fucking INSANE norman borlaug isn't on that list
xpost - god bless you clay
― balls, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 02:19 (eleven years ago) link
I kinda shrug at Columbus being that high. Like that Seinfeld bit, "it's not like they weren't gonna discover that anyway."
Newton seems a legit choice for #1 in a lot of respects. Not least his own weirdness.
― ryan, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 02:20 (eleven years ago) link
Can't wait for the pseudo-geeks to vilify Edison and complain about Tesla's ranking.
― Van Horn Street, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 02:29 (eleven years ago) link
i saw a list like this once that had gutenberg at no. 1, seems like a defensible choice to me.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, 27 February 2013 03:55 (eleven years ago) link
i remember me and my friends looking at this book in the hs library all the time - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100:_A_Ranking_of_the_Most_Influential_Persons_in_History
― balls, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 04:03 (eleven years ago) link
kinda curious about this!
Hart wrote another book in 1999, entitled A View from the Year 3000,[3] voiced in the perspective of a person from that future year and ranking the most influential people in history. Roughly half of those entries are fictional people from 2000–3000, but the remainder are actual people. These were taken mostly from the 1992 edition, with some re-ranking of order.
― ryan, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 04:13 (eleven years ago) link
no stalin wtf?
― Mordy, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 04:13 (eleven years ago) link
Kublai but not Genghis?
― :C (crüt), Wednesday, 27 February 2013 06:00 (eleven years ago) link
they prob figured having lenin in there made stalin redundant. you could make good arguments for either of them, really.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, 27 February 2013 06:39 (eleven years ago) link