Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Look who is behind the article (Score 4, Insightful) 292

As soon as I saw that the author of the article is "Fred Campbell, a former FCC legal adviser who now heads The Communications Liberty & Innovation Project think tank" I knew it was going to be some kooky tea-bagger/liberty-for-corporations-slavery-for-customers bullshit.

Anytime you see the words Liberty or Freedom thrown around by a TeleCom "think-tank" you can expect the usual "were here to fuck the consumer at all costs" propaganda.

Comment Re: Roman Empire (Score 1) 627

My problem was with the simplicity of your analysis regarding Rome's management of conquered peoples. I've seen others try to "boil down" Roman history and I have to say something...

Like I said, the real reason Rome gave up on Germany between the Rhine and the Elbe had more to do with economics and the Will of The Senate. If grapes, grain and olives(or fish sauce...) grew in Germany as they did in Spain, believe me, Rome would have stayed. There wasn't enough of a ROI to keep several legions there, traipsing around the German countryside to keep the tribes in check.

Dacia and Dalmatia on the other hand did have an economic incentives, having gold and other minerals, as well as grain growing capacity. Also, Dacia was more of a military threat to Rome than the Germans, as the Dacians were more organized militarily than the German tribes. Germany had slaves and wood and some lesser mineral wealth. Both Dacia and Dalmatia had similar/geography terrain(especially Dalmatia) to Germany, BUT, had a better ROI(at the time, 1st centuries BC/AD.)

So my point is that the Romans would and could defeat and manage a people, regardless of culture, if there was an economic or strategic/military reason to do so .
At the time, "owning" the Germans wasn't worth the trouble, though I'm sure they wished they had done it, looking back with hindsight from the fourth-fifth centuries.

I would recommend any books on Roman history by Adrian Goldsworthy and Anthony Everitt.

Comment Re: Roman Empire (Score 4, Informative) 627

As soon as I saw this was an article on Lead I knew it would turn into a "Did Rome Fall because of Lead" discussion.

I disagree with your simplistic analysis of Roman Imperialistic effectiveness: "warm coasties".

Lets see? What was Gaul when Caesar conquered it. His own histories, as well as Gibbon, et al, indicates there was much forested areas. The same goes with conquering the Dacian tribes, and the Dalmatian provinces. Those were heavily forested, yet closer to Rome. When Augustus conquered the Germans all the way up to the Elbe, the reality was, it wasn't really economically feasible to maintain those areas once all the slaves had been "monetized". As you say, it was nothing but trees...

The failure at Teutoburg came in a big part from Arminius subterfuge, and once the damage was done The Senate wasn't too keen on spending the money to subdue a region with little economic value, unlike the "warm coastie" regions with much higher economic value.

Regarding Roman problems dealing with the Persian cavalry, that would be more of a military tactical issue, where The Romans didn't really have an effective method for defeating units who could fire ranged weapons from afar, as the Roman Military was much more effective at close combat.

Comment Re:I love long films if... (Score 1) 245

Well, then the storyboarding is too long...

Yea, it's too bad, because Nolan is a brilliant director. I mean, "Inception" is the best sci-fi I've seen in years. It's hard for me to square it really, because I love most of his films.

But "The Dark Knight Rises", with Bane and his annoying and non-understandable heavily accented blabber via too much audio effects to the police being sent notes via the sewer locked underground, the whole thing was a mess, a much too long mess.

Slashdot Top Deals

Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin