DDickey

I saw this on ebay and thought I'd post it here for anyone who doesn't have this book.

This is pretty inspired.

I've decided to put together a little blog with links to random pages, videos, etc., mainly for friends to peruse while bored. I figured I'd include the link here. Everything on the page is random and silly, so expect nothing too stimulating. Hopefully, though, it'll provide a fun little distraction for those looking to fill some time. (And, yes, the top two links came from this very site.)

Speaking of pirates, here's a cool little feature on time.com. Top 10 Audacious Acts of Piracy.

I second that. Something about those bells irritate me, and I hustle whenever I'm near them, determined to get as far away as possible.

All right. I'll get right on it!

Yeah. Same here. I cursed Al Gore this morning for lying to me. The problem is: when the temperature rises in the summer, we get more snow in the winter.

I'm jealous right now. I'll trade you: our snow and 22 degree weather for your sunny weather.

... to be whiny. Ugh. We got slammed with snow last night. It's everywhere. Right now there's about a foot outside, and it's still snowing. But it's not bad enough to shut anything down, so I had to travel to work in this crap. I loathe snow, and I'm right at the mouth of Lake Michigan, so we get pounced when it comes down. On days like this I just want to bum around, drink warm beverages, and read. Sorry. This thread is completely irrelevant to anything on this board; I just felt like ranting. Did anyone else get hit with snow last night? If so, does it bother you, or are you one of those people who can tolerate this weather?

Here's a link to Google's official page--video included. I find this exciting, for some reason. Edit: I've been playing around with it and it is interesting; it was a pain to figure out at first.

I'm probably being a bit thick here, but what is the evidence for a decline in quality? The older style legions were strained to breaking point by the civil wars that saw Constantine placed in power, and the military reforms of that time reduced the size of legions to around 1,000 men, one sixth of it former capacity. From this point forward (roughly speaking) armour was less standardised, the banded cuirass becoming rarer, longer swords were adopted as standard (indicating less inclination and skill in swordfighting), less emphasis on offensive or siege warfare, increased incidents of ill-disciplined attacks (raids on german villages for personal gain), and the ever increasing use of foreign tribal units used without conversion to the roman system, indicating recruitment issues and a failure to maintain organisation and standards, and lastly, the increasing (and probably necessary) defensive policy of communities looking to their own protection rather than relying on the state. I may be misunderstanding your point here, but I don't think the state of the Roman military near the 'end' of the Western Empire had declined. It had evolved. Pitched battles became increasingly rare. The nature of warfare had changed. In the fourth and fifth centuries AD, for example, it was unusual for an army to be comprised of 20,000 men; 5,000 to 15,000 seems to have been the norm. Warfare took on the style of small-scale raids as opposed to the type of pitched battles the Romans saw under the Republic and early Principate. Theorists in the late Empire favored avoiding pitched battles, for example. In Epitoma rei militaris, Vegetius wrote: "It is better to beat the enemy through want, surprises, and care for difficult places (i.e., through manoeuvre) than by a battle in the open field." He also wrote that "the main and principal point in war is to secure plenty of provisions for oneself and to destroy the enemy by famine. Famine is more terrible than the sword." By virtue of the evolution of warfare, the structure and nature of the battle unit had changed. It, in a way, devolved, but that isn't indicative of a 'decline,' as it were. The decline seems to have come from the wielders of power, not the military traditionally used to protect or expand power. But that is, however, my opinion.

Continuing my research, I found this interesting paragraph in Plutarch

I

Brave, indeed! And NSFW means 'Not Safe For Work,' or, specifically, the workplace. My apologies. I should've clarified.

I was sent a link to this video and find it both bizarre and heroic. This kid definately has no shame. (Beware, though, it might be NSFW.)

I

You are so right, NN -- an admission of atheism in this god-fearin' U.S. nation has been, more often than not, a real problem for anyone expecting to pursue a public career. In 1987, then Vice-President George Bush (G.B. the First, under President Ronald Reagan) went on record stating: "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." The same attitude was nationally reflected some years later in 2001, when Star Jones, one of the women of the widely-viewed television morning talk show called The View, stated that she would not vote for an atheist for President, her reason being that a godless person would have fewer compunctions than a theist should it come down to one's "finger on the button" (a euphemism for starting nuclear war). As I said, admission of atheism in the American public sphere can cause problems, but there has recently been one very notable exception. In the fall of 2006 the Secular Coalition for America offered a $1,ooo prize to anyone who could identify

Frankly, I'm in favor of government getting out of the business of charity administration and turning said charity administration over to churches, synagogues, mosques, woodland centers of Bacchic rites, whatever. Even if this does entail faith based initiatives in the form of government grants to get the ball rolling. Obama is right: "Change comes not from the top down but from the bottom up." Welfare should be coming from the bottom -- from the neighborhoods, local religious centers, etc. -- and not from the top, i.e. the government. Unfortunately, these federal grants -- which are as unconstitutional as is the government welfare system itself -- would be coming from government. But I see it as a practical start towards perhaps eventually turning welfare administration (and, ultimately, welfare responsibility) over to charities. I don't know if this might be Obama's ultimate intention, but future Presidential administrations might continue in this same direction. -- Nephele Theoretically, we're in agreement. However, the office of Faith Based Initiative is a means of institutionalizing religion. Employing it to 'get the ball rolling,' however, is appalling. I do not 'believe.' Not even a little. To know that my tax dollars are being spent to propagate nonsense to which I am opposed is upsetting--to say the least. Now that this office is sliding into it's second administration, we will see that it will become permanent. The precedent has been set and accepted. And it disgusts me. If my tax dollars are going to this tripe, then I want to see some of it sent to the Flying Spaghetti Monster people as well. And if you're going to spend it on junk superstitions, you might as well send some to the Raelians, as well. But the bottom line is the the Faith Based Initiative is unconstitutional, and it makes me sick to my stomach to know that it is being accepted as a permanent pockmark on the American Political landscape.

As opposed to the nonsensical superstitious baggage that Obama will bring to the White House? And I quote: Does one even have to point out the inanity of the above statement? The office of Faith Based Initiative is unconstitutional. And The Chosen One plans to continue the nonsense, giving hope to dominionists and reconstructionists everywhere. The entire article can be found here.

Well, I'm always happy to share any resources I may find.

I came across this interesting site today. It has available online, for free, articles on the classical world. The one article that caught my eye, entitled, The Homogenisation of Military Equipment Under the Roman Republic, seems like it could make for an interesting read. I haven't read it yet--I'm at work right now--so I have no idea if it's actually worth reading. Still, I thought I'd share it with you here. As of now, it's the second article down, under the name Burns, Michael T. (Please Note: It is a .pdf file.)

What vision are you talking about? Obama has said nothing about anything. He has refused to address issues head on; he says nothing. He speaks only in vague talking points. If he was any more vacuous he would be transparent. As a side rant: I didn