Var 1100: Fill & Download for Free

var length = 10; Math.random().toString(35).slice(2, length + 2); You can create a random string, including number and lower-case letter.=====================I'm cut-off rule===================It ain't a hack, but interesting one. Where is the fun?15.7.4.2 Number.prototype.toString ( [ radix ] )If ToInteger(radix) is an integer from 2 to 36, but not 10, the result is a String representation of this Number value using the specified radix. Letters a-z are used for digits with values 10 through 35.ECMAScript Language Specification - ECMA-262 Edition 5.1“Letters a-z” is the sticking point. What's more, in chrome, if radix is an odd, the result is a long String up to 1100 decimal places.

The Chinese drove the US outta the region but suffered a lot of casualties. The Army actually had more killed than the Marines 1100 vs 900 but were less supplied and organized. The weather was what really stopped the Chinese Army PLA as it was 30 below zero F and the Soldiers didn’t have gloves and just had tennis shoes. The Americans withdrew successfully because of the weather.

So what languages were spoken in 1175 London? The court was speaking Norman French, the clergy I presume could speak Latin, and hoi-polloi spoke Middle English. So the answer depends on what circles you plan mingling in, but once you decide that, the answers aren't surprising: if you want to speak with Middle English speakers, the modern language you should know is English, and if you want to speak with the French speaking court, learn modern French.(Some people have opted for Latin, but that's cheating--Latin's a dead language. Some people speak it, fine, but some people speak Middle English and Old English too, so if those are all in the mix, then just pick Middle English (aim for the 1175 variety, London dialect) and skip the middle man.)Now, so far as you want to speak with the common Middle English speaking man, all the other answers people have offered are baffling. It's true that each of those languages--Norman, French, Frisian, Dutch--have some overlap with Middle English. But none of them have more overlap than Modern English has with Middle English. It would be a rather strange situation if it were otherwise. It's not like, say, French contributed a third of English vocabulary in 1100 and then froze, remaining in mint condition until the modern day. No, French went along changing in its Frenchified way, just as English has gone along changing in its Englified way, both becoming more and more distant from their 10th centuries ancestors.Don't believe me? Fine, here's a quiz. Here’s a few lines of Middle English.In the bigynnyng God made of nouyt heuene and erthe. Forsothe the erthe was idel and voide, and derknessis weren on the face of depthe; and the Spiryt of the Lord was borun on the watris.Which of the following is closest to that?1. Au commencement, Dieu créa le ciel et la terre. La terre n’était que chaos et vide. Il y avait des ténèbres à la surface de l'abîme et l'Esprit de Dieu planait au-dessus de l’eau.2. In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram. Terra autem erat inanis et vacua et tenebrae super faciem abyssi et spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas.3. In het begin heeft God de hemelen en de aarde gemaakt. De aarde was woest en leeg en de Geest van God zweefde boven de watermassa. Over de watermassa lag een diepe duisternis.4. Kezdetben teremté Isten az eget és a földet. A föld pedig kietlen és puszta vala, és setétség vala a mélység színén, és az Isten Lelke lebeg vala a vizek felett.5. Im Anfang schuf Gott die Himmel und die Erde. Die Erde aber war wüst und leer, und es lag Finsternis auf der Tiefe; und der Geist Gottes schwebte über den Wassern.6. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.7. Í upphafi skapaði Guð himin og jörð. Jörðin var þá auð og tóm, og myrkur grúfði yfir djúpinu, og andi Guðs sveif yfir vötnunum.For the record, here we have French, Latin, Dutch, Hungarian, German, Modern English and Icelandic.There’s really no contest. Not a perfect comparison of course, since the Middle English excerpt is from a few centuries after 1175, and different Bible versions use different source manuscripts. Also spelling can hide (and exaggerate) linguistic differences. Nonetheless, I take it the point is clear--English wins.Let's look at a couple of examples, comparing the same term in different languages:Middle English: God. Dieu and Deus aren’t even cognate to “God”; Gott and Guð are, but both have undergone sound changes. And Isten is of course completed unrecognizable, as a Hungarian word should be. Dutch and Modern English: God. Those are our winners.Middle English: Spiryt. l’Esprit and Spiritus are cognates, but again, these both lose to Modern English: Spirit, clearly closer. Nothing else is even in the ballpark.Middle English: watris. The only candidates are the non-English Germanic languages, but again, they can’t compare with Modern English: waters.And so on. The point is this: languages typically change, and they change in such a way to become more different from both their older incarnations and from each other. Thus, effectively, every year that goes by any two languages grow farther apart, like two dots painted on an expanding balloon. One can think of exceptions—a common one being when a particular dialect is imposed on a number of differing dialect groups by means of a strong central government, as with Parisian French or Castillian Spanish—but that’s exceptional, and regardless, that’s not the case here. Another exception is when loanwords pass into a language, in a way bringing that language just a bit closer to the loaner language. But such a loan is a microscopic part of the total word stock, a stock of alien words which continues to change in its own particular fashion. Moreover, the most common grammatical words are seldom replaced by loans—so, loans or not, the core of each language continues to change and go its own way.And that’s the case here. We can get a rough idea of how close any two languages are by looking at the date of the most recent common ancestor of those two tongues, and then treating that ancestor as a midway point between the two languages—so the total “distance” between the tongues is the distance from language A to its common ancestor with language B—Proto-AB—plus the distance from language B to the same ancestor.With Middle English and Modern English, Middle English is the most recent common ancestor, which means these two tongues are 900 years apart (or if you don’t like that, call the most recent common ancestor Middle English*, the language that was spoken one year before Middle English).With German and Middle English, the most recent common ancestor is Proto-West-Germanic, which was spoken c. 500 AD. What’s the difference between that and Middle English? Start at Middle English, c. 1100, count back to Proto-West-Germanic, c. 500—that’s about 600 years difference between Proto-West-Germanic and Middle English. How different is Proto-West-Germanic from Modern German? Just count from c. 500 to the present, about 1500 years. Now you add the two of those together and get a rough idea of the difference between Middle English and Modern German: ca. 2000 years. That’s already twice the difference between Middle English and Modern English.Dutch is about the same, but probably not quite as deep.Icelandic is even deeper, as its most recent common ancestor with Middle English is Proto-Germanic proper, even earlier than Proto-West-Germanic.Latin? Now the most recent ancestor with Middle English is Proto-IndoEuropean (PIE), which we’ll tag at 5000 BC. Distance from Middle English to PIE, about 6000 years. Distance from Latin to PIE? Let’s set Latin as Cicero’s Latin, so around 1 AD: ergo, 5000 years. Total distance Latin to Middle English? 11000 years.French leads back through Latin, so it's even farther away. And Hungarian is not related to English, at least not in any accepted way, so all we know for sure is that there's even more distance to the most recent ancestor than anything we've looked at so far, if such an ancestor even exists (For extra credit, try and find a cognate in the Hungarian example to a word in the English translation. I see one possibility.)Now, admitted, this is all much too quick, and greatly complicated by lots of factors. But it gives us a rough idea, and if somebody suggests something that contrasts this easy computation, something like "Icelandic is closer to Middle English than Modern English is to Middle English," you should be skeptical and demand extraordinary evidence.So, yeah, sorry, the answer is just boring old English. Unless you plan to mingle with Plantagenets. If so, bonne chance.NB: Stephen Tempest has made a pretty good case in the comments that, when it comes to Old English (which would be before 1175), Icelandic is closer than Modern English.