My only beef is with the sydney opera house. I don't think it belongs there.
My only beef is with the sydney opera house. I don't think it belongs there.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
i dunno about that Eiffel Tower....it's a nice tower and all...nice and tall...great engineering...but it seems a bit too boring to be called a Wonder.
Yeah, it's a striking piece of architecture, but that's about it.
This stuff is a lot less wondrous now that we know so much about engineering and physics and stuff.
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
The question is how do you define a wonder? Is it something that looks nice, or something that impresses you. I went for the latter, so voted by that. In all honesty they are all impressive. Stone henge being the possible exception. Don't get me wrong. It's impressive, not just physically but isn't there something about the positioning of the stones. I just find machu picchu and the rest much more awe inspiring.
I find Machu Picchu and the Great Pyramids and the Great Wall much more awe inspiring than the Eiffel Tower.
I define a wonder not only as something that looks cool, but something that obviously took a good amount of genious to be able to construct. The above wonders took a lot of work and genious considering the technology they had available to them.
Honestly, I think this whole process got dumbed down. This isn't the 7 wonders of the world it's the 7 famous architectural accomplishments that your average joe can recognize.The ancient wonders were wonders because they were oddities. To this day the process of their creations are only speculative. Some of these are easy... they used a crane. The Great Wall can be considered a wonder because it's an amazing accomplishment, as are the Great Pyramids of Egypt. A few others their also fit oddity status, but of course because of bad voting the Statue of Liberty will probably make it as will the Eiffel Tower.
Sent from my iPadŽ
Where's the rest of 'em ? Can I still see the whole list (not only the final 21)?Originally Posted by Mario F.
BTW, I think Grand Canyon is better than the Statue of Liberty. Or Niagara Falls. Or Himalaya. Why didn't they got to the list? Is it because they are natural wonders? Might as well say "7 Unnatural / Man Made Wonders".
The 7 Wonders where always man-made. The first list existed 2000 years ago. During the Middle-Ages the list as we know today was compiled from the Greek lists. Back then, as today, the list is comprised of amazing feats of engineering.
The wonders of the natural world are instead a modern thing.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
If you were to go by loosely-interpretted definition, you could say that the wonders should be things that you wonder about, or things that are mysterious in nature. Stonehenge would certainly fall under that definition...no one in the modern age knows what it was used for, only a long string of speculation. The WTC should never make such a list, not once, let alone 7 times. I am seriously hoping whoever said that was kidding.Plus, some of us would like to FORGET such a thing.
Why do you hate America?The WTC should never make such a list, not once, let alone 7 times. I am seriously hoping whoever said that was kidding.
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
The panama canal is probably the only piece of man-made architecture that is a wonder. Plus a ton of people died just building it.
I don't. I'm American. I lost my business and several family members thanks to 9/11, so I'd like to forget it.
> The panama canal is probably the only piece of man-made architecture that is a wonder. Plus a ton of people died just building it.
So the Pyramids which were built with ancient technology we don't even know about, or the Great Wall, or Machu Pichu on top of an almost unaccessible mountain, or the heads in Easter Island that had to be moved across the sea in sea rafts so large that weren't invented until the 15th century... those aren't wonders.
But Panama Canal is?
Ok.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Are they sure that's what happened there? I haven't done a lot of research into them, but I was under the impression very very little was known about them.
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
There's too many theories unfortunately. Or at least that's what I've read about them. Some say the heads came from a quarry inside the island itself, others that they were carved and moved from some island to the west. Dates aren't precise either. I would think the quarry theory makes sense since it would be an amazing achievement to move those things over sea. Perhaps too amazing for the time.
EDIT: On a side note, much speculation exist for how they were moved on land, regardless of their origin. In itself al amazing achievement. The largest of those heads weights 82 Tons!
Last edited by Mario F.; 12-08-2006 at 11:06 AM.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
