Atelier 801
fans of Dumbledore 
THE FOD FORUMS 
In memory of the Past.  Answers for History questions. |
| 0 | ||
Subho a dit : That answer was so specific yet so unclear... xD Dernière modification le 1456667100000 |
Winjid
Profil
Derniers messages
Tribu| 0 | ||
| What was the first ever ONLINE video game ? |
Abdeltif  Darkarious  « Citoyen » Membre 1465225380000
| 0 | ||
Abdeltif a dit : Now this is...a loose question, What do you mean by "the first online game"? Singleplayer? Multiplayer? LAN? Hosted? On an actual network? Here we have a few sections of what I found on Wikipedia. I am not quite sure which is your answer, for I am not sure if you mean a server based game, or a game, on a few computers, each connected to the others with cables. If you wish to, read them, and if you can't bother, skip to the second spoiler - what I suppose is the answer you want. When Internet came to be, and how LAN did too Wikipedia a dit : On one computer only: Wikipedia a dit : Some of the first actual multiplayers Wikipedia a dit : The PLATO system, which allowed for students to create and share multiplayer games: In the early 1970s, the PLATO time-sharing system, created by the University of Illinois and Control Data Corporation allowed students at several locations to use online lessons in one of the earliest systems for computer aided instruction. In 1972, PLATO IV terminals with new graphics capabilities were introduced, and students started using this system to create multiplayer games. By 1978, PLATO had multiplayer interactive graphical dungeon crawls, air combat (Airfight), tank combat, space battles (Empire and Spasim), with features such as inter-player messaging, persistent game characters, and team play for at least 32 simultaneous players. SGI Dogfight - sort of the first web based multiplayer In 1986, UDP support was added (port 5130), making SGI Dogfight the first game to ever use the Internet protocol suite. The packets used, though, were broadcast packets, which meant that the game was limited to a single network segment; it could not cross a router, and thus could not be played across the Internet. Around 1989, IP Multicast capability was added, and the game became playable between any compatible hosts on the Internet, assuming that they had multicast access (which was quite uncommon). The multicast address is 224.0.1.2, making this only the third multicast application (and the first game) to receive an address assignment, with only the VMTP protocol (224.0.1.0) and the Network Time Protocol (224.0.1.1) having arrived earlier. XTrek and NeTrek - very possibly a "remote display multiplayer game" could be the real answer to your question. The first of these remote display games was Xtrek. Based on a PLATO system game, Empire, Xtrek is a 2D multiplayer space battle game loosely set in the Star Trek universe. This game could be played across the Internet, probably the first graphical game that could do so, a few months ahead of the X version of Maze War. Importantly, however, the game itself was not aware that it was using a network. In a sense it was a host-based game, because the program only ran on a single computer, and knew about the X Window System, and the window system took care of the networking: essentially one computer displaying on several screens. The X version of Maze War, on the other hand, was peer-to-peer and used the network directly, with a copy of the program running on each computer in the game, instead of only a single copy running on a server. Netrek (originally called Xtrek II) was a fully network-aware client–server rewrite of Xtrek.[citation needed] Other remote X display based games include xtank and XPilot (1991). Wiki sources: History of online games Researching this was...fascinating, I must say. I like digging through history. Would love to do some more research for answers to your questions. My question: what is the origin of India? According to Indian mythology, or according to what actually happened (who and how founded it), or both, if you feel like it Dernière modification le 1465225560000 |
| 0 | ||
| Well, this is an interesting question.. Well I'm an Indian myself but never been that deep into Hindu Mythology as such.. Well, I could tell you what i know though : India the name actually is derived from Indus, A major river.. Common sense says settlements develop near rivers and that's what happened..The Aryan race (people from different parts of the world during that time mainly the people from Central Asia) moved in some 3000 years ago i think (please, do not take the numbers to be precise.. i don't seem to remember exactly) ... And the Indus Valley civilization came into existence.. As time passed, with the presence of the river and resources, major urban developments happened.. some of which i remember are Harrappa and Mohenjodaro.. the most prominent ones... With time, other advancements came into line.. the Vedas (One of the oldest writings in India) were written... Kings of certain areas started bordering their territory.. which later resulted in wars.. shaping state borders (that still exist to this day.. not entirely but yes..)... Religion came, Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism.. these are the oldest ones in India.. Islam came during the attack of the Moghul empire.. and Christianity much much later during the Brithish rule.. There were several heroes in each phase that shaped India to what it is today.. Some of which are Sir Bhagat Singh, Mahatma Gandhi, Shivaji Maharaj, etc. (There were lots).. Each time a foreign empire was thrown out of power, they took with them as much bounty as they could, crippling India in the process.. The British being the pinnacle of bounty stealing.. Statistics say, If India would have that wealth today.. it'd be the best economy right now.. But inspite of all that, India still stands recognized as one of the fastest growing economies.. So yea, that was probably everything i could remember.. There's a lot lot more.. and I think Subho is better informed than me in this Subject.. he knows every nook and cranny about it.. If thou wisheth to learn more, consult Subho young one xP.. Hope it was worth reading and answered your question to some point.. |
| 0 | ||
| First, Darkarious, it is really interesting and even fascinating to see that others are getting interested in our old cultures. Winjid, that's quite some information but it's really brief and most of it is modern history... What you said basically sounded like "first there was India and there were these cities in it then these people came and it developed and then these were written, then came wars then came religions.... then there were several heroes which made India what it is today and they are him him and him and each time this happened this happened what if it didn't happen but lets let subho talk" Anyway, Dark, that's... a really difficult question to answer, one that would require typing out a few books..a few BIG books.... in order to even make an attempt to answer... So given that case, Winjid, as a Christian Anglo-portugese-goanese Indian, answered real well. ( Always Proud of Winbro's knowledge) However, let me try to answer you in a different way, undoubtedly it will be really brief as well, because as I stated, there's no way to actually be detailed on here. So it was something like these: The beginning of India is a very minor incident in Hindu mythology. There were several kingdoms which the Hindu mythology agrees upon and of them, frankly, Harappa and Mohenjodaro aren't really one. They must have come to an either before the Aryans came or they must have remained untraced by the Aryans somehow. It is mentionworthy here that Mohenjodaro means Mound of the dead and that name is attributed to that place because quite afew skeletons of humans and animals were discovered there, which, later have been actually examined are said to have been the end results of radiation. A branch of scientists called the 'Ancient Astronaut Theorists' associate this with extraterrestrial theories or at least state that they must have had discovered radioactive things and it seems, from the kind of decay and the same place of death of all those people, that it might have been caused by the detonation of a neuclear reactor. Regardless of that, based on historical facts, the next thing that happened after the decline of this Civilization is the Aryan Migration to India and then, as winjid stated, the Vedas , the four historically treated treatises of the Aryans were composed. They are: The Rig Veda, The Sam Veda, The Yajur Veda and the Atharva Veda. Much later, upanishads have been made (Books which have the Moral of the Vedas since the four vedas combined are said to have been 50,000 pages long.) However, after the Aryans settled up in India, they fledged quite a few wars with other non-aryan enemies as well as with other Aryan Groups. (Several Aryan groups settled up in India and the Ramayan and Mahabharata are examples of these two phenomenons respectively.) It is notable here that the Aryan Society, on the other hand, was divided into four parts. The Learned or the Bramhins, the king and the warriors or the Kshatriyas, The traders or the Vaishyas and all others or the Sudhras.... This division has existed from the very beginning and still exists in the Hindu society. Although everyone is eligible for education in India now, this is the division which was followed until a few centuries back. Now there are several sub divisions within these and personally speaking, I belong to the highest division of the Bramhins. India has always been there, India has been here since the time being when man did not even keep written records and as such there's no generally accepted date or idea or notion as to how old India actually is. It is certain, however, that civilization in India predates all other known Civilizations, even the ancient ones. However, the name of India which we get from sanskrist is 'Bharatvarsha' and that is said to have come from a king called 'Bharat' who is said to have been a really spiritually enlightened king who took care of all sides of civilization, external and internal. As for founders, there are founders for India. If we consider the beginning of the present civilization, that begins with the coming of the Aryans, although there were several indegenious nomadic species living here and there from before. The Aryans came in groups and the groups came in a wave structure (one after one at an irregular interval) and therefore the present stage of India has been derived from a group of people and therefore a whole running system and that is why Hinduism is the only religion without any spiritual leader and with all kinds of thoughts.... It is mentionworthy here, that several religions have sprung up from the base of Hindu thoughts. Mahavir, the founder of Jainism was a Hindu. Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, was a Hindu King. Hinduism by far predates all of this to the very beginning and as such is the religion which accepts all thoughts and encourages everything that enriches the knowledge that the civilization can posses and allows that as long as it does not harm the civilization in any way. Please be a more specific with your next question should you feel like you should know anything more. |
| Desolate « Citoyen » Membre 1471509420000
| 0 | ||
| ^ who tf will read that |
| 0 | ||
| I'm interested to know how previous historians took use of history to improve humanity, or maybe just analyse it After all, we have to use history for the profit of the future, Anyone willing to shed light on my question ? |
| Darkarious « Citoyen » Membre 1478296740000
| 0 | ||
Abdeltif a dit : ON THE ANALYSING PART: Basically, deductive reasoning based on artefacts, myths, stories, folk tales, and recorded events. I filtered the Wiki page, and if you want to read about all the details, go on, but it's a wall of text. Quite the wall of text. If you want, I could also find for you stuff on deductive reasoning. Source criticism By whom was it produced (authorship)? From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)? In what original form was it produced (integrity)? What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)? The first four are known as higher criticism; the fifth, lower criticism; and, together, external criticism. The sixth and final inquiry about a source is called internal criticism. Together, this inquiry is known as source criticism. Procedures for contradictory sources: Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898) proposed a seven-step procedure for source criticism in history: If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved. However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis. The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text. When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most "authority"—that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness. Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries. If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced. When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense. Subsequent descriptions of historical method, outlined below, have attempted to overcome the credulity built into the first step formulated by the nineteenth century historiographers by stating principles not merely by which different reports can be harmonized but instead by which a statement found in a source may be considered to be unreliable or reliable as it stands on its own. Core principles for determining reliability The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997): Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives. Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability. The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened. An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on. If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased. The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations. If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased. Eyewitness evidence R. J. Shafer offers this checklist for evaluating eyewitness testimony: Is the real meaning of the statement different from its literal meaning? Are words used in senses not employed today? Is the statement meant to be ironic (i.e., mean other than it says)? How well could the author observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal to the observation? Was his physical location suitable to sight, hearing, touch? Did he have the proper social ability to observe: did he understand the language, have other expertise required (e.g., law, military); was he not being intimidated by his wife or the secret police? How did the author report?, and what was his ability to do so? Regarding his ability to report, was he biased? Did he have proper time for reporting? Proper place for reporting? Adequate recording instruments? When did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much later? Fifty years is much later as most eyewitnesses are dead and those who remain may have forgotten relevant material. What was the author's intention in reporting? For whom did he report? Would that audience be likely to require or suggest distortion to the author? Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent on the subject reported, thus probably not intending distortion? Did he make statements damaging to himself, thus probably not seeking to distort? Did he give incidental or casual information, almost certainly not intended to mislead? Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know? Remember that some types of information are easier to observe and report on than others. Are there inner contradictions in the document? Louis Gottschalk adds an additional consideration: "Even when the fact in question may not be well-known, certain kinds of statements are both incidental and probable to such a degree that error or falsehood seems unlikely. If an ancient inscription on a road tells us that a certain proconsul built that road while Augustus was princeps, it may be doubted without further corroboration that that proconsul really built the road, but would be harder to doubt that the road was built during the principate of Augustus. Oral tradition & anonymous sources Oral tradition Gilbert Garraghan maintains that oral tradition may be accepted if it satisfies either two "broad conditions" or six "particular conditions", as follows Broad conditions stated. The tradition should be supported by an unbroken series of witnesses, reaching from the immediate and first reporter of the fact to the living mediate witness from whom we take it up, or to the one who was the first to commit it to writing. There should be several parallel and independent series of witnesses testifying to the fact in question. Particular conditions formulated. The tradition must report a public event of importance, such as would necessarily be known directly to a great number of persons. The tradition must have been generally believed, at least for a definite period of time. During that definite period it must have gone without protest, even from persons interested in denying it. The tradition must be one of relatively limited duration. [Elsewhere, Garraghan suggests a maximum limit of 150 years, at least in cultures that excel in oral remembrance.] The critical spirit must have been sufficiently developed while the tradition lasted, and the necessary means of critical investigation must have been at hand. Critical-minded persons who would surely have challenged the tradition – had they considered it false – must have made no such challenge. Other methods of verifying oral tradition may exist, such as comparison with the evidence of archaeological remains. Anonymous Sources Historians do allow for the use of anonymous texts to establish historical facts Wiki source: Historical method ON USAGE: Education. The "History"/"History & Civilisation" subject exists for that exact reason, to additionally filter through the bulk of information we already have and feed it to the young and hopefully they'll learn a damn thing or two. The problems begin when the educational system filters too much, and gets picky. For example, recently in Bulgaria they tried to turn living under the ruling of the Ottoman Empire a "peaceful coexistence". Yeah right. Shit happened then. The blood tax was a thing. Forced conversion to Islam was a thing. That was between 1396 to 1878 y. after Christ. But it being centuries ago, and the world having changed doesn't mean we should just forget why we call it a yoke and led a revolution (I admit, aided strongly by our Russian pals) against it all. If you go through some 500 years of crap you better record it for what it was and make sure it is remembered so that no one goes through it again. Education! Aaanyways. History must be presented as it happened. But is it always? No, and that is just...so...pathetic... Oh, and as Subho said a few pages ago in this same thread, some stuff we had today had been invented over a thousand years ago and the knowledge about them had been lost in the Dark Ages. So, if historians and archaeologists manage, they might be able to find even more, and effectively creating an information link between ancient times of science and stuff to today's, well, times of far more energetic science and stuff. I do hope I answered your question, Abdeltiff, and I'm sorry it took over 3 months for me to finally try to. Will be checking this thread whenever I can n Dernière modification le 1478337480000 |
| 0 | ||
| Originally this thread was made by Subho to help understand the matters of historic concern. Since he's "retired" this thread is open for all sorts of Historic discussions from now on, so feel free to post whatever you feel like as long as its relevant to History and its counterparts Take care! |