SOCL

Thank you, Tofu, for that most enlightening of posts. Now, as Chief Mean Guy around here, I have to close this...unless you think you can actually spawn some sort of true discussion. Spamming is, believe it or not, not an excuse. Yes, even I laugh about it...but it's not!

A Republican from Texas?! Now I've heard everything! *Falls over laughing* You know, based on political sociology, the fact that Tex is apparently older than dirt and a Republican indicates one of three things: 1) He's rather wealthy. 2) He's not really as old as he claims to be. 3) He's in the minority so far as political socialization tendancies go for his age group. I was under the impression that studies showed aging normally makes people become more conservative...

I dig through my personal library, notes, journals, and papers to write up the exact words from Polybius and Livy and then a short analysis and the best you can do is say, "Nuh uh!"

Actually, that's really funny, Tex! Had me rolling for a bit.

All I can get is: Star Wars - but that makes no sense Good job! You caught the sarcasm in my tone. As promised, a big "hoorah": HOORAH!

Something along those lines. The Etruscans were attacking Rome and it was thought they'd be safe if they retreated behind the Tiber River, the problem was, there existed a bridge... Livy, a Roman writer of two centuries later, retells the story as thus: And I am more inclined to believe the more modest version Polybius provides, as in most other things wherein the details between Livy and Polybius conflict. Why? Polybius was not Roman-born, he was a Greek writing the history of Rome from an outsider's point of view. Further, Polybius died long before the time of what we call the Roman Empire, but rather lived in the middle part of the Republic. Livy, though, was writing in a time when Rome was at the height of its power, in control of the whole of the known Western World--he has no issue making the Romans look even better. Further, Romans have a thing where they like to look back on their past and add more and more details as time goes by in order to make the past seem much better than it was, but more importantly, much better than what was happening in the present. Indeed, everything that was written about Roman history by Roman was written from the perspective of "Remember the good ol' days?" They valued the past much more than we ever do our own and looked to the past for guidance, longing to be able to herald in times like the days of yore. In any event, critical reading of Livy's account of Roman history normally reveals many, many biases and justifications for Roman actions, convinced that nothing wrong was ever committed in the past, especially compared to the present. Just examine the differences in detail and elaboration between the accounts Polybius and Livy each wrote about Horatius. Livy's is FAR more detailed, strange for someone who wrote about it more than four centuries after the fact. So in conclusion, Rob, no, Horatius didn't tear down the bridge whilst fighting. Others broke down the bridge while he fought the enemy.

The Democratic Party is something a mess from the perspective of traditional American politics. If anything, they're closer to be a coalition than an actual party as they have members ranging from the near-Republican conservatives to some quite liberal folks (relative to American politics as most Democrats would likely be rather conservative in most other Western nations). The funny thing is, a large entity than the Party proper exists the Caucus, which is without a doubt a coalition of the more liberal politicians, including people as conservative as Joseph Lieberman and as left as Bernie Sanders. Compared to the more uniform Republicans, they are something of a disorderly lot.

Horatius at the bridge. It's actually a story from ancient Rome. Basically, he held off the enemy at a bridge whilst the rest of the army retreated, and he did indeed blow a horn to warn the others; however, he did not die. Rather, he jumped into the water and swam across, which gives me the impression he was holding the enemy off whilst the Roman army destroyed the bridge (I don't remember the story very well since I read it some years ago). Nothing of the sort at Thermopylae, that I remember, though. Now, it's seriously doubtful that it was a single person. Rather in the same way "Israel" was used a collective term for the tribes of the Hebrews or the actions of Abraham's tribe attributed to the single man, or how the tribes were referred to as collective wholes (Levy and such), Horatius was likely the captain leading a group of his personal best men. They would, thus, attribute the victory to Horatius and say "Horatius fought at the bridge" knowing that most people would understand they meant Horatius and his troopers. In time, though, and as we don't refer to groups of people as a collective whole, attributing the actions of a single to the whole, the legend has grown around a single person.

Funny you mention fake companies on software. My company's name is: SRAW RATS Big hoorah to whoever can guess what that is...

Well it is based on Frank Miller's 300, which was a graphic novel based on the events we're all talking about. So, historical fact will be thin I'd imagine, in place of Frank's personal view and graphical interpretation. So, don't go in expecting to see something of historical fact - go in thinking it's based on comic book, because it is I've read the graphic novel and it is far more historically accurate than the film.

I'm even willing to pay, problem is Microsoft does not still sell the old themes. Rather revamped new ones which, I suppose, are cool in their own way, but still... Original is cool, not some blasted prequel that retcons all the mysticism we held so dear.

I thought Wallyworld was a place out in California... Chevy Chase and such...?

I know, I know, but... Ugh. Maybe I was just hoping for too much when I heard they were going to make a movie based on the Battle of Thermopylae. EDIT: Tex, glad you took that picture of me. Too bad for that poor child who said leather armour for Romans is accurate.

I hate snow. It comes down just enough to freeze up the roads and parking lots and my car, but not enough to have classes canceled. So I have to brave the damn ice and snow alongside numerous idiots who do not know how to drive on pavement, much less snow, all for a thirty minute to hour drive to class just to drive back two hours later in rush hour traffic. Then the snow stays forever because the temperature won't go up (though it finally did today, thank God!) and stacks on the side of the road and a nasty, ugly mess of vehicle exhaust and ice, which can become dangerous slush. And then there's the glacier sitting in my backyard (photos on the way when I have time) which is something like four or five inches of snow covered in a nice damn layer of ice, which is fun to slide on when doing it on purpose, but not so much when it's everywhere on campus too, and thank goodness for your face which broke your fall! I hate snow.

Like Tex, I saw The 300 Spartans (and own it on DVD, in fact! ) and much prefer that to what I have seen of 300. In truth, I have an issue with the movie, and more generally all movies based on Miller graphic novels (such as Sin City, which made me gag). Maybe it's a personal thing--likely is since everyone else and their grandmother's dog seemed to love the movie... Aversions for graphic novels aside, my displeasure with 300 is, as I'm sure you've all guessed (especially you, Tofu), historical. In the same way I despised The Day After Tomorrow for its terrible "use of science" and King Kong for its lack of logic in all scenes, I really do not like what I see in 300. I could go on and on (and on!) about historical inaccuracies (and Tofu can attest to this as he's been first-hand victim--I mean, witness to this), but I won't. Rather, I'll just say: the original is much better, and by that I mean the story as passed down to us by Herodotus. And don't anyone even think about daring to use 300 as a basis concerning relative historical arguments lest they want to see me grow horns, sprout wings, and spit fire and plague upon them, their family, and kin.

Ah, Jahled, what you write always seems like a breeze of fresh air, likely because we seem to agree on quite so much. There is something--much, in fact--to be said about global warming, even if it is dismissed as being what one friend of mine called "junk science" (speaking specifically about Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth), which seems to be the general opinion among the vast majority of people with an opinion about global warming (not I said people with an opinion as most really do not care). I think the biggest issue is that global warming is being mistaken for environmentalism/conservatism rather than what it's really about, though environmentalism has a great deal to play in the matter, especially since policies related to such are the route to stopping/slowing global warming. The question remains, though: can it be stopped? That's not to say that if it cannot we should not do something. Really, I think that whether or not one believes in global warming, one should still be concerned with conserving Earth's environment, politics and such aside. A pity, really, that environmentalism and conservationism are framed by the opposition as being part of a "socialist agenda" and, therefore, something bad, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. As the name suggests, conservationism should be a matter of importance to conservative politics, as it was during the presidency of well-known environmentalist Theodore Roosevelt (for his time, that is, so please don't cite hunting as an "obvious" sign to the alternative). One question, though, concerning global warming which made me sit up and wonder was how did Lief Erickson and the Vikings manage to farm in Greenland? They certainly didn't have SUVs or any other mass-carbon-burning devices. I don't mean to sound sarcastic because I am being quite, quite, quite serious since it made me think about the matter from a different perspective. Thoughts? Personally, I believe the warming of the Earth may have a lot to do with natural cycles; HOWEVER, I do believe that the advent of the Industrial Revolution and the constant use of carbon-burning devices has added a great deal to what would, otherwise, be a much slower and far less dramatic cycle. In other words, despite the Vikings example, I still remain quite in favour of helping do something for the environment and concerning global warming.

OSX?

Quite true. And given that Obama about a year ago said he wouldn't be running and is now one of, if not the most powerful voice in the running... I suppose that doesn't completely rule Gore out, though I really don't believe he will--at least, I hope not.

Hmm... Aye, they do. I used them in Windows 98. Oh, and Tex, 2000 was seven years ago. Time to upgrade to at least XP.

Watch the second one. Beneath Planet of the Apes. Gore said he wasn't running. Besides, it doesn't make sense from anyone's perspective for him to run. Just for his own, personal sake, he is far more popular, successful, and likely wealthy now as an activist than he ever was and ever could be as a politician. He say he was going to run?

Yes, but this is the XP version. They're not updates so much as they are new redesigns. I'm very specifically looking for the old-school versions in all their late-1990s glory.

Correct. The colours to all the different menus also changed. And each theme came with it's own special screensaver.

Does anyone else remember all those really cool themes that came with Windows 98 back in the day? There was a Leonardo Da Vinci one, a transportation one, a space one, a Halloween one... I think it was called 'Windows Plus!' and there exists a descendant of it in the XP version... Even so, I don't find it nearly as fun as the old version. Does anyone happens to have any idea what I'm talking about? If so, does anyone know if it's possible to download (for free or otherwise) the old version?

I have the whole series--all five movies. Very good.And I especially like the cryptic way we're talking about it... ...and going increasingly off topic.

Estimate on Iran constructing functional nuclear weapons puts it more than 8 years away. That's an estimate by both the United Nations and our own State Department. Yeah, North Korea agreed to disarmament. This is a good sign.