Starbucks in the US is great for one reason, and it's got nothing to do with the coffee.

Free wifi in every store.

That said, most independent coffee shops I've encountered in the US do this too. The American "work in a coffee shop" culture demands it. Sadly, not only does Starbucks NZ lack that draw, but NZ doesn't have that same cultural driver.

Much as I love Echo and the Bunnymen, I'm a little shocked that the award went to a website that automatically plays loud music and opens pop-up windows won an award. Is it 2002? That said, that was a common failing among the nominees.

Merry Christmas all!

Is there a list of all the references in the video montage in that song?

“George Bush and Tony Blair, ostensibly singing to each other, overlayed to...”

I was disappointed that this sentence didn’t end “...Electric 6’s <a href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTzs9G-VOZ4”>Gay Bar</a>

(There is at least one copy of "Bush Blair Endless Love" on Youtube for the searching if anyone feels so inclined.)

However, perhaps slavery and conquest also engendered a moral corruption that undermined their moral and institutional virtue.

I think it's safe to say that ideas of moral decline as the basis for the collapse of the Western Empire have been left in the early twentieth century.

How adaptable were the Romans? One memorable aspect of Terry Jones' The Barbarians was his emphasis on the extent to which Romans annexed not only other countries' resources but their technological brainpower, not being the most original of thinkers themselves. Seems to me whatever they imported from others, their chief export was the Roman admin model (aka "Law and order"), along the lines of "when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

The Romans were both inclusive and traditionalist. They had a deep respect for their past, but "the past" was a flexible notion which was open to constant reinterpretation. They were constantly incorporating ideas from cultures they encountered and adapting them to a Roman context. They were technologically innovative when it came to military matters (including logistics, medicine) and some aspects of trade (they invented underwater concrete allowing the construction of deep water ports on sandy coastlines), but perhaps not so much as regards agriculture and other "elite" activities.

Hamish

There will have been other cultures that used slavery and then had the supply cut off. The one that leaps to mind is the US, or rather the confederacy. But this has technological changes as well, I seem to recall the invention of the cotton gin (its a [slave] labour saving machine, not a drink) had a large impact on the Southern economy.

There have been many other slave using societies in human history, but there are only a handful for which the economy was based and dependent on slavery, the Roman's being one and the Southern US being another (I think there's meant to be a third but I'm drawing a blank).

It makes one wonder if there wasn't the equivalent of "big oil" and "the car industry" in Roman society. Were there powerful lobby groups heavily invested in slavery that opposed alternative technology?

As rogerd said, Roman society was based on land ownership. In addition, under the Empire in particular, provincial elites don't seem to have invested profits back into their economic activities to a large degree, rather, it was spent on civic euergetism as a display and duty of status. And if an innovative businessman became successful, he would probably join this elite and adopt their attitudes. So it's not so much opposition to alternative technology as a lack of concern with it.

(I'm a graduate student in Roman history, but this isn't my main area of research)

Hamish

According to TV3, whom I queried regarding this as part of the aforementioned hour of searching, the IRB has retained all online video rights.

Besides that there ought to be regional right holders too

There isn't really any need for regional rights holders for online content.

To repeat the general sentiment, the jersey thing is indeed lame.

Regarding web coverage: What do the IRB hope to achieve but bad publicity? Sure sure, protecting their intellectual property, blah blah, but how do they hope to grow the game into new markets if the only way you can see it in a place like America is to spend hundreds on web coverage. If I wasn't a fan and had stumbled across a RWC reference and been intrigued, I don't think my interest would have stuck around for the hour or so it took me the other day to discover that, no, I'm not allowed to watch even five minutes of highlights of the biggest brand in world rugby putting on a try scoring display. Thanks IRB.

(Unless I'm missing something, the daily highlights are only available to RWC pass holders, ie, they're not free. Pleeeeese correct me someone!)

Hamish,
A kiwi in LA.