Yes, it is realistic with your qualifications.
Look for Big Data projects. Particularly in Physics (e.g. CERN), Astronomy (the new generation of instruments which will be coming onliny in the next few years are going to be churning out Terabytes of data per night, which cannot be analyzed in any way other than automatically - look at projects like LSST, organisations like ESO, or the Virtual Observatory projects around the world - look at the IVOA for an overview). Or Biology/Biochemistry/Medicine - Medical Imaging (e.g. MRI), Genomics. Medicine is often a good one because unlike physicists, doctors rarely have the computing/programming skills. Geology needs data analysis for seismic surveys etc, but there the money is in the oil/gas companies - though the research environment there is just as nice as anywhere else.
Java is used quite widely, as is C and C++, Python is also increasingly used with the various libraries which are now available - SciPy, NumPy etc.
You might find yourself on a short-term contract at first (a year or two or the duration of the grant) but once you get in the door it's usually possible to migrate into renewed contracts, or a PhD programme etc.
You didn't say where you are based, but look around at what your local university or nearby labs are doing in the fields I mentioned. Or oil/gas/mineral companies.
Bloodless? There's a bunch of corpses buried in Reading that might well dispute that claim.
essentially bloodless (from the point of view of England, anyway - more below). Compared to the Norman Conquest or the Wars of the Roses or the Civil War casualties were very few.
Aye, and not to mention, me laddie, there's a whole lot o' Scots and Irish who will happily kick you in the nadgers for suggesting it was bloodless.
Since the Act of Union had not yet been written, Scotland and Ireland remained (nominally, at least) independent kingdoms, and James was still legally king there immediately after the coup in London. How you define what happened next in Scotland depends on whether you agree that the Convention of 1689 which declared the throne of Scotland vacant was legal and representative - and thus whether William was suppressing a rebellion as the legal King of Scotland or invading Scotland as the King of England. In Ireland there was no Convention and it rather more clearly was an invasion. In either case, yes, it was bloody, and I don't deny that.
In any case, the fact that the people of England supported the invader doesn't mean it wasn't a foreign invasion, unless you're hopelessly devoted to the myth that England hasn't been invaded since William.
Of course it was an invasion (William brought an army), and of course England was invaded previously. By Henry Tudor, for example. What is was not, of England specifically, was a conquest (implying subjucation of the people by military force) by the Netherlands as stated by the OP. Of Scotland, arguably, of Ireland, certainly, but by that stage conquest by England not by the Netherlands.
Most historians I know consider the nation-state idea to be quite recent, essentially an invention of the 19th century.
While I could perhaps understand an argument for the 18th century in the case of the United Kingdom, I'd like to see some evidence if you're suggesting serfs yelled at each other in Saxon to "keep calm and carry on."
They probably did, when the Norman sheriff came round to collect taxes
The modern concept of "nation-state" and "nationality" is as you say recent, but that does not mean definable states and countries did not exist previously, only to magically pop into existence in the 19th century. Nor does it mean that countries magically ceased to exist and then reappeared in another form with no continuity between the two. The United Kingdom as you allude has formally existed since the early 18th century, but existed as a de facto union (a personal union with one monarch ruling two countries) for almost exactly a century before that. The fact that the formal name changed does not invalidate that fact. And for somebody living in England their sense of being English and part of the English state did not change either in 1601 when personal union between England and Scotland began with James I and VI or when it was formalised under Anne in 1707. In neither case did they suddenly cease to be "English" in any meaningful way. Shakespeare refers to the English and England. Nelson said "England expects
The political, social, and economic structures have evolved vastly during the almost 1000 years since the Norman Conquest, but it was for the most part a slow evolution. Even the Magna Carta and the Commonwealth (Civil War) happened within the contemporary structures (feudal monarchy, parliamentary democracy respectively). Legal principles defined by the Normans are still in operation today, including much legal terminology, and as Patch86 commented below the language is equal parts Norman (beef, mutton) and Saxon (cow, sheep).
Another example is the numbering of Kings and Queens. The current Queen of the United Kingdom is Elizabeth II, even though the first Elizabeth was Queen of England (supposedly a "different country" according to this list). Her uncle, King Edward VII (he of Mrs Simpson fame) was the 7th of his name even though the previous Edward, the son of Henry VIII, died in 1553. Edward itself is a Saxon name, the most famous being Edward the Confessor.
The Chinese, Japanese, and French all claim direct lineage to states founded a long time before that.
Yes, and they're all quite wrong.
...
Nations developed in reaction to the socio-cultural pressures of 19th century imperialism.
If you had the opportunity to ask a person living in 18th century Japan what "nation" they were living in, it's probably they wouldn't understand the basis for your question.
Nations are a recent invention.
The modern meaning of nation encompassing certain cultural and ethnic aspects is a recent invention, but to say that (say) "France" as a country or state with a definable identity and people who self-identified as "French" did not exist until the "socio-cultural pressures of 19th century imperialism" is patently absurd. It is probably also absurd for pre-19th century Japan and China, which existed as coherent states in the same location with centralised control for many centuries, even if they did not know the word "nation" or understand the modern concept of "nationality".
(Personally, I prefer the "sovereign entity" definition, so would include both UK and Austro-Hungarian Empire as countries, but a project like this really ought to apply some degree of consistency, so should have either both or neither.)
Yes, exactly.
That's a mighty fine distinction to expect an internet list of almost 200 countries to include. It's pretty arrogant to assume that obviously the non-Polish 99.4% of the human race will automatically know that off the top their heads, and will immediately un-do the entire job just because the Polish 0.6% has a case.
And yet "what the average citizen [of that country] will say", not the other 99% of people, is the criterion you give a few lines later
This isn't about Poland as such, it's about the fact that the author applies his own rule arbitrarily and frequently at odds with what the inhabitants of that country would say.
The standard he uses in all cases is "What will an average citizen say if I ask when his country became independent?" You don't have to like this particular standard, but you do have to admit he applies it rigorously. OTOH the French refuse to admit they were conquered in the 40s, therefore if you ask a Frenchmen when his country gained it's independence he'll give you a very early date.
Well if that's the standard then anyone living in England will say 927 or 1066, someone in Scotland 843 or perhaps 1037, and so on, the Act of Union is essentially ignored by average citizens (and indeed had almost negligible impact on them). I also very much doubt the Chinese would say 1949, or the Russians 1991. The ridiculousness of this notion is underscored by the fact that people in other countries referred to the both the largest component of the Soviet Union and often to the Soviet Union itself as Russia all through the 20th Century, and the same with China, Poland, France, Austria etc etc etc.
I'll give you the same capital. But the borders are completely different.
Most of what is now Poland has as strong historical ties to Germany as it does to Poland. Silesia, Prussia, and Pomerania alone are damn near 50% of the current Republic's territory and none of them was firmly in Poland's control at any time between 1400 and the Versailles treaty.
You're lumping various smaller duchies and principalities in the those territories together, when at various times (even after 1400) they owed allegiance variously and variably to Poland or various German states. For example the Duchy of Oswiecim was unambiguously and legally Polish from 1457. Trying to fit those regions into modern notions of nationalism doesn't work.
... if the Belarussians or Ukraineans decided to pick up the mantle of the old Republic it would be very hard for us poor foreigners to tell who was full of shit. Belurussian ethnicity was as much a core of that old Republic as Poles, and they ended up with more of old Poland's territory then new Poland did.
In terms of area only, not in terms of population or major cities (except Lviv and Vilnius). As for ethnicity, yes, Belorussian or Ukrainian or Lithuanian ethnicity was very much part of the Commonwealth, but so was Polish (as in, the Greater Poland, Lesser Poland, Mazovia etc) ethnicity, and Polish was the dominant language in all those areas for many years.
Keep in mind that the rules of this are clear: independence is your birthday. If we let anybody change it we have to let everybody change it.
In other words polish history gave them a choice. They could choose to interpret Congress Poland as a legitimate Polish government co-equal to the Czars and therefore a constant continuation of the prior government, or they could look really young in country-age lists compiled by Americans who haven't really put in the effort to understand their history. They chose the latter.
Sorry, but the "rules" are being applied arbitrarily. After WW2 the Provisional Government declared the Vichy governemnt unconstitutional and illegal, meaning there was no continuation of prior government from 1940 until 1944. Why is the "birthday" of France not counted as 1944? Or Or if you prefer 1789, when the Ancien Regime was toppled? Celebrated to this day. Or Austria, also brought into being as an independent state in 1918 from what had been the Austro-Hungarian Empire - and if the United Kingdom is to be counted as different from England and not a continuation of it, then logically the Austro-Hungarian Empire is also not the same as pre-Empire Austria and not the same as post-Empire (post 1918) Austria. Or if, instead, you go by "Independence Day" Austria would "date" from 1955:
And similar arguments can be made (in both directions) for Russia, China, Japan
"I say we take off; nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." - Corporal Hicks, in "Aliens"
