Casual thread

How about domesticated raccoons: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/raccoons-are-smart-but-not-good-pets/

It would be very interesting to repeat the Russian fox experiment with raccoons.

For a good take on what makes domestication even possible, there's Jared Diamond's "Gun, Germs, and Steel." Though for raccoons, the reason none have ever been domesticated is simple: what's there in it for humans? Dogs aid in hunting, cats control small pests, horses provide transportation, chickens provide eggs and meat.

If they become domesticated eventually, they may be the first animal domesticated solely to act as a pet.

BTW, the reason we got a cat so many years ago was a pigeon problem on the roof. Pigeons liked to roost there and made a lot of noise and a lot of waste. after trying several useless remedies, we got a cat and the pigeons vanished.

Antonio de Nebrija (1441 – 5 July 1522) in 1492, published the first grammar of the Spanish language. He dedicated this book to Isabella I of Castile, the catholic queen. When the book was presented to her, she asked: “Why would I want a work like this? I already know the language.”

In 1605, Cervantes was in Valladolid when the immediate success of the first part of his Don Quixote, published in Madrid, signaled his return to the literary world. In 1607, he settled in Madrid, where he lived and worked until his death. He wrote the second part of Don Quixote in 1615.

Quote: Nareed

In school we read passages from Cervantes' works, and they were pretty much "all Greek to me."

Shakespeare's lines from Julius Ceasar:

Cassius. Did Cicero say any thing?
Casca. Ay, he spoke Greek.
Cassius. To what effect?
Casca. Nay, an I tell you that, Ill ne'er look you i' the face again: but those that understood him smiled at one another and shook their heads; but, for mine own part, it was Greek to me.

Many scholars feel that the way it was presented as a joke implies that it was a recognizable saying. But it was never found in an earlier written work, so it is possible that Shakespeare invented the phrase.

I was always under the impression that English changed more than Spanish in the last 4 centuries.

But even English from 1851 is annoying to read. You may understand the words, but you have to read it over and over to try and figure out what he is saying.

Opposite the mouth of the works, on the further side of the wide wooden hearth, was the windlass. This served for a sea-sofa. Here lounged the watch, when not otherwise employed, looking into the red heat of the fire, till their eyes felt scorched in their heads. Their tawny features, now all begrimed with smoke and sweat, their matted beards, and the contrasting barbaric brilliancy of their teeth, all these were strangely revealed in the capricious emblazonings of the works. As they narrated to each other their unholy adventures, their tales of terror told in words of mirth; as their uncivilized laughter forking upwards out of them, like the flames from the furnace; as to and fro, in their front, the harpooneers wildly gesticulated with their huge pronged forks and dippers; as the wind howled on, and the sea leaped, and the ship groaned and dived, and yet steadfastly shot her red hell further and further into the blackness of the sea and the night, and scornfully champed the white bone in her mouth, and viciously spat round her on all sides; then the rushing Pequod, freighted with savages, and laden with fire, and burning a corpse, and plunging into the blackness of darkness, seemed the material counterpart of her monomaniac commander's soul.

Quote: Pacomartin

I was always under the impression that English changed more than Spanish in the last 4 centuries.

It's commonly thought that English has
twice as many words as Spanish. It's
closer to, 150K words in Spanish, 600K
words in English, which is 4 times as
many. English has over 1 million if
you count prefix words and conjugated
verbs.

An educated American has a vocalulary
of 20K words. An non reading American,
which seems like most of them, get by
with less than 1000 words. They are the
ones that think lose is spelled 'loose'.

On another forum I almost was banned
this week because I pointed out that
there was a spelling error in the title
of an E book. In the fricking title! The
admin on this site, a woman from
Portugal, screamed at me for a whole
paragraph that spelling doesn't matter,
it's the fact we knew what the author
meant. This is where the world is headed,
dumb everybody down. It's frightening.

Quote: Pacomartin

Many scholars feel that the way it was presented as a joke implies that it was a recognizable saying. But it was never found in an earlier written work, so it is possible that Shakespeare invented the phrase.

I came across the expression in an Asimov "Griswold" mystery years ago. I lost the book somehow.

Quote:

But even English from 1851 is annoying to read. You may understand the words, but you have to read it over and over to try and figure out what he is saying.

You should try 18th Century English. I had so much trouble with it reading "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," that I've yet to read parts 2 and 3. Vocabulary and turn of phrase aside, lots of references just fly overhead. At one point Gibbon explains that the Romans used Iberia the way Spain presently uses Mexico. I understood it, but only after thinking about it. The Romans were extracting precious metals from Iberia for their own use.

at that, it might be the last major work on Rome not to make comparisons between Rome and the US :)

Per one of Clarke's Laws, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Is the reverse true? Is magic indistinguishable from a sufficiently advanced technology?

Quote: Nareed

You should try 18th Century English. I had so much trouble with it reading "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," that I've yet to read parts 2 and 3

I'm a big cookbook fan and 18th century
cookbooks are almost impossible to read.
For one thing, an 'S' looks like an 'F'. And
the way they phrase things, it's almost
like Yoda is talking.

A typical sentence would look like:

"Take a goofe, flit the throat, fave the
blood for foup, upfide down hung he
will be for 2 dayf."

Quote: Evenbob

I'm a big cookbook fan and 18th century
cookbooks are almost impossible to read.
For one thing, an 'S' looks like an 'F'. And
the way they phrase things, it's almost
like Yoda is talking.

Come to the courthouse some day and you can see what we have to read in the form of old deeds and court cases. Some had great penmanship, some we are like the expert on "Pawn Stars" looking at what we know is this or that letter to see if it marches what we do not know. The more modern they are the better chance they use the Palmer Method and the more sense it makes. Some you just have to do your best and guess.

Quote: AZDuffman

Come to the courthouse some day and you can see what we have to read in the form of old deeds and court cases. Some had great penmanship, some we are like the expert on "Pawn Stars" looking at what we know is this or that letter to see if it marches what we do not know.

People love to fantasize about a time
machine and going back 150 years.
The first thing you would notice is,
they all stank to high heaven because
they rarely bathed. And the second thing
would be, you could barely understand
the English they spoke. Words are in
the wrong places and the slang they
use is like a foreign language.

Quote: Nareed

Per one of Clarke's Laws, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Is the reverse true? Is magic indistinguishable from a sufficiently advanced technology?

I guess since we're into teleportation quantum level, invisibility (cloaking), and things involving time changing moving through space --- pretty much merging with magic tricks.

People get cut in half in accidents, and we can put plenty of parts back together if not a whole person.

Magic is a lot more seamless in action than science though. Of course, it is all appearances.

Quote: rxwine

People get cut in half in accidents, and we can put plenty of parts back together if not a whole person.

Magic is a lot more seamless in action than science though. Of course, it is all appearances.

It's kind of a trick question, since there's no such thing as magic :)

But if you look at descriptions of magic in stories, much of it is nothing like advanced technology.

Consider seven-league boots. These magical footwear allows you to cover seven leagues in one step. That's about 38.50 km/s. assuming one step takes one second. Since orbital speed for Earth is about 11 km/s, you'd go into orbit or burn up due to friction with the atmosphere.

Today much of the stories involving magic and legend have become comic books.