â¢ Other Questions
In 270, Queen Zenobia of Palmyra launched an invasion that brought most of the Roman East under her sway. What was this army comprised of, and were there Romans fighting in the army?
She never rejected Roman imperial authority.Zenobia - WikipediaAgreement with RomeZenobia initially avoided provoking Rome by claiming for herself and her son the titles, inherited from Odaenathus, of subject of Rome and protector of its eastern frontier.86 After expanding her territory, she seems to have tried to be recognized as an imperial partner in the eastern half of the empire and presented her son as subordinate to the emperor.
152102153 In late 270, Zenobia minted coinage bearing the portraits of Aurelian and Vaballathus; Aurelian was titled "emperor", and Vaballathus "king".152 The regnal year in early samples of the coinage was only Aurelian's.152 By March 271,154 despite indicating Aurelian as the paramount monarch by naming him first in the dating formulae, the coinage also began bearing Vaballathus' regnal year.
155 By indicating in the coinage that Vaballathus' reign began in 267 (three years before the emperor's), Vaballathus appeared to be Aurelian's senior colleague.155Palmyrene Antoninianus minted in Antioch 271 CE, showing Aurelian (left) as emperor and Vaballathus as king:Everyone within her domain was Roman, which broadly answers the Question here.Even so, confusion was possible, (a) because of the various ethnicities, and (b) some Roman troops can appear as non-Roman; a well-known example: Wall Painting of Julius Terentius Performing a SacrificeFrom the Temple of the Palmyrene Gods, Dura-Europos, ca. 239 CE. It was commissioned by the Roman commander at Dura-Europos, Julius Terentius, identified by a Latin inscription in the center.His troops used camels and were both recruited and kitted out from Alexandria.Zenobia and her husband were Arabs. She converted to Manichaeism by missionaries from Iran, or Mesopotamia.
------What impeachment testimony would sway Republican voters?
Im not sure. But I suspect that an appeal to the rule of law, AND, especially, the consequences of ignoring it might.I would also offer the following:Last week, the Senate, that is, THE SENATE passed a resolution called the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. Predictably, the Chinese reacted accordingly, editorializing how the US should stay out of its business.
Heres the question: Since the Chinese response was so predictable, why? And think about it: is this act likely to enhance Trumps position in negotiating a trade agreement or drive the Chinese into (further, if thats possible) never signing a trade agreement with Trump? I suspect the chance of Chinas signing any trade agreement with Trump, even assuming there was chance before, is now zero. Nada. Zip.Why would the Senate do that???I suspect the Senate is sending not-so-subtle message to Trump: No sir, Mr. President. We do not have your back any more.And further:If impeachment proceedings come before the Senate will not have your back. We wont vote against you, but we might just not bother to show up at all, and whats left of the Senate, in session, will convict you. That trip to Bethesda a little bit ago? You might just want to cite health, resign, and avoid making us all look foolish.To Machiavellian? Mitch McConnell could give Machiavelli a tough run for his money.
Think about it. Does the Senate passage of that Hong Kong bill make any sense? Only if you think outside the box
------Why is Paul McCartney the most hated of the Beatles?
I love how some people can write a small book answering this question and be so full of crap in the process. As someone else said who said he's the most hated?I honestly don't think he has been the most hated. I think that honor actually goes to John. I would disagree wha someone else said as well that it was because Paul broke up the Beatles. That also goes back to John. Most people, and they are wrong, blame Yoko for that and blame John for allowing it to happen. But we won't get into that because it's a whole other story.
Paul has always been the most liked actually. Both with the Beatles and after. Record sales don't lie. He sold more records than the others and has had the most successful career. That wouldn't happen if he were so hated. Try checking the facts before asking a question that is totally off the mark.I was in a hurry when I originally wrote this so I wanted to just make another point, many of you may be too young to remember this but John was definitely the most hated not Paul. Let us not forget the whole more popular than Jesus episode with John. For awhile there were thousands if not millions of people that hated him for that comment. I was not one of them however because I know it was taken out of context and blown out of proportion
------Why do some people dislike Led Zeppelin?
You know how there was this Beatles vs Stones, Blur vs Oasis etc thing, well there was another one in the seventies: Led Zeppelin vs Deep Purple. I was in the Purple camp and at the time my view was the musicians in DP were more accomplished, the songs better and more original and (importantly) DP were LOUD louder than anyone else, in fact.As a Purple fan, I hated Plant's whiney vocals, laughed at Page's plodding, clangy, error strewn guitar, groaned when I heard the tub thumping drums of John Bonham, and who was John Paul Jones FFS?That's tribalism for you. Today I still don't like Plant's vocals much and I've never been able to rate Page as a top line guitarist, but I admit he's not bad, but I think the Led Zeppelin rhythm section has an amazing groove that's quite unlike anyone else.I don't really care if they ripped off other musicians (they did), because everyone in rock has done so at some time. They did what the musicians who they ripped off didn't, and that's sell mountains of albums. Would the likes of Spirit made a mint out of their remarkably similar song? Nah. Page took the riff and turned it into a mega-song.Anyway, as time has gone on, I've stopped hating Zep, and now I quite like some of their songs. They're rubbish live though.
And I still prefer Purple.
------What are the real life applications of Fibonacci series?
First off, Fibonacci numbers manifest themselves in nature already:How are Fibonacci numbers expressed in nature?However, to answer the question directly, one example of potential use would be to determine how to scale up the size of something programmatically. Say you are coding something, and you need a list of items. You start with an arbitrary size, based on how much capacity you expect to need. Then, as items are added and you reach the capacity, you expand to a new capacity (allocating some more memory for additional items.)Say you started with a capacity of 1. Then you have an item added, so you double the size (add room for 1 more item.) Another item is added, so you add room for 2 more items. Two more are added, so you add capacity for 3 more. Then 5, 8, 13, etc.In reality, given the relatively ample processing power and available memory in today's hardware, doing these reallocations (and calculating the next number in the sequence) is probably more expensive than, say, doubling the capacity each time you run out of room. Microsoft's .NET framework actually uses this doubling method on each reallocation for this reason. (The do not by default start with a capacity of 1, however, as this would require many reallocations in almost any case, which would slow down lookup times dramatically.)However, if you are on an embedded system with limited resources, using Fibonacci numbers for this purpose could be a good tradeoff, so you don't waste more memory than you actually expect to use
------Has Google ever considered no manager organizational structures?
In short, yes.In his book, Wiki Management: A Revolutionary New Model for a Rapidly Changing and Collaborative World, author Rod Collins mentions that, back when Google had only a couple hundred employees (2002?), Larry and Sergey experimented with having no managers.There have been other experiments that I'm aware of, mostly sponsored at the director level with teams of 75 to 975 Googlers. More experiments are on the horizon, and some of my fellow Googlers are growing an internal community of practitioners of team self-management, but I'm not aware of any Google-wide (or Alphabet-wide) experiments in the last 15 years. I've been at Google since 2006.
That said, a key component of Google's organizational culture is redefining the role of "manager". That role, as defined by Frederick W. Taylor (the "father of management science"), does not exist at Google. Managers at Google set goals and strategies, they allocate resources, but they don't plan, direct, or control the work that people do. There is no "thinking class" that directs "ignorant oxen" to perform any tasks, to use Taylor's terms. Googlers are hired because they can think on their own, and Google cultivates that. You might find Laszlo Bock's book illuminating.
So, from a Taylorist perspective, Google has leaders, not managers, regardless of what they are called. Yes, it might be "just semantics", but semantics carry meaning
Kontaktieren Sie uns
Das moderne Haus