Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Thought of the day

Comments Filter:
  • The battle to maintain the status quo is a given -- it doesn't have a date in the history books because it's been constant since as long as there's been people who'd want to maintain the status quo.
    • Seems the process in the past has been one of more advanced (technically and militarily) societies building empires on the backs of less advanced ones, and then going head-to-head with each other. So, local warlord discovers power of mounted horsemen, sets out to conquer neighbouring tribes, creates vast empire, then attacks Rome, or China, or whatever.
      The last swing of this particular pendulum would appear to have been colonization in the 1890's, and the empire-building tail of WWII.
      The battles these days
      • I'm not arguing against your idea that one type of conflict is on the decline (which is not to say that I'm convinced either), I'm just saying there have always been economic systems to be protected and exploited. The activity you're seeing has been going on constantly since there was such a thing as an economic system. History books are about the other type of conflict (battles between nations, etc), not the ever-present tensions within society -- so that's why you might have the impression that it's new.

"If anything can go wrong, it will." -- Edsel Murphy