Or, to look at it another way, South Africa to attempt a more successful version of the blockathon they managed against Ashwin, Yadev and Jadeja in Delhi. They did however last 140 overs there - just not sure they can do it against Broad and Finn.
I guess it won't take long to find out if they're going to attempt the score or are just content to try and stay in for a day and a half.
England backed into 1.33 now, 8.8 the hosts and 6.8 the draw. Those odds sounds about right. I've backed England and laid the draw.
If South Africa attempt to chase this, I will eat my hat.
I'd better go and get some marzipan for flavouring, just in case they do.
Or, to look at it another way, South Africa to attempt a more successful version of the blockathon they managed against Ashwin, Yadev and Jadeja in Delhi. They did however last 140 overs there - just not sure they can do it against Broad and Finn.
I guess it won't take long to find out if they're going to attempt the score or are just content to try and stay in for a day and a half.
England backed into 1.33 now, 8.8 the hosts and 6.8 the draw. Those odds sounds about right. I've backed England and laid the draw.
If South Africa attempt to chase this, I will eat my hat.
I'd better go and get some marzipan for flavouring, just in case they do.
I'll see you all later.
Stiaan van Zyl obviously wants to see your marzipan hat! 9 from the first two overs.
I can really recommend the documentary series that Dair mentioned. It's full of fascianting stuff - including my facourite statistics that not only does Scotland have over 90% of all of the mainland UK's fresh water but Loch Ness alone holds more water than all of England and Wales combined.
Indeed, the particular documentary on Water has the absolutely stunning closing line "Scotland's Water, beautiful and dammed" which I still think is one of the best lines I've heard in a nature doc.
I'm sure Scotland's topography is helpful but the scale of water management appears massively larger than any that happens in England... blah blah blah....
Topography yes more than helpful, but who knows population density might have an effect. Scotland 68/sq km England 413/sq km
We had Hadrian's commentary as our main Latin study text. And having https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vindolanda/ Hadrian's Wall just up the road really brought it to life.
There's no other bit of Britain that I find more interesting. What sparked your passion for ancient history?
For all the idiots wanting to pull down statues of Rhodes or Confederates or Buddhas, here is no less of a philosophical god than Lemmy, RIP, talking about his Nazi memorabilia:
“I like having all this stuff around because it’s a reminder of what happened,” he wrote. “… I don’t understand people who believe that if you ignore something, it’ll go away. That’s completely wrong — if it’s ignored it gathers strength.”
So, that's a lot of Hitler, Stalin, Musso, Franco etc statues that you feel should be restored?
Miss Plato, whilst I enjoyed the minimal amount (mostly Hannibal and Alexander, but only in brevity) I did at school, it was a chance comment about a book on an internet locale from years ago. I bought the book, then more, until now.
Whilst recently I've read a little of medieval events, I think classical history is more important. It defines more clearly the distinction between civilisation and barbarity, and what actually matters in civilisation. Not only that, the absence of modern nations means it's viewed, generally, in a more objective way (not many people have a 'side' when it comes to conflict between the Byzantines and Pechenegs, or the Illyrians against the Epirots).
Miss Plato, whilst I enjoyed the minimal amount (mostly Hannibal and Alexander, but only in brevity) I did at school, it was a chance comment about a book on an internet locale from years ago. I bought the book, then more, until now.
Whilst recently I've read a little of medieval events, I think classical history is more important. It defines more clearly the distinction between civilisation and barbarity, and what actually matters in civilisation. Not only that, the absence of modern nations means it's viewed, generally, in a more objective way (not many people have a 'side' when it comes to conflict between the Byzantines and Pechenegs, or the Illyrians against the Epirots).
For all the idiots wanting to pull down statues of Rhodes or Confederates or Buddhas, here is no less of a philosophical god than Lemmy, RIP, talking about his Nazi memorabilia:
“I like having all this stuff around because it’s a reminder of what happened,” he wrote. “… I don’t understand people who believe that if you ignore something, it’ll go away. That’s completely wrong — if it’s ignored it gathers strength.”
So, that's a lot of Hitler, Stalin, Musso, Franco etc statues that you feel should be restored?
Oh dear!
Not pulling down something which exists now does not mean that one wants to restore statues which have been pulled down and no longer exist.
The past has happened. Nothing we do now will change what has happened. All we can do - and one would have thought that a student bright enough to get into Oxford should understand this - is try and understand it. How we respond to the past will vary over time - just as societies' reactions to WW2, for instance, was very different in the 1950's to what it was 30 or more years later when it was (a) more distant; and (b) the generations who lived through it were beginning to die off. Look at, for instance, France's current approach to its role during the Vichy years to what it was 30 or 40 years ago, when denial was the order of the day. Similarly with individuals: your attitude to your childhood and how your parents behaved and their views is very different in your 40's to what it is in your late teens.
Only an arrogant baby thinks that the world should be rearranged to suit them and them only because otherwise they might cry.
Lemmy spoke more sense than that daft student in the quote cited by MTimT.
The only thing he might have added is that if what is ignored is harmful, ignoring it only makes it worse. But that might be tactless in the circumstances. RIP to him.
(And a good kick up the backside to the idiot-student.)
Miss Plato, 'a trifle' is a bit mild. He really didn't like the Eastern Roman Empire.
I should stress his stuff is heavy going. If you haven't read too much or find around 4,000 pages of history a bit daunting, there are plenty of other books to read before you venture into Gibbon's realm (I do think the six volumes are worth reading, although the bits on early Christianity/Islam can be a bit tedious).
If you're after recommendations, I'm more than happy to offer a few (whether general or if you have a specific period/area in mind), if I can.
Miss Plato, 'a trifle' is a bit mild. He really didn't like the Eastern Roman Empire.
I should stress his stuff is heavy going. If you haven't read too much or find around 4,000 pages of history a bit daunting, there are plenty of other books to read before you venture into Gibbon's realm (I do think the six volumes are worth reading, although the bits on early Christianity/Islam can be a bit tedious).
If you're after recommendations, I'm more than happy to offer a few (whether general or if you have a specific period/area in mind), if I can.
No idea what it is but the show was Ask the family compared by Robert Robinson though the mystery objects were not shown in full but as a close in shot or from an unusual angle.
It's about 700 pages long but that does include some appendices. It's one of my favourite histories, with abundant detail and many maps/illustrations (NB do check out a sample first, because it was written around 1900 so the style may or may not be something you like).
Also, if you prefer the hard copy, be very careful you buy the right version as some have appeared which seem to be abridged but aren't marked as such. [If you enjoy it, Dodge's books on Alexander and Caesar will hold similar appeal, although I must warn you that reading a biography of Alexander may cause an inferiority complex to blossom].
Very easy to read, no prior knowledge needed (but there's no dumbing down). Obviously, there are two more parts [do *not* buy the short history single volume], but this is a fantastic little series. After reading it I felt rather shocked I'd previously known nothing about Byzantium except the name.
For all the idiots wanting to pull down statues of Rhodes or Confederates or Buddhas, here is no less of a philosophical god than Lemmy, RIP, talking about his Nazi memorabilia:
“I like having all this stuff around because it’s a reminder of what happened,” he wrote. “… I don’t understand people who believe that if you ignore something, it’ll go away. That’s completely wrong — if it’s ignored it gathers strength.”
So, that's a lot of Hitler, Stalin, Musso, Franco etc statues that you feel should be restored?
Oh dear!
Not pulling down something which exists now does not mean that one wants to restore statues which have been pulled down and no longer exist.
The past has happened. Nothing we do now will change what has happened. All we can do - and one would have thought that a student bright enough to get into Oxford should understand this - is try and understand it. How we respond to the past will vary over time - just as societies' reactions to WW2, for instance, was very different in the 1950's to what it was 30 or more years later when it was (a) more distant; and (b) the generations who lived through it were beginning to die off. Look at, for instance, France's current approach to its role during the Vichy years to what it was 30 or 40 years ago, when denial was the order of the day. Similarly with individuals: your attitude to your childhood and how your parents behaved and their views is very different in your 40's to what it is in your late teens.
Only an arrogant baby thinks that the world should be rearranged to suit them and them only because otherwise they might cry.
Lemmy spoke more sense than that daft student in the quote cited by MTimT.
The only thing he might have added is that if what is ignored is harmful, ignoring it only makes it worse. But that might be tactless in the circumstances. RIP to him.
(And a good kick up the backside to the idiot-student.)
It's about 700 pages long but that does include some appendices. It's one of my favourite histories, with abundant detail and many maps/illustrations (NB do check out a sample first, because it was written around 1900 so the style may or may not be something you like).
Also, if you prefer the hard copy, be very careful you buy the right version as some have appeared which seem to be abridged but aren't marked as such. [If you enjoy it, Dodge's books on Alexander and Caesar will hold similar appeal, although I must warn you that reading a biography of Alexander may cause an inferiority complex to blossom].
Very easy to read, no prior knowledge needed (but there's no dumbing down). Obviously, there are two more parts [do *not* buy the short history single volume], but this is a fantastic little series. After reading it I felt rather shocked I'd previously known nothing about Byzantium except the name.
Miss. P. I'd endorse Mr. Dancer's recommendation of Norwich's Byzantium series. He introduced me to it a few years ago and I found it absolutely fascinating. It opened up a world of which I knew nothing.
One thing though: have pen and paper handy when you are reading it so you can draw little family trees, otherwise you are very likely to get lost and confused. The Byzantines were a bit short of imagination when it came to names and keeping track of who is who is very hard without making notes.
Mr. Llama, in the early period, that's true (Constantine calling his kids Constantine, Constantius and Constans is just obnoxious) but for most of the book[s] that's not a problem.
Mr. Llama, in the early period, that's true (Constantine calling his kids Constantine, Constantius and Constans is just obnoxious) but for most of the book[s] that's not a problem.
This is a great little skit with contemporary videos
00:59: To the reader who has joined us after Googling "Who won the 1979 general election?", welcome! It's early days yet but it looks likely that the Conservatives will be in, with a big enough majority to withstand any number of by-election shocks.
00:57: But the BBC's election forecasters don't agree. After 22 results they have a new projection: ...
00:51: "I've not sat in this chair before," says new anchor Dimbleby, "But usually we'd have a clear idea of the result by now, wouldn't we?" "Oh, yes," says David Butler, "We'd usually have many more results."
00:48: The North West is not going for Margaret Thatcher at all. Just a two point swing to the Tories there so far. But big swings away from Labour in the South.
Rubio is the obvious winner of the GOP nomination ; he may be behind in the early stages but sooner or later he will win ...if you cannot see that then you simply are not paying attention , or are ''tone deaf'' to the music of politics
If this GOP race is ran 50 times then each and every time Rubio will remain as the last man standing ...the race may vary each time insomuch who wins the early states but the end result will always be the same RUBIO WINS ...look upon it as a form of political evolution in process !
The race may look like a maze of twists and turns but in retrospect it will become clear that Rubio was always going to win , as inevitable as
Nate Silver is exactly correct insomuch the Blue States primaries are weighted in favour of a ''moderate conservative ''and Ted Cruz is a redneck zealot ...the further away the race moves from the evangelical states of the South and Bible Belt , then the worse he will do
The lasting impact of both Cruz and Trump will be to have made a conservative candidate look moderate as he wins the White House !
OK. Cruz wins Iowa.
What happens if he wins New Hampshire too? It's by no means impossible - he's only a couple of percent behind Rubio, and I could see Trump, Rubio and Cruz all in the low 20s.
Cruz has now won New Hampshire and Iowa.
Where's the first state Rubio will definitely win? Not his home state of Florida, where Trump leads by a mile. And Rubio is polling behind Cruz.
If he's not careful, Rubio's campaign is over before he has time to become the inevitable nominee.
Cruz is very likely to win Iowa , however , NH is a far different state from Iowa ...it is a secular , non evangelical state , with a rugged sense of independence ...in some ways it is more like a traditional western state like Wyoming or Montana .....Cruz will NOT WIN New Hampshire ...only Trump or Rubio will win there !
Rubio will win Florida and if he failed it really would be all over for him ..Rubio will indeed win Florida !...Trump could be out of the race by Florida and even if he has managed to hang on he will be defeated in Florida
Polling for Primaries must be ''read between the lines '' as they have little predictive value until about 3 days before the vote
Rubio will definitely win Nevada and it could be the first state he actually wins !
Bill Clinton lost the first 5 states and only won one state out of the first eleven and that's why he was called the ''comeback kid ''
Cruz is a very poor candidate who only has a narrow provincial , regional appeal !
Hilary is praying that Cruz is the nominee because she knows , intuitively , that she will be defeated by Rubio !
Bill Clinton won South Carolina though and Rubio is no Bill Clinton
Mr. Llama, in the early period, that's true (Constantine calling his kids Constantine, Constantius and Constans is just obnoxious) but for most of the book[s] that's not a problem.
Well it was for me! Another issue is that the trilogy, whilst eminently readable, is very dense. That is to say there is a lot of information packed into every page so keeping track of who succeeded who, who blinded/mutilated/murdered who and whose orders can be difficult. Especially as quite a few of the emperors didn't last for long and Norwich is meticulous in naming the conspirators who got rid of them so we see the same names appearing time after time but in different roles, and then there are the co-emperors.
A few (Frank Field, say) might be able to stand and win, but most would not have the name recognition or the apparatus to run as Independent Labour, and would merely split the party's vote.
I think the fate of the UKIP MPs shows how little personal vote actually exists. Carswell defected with his back up staff in a Kipper friendly constituency, and only just scraped home.
I don't think there is great demand out there for an SDP 2 like there was in 1981 either. Dave Cameron is no Thatcher.
The problem with this perfectly obvious statement about personal votes is that the morons who defend undemocratic FPTP offer the core idea of voting for an individual and selecting a local representative is completely undermined.
People vote for parties. Every metric possible supports this.
Yep. In a tight contest or highly unusual race I can see a personal vote making a difference, but overwhelmingly people vote for a rosette. Not even the policies of a party sometimes, just what they think the party supports. We know that because people support or oppose depending on who proposes it.
Comments
I'd better go and get some marzipan for flavouring, just in case they do.
I'll see you all later.
There's no other bit of Britain that I find more interesting. What sparked your passion for ancient history?
Whilst recently I've read a little of medieval events, I think classical history is more important. It defines more clearly the distinction between civilisation and barbarity, and what actually matters in civilisation. Not only that, the absence of modern nations means it's viewed, generally, in a more objective way (not many people have a 'side' when it comes to conflict between the Byzantines and Pechenegs, or the Illyrians against the Epirots).
It’s time for another #MysteryObject! Any ideas what this is? https://t.co/ZYJipd5gXR
What do you think?
Not pulling down something which exists now does not mean that one wants to restore statues which have been pulled down and no longer exist.
The past has happened. Nothing we do now will change what has happened. All we can do - and one would have thought that a student bright enough to get into Oxford should understand this - is try and understand it. How we respond to the past will vary over time - just as societies' reactions to WW2, for instance, was very different in the 1950's to what it was 30 or more years later when it was (a) more distant; and (b) the generations who lived through it were beginning to die off. Look at, for instance, France's current approach to its role during the Vichy years to what it was 30 or 40 years ago, when denial was the order of the day. Similarly with individuals: your attitude to your childhood and how your parents behaved and their views is very different in your 40's to what it is in your late teens.
Only an arrogant baby thinks that the world should be rearranged to suit them and them only because otherwise they might cry.
Lemmy spoke more sense than that daft student in the quote cited by MTimT.
The only thing he might have added is that if what is ignored is harmful, ignoring it only makes it worse. But that might be tactless in the circumstances. RIP to him.
(And a good kick up the backside to the idiot-student.)
I should stress his stuff is heavy going. If you haven't read too much or find around 4,000 pages of history a bit daunting, there are plenty of other books to read before you venture into Gibbon's realm (I do think the six volumes are worth reading, although the bits on early Christianity/Islam can be a bit tedious).
If you're after recommendations, I'm more than happy to offer a few (whether general or if you have a specific period/area in mind), if I can.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hannibal-History-Carthaginians-Detailed-Account-ebook/dp/B007H1UHYE/
It's about 700 pages long but that does include some appendices. It's one of my favourite histories, with abundant detail and many maps/illustrations (NB do check out a sample first, because it was written around 1900 so the style may or may not be something you like).
Also, if you prefer the hard copy, be very careful you buy the right version as some have appeared which seem to be abridged but aren't marked as such. [If you enjoy it, Dodge's books on Alexander and Caesar will hold similar appeal, although I must warn you that reading a biography of Alexander may cause an inferiority complex to blossom].
My other recommendation would be John Julius Norwich's Byzantium trilogy. The first book is just over 400 pages:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Byzantium-Early-Centuries-v/dp/0140114475/
Very easy to read, no prior knowledge needed (but there's no dumbing down). Obviously, there are two more parts [do *not* buy the short history single volume], but this is a fantastic little series. After reading it I felt rather shocked I'd previously known nothing about Byzantium except the name.
What to do?
Miss. P. I'd endorse Mr. Dancer's recommendation of Norwich's Byzantium series. He introduced me to it a few years ago and I found it absolutely fascinating. It opened up a world of which I knew nothing.
One thing though: have pen and paper handy when you are reading it so you can draw little family trees, otherwise you are very likely to get lost and confused. The Byzantines were a bit short of imagination when it came to names and keeping track of who is who is very hard without making notes.
New Thread New Thread
Migrating music to Amazon:
Feck! I am now listening to 'Seether's version of "Careless Whisper"....