• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Yukle

  • Rank
    Spirit of Spring
  • Birthday 07/31/1989

Profile Information

  • Location
    My head is forever in the clouds.
  • Interests
    Imagining, learning, wondering, sharing and loving.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,264 profile views
  1. Regal is an outstanding villain, I reckon! And by that I mean awful. But I really cared about him losing, and followed his actions with close attention.
  2. That seems like wishful thinking. Perhaps the worst part of all of this is that nothing much the RNC is doing seems to be illegal. It's even possible that for all of the horrible things Drumpf is doing, none of it is illegal. The notion that the President is possibly above the law unless impeached is pretty much making him immune to any repercussions of what he does. And so the RNC protects him, knowing that as long as he isn't actually charged, they haven't - to the letter of the law - done anything illegal.
  3. If he's a villain, I reckon he'll utter... "You killed my father, prepare to die."
  4. My assumption is that it would transcend most demographic categories and be fairly ubiquitous. Hazarding a guess, my only assumption is that it is more commonly used by men than women, if only because that's who the market seems to more overtly target. Perhaps that's why Fifty Shades of Grey sold really well; it's erotica for women in a market without much concern for their interests. But I have no data for that, it's just my guess.
  5. "born in the 80s": Literally the best people to have ever lived, perfect in every way, the world's first flawless generation of overachievers. Speaking from experience.
  6. So as someone poised to begin Fitz and the Fool, should I read the Liveships first? I know that I've already missed some of the references (such as the significance of the character "Amber" and the beach with "the Others"). Is it crucial to read through those books, too? Similarly with the Rainwilds; will I miss a lot by either not reading them or waiting until after I read F&F?
  7. That strategy was really used in the Marcomannic Wars. The sacks were seed pods from plants and soaked in oil. The scene is correct in the portrayal of strategy (solid legionary walls with archers behind them, although there should be slingers amongst the legionaries, too). They probably would not have done a cavalry charge through the forests. Not only is it a bad idea, since horses can't see directly in front of themselves and can run into trees, but because their cavalry were being supplemented by Germanic mercenaries and became so unreliable the Romans were loathe to let them operate on their own. The armour and weapons that the Germanians are using are anachronistic; those are middle-ages weapons with hide armour. Maybe they couldn't be bothered making specialist armour for just one scene and used another film's costume kit? It pretty much shows the Germanians as hairy barbarians, rather than looking more or less like the Romans. Roman legionaries in winter climates tended to grow out their beards, for instance. The legionaries fighting that war were generally of the same ethnic groups as those they were fighting across the Rhine, just separated by generations of cultural assimilation with the Romans. The Germanians mostly wore chain mail and used steel swords, not war axes. They tended to be extremely well organised. The film also fails to show that the Germanians also used cavalry, usually in small groups of about a dozen, who used hit and run tactics. They'd throw volleys of javelins and then retreat into cover. At other times, they'd bunch together and make charges into the Roman flanks, passing through them in the hopes of cutting the solid walls of infantry into smaller groups. They should have also, like the Romans, had slingers in their numbers. This was an area where Rome adopted their strategy and greatly enhanced it. Germanian slingers mostly used rounded stones but the Roman ones were aerodynamic shots made from lead. The film correctly shows that the Germanians were very successful at breaking up Roman formations, forcing them into a series of smaller skirmishes where their shortswords and large shields were a liability. The uneven terrain also made this more effective. Hence the Roman frustration and eventual decisions to simply burn the forests down. Also, in the film camps are in the open. This was never, under any circumstances, a Roman practice. They always - a minimum - fortified their camps with a ditch and rammed earth wall. During those long wars they'd make semi-permanent wooden camps, and some stone barracks at their key supply and trade points. Overall, it's done fairly well in capturing the chaotic nature of the battles. In particular, the emphasis on projectiles and the way that order steadily gives way to individual skill over time. There's a reason the wars dominated Marcus Aurelius' reign. This is a nitpick, but the films refers to the region as "J-ermania" when it should be a hard G, like "go" and "good."
  8. I still haven't started yet, due to the return to school term being such a rush. Did Robin Hobb ever say why she decided to return to the series? A decade between publications, and the Tawny Man trilogy had a beautiful ending. No complaints, I'm just wondering.
  9. The bloke on the left is from The Princess Bride but who is the other chap? Whoever he is, he seems to lack lips. Maybe he'll be a demogorgon.
  10. Yes, I agree with that. Tax laws are invariably inaccessible to the average person not because they're inherently complicated, but because they serve the interests of those who wrote them. It's no coincidence that the people who write laws are the ones who benefit from them. And when it's difficult to circumvent them, they simply eliminate them altogether. Highly (and fairly) regulated systems are difficult for oligarchs to thrive in. Bureaucracies are a means of worthwhile regulation, especially when their agencies carry real power, are open and operate within free and fair legal systems. Oligarchs don't like bureaucrats because they hold them to account for their actions. Society bears the costs of oligarchs no matter what, especially the externalities such as environmental destruction, people pushed onto welfare, traffic congestion and so on; things that oligarchs make no effort to repair but are excellent at causing as side-effects to their indifference to anything that doesn't make profit.
  11. Southern Turkey, western Iran and northern Syria are all majority ethnic Kurd areas. I can't imagine them being thrilled with the prospect of Kurdish independence anywhere as it creates a precedent they'll be expected to follow. The rebels holding Syria's northern one-quarter-ish of area are mostly ethnic Kurds. Their holdings have been chewed away, especially as they tended to bear the brunt of the attacks against ISIS. Assad seemed content to let them battle it out and then crush ISIS once most of the work was done, weakening the Kurdish opposition in the meantime.
  12. Well, if you read what he says, Jesus is about the most left-wing person you can get.
  13. The terms in Australia seem to be the same. Generalisations aren't helpful. For instance, the generation that eradicated smallpox doesn't deserve to be criticised by the generation who believes vaccines cause autism. Cultural trends always look different when you can look back on them. The say that a generation is bad because they plundered the environment is fair criticism - except can you actually think of a period of human history since the agricultural revolution where humanity has not pillaged and ruined its planet? This isn't unique to any people, of any age. Similarly, there has never been a period of consistent stability in human history that has affected the whole world. Yes, the Viet Nam war and Korean war were both horrendous. Look back 100 years earlier, though, and the world was being ripped apart by colonial wars between great powers in Asia and Africa. Go back another hundred years and the great powers were massacring indigenous people in the New World. There really isn't much difference between any time period as to atrocities that humans have committed. Every generation tends to look to an earlier time period as an ideal that has now been lost. It's ridiculous to assume that people are their leaders, too. To go with the example of Trump, it's not even true that a majority of Baby Boomers voted for him. It's the USA, and voting is not protected by any stretch. It's accurate to say that a majority of Baby Boomers whose local governments sought to make it easy for them to vote, while barring non-whites from easily voting, not providing disability support, not providing English-as-a-second-language assistance and only making voting easy for those whose jobs can be left during the week without incurring a pay penalty that affects living hand-to-mouth. So, sure, of those who voted, they supported Trump. But the USA has a critical and catastrophic moral failure every election to make voting fair and universal. That's not a generational problem, that's a problem with the oligarchy that the USA uses to run its society. One which, it is important to note, was established by a generation who kept slaves, didn't recognise women as citizens or children as human. Or indigenous people as human. Really, other than being born at the same time, Baby Boomers have nothing in common, and are as varied - from the outstanding best to the villainous worst - as if you took a random sample from any other point in time.
  14. I hadn’t really thought of it like that. I can’t think of a similar movement elsewhere in the world - like you it could be I just don’t know of an existing culture, rather than it not existing as such. My guess is India and China must have similar such sentiments somewhere in their cultures just due to the sheer size and variety of their populace. India, certainly, is a cultural melting pot, but, yeah, now you mention it, I don’t know if this discussion would really relate to a typical Indian’s life. Food for thought. I will do some reading around, if and when I have time.
  15. Yes. The time period from roughly 1500 to 1800 is considered modernism. Post-modernism as a term describes a period a fair bit later, because the in-between moments get lots of war names: Colonialism, Pre-war, Wars, Post-wars, Cold War... Post-modern.