525 words a minute or 110% above national average.
1479 wpm, 492%Macbeth wrote:
http://www.staples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/technology-research-centers/ereaders/speed-reader/index.html
See how fast you read and comprehend stuff compared to the average human. Also how quick you can read some classic books if you kept that pace.
Slowing down in my "old" age.
Cute test.
You read 1,741 words per minute.
That makes you 596% faster than the national average.
But I call bullshit. I usually take my time to read books merely for the enjoyment of doing so. Once I do so, I can skim it again and pretty much pick up on everything I'd slowly digested before...and I've already read War of the Worlds.
Without it, I'd probably fall between 400 and 600, depending on how interesting the material is.
That makes you 596% faster than the national average.
But I call bullshit. I usually take my time to read books merely for the enjoyment of doing so. Once I do so, I can skim it again and pretty much pick up on everything I'd slowly digested before...and I've already read War of the Worlds.
Without it, I'd probably fall between 400 and 600, depending on how interesting the material is.
Barnes and Nobles occasionally make pretty nice looking books. The more popular books from heir classic series get extra attention when it comes to design and it shows. I wish I had not given away my copy of Thus Spoke. I have to get a new one before BnN phases out those covers. Love that painting.
I hate the other BnN classic books I have. Ugly brown things.
anyway, I ordered three books today.
Consider the Lobster, War and Peace, The Brothers Karamazov. Consider the lobster is the next book I plan to read. The other two were more or less impulse buys I will get around to reading eventually.
So anyone make any purchases lately?
I hate the other BnN classic books I have. Ugly brown things.
anyway, I ordered three books today.
Consider the Lobster, War and Peace, The Brothers Karamazov. Consider the lobster is the next book I plan to read. The other two were more or less impulse buys I will get around to reading eventually.
So anyone make any purchases lately?
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6699
I recently acquired Carlos Castaneda's first three books (after reading his 4th). Can't stop now.
Last edited by Superior Mind (2012-06-01 21:25:32)
just started reading tony blairs autobiography. ive had a biography of his for a while but i didnt want to ruin the autobiography which i knew i'd get eventually. only 1 chapter in so can't really comment.
Finished "Fall of Giants" by Ken Follett.
Well-written and well-researched, as always with him. Gives an excellent look at pre-WWI political climate, the rise of socialism, and the clearly preventable nature of WWI...which better explains the pacifist movement both in Europe and the US in the interwar years.
No, it's not a history textbook, but it certainly does cover some historical events in context, as Follett is a stickler for accuracy.
Next on list:
On China by Henry Kissinger
Another Conn Iggulden book on the Mongols
Catcher in the Rye
The Picture of Dorian Gray
The Persian Puzzle by Kenneth Pollack
Well-written and well-researched, as always with him. Gives an excellent look at pre-WWI political climate, the rise of socialism, and the clearly preventable nature of WWI...which better explains the pacifist movement both in Europe and the US in the interwar years.
No, it's not a history textbook, but it certainly does cover some historical events in context, as Follett is a stickler for accuracy.
Next on list:
On China by Henry Kissinger
Another Conn Iggulden book on the Mongols
Catcher in the Rye
The Picture of Dorian Gray
The Persian Puzzle by Kenneth Pollack
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Got to disagree here. Germany could only expand at the expense of its neighbours at the time. The country was set for a collision course with the other colonial empires when it decided to try and establish itself as a world power. Which again was inevitable thanks to social darwinism etc.FEOS wrote:
Finished "Fall of Giants" by Ken Follett.
Well-written and well-researched, as always with him. Gives an excellent look at pre-WWI political climate, the rise of socialism, and the clearly preventable nature of WW1
WW1 is often seen as a pointless conflict but nothing could be further from the truth tbh.
Kissingers book is a great read btw, good pick.
inane little opines
But the rationale for Germany "needing to expand" is the part that shows it was preventable...as well as the bull-headedness of Austria (vice Germany), which is what drew everyone into the war.
But that's a whole other thread.
And I didn't say it was pointless--I said it was preventable.
But that's a whole other thread.
And I didn't say it was pointless--I said it was preventable.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
WWI occurred because of the Franco-Prussian War really. France wanted Alsace-Lorraine back, to fix their pride, and for the Germans part, they won that war so easily that it led to overconfidence even though the machine gun was known to be a game changer. The war was inevitable simply because the arrogant bastards thought technology had conquered the horrific casualties seen during the Napoleonic Wars and that it would thus be quick and to the point. If anyone had studied the end of the US Civil War they would've recognized that static trench warfare was a lot more realistic outcome than the sweeping offensive movements envisioned by the von Schlieffen Plan.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
no, WWI started because of Hitler.Jay wrote:
WWI occurred because of the Franco-Prussian War really. France wanted Alsace-Lorraine back, to fix their pride, and for the Germans part, they won that war so easily that it led to overconfidence even though the machine gun was known to be a game changer. The war was inevitable simply because the arrogant bastards thought technology had conquered the horrific casualties seen during the Napoleonic Wars and that it would thus be quick and to the point. If anyone had studied the end of the US Civil War they would've recognized that static trench warfare was a lot more realistic outcome than the sweeping offensive movements envisioned by the von Schlieffen Plan.
for a fatty you're a serious intellectual lightweight.
quoting for future laughsCamm wrote:
no, WWI started because of Hitler.Jay wrote:
WWI occurred because of the Franco-Prussian War really. France wanted Alsace-Lorraine back, to fix their pride, and for the Germans part, they won that war so easily that it led to overconfidence even though the machine gun was known to be a game changer. The war was inevitable simply because the arrogant bastards thought technology had conquered the horrific casualties seen during the Napoleonic Wars and that it would thus be quick and to the point. If anyone had studied the end of the US Civil War they would've recognized that static trench warfare was a lot more realistic outcome than the sweeping offensive movements envisioned by the von Schlieffen Plan.
♥
Germany was the reason Austria could go into Serbia. Germany was what protected Austria from Russia (for decades by now) and their sanctioning of the movements in Austria allowed war to happen. The state was already extremely racist, it was basically nazi-ideology sans antisemitism. They knew that by supporting Austria they could provoke war with Russia and most importantly England. Germany had already beaten France and next on the "hit-list" were the Brits (significantly, everyone thought the major deciding battle of WW1 would be at sea).FEOS wrote:
But the rationale for Germany "needing to expand" is the part that shows it was preventable...as well as the bull-headedness of Austria (vice Germany), which is what drew everyone into the war.
But that's a whole other thread.
And I didn't say it was pointless--I said it was preventable.
While the 'need to expand' and the idea to establish itself as superior to everyone else may sound rather stupid the reasons for these thoughts lie in the social darwinism at the time and a little Nietzsche. In germany it was brought to extremes really. All the other nations had their colonial empires to affirm their superiority (it also meant prestige). When germany wanted colonies of its own to do so as well and consequently built a navy, it started an arms race in Europe because the only possible way they could get any colonies was by taking them from others.
Austria felt it needed to go into Serbia to unify. The country was weak and divided from top to bottom and the creation of a common enemy could help in preventing the state from slowly disintegrating. Russia felt it had an obligation to protect all Slavic people and reacted (dragging the French & the Brits in the conflict). The Ottomans hated the Russians for their constant involvement in the Balkan and joined Austria & Germany in fighting the triple alliance. These events really just got the ball rolling that was set up years earlier (ironically Bismarck set up the triple alliance to prevent war, same with the Entente by the others).
And despite all the peace protests held just years earlier, everyone took up arms to fight. The ideologies that started the war were the same that motivated the people of all the various nations to fight one another. For the germans they felt it was necessary to confront the Brits because they were what was preventing them from 'blossoming'. The Brits wanted to preserve the status quo and defend democracy. The French wanted revenge. Russia wanted the Balkans, the Ottomans wanted the Balkans and the Austrians needed to fight in the Balkans to continue existing. Italy was in sort of a similar position as Germany.
to add:
Last edited by Shocking (2012-07-02 06:27:30)
inane little opines
Why is it always expressed in terms of countries and peoples?Shocking wrote:
]Germany ... Austria ... Serbia. Germany ... Austria ... Russia ...Austria ... Russia ... England. Germany
Germany...Austria ... Serbia ... Russia ... The Ottomans ... the Russians ... the Balkans ... Austria ... Germany
The Germans ... The Brits ... The French ... Russia ... the Balkans, the Ottomans ... the Balkans ... the Austrians ... the Balkans ... Italy ... Germany.
Generally speaking wars are fought by a handful of politicians or leaders - except they rarely do any actual fighting.
Hilter wanted a war, Churchill was ready to go to war to prevent a war - not that he didn't like wars, Stalin wanted a war, Hirohito wanted a war, Mussolini was a fat prick.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Shit, i'd forgotten about Conn, I think the last ones I read were the rome books? How many more has he done?FEOS wrote:
Another Conn Iggulden book on the Mongols
People fight wars, and in the case of WW1, everyone was most willing to fight. In the case of WW2, same. In post-war Germany the germans were made out to be the victims of the nazis but imo that's not really truthful. The vast majority did hold a resentment against the other European nations for the treaty of versailles and agreed with Hitler on many issues. Let's not forget that racism was normal in those days in every country, there were plenty of antisemites in France and England as well.Dilbert_X wrote:
Why is it always expressed in terms of countries and peoples?Shocking wrote:
]Germany ... Austria ... Serbia. Germany ... Austria ... Russia ...Austria ... Russia ... England. Germany
Germany...Austria ... Serbia ... Russia ... The Ottomans ... the Russians ... the Balkans ... Austria ... Germany
The Germans ... The Brits ... The French ... Russia ... the Balkans, the Ottomans ... the Balkans ... the Austrians ... the Balkans ... Italy ... Germany.
Generally speaking wars are fought by a handful of politicians or leaders - except they rarely do any actual fighting.
Hilter wanted a war, Churchill was ready to go to war to prevent a war - not that he didn't like wars, Stalin wanted a war, Hirohito wanted a war, Mussolini was a fat prick.
Politicians are always made out to be the 'bad guys pulling the strings' after the war is over because well, you always need someone to blame. Let's not forget that nothing they do could be done without massive public support.
inane little opines
But shaping public support around their agenda is the art of the politician is it not?
And Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini didn't exactly depend on public support after a certain point.
And Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini didn't exactly depend on public support after a certain point.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
He did a whole series on Genghis Khan after the Rome series. I think the one I have is book 4 or 5 of the Khan series.PrivateVendetta wrote:
Shit, i'd forgotten about Conn, I think the last ones I read were the rome books? How many more has he done?FEOS wrote:
Another Conn Iggulden book on the Mongols
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Historical fiction is such a shit genre and waste of time. It takes no creativity to write a historical fiction novel. They confuse the general public about historic events. They are usually never well written or researched.
I'm obviously referring to modern historical fiction. Just pointing that out before anyone tries to be cute by bringing up Shakespeare's historical plays.
aaron sorkin is shit
Tu Stultus Es
Hitler never really pulled any strings. Mussolini was still popular even after establishing himself as fascist dictator and Stalin came to power when it (public support) didn't really matter anymore.Dilbert_X wrote:
But shaping public support around their agenda is the art of the politician is it not?
And Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini didn't exactly depend on public support after a certain point.
On the point of Hitler and Mussolini, they only lost support after their wars went bad, which is typical.
Last edited by Shocking (2012-07-05 02:10:14)
inane little opines
Hitler never pulled any strings?
He galvanised an entire country around his personal hatred of the jews.
He galvanised an entire country around his personal hatred of the jews.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Look up Ian Kershaw's essay "Working towards the Führer". Whereas Stalin was a control freak who drew all the power towards himself Hitler's view was that things would sort themselves out. He barely did anything in terms of policy&decisionmaking. He didn't even really initiate the holocaust, that was simply the interpretation of his underlings of the speeches he gave.
Last edited by Shocking (2012-07-05 03:57:22)
inane little opines
hahahaShocking wrote:
Look up Ian Kershaw's essay "Working towards the Führer". Whereas Stalin was a control freak who drew all the power towards himself Hitler's view was that things would sort themselves out. He barely did anything in terms of policy&decisionmaking. He didn't even really initiate the holocaust, that was simply the interpretation of his underlings of the speeches he gave.
oh my.
