I think Shakespeare would have found your argument very nice. Shakespeare wrote in (Early) Modern English and thus is not terribly hard to understand, but still the language has changed since his time and in some subtle ways too. I think you also overestimate the grasp of more archaic forms of English by the average English speaker. Erroneous usage from a cursory search:

"Here thou haveth two tokens .. Enjoy thine stay!" source

"Aye, I knowst 'bout the History .. I wast intrested to know .. Thank thou, Madam Camorea." source

Like nails on a frickin' chalkboard. And sadly not at all hard to find.

The book cites several other sources that are in agreement with its thesis (but claims they are not comprehensive enough). Care to cite the "mainstream linguistic opinion" that they were not mutually intelligible? The link I provided was from a cursory search. I read another book arguing for mutual intelligibility but I have forgotten what it was (this was some 10 years ago). I found it very informative at the time as I wouldn't have guessed at the premise that Anglo-Saxons and "vikings" (not just raiders but also traders) were communicating with each other using their own respective language.

There is more to language names than the content and structure of language. Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian are still mutually intelligible, yet I think the speakers of those languages would take strong issue with someone wanting to lump each language under one name simply because they are mutually intelligible. Political boundaries, culture, even religion can call for a different name for a language.

Furthermore, it is well known that people alter their register to facilitate communication, especially when speaking two differing varieties. If an American and a Scotsman are speaking, they each tend to avoid terms and sayings that are specific to their own variety that the other is unlikely to understand. The same goes for the Scandinavians: Word choice and grammar are carefully chosen so that the listener will understand.

The same concept applies to Old English versus Old Norse. It is quite possible to pick vocabulary and sentence structure using what we know of each language to produce phrases that are extremely similar to eachother. I don't think anyone is claiming that any valid Old Norse sentence would be understood by Old English speakers and vice versa

Icelandic definitely comes closest. It has changed remarkably little over the centuries. It has been said that Icelandic is to Old Norse, as Modern English is to Shakespearean English. Thus Icelanders can read Old Norse texts with a little practice.

There is significant evidence that Old English and Old Norse were to a certain extent mutually intelligible. Unfortunately, a number of scenes in Vikings fall flat on their face if you are aware of this.

Also the pronunciation of Old English in the show is rather poor. You would think they would have consulted someone on it but it is obvious that they did not considering the repeated mispronounciation of the vowel 'æ' and 'g' before front vowels. I give them some credit for trying though.

Oh, that. It always looked like a 'd' to me, which is what it is based off of.

Mod parent up. I had no clue what the author of the linked article was trying to say and stopped reading it as soon as I got to the link to the above article. It was like a breath of fresh air. Why people have to layer on a bullshit summary "article" when the original source is perfectly readable, I find baffling.

Two vowels in a row makes a "foreign language"? Or are you conveniently ignoring all the consonants in that word? And 'ei' is a dipthong in Icelandic anyway.

Tulips?! No one wants tulips. Now, lupins on the other hand..

I welcome our Sexbot Overladies. But hey, your preference is just fine with me.

Good sir, I offer my sincerest and most hearty congratulations upon your sage writings. I shall bequeath upon you an IOU for an increased value of moderation that of which I currently lack.

Unfortunately the 10th "Mountain" Division carries this title only in name. They are simply another IBCT and conduct no specialized mountaineering training. They are located at Fort Drum, NY which is flat as a pancake and much closer to the Great Lakes than any mountains. In fact, there is no large formation in the US military with that capability. As far as training facilities/schools go, I am only aware of the Army Mountain Warfare School and the USMC Mountain Warfare Training Center. The former is located in Vermont (and both NY and Vermont's mountains are a joke compared to say.. the Alps or the mountains of Afghanistan) and I have never met anyone in 11 years of Army service that has attended the school (seems to be mostly a "fun" school for Vermont National Guardsmen and ROTC Cadets). The latter Marine Corps school seems to take things a little more seriously, located in the Sierra Nevadas and offering some pretty advanced training. I can't speak for Marine attendance at this school but the Corps is small and mostly concerned with the ocean. I would imagine the school gets some patronage from Special Operations Forces, for example the Army maintains a number of Special Forces mountaineering teams. Again, that is very small though. So no, unfortunately the US military has very little mountain capability. The days of the 10th Mountain skiing down the slopes in the Rockies is long gone.

Our advanced Minecraft Programmers use GameStart's proprietary TechMage mod to be able to write Python code for the PC version of Minecraft. TechMage is not yet released to the public, but we do offer a solution for practicing on a Pi at home.

They sound awfully protective of their proprietary code. Hopefully they are more concerned about giving kids a braindead, easy system to use at home, and will eventually expand their scope to have something that can be run by kids on their PCs. Besides, anyone can write a Python API for Minecraft. What would really set this company apart is high quality instruction.

I think that is exactly what Google expected and now they have the data points to prove it. Hence they are advocating the all-in approach.

Of course, the ultimate goal is that all bad/drunk/distracted drivers are removed from the roads because no humans are driving. Once that happens perhaps riding in an automobile would be statisically safer than say.. working out.

Or perhaps like every technological innovation which has displaced workers, the workers will simply find new jobs that fit into the new system? I'm sure there are plenty of long haul truckers who enjoy their jobs but I bet there are many more who do it because it's a job and would welcome the opportunity to never work more than 50 miles away from home, spend more time with their families and friends, etc. New jobs will be created from the new technology. The trucks will need someone to refuel them. Until that gets automated away.. But someone will have to install the new fuel automation systems and someone will have to maintain them. Billing and logistics for the fuel will be automated and that will require more servers, more networks, more data centers, and everything else that goes with those.

There's lots of opportunity in there if one looks for it. Of course, if unions want to resist inevitable progress, they are welcome to try.. and be relegated to the pages of history as has always happened before.

Patience, please! I'll be publishing the results in a few million years.