[Winstonm]

Quote

Does anyone beside me remember the Cowsills....I loved them

Then you must have hair, long beautiful hair.

[Lobowolf]

mike777, on Feb 21 2010, 01:40 AM, said:

Lobowolf, on Feb 21 2010, 01:22 AM, said:

mike777, on Feb 20 2010, 08:36 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Feb 19 2010, 11:34 AM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Feb 19 2010, 09:30 AM, said:

I don't know about greatest (certainly should be up there) but likely one of the most often played (for obvious reasons)

Stairway to heaven.

+1 for Stairway

The Hendrix cover of All Along the Watchtower is right up there, as is Aerosmith's Dream On. I'd put Heaven and Hell by Black Sabbath on the short list, too.


Strongly disagree with Mike about Hurricane; I think it's Dylan's best. I'd probably like it even more if I thought Carter were innocent.

Best......hmmm you mean his best song ever....no not close....


Lets just start with Like a rolling stone...which many consider the greatest rock and roll song ever.
---------

IMO, Hurricane > Like a Rolling Stone, and it's not his only song that's better than Like a Rolling Stone, either. It's on his short list, though.

It's like "Hey Jude," but not nearly as bad - I've heard radio station countdowns where Hey Jude comes in at #1. For the love of God, it's not even in the top 10 BEATLES songs.

????wtf?


Like a rolling stone is not in dylans top all time ten songs....hmmmmm



Houston we have a failure to communicate!



----------


What next Abby Road studios sold for scrap?

No, I said Like a Rolling Stone isn't as bad as the Beatles/Hey Jude thing. I think it's a top-10 Dylan song, but I don't think it's a top-3.

[Aberlour10]

More rock oldies to guess, 6 album covers for 6x 10.000 Rubel

1)


2)


3)


4)


5)


6)

[jjbrr]

jjbrr, on Feb 10 2010, 10:39 AM, said:

With that said, I'm going to try to be a vegetarian all next week and perhaps longer if I enjoy it.

Fish, but not bacon, will be considered vegetables for the sake of this experiment.

lol @ tofu

[Winstonm]

What does a lungfish breath through?

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on Feb 22 2010, 10:51 PM, said:

What does a lungfish breath through?

Tube socks?

[ggwhiz]

Is #5 Nursery Crimes?

I wa too wasted at the time to know for sure.

[Aberlour10]

ggwhiz, on Feb 23 2010, 11:11 AM, said:

Is #5 Nursery Crimes?

I wa too wasted at the time to know for sure.

You are right, its Genesis...but the "Duke" album

[Aberlour10]

PS

1) Jethro Tull - Minstrel in The Gallery
2) Grateful Dead - Skull & Roses
3) Wishbone Ash - Argus
4) Allman Brothers - Eat A Peach
6) Pink Floyd - Obscured by Clouds

[jjbrr]

A thread on a different forum got me thinking: if you were to go back in time, say, a couple hundred years, to what extent would you be able to dramatically change society by giving them new technologies, given how much you know about these technologies?

For example, I might be able to construct a crude electromagnet or something, but then I really wouldn't know what to do with it. I certainly couldn't give them radios or electricity or computers or anything we use on a daily basis. I'm not certain I could give them steam engines or anything related to medicine. I could give them Pasteurization, I suppose.

Is it common not to know very much at all about the things I use on a daily basis? What could you recreate for people of the past?

Would you affect their technology more by giving general descriptions of lots of things, much like a prophet, or would it require a very specific, expert understanding of one single thing, like how to build cars, to actually generate any change?

[helene_t]

Good question, jjbrr. I have puzzled with a similar though experiment. Suppose everyone were killed in a meteor impact or nuclear strike or w/e except for a few thousand people, most of whom were from isolated tribes in new guinea or the amazon, but also a few tech college wizzkids.

My first thought was about providing them with a basic science curicullum. Newton's laws, basic atomic theory, basic chemistry, acid/base theory, evolutionary biology, calculus.

But giving it some further thought it would probably be better to teach the how to advance to next stage in their technology history. Teaching hunters-gatherers to grow grain, teaching stone age people to make bronze etc.

The thing is, abstract knowledge which is not relevant to their technology may degenerate. The next generation may not be interested in learning about science at all but rather spend their energy on learning to make better bows and arrows. The scientific curicullum may get lost, or degenerate into mysticism.

So if we are talking about a couple of hundred years I could teach them to make plastics, or to generate electricity from a Volta column. Pasteurization is a good example, too.

[jjbrr]

Also, before the nits get me, I realize some of the things I listed are more than a couple hundred years old. But you get the idea of what I'm trying to say.

I think I agree that general science would go a long, long way. Presumably you could find the smartest people from X years ago, clue them in on the stuff we've discovered and let them get the ball rolling from there.

The idea to teach them whatever it was they discovered naturally on their own is interesting. But how much do you personally know about growing grains, Helene? About making bronze? I wouldn't be much help there. I don't think I'd be much help anywhere.

[helene_t]

lol true, I could tell them about the the latests transgenic crops but they would need to know which wild grass seeds to put in the soil at what time of the year and where to find suitable guano and I would have no clue

Maybe better if we teach them to play multi-landy and 4-way transfers.

[PhantomSac]

They already knew about alcohol...I guess I could teach them card combos that's about it!

On second thought I could pwn them in poker games.

[jjbrr]

I could offer them astronomy, I suppose. To build a crude telescope isn't so challenging and I'm sure telling them how old the Earth is and theories about the Universe and what not would do a lot to avoid all those geocentric ideas that people believed.

[PhantomSac]

jjbrr, on Feb 24 2010, 03:03 PM, said:

I could offer them astronomy, I suppose. To build a crude telescope isn't so challenging and I'm sure telling them how old the Earth is and theories about the Universe and what not would do a lot to avoid all those geocentric ideas that people believed.

Serious risk that they'd kill you if you did stuff like this, although I guess it depends how far back you go. I guess you could claim to be sent by god, but they might think youre a warlock or something.

[Aberlour10]

hmmm I could travel in the year 1348 just before the Big Death has begun in Europe. I would be not able to give them penicillin, but I could tell them detailed in which ways the infection goes around, and what to do against it in the field of hygenics....the pandemic could be stopped I think...but how would it affect following history of the XIV and XV century if the european population would not be decimated? The wars would bring maybe much more victims as they real did, the famines could be much bigger,,,etc etc..its a hard job to play GOD.

[jjbrr]

PhantomSac, on Feb 24 2010, 03:06 PM, said:

jjbrr, on Feb 24 2010, 03:03 PM, said:

I  could offer them astronomy, I suppose. To build a crude telescope isn't so challenging and I'm sure telling them how old the Earth is and theories about the Universe and what not would do a lot to avoid all those geocentric ideas that people believed.

Serious risk that they'd kill you if you did stuff like this, although I guess it depends how far back you go. I guess you could claim to be sent by god, but they might think youre a warlock or something.

Well obviously there's the risk that going back in time and interacting with people would be dangerous because they'd think you're some sort of Dumbledore or something.

But passing on the information to smart, rational people who would use the information for scientific purposes is more interesting to think about.

[PhantomSac]

Aberlour10, on Feb 24 2010, 03:08 PM, said:

hmmm I could travel in the year 1348 just before the Big Death has begun in Europe. I would be not able to give them penicillin, but I could tell them detailed in which ways the infection goes around, and what to do against it in the field of hygenics....the pandemic could be stopped I think...but how would it affect following history of the XIV and XV century if the european population would not be decimated? The wars would bring maybe much more victims as they real did, the famines could be much bigger,,,etc etc..its a hard job to play GOD.

Ya I also think you might get insta killed if you did not do this correctly, and quickly forgotten. You'd probably have to ease into it and build it up slowly for years.

Anyone ever think that not changing anything would be best? I wonder sometimes if people were happier back then, and if our quality of life really hasn't gone up, just our perceived quality of life. Maybe the real play would be to hinder technology lol.

[Al_U_Card]

It depends on how fast I could run....lol