Rather than memorize the proper forms to use, I have a template that I cut and paste into an article, after which in theory I put in the url and a suitable comment.
A lot of the time, I forget to include the url. (insert URL within quotes here)
I thought maybe you'd gone past the end (http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm), and fallen over the edge (http://www.wpclipart.com/cartoon/_falling_cow_zone.png).
It was the all-important element of surprise: I mouse-overed expecting some subtle, hard-to-see error, probably one that I couldn't spot at all without knowing what the URL was supposed to be -- and understood exactly what had happened at the first glance.
How much fundamental difference does this actually make? Ding Diamond for spinning things into the most emotionally graphic scenario ("they refused to adapt and all died off"), but from my limited memories of the book and a bit of common sense, I'd think the fundamental point should be that climate change can force societies to change drastically or leave. The article says "they left", but also that they left because of climate change, and didn't turn into Inuit.
After all, there's nowhere realistic for us to go from Earth. All we can do is change, in a controlled or uncontrolled fashion...
And much as Diamond gets bashed, this struck me as as bad a case of theory trumping evidence as anything in his books:
"And while there are plenty of seal bones in Norse dumps, virtually no fish bones have been recovered, leading some to argue that they never took advantage of the ample fish resources in the streams and fjords, even in times of famine.
Gisladottir, a native of Iceland, scoffs at the notion, pointing out that Norse in other lands ate fish in quantity. "Of course they ate fish," she says. "One common way of preparing cod was to gut it, dry it, and then cook it in a pot for three or four hours and eat your porridge, bones and all."
I.e., I am so convinced my theory is right that I'd rather believe that *every single fish they caught* was eaten whole from head to tail, rather than accept the evidence that they ate almost no fish.
If I recall correctly, the real problem with the fish hypothesis is the nitrogen-15 content in the archaeological remains is too low. Fish bones are in general poorly preserved.
They left? Well, maybe some of them left when the last supply boats pulled out but if I remember my archeology they found human remains _inside_ buildings; remains of people who - by their bones - didn't seem well fed.
Some stayed - they died. The natives continued to thrive.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
james_davis_nicoll) wrote2008-01-08 10:45 am
no subject
link
J.A.B.
Re: link
Re: arriving when a conversation is almost over
How that you've fixed it, as I've only just got here, you've got me wondering what the amusing Oopserlink was.
Re: arriving when a conversation is almost over
A lot of the time, I forget to include the url. (insert URL within quotes here)
Re: ... almost over
I thought maybe you'd gone past the end (http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm), and fallen over the edge (http://www.wpclipart.com/cartoon/_falling_cow_zone.png).
Re: arriving when a conversation is almost over
Joy
no subject
no subject
Incidentally, on Norse Greenland's 'collapse' -- looks like the "they left" hypothesis is now dominant.
no subject
After all, there's nowhere realistic for us to go from Earth. All we can do is change, in a controlled or uncontrolled fashion...
no subject
no subject
"And while there are plenty of seal bones in Norse dumps, virtually no fish bones have been recovered, leading some to argue that they never took advantage of the ample fish resources in the streams and fjords, even in times of famine.
Gisladottir, a native of Iceland, scoffs at the notion, pointing out that Norse in other lands ate fish in quantity. "Of course they ate fish," she says. "One common way of preparing cod was to gut it, dry it, and then cook it in a pot for three or four hours and eat your porridge, bones and all."
I.e., I am so convinced my theory is right that I'd rather believe that *every single fish they caught* was eaten whole from head to tail, rather than accept the evidence that they ate almost no fish.
no subject
no subject
Some stayed - they died. The natives continued to thrive.
-m
`native'
(Anonymous) 2008-01-08 09:09 pm (UTC)(link)-- Keir
no subject
no subject
no subject