your bigoted sexist views.
>
> His view may be sexist, but it is also accurate. Maybe by the end of the
> next millennium, women will have made a more profound contribution to
> human culture.
Speaking of which, I did come up with another name I haven't seen
yet:
Florence Nightingale
From what little I've read, she basically created the modern nursing
profession. Not quite "MotM", but another name worth putting on a
long list perhaps.
Keith Morrison
> >I agree that da Vinci is a good candidate. My personal choice would be
> >Ayn Rand, author of "Atlas Shrugged" one of the most influential books
> >of all time. As a philosopher she developed Objectivism, and
> >championed Reason in the 20th century.
>
> That's not reason. And she was not a philosopher
Not to mention that beyond the US mention of her name outside
some academic circles will result in a response of "Who?"
--
Keith Morrison
kei...@polarnet.ca
Matthias Warkus
>
> On 18 Sep 1998 15:12:37 GMT, pe...@baileynm.com (Peter da Silva)
> wrote:
>
> >Leonardo da Vinci is the most likely MotM, politically and socially.
> >
> >Though a lot could be said for Malthus. *sigh*
> >
> >--
> >In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com>
> > `-_-' "Har du kramat din varg idag?"
> > 'U`
> > "Tell init(8) to lock-n-load, we're goin' zombie slaying!"
>
> Ayn Rand, author of "Atlas Shrugged" one of the most influential books
> of all time. As a philosopher she developed Objectivism, and
> championed Reason in the 20th century.
What influence did she have? Go on and tell me.
Is her book a Dianetics-like "explain the world to me" pamphlet? (I read it
was.)
Is her prose as good as that of, say, Nietzsche? (Probably not a good example,
but his prose *is* good. Not that I think *he* should be the MotM.)
After all, isn't that book libertarian stuff?
LOL.
Andy Ylikoski
>From: mawa...@t-online.de (Matthias Warkus)
>Subject: Re: Time Magazine: Man of the Millennium
>Newsgroups: alt.memetics,alt.postmodern,bionet.neuroscience,comp.ai,comp.arch,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,rec.arts.sf.science
>Date: 22 Sep 1998 16:31:47 GMT
>Organization: Royal Space Navy / Question Mark Software
>Reply-To: ma...@iname.com
Path: nntp.hut.fi!newsfeed1.funet.fi!news-stkh.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!194.25.2.138!newsfeed00.btx.dtag.de!news.btx.dtag.de!not-for-mail
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <6u8jdj$cdn$1...@news00.btx.dtag.de>
References: <36024...@news.victoria.tc.ca> <6ttt95$b...@web.nmti.com> <svy7lyy...@alpha.hut.fi>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Sender: 32003404...@t-online.de
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [de]C-NECCK (Win95; I)
Xref: nntp.hut.fi alt.memetics:7379 alt.postmodern:69634 bionet.neuroscience:22073 comp.ai:54665 comp.arch:82871 comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:232544 rec.arts.sf.science:68796
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Andy Ylikoski schrieb:
>>
>> >From: pe...@baileynm.com (Peter da Silva)
>> >Subject: Re: Time Magazine: Man of the Millennium
>> [snips]
>> >Leonardo da Vinci is the most likely MotM, politically and socially.
>> >
>> >Though a lot could be said for Malthus. *sigh*
>>
>> human race.
>
><flame type=ridiculous>
>Damn, and what about Rousseau, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Locke, all these,
>the whole Lumières crowd, Kant, whoever, what the fuck about THEM?
></flame>
;;; FLAME
Why ridiculous?? My opinion is that you are simply not fully aware
what the followers of Washington have done for this world.
The Americans were the first to send men on the Moon. How many of our
readers have greatly benefitted from the masterpieces of Voltaire??
;;; FLAME OFF
>Or are you implying that George Washington's leading of the American
>Revolution had some other benefit than just creating the first "modern"
>(this can be argued) democracy in the world?
>If yes, are you suggesting that the American hegemony has done us any
>good?
To us and to me it has.
>If no, are you realising George Washington has invented neither
>democracy nor sliced bread? If this was "Man of the Last Three
>Millennia", I'd have a hard time deciding between Solon, Cleisthenes and
>Pericles.
I recommend reading the newsgroup alt.politics.org.cia.
The Central Intelligence Agency has been said to have saved one
billion human lives.
How many ones did Solon save??
>mawa
>--
>mailto:ma...@iname.com | ACME Frob Coil Oil ... makes bits go faster!
>My site was cracked by some obscene idiots this summer. It will go up
>on another server soon. 'mawaspace' on Angelfire is not mine anymore.
andy e ylikoski AKA Kaddish
Andy Ylikoski
>Date: 20 Sep 1998 11:56:22 GMT
>Organization: Bailey Network Management
Path: nntp.hut.fi!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!howland.erols.net!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!ultraneo.neosoft.com!news-proxy.baileynm.com!web.nmti.com!not-for-mail
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <6u2qh6$g...@web.nmti.com>
References: <36024...@news.victoria.tc.ca> <6ttt95$b...@web.nmti.com> <36032ace....@news.blarg.net> <36035DDB...@OntheNet.com.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: wssql01.nmti.com
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test67 (15 July 1998)
Xref: nntp.hut.fi alt.memetics:7368 alt.postmodern:69561 bionet.neuroscience:22033 comp.ai:54624 comp.arch:82830 comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:232468 rec.arts.sf.science:68704
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>I'm thinking more about the political and social environment of our time,
>and how Leonardo's posthumous cult of personality effects the people who
>go around picking Men of the Millenium to toss on magazine covers.
My opinion is that the achievements of American scientists by far
surpass Leonardo da Vinci.
>--
>In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com>
> `-_-' "Har du kramat din varg idag?"
"Voulez-vous aimer mes chiens??"
Andy Ylikoski
"When did you last hug your wolf??"
We have this crime problem in Finland.
Paul Hsieh
> Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com> wrote:
> >Where's Marie Curie? I mean, really...
>
> Nowhere in the running. All she did was fill in a couple of
> holes in the periodic table.
Excuse me?? She happened to have discovered radiation you know. Your
microwave oven, our nuclear power plants, and the atomic age would have
been absent without her discovery! I'd put her in the top 50, easily.
> [...] Give credit to the guy that
> invented the periodic table and discovered the holes for her
> to fill....
You want to give credit for someone discoverying a "classification
system"? Sheesh ... !
--
Paul Hsieh
q...@pobox.com
http://www.pobox.com/~qed
Paul Hsieh
> MA Lloyd <mall...@io.com> wrote:
> >FWIW the most popular work playing this game is probably Michael H Hart's
> >The 100. His ordering can of course be debated, but it isn't too bad; I
> >doubt you can make a decent case for anybody he hasn't put in the top 25.
> >His entries in the top 25 that fall into this millenium are Newton,
> >Gutenberg, Columbus, Einstein, Pasteur, Galileo, Darwin, Copernicus,
> >Lavoisier, Watt, Faraday, Maxwell, and Luther.
>
> What about Shakespeare??? That list is ridiculously biased toward
> scientists.
You know, some people don't even like Shakespeare. Personally, I think
many of his plays were totally worthless (though I do like some.) You
can't subject the validity of a scientists' discoveries to pure opinion.
In a previous post, I mentioned Andrew Wiles, who proved Fermat's Last
Theorem. Since this is obviously turning into nothing more than who can
name the most famous people contest, allow me to offer at least a good
reason as to why I picked him.
I would argue that the ultimate achievement of human kind is their
ability to think and reason at an unprecendented level in ways not
observed anywhere (if we ignore the National Inquirer for a moment.)
I think most people can agree with that.
But we might differ on the "greatness" of any particular kind of thought.
For example, I think all great philosopers, lawyers, poets while
successful at their endeavour have essentially forfeited any claim to
greatness by virtue of thier chosen field alone. But I'm sure that not
everyone agrees with me.
Anyhow, so given that it might be impossible to put a metric on the value
of one kind of thought relative to another, why not instead measure the
intensity and depth of the thought.
Andrew Wiles spent 7 years in virtual solitude working by himself to
prove Fermat's last theorem after hundreds, if not thousands of
mathematicians before him tried and failed. When I think about all the
other achievments of man, I can't think of one that compares in total
depth and intensity. I think that this proof is the ultimate
intellectual trophy of man kind.
Chris Lawson
[snip re:Curie]
>Excuse me?? She happened to have discovered radiation you know. Your
>microwave oven, our nuclear power plants, and the atomic age would have
>been absent without her discovery! I'd put her in the top 50, easily.
Actually, as has been pointed out before on this thread,
Becquerel discovered radiation.
>> [...] Give credit to the guy that
>> invented the periodic table and discovered the holes for her
>> to fill....
>You want to give credit for someone discoverying a "classification
>system"? Sheesh ... !
Mendeleev, who created the periodic table, did more than just
"discover a classification system". He discovered extremely
important relationships and rules which allowed the
classification system to work. Not only that, but he used his
system to predict the existence of many previously unknown
elements and predicted their chemical properties with remarkabke
accuracy.
In short, he didn't just classify things, he created a theory of
atomic-chemical relationships and made stunningly accurate
predictions based on that theory. This is what good science is
all about. The fact that many people think of the periodic table
as a boring old classification system is a measure of its
success, just as scientists in 2100 will probably be bored stiff
reading about Bohr's QM and wonder what all the fuss was about.
regards,
Chris Lawson
Chris Lawson
[big snip]
>Andrew Wiles spent 7 years in virtual solitude working by himself to
>prove Fermat's last theorem after hundreds, if not thousands of
>mathematicians before him tried and failed. When I think about all the
>other achievments of man, I can't think of one that compares in total
>depth and intensity. I think that this proof is the ultimate
>intellectual trophy of man kind.
Andrew Wiles is an amazing mathematician, but I think you are
falling victim to the recency effect, whereby more recent events
appear to be more important by their immediacy. This is the same
reason that most "Best Ever" polls of music, novels, films, or
whatever, are heavily slanted towards works that appeared
recently.
And although Wiles' proof is an amazing piece of work, there are
plenty of others who have worked on problems for years. And the
other problem is that Fermat's Last Theorem is a bit of a "trophy
proof" in that it has little interest beyond the historical.
Other great mathematicians, such as Gauss and Pascal not only
provided great proofs and amazing insights, their work has
*applications*.
In short, much as I admire Wiles, I wouldn't even shortlist him
for the Man of the Millennium.
regards,
Chris Lawson
Craig Burley
> Andrew Wiles spent 7 years in virtual solitude working by himself to
> prove Fermat's last theorem after hundreds, if not thousands of
> mathematicians before him tried and failed. When I think about all the
> other achievments of man, I can't think of one that compares in total
> depth and intensity. I think that this proof is the ultimate
> intellectual trophy of man kind.
Hey, the guy set out to find something, and found something *else*.
Plus, he had the help of various good friends, wisely picked at
just the right point in the process, and well-managed.
Just kidding, sorta, I think his effort was really incredible (having
just watched the documentary, a TV being about as close as I've gotten
to "real math" in 20 years or so), but the proof hasn't exactly
*influenced* much, yet.
But, to pick someone who has undertaken a similar effort, that
started out solo, long-considered impossible, and has turned into
a vast effort by picking the right "friends" and managing the
project successfully, to the point where the "impossible" has been
achieved and is now having an impact beyond all predictions, how
about:
Linus Torvalds
At least from a comp.arch point of view, he's probably done more for
the viability of "whatever architecture you want to create and
whatever machine you want to build, as long as it's cost-effective"
as anybody.
(Of course, Richard Stallman might deserve to be mentioned as well.)
But, I agree, Wiles' effort was really something. I hope someday
somebody finds something that can be fairly deemed to be Fermat's
actual *proof*...
...or at least "Fermat's Last, Really Really Tiny, Pen". :)