Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
I have seen two different versions of the borders and these images correspond to only one:
The other one has:
Londinium as capital of Maxima Caesariensis (Solent to Wash); 2 colonies
Lindum as capital of Flavia Caesariensis (Wash to Humber); 1 colony
Corinium as capital of Britannia Prima (Solent to Dee); 2 colonies
Eburacum as capital of Britannia Secunda (Humber to Dee); 1 colony
My source is Penguin and it's very comprehensive in details. I think Wikipedia's maps are wrong, except that they are probably accurate about the meaning of the name "Valentia", as that for Roman Caledonia. What do you Wikipedians have as an answer for that? I'm dead serious. 68.231.164.27 (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had nothing to do with this map but if you think there are errors then please, fix the errors in the map. Everything on here has been created by volunteers and there are many, many errors. I agree that on a map it's much harder to tell what sources there might have been. Tempshill (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, don't go jumping in and changing the map just yet. The OP has not indicated the date of his source in Penguin. Roman Britain existed for some 4 centuries, and the administrative organization was probably reordered several times during that time period. It was not uncommon for one emperor or another to redraw the borders of the various divisions of the Empire. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the University of Texas source is probably that used for the Wikipedia version, as they are virtually identical in their features above. The Penguin Illustrated History of Britain and Ireland edition I have was last published in 2004. I also have the Atlas of Classical History by Richard J.A.Talbert, last published in 2003 and it has the same layout for the dioceses as Penguin.
Neither one mentions Valentia as a late diocese, but I'm not challenging that assertion by the Texas source (but supporting it, even though not shown in my sources), as a fifth diocese can be reasonably surmised in what are denoted the "client British tribes" north of Hadrian's Wall, in addition to the etymology of the name, as being toponymy and/or referencing a conflation with the imperial brothers Valentinian and Valens. I appreciate the sentiment that the borders likely shifted (obviously, in the emergence of more than the original Britannia Superior/Inferior division); the Atlas of Classical History states that the dioceses are uncertain, with speculation and a paucity of details. My concern, is whether the Wikipedia information (which doesn't fit the images used on Wikipedia) and that in my sources as well, is right or not. The thing is, the images above are messy in comparison to my sources and that bothers me. My sources are exacting and each diocese has not only capitals, but coloniae, legionary fortresses, villas, roads, walls, mines, early churches etc. I'm thinking that the old source used on Wikipedia is inaccurate, because it is not only unclear, but incongruous to usual convention about differences (with the details being a marker) between regions of England and Wales. The particular issue, is whether or not York was subordinate to Cirencester and Lincoln to London, or as the images above show (being an old source and not explaining details), if York was subordinate to Lincoln and Cirencester to London. I want to know if indeed, the North of England (e.g. Cumbria, like Cymru/Wales) was either Caesariensis or Britannia. It is interesting to see the North as some kind of junior polity to Wales and Cornwall (both being highlands), while the Midlands and Southeast (both lowlands) seem to go along well together, but not really the Southeast with Wales--it seems suspect that Cornwall would be part of the Southeast and not part of Wales in this context (cf. Wales and West Wales), lumping the Midlands and North together (although the Midlands have little, if any Brythonic identity). It seems a modern position that East Anglia and the Midlands should be together, but the Saxon Shore, in the Penguin version, is entirely contained within Maxima Caesariensis, from the Solent to the Wash.
The future ethnic toponymy of the Danelaw in what was once Flavia Caesariensis (in the Lincoln parameters set by Penguin), would seem to tie in this bloc of Caesariensis dioceses into the bedrock of both Saxon and Dane (e.g. Germania) migrations. Plus, the Parisi of the North and Belgae of the Southwest, would further give the idea that both of the Britannias (also in the Penguin version) were more tied to Gaul. Tacitus (commenting on the Roman conquest, preceding German invasions) describes the west of Britain to be closer to Spaniards and the east of Britain to Gauls, which to me, is like the difference between the Britannia (Severn heavy) dioceses of the highland North and West, with the Caesariensis (Thames heavy) dioceses of the lowland South and East. Geoffrey of Monmouth, clearly reflecting popular tradition, stated that the westerners were descended from Corineus and the easterners from Brutus. You can see how the locations of the peoples shifted westwards. It would mean the Britons, with Gallic connections (see Brittany, ex-Armorica) were first in London, then became the object of the Welsh identity, whereas Welsh territory was originally Cornish, explained away by Geoffrey as a dynastic issue. The Saxons and Danes would move into Caesariensis, Roman heartland of the island, nevertheless, still called Britannia, even though the Britons and imported Gallic tribes apparently became obscure as a result of the combined Roman and German (premonition of Holy Roman Empire) establishment. Connections to the German world probably were reinforced by the Moorish takeover of Hispania, pushing the focus of the people in the other direction, as the Germans took over Rome; you can even see the Anglo-French relationship having a seed in the Parisi/Belgae connections. The North and West would hold onto Romanisms much longer in isolation, whereas the South and East would be more vulnerable to Dark Ages invasions, due to the Strait of Dover. Consider the initial Roman advance from the South and East, working their way inland to the North and West, ascending the elevation of the British landscape in the process and being met with more resistance likewise, from the people. online map illustrating this Sorry, but the whole view of British history hinges on these kinds of details. For instance, the Joseph of Arimathea legend, with the Holy Grail and/or Jesus in Glastonbury, relies upon the accepted Spanish-Cornish tin trade (supported by statements by Tacitus in Agricola and British Isles oral tradition/pre-Christian mythology). The legend serves to explain, for me, the evidence for Christian activity in Cirencester, which, unlike London, Lincoln and York, is "missing a bishop" (never seen one listed) for its diocesan organisation. So, the legend has a kind of truth behind it. A diocese should have a bishop and Glastonbury was probably not it, but Cirencester had neighbouring coloniae in Lydney and Glevum, in addition to being the capital of Wales and Cornwall. The other diocesan capitals have not only the bishop, but the coloniae.
You know, these reasoned positions are apologetics for things already promoted on Wikipedia by their mere mention, but if I showed these conclusive, cookie-cutter presentations of the issue, I'd be pressed for "sources", that are already mentioned at Wikipedia. I'm afraid I can't edit Wikipedia in conditions like this, where hostility undermines just about everything I might do, even though it isn't out of step with the existing material and any legitimate source used (we're supposed to spell in our own words to avoid plagiarism!). It really bothers me that my attempt to flesh out the details in a more revealing manner, would be rejected as "original research". I'm not out to make a book (I believe in the Wikipedia cause of free information, having done a high school report on the FOIA), because the information is already there; who would be so brazen as to hate on the messenger of clarity, doing volunteer work for faceless people? In response to the caution about "jumping in" to edit the issue; I am so turned off by implacable assholes that I can't conceive of actually putting in the effort to be beat down again and again over something like this. It's come down to edit warring and ganging up on me to get me blocked. They say they'll work with me, whatever that means, but when it comes to it, they do the exact opposite. I've been told to take it to the talk pages and they ignore it, all the while blaming me for what goes down, or pretend to understand me by false platitudes, although I am only trying to help, both myself and other people understand very complex issues, which other people seem to not want to get bogged down with, but it interests me. 68.231.164.27 (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only wanted to know what dates your sources referred to, not the dates of your source. My concern was that the Penguin maps were of a different time than ours were, and so would refer to a different set of diocese than our maps do. The rest of your diatribe seems to indicate that you are having trouble with resolving a dispute on the talk page. If that is the case, there are avenues, such as dispute resolution, which spells out several options. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
is it true that all the big hollywood name stars (A-list) have fake teeth?[edit]
Is it true that all of the women in hollywood who are on the A-list have fake teeth implanted, even in the front?? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.81.87 (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it. They may well have had some form of cosmetic dentistry, but them all having completely fake teeth sounds very unlikely. --Tango (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"... even in the front" strikes me as an odd emphasis. I would think it likely that, if there were any implants at all, the front teeth would be the most likely candidates. They are the most visible and implants are mostly (but not solely) about appearances. ¤ ₳ ₳ BL ₵ ₳ ¤ (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean "all their teeth" I mean "all of these people" (on at least 1 teeth) -- for their front teeth, even!!
Depends on what you mean by "fake." Does a filling count? Braces as a teenager?
The United States enjoys modern dentistry, and most people avail themselves of such services. So we're not merely speaking of "big Hollywood name stars," but the average American.
Sorry if you come from some country without reputable dentists. B00P (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cosmetic dentistry has nothing to do with reputability. Most countries do not have the same obsession with unnaturally perfect teeth than the US does. --Tango (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soapbox, much? Dentistry, whether basic or cosmetic, seems to be more available to U.S. citizens than to residents of the UK as noted by Telegraph.co.UK. The same article says that TV presenters in the UK get veneers and that politicians such as Gordon Brown also get their choppers done to perfection. I strongly agree that there is much nonsense in the U.S. about having a "perfect smile"defined as teeth like piano keys via veneers or extreme bleaching, but I pity those on National Health in the UK who suffer from periodontal disease and cavities.Edison (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As noted cosmetic dentistry is common and relatively cheap in the USA. Dental veneers, for example, run only about $500 a tooth, and you usually only need the front six or so teeth for the effect to be mostly total. ($3000 is not exactly the cheapest thing in the world but it's not far out of line with what one can do; and in some situations dental insurance will pay for it.) I would expect that anyone with money who was making money off of their face would probably end up getting them if their teeth were not already flawless. They are not noticeable compared to normal teeth unless you really know what to look for or they are really poorly done (sometimes you can tell when someone has all of their teeth capped because they are too perfect, fit too tightly, are too white, etc.). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's extremely common for actors who have amalgam fillings (in their molars) to have these replaced with white filling material. The presence of obviously modern dental work can be an issue when an actor is appearing in a period piece, where it'd be visible during yelling, screaming, gasping, and dying scenes. It's a partial sop to our suspension of disbelief - the fact that everyone in (say) Girl with a Pearl Earring is beautiful, has skin unblemished by disease, and has teeth that are straight and white and unbroken seems to be something we're willing to overlook - but a big amalgam filling is too much. 87.113.74.22 (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Christian-dominant nations as members of Organization of the Islamic Conference?[edit]
The short answer appears to be that the status of the state religion has no bearing on a county's eligibility for membership or other affiliation in the OIC. In fact, I could find no statement on the English OIC web site about what tests a country has to pass in order to become a full member or an observer. As for the history of Muslim participation in each of the named countries, you can go to the article on each of them and look at the Religion section. I have turned the country names in your question into WP internal links for this purpose. Please note that Russia (see below) and Central African Republic are observers only. ¤ ₳ ₳ BL ₵ ₳ ¤ (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did Russia and Thailand have Muslim population in order to be part of Organization of the Islamic Conference or you guys made a mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.220 (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, Islam is the fastest-growing religion in Russia, and may have even become the predominant religion there. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thailand certainly has a Muslim population. According to WP's article, Islam is the second largest religion in the country, but when 95% are Buddhist, that doesn't leave much that is Muslim and almost all of them are in three southern provinces. Thailand is not a full member of OIC, but simply has observer status, as does Russia. The article says:
Russia is home to some 15–20 million Muslims. However, surveys say that there are only 7 to 9 million people who adhere to the Islamic faith in Russia. Russia also has an estimated 3 million to 4 million Muslim migrants from the ex-Soviet states. Most Muslims live in the Volga-Ural region, as well as in the North Caucasus, Moscow.
Thanks for the correction, Bielle. I was doubtless going on the case for the old Soviet Union, but many of the Soviet Muslims now belong to Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and other former Soviet republics. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't meant as a correction, Jack. It may be the fastest growing. First, my input was after an ec, and I can never be bothered rewriting. I either delete or just add another level of indentation :-). Second, I would look at what I added as merely an amplification. I do good "cut-and-paste". ¤₳₳ BL ₵₳¤ (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make it clear: there are a lot of ethnic Muslims in what is now the Russian Federation (i.e. not counting the former republics of the USSR that are now independent). Chechnya, Ingushetia, Tatarstan and Dagestan are examples of sub-national entities with large Muslim populations. --Xuxl (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why Suriname is a member of OIC, even though the state religion is Hinduism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.220 (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the response above to the first section of this multi-part question. ¤ ₳ ₳ BL ₵ ₳ ¤ (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did the British rule Mozambique? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.220 (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They never did; see Mozambique. Regarding Mozambique's status as a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, our entry on the Commonwealth states "There is only one member of the present Commonwealth that has never had any constitutional link to the British Empire or a Commonwealth member; Mozambique, a former Portuguese colony, was admitted in 1995 on the back of the triumphal re-admission of South Africa and Mozambique's first democratic elections, held in 1994. Mozambique's entry was controversial, leading to the Edinburgh Declaration and the current membership guidelines." - EronTalk 00:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which Arab nations has black population due to its history of slavery? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.220 (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the middle ages, Iraq had a large African slave population at times (leading to the late 9th century Zanj revolt), and most Arab-ruled areas had some black slaves -- but very little of that presence now survives in the "northern tier" of Arab states (e.g. on the Mediterranean coast and north of the Arabian peninsula). Some countries in the Arabian peninsula have some black populations (slavery was only abolished in Saudi Arabia in 1962), and of course Mauritania and Sudan have recent histories of Black-Arab conflicts... AnonMoos (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does a safe bill feeder know the money is fake?[edit]
What is it focusing on? Why does it occasionally spit out flawless bills, and accept taped misalligned ones? Is there any website about money security features you can recommend that's not top secret?--TinyTonyyy (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Automated currency detection and validation relies largely on security features built into notes which aren't readily apparent to a person. That is, they don't rely on the security features you'd normally use when manually inspecting a note - paper quality, security printing, colour printing, and the watermark. This product says it relies on the magnetic properties of the ink and the paper, the IR response characteristics of the ink, and on the size of the note. Excepting the first those all sound very difficult to fake (try getting ink with special magnetic properties for your HP deskjet) and of course central banks and their security printers don't make the details of their security measures publicly known (for example, the optical currency detector that's built into software like Photoshop is shipped to the vendors as compiled object code). I guess the size check is mostly just to quickly reject foreign notes from a large stack of notes being automatically processed. 87.113.74.22 (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In 1974 the U.S Federal Energy Administration printed up 4,800,000,000 coupons for gas rationing, but the certificates shared security features with one dollar bills, and government officials were horrified to discover that the coupons were accepted as a one dollar bill by machines which accepted currency. It is not clear what security feature were shared by the coupons and the currency of the day, but they had the same picture of George Washington as a 1 dollar bill. The coupons had cost $12.5 million to print, plus additional money to store them in secure warehouses, plus eventual secure destruction expenses. Edison (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions by James Madison?[edit]
I've been actually wondering about this for a long time. James Madison, the man who contributed the most to the constitution of the United States, helped write the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions (Doctrines which argued for nullification, state supremacy etc). That makes absolutely no sense to me. I was wondering if anyone could provide a simple answer to why he did this. I'm seriously perplexed over this. How could he be a proponent of States' Rights, while being the principle author of the Constitution?66.229.148.27 (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, Madison wrote the Virginia Resolution only, not the Kentucky Resolutions.
Second, what Madison was attempting to do was to use the states to protect civil liberties aginst the federal Alien and Sedition Acts. The Constitution was designed to strike a balance between federal and state powers. Powers not granted to the federal government in the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people. Madison (and Jefferson) saw these Acts as a usurpation of powers not granted to the central government. Madison felt that things had gotten out of balance, and was attempting to restore it.
The US Constitution (as originally intended) was supposed to create a system of government where certain powers are delegated to the federal governent and all remaining powers delegated to the states or to the people. So when Madison (and others) wrote the US constituion, they specifically stated what the federal government could do. (These are called "enumerated powers".) For example, they have power to coin money, to declare war, to have a federal postal system, etc. Anything and everything not specifically delegated to the federal government was supposed to be reserved to be the rights of the state or of the people. For example, if the US Constitution does not specifically grant the federal government the power to legislate the sale, use, or production of a drug, such as alcohol or marijuana, then the federal government does not have this power. Only a Constitutional Amendment could grant the federal government such a power. As originally intended, the powers of the federal government are few. The powers of the states and of the people are many, if not infinite.
Many people have the false idea impression the federal government is 'higher up in the chain of command' and therefore can do whatever it wants. In reality, the federal government has very little power as far as the original constitution goes. It would be unconstitutional, for example, for the federal government to impose national heath care on everyone. Since control over healthcare is not specified as an enumerated power, the US Constituion does not permit it. Only a Constitutional Amendment would allow this.
The question of whether the United States government actually follows the Constituion is entirely another topic. But the answer is no (at least in terms of its powers). Much of what the federal government does is unconstituional. There is no constitutional basis wiretaps without a search warrant. (In reality, the US Constitution says the exact opposite.) There is no consitutional basis for Social Security or welfare because these are not specifically enumerated in the US Constitution.
But the law is only as good as it is enforced. Per tradition, only the federal government gets to decide what the federal government can do. So, if the federal government decided that they can arrest Americans without charge and without trial, this is OK according to the federal government, because the federal goverment gets to make this decision by tradition.
It's also interesting to note that for Madison, the idea of state rights was a complete reversal of his earliest thinking about the Constitution. He went to the Philadelphia Convention thinking that the national government should have the power to negate state laws, which of course was the opposite of the position he would take as a Jeffersonian. —KevinMyers 08:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that James Madison shifted back and forth between federalist and jeffersonian ideals over his life, as our article points out a bit. It is interesting how he worked closely with both Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, shifting from favoring a stronger central government to favoring a weaker one several times over. Pfly (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without referencing present federalism concerns and debate between the American Constitution Society and the Federal.., my research indicates that Maidson was a very significant drafter of the Constitution. Others played such a strong role, too, and history has neglected them. Madison, from Virginia, an agricultural state, and Hamilton, a New YOrker, the commercial center, wrote newspaper articles, collected in the Federalist Papers to gather support for ratification. The Constitution was not inevitable. One important component that many miss is the actual ratification conventions in the states. It became quite clear that the original Constitution could not be ratified. The conventions demanded an express Bill of Rights. Madison refused to support the idea, finding concern for individual rights existing in the first document. Madison relented and drafted the present Bill of Rights. His role in drafting the Bill of Rights was more exclusive than the first document. The addition swayed enough votes for ratification to cccur.
Not long after ratification, political parties formed, driven by regionalism, and immense antagonism between Jefferson and Hamilton. Washington proclaimed neutrality during a war between France and Britain. Jefferson and many Americans felt monarchism was running wild. Madison, as Jefferson's surrogates, and Hamilton, wrote newspaper articles in a debate concerning whether France should receive aid, and more importantly, the proper boundaries of power for an executive. Madison argued that under the Constitution only Congress could declare neutrality. Hamilton argued the reverse. I believe these debates are called the Pacificus/Helveditus debates, based on the pen names they used. Although everyone knew who the authors were, it was viewed unseemly for them to use their real names. So only a short while after Ratification, Madison and Hamilton, were engaged in a personal war. When I recently read these debates, I was surprised how so many of present-day discussions concerning federalism and executive power were never clear to the Framers of the Constitution. It was drafted to be elastic. Elaboration of details probably would have thwarted ratification.75Janice (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)75Janice[reply]
The federal government does have power to enact healthcare legislation.. No one in Congress is arguing that they don't have the power. Rather, everyone is trying to make certain it will benefit their constituencies. It is clear that no one who framed the Constitution would have ever guessed that the federal government has such power. Justice Scalia does not command a majority on the Court. Obama's ascent to power makes such a majority unlikely. 75Janice (talk)75Janice
Is the act of waterboarding specifically condemned in the Geneva Convention? 76.114.131.116 (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not "specifically" in that it doesn't mention that it shouldn't happen under the Presidency of someone named "Bush". However if you don't require such specificity, it does condemn torture and waterboarding is torture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.81.87 (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) No, but no specific activities are specifically condemned in the Geneva Conventions. They speak of torture and abuse and even once of "biological experiments" but they don't talk about any particular practices (for good reason—you name 10 specific practices, and any creative S.O.B. will come up with an 11th one not named and then use the fact that it is not named as a reason to claim it has been allowed). The question is,is waterboarding physical or mental torture? is it a form of coercion used to secure information from POWs? It is unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment? All of these things are banned by the Geneva Conventions when used against POWs. (And of course the real legal question is, are they POWs? If not, then Geneva Conventions don't apply. Which is why the Bush administration spent a lot of time re-labeling them as "enemy combatants" and specifically not as POWs.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem Prisoner of war: A prisoner of war (POW, PoW, PW, P/W, WP, or PsW) is a combatant who is held in continuing custody by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict. Double talk! ¤₳₳ BL ₵₳¤ (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the enemy combatant issue was not simply about excluding them from being PoWs which in itself would not have been so controversial. The enemy combatant issue was that they were also excluded from being treated as civilians. If they were civilians, then they would be accorded the normal legal rights of civilians (right to a trial, not to be tortured, etc). The Bush doctrine was that enemy combatants were neither, a status many parties argued did not and was never intended to exist by the Geneva Conventions. Nil Einne (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. If they are POWs they are covered by Geneva, if they are civilians they are covered by criminal law and its protections against suspects. What's really horrific about the Bush approach to me is not that they wanted to come up with a category that says there is some gray area between combatants and civilians (which is quite obvious on the face of it in many conflicts) but that they would do so because they wanted to argue that the gray area between the two categories had the rights of neither! --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't condone torture in any way, shape or form, but don't you have to wear a soldier's uniform in order to be considered a POW? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that you need only be captured by someone wearing a soldier's uniform to be subject to whatever people wearing soldiers' uniforms think is the appropriate treatment. Legally, that means either POW status, or civilian jurisdiction. Tucking people away in a place you control that is outside your jurisdiction say, Guantanamo Bay, is properly known as unconstitutional and during times of war might be considered treason. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How did street vendors sell apples during the Great Depression without getting fined or arrested?[edit]
Did they have licenses? If they did not have licenses, why weren't they fined and/or arrested? It does not seem possible to do the same today without a lot of money to start with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.165.180 (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fined or arrested by whom? Usually, in most places, the cops have better things to do than to check up on liscences of street vendors. Lots of unregulated commerce goes on in broad daylight. Pick up your telephone book, and look up "escort services". I mean, if the authorities let that go on, a poor dude selling apples on a street corner is probably not going to get harrassed very much. They weren't stopped because no one cared much to stop them. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fruit stands are basically unregulated anyway. I bet you could start selling apples from your front stoop right now and never have a problem. --Sean 14:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your success and longevity as a fruit vendor will likely depend upon local laws and then upon what your neighbours think of your activities. I wouldn't expect to be in business long if my front stoop were in Westmount in Montreal, or Rosedale in Toronto, for example, unless I were 5 years old and my lemonade stand had gone bust. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion, but we do have a language desk which is probably more appropriate for translation questions. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even better, try Wikipedia:Translation. There are lists of available translators, etc. from that portal page. Ideally they'd be translating article text, but I imagine you might find someone friendly enough to help in other circumstances. User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.112.32.22 (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of a machine translation, I guess, but a start. Graf is commonly Anglicised as Count, Reichsgräfin would be Countess of the Reich/Empire. - Jarry1250(t, c) 11:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Ehe schließen" = to marry / to wed, ie no "finished".
Correct translation: On 13. February 1711 he wed... This was to be his sole marriage.
The last sentence is incorrect and should read: Friedrich von Sachsen-Weißenfels, as a result of this marriage, had acquired a stepson, Erdmann II. von Promnitz, who had already married Friedrich`s niece Anna Maria von Sachsen-Weißenfels in 1705. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I must say that that makes a lot more sense :) . - Jarry1250(t, c) 13:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, though the translation is correct, the original statement isn't. Or at least it's imprecise. Anna Maria of Saxe-Wiessenfels was a half-niece of Friedrich (the daughter of his half-brother), not a full niece. For fuller details, see Emile Agnes Reuß zu Schleiz at Genealogics, Ancestors of Emile Agnes Reuß zu Schleiz at Genealogics and other pages on that site, or this graphic. the relationship of Friedrich of Saxe-Weissenfels to his half-niece, who was also his daughter-in-law - Nunh-huh 23:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most GFDL licensed software says that, and that it doesn't guarantee any satisfaction since it doesn't cost anything, but can paid-for software also say that? 94.196.17.81 (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you're saying but a lot of software EULAs greatly limited the makers liability in the event it doesn't do what you expect and many also exclude their use in specific systems, e.g. life support systems Nil Einne (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a lawyer, and we can't give legal advice, but see the article "Implied warranty". --Milkbreath (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That "you can't expect anything if you didn't pay anything" idea is formally the legal doctrine of consideration. Conversely, if someone does charge money then there will generally be consideration, an implied contract, and as Milkbreath notes often some kind of implied warranty. What's important here is (mostly) the exchange of items or actions of value; so people who charge for stuff (even GPLed stuff) are stuck with accepting some kind of responsibility for it. Almost no-one is required to guarantee satisfaction, but in general contract law insists that something offered for sale be "fit for purpose" and accurately described, and no amount of EULA can fix that. To get round that, some software contracts try to claim that you don't own the software (just the disks it came on), but instead it's a perpetual lease. I don't know if that's ever been tested in court, but that seems to be the kind of claim that a court will be disinclined to sustain. The extent to which a software is guaranteed is another matter; clearly lots of companies are happily making plenty of money selling some pretty crummy software, so it seems the threshold is very low. Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know Hinduism is more properly called the religions of India. At any rate, is correct to say that the religions of India believe in transmigration and not reincarnation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsw1228 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In is wrong to use the term 'religions of India' to describe Hinduism. Many other religions also have adherents in India. Even if we only count religions originating in India, there are still several. Algebraist 22:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am puzzled why you think it could ever be the case that (something with a specific name) is more properly called (a non-specific description). The purpose of names is to identify things, which a non-name typically does not do so well. --ColinFine (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
