|
You can start with any, if you want a recomendation though mine would be Mort or maybe gaurds guards
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
He was a story teller who knew how to eke the best out of the language. His chosen field to show his love of the language just happened to be fantasy but I imagine he would have been equally at home in other styles. How can you not love an author who comes out with lines such as "Death rides a horse called Binky"?
|
|
|
|
|
Ye.
What never ceases to amaze me is that they walked all the way down to the mountains of Mexican and the Andes and never seem to notice what is today the USA & Canada in between. To make it even more curious, any of them that didn't make south remained as Eskimos in the very north of Canada. What is even more amazing is that somehow large quantities of copper was mined around Michigan as long ago as 1500BC by people that seemed to disappear into thin air? (see link below).
After the Spanish were finished massacring the natives of South America there is unto 60% of the population of countries like Peru still native today. Only for the English prevented them getting near the tiny population of USA & Canada we would probably have less natives there than we have today?
http://www.philipcoppens.com/copper.html[^]
|
|
|
|
|
It's interesting as an engineering feat.
Nothing else.
Just consider what the Wright Brothers did. The author isn't out to prove that no one else did it first.
Nor were the Wright Brothers. Why would you focus on such a thing? I think it reveals something. But I don't know or care what.  Smile and the world smiles with you.
|
|
|
|
|
my comment was in response to those commenting on the fact that the Wright brothers were not the first to fly,
IMHO the one thing that enabled the Wright brothers flight was the design and construction of the engine every other aspect of the design was already in existence and was proven technology, so credit where its due the engine was remarkable for its power to weight and it alone was the success factor, that's and their ability to select the best of the existing tech that was already out there
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Some folks find it easier to criticize than admire. I don't know the full story, but I'd be willing to beat what they accomplished was nothing short of miraculous.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Some folks find it easier to criticize than admire.
I agree. I keep running into people like that without even trying, but they are ignore-worthy anyways, I guess.
Thanks for chiming in. Again, the engineering feat and the pure tenacity and give-it-everything-you've-got attitude in the Wright Brothers was really great. And the book reveals how that before all the work with the plane that Wilbur felt quite useless and thought he might fail in business.
Over all they come off as quite humble and focused on the work.
|
|
|
|
|
No one cares.
Not even the Wright Brothers themselves.
I like the story as a feat of Engineering.
Nothing else.
|
|
|
|
|
newton.saber wrote: No one cares.
Judging by the amount of interest this has garnered here on CP, you're wrong about that. Obviously people do care. You might not, but others do.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe... but the OP didn't say anything about the Wright brothers being first or not using ideas from others - yet you guys immediately jumped to that conclusion. One of you even went so far as to claim that lying about inventions was an American trait.
It gets a little old... 
Contrary to popular belief, nobody owes you anything.
|
|
|
|
|
It did get out of hand a bit, however, you're making assumptions about why I asked my question. If the book had made that claim, I would have dismissed it and not bothered with it. If it makes no claims about that, then it's more likely to be an unbiased, hence, more interesting read. And that's why I asked - not because I was jumping to a conclusion, that's why I phrased it as a question.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Mullikin wrote: It gets a little old...
Agreed!
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Mullikin wrote: One of you even went so far as to claim that lying about inventions was an American trait.
Haters gonna hate man.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
You should visit the USAF Museum in Dayton Ohio, last time I was there they had a full size replica of the Wright Flyer on display.
|
|
|
|
|
Very cool. Have to plan a trip and go.
|
|
|
|
|
There is evidence that the Wright Brothers were not the first to fly or even invent the first powered flying machine.
In 1896 Dr. Samuel Langley developed his famous "aeroplane". Though worthy of powered flight, he used a complicated catapult mechanism from a large house-boat that on both attempts caught the landing skid throwing the craft head-first into the water. The famous aviator, Glen Curtis, rebuilt the machine to Langley's specifications while strengthening a few structure in 1914. He successfully flew the craft under power for a quarter mile.
Gustav Whitehead's estate has shown that Whitehead was actually the first to fly a powered machine in the summer of 1903, six months prior to the famous Wright flight. When the Wrights received a patent for their work in later years, Whitehead challenged them demonstrating that they could not receive a patent on something that he had already accomplished. By then then however, the Wrights had become quite nasty in the defense of their work and destroyed Whitehead's reputation in the ensuing lawsuits.
Steve Naidamast
Sr. Software Engineer
blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Naidamast wrote: There is evidence that the Wright Brothers were not the first to fly
I think I stated it most clearly when I said, no one cares.
However, allow me to elucidate upon that answer.
Not a single person who actually knows the history of powered flight cares at all. The rest are uninformed bumpkins.
Allow me to reiterate what has already been iterated with various recursions of repeatedness:
No one cares who was first.
Have you found this funny? Might I suggest you upvote it prodigiously? Yes, I shall suggest it.
Upvote, upvote, upvote. You are in my power. Upvote now!!!
Please take note: I've marked this message JOKE.
|
|
|
|
|
Assume there's a thread in one of the technical discussion forums, started by another member. And one of the replies contains something that sparks your interest but isn't related to the question of the OP: Do you think it's alright to post your question in the same thread? If no, which other option would there be?
edit - for clarification: I'm thinking about a question targeted specifically at the member who posted a reply, not a question which could be answered potentially by anyone.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
modified 26-May-15 7:28am.
|
|
|
|
|
I would start a new thread that links to the original post, possibly replying to say that you are doing that.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
chriselst wrote: I would start a new thread that links to the original post,
|
|
|
|
|
Do you think we should change the voting system on threads?
|
|
|
|
|
P0mpey3 wrote: Do you think we should change the voting system on threads?
No, I won't touch that can! 
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
That's annoying in "linear" boards because you can't ignore a sub-discussion, but that problem doesn't exist in the hierarchical layout used here. But I guess it depends - are you going to start a huge discussion about it or just a couple of posts? Might it be of interest to other readers of the topic?
So, predict the future, then make the choice that leads to the best future. Good luck 
|
|
|
|
|
harold aptroot wrote: So, predict the future, then make the choice that leads to the best future. Good luck
Hrhr, thank you for this foolproof advice
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
