|
MrNemo posted:See Nepotism I can grasp, I can understand Marcus Aurelius making Commodus his sole heir just becaue he's his bioogical son. I can understand the importance of hereditary position in society, you're the son of a lord so you're born to rule, it's natural that you should get this high level job. But in this case you have someone who wasn't of a particularly high ranked family, who was bad for the position and whose only claim to the throne was that he was in love with the current Queen of Jerusalem (who had cut a deal with those that didn't like Guy that she'd divorce him pre-coronation with the proviso that she'd be able to to choose who she would marry. I can imagine the faces of the assembled Lords when she announced her choice immediately after being crowned). Hell it was even against the written will of the previous king. These are your own words. Which bit doesn't make sense? You get power by putting your own people in key positions. Not by putting good people not beholden to you in key positions. Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 00:05 on May 28, 2015 |
#
?
May 28, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
I just started watching House of Cards this week, and it's very a propo to the question of nepotism.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
I like Jaynes' theory because it implies that Aboriginal Australians didn't actually posess consciousness at the time of white contact, so I don't have to feel any real guilt over what my ancestors did to them.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Human beings were physiologically incapable of surviving at or above 50 miles in altitude until compensatory evolutions spontaneously occurred in the mid-20th century in both Eurasia and North America. 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:But no, the fact he was from an area of France that Richard controlled and so technically owed fealty to him and had a shared mythological ancestor was enough to get his support. It's like a CEO picking an incompetent person to head up a company he was investing in because the guy had been a mid-level manager at a daughter company of the CEO's. "You juke the stats, and aediles become praetors." -Rolandus Presbus, Filum
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Daesh has found something better to do with the amphitheater in Palmyra than blow it up. They're using it for public executions.  The Romans would approve.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
LordSaturn posted:We have Suetonius's writings for those.  Never read him. Is he Rome's Charles Bukowski?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
He's more like Rome's Kenneth Anger.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
HalPhilipWalker posted:Daesh has found something better to do with the amphitheater in Palmyra than blow it up. Egh.. I desperately wish there was more that could be done to stop these bastards. Destorying old sites, now defiling them with their slaughter. I know this post is just an echo of many, but I just can't help being so completely disgusted by these fucks.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
It seems everyone's favourite Roman poet's work is enjoyed even in Witcher-verse:
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
That's great. There's a few other things like that, but I forgot to take note.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 09:01
|
|
|
So I heard a truly peculiar thing from another history hobbyist: That Rome was a mighty and proud warrior culture, and that accounts for why they were so successful at conquering everything. I feel pretty confident saying that, like mainly every other absurdly successful conqueror in history, Rome was mainly really good at logistics. (Some others could have been said to be very good at tactics, but Rome seems mainly to have placed an appropriate cultural value on supplying an army.) That said, where on earth would the warrior culture thing have come from? Is this something Cato would spout off about?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 12:37
|
|
|
LordSaturn posted:So I heard a truly peculiar thing from another history hobbyist: That Rome was a mighty and proud warrior culture, and that accounts for why they were so successful at conquering everything. I don't get why you find this peculiar. It's true that Rome had a 'warrior culture' in that they thought prowess in battle was really important and that all citizens should resemble farmer/warriors. Mars was the second most important god in the pantheon. But there were tons of other warrior cultures around that Rome fought and conquered, so obviously being a warrior culture isn't the reason why you conquer everything.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 12:54
|
|
|
Rome totally had a warrior culture. They considered themselves literally the children of Mars, and prowess in war was expected for anyone involved in politics at any level. If you didn't do your time in the army you couldn't gain respect. Crassus' entire life is a great case study in this. Richest man in Rome, maybe the richest man in the entirety of human history, but all he cared about was gaining his warrior glory, to the extent that it destroyed him. But yes the warrior culture didn't make Rome successful. The one factor of it that I do thing contributed hugely was that Romans didn't surrender, ever. In ancient warfare you went to war, had a battle, and the loser surrendered and you worked out a peace accord. Romans repeatedly lose massive numbers of men and just keep coming. See the Second Punic War for your best example here. That is also better to support because the Romans eventually ran into two other groups that behaved the same way: the Parthians and Persians. It's not a coincidence that those were were the Romans could push no further. It didn't matter how hard the Romans beat them (and they did, numerous times); they just came right back.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Rome totally had a warrior culture. They considered themselves literally the children of Mars, and prowess in war was expected for anyone involved in politics at any level. If you didn't do your time in the army you couldn't gain respect. Crassus' entire life is a great case study in this. Richest man in Rome, maybe the richest man in the entirety of human history, but all he cared about was gaining his warrior glory, to the extent that it destroyed him. Romans didn't really run with the personal prowess in combat ideal either, which probably made them better at warfare.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Romans didn't really run with the personal prowess in combat ideal either, which probably made them better at warfare. Not to the extent of some other cultures but it was there. The story of Caesar personally taking like 30 javelins in his shield for example, though to your point that story is about how he led all his men into battle so yes. They also appreciated a champion fight like anybody else. You won't find anyone who argues with the idea that Rome's military strength was founded on pragmatism, organization, and tactics. A well-trained, properly supported and supplied army that works cohesively was a rare thing in the ancient world and very hard to resist. Same reason the Macedonians rolled everybody.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Not to the extent of some other cultures but it was there. The story of Caesar personally taking like 30 javelins in his shield for example, though to your point that story is about how he led all his men into battle so yes. They also appreciated a champion fight like anybody else. To put it another way, nobody in Rome would think that Centurion Biggus Bicepus who killed seventy-two Gauls while recapturing a lost Eagle should be regarded more highly than the consul-general who led the battle, even if that consul-general only dinked one little Gaul. They were a warrior culture who thought that generals and generalling really mattered. The Centurion would have been esteemed for being an awesome centurion but not thought of as superior in any way to the consul-general. Similarly, the men of the legions had a lot of pride in their particular legion, their particular unit inside that legion; group identity was really important to Romans. In other warrior cultures, individual battle prowess mattered more than leadership. So that was a difference, and an important one. At the risk of enflaming whoever gave me my red-text (which I actually love), it is somewhat similar to the Mongol society under Ghenghis, where the only real ways to get ahead in society and be a leader was to be a general at some point--or a priest, I guess--while being an ordinary soldier was seen as cool and good but you're not going to wind up with some important job. In Roman society being an ordinary soldier wasn't anything anyone could cite as a reason to get into any sort of high office, in fact it'd kind of work against you, if you were a centurion you'd be expected to become a lictor if you wanted to get into civil service. I can't think of any centurion, pre-Praetorian fuckery, who rose high or was politically important. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 14:18 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
Lucius Siccius Dentatus did okay in battle. He was not given the chance to rise high, however. Publius Decius Mus did become consul after winning the grass crown (twice, kind of).
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:To put it another way, nobody in Rome would think that Centurion Biggus Bicepus who killed seventy-two Gauls while recapturing a lost Eagle should be regarded more highly than the consul-general who led the battle, even if that consul-general only dinked one little Gaul. They were a warrior culture who thought that generals and generalling really mattered. The Centurion would have been esteemed for being an awesome centurion but not thought of as superior in any way to the consul-general. Similarly, the men of the legions had a lot of pride in their particular legion, their particular unit inside that legion; group identity was really important to Romans. Keep in mind Marius is essentially the Biggus Bicepus from your story, who translated combat prowess into favor with the generals and then his own command. So while you are totally correct in that it was not an instant ticket, it was definitely something that put you on the fast track, because Romans loved warriors.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
homullus posted:Lucius Siccius Dentatus did okay in battle. He was not given the chance to rise high, however. Publius Decius Mus did become consul after winning the grass crown (twice, kind of). Denatus is mythologized. Was Publius a centurion? WoodrowSkillson posted:Keep in mind Marius is essentially the Biggus Bicepus from your story, who translated combat prowess into favor with the generals and then his own command. So while you are totally correct in that it was not an instant ticket, it was definitely something that put you on the fast track, because Romans loved warriors. He had a lot of connections with the aristocracy and strings to pull from birth. Are you saying he was a centurion? I've never heard anyone claim that before. I'm pretty sure he began as an equestrian officer.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, not at all, because I know I'm not a Chinese room, but I have absolutely no desire to get into this argument with you, I can't imagine anything more tedious. The thing is, what if a Raven comes with the same argument after learning a human language? (The smartest Raven I know off was mentioned in a book by a German ornithologist. The bird imitated his owner's voice and had a habit of talking through the door with visitors. That bird surprised a lot of people over the years and his owner had to explain again and again that no, he wasn't actually at home that time, that was just the Raven talking.) Libluini fucked around with this message at 14:37 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
Libluini posted:The thing is, what if a Raven comes with the same argument after learning a human language? (The smartest Raven I know of was mentioned in a book by a German ornithologist. The bird imitated his owner's voice and had a habit of talking through the door with visitors. That bird surprised a lot of people over the years and his owner had to explain again and again that no, he wasn't actually at home that time, that was just the Raven talking.) Then you can quickly Turing-Test it and it'll fail. This is not a serious problem. You could ask the Raven "Could you restate that in a different way?" or ask a particular question and it wouldn't be able to answer at all.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Denatus is mythologized. Was Publius a centurion? Publius Decius was a military tribune.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
On the topic, how were Alexander The Great's logistics organised? By his success in the field they must have been good, especially as they were mostly travelling among hostile or formally hostile land aganist a enemy with naval superiority.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Then you can quickly Turing-Test it and it'll fail. This is not a serious problem. You could ask the Raven "Could you restate that in a different way?" or ask a particular question and it wouldn't be able to answer at all. Here you're wrong, but that's OK. No-one can now everything and I've had an interest in learning about Ravens, you didn't. Also I should point out if you honestly think animals with brains similar in structure to ours are all just fleshy, mindless robots I have bad news about your own sentience... Edit: To move this a bit back on topic myself, I've read something about a historian who thought like Obdicut, but literally about ancient humans. He argued something like people who don't write aren't sentient. He was serious with this and stood alone and aloof on the platform of "Ancient peoples where just mindless animals with automatic responses until they learned to write.".  Does anyone remember that guy? Libluini fucked around with this message at 14:43 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
I'm starting to think some of the people posting in this thread aren't sentient. 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Then you can quickly Turing-Test it and it'll fail. This is not a serious problem. You could ask the Raven "Could you restate that in a different way?" or ask a particular question and it wouldn't be able to answer at all. By that standard a lot of human children would fail, especially if they haven't passed like second grade yet.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Here you're wrong, but that's OK. No-one can now everything and I've had an interest in learning about Ravens, you didn't. Also I should point out if you honestly think animals with brains similar in structure to ours are all just fleshy, mindless robots I have bad news about your own sentience... No, I'm not wrong. you can't ask a Raven "Can you rephrase that in a different way?" and have them answer intelligently. You can't ask them "What do you mean by 'Chinese Room', could you unpack that?" and have them give a coherent explanation. Or rather, the only way you could is if you'd trained them to respond to those particular sounds with those particular sounds, which would fail as soon as someone varied the question at all. Are you actually making the claim that ravens can pass the Turing Test? Nintendo Kid posted:By that standard a lot of human children would fail, especially if they haven't passed like second grade yet. That's cool dude. Also people who can't speak would fail. Or people who speak a different language. Not the point. Let's stop the dumbass language derail, shall we? Edit: To go back to what I said earlier about military service, I said the only way to get ahead was being a general at some point. This was an overstatement; the only way to get to the highest echelons was through generalship, but you could get into pretty powerful positions just by officering a bit and getting other administrative positions, which the thread has gone over pretty thoroughly already. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 14:53 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Here you're wrong, but that's OK. No-one can now everything and I've had an interest in learning about Ravens, you didn't. Also I should point out if you honestly think animals with brains similar in structure to ours are all just fleshy, mindless robots I have bad news about your own sentience... I think there might be some memory issues, yeah. Nintendo Kid posted:By that standard a lot of human children would fail, especially if they haven't passed like second grade yet. I remember reading an article a while back that one of the closer to passing bots at some big Turing off was one that pretended to be a child to cover for some of it's inconsistencies.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Denatus is mythologized. Was Publius a centurion? Yes he was equestrian. I'm basing it off this Plutarch posted:His first service as a soldier was in a campaign against the Celtiberians, when Scipio Africanus was besieging Numantia,3 and he attracted the notice of his general by excelling the other young men in bravery, and by his very cheerful acceptance of the changed regimen which Scipio introduced into his army when it was spoiled by luxury and extravagance. It is said, too, that he encountered and laid low an enemy in the sight of his general. 3 Therefore he was advanced by his commander to many honours; and once, when the talk after supper had to do with generals, and one of the company (either because he really wished to know or merely sought to please) asked Scipio where the Roman people would find any such chieftain and leader to follow him, Scipio, gently tapping Marius on the shoulder as he reclined next him, said: "Here, perhaps." So gifted by nature were both men; the one in showing himself great while still a young man, and the other in discerning the end from the beginning.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Yes he was equestrian. I'm basing it off this My point was that you couldn't go from centurion to the sort of career Marius had. Marius's prowess and bravery while an equestrian officer led to a fast rise. The same bravery and prowess shown by a centurion would not lead to the same path.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:By that standard a lot of human children would fail, especially if they haven't passed like second grade yet. Teach the raven to respond to that question with "gently caress you". The bird will be more popular than the guy whose first response is to Turing test people.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:
No it is the point. You're saying birds in general can't possibly understand language because of %things that would disqualify a normal 4 or 5 year old% while asserting that of course the children understand. You don't get to toss the goalposts to the other side of the field bro. Obdicut posted:You can't ask them "What do you mean by 'Chinese Room', could you unpack that?" and have them give a coherent explanation. Again, you almost certainly couldn't get a human child of normal intelligence to do that either ya doofus. Stop coming up with tests that only animals need to pass. gently caress, a shitload of teenagers wouldn't understand what you mean by "could you unpack that" nor could many of them do more than just rattle off a dictionary definition at most. You're demanding that a bird tell you something that it generally takes over a decade of schooling for a human being to be able to tell you.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:Teach the raven to respond to that question with "gently caress you". The bird will be more popular than the guy whose first response is to Turing test people. Poe's editor made him change that.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Freudian posted:Poe's editor made him change that. Well, now I can't stop giggling.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:My point was that you couldn't go from centurion to the sort of career Marius had. Marius's prowess and bravery while an equestrian officer led to a fast rise. The same bravery and prowess shown by a centurion would not lead to the same path. In the early Empire no, in the later Empire it wouldn't be a problem at all for a centurion to rise all the way to Emperor if they had the skills. Diocletian, Aurelain pretty much all of them where humble soliders who climbed the ranks, even Vespasian was from fairly lowly origins. Basically after the Julio-Claudians fell (died out) the Empire became pretty skill based only. sbaldrick fucked around with this message at 16:25 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
http://imgur.com/gallery/86yXR looooooool
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, I'm not wrong. you can't ask a Raven "Can you rephrase that in a different way?" and have them answer intelligently. You can't ask them "What do you mean by 'Chinese Room', could you unpack that?" and have them give a coherent explanation. Or rather, the only way you could is if you'd trained them to respond to those particular sounds with those particular sounds, which would fail as soon as someone varied the question at all. You do now the Turing Test is meant to test computer programs, not animals and people? Those are understood to have some degree of sentience by default. But yes, since Ravens have aproximately the intelligence of a ten-year-old human child, they could pass a Turing Test as good as every ten-year-old couldBut do go on posting about something you're clearly ignorant about and in the wrong thread to boot.  On a more Roman note, check this funny little story I found on Wikipedia: " Ravens, Greeks and Romans posted:According to Livy, the Roman general Marcus Valerius Corvus (c. 370-270 BC) had a raven settle on his helmet during a combat with a gigantic Gaul, which distracted the enemy's attention by flying in his face
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
quote:You do now the Turing Test is meant to test computer programs, not animals and people? Those are understood to have some degree of sentience by default. But yes, since Ravens have aproximately the intelligence of a ten-year-old human child, they could pass a Turing Test as good as every ten-year-old could The imitation game was proposed as part of a thought experiment about thinking machines. But the core idea is obviously at least somewhat transferable in considering the sapience (not sentience) of something else. And is that really what you meant to write - that a raven is as intelligent as a 10 year old? Can you link to someone who has seriously proposed that - or even that a bird is as smart as a 4 year old? And that's not even what you said - you said that a raven could pass a Turing Test as well as every 10 year old. Even if we accept that a bird could be very intelligent, a test based on human strong points of language and communication (and being "like a human") is going to be extremely unfair. Surely you don't actually believe this?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
jmzero posted:The imitation game was proposed as part of a thought experiment about thinking machines. But the core idea is obviously at least somewhat transferable in considering the sapience (not sentience) of something else. If the OP is OK with even more Raven-talk, I'll post my sources when I'm back from university in a couple hours. Edit: Also that last bit was a joke, I'm fully expecting a 10-year old child to fail a Turing Test alongside the smart bird.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 18:31
|
|