Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Reference Desk

Science Mathematics Computing/IT Humanities Language Entertainment Miscellaneous Archives
How to ask a question Search first. It's quicker, because you can find the answer in our online encyclopedia instead of waiting for a volunteer to respond. Search Wikipedia using the searchbox. A web search could help too. Common questions about Wikipedia itself, such as how to cite Wikipedia and who owns Wikipedia, are answered in Wikipedia:FAQ.
Sign your question. Type ~~~~ at its end. Be specific. Explain your question in detail if necessary, addressing exactly what you'd like answered. For information that changes from country to country (or from state to state), such as legal, fiscal or institutional matters, please specify the jurisdiction you're interested in. Include both a title and a question. The title (top box) should specify the topic of your question. The complete details should be in the bottom box. Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please don't post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers. Be patient. Questions are answered by other users, and a user who can answer may not be reading the page immediately. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to seven days.	Do not include your e-mail address. Questions aren't normally answered by e-mail. Be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites; making your e-mail address public here may make it very public throughout the Internet. Edit your question for more discussion. Click the [edit] link on right side of its header line. Please do not start multiple sections about the same topic. Archived questions If you cannot find your question on the reference desks, please see the Archives. Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk. Do not request medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor or lawyer instead.
After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. Your question will be added at the bottom of the page.
How to answer a question Be thorough. Please provide as much of the answer as you are able to. Be concise, not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated.	Link to articles which may have further information relevant to the question. Be polite to users, especially ones new to Wikipedia. A little fun is fine, but don't be rude. The reference desk is not a soapbox. Please avoid debating about politics, religion, or other sensitive issues.

August 31

Elizabeth Godolphin - benefactress of the Gololphin School (1725).

I cannot find out anything else about her on the web. Would be very grateful if you could help.203.173.2.19 00:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Caroline Shelton

First of all you spelt the school wrong. I did a search and it didn't turn up much on her. The best I could find is here. --The Dark Side 01:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Women and shoes

Not to be stereotypical, but how come a lot of women seem to like shoes? What about shoes attracts them? Is it a sentimental thing for shoes? Do they think the shoes are a part of them, make them attractive etc. How come more women than men care about shoes?

Also, I know a lot of men (stereotypically, yes I know) may have a favourite car/motorcycle/gadget that they feel sentimental about, giving it a name, personality etc. and getting all upset and sad when the item is old/worn-out and has to be retired/discarded? Do women ever feel the same way about their shoes?

Do women feel sentimental about throwing away their old shoes? 64.231.141.217 00:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

They never throw away old shoes. THey have so many pairs that they never wear out 8-)--Light current 00:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you seriously ask your librarian these kind of questions? --The Dark Side 01:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No sorry. Its 'this kind of questions'. Grammar you know! 8-)--Light current 01:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Try either "This kind of question", or "These kinds of questions". JackofOz 06:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean 'These kinds of question' dont you?--Light current 11:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It is all good. --The Dark Side 16:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, notwithstanding that it's all good, this kind of questions, per Light current, is, I'd imagine, fine, although I'd likely say questions of this kind. As to the shoes, Imelda Marcos is probably the archetypal shoe collector (having owned somewhere between 1060 and 3000 pair [or is that pairs? :)]), but perhaps she's simply a compulsive hoarder; according to our article, upon her husband's deposition, she left in their presidential palace 500 brassieres and 200 girdles. Joe 00:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

THe number of pairs of shoes is probably only limited by the available cash!--Light current 00:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Light current, those who make errors while correcting others are in for a fun time.

• There's no such word as "dont"; there is a "don't" (abbreviations require apostrophes, you know!)
• The "Its" when you corrected The Dark Side is "It's" (ditto)
• "Grammar you know!" needs a comma after grammar. Without it, you're telling him he knows grammar, which is the reverse of what I think your point was. :--) JackofOz 01:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont use apostrophes in my abbreviations as I cant be bothered typing them (everybody understands them). Commas are defined under punctuation, not grammar. However, you are correct about the comma. I forgot it. 8-)--Light current 01:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I could have sworn your user page says you're a self-declared pedant and perfectionist. Must have been thinking about someone else, I guess. JackofOz 02:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Ive relaxed a bit on talk, but Im still keen on getting the articles perfect!--Light current 02:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Then I encourage, implore, entreat, exhort and beg you to mend your slack ways and return to the perfection you were destined for. We perfect people didn't get where we did by practising imperfection in our spare time, and if you profess to become like us, you have to do what we do. (cough) Besides, if perfection is the sine qua non for the general anonymous consumer of WP articles, then how much more should it be the minimum standard for people who take the time and trouble to come to the ref desk with particular questions. This is just as much the public face of Wikipedia as any article might be. (Thus endeth today's lesson). Go, and sin no more. JackofOz 04:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think it may appear to make me look too stuffy and British?--Light current 13:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a difference? No, just my joke. "Certainly not" is my serious answer to your question. Peer pressure is not the be-all-and-end-all.  :--) JackofOz 23:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

nursing school/nursing skills

The teacher want a short paragraph on:Why shouldnt you place a dirty linen bed sheet on the floor when changing a patients bed sheets.And why should you place a dirty linen bed sheet on the floor when changing a patients bed in ER.

Think infection--Light current 01:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, you got my curiosity. What is the difference? alteripse 02:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Youre a doctor, not a nurse, Alterprise. Isnt that right?--Light current 02:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

How often is the ER floor disinfected? How often is the ward floor disinfected?--Light current 02:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the teacher would also want it to come out of your own noggin. You won't have a gang of Wikipaedians gathered round when you are in surgery...'OK so I have to amputate.Where can I find out how to do this and why it's not a good idea to leave the severed limb lying about on the floor'... Lemon martini 07:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it because it could be the start of a legend in the theatre ? 8-)--Light current 12:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a doctor, so I have never had to change the bed linen. But now I am curious as to why it's ok to drop the dirty linen on the floor in the ER but not a hospital room. They both end up going to the hospital laundry. Both places have plenty of people wearing shoes from outside the hospital. So if this is a real question and not a trick or a joke, I would like to know the answer. alteripse 14:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I am neither a doctor nor a nurse. But my logic would be:

1. This is about cross infection
2. In a ward, you dont want infective materials (or body fliuds) on the floor where they can be picked up and tramped around to other patients on the shoes of visitors ore nurses.. So you put soiled or used linen in a nylon bag.
3. In an ER which I assume is similar to A&E over here (UK) you are trying to stabilize patients/ save their lives etc. Cross infection is not the priority here, and changing the sheets must be done with minimum disruption to the patient. Hence: chuck em on the floor (the sheets not the patient). Also I would imagine that each emergency bay is for one patient only nad that this bay will be sterilised before it is used again.

That is my uneducated guess. But Im probably wrong in part.--Light current 15:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You might have hit on it with the difference between transmissibility of hospital-acquired germs versus community-acquired germs. The former are more dangerous to other patients. I would still prefer to hear an answer from a nurse who knows the rationale given to her when she was taught that. alteripse 20:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If I get it right, Im gonna apply to be a nurse! Actually , I fancy the Matrons job! 8-)--Light current 20:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal free license

I am thinking of releasing my non-derivative work on the Wikimedia Commons under the following license, which I wrote myself:

This work may be used for any purpose provided that:

1. Attribution must be given to me. If the work is a derivative, an exact copy of the original or a link thereto must be included.
2. This work cannot be used for advertising.
3. This work cannot be included in any product to which Digital Rights Management technology is applied.
4. If a derivative of this work is published, it must be released under a license that does not forbid any use, other than advertising, that would not be forbidden by any version of the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License, GNU Free Documentation License or GNU General Public License.
5. The conditions in this list numbered 2, 4 and 5 (the latter having "enough of this work" changed to either "enough of the work located at [original URL]" or "enough of this work and/or the work located at [original URL]", and the text in these parentheses removed in the former case) must be imposed on any derivative works that contain enough of this work to be covered by the same copyright. The condition in this list numbered 3 must be applied to all derivatives that descend from this work.

The penultimate point is an attempt a flexible copyleft. The idea behind the last is that if, through a long series of derivatives, my work is completely eliminated from a descendant, then the descendant doesn't have to be copyleft or suffer the advertising restriction if the intervening authors don't want it to.

My questions are:

• Will the advertising restriction make the license unfree by generally accepted standards?
• Is this license actually forward-compatible with GFDL, GPL and cc-by-sa?

NeonMerlin 05:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

For Wikimedia Commons questions, you should ask at Wikimedia Commons itself, but in general, "no commercial use" licenses are not acceptable there (and are deprecated here, for that matter). AnonMoos 09:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL ANTHEM!!!!!

Hi, I need to download the national anthem of Australia, Advance Australia Fair (the remix version that was played during New Year's Eve 2004)to do my assignment. Where can I download from? THANKS Jon

Jon, our article on Advance Australia Fair actually mentions this dance remix, and says that it was commissioned by Clover Moore. You could try contacting her to ask. --Robert Merkel 13:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought that was Waltzing Mathilda. DirkvdM 09:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

History of the U.S. Air Force Order of the Sword

Not sure if this is the right place to turn with a question that actually concerns an article, but does anyone know anything about the history of an U.S. Air Force decoration called the "Order of the Sword"?

The Wikipedia article (Order of the Sword (United States)) has been infested by pseudohistorical claims to continuity with the Royal Swedish Order of the Sword, which in this version of reality was founded as a war organisation of non-commissioned officers by Gustavus Vasa. The Swedish order was in fact founded only about 200 years later, in 1748, by Frederick I, as a pure state decoration and limited to commissioned officers. The Order is then supposed to have been introduced to America during the Revolutionary War, then remained dormant for a long time, until it was revived during the civil war, "when it was presented to Robert E. Lee", then dormant again until it was revived in 1967 (diff), or, according to another version, it remained domant all the time until 1967 (diff). In some versions the history stretches back to the 12th century, or a medieval "British" connection is introduced.

The article originally linked to a couple of webpages detailing the claimed history of the USAF decoration. These pages are now gone from cyberspace. "Order of the Sword" + "U.S. Air Force" (or similar searches) gets a number of Google hits, such as this or this, offering versions of this story. It appears likely that 1967, when the order was supposedly revived, was the actual foundation year. But there seems to be no official page and no useful sources that do not suffer from obviously parroting some kind of probably very recent USAF lore that contradicts well-established knowledge on the Swedish decoration. up+l+and 08:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

globalization

A few questions: 1. how do you know that globalization is occuring? 2. What are Niesh Markets? 3. Why have they been able to take off? Thanks.

• The way you phrased that makes me suspect it's a homework question. Feel free to ask help with any specific questions, but don't expect us to do your homework for you. Try reading globalization to start with. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And you might want to check your spelling as you research - it took a while before I realised your second question was referring to Niche markets --Mnemeson 12:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this time it wasn't homework? I remember when I got homework, the topic would either be handed out on paper, or it would at least be written on the blackboard. Does this teacher actually spell Niche "Niesh"? If so, the questioner could use all the help s/he could get! Loomis 12:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sometimes people who ask homework questions here forgot to take notes and only remember hearing something. Anyway, he should now have enough information in the articles to figure out the answers himself. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

stainless steel nail files

I'm searching for a company in the US who currently manufactures stainless steel nail files. I've searched every search engine possible with no luck. Can you help me?

Why SS? Are you going to file your nails under water?--Light current 13:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Which search engines were those? Mind you this company sells them, but I'm sure if you ask them nicely they'll tell you who manufactured them. :-) For more leads, try this google search. Anchoress 13:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Anchoress, the company you linked to is from Pakistan, not the U.S. ColourBurst 16:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, lol, I have to read more carefully. Missed the 'US' part. Or forgot. Sorry all! Anchoress 19:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Government of United States

If Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are the only "commonwealths," what types of state governments do Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey have? And what are the fundamentals that establish their laws, including Pennsylvania? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.232.72 (talk • contribs)

The other 46 states are States. Would you be interested in the Pennsylvania Constitution ? --Mnemeson 14:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Commonwealth" is, in the case of the states mentioned, simply a flowery word carrying no meaning. There are 50 states in the US. Properly speaking, US Commonwealths are those political divisions of the United States somewhere between "territory" and "state", and the term is pretty much archaic. — Lomn | Talk 15:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you say (after all, America isn't 'The United States and Commonwealths'), but as long as those four refer to themselves as Commonwealths, I'm (personally) inclined to use the flowery word, at least from time to time. Both self-definition and words are fun :) --Mnemeson 15:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are states like the other 46 U.S. states. The only thing that they have in common is that they happen to use the word "commonwealth" as part of their official name, unlike the other 46 states. But the governments of the four "commonwealths" do not have any special features. They are like the governments of the other 46 states. Each state has its own set of laws. The four states that use the word "commonwealth" as part of their name do not share any particular law because they are called commonwealths. Every state, including the four "commonwealths", has a state constitution that sets out the rules for its governments and for its law code. Marco polo 15:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And don't confuse all of this with the Commonwealth of Nations. DirkvdM 10:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to be confused with The Wealth of Nations? Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How can one contact you over the phone

By picking up the reciever, dialling the number and waiting. Why not use the email facility we have here for registerd users?--Light current 14:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In any case, Wikipedia is not a company, and we do not link up with foreign companies to help manage waste. --Lambiam^Talk 15:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well were gonna have to manage this waste of 3 posts!--Light current 16:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggest just deleting this whole para--Light current 19:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

women and sex

I want to find out what influences women to indulge in pre-marital sex even when they know it is wrong. Most importantly why women would have sex with married men yet they know it is wrong. How is it that the woman's level of education does count for much when making such decisions?

Wrong in what sense? And how do you know it is wrong? --Lambiam^Talk 15:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Whats 'wrong' about it in your view? and what do you mean by sex? kisssing, cuddling, petting, heavy petting......etc. Remember Clinton?--Light current 15:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that men do it too. ;) --The Dark Side 16:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Different cultures have different moral standards. I personally believe, because of this, nothing is absolutely right or wrong, it is relative to the culture you are in, and if something was morally right or wrong it wouldn't matter, because whatever culture you are in decides. Sound good to you? — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

It is normal of human live to have sex. It is normal. Leave it go

Some people enjoy doing something because they think it's wrong. (None of my sex is pre-marital, because I never intend to get married!)--Shantavira 17:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Things that are forbidden or disapproved of have always attracted thrill seekers and others for increased excitement.--Light current 17:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be two different questions here: 1. Why would an unmarried woman engage in any sexual intercourse? and 2. Why would an unmarried woman conduct an affair with a married man? The poster treats these two issues as nearly interchangeable and morally wrong. In questioning the behavior only of women, rather than men's behavior also, the poster reflects a double standard.

Some people share the questioner's beliefs and violate their own principles because they desire sex (and possibly because they have low self-esteem or use sex as a replacement for other social relationships). Other people simply believe in different values: they might agree that sex outside marriage is wrong and consider it equally wrong for both men and women; they might regard sex between two unmarried people as ethically neutral but deplore adultery; others might regard "stealing a boyfriend" or "stealing a girlfriend" as nearly as offensive as adultery while having no qualms about sexual relationships between otherwise unattached people; others might regard the use of safe sex to prevent unwanted disease and pregnancy as the most important concern; still others have open polyamorous relationships along such guidelines as The Ethical Slut, in which the main ethical imperative is that all conduct occurs between informed and consenting adults. Durova 19:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Cannons on Ships

Did European warships have cannons in 1398? When did they start to have? --Longwang 15:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Our article on Cannons seems to suggest they didn't. Probably the 17th century from the looks of it--VectorPotential^{71.247.243.173} 16:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Meaning the 1600s, not 1700s. Haven't you ever watched Pirates of the Caribbean? — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

Not really, is it a good movie? Saw the trailer once. oh, and nevermind about the canons, I just re-read it, 17th century is when they started making them out of metal, probably had stone projectiles going back quite a bit further--VectorPotential^{71.247.243.173} 16:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Cannons on a Ship

Thank You! I was asking because I've seen a 19th century painting depicting the Teutonic Knight's attack on Visby, which shows cannons on the ships. I was wondering if that's historically accurate. --Longwang 16:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the plural of 'cannon' is still 'cannon', so your title is wrong. —Daniel (‽) 16:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Both forms are correct according to Webster. --Longwang 17:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Another incredible coincidence on the ref desk. I read this while updating the administration of my video tapes and was just wondering why 'Pirates of the Carribbean' and 'Curse of the black pearl' looked so similar. Turns out the full title is 'Pirates of the Carribbean: curse of the black pearl'. I mean, I had just realised this a few seconds ago and was just rewinding one of the tapes for re-use when I read this. What are the chances? This happens to me a lot here on the ref desk. Is it hauted or do I spend too much time here? Btw, it's an entertaining film. Not bad for a Walt Disney movie. DirkvdM 11:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights

Do educated people actually support the crap known as Human Rights, or is it just some popular culture thing? --Life 17:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you educated? Do you think it is fun being tortured and imprisoned because a family member expressed disapproval with the actions of the powers that be? Explain why you think it is crap. --Lambiam^Talk 18:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say Human Rights was about 99% - 100% pure crap - I have Tony Blair endlessly haranguing me about Human Rights, I see bombs being shipped from US to Isreal via UK and today I hear that most of the cluster bombs dropped by Israel were dropped in civilian areas within 72 hours of the cease-fire (hundreds of thousands of unexploded bomblets in the report I heard). I have no view btw on right or wrong in the Middle East conflict, I'm just saying that as far as I can tell 'Human Rights' is nothing more than an emotive piece of Newspeak for politicians trying to claim the moral high ground (usually when they're about to spatter more gobs of human flesh across the world). Rentwa 23:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's more of a reason to condemn the policy of those governments than the human rights they're not abiding by. It's human rights that allow you to be critical of them without being arrested and tortured. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In the current climate of political apathy I don't think the Blair government cares much about a few embittered loners ranting on the internet, but it did use political bullying and legal chicanery to prevent the BBC reporting what the overwhelming majority of people regarded as the truth about its Iraq propaganda, and eventually forced the Director General of the BBC to resign. The scientist who leaked the truth was driven to suicide by the sh*tstorm Blair unleashed on him. Free Speech?

Re your comment 'That's more of a reason to condemn the policy of those governments than the human rights they're not abiding by' - there's no sense at all in making a distinction between Human Rights and the regimes that grant them or take them away. Human Rights as abstract concepts are just truisms about governance and happy lives - everyone agrees broadly on the principles. Rentwa 11:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If human rights didn't exist then why are you able to use the internet so freely? --The Dark Side 19:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in the aftermath of the holocaust as an effort to prevent Nazi atrocities from happening again. That sounds like a good enough reason to take it seriously, even if you disagree with it. Where have you gotten the idea that the whole thing was "crap?" I suggest you read a wider range of sources before making up your mind. Durova 19:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I did not know its historical nature, and I understand now that if what you say is true, then it was an overcompensation for Nazism, but today it is far too strongly libertarian that it endangers society. And I do not mean to say that people should be tortured because a family member disapproves of the authority. That is very bad for the society. However, it is also bad for the society to say something like "nobody can be tortured, ever, even if the safety of the world depends on it," which is what Human Rights seems to do.

--Life 22:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That would depend on your reading of it. A Kantian interpretation would say that torturing a person breaches their Human Rights, and is never acceptable. A Utilitarian interpretation could say that the right to life of everyone else demanded that that person be tortured. Whilst I personally find that utilitarian reading reprehensible, some people wouldn't see that as a twisting, so much as a reasonable view. Whilst neocons find them inconvenient, Human Rights are amongst the most important political theories to come out of the 20th century. --Mnemeson 22:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I subscribe to the utilitarian interpretation. Also, if someone rejects the concept of human rights totally, as terrorists do, I don't see how they can then claim protection under them, once they are captured. Human rights should be reciprocal, if you don't honor them, then yours shouldn't be respected. StuRat 01:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but I've never been able to agree. Moral imperatives (the acceptance or not of which appears to be where we differ)demand that you treat someone in a certain way, regardless of their own actions. If Human rights are to mean anything, we have to fight to uphold them even when we despise the person they're protecting. Otherwise, they become merely rights for the people we agree with. Kant's damned hard to read, but I think he has a lot of good stuff to say. --Mnemeson 01:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I approach this issue from a peculiar point of view: I'm a U.S. war veteran whose nearest relative was one of the last people to escape from the World Trade Center alive. That said, I'm not at all confident that human rights violations are acceptable against terrorists. Here are a few reasons:

• Torture is an unreliable method of getting information. People who are being tortured will say anything to stop the torture.

• True, but if you verify the info you get, and only stop the torture if it's proven to be true, you should eventually get good info. StuRat 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Suppose you've got the wrong guy: the real terrorist is still out there hiding and the dude whose rights you've abused is just an honest dentist.

• True, so torture should only be used when you're absolutely sure who you've got. For example, if you catch somebody red-handed planting a bomb. StuRat 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• A country loses the moral high ground when it violates international treaty. No matter how good a reason we think we have in the short run, when some other country commits real atrocities we'll look like fools and hypocrites if we complain.

• The U.S. of A. probably won't be the world's strongest country forever. Suppose China is the leading superpower fifty years from now: what sort of example do we want to set for the next top dog?

• Both of these points assume that terrorist groups and other countries will do whatever we do. They never have in the past, so I doubt that they will in the future, either. StuRat 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Cruel actions can radicalize otherwise peaceful individuals. I joined the U.S. armed forces after 9/11 specifically because those bastards nearly killed my family. So when, as an American, I came into contact with foreign nationals (especially refugees or people in custody) I always wanted to act in a way that would leave them telling family and friends how nice the Americans are. I certainly didn't want to inspire new hatred against my country.

• Really nasty people usually try to "muddy the waters" by claiming their target is "just as bad." Stooping to their tactics alienates your own potential allies. Durova 14:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Both of these points, while true, neglect to mention that that, no matter what we do, those terrorist groups and other countries will claim we are engaging in a campaign of genocide against them. "News" orgs like al-Jazeera are all to happy to lend credence to such conspiracy theories. StuRat 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• So, to summarize, torture should be used rarely, when we are sure we have a bad guy who has info of critical importance in saving lives, and who we don't plan to ever release. Don't torture some random guy you find on the street without any ID, but do torture bin Laden, if captured. StuRat 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the orginal poster life. Human Rights are crap. Let's look at it shall we?

There are a total of thirty articles outlining people's human rights, but the most important principles declared are considered to be the following:

• The right to life, liberty, property and security of person.

• The right to an education.

• The right to employment, paid holidays, protection against unemployment, and social security.

• The right to participate fully in cultural life.

• Freedom from torture or cruel, inhumane treatment or punishment.

• Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

• Freedom of expression and opinion.

Here is why some Human Rights are crap.

(1) Right to life. If all humans have the right to life then how can muslims kill infidels in a holy war? Crap!

(2) Right to liberty. If all humans have the right to liberty then how can a human submit themselves to Allah totally? Crap!

(3) Right to property. If all humans have the right to property then how can anything belong to Allah? Crap!

(4) Right to security of person. If all humans have the right to security of person then how can muslims threaten to kill apostates? Crap!

(5) Right to an education. That's acceptable as long as the education is about the truth and not spreading lies about Allah.

(6) The right to employment, paid holidays, protection against unemployment, and social security. The right to participate fully in cultural life. All acceptable.

(7) Freedom from torture. If humans cannot torture other humans then how can we extract information from traitors? Crap!

(8) Freedom of thought. If all humans have freedom of thought then they will think of sinful thoughts. Crap!

(9) Freedom of religion. All people are free to choose the correct religion. Acceptable. It's choosing the incorrect religion that is unacceptable.

(10) Freedom of expression/opinion. If all people have freedom of expression then how can one intimidate people that say nasty things about Allah? Crap!

Ohanian 01:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should remove the the comment before mine since it seems that the author is distraught that his religion is not the one and only true religion. --The Dark Side 02:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

- sorry? are you suggesting that fundamentalist islamic terrorists dont respect human rights? well, duh! they also dont respect the law generally-does that mean that the law is crap? what would you prefer-that we had no rights? that people could kill at will? on the issue of torture, could you please agree that a world completely without torture is better than a world where toture is rife? perhaps you might consider how best to acheive that objective? i personally believe (and what would i know with my expensive, liberal education?) that if countries such as mine (the UK) take an absolute stand against torture (and human rights abuses generally) then some day, in the far distant future, other countries might feel the same. we may not like it that those dirty foreigners who want to blow us up can say what they say without expecting to have their finger nails pulled out, but thats the sacrifice civilised society makes in the hope, however naǐve, that should we find ourselves accused of horrible things in some far off land, we can make it to the court room with our pedicured nails. - yes, educated believe absolutely in human rights. we believe in all those things you think are crap and we respect your right to belive otherwise. there may be those who hate us but that doesnt mean we have to stoop to their level. throwing away all the right we've fought for would be the most grotuesque knee jerk reaction, after all, only fools rush in..200.199.163.198 02:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the truth.

• Humans do not have any human rights.
• Instead human may be given privileges by Allah.
• Allah gives a group of humans (muslims) certain privileges that other groups do not have.
• It is only because of these god given privileges that muslims can perform certain actions.

Ohanian 04:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Those are the kinds of opinions that, unfortunately, give Islam a bad name. JackofOz 04:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree with that statement utterly and completely. Those, by far most responsible for giving Islam a bad name, are certain Muslims themselves. You're a Muslim, you crash a jetliner into an office building, YOU'RE the one giving Islam a bad name. You're a Muslim, you blow yourself up in order to kill as many innocent lives as possible, YOU'RE the one giving Islam a bad name. You're a Muslim, you lead a country, and you call for the genocide of an entire people, YOU'RE the one giving Islam a bad name. You're a pacifist Muslim cleric, but you don't have the balls to condemn all of these atrocities, YOU'RE the one giving Islam a bad name. You're an average, hard-working, peace-loving Muslim, yet you can't resist participating in so-called "peace rallies" wherein the flag of the genocidal Hezobollah organization is waved proudly, (nay, dare even object to it!) YOU'RE the one giving Islam a bad name. I'd say it's long overdue for Muslims to finally stop playing the worn out old victim role, and start taking responsibility for the deeds and misdeeds of their brethren. Only once this finally occurs can Islam retake its rightful place within the world's three monotheistic religions of peace. Muhammed, if he is indeed the man of peace he is described to be, would be utterly disgusted by ALL of those who claim to follow his teachings, yet passively acquiesce in such disgraceful, disgusting, inhuman, wholly Un-Islamic acts. Muhammed would surely be disgusted with what his teachings of peace, kindness and benevolence have degenerated into. Loomis 05:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said. In the case of the Palestinians, the strategy of using terrorism to get what they want is such a dismal failure, you have to question their sanity. It's been almost 60 years since the partition, and, unless they consider death and destruction to be an "accomplishment", they have nothing to show for all the violence aimed at Israel. Had they followed Ghandi's example, and offered solely peaceful resistance, they would have the international community fully behind them, and even Israeli popular opinion would be sympathetic. This would allow them to have their own state, with full control of the borders, a booming economy, and peaceful relationships with their neighbors. Instead, they elect a terrorist run government, their economy is in collapse, they are pariahs in the civilized world, and they still don't seem to be willing to change course. StuRat 07:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Better not reveal your address, because someone might come over to your place to check how much you value your rights. DirkvdM 11:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Ohanian. It is a lot easier just calling the terrorist Islamic as opposed to something like neo-Islamofascist. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

I was the asker of this question; however, the topic has strayed from my interests. I do notice, however, that some proponents of Human Rights say things such as, "You can only say human rights are crap because human rights prevents you from being captured and tortured!" This is fallacious; the fact that Human Rights prevents this does not imply that Human Rights is the only thing that can do this. In reality, good governance does this, by realization that torturing somebody for saying Human Rights are crap is an idiotic move for the society(I think it is evident why). What I am trying to say is that Human Rights, although it corresponds slightly with good governance, also mandates certain things that are detrimental to society, such as the rights to life(even for dangerous criminals), to an education(even for retarded people), to paid holidays(clear cultural bias), freedom of religion(including religions with dangerous practices), freedom from torture(even when it is necessary), anf freedom of speech(even for dangerous massive propaganda campaigns). If I have misinterpreted Human Rights, and in reality they are supposed to be suggestions instead of mandates, please let me know. --Life 03:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the thread, but I don't see the problem. You're a human, right? And you have rights, right? Well, there you go. What those rights should be is a different matter. I suppose that at the core of this is that, like many people, you don't care much about rights that (you think) will not likely ever apply to you. And the further problem is that those other people might think that about differnt rights, that do apply to you. If they for a majority you're screwed. So that's why it is a good thing out of self interrest to promote a society that honours all rights, even the ones that don't apply to you.

This makes me think of that German who said that when the nazis started arresting the commies he didn't take action because he wasn't a commie. When the came for the gays he did nothing because he wasn't gay. When they came for teh gypsies, ... you get the idea. When finally they came for him there was nobody left to protest. DirkvdM 06:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That was Martin Niemöller. --Lambiam^Talk 07:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Brothers in Arms

I heard that the song is dedicated to the defeated Vietnam soldiers (apparently US and allies). Is it true? I typed some combinations in Google but found no relevant hits. --Brand спойт 18:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

According to our article on the eponymous album, the song you mention, and the previous three songs on the album, refer to guerilla wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 1980's. dpotter 03:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Canada License Plate

Hi, I'm in Vancouver BC and this morning I saw a CANADA license plate, if I remember correctly black lettering on white, odd dimensions compared to regular, 5 or 6 digits...the provinces issue their own license plates & this wasn't a Veteran's plate either. Any ideas what these are issued by/for? The vehicle was an unmarked van with normal windows & an old guy driving. Google was not my friend today.--24.80.70.174 20:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

According to US and Canadian license plates, the license plate you saw was for a vehicle belonging to Canada's armed forces. Marco polo 20:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one, thanks. I was pretty sure it was armed forces but it was a plain vehicle.--24.80.70.174 20:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well we've never had the richest armed forces, you know?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  16:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

September 1

Musical Opinion

In your opinion, what is/are the best album/s ever. This is question is strictly opinion based, I am interested in exploring music I am not familiar with and would appreciate all serious responses. Thanks for your input.

Asking which albums have been found to be best in surveys etc. would be more in the spirit of this forum; see Pop albums that have consistently appeared in top lists, etc., and I know that the BBC news site has accounts of the results of several such contests... AnonMoos 02:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Anything by Nirvana is a good start. --The Dark Side 02:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Zombie and Water No Get Enemy by Fela Kuti, The Velvet Underground and Nico by The Velvet Underground (and Nico), The Complete Last Concert by the Modern Jazz Quartet, Porgy and Bess by Miles Davis (as well as Miles Ahead, Someday My Prince Will Come, Bitches Brew, the list continues), Green Onions by Booker T and the MGs, Highway 61 Revisited by Bob Dylan (and ALL his other stuff), Tje Ni Moussou by Amadou and Mariam, anything by the Bothy Band, Bill Evans, Keith Jarrett, or by Astrud Gilberto, or Art Blakey (though I especially love Paris 1958). Astor Piazzola's pretty cool. If you haven't noticed, this isn't a single GREATEST cd, but it's a list of a bunch of good ones and good artists in pretty varying fields, cause that seems to be what you're looking for. If you want great classical, look into Tchaikovsky (his concertos and piano pieces are just as good as the ballets), Debussy, Beethoven (no shit), Mozart (but he's so passe), Prokofiev (Romeo and Juliet is the bomb)......... Hope that's what you're looking for. I didn't want to overload you with names. Oh well. 70.108.185.102 04:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mozart passé? Hardly. Quality endures. JackofOz 04:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I was kidding about that. And I left out Kind of Blue (and hundreds of other albums - including, now that I see another contributer's name, Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon, and a lot of his other albums). 70.108.185.102 05:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The soundtrack to Godzilla the movie was pretty good too.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  16:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

have you heard kelly clarkson's new one- breakaway? thats pretty good. also christina aguilera's stripped really helped me out. oh, and kylie minogue's 'fever' is, in my humble opionion, pop perfection.200.199.53.17 20:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Perfection does not exist in the world of pop music. Pop music is hardly what I was looking for. The largest response was quite satisfactory, for that I thank you.

Rhapsody in Blue by George Gershwin. Possibly the only succesful haybrid classical/jazz song ever. --The Dark Side 20:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are truly interested in studying music, then you should listen to every big hit you can and ask yourself, "Why was this a hit?" Focus especially on the music you do not like. The same goes for any form of art. For example, you can watch every movie that wone the Academy Award for Best Picture and ask, "What made that movie so special?" In my personal opinion, there are very few songs that near perfection. The ones that do tend to stand the tests of time. Obviously, you can't look at anything in the past 25 years to see if it has stood the test of time - but there is a hell of a lot of music that existed long before MTV started telling us what was good. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thart sounds like really bad advise. You may score some hits (althouhg marketing is more important for that), but this will only hinder you in making good music. The best art is made by people who don't give a shit about the rest. Think of it. Which great artists played by the rules? Art is about breaking the rules. DirkvdM 07:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Freddie Hubbard and Charles Mingus have done a few near-perfect songs as well, in my opinion. And Led Zeppelin. And Henri Dikongue. And yes, Gershwin's amazing. Sashafklein 01:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

And Curtis Mayfield's Superfly is pretty sweet, as is Funkadelic's Maggot Brain (if you're into funk), although I couldn't get away with calling either best-album-of-all-time material. Sashafklein 01:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The Wall by Pink Floyd of course. And several other bands most of whose entire repertoire is good, like Led Zeppelin, Genesis, ELP (with the exception of Love Beach), Jimi Hendrix (the official releases), Manfred Mann's Earth Band (Nightingales and Bombers is the first album I liked from beginning to end) and of course the Beatles (especially Abbey Road). Then there's seventies (and only seventies) Queen (especially Queen II and Sheer Heart Attack). As for single albums, Ten Years After Recorded Live, Jethro Tull's Thick as a Brick, Just a Poke by Sweet Smoke (I can play that whichever mood I'm in) and because it was a sign of its times, Never Mind the Bullocks. I notice that those are all British bands. Not that I don't like music from elsewhere, but I was being very critical (is that good English?) and in that light none of, say, the Doors albums stand out enough.

To right this national wrong (?) some classical music (although you asked for 'albums', I'll focus on the pieces, not the performances). There's the best piece ever, the Pathetique by Chaikovsky, Romeo and Juliet by Prokifiev, Rachmaninov's 2nd and 3rd pianoconcerto, Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez, most stuff by Geschwin and of course the Four Seasons (no, not the girlie group). And of course many many more, but I could sit here all day. DirkvdM 07:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If I were stuck on a deserted island with playback equipment, three pieces of music, and a year's supply of batteries, I'd choose:

• Somethin' Else by Cannonball Adderley
• "Piano Sonata No. 31 by Beethoven, performed by Wilhelm Kempff
• The Unforgettable Fire by U2 Durova 21:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Marble pedestal signed Petrelli? Value?

Kudos to all who have helped in the past - I have an item in Maine at James Julia up for auction thanks to you.

Now I am searching for information on a marble pedestal signed I believe 'Petrelli'. It's white, beautiful, very ornate, and topped (separately) by a white marble sculpture titled (again I believe) Apollo Belvedere. Made in Italy probably early 1900's is it was purchased for the opening of a Minneapolis hotel in 1906. Any links or ideas as to value or where/how to sell? If this is not the proper place to post please feel free to let me know. Pedestal is approximately 3-4 feet tall.

Original artist:[1] Yours must be a reproduction. Petrelli seems to be an Italian name.--Light current 03:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Raimondi seems to have been an engraver, not a sculptor. The Apollo Belvedere was sculpted by an unknown artist and discovered 40-50 years before Raimondi got into the act. JackofOz 03:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, he didn't engrave the actual sculpture, he made an engraving (ie. a two-dimensional representation onto a flat surface) of what it looked like. Like a picture, only engraved rather than painted or drawn. The engraving was copied and that's how the image of the statue became well known throughout Europe. JackofOz 04:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see! Thanks. Well where is the original sculpture now?--Light current 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the caption under the pic, it's in the "Museo Pio-Clementino". JackofOz 05:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Except that this "original" is a copy of a much earlier bronze sculpture. --Lambiam^Talk 07:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't I see that? Not looking properly. Sorry 8-(--Light current 14:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Buddhist Philosophy

I do remember, some time ago, reading something about how someonoe on the path of Enlightment who must, if he "meets his parents on the road, kill his parents; if he meets Buddha, kill the Buddha". But I could not for the life of me remember where I've read it (and yes, I am pretty confident it is an authentic, non-fictional source).

So my questions would be,

a) who said that, from what source, and, b) why would you have to kill your parents and/or Buddha? Is there a deeper meaning to it?

It's just a curiousity question, albeit one that reveals a fascinating insight into Eastern philosophy. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

--Amry 03:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Check out Linji and Killing the Buddha for more information and references. ---Sluzzelin 05:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Something the koan doesn't explain is that according to traditional Buddhism, a Buddha cannot be killed, only wounded. And wounding a Buddha and murdering one's parents are among the five most heinous offences that anyone could possibly commit.--Shantavira 05:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's 'patriarchs' not 'parents', and if it means what I think it means then it's like Hui Neng's 'Finger Pointing at the Moon':

The truth and words are unrelated. The truth can be compared to the moon. And words can be compared to a finger.

I can use my finger to point out the moon, but my finger is not the moon, and you don't need my finger to see the moon, do you?

Rentwa 12:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Those comments fall under what is commonly called the "twilight texts". My favorite part of them is the story of a priestess who proves she is on the path to enlightenment by offering the head priest a dinner of her own feces and urine. He eats it to prove he is further down the path than her. The point of all of it is the realization that nothing exists - therefore, there is no such thing as good and evil. If nothing is evil, you can kill the Buddha and you will not have any bad kharma following you. It is really nothing more than saying, "I'm above all that good and evil stuff." --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

History of British Motoring

I am looking for information on the number of cars on British roads from the 1930's to the present day and how many cars owned per family. Also historical petrol prices and Road Tax prices. Any help gratefully received. Thanks

Automobile article is a good start.--Light current 14:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Vehicle excise duty doesnt have much history 8-(--Light current 16:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

'Fever' in the MasterCard Soccer worldcup spot

Apparently, the daughter of the producer of the spot, Frank Lieberman, sung the version used in the spot[2]. I would be interested in purchasing a copy, but was unable to get a definite answer on if that's even possible. Thanks, RichiH 13:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Advertising Impressions for Printed Materials

I have searched all over to find out how many advertising impressions does it take to stick in someones mind?

I have heard seeing the same thing 3x times is what it takes but I am not sure. I would like to find an article or some information on it.

Thank you! Christine

Memory is strongly related to emotions. You will remember something after a certain number of times and for only a certain time, depending on your interest, motives in life, learning, and so on. Printed material differs also from other media, a good combination (TV or radio ads) may change the data. -- DLL ^{.. T} 17:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. For a highly interesting (or highly annoying) ad, you might remember it after one viewing. For a really boring ad, you may never remember it, no matter how many times you see it. StuRat 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• also people remember it wrong,not printed but everyone remembers the Leonard Rossiter/Joan Collins drinks ads and no-one can remember if it's Martini or Chinzano-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 20:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

Painting

Can someone be as kind as to tell me what this painting is?

http://img103.imageshack.us/my.php?image=20uy4.jpg

It's the Monet painting, Impression, Sunrise. According to the Wikipedia article, the Impressionist movement was named after this painting. PoliticalJunkie 17:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

wow, that is a really good painting for a four year old with crayons. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

That's probably exactly the same thing you would have said if you had been born 200 years ago.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir Issac Brock

Hello, i am wondering if you could find out for me what Issac Brock said in his address to his troops just before the battle of queentson heights and his death. It would be a great help seeing as the book i owned that contained that information is lost to me.

thanks

142.161.226.195 19:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Try Sir Isaac Brock, and also here.EricR 19:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm searching for heaven on earth

I'm thinking of moving in to an inhabited place on earth that hasn't known any war, battle, major conflicts, occupation, opression, dictatorship, major crimes, epidemics, economic difficulties, natural disaster or a significant polution, and where there is internet, satellite TV and mobile access. Do you know such a place? CG 19:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically Antarctica is inhabited, though the hole in the Ozone layer may qualify as pollution or disaster. Nowimnthing 20:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Internet, satellite TV, and mobile access sound nice, but I don't suspect they would be any good if you didn't have the health care to enjoy it. And "hasn't known any war" - do you mean ever? Scandinavia's been pretty peaceful for a long time now, but look at the Vikings. The existence internet access, cell phone networks, health care systems, and so on pretty much guarantees a sophisticated economy, which guarantees at least some level of economic difficulties. Basically, in short, there is no heaven on earth. zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read utopia or even Utopia. The fact that a similar place has been sought for most of human existence and has not been found, or the people who claim to have found it are often seen as nutjobs suggest either: such a place does not exist or the wrong search criteria have been used. P.s. satellite TV is not usually a common element of classical utopias and may even constitute the undesirable oppression element. MeltBanana 20:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Patagonia in S. Chile looks like a pretty cool place (lots of tourism photos available online) - inhabited, but sparsely; awesome scenery; colonised by civilised Spaniards. Slight problem with Pinochet a few years ago, but I don't think you're going to find anywhere that's 100% perfect. Rentwa 20:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose a rich person could buy an uninhabited island and add all the modern technology, and a small population, and thus create your "heaven on Earth". Would that count ? A new volcanic island would be the best bet that no wars had ever been fought there before. Sealand might be an example, using a new man-made island. StuRat 20:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess Switzerland would generally fit your bill, except of course the war part. Although the last one was the Sonderbund War in 1848, and it was a pretty boring one, too, with less than a hundred dead. Sandstein 21:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I second that vote for Switzerland: lived there very contentedly for 11 years and I found it remarkably serene. Einstein is reputed to have said he'd like to be there if WW3 broke out, because it takes at least 50 years for anything to start happening in Switzerland. :) Unfortunately this also goes for its pick of recent films (usually a couple months behind the UK) but otherwise it is very modern and incredibly organised (particularly its clockwork-like public transport.) CptJoker 02:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer my wars boring. :) DirkvdM 07:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You're in luck, then, as the coming war with Iran will require boring a hole into their bunkers to destroy their covert nuclear weapons program and kill the scientists working on it. StuRat 21:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Depending on how literally you want it to have never known war, Iceland is about as close as you're going to get. It voluntarily placed itself under Norwegian rule (because of civil war in Iceland), it passed peacefully by treaty into Danish rule, the British occupation in WW2 consisted of a warship parking in the harbour without firing a shot purely to avert the legalism that it was part of Denmark, and the Nazis had invaded Denmark, its independence in 1944 was uncontested (and already practically de facto since the early 1900s), and it entered NATO - a military alliance - on the explicit understanding that it would never be required to develop a military of its own. The fifth highest GDP/capita in the world, with boundless geothermal energy, Scandinavian levels of crime and education, very stable democracy, the most free press in the world (Reporters without borders)... --Mnemeson 02:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel that I live in such a place. New Zealand hasn't had any war or battle since the mid 19th century, doesn't really have any enemies (although in these days of global terrorism that's a relative thing), little major crime, mostly prosperous, a decent state-run health care system (although not as good as it used to be), good communications with the rest of the world and mobile reception over the whole of the country, and English-speaking (not that you said that was one of your criteria). Pollution is low, especially outside the major cities, and the scenery is world-class. See New_Zealand#International_rankings for how New Zealand compares with other countries on a number of scales. It isn't necessarily easy to get permission to immigrate to New Zealand, but if you are a skilled worker there'll probably be a job for you.-gadfium 03:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand is indeed a good choice. Costa Rica is another. No army and still they're left in peace, dig that! And some impressive natural beauty that they try to preserve because it's a source of income. They even have a place called Paraíso (Paradise). However, it's geologically active, with earthquakes and landslides and firearms are way too easy to come by (the only guns on display I ever saw on my travels were in Costa Rica).

So New Zealand still wins. I suppose not having any transportable natural resources would prevent invasion. If your greatest asset is serenity then an inviasion would destroy that and thus be pointless. And that goes for both New Zealand and Costa Rica. The Maldives and the like would also count if it weren't for the rising sea level. As for internet access, a telephone line is enough and where can't you get that? And satellite tv only requires a receiver (right?), but is that a criterium for heaven?

Iceland sounds good too, although I hate the cold and touching on the arctic circle means the winters won't be too nice. But speaking of non-transportable natural resources, they've got a very important one - thermal energy. Energy is an important prerequisite to sustain a modern utopia, and they've got loads of it, but invading the country for it would be pointless. So we want New Zealand with the climate of Costa Rica and geothermal activity of Iceland. Hold on, New Zealand has that too, but is it enough (and would you be willing to sacrifice the natural beauty aspect of it?).

And the Dutch get preference treatment when emigrating to New Zealand, so what am I still doing here? DirkvdM 07:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

To my surprise, there are no places called 'heaven', but there are several places called Hell. DirkvdM 08:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Scotland, or if you want some sun, Monaco, I think most of your answers would be european coutries, but also there's Australia. I wouldnt recommend moving to an LEDC, such as a south american, asian, or african country, as the difference in wealth of between the top and bottom half of the population is going to be very high, which can cause high crime rates, and corruption. And a lot of them have their hidden darker sides, eg. Maldives seems perfect, but then, they have apparently are extremely unwelocming to foreigners, rarely grant anyone permission to live there other than locals, and are one of the top persecutors of christians in the world. Philc _T^E_C^I 11:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

And the winner is...(rumble)...: New Zealand (unless you make me change my mind ;) CG 21:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Be sure you see the statue erected of Richard O'Brien in Hamilton. :) CptJoker 02:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No-one's mentioned the Palm Islands or The World Islands off the coast of Dubai. The islands are all less than five years old, while the country itself has never taken part in any major military conflict. Healthcare and access to technology are all world-class. Howard Train 05:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Because there not built and there just a rubbish commercial project anyway, to make a nice looking place, they build as many houses as humanly possible on it, for maximum commercial return. Basically because its rubbish and fake. Philc _T^E_C^I 13:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• yes but I'm not telling coz too many people will move in-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 20:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

Evolution of sports

How did humanity come up with most sports played today even though they have no seeming evolutionary roots? Take ice hockey, for example. What purpose would the skills required to hit a puck over several meters of ice into a net served for a band of Cro-Magnon hunter-gatherers? C. M. Harris ^{Talk to me} 21:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Most sports are a test of the skills required to bring down prey - yes, the prey wasn't a hockeypuck, but the necessary hand eye coordination, reflexes and strength are all demonstrated by the participants.Adambrowne666 23:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe many started as a form of warfare or execution of prisoners. The "ball" was frequently the decapitated head of the enemy. StuRat 00:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I heard of that, but frequently? Anyway, it may have to do with people not growing up. Why do kittens play? Or adolescents of any species. Well, mammals anyway. Maybe it has to do with the mammalian need to develop the brain. And humans have a bigger brain, so they need to train it more. DirkvdM 08:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I still think it's a way of demonstrating your viability as a hunter to potential mates - see, I can whack this puck with great accuracy - just as I'd whack a mammoth with my spear. Adambrowne666 12:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ah but have you seen one taken down with a combat tiddlewink?-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 20:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

If you'd whack a mammoth with a spear the way you hit a puck, you'd be the laghing stock of your hunting mates. And the mammoth. Maybe it would fall off a cliff laughing. Is that the idea? DirkvdM 05:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As an attack skill, being able to hit a rock long distances with a stick is a pretty good plus. From that logic, of course, baseball, golf, lacrosse, and hockey all come from the same roots. Ice and skates are modern additions.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  07:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen a weapon that uses a technique remotely similar to that. And with a good reason. It's a difficult way to get your projectile to do what you want it to. Therein lies the challenge, and that's what makes it a sport. So there's a reason to think sports are not meant as hunting practise. Real weapons aren't used very often in sports, and javelin throwing is about distance, whereas for hunting precision would eb more important. Archery is the only exception I can think of. Unless you don't use any weapons of course, like in wrestling. Most other 'martial arts' (silly name) are to stylised to be realistic, but they may still have started as a real practise. DirkvdM 07:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right; while I don't think it's likely a weapon would be designed with that function (though there may have been some sort of atlatl that could perform a similar feat) I do think that it's not far-fetched to imagine even a monkey that has gained the ability to use sticks as tools to use it to whack at loose rocks instead of throwing it or smacking their target directly.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  14:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point - the precise nature of the sport matters less than the fact that the competitors get a chance to demonstrate their athleticism - reflexes and strength etc - this being the skill-set that makes a mate attractive because it indicates he (she?) will be a good protector and provider.Adambrowne666 11:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

80:20 rule

Is Wikipedia following the 80:20 rule? That is, do 20% of the editors/admins do 80% of the work? --Light current 21:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Some Wikipedia types - writers: those who mostly write articles/make major contributions (very few); pedants: those who make minor edits (majority); Nazis: those who mostly delete (not many, fortunately, arguably a necessary evil); big-mouths: those who show off on the reference desk :D; and vandals. Any more? Rentwa 21:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but I fit into all of those categories! --Light current 00:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

We need one of those surveys that will give you a score: writer - 14%, pedant - 39%..., then a summary: 'You are an embittered loner with an obsessive hatred of politicians...'. Maybe someone could write one at one of those survey websites? The Wiki Type Test (WTT). Rentwa 00:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah a Wikipersonality quiz!--Light current 00:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's the Wikipediholic Test. But that only shows one aspect. DirkvdM 08:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Spiritual food

Hi - I think it's Hinduism that has the idea of a kind of spiritual nourishment that is present in all food - it's this that is being offered to the gods when people make offerings of food at shrines. Can anyone tell me please what this spiritual food is called? I used to know, but the name escapes me now. Thanks. Adambrowne666 22:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sentient foods? —Keenan Pepper 01:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that takes me closer - doesn't seem to mention the actual animating principle, but I should find it from that article - thanks again. Adambrowne666 12:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

literary songs

I am looking for a list of popular songs that reference specific novels (i.e The Cure "Killing an Arab" referencing The Stranger). Can someone help me?

Thanks, Dawn

The Police: Wrapped Around Your Finger:

You consider me a young apprentice
Caught between the Scylla and the Charybdis
Hypnotized by you if I should linger
Staring at the ring around your finger..

Devil and the deep blue sea behind me.....
Vanish in the air, you'll never find me
I will turn your face to alabaster...
Then you will find your servant is your master...

And you'll be wrapped around my finger....

The Scylla and the Charybdis being from Homer's Odyssey. StuRat 00:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The Police: Don't Stand So Close to Me:

Young teacher the subject
Of schoolgirl fantasy
She wants him so badly
Knows what she wants to be
Inside her there's longing
This girl's an open page
Book marking - she's so close now
This girl is half his age

Don't stand, don't stand so
Don't stand so close to me
Don't stand, don't stand so
Don't stand so close to me 

Her friends are so jealous
You know how bad girls get
Sometimes it's not so easy
To be the teacher's pet
Temptation, frustration
So bad it makes him cry
Wet bus stop, she's waiting
His car is warm and dry

(Chorus)

Loose talk in the classroom
To hurt they try and try
Strong words in the staff room
The accusations fly
It's no use, he sees her
He starts to shake and cough
Just like the old man in
That book by Nabakov

(Chorus)
(Chorus)

Where the book by Vladimir Nabokov is Lolita. StuRat 00:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The lyrics are quite good. Who wrote them? Sting?--Light current 00:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the article it was Sting.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

List of songs that retell a work of literature MeltBanana 00:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ramble On and Battle of Evermore by Led Zeppelin both refer to Tolkein's Lord of the Rings. Rentwa 01:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Bo Hansson has an album 'Lord of the Rings' and also 'Music inspired by Watership Down'. Iron Maiden have an album with songs about films, Piece of Mind (Iron Maiden album), and several of those must be novels as well. DirkvdM 08:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wuthering Heights (song) Durova 21:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Jefferson Airplane drew rather literally from John Wyndham's book, Chrysalids, in the song Crown of Creation. "Life is change. That is how it differs from the rocks." "In loyalty to their kind, they cannot tolerate our minds. In loyalty to our kind, we cannot tolerate their obstruction." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest starting this as a wikilist, List of Songs that Reference Novels. It might get populated fairly quickly and it's an interesting topic... --Bookgrrl 22:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Lady Elanor-Lindisfarne is The Fall Of The House Of Usher

Space Odyssy by The Byrds is the short story by Arthur C. Clark that is the basis for 2001-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 20:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

September 2

Harmonica voice guy

I'm trying to find the name of this blues/folk rock singer. I'm not sure whether he actually plays the harmonica, but when he sings his voice sounds just like one. Anyone know who I'm talking about? —Keenan Pepper 01:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

bob dylan?

Leon Redbone? —Wayward ^Talk 02:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not him. I mean this guy's voice sounded exactly like a harmonica, only with words. —Keenan Pepper 03:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If it was exactly like a harmonica, you might want to check out the songs listed in vocoder#musical history.--Shantavira 07:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, found it: I was thinking of Alan Wilson. —Keenan Pepper 20:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Are we near the end of the "Easy Life"?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_nafeez_m_060831_us_army_contemplates.htm

The article above seems to suggest that the next 20 years will be of endless conflict. Ohanian 02:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems rather excessively pessimistic. While I would agree that there will likely be constant conflict over the coming decades, it should all be put into perspective. Most likely they will all be tiny conflicts (like the recent Israel/Hezbollah conflict), with casualties nowhere near those of WW2. StuRat 03:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I say that yes, the next 20 years will be endless conflict, just as the 20 years after that will be endless conflict, just as the past 20 years was endless conflict, just as the 20 years before that was endless conflict, just as every year of recorded history has been endless conflict. You have to hide from history to not realize that there always been conflict. Just look at the list of wars and you can see that it keeps going and going and going. Peace is nothing more than one spot of the world taking a break while another part of the world continues the conflict. --Kainaw ^(talk) 03:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That's an exaggeration, but yeah, there will always be war or a 'conflict' somewhere in the world. But will it be significantly greater in the next two decades? I'd rather say after about a few decades. Oil will gradually run out, and though alternative technologieas are already available, some will think that stealing oil will be cheaper. But there's a greater threat. What if the climate change will indeed be as bad as predicted (and so far the expectations have largely come true)? Less predictable weather means there will be bad harvests not just in some place, as we have seen happen so often, but all over the place. Refugees will have no place to go because it's bad everywhere. Shortage of resources is often a reason to go to war, but shortage of the second most important resource all over the world will mean al hell wil break loose. And the most important resource, water, may also become a problem in some places. DirkvdM 08:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The human species is an animal, specifically a primate. Like most other animals, when resources are plentiful and easy to obtain we are predominately peaceful. We are social animals and band together for mutual protection, company and co-operative efforts. In order to maintain the usefulness of the group we work for peace within our group, and that's the basic drive of 'civilization', law, manners, custom, fashion, rules and social mores.

When resources get scarce and/or hard to obtain, the 'civilising' drive is pushed to the back seat and we use more agressive methods to get what we need. The harder things get the more violence will become 'acceptable' or at least understandable and to some extent tolerated, by the army, by police, by 'national security forces' and eventually by individuals and small groups.

At the moment, in many countries, violence is against the law and is frowned on socially because there is plenty and violence threatens people's safety and social peace. When things get rough, violence will become more accepted because we all may have to eventually indulge in it to survive and we don't want to have to judge ourselves too harshly for it. Different times, different rules. Ohanian 23:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

jobs for over 50 s

I have to come out of retirement in the Dallas Tx. area due to medical bills resulting from an injury. I am 52, is there any companys that try to hire people my age? I will try anything that I can physically do. Thanks a lot02:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any DIY stores near you? Thry try to hire older people with knowledge!--Light current 02:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What did you used to do before retirement ? StuRat 04:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I used to work! 8-))--Light current 18:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you had a look on employment websites like, to take a well known example, Monster.com? --Robert Merkel 06:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I can think of at least two things where maturity is an advantage: business and teaching. In business fifthy-somethings give the impression of having experience maturity and competence. Regarding teaching, this also applies, but since in the UK the average schoolteacher only stays in the profession for a year or two, you can still train in your fifthies and have as long a career as anyone else! I would suggest careers that involve giving advice or where maturity is valued (eg rather morbidly the funeral business)

You could also try being a freelance gardener. Here in the UK they earn a lot per hour. It does not have to be skilled gardening work - it could be lawn-mowing, clearing overgrown gardens, etc. They get work by advertising in the local paper and putting leaflets into people letterboxes - or mailboxes as you probably call them in the US. Similar areas could be housecleaning, odd-jobs, moving away rubbish, etc.

You could also try working in a supermarket etc - there was an academic study some time ago which showed that people working in bad jobs were more likely to then get a good job than the unemployed.

Thanks folks!14:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup. People who traditionally have had difficulty finding a job, or finding a job that pays them more what they are worth have traditionally started their own businessed. Many people have faced the issues, including minorities that are discirminated against, immigrants, people blackballed by the government, people discriminated based on their sexual preference, or sexuality and people discriminated based on religion or age. Open a store and sell goods, or sell goods over ebay, or sell services within your area of expertise, or consult for companies that need your area of expertise. Atom 16:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to add that you could be a Man with a van - in the UK these move furniture and other things about which are not big enough for a full pantechnicon, such as students moving. They tend to advertise on small cards at newsagents as well as advertising in local newspapers and the yellow pages. When I used one once, the man with the van got rang up a few times by people seeking to use him. It does involve loading and unloading though.

Who is the most depressing philosopher

I want to read something by a very depressing philosopher, perhaps someone known to be disillusioning in some way, and I'm not sure where to start. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks! Rallyander

Some people think Friedrich Nietzsche is depressing because he said "God is dead," but if (like me) you find that learning and thinking critically are enjoyable, perhaps the only truly depressing "philosopher" is the one who gives up to go watch TV instead. Dar-Ape 02:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I found Thomas Hobbes rather depressing. I read some of is work because of Calvin and Hobbes (just wondering, who is this Hobbes guy). It only took a few hours to decide he wasn't for me. --Kainaw ^(talk) 03:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Now how could the stuffed animal that pounces on Calvin be depressing ? StuRat 04:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC) :-)

I'm not sure if Goëthe qualifies as a philosopher, but one of the most depressing, yet touching stories I've ever read was his The Sorrows of Young Werther. If you ever thought it impossible for a BOOK to make you cry, try this one. Loomis 04:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Goethe would have objected to being considered a philosopher. By the way, there are no dots on the "e". You might spell "Göthe", but that spelling is not customary (also not in Germany). --Lambiam^Talk 08:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I find Søren Kierkegaard very depressing. Anchoress 04:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Rene Descartes - not because of what he says, but the way he says it. Rentwa 10:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What about Schopenhauer? AnonMoos 11:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Albert Camus is kind of a philosopher, right? He's really depressing. Adam Bishop 13:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

woo! Camus! — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

Martin Heidegger, especially his later (i.e. post-Nazi) work, is a major downer. Walter Benjamin was also pretty down in the dumps when the Nazis took power (and killed himself shortly after writing a lot of his major work). And let's not forget Theodor Adorno. --Fastfission 15:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If you'll head in the direction of political philosophy, try Hannah Arendt and The Origins of Totalitarianism. Durova 21:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Supplementary question. It's starting to sound as though all philosophers are depressing. Are there actually any cheerful ones?--Shantavira 07:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, in their own nutty way, Marx and Engels could possibly be considered as cheerful social philosophers, as they predicted that the exploitation of the poor and the working class would eventually evolve into a utopia where all would be equal. Loomis 08:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, far be it from me to preach Jesus, but at least as a "philosopher" he seemed to have a pretty positive outlook as to the ultimate fate of mankind. It depends on who you would qualify as a philosopher. Ghandi, the Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa...all of these people's "philosophies" are/were rather positive, as they tend to focus on the goodness of humankind. Loomis 21:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Eeyore-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 20:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

Are Human Rights mandates or suggestions?

When I said that Human Rights are crap(Human Rights, above), I was under the impression that they are mandates, meaning that they must be in effect, no matter what is best for the society. However, due to the large number of Human Rights proponents, I wondered if maybe I had it wrong, and they are just suggestions which should be followed but can easily be broken with good reason. Please help me with this question. Thanks. --Life 03:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It is my opinion that human rights are a naturalistic fallacy. Human rights are said to be "rights" because they are good. However, there is no basis for the measurement of the goodness. Just consider something as silly as "the right to happiness". What if the thing that makes some individual truly happy is to rape and mutilate little children? Does that person deserve the right to happiness? The whole point is that the pursuit of human rights is based on a false assumption that there is such a thing as a human right. Never is it assumed that there may not be such a thing or proven that there is. --Kainaw ^(talk) 03:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the basics of what you are saying. However, the question I want answered(in the header, sorry :) ) is whether Human Rights are mandates or suggestions. If they were suggestions, then I believe they would agree with what you and I are saying(that a person who is made happy by mutilating children should not be allowed to); however, if they are mandates, then they are clearly bad for society. (As a side note, you seem to assume that it can be "proven" that human rights exist; However, in my experience, human rights only exist insofar as they are enforced.)

--Life 04:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The same is true of any right. I have a legal right not to be murdered in my bed, but the existence of that right doesn't actually prevent some maniac from murdering me. JackofOz 06:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You speak of human rights (or is that Human Rights?) as if they were some fixed set of rules. But they're just the rights humans have on the basis of being human and youcan fill that in whichever way you want. If they're enforced, they're called laws. Or are you talking about the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights? The UN doesn't have an actual (lasting) mandate anywhere, so they're suggestions. DirkvdM 08:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody answer this question directly: Generally, when people in the United States and other Western countries say that they support human rights, do they mean to say that Human Rights should be suggestions(that can be broken with a good reason) or do they mean to say that they should be mandates? Thank you. --Life 20:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

More than a mere suggestion, but less than absolute, I would say. When the human rights of individuals conflict, some compromise must be reached. For example, most people would say parents have the right to keep custody of their kids, but that right can be taken away if they are abusive, thus denying the kids right to be free of abuse. As a general principle, the one causing the conflict (in this case the abusive parents) forfeits their rights. StuRat 20:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd put it this way: if you throw someone you don't like into jail for three years without charge because you think he's committed a crime but you can't prove it, you'll likely get a bagful of mail from Amnesty International and perhaps some not-so-nice news stories in the free press. Carry on that behavior long enough, and toward enough people, and some people somewhere will probably hold public protests against you. You might encounter boycotts or sanctions and those folks at the Nobel committee might give the peace prize award to someone who's become a thorn in your side for saying you really shouldn't do that sort of thing. If you get too carried away the World Court might even bring you up on charges of crimes against humanity. Whether or not it goes nearly that far, a lot of people will hate you. Durova 21:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What I mean by mandate is what StuRat said: that Human Rights can only be broken from conflict with other human rights. What I mean by suggestion is that they can be broken with any good reason. For example, if someone uses the right to free speech to lauch a massive propaganda campaign with the objective of getting people to consume more tobacco and alcohol, then the government would lock him up or prevent him from doing that in some other way, because he is harming the populace. Under these definitions, are Human Rights mandates or suggestions?--Life 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

maybe they are mandatory... because making them just suggestions won't work, will it? though ofcourse, if someone's misusing their right, they can be punished for it...

"The Most Wondrous Book Of All" riddle

During my wanderings, I came across the riddle here: http://markzdanielewski.info/mzdriddle.html The author is Mark Z. Danielewski; his best known book is House of Leaves. Perhaps I am just being dense, but I dont understand what the answer to this riddle is and it's driving me up the wall. Would any fellow Wikipedians set me on the right path here? Is there an answer to this or is it some sort of viral marketing? 1001001 06:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It certainly sounds viralesque. Its a pretty good riddle though. It mentions three different books or magazines, which could be a hint towards viral marketing. However, if I was to take a guess I'd say something pink like "Life".Daniel.thorpe 00:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it has an answer. - Rainwarrior 05:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I figured the answer was the World (or maybe Life). "The world is your exercise-book, the pages on which you do your sums. It is not reality, although you can express reality there if you wish. You are also free to write nonsense, or lies, or to tear the pages." (Richard Bach) --Bookgrrl 22:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Children's book about talking to animals

There was this book that I read and loved as a kid, and which I'm curious to find out about. It involved these kids who went on a trip with their uncle around the world in his hot-air balloon, but the balloon was huge (with different rooms they could live in). Their uncle also had some kind of invention he used so they could talk to animals. They visited the Amazon, and the Australian Outback, and the Nile... all kinds of places. But I can't remember the title or the author, and it's bugging me.

The Fantastic Flying Journey by Gerald Durrell. WP has articles on the book and the author. ---Sluzzelin 10:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I didn't expect anyone to ever have heard of it.

Question concerning Islam and the Muslims

Are the words Islamist and Muslims interchangeable? If one is a Muslim can it be assumed that they are members of the Islamic religion? Conversely can one be a Islamic and not be a Muslim?

What is the root of the word Muslim?Dgrant634@cox.net 15:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)–±

No, the words Islamist and Muslim are definitely not interchangeable. Compare articles on Islamism, Islam, and Muslim. The words "Muslim" and "Islamic" aren't interchangeable either, since "Muslim" (follower of Islam) is also a noun and "Islamic" is not. The etymology of the word Muslim is explained on that page as well.---Sluzzelin 16:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You asked the same question a few days before: #Islamist/Muslim Distinction. --Lambiam^Talk 16:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OOOH, ooh, and 'islamist' and 'islamic' (not actually a word, but used in the west interchangably with muslim) aren't actualy the same thing. Please forgive the sloppy spelling, I'm a wasted-face anon. An islamic person is a muslim person, one who has faith in the oneness and principality of the God Allah (upper-case to denotate the link to the Abrahamc god), and an Islamist is a [neologism] who believes in the propagation of government which holds at its core 'Islamic' (broad view, often parred down depending on the flavor of islamist) values and morals. Not the same...whoot.--24.250.33.247 23:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

NJ

–Thank you in advance for your help...... I am looking for people that was born in new jersey, work there and still live there AND that belongs to the hall of fame. thanks... adriana

New Jersey you say Hmm!Theres this: [3]--Light current 19:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Shrinking Man

I think this is more a movie question than a science question, so here goes: When people shrink in movies, such as The Incredible Shrinking Man or Fantastic Voyage, do the moviemakers ever give consideration to the problem of mass? That is, if a 180 pound man shrinks to the size of a fly, does he still weigh 180 pounds? Obviously, this is not likely, but then, neither is shrinking to the size of a fly. Has any movie ever dealt with this problem? Ben

No. See Suspension of disbelief. —Daniel (‽) 19:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No they dont. THey assume the mass disappears.(wher to we are not told)--Light current 19:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael C. LaBarbera, professor in Organismal Biology, offers some thoughts on this topic in Biology of B-Movie Monsters. Eating, drinking and maintaining body temperature seem to pose a challenge to the Incredible Shrinking Man too. ---Sluzzelin 19:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Then there's the question of what happens to their atoms, are they now proportionally smaller, or is the person now composed of far fewer atoms, molecules, and cells. If so, wouldn't losing most of their brain cells cause a problem ? If the atoms are smaller, they would also need special small atoms to breathe, eat, and drink. StuRat 20:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. THat brings up the interesting? question of: how small ca you be and still not notice your atoms?--Light current 21:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Something like this was asked before. DirkvdM 05:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes things like that are often ignored. Also, sometimes in movies they forget that the velocity of a falling object does not depend on its mass, so shrunken people for instance fall down too slow, and giants too quickly...

See Fantastic Voyage for how Isaac Asimov dealt with problems of this sort in the novelisation of that film that the film itself had glossed over. ColinFine 19:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That bothers you? I'm far more concerned with the working out how to drive off approximately 0.003 seconds after entering my car. How do they do that? And where do they get that mysterious blue light from, that lights up dark bedrooms for the purposes of seeing evil deeds and/or nudity? And why it is that in thrillers anyone ever says they're looking forward to some (near) future event (Xmas, retirement, graduation etc) - don't they know that'll get them killed? And why it is that couples who've just slept with one another feel the need to cover themselves with the duvet/pillow when they get up? And how they always manage to get through first time on the phone, unless the fact that they failed is going to be crucial to the plot. And how they manage, in the most heated of arguments, never to talk at the same time. And a million similar things. --Dweller 23:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No basis in science, I'm sure, but everything shrinks, the atoms themselves, the space between the atoms and of course the mass. I want to know why the hulk can wear Bill Bixby's pants!

Several questions about various editions of Freud's Traumdeutung

I have a couple of questions on the various editions of Freud's Traumdeutung that may prove difficult to answer. As you probably know, Freud himself published several revised editions of the Traumdeutung over the years; however, both collected editions of his works (the Gesamtausgabe and the Studienausgabe) only contain the final edition.

• The first (and probably easiest) question is if there is a genetic edition of the Traumdeutung that gives a quick overview of the changes from one edition to the next.

• The second question is if the section on dreams of nakedness (I don't have an English translation of Freud, so I don't know if that's the exact term used in English - in German, it is "Nacktheitstraum", the section is a subsection of "Verlegenheitstraum") was already present in the first edition of the Traumdeutung - I have found conflicting statements on this, and as I said, the collected works are no help here since they only contain the final edition of the Traumdeutung.

• A third (only indirectly related) question deals with Derrida's work on Freud: in Purloiner of the truth, he makes some statements to the effect that according to Freud, all dreams are either based on the idea of killing the father or having sex with the mother (Derrida uses Freud's term Traumstoff in that context), but as usual, he does not quote anything directly from Freud. The two motives of killing the father and fucking the mother are prevalent enough in Freud, but I could not locate anything in Freud's works where he explicitly says that these are the only two basic motives for all dreams. Is there a place anywhere in Freud where he actually makes such a strong statement, or is this just a misquote/unfounded statement by Derrida? I wouldn't be at all surprised if Derrida deliberately bent his reading of Freud to fit his own line of argument, but it would be nice to know for sure.

Thanks in advance, Ferkelparade π 21:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Horentine

Please explain "Horentine" and how it relates to history. Purchased a religious statuette with the tag explaining it to be a "HOrentine COllection". Have researched online to no avail. Thankyou. mcrisg

Have another look, are you sure it does not say "Florentine"? MeltBanana 23:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Florentine--Light current 00:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought Florentine meant "made with spinach".  ;) User:Zoe|(talk) 21:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Only in culinary contexts. There's more to life than food, though. JackofOz 00:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought it meant "made by Florence Henderson". :-) StuRat 02:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I think corn was her specialty. JackofOz 07:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and, in particular, corn oil. StuRat 07:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

September 3

Human Rights Again

Sorry for asking this yet again, but nobody answered my final question: Generally, when someone says that they support human rights, do they mean to say it should be the basis of all law(that human rights can only be violated in order to protect other human rights), or that it is a good supplement, but other laws can overrule it with a good reason? --Life 02:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We answered your question as well as we can, whether you were happy with the answer or not. We don't know what everybody thinks, we can only tell you what we think. You shouldn't repost as long as your old Q is still listed on this page. StuRat 03:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Heres the real deal, HR is the realm of the UN as they have a HR division that handels that for mankind. Everthing else is bogus PR for politicians. Note to fetus fans and animal lovers HR applies when you are born, not concieved, not when you are a bun in the oven, born. And animals dont have then either. Happy now? Good,-----Hobgoblin

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is just that: a declaration, just like the Declaration of Independence. As such they do not have the force of law. For instance, the proclamation that Life is an unalienable Right does not stop the United States from putting people to death. Individual countries may have laws or constitutional clauses guaranteeing human rights, such as the United States Bill of Rights. For more information I suggest the Human rights portal. --Lambiam^Talk 20:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Life, the thing is that in Britain we never had a written constitution. Most democratic countries did and it included some rights which were guaranteed. In Britain parliament could in theory pass any law it liked without bothering about peoples individual rights. For example, the right to free speech didnt have so much legal basis in Britain as in America. We have very strict libel laws which mean journalists/whistleblowers have to be much more careful in Britain. Arguably those very strong laws breach people's right to free speech and would not be possible in America.

The Human Rights Act in Britain is a way of bringing us into line with the US, European countries, etc, and have a list of rights all in one place. In a way, its a pity that Labour chose the European version rather than the American one, because some people hate Europe so much they are automatically prejudiced against it, whereas those same people would have no problem with exactley thesame text if it wasnt called European. Jameswilson 23:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Plus, although not anything like as strong or effective, don't forget the Bill of Rights 1689 --Mnemeson 23:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that, in all of the discussions about HR lately, it hasn't really come up that a big part of the reason to draft guidelines is the effort towards antidiscrimination, yeah? It was brought up that the UN's declaration of human rights was a direct answer to the holocaust. It seems we're still hashing out what we mean by the human in human rights, the same way that every American history teacher loves to talk about the fact that all men created equal around here were (back then) specifically white men with land. We're trying to get away from that sort of thing...and genocide based on religion or skin color or sexual orientation or class, etc. All of this utilitarianism is great and everything (how do you objectively quantify things like total good and total happiness within a population?), but does it talk about race at all? I'm off to read the article, I s'pose.--24.250.33.247 00:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Websites for political discussion

Could someone please recommend to me some websites for discussion of political topics (including utopian topics) that is not dominated by libertarian and/or pro-free-market opinions? It would be a big help, and I thank you in advance for your answers. EDIT: Also please make sure it is not dominated by pro-animal-rights or religious type people. Thanks!!! --Life 02:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Abovetopsecret.com (this is IMO a little out there, but I have found many a substantiated political discussion here) ChowderInopa 03:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo provides: Campaigns Wikia. I haven't yet looked in to it, though, so I don't know if it meets your criteria. I've also got my own political wiki, but that's in Dutch and in part based on a liberal/free market ideology. DirkvdM 05:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on Dirk's views, I'm guessing that would be the "donate a nuke to a poor terrorist" site. But, being in Dutch, it could very well say something even worse. StuRat 09:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's primarily Canadian, but I recommend rabble. Also here on WP: rabble.ca. Hardly any animal rights activists and libertarians. Anchoress 05:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're interested in US-oriented political discussions from an unashamedly liberal (in the US sense) perspsective, Daily Kos is one of the best known. --Robert Merkel 23:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I guess my description was a bit vague, but I am fairly authoritarian(EDIT: not extremely, but relatively extremely compared to most americans), and I was looking for a website favoring that.

For example:

-I believe in government-controlled industries and a government-controlled economy.

-I strongly oppose the hippie movement(except I agree with environmentalism)

-I am against freedom of religion

-I am generally in favor of freedom of speech, but compared to most americans I am "against" it

-I believe human rights in general should be "suggestions"

-I am against democracy, though I am not in favor of dictatorships nor totalitarian regimes

--Life 02:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What does being opposed to freedom of religion mean ? You want everybody to be forced to follow some particular religion ? Which one ? Would you imprison those who refuse ? StuRat 06:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're opposed to democracy and totalitarian regimes, what are you in favor of, instead ? StuRat 06:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You're views are rather difficult to interpret. My best guess though is that you'd probably like guys like Lenin, Kruschev and Brezhnev. Stalin though would probably be a bit much for you. A strong clue was your use of the words "utopian" and "authoritarian". As for your views, these three guys would probably agree with you on most of them. 1) They all believed in government-controlled industries and a government-controlled economy, 2) They would surely be opposed to the hippie movement, (though I'm not sure what they'd think of your environmentalist "twist") 3) They were definitely against freedom of religion (except for that particular religion called "atheism"), 4) As you, they would definitely claim to be in favour of freedom of speech, just not as "completely" as the American conception (translation: you're free to say anything you want, just as long as the government doesn't disagree with it), 5) They were completely devoted to human rights in principle, just look at the Constitution of the USSR. However, in practice these rights were regarded at best as "suggestions", and thereby largely ignored. 6) Finally, they were all obviously against democracy, but unlike Stalin, I wouldn't qualify them as "dictators". I'd say they would much better be described as sort of "CEO's" of a completely undemocratic, authoritarian political apparatus. Congratulations Life! Like it or not you're practically the dictionary definition of a Soviet Communist! With that in mind, I'm sure you can find plenty of forums to discuss your views. Loomis 22:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

US Open Rescheduling

With all the recent rain at the US Open (Tennis) in Flushing Meadows, many matches have been postponed. Now, Im curious as to two things. First, do the tournament managers decide to squeeze all the missed matches into the next day, or what? Especially when there are multiple days of rain, this boggles me. Then, ticketing. If someone has tickets, to, say, the Finals (to be played on a Sunday), and the rain causes this day to be postponed, would the ticketholders automatically get into the match the next day, for instance the Monday or Tuesday? Or would they need to go through Red tape to replace their tickets?Thanks so much, ChowderInopa 02:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the rules of the tournament. Wimbledon, which is notorious for rain, has different refund levels - less than half an hour of play, and less than two hours of play (as I recall). Anything more than that and nothing back. They try to catch up as best as possible (this can be both easier and harder later on - on the one hand, more people have been knocked out, so there are more free courts to catch up on, on the other there are fewer days in which to do it, and they need rest time), and in the unusual event where the finals take place on a day after the tournament was supposed to end, it's free entry on a first-come, first-served basis. Whether or not Flushing Meadows use the same rules, I don't know I'm afraid. --Mnemeson 03:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Soul Kid #1 "We got more bounce in California"

"Bounce" by Soul Kid has in the last year become my most hated song because it sucks penis. I have been looking EVERYWHERE for a music video of it, but cannot find it. Could anyone help me out? By the way, to make sure we are talking the same song, the catch phrase is: "We got more bounce in California, than all y'all combined!!!" Thank you so much, ChowderInopa 03:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

MOBILE PHONE MEMORY

Hi, I have a Sagem MYX6-2 and I would like to know if the phone can handle a 512MB or 1GB memory card. I have heard that if u use a 512MB or more it will "lag" the phone, am I right? I plan on storing music and pics on the phone. THANKS JON

The is the Reference Desk for questions on the topic of Humanities. A better place for this question might be the Computing, or Miscellaneous desks. —Daniel (‽) 08:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say Computing, although a case could be made for Science. Definitely not here, though. StuRat 08:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Movie title ?

I saw a made for TV movie (I think it was), maybe 5 years ago, where a small prop plane crashed, and the rescuers found it was loaded with cash and the passengers were all dead. They decided to keep the cash for themselves, but the money gradually turned them evil, killing off witnesses and each other. There was snow on the ground for most of the movie. Any idea what the title was ? StuRat 08:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like A Simple Plan, although probably isn't. The search-films-by-plot thing on IMDB might be useful here. -- the GREAT Gavini 08:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's it ! Thanks. StuRat 09:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey StuRrat, just as I recommended in the topic beneath this one, IMDB has a special forum just for questions like that (movies of which you don't know the title anymore):[4]Evilbu 21:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a hard time picturing that working very well. Besides, you have to register to use it. StuRat 06:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't. You just start a topic in which you give as much relevant information (the race of certain characters, when you saw it, language, landscapes, in colour or not, length,..) as possible. If you don't get an answer within 24 hours, bump it. Do make a decent title, the board is full of topics entitled "omfgh can ya tell me wath da film is goign copmletly insaneee!!". If only it were ruled like Wikipedia... But yes, you do have to register.Evilbu 15:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Spanish film ?

I saw a short Spanish film in which two children are playing. The boy drops something on the girl's head and knocks her out. He runs home, thinking he's killed her. As the hours pass the community becomes more frantic and boy becomes more and more guilty until finally he eats some poisonous berries.

Then the girl returns with a bump on her head. The boy is begining to succumb to the berries and asks her 'Will you tell my mum I ate the berries?' and she says 'No!' Had me crying my eyes out! Anyone know its name? Rentwa 15:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds a bit twisted but interesting. However, there is a chance you won't find an answer here, as this is not a movie board. I can only recommed asking a question like this(= a movie you've seen but you don't know the title) on this fine IMDB board "I need to know". [5]

Ta! I could also try esp.wikipedia. It does sound a little twisted, like Romeo and Juliet for infants! :) Rentwa 08:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So who dies? I can't take the suspense.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  15:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's how it ends! Too bad, isn't it? Rentwa 09:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is Adam's speech censored?

Why is it impossible to get the full transcript of Adam Yahiye Gadahn speech on 2nd Sep 2006? After all he spoke in English. Does not the west believe in Freedom of Speech? Or is it Freedom of Speech for me but not for my enemies. Ohanian 09:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is not for those who advocate murder/terrorism. Does he fall into that category ? StuRat 09:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Apparently he got to speak, so he wasn't censored. Maybe there was simply no one who actually recorded it and/or did the transcription. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The ideological platform

In short, the “Azzam” video reconfirms clearly, in an English language that academic translators won’t be able to distort, that al Qaeda’s movement worldwide and in the United States is seeking total annihilation or conversion of the enemy: American and other democracies.

That's why they want to censor it, to prevent English speaking people from hearing the undistorted version. Ohanian 09:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if it's being censored or not, but a lot of it is available for convenient viewing on the internet. I for one am grateful for a voice that appears to be able to speak in a rational manner. It is much easier to communicate and have productive dialog with individuals who compose themselves well, though what's really needed is a questions forum.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

On that video, he's advocating murdering civilians, and "debates" whether they should intentionally murder women and children, too. I see no need to talk with anyone with such views, just kill him, before he gets a chance to do what he threatens to do. StuRat 05:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's possible that some believe that Gadahn's speech may contain coded signals to terrorist operatives in the United States, and thus not broadcasting the entire videotape, just paraphrasing it, could help prevent the operatives from receiving their signals. See [6] for more on that. --Metropolitan90 00:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Art!

hey im wondering if you could please answer these two questions for me.?

How did art come about??

When did people begin making art?

it would be much appreciated if you could please try and answer them,,,thanks heaps luv xkaylax ←XXkaylaXx 09:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)→

Have you read the article on art? Or the history of art? They may be of help. Dismas|^(talk) 10:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Assuming you mean visual art: Pre-historic art offers some insights and references regarding the second question. As for your first question, it might be older than art history and also depends on what we define as 'art'. See cultural anthropology, art, and aesthetics for starters. ---Sluzzelin 10:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

thank you heaps

James Reeves' children's poems

I am trying to find out something about one of James Reeves' children's poems, but my search has come up with nothing. I do not even know to which poem it relates but here goes: I need to find out what creature in James Reeve's poem is found "...in mellow orchards rich and ripe..." and in which poem is it found.

Any help would be greatly apprecited!

Many thanks! Vic Laville Viclaville 11:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't find anything with that exact quote. The closest poems I found were:

"I turned and looked on heaven awhile, where now

The moor-faced sunset broadened with red light;

Threw high aloft a golden bough,

And seemed the desert of the night

Far down with mellow orchards to endow."

George Meredith, from The Orchard and the Heath

"What is yellow? pears are yellow,

Rich and ripe and mellow."

Christina Rossetti from What is Pink?

I found one mention of orchards in a poem by James Reeves:

"Rockets and Roman candles make

An orchard of the sky,

Where magic trees their petals shake

Upon each gazing eye."

James Reeves from Fireworks

---Sluzzelin 12:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Upon rereading your question, I guess it could be from Reeves's Prefabulous Animiles where he describes creatures such as the catipoce, the chickamingus, the hippocrumb and the snitterjipe. I couldn't find any of these poems online. Sorry. ---Sluzzelin 13:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it is the snitterjipe. apple-eater with luminous eyes, tickling whiskers ---Sluzzelin 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

1968 air lingus crash/shootdown?

I see Brits read wikinaut stuff too, goodie, anybody out there remember the Irish sea crash of a passenger plane that may have been accidently (or not) shot down near a m.o.d. missal base in 68. Come on chaps tell us what you think. The offical secrets act never thought of the the internet. Take a chance. Pay no mind to those nasty GCHQ/MI5 goons at your door. That incident seems to be oddly unreported in the historical records.14:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about Aer Lingus Flight 712. Here is what the Irish Department of Transport released to the press in 2002 regarding this incident. ---Sluzzelin 15:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Official Secrets Act covers all mediums of communication, but is only binding on those who are specifically subject to it and talking about material they have obtained "professionally". I have no idea why you're waving the name around as though you think it means something. Shimgray | talk | 23:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Blue Oyster Cult Lyrics

Could someone please update the BOC page and provide specific information and explanation about songs and lyrics. Many of the songs have lyrics which aren't immedietely decipherable seem to refer to events or myths of which I have little knowledge.For eg. on the interlinking of songs by phrases and sentences common to both like in 'transmaicon' and 'the red and the black' and the oftenly used address "ladies, fish and gentlemen" . PLease reply on these specific details immediately. What is the song "shooting Shark" about ? Thank You

Here is quite an interesting site offering song interpretations unfortunately it only has four examples of BOC lyric http://www.songfacts.com/search_fact.php?combinedartists=Blue+Oyster+Cult&-Search.x=9&-Search.y=4. BTW The Red and the Black is a book. MeltBanana 15:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, lyrics are a touchy spot on Wikipedia, because some individuals feel that reprinting lyrics enfringes copywrite laws. You can only talk indirectly about the content of songs for so long.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  15:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

the chase

Hello , id like to ask someone if they could find a copy of the painting The Chase by Bernard Sumner. I would like to be able to print out a large copy of it so I could draw it myself . This painting was brought to my attention by reading a book called The Forest by a Mr. Rutherford, which is about the New forest's history , but the picture on the back cover is too small to be able to reproduce properly, as I cannot see the detail very well. I would really appreciate it if someone could help me with this. Thank you very much .

Kelly

I didn't know Bernard Sumner painted too (or is it a different Bernard Sumner?). At any rate I didn't find any artwork of his online. There's a painting by Richard Ansdell titled The Chase. Maybe this is the one you were looking for?---Sluzzelin 18:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologise about this. The painters name is actually Leighton Sumner. I have absolutely no idea why I had called him Bernard I wasn't thinking of New Order at the time. Seriously though it would be a real joy for me to be able to draw this painting. Thanks again if any can help. Kelly.

Where is the Ditch family in Williamsburg history in the 1800's?

The Ditch family was a popular family in Williamsburg in the 1800's. In fact they had their own schoolhouse west of the city. It is now a home. It is near the Baker Farm where many of the Ditch family lived and died.

SEVERAL OF THE DITCH FAMILY ARE BURIED IN A CORN FIELD ON THE BAKER FARM (I thought this was illegal) . The tombstones are piled on the farm near the cornfield. I have pictures of them.

Mr Baker took me to this stop several years ago, but has since died. He had records of the DITCH family and copies are now in the hands of a Ditch relative in North Carolina.

I have a copy of the members of the Ditch Family who are buried there.

Your report mentions nothing about the DITCH Family, yet they are in census reports of that time. As far as the first schoolhouse in Williamsburg, I question the validity of any other being first but the DITCH schouse.

How could the researchers write an article and leave out an important family, who wer responsible for building the trown of Williamsburg?

....

Wikipedia's coverage of topics depends, to a large extent, on the whims of its contributors, including you. Not every individual who meets our eligibility criteria has an article. If members of the Ditch family are notable, you can add articles about them yourself (though these days you need to get an account to start an article). Be aware that for a topic to be covered on Wikipedia, it has to be, to some level, notable, and the information in the articles verifiable from external sources (books, newspaper articles, and so on). See WP:BIO for some guidance on who is and isn't an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a geneological database. --Robert Merkel 23:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Postmodernism and Logic

Can anyone tell me any people who have written about how logic fits into postmodernism. In particular, perhaps, can any of the four primary rules of logic (Contradictions, excluded middle, identity and inference) be considered as universal. --Kiltman67 18:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by postmodernism? I can't see how logic fits into architecture, although I can see how it may figure in literature or music.

Re universality, Buddhism explicitly contradicts the excluded middle - 'neither it is, nor it is not' is the normal meaning of the 'Middle Way' between extremes, although it's often interpreted as 'moderation in all things', which it also means (eg the Buddha rejecting asceticism prior to his Enlightenment, but didn't indulge his desires either). Rentwa 00:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant postmodernism in a philosophical sense. Thanks for telling me about the excluded middle, I wasn't aware that Buddhists would in effect refute the claim. I'm interested in the other three which would appear more difficult to refute and anybody who's written more widely on how logic fits into postmodern thought. --Kiltman67 18:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The basis of our occidental philosophy is taken down by discoveries in physics such as quantic laws, including contradiction (see Schrodinger's cat). All we can say is that philosophy has to evolve ; did a current, named "postmodernism", talk about that, I do not know. -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Better an occidental philosophy than an accidental one. JackofOz 22:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You sure are negative to those who write in, we ask for help not criticism.

basics of Iraqi insurgency, especially suicide bombings

Hello,

it seems some users dislike my use of "dummies" so I use "basics":)

More seriously : I've been reading through Wikipedia articles but I'm still in doubt. As I understand it the Iraqi insurgency is complicated : there are Sunni milita, supporters of Hussein, Shia militia, Al Qaeda,....

But who are these men (or women) who target civilians(possibly by suicide bombing)? And who do they target? I've heard stories of men driving a car full of explosives right into a group of playing young boys. Are the acts by Sunnis against Shia muslims or vice versa, or does it really happen that fundamentalists are willing to target civilians in their OWN group (and if so, why?)

Thanks.Evilbu 20:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Al Qaeda in Iraq group may very well be willing to target ANY Iraqi civilians, just as long as it makes the US look bad because "all those deaths of civilians occurred while it was under US occupation". They don't care what happens to Iraqis, and would be quite happy if a bloody civil war killed every last Iraqi. Now for the goals of the other insurgency groups:

• Sunnis: Gain control of Iraq, as under Saddam, and establish another military dictatorship. If that means killing every other Iraqi, that's fine.

• Secular Shiites: Gain control of Iraq, using the current government structure. If that means killing every other Iraqi, that's fine.

• Fundamentalist Shiites: Gain control of Iraq, and establish an Iran style theocracy. If that means killing every other Iraqi, that's fine.

• Kurds: Achieve independence. If that means killing every other Iraqi, that's fine.

StuRat 22:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I recall news reports of, for instance, a tennis coach getting shot and killed by fundamentalists because he was wearing shorts. Speaking broadly, the Kurds have fairly relaxed customs of religious observance, so the line may blur between ethnic fighting and religious killings. There is also the chance that certain suicide bombers specifically target one individual who collaborates with the occupation government and the deaths of other nearby civilians amount to (from the bomber's perspective) collateral damage. Durova 22:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I could be wrong but the story of the "madman suicide bomber" running his car bomb into a group of children didn't seem to target any specific person. StuRat, thanks for your overview, but where are the former Baathists in there?Evilbu 23:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Ba'athists are Sunni Muslims - 'want to regain their control' category --Mnemeson 23:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and they don't particularly seem to have the goal of putting Saddam back as the leader. I suspect that each faction has their own leader who they want to be the new dictator of Iraq. StuRat 02:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yay! So as soon as the civil war's over, the... err... civil war can begin. Sometimes, I think the only way Miss World will be able to get world peace is if she's a nuclear physicist, and persuades the sun to swallow us up ahead of schedule... --Mnemeson 02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

dictionary-thesaurus

How do I access the dictionary and thesaurus?

                              Fred DiDomenico

Remove from your shelf. Open to the letter that begins the word you desire. If you don't have one on your shelf, are you looking for dictionary.com ? --Mnemeson 23:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps the Wiktionary? --Maxamegalon2000 01:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest OneLook.com for a dictionary and Merriam-Webster for a thesaurus (although they have a dictionary, too). StuRat 01:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Is he talking about MS Word by any chance?--Light current 03:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Could be. In which case that annoying Clippy could be good for something. RTFM. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

September 4

there was a battle of world war 2 the was balanced??

It would help us if you stated your question a little more clearly. JackofOz 02:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

For example if a take the battle fo ww2, and look at the numbers of soldiers that were there, types of tanks, ships, and planes, what weapons the soldiers where using..... What batlle you should call that was balanced, (counting this and others aspects of the battle).

Nope. I still cant get it! 8-(--Light current 03:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think he wants to know 'Which individual battle in WW2 was the most evenly balanced, with each side posessing the same level of firepower and manpower?'. That said, I haven't a clue of the answer. --Mnemeson 03:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, is this that I was talking about.

Battle of the bulge ?--Light current 03:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The question is actually a lot tougher than it seems. There's much more involved than simple troop numbers, artillery power, etc. Often these factors take a back seat to far more important factors like training, strategy, technological superiority, troop morale, positioning, weather, the differing level of losses tolerable by either side, the differing willingness of each side to violate the "rules of war" etc. These factors play an enormous part in who wins and who loses. For example, one side could have a 10 million troops with a million pieces of artillery, each with a range of 5km. The other side can have only 100,000 troops, and only 10,000 pieces of artillery, each one with a range of 10km. In this situation, though one army may be outmanned and outgunned 100 to 1, they may still have a better chance of winning. All they'd have to do is stay put, out of range of the enemy. But this may be a bit of an oversimplification.

Perhaps a better example is the German/Soviet battle for the eastern front. Certain elements were clearly in favour of the Germans, and certain others in favour of the Soviets. The Soviets ultimately won for a variety of reasons, most having little to do with the raw "power" of each respective army. Perhaps the Germans may have had superiour firepower, better troop morale, better training, better troop discipline, better strategy, the element of surprise, etc. Yet the Soviets had a higher tolerance for casualties, and were far better acquainted with the field of battle. Apparently, the Germans had neglected to take into account such factors as the extreme cold, as well as the geographical fact that Russia was so massive that the maintenance of a link for resupply of essentials was far more difficult than they had originally calculated. These are examples of the main factors that determine who wins and who loses, far more important than raw troop numbers etc. As such it would be impossible to determine which battle was the most balanced. The number of variables is far too numerous. Loomis 01:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You said: "determine which battle was the most balanced. The number of variables is far too numerous." I dont want the most balanced just one or more balanced battles of ww2, donest need to be the most balanced one.

In that case any battle that lasted more than a few days would qualify as balanced. That would be pretty much all of them. Perhaps a better question would be: "please name some of the very few completely one-sided battles fought in WWII". All that comes to mind (and depending if you would even call these "battles" in any sense of the word because in some cases they were so one sided that the other side didn't even put up a fight) would be Hitler's early "conquests" in the Rheinland, Austria, the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and his rather quick victory over France. Most of the rest of the battles, (in Europe,) the ones that lasted weeks or even months would seem to be rather "balanced". Loomis 21:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Number of Humans Since the Beginning

I am looking for an approximate figure of the number of human beings who have lived since the beginning of time. Thank you. ƒˆ®´∫ˆ®∂†∑ø

This question has been asked here before. It was either 10 billion people have ever lived, or 10 billion people have died. I think that 10 billion is the total of everyone who has ever lived, including the 6 billion alive today. Viva La Vie Boheme!

It depends on how you define "human being", but it's definitely larger than 10 billion, probably about 100 billion. See [7] and [8]. —Keenan Pepper 06:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"36 billion" is in my head from somewhere, possibly Cecil Adams. —Tamfang 06:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the previous discussion on this, but one big question was what you consider to be 'living'. Very few fertilised eggs make it to birth. So if you exclude abortions and stillbirths that would make a huge difference. Also, the number of babies that didn't make it to their third year is probably greater than the number that did. This has been largely solved in most parts of the world (except much of Africa), resulting in the overpopulation we have now. DirkvdM 08:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You are asking the wrong question. A much better question to ask is the reverse question of how many human have been born from today going back to point X in the past. This question does not require the definition of what is a human. As you strext point X further and further into the past , you would probably find a large but fixed number. Ohanian 22:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be easy to look at the world population today and overestimate the total number who have ever lived. See.Integrate under a theoretical growth curve (exponential? geometric?) to find the area. Here are the data which came with it: year world population (millions) -10000 4 -8000 5 -7000 5 -6000 5 -5000 5 -4000 7 -3000 14 -2000 27 -1000 50 -750 60 -500 100 -400 160 -200 150 0 170 200 190 400 190 500 190 600 200 700 210 800 220 900 226 1000 310 1100 301 1200 360 1250 400 1300 360 1340 443 1400 350 1500 425 1600 545 1650 470 1700 600 1750 790 1800 980 1850 1260 1900 1650 1910 1750 1920 1860 1930 2070 1940 2300 1950 2400 1960 3020 1970 3700 1974 4000 1980 4430 1987 5000 1990 5260 2000 6070 Analyses of genetic variabliity hint at a very small population of modern humans tens of thousands of years ago. What I like to see is a clear exposition of the assumptions and the error limits on the estimate. Edison 19:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul Davies in About Time page 260 says "about 10% of people who have ever lived are living now" This would mean about 60 billion, but I haven't checked the references cited above by Keenan Pepper, so that looks like a good place to check. Just thought I'd pop this in as an extra curiosity. The Mad Echidna 21:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Like I meant to point out before, that's the population at a given moment, which excludes those who would have lived at that moment if they would not have died as a child. Until about 150 years ago that was a considerable amount (though I don't know how many precisely). Also, say the population was on average 150 million between 1000 and 2000. With an average lifespan of 50 years that would mean 3 billion people (counting in the childbirths would more than double that). Suppose this is exponential with an exponent of 2 (I hope I'm saying this right :) ), then there would be that number for every doubling, so that would then be 30 billion for the last 1024 times 1000 years. That's just one million years. The human article speaks of 6.5 million years of evolution (separate from chimps). So that would bring the total number close to 100 billion. This is assuming the average human life span has always been 50 years. DirkvdM 07:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my answer above was incorrect. Integrating the population curve would only give "people years" and an answer for the people who lived would require factoring in the lifespan of stone age hunter gatherers, then the lifespan of early farmers, then the lifespan during the great early empires etc, etc, with the industrial revolution and modern medicine producing longer lifespan in the developed countries. In the 20th century the world population increased because people kept having about as many children as they did when infant mortality was extreme. But in developed countries, the birth rate drops to actually achieve negative population growth. Edison 14:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Regions of the United States

Which 2 states make up the Pacific Northwest?

Which state has the largest population in the Pacific Region?

The Pacific Northwest is generally considered to be Oregon and Washington. I would imagine that California has the highest in the entire Pacific region. If you meant just the Pacific Northwest, I would have to say Washington, since it has Seattle, Spokane and Olympia. Though Oregon has Portland and Salem, that is probably not enough to out do Washington. A good idea, though would be to look at the articles of Oregon and Washington (state). Glad to be able to do you homework for you. Viva La Vie Boheme!

What? do these kids sleep thro the lessons or what?--Light current 04:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're not paying for them you do. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

See Pacific Northwest. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

BIRTHDAYS

Hi, can u recommend any sites where u can find birthdays of celebs or famous people! THANKS JON

• How about here on Wikipedia? Just type in their name (with capitalization) and hit 'Go'. If we know their birthday, it's usually in the first line of the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're interested in who was born on a particular day, September 4th say, you just type 'September 4' in the search box and hit 'Go'. Then scroll down to Births to see who was born on that day. ---Sluzzelin 10:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Mesopotamian "kids these days" tablet

In the past few years I remember seeing various mentions (e-mails, internet forum posts, and just random statements from people) of a supposed ancient clay tablet from some early Mesopotamian civilization (I think it's most often "Sumerian," but lots of people get those details confuse) that supposedly is a rant equivalent to the modern day "kids are worthless layabouts" speech. Reportedly it complains about how children didn't respect their parents and were all criminals and so on and so forth. Try as I might, however, I can't find any legitimate source. Does anyone know if this is real, or if it is one of the many wild internet stories that regularly circulate? Eteq 08:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like it's made up, to me. Writing was difficult enough back then, using clay tablets, that you wouldn't do it unless you had something more important to say. StuRat 09:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no difficulty believing this. The realization that civilization is going to go down the drains due to the undisciplined character of youths is a message of the utmost concern and importance, and no efforts must be spared to get it out. --Lambiam^Talk 09:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I wonder if it's related to something that went around in emails about 15 years ago. It was a polemic about worthless teenagers, with the punchline 'Who do you think wrote it? Not Nancy Reagan, not Jerry Falwell, but...' either Socrates or Aristotle, can't remember which. It was very funny, I wonder if it was apocryphal? Might have been Plato. Anchoress 10:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous apocryphal quotes of this kind floating around online. Some are attributed to Sumerian clay tablets, some to ancient Egyptian priests. Similarly, I found one pessimistic quote regarding youth on four different websites with four different alleged authors (Socrates(?), Plato, Aristotle, Hesiod). I'm sure there have always been people complaining about youth. But enlightened and educated people usually have more to say than just some unspecific rant. What about the famous quote "Youth is (truly?) wasted on the young"? Usually it's attributed to GBS, but I've seen Oscar Wilde given as its author too.---Sluzzelin 10:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Extended to 'Life is wasted on the living...' by a Ghost in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, also something like 'The denunciation of the morals of the young is a necessary part of the hygeine of the old' by Tacitus I think. Rentwa 11:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I like to have quotations ready for every occasion. —They give one's ideas so pat, and save one the trouble of finding expression adequate to one's feelings.

— Robert Burns, letter to Agnes McLehose, 14th January 1788 MeltBanana 15:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A Roman author expressed similar sentiments - it may have been Cicero.

Stupid Roman Roads

Why on earth are there Roman Roads in Scotland??? (there are according to this webpage (which is a link from the wikipedia page on 'roman roads in scotland'): http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/map_romans_roads_in_britain.htm) Well i thought that the Romand never went into Scotland because of those nasty, un-civillized Scots, or Picks or whatever so why are their roads up there? I dont suppose there there because of trade as they wernt the freindliest people to eachover and if the scots just coppied the idea and building tekniques (oh no i cant remember how to spell!) then they wont be roman roads. Also the Roads are concentrated in the boarders and the glasgow, edingburgh area but theres a stretch near perth ( so obviously they havent just got a bit lost! ) And also again the map says something about the roman towns (or roman activitie in them) and there are lots in scotland.

thankyou...--84.69.73.1 10:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's strange. I know the Romans build Hadrian's wall to keep those Scots out. This is a map:[9] It's definitely more southern than cities like Glasgow.... Maybe they built those roads, but it the end they realized that they couldn't handle those tribes and gave up some of their ground? Evilbu 13:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Basically, yes.

"Although the Romans had failed to conquer Caledonia they attempted to maintain control through military outposts and built a few roads. They were eventually forced to withdraw, admitting that Rome was too distant to maintain any presence in such a strong nation."

History_of_Scotland#Roman_invasion

TheMadBaron 13:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Romans certainly pushed much further into Scotland than Hadrian's wall, there is the Antonine Wall which encompasses most of the other roads. Also historians don't usually think of Hadrian's wall as a barrier to stop anyone, more of a way to control trade. MeltBanana 14:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

See also Roman Britain#Occupation and retreat from southern Scotland. --Shantavira 14:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Communism/Nazism

On an Internet forum, I saw someone using a signature picture titled "Communist Prinny", and sporting a penguin with a Nazi armband saying "Nein, dood!". Now AFAIK communism and nazism are different things. Not only is communism a left-wing and nazism a right-wing ideology, but weren't they also direct enemies at some point? This makes me think that whoever drew the picture only knows that both of them are "those evil thingies in Europe" and got them mixed up. JIP | Talk 11:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The signature picture is borrowed from the video game Disgaea: Hour of Darkness. I agree that equaling communists to Nazis is careless. But you'd have to ask the creator Takehito Harada. ---Sluzzelin 12:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it was photoshopped in by another person, which means asking the original creator of the work is fairly useless. (However, if he knew about the association and didn't like it, he could probably sue that person to the ground.) ColourBurst 04:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it is often said that they are two extremes actually touching each other (both representing totalitarianism and repression). (German Nazis and Soviet communists did fight bloody battles in the Second World War, but amazingly they had a non-agression pact before that)....Or maybe the creator was indeed ignorant....Evilbu 12:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It does show you how seriously people take communism nowadays though.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  14:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a good point. Yes, Hitler did actually have communists exterminated in concentration camps. However, for some reason, people always associate the two. Most people get dictatorship and communism confused and incorrectly use it interchangeably. You are, indeed, right. Nazis were direct enemies with communists, and Nazis are not communists. Viva La Vie Boheme!

Remember that Nazis were "National Socialists". Lots of people equate Socialism with Communism. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's true, communism and Nazism were at odds with each other and it would be a mistake to confuse the two. However, I can't agree with the comment that "most people get dictatorship and communism confused and incorrectly use it interchangeably". While confusing communism with Nazism is an obvious mistake, I wouldn't say the same about confusing communism with dictatorship, as every communist regime that has ever existed has been a dictatorship as well. True, the two words have distinct meanings, but to assume that a communist state is a dictatorship wouldn't be all that innacurate at all. Loomis 00:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you feeding a troll here? (Unbeknownst to him, so I don't know if this counts.) No-one in their right mind would mix up Nazism and Communism. Then again, he also mixed up German ('nein') and Dutch ('dood'), so maybe he is indeed a bit simple. DirkvdM 06:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That thought occurred to me too, but I think dood is "dude", as opposed to the Dutch for "dead". -- the GREAT Gavini 15:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Green Knight

In English literature, we can find the story of king Arthur and the Green Knight. The Green Knight was called such because he was all green. Can anyone tell me if it's true that his eyes were red? Therefore, he wasn'tentirely green. Thank you in advance for your answer.

There is no mention of red eyes in the poem.--Shantavira 18:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure this isn't a homework question. Ah well if it is I would urge you to read the poem, even in translation, there are some top quality naughty bits later in the work.

304 and runischly his rede yȝen he reled aboute

It also mentions gold spurs and thread so no he wasn't all green. MeltBanana 22:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Democracy in America, by Alexis De Tocqueville

What is the signifance and relavancy of this writing?

To show you how to do your own homework. JIP | Talk 16:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Must...refrain...from repeating my previous reply to a homework question which connected Fort Boyard, the Monty Python Killer Rabbit, Stonehenge, the Great Fire of the London and the disappearance of the great supercontinent. Evilbu 21:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

But that answer kicked @$$! It totally put mine to shame ;-) --Mnemeson 21:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you perhaps the nameless user who replied then?[10]Evilbu 22:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the IP address one, then no, I log in and sign all of my contributions. --Mnemeson 23:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

poetic meter

I am wondering how to determine the meter of a poem which contains lines with 1/2 of a foot. Does one call it the shorter meter (trimeter) which counts only the full feet or is it called the longer meter (tetrameter) which counts the partial foot? 207.155.33.174 17:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Jo Anne Bennett, [e-mail removed]

Can you give an example? In normal tetrameter, each line has four metrical feet. Are you saying most lines have 4 feet but some only 0.5 foot? Or 3½? In hexameter the feet have different syllabic lengths (dactyls and spondees), but they all count equally. --Lambiam^Talk 22:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean something like 'Tyger, tyger burning bright'? I would call this a trochaic tetrameter catalectic. Maid Marion 15:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

World War ll Symbols

my daughter and I are having a hard time finding any site about the symbols of world war two. She needs alot for a project. What are all the most important symbols ? Is there a place online to find them? Thanks a lot!Khen95 17:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean symbols as in graphics, logos etc. or do you mean metaphorical symbols? --Kiltman67 18:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We need symbols as in graphics, logos etc. Thanks

Well the obvious things are things like the Swastika. Another good one would be things like propaganda posters. --Kiltman67 18:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's Wikimedia's poster collection from World War II. ---Sluzzelin 19:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Nazi's made the people they persecuted wear special symbols. For example, Jews had to wear a yellow star of David, homosexual men had an inverted pink triangle, and homosexual women had an inverted black triangle. Do we have the full list in Wikipedia ? StuRat 02:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nazi concentration camp badges ---Sluzzelin 08:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Iron Cross springs to mind as well as the Flag of Japan. Let's not forget that there was a large portion of the war fought on the Pacific side of the planet as well. Dismas|^(talk) 13:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

the double lightning bolts 'SS' of the Schutzstaffel. Philc _T^E_C^I 13:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the Pacific battle, the raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is definitely up there. (but before you send your daughter to that article, I'm hoping that someone will please clean up the obvious vandalism...I'll try but I'm not sure I know how). Christ! This is an Encyclopedia, dammit! Loomis 21:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The building of Taj Mahal

The Taj Mahal was built in honor of the king's wife, but was the architect who built it "rewarded" by having his eyes pulled out and possibly his hands crushed, or was this a different building?

I don't know about the eyes and it all seems to be more legend than documented history. Having said that, check out Taj_mahal#Mutilation_of_the_craftsmen. ---Sluzzelin 20:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, apart from the hands, that sounds a lot like Saint Basil's Cathedral in Moscow. The tsar, Ivan the Terrible, didn't want him to design a more beautiful building.Evilbu 21:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Persistent USA president refuses to give up and keeps trying to make Congress approve his Bill

Hello,

this could be a dumb question, but as far as I understand the USA system, the president has to propose a bill, then the House and then the Senate have to approve it, before he can sign it. But what stops the president from simply...proposing his bill over and over again? I mean : does a majority of NAY's in the Senate or the House also imply that the same bill cannot be proposed again for a certain number of months? Thanks!Evilbu 23:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the president of the United States cannot propose a law - only a member of congress can do that. The president can certainly urge, bully, or persuade, (and can veto a bill that has been passed) but s/he cannot directly propose a bill. Ziggurat 23:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your presumptions are wrong! Bills are introduced by Congressmen or Senators. The president can't introduce a bill. Even if he prevails upon a compliant senator to keep reintroducing the bill, there's no guarantee it will ever get out of committee; if it's just a repeat it's pretty much guaranteed not to, unless the political realities have changed dramatically in the meantime. Hundreds of bills are introduced each year and die at the end of the session as they've never been voted out of committee. So reintroduction wouldn't automatically mean reconsideration. - Nunh-huh 23:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What is this committee you mention? And what about the resolution to go to war in Iraq in 2003? (or should I not compare acts with bills and resolutions,...) Thanks!Evilbu 23:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Whichever committee the proposed bill got sent to. The Iraq resolution, for example, was sponsored by Dennis Hastert (and dozens of others); the House International Relations Committee was the relevant one in this case. Acts, bills, resolutions, all the same sort of thing. The President certainly can and does ask for bills, and they'll generally get introduced if he (or someday, she) wants them, but the President has no official role in regard to legislative actions until the bills are approved by both houses. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I should learn more about those committees then, they are quite powerful as they are the first people able to block such a proposal. So if the president finds no senator or representative his proposal will never be executed? But in a sense, replacing the president with that member of congress, it is possible for him to keep proposing the same?.... And does this have anything to do with how Ralph Regula's persistent behaviour keeps blocking any move to rename Mount McKinley?Evilbu 23:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

1. A member of Congress introduces his proposed legislation as a bill
2. other members of congress can add their names as cosponsors
3. the bill is given a number when it is introduced (for the House, it starts H.R.; for the Senate, it starts S.)
4. The bill is then referred to a committee with jurisdiction over the primary issue of the legislation. Sometimes it is referred to a subcommittee, or to multiple committees.
5. The chairman of the committee decides if there will be a hearing (with the possibility of amendments). Usually a subcommittee holds the hearing, and the full committee decides whether to vote the bill out of committee for floor debate, and issues a committee report with the text of the bill as amended and a recommendation.
6. Once the bill is voted out of committee, it will be debated and brought to a vote if and only if the Speaker of the House (or the Majority Leader of the Senate) decides to do so.
7. If it passes this vote, the bill is referred to the other chamber, where it repeats the above process. The other chamber may approve the bill as received, reject it, ignore it, or amend it before passing it.
8. If only minor changes have taken place before passage by the second chamber, the legislation is once again voted on (a concurring vote) by the first chamber. If major changes have occurred, a conference committee is assigned the task of reconciling the two versions into a single bill. If the conference committee can't do so, the legislation dies. The conference committee's report must be voted on again by both House and Senate; if either rejects the report, the bill dies; if both approve, the final bill is referred to the President for action (signature or veto).
9. If he signs it, it become law; if he vetoes it, it doesn't unless Congress votes by a 2/3 majority to override it.

That's the way it's supposed to work. In practice, if the House leadership is behind a bill, they can bring it to the floor as soon as it gets off the printing press. To get back to the original question, my guess is that something in the rules of the two chambers prevents a member from reintroducing legislation in the same two-year session of Congress. However, nothing stops members from reintroducing a failed bill after the next election. Some bills are proposed several times before becoming law. -- Mwalcoff 00:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So lots of people can block a bill, starting at the committee level, and proceding up the chain to the Speaker or Majority Leader. That's why committee positions and the offices mentioned are powerful. I don't know about Regula; he keeps introducing a bill about the mountain, but the fact that it has to be reintroduced is evidence that it doesn't get very far. Clearly his proposed law doesn't actually block anything yet, since it's only proposed. - Nunh-huh 00:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's the deal with the mountain. The president can't make statutes. However, his administration can make regulations and do other things Congress allows it to do. Congress long ago granted the administration (specifically, the US Board on Geographic Names, which is under the Interior Department and, ultimately, the president) the authority to name landmarks. However, Congress can revoke or restrict that authority. In this case, Regula, who represents William McKinley's hometown of Canton, Ohio, wants to prohibit the administration from renaming the mountain. If Regula's bill was to pass, the Board on Geographic Names would be unable to rename the mountain until Congress repealed the law. -- Mwalcoff 01:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Irish monks

Hi, Wikipedia. I read somewhere that Irish monks, using lightweight boats, made contact with North America before the Vikings did. Is this true? Partisan 5 23:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Opinions differ; it seems unlikely and without much evidential support. See St. Brendan. - Nunh-huh 23:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean coracles?--Light current 02:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

More likely currach--Downunda 06:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

September 5

brazil battles of ww2

Where a can find (or tell me) the list of all battles that brazil fought on ww2??

Try this. Russian F 01:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Brazilian Expeditionary Force page has some more information, though not a list of battles as such. --- Sluzzelin 08:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

From the Expeditioanry Force talk page: Main BEF victories are: Massarosa, Camaiore, Monte Prano, Monte Acuto, San Quirico, Gallicano, Barga, Monte Castelo, La Serra, Castelnuovo, Soprassasso, Montese, Paravento, Zocca, Marano Su Panaro, Colechio and Fornovo. Reference: http://www.custermen.com/ItalyWW2/ArmyOrg/BrazileOrg.htm Lisiate 21:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dissapearing cultures

The world is rapidly shrinking. In the past century, more progress has been made in the transportation industry than ever before. So now that (nearly) anyone can go (nearly) anywhere on earth, won't individual cultures start to dissapear as the world all combines into one culture? Russian F 01:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Not true. Chinatowns exist outside of China which proves that culture does not disappear outside of the home country. Cultures only disappear when they're overpowered by another i.e. the european settlers versus the first nations. --The Dark Side 02:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Most people in the world still don't have the option to travel, and will live and die within a few miles of where they were born. However, for that portion of the world that is mobile, I believe you are right, we are headed for one world culture. There are forces which oppose this, but I believe they will eventually lose the battle. In the last 100 years, many languages and cultures have disappeared, and the cultures of Europe and America, and even Japan, have merged to quite an extent. Expect more in the future. StuRat 02:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My take on it is that cultures are clearly not static and set in stone so it's relatively meaningless to say individual cultures will disappear, rather individual cultures will just become more similar (though probably never becoming identical because of heritage if nothing else). It's certainly true that certain elements of culture will disappear, but this is natural and even without globalisation this would still occur, all globalisation has done is speeded up the process and emphasised it. What seems likely are that as individual cultures become more homogenous more sub-cultures will splinter off with their own elements. It certainly seems that as the internet has grown and become one of the most powerful tools of globalisation many more sub-cultures have grown out of it. --Kiltman67 03:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Cultures diappear and appear all the time. It's much like what evolution does with species. But there is indeed a movement towards a worldwide monoculture. This is, however, probably not so much because of the ability to travel but more because of the Internet, English as a wordlwide lingua franca and transportation of goods, making local products disappear. Ideally, the last bit should happen because the new products are better, but in reality it has more to do with marketing, so the cultures that control the information exchange (the media) will determine which products are being used. A first note is that this monoculture will eventually disappear too, and new cultures will then emerge. A historical example of this is the Roman Empire. But another thing is the nature of Internet. it allows individual people to start new things that can conquer the world. Wikipedia is a good example of this. And the Open Source movement in general. Culture has a lot to do with information, 'spreading the word'. And if individual interactions become more important than dictates from the top, then there will be more variation. Also, within the confines of a monoculture, subcultures will emerge. Some people will always strive to distinguish themselves from the masses. If a certain distinction catches on it will itself become a mass (?) and other people will then move away from that. So yes, cultures disappear, but that's nothing new and new ones will emerge to take their place. Whether the total cultural diversity (compare with biodiversity) will change, I don't know. Easier access to information will reduce it but also increase it. But it will certainly become less bound to physical location. DirkvdM 07:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If you measure cultural diversity (of a region or of a planet) by counting the number of languages spoken there, there does seem to be a quantifiable decline. I don't think we will be seeing the same diversity between cultures and their development again, neither on a large scale of say Chinese vs European culture nor between various tribes on a smaller scale. This doesn't necessarily call for pessimism, of course. The only way I can imagine a cultural re-diversification is through almost complete isolation of various human groups over long periods. ---Sluzzelin 09:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There is one benefit of a single world culture, by eliminating cultural clashes, perhaps many wars can be avoided in the future. Religion seems to be the last sticking point, as much of the world remains stuck in the mindset that they should kill anyone who has different religious beliefs than themselves. Religion is also more resistant to change, as any change is perceived as causing everyone affected to burn in hell forever, which is not generally true for other aspects of culture, like language, dress, art, food, etc. StuRat 21:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got my doubt as to whether religion is such an important cause for clashes. I think it is more often an excuse or a way to identify the enemy (as in Ireland) or a way to get people to rise up. There will have to be a malcontent in the first place. If you manage to make people beleive the problem or the solution is connected to religion it will be easier to mobilise them. And in such an atmosphere some religious fanatics might even give up their lives for the 'good cause'. Nationalism is another such force, which can be equally potent ("for England" and "God save the queen" or the constitution or democracy or the 'free world' (whatever that is) or whatever similar shite). Money is the third one, although that works more individually too. I do agree with you that worldwide standardisations will help peace and that religion is one of the most persistent culturalisms. DirkvdM 08:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic diversity of Generation Y

What percentage of Generation Y in the United States is Hispanic? What percentage is Asian? Wiwaxia 04:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Using [11] for the 2000 figures and assuming Generation Y's definition of Generation Y, we get around 17% Hispanics and only around 1% Asians/Pacific Islanders. ColourBurst 04:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Only 1%? But Generation Y is the most ethnically diverse generation in history. How can it be less Asian than the nation as a whole? Wiwaxia 05:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I made a mistake in my calculations (I forgot to put in the sum symbol in the excel table), it's actually around 4.5%, 5% or so if you include PIs. ColourBurst 13:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How to you define "most ethnically diverse"? Is there some ethnic group in Generation Y that didn't exist in Generation X? Even before Generation X, the U.S. was very ethnically diverse, having some representatives from every country in the world. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the OP refers to the increased growth of the Hispanic and Asian populations in the U.S., but that doesn't necessarily involve an increase in Gen Y proportions (because of immigration patterns), nor is it necessarily "more diverse" (depending on the definition of diverse. Just because there's a token amount of people from every country does not necessarily make a country more "diverse" if everybody's supposed to act like the majority but doesn't get treated so). ColourBurst 14:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, "ethnically diverse" only means that many ethnicities are present, that term says nothing about the treatment of the various ethnicities. Also note, that at this point, there is no majority in the US. If only Caucasian, non-Hispanic, English-speaking, Christian males are considered, those comprise far less than 50% of the people in the US. StuRat 21:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

While you're probably technically true regarding the "majority", there are several factors, one of the major ones being that debates regarding policy are never framed in gender and racial terms at the same time (never mind gender, racial and religious terms), which make that assertion less useful than you think. ColourBurst 04:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree, as the term minority means all of those things. The term WASP also refers to race, ethnic origin, and religion simultaneously (although not gender). StuRat 05:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Tailoring sites

Can anyone suggest any good sites about tailoring mens suits, I can not seem to find any. Other than the wiki article web links. Any other good sites would be nice.--206.251.1.200 06:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Best place to live on earth

I would like to live somewhere where:

The cost of living is very cheap

Where the landscape and scenery are beautiful

The climate is nice

Where I am unlikely to get a disease (eg tropical diseases, malaria etc)

Where I feel safe - little or no violence

Where there is some health care should I need it

Where I am unlikely to lose title to my land or house

I know a similar question has been asked, and the answer was New Zealand (how can I best find and marry a New Zealand chick?) or Costa Rica, but my criteria are different. I don't care about wars in the past. I do care about the cost of living - there are many places much cheaper than New Zealand, but I don't know how much they fulfill the other criteria. Thanks.

Have you considered Austria or Switzerland? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Switzerland, at least, has a high cost of living. I was thinking of somewhere perhaps in the third world where my small western income would be enough to live in a mansion and employ a few servants ( - although that may not be a very PC attitude, on the other hand at least it gives them some jobs.)

it is a surprise-a place like this is stuttgart,germany.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.196.166.161 (talk) .

Define a "nice" climate. Everyone has a different idea of what they like. --Dweller 11:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere where it never snows, where you don't need central heating, but its neither unbearably or monotonously hot (it would be nice to feel cool sometimes). And I do not like much rain - max. of say 25 inches a year. I know the rain criteria would knock out a lot of places, so I could relax this crieria.

Perhaps Findyourspot.com is for you then. Dismas|^(talk) 12:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I've tried Findyourspot. It suggested small cities in the US that are quite unknown to me, although I expect they're nice. I'm not sure how the US would score regarding fear of violence and abscence of equal healthcare for all.

Can't go wrong with God's Own Country... Or what about Scotland? -- the GREAT Gavini 15:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If I can add further criteria, I'd like to be able to put my money in a bank and not worry about it disapearing, plus I'd don't want local officials to be corrupt.

I think in practice this question is: of those third world countries with a low cost of living, which are safe and disease free?

If being able to live cheaply is one of the main concerns, you might consider a stable Central American country, like Costa Rica or Belize. However, the threat of hurricanes makes it advisable to build on high ground, far from the beach. StuRat 21:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As the person who threw New Zealand into the ring for the last question, let me try my hand with a different recommendation.

Argentina has had a very low cost of living since the economic turmoil of 2002, but it is the economically most developed country in South America, measured in GDP and HDI. It's about halfway on the Corruption_Perceptions_Index. The climate varies hugely across the country, from the tropical north to the frozen south, but in the middle you get quite varied seasons, which I regard as a plus, but you might think the winters too cold and the summers too hot. I'd suggest a major city, such as Córdoba or Mendoza, but not Buenos Aires - too big. Mendoza has some lovely scenery around it. I haven't been to Cordoba. I'll let others comment on the state of health care and violence, but I believe that the health system is well developed.-gadfium 03:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Helth care is for free, violence and crime are low in smaller cities. I would suggest you some middle size city in Córdoba Province or Santa Fe Province. Nevertheless, Argentina is getting expensive again... Mariano(t/c) 08:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

About Argentina, if you start your argument with 'since 2002' then obviously it is not a very stable country.

New Zealand scores on all counts except 'cheap', although I suppose the South Island has some nice opportunities to live off the land if that's your thing. And if you spend all your time hiking (or 'tramping' as they cal it there) then housing will only cost about 50 euro per year (about the price of an annual hut pass). See http://www.backpack-newzealand.com/nz/article12.php. The only cost left then is food (and the bus rides to the next park).

About the rain, don't just look at the total figures. In Indonesia, for example, during the rainy season, apart from a possible drizzle early in the morning, it rains just once per day, when it poors. But that's always at the same time of the day, so you can plan when to be indoors. After that it's nice and cool, so the rainy season is actually one of the better times of year. In other tropical countries something similar might be the case. And if you like it cool, just go live somewhere higher up.

Also note that the cost of living is low in third world countries when it comes to the basic necessities. Any western goodies will cost as much as they do in the west or possibly even more (unless you make use of the corruption, but you didn't want any of that). DirkvdM 08:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Argentina had a major economic crisis around 1999-2002 which caused a succession of short-lived governments, some fairly limited riots, and a significant fall in the value of the Argentine peso relative to other currencies. Apart from that, it's been relatively politically stable since 1983. Compared to other countries in the region, I think that's pretty good. Uruguay might be worth considering too, although it doesn't have the spectacular scenery of Argentina.-gadfium 09:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Recruits in Full Metal Jacket

How many is Parris Island recruits in Full Metal Jacket? --Vess 10:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Over 80 actors are credited as playing Parris Island recruits according to IMDb.---Sluzzelin 12:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Dukes

To whom it may concern, please could you find out for me who was/is the Duke of Varr and if there is an Earl of Varr?

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Regards Maria63.174.7.252 11:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Maria Benjamin

Maybe you're thinking of the title Earl De La Warr.---Sluzzelin 11:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

economy

guilt edged shares and their preference by investors.why?

Ha, ha - that's a telling typo if ever I saw one. See gilts. The reason they are preferred by some investors is that they are relatively risk-free, being issued by governments. However, with that lower risk comes a lower return on your investment. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what Freud would think of that slip oOoOOoOh--205.188.117.12 15:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose socially responsible investing could be called "guilt investing". :-) StuRat 21:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Man

http://img178.imageshack.us/my.php?image=22bzl2.jpg

Can you please tell me who this man is who discovered a certain celestial body.

• That would be Giuseppe Piazzi, discoverer of 1 Ceres. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

jobs

why is it that left wing is always complaining that there aren't enough jobs? When in fact there are more jobs in america than in any other country in the world, and more jobs than at any point in american history? bill Clinton had less jobs in his economy, yet the media keeps saying there aren't any jobs? Aren't people more proprous than at any point in american hiostory? why does the media want us to go back to clintons run away taxing and fewer jobs? Why does the media always take the deomcrat party side?--Fruntwoken 15:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• They're not; there aren't, so what; they don't; no; they don't; they don't. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oooh, nice answer. Afraid I'm gonna be a little wordier; ever heard of Fox, who are so close to the white house that one of their anchormen seamlessly slipped into the role of White House Press secretary earlier this year? How about the collapse of US household income over the past seven years? Is there anybody left outside the RNC who thinks the current government expenditure levels are even remotely sustainable, particularly at the current tax levels? Are people who work at Target not happy to be there, because it means that unlike loads of other people they know, they at least have jobs? (Yeah, that last one's only anecdotal, but it was certainly the prevailing opinion at the one I worked at) --Mnemeson 15:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You can just use McJob. That's the generic "Republican-created jobs suck" word. No need for an anecdote. However, I notice something wierd where I work. Liberal/Democrats tend to watch Fox news and complain about how Conservative/Republican they are. Conservative/Republicans tend to watch CBS/NBC/ABC news and complain about how Liberal/Democratic they are. I wonder if the questioner purposely watches news that he doesn't like. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The people in the U.S. complain about jobs because it is a local thing, relative to the past, and not compared to other countries. Most U.S. Citizens have never been outside the U.S. or have any idea how people in other cultures live. In the U.S. there are less jobs than there were during the Clinton administration, Gas prices are much higher, the wage rate is depressed (most people in most industries have gotten no raise, or very small raises in the past 7 years). One of the big reasons for less jobs and lower wages is the movement of many jobs out of the U.S. As countries like Mexico and India have a growth in wages and jobs, and towards a more normalized global economy, the country with the best wages in the world is normalizing downward. At some point, someday a global economy with little wage differential between countries may exist. It is a long way from there (not in my lifetime) and when we get ther, the averager wage rate for most jobs in the U.S. will be substantially lower. (except for jobs like the salaries of elected officials).

Overall people in the U.S. are considerably less prosperous than any time in recent history. You have to account for the huge and ballooning deficit that has been created in the past 7 years, mostly by the war. As for taxes, many, if not most Americans are fed up with the fiscal irresponsibility of the Republic controlled government. Sure, no one wants high taxes, but increasing spending and cutting taxes for seven years has left us with poorer roads, poorer schools, less support for social services or health care. It's a mess, and many people are actually asking for fiscal responsibility in government, and an increase in taxes to pay for the things that we need. I'll let the coming elections speak for themselves, but it is a safe bet that there will be a net loss of republicans in office. Candidates that have a platform of fiscal responsibility, healthcare reform, responsibly ending the war Iraq, stopping the erosion of civil liberties, and elimination of U.S. human rights violations will have the best opportunities. Atom 16:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

However, the richest portion of society is getting richer, while the rest of the US is getting poorer. This is because the richest benefit from tax cuts, (lack of) energy policy which favor oil company executives and shareholders, (lack of) global warming and pollution policy which favors industrial executives and shareholders, (lack of) health care cost controls which favor medical and pharmaceutical industry executives and shareholders, and trade policy which favors retail executives and shareholders by shipping manufacturing jobs offshore to low wage employees. StuRat 20:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't make it clear if this question is just about the US. So I'll give you a Dutch experience. I've been unemployed for 15 years now (apart from a two year 'break'). I try to find a fitting job, but can't. The present very right-wing government decided that unfitting jobs should also do. So they found me a job:

take an envelope, put a card in it, put it to the side

take an envelope, put a card in it, put it to the side

take an envelope, put a card in it, put it to the side

take an envelope, put a card in it, put it to the side

take an envelope, put a card in it, put it to the side

take an envelope, put a card in it, put it to the side

take an envelope, put a card in it, put it to the side

take an envelope, put a card in it, put it to the side

take an envelope, put a card in it, put it to the side

Then after stuffing about 100 envelops I got the great job-variation of putting a rubber band around every dozen and putting them in a box (the biggest challenge in this job is that one has to be able to count to 12). When the box was full, someone else would collect it. And when the raw material ran out someone else had to bring a new supply. We weren't even allowed that variation. After a few weeks I decided to walk out, "fuck the consequences" (which they told me could be the termination of my social security income). Luckily, the social security lady was very understanding and didn't cut my income. So far that is all they managed to find for me, so where is that abundance of jobs then? They've got all the administration of unemployed and their abilities and all the vacancies and their requirements. A bit of cross-referencing should solve the problem, right? DirkvdM 08:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

From an American perspective, your behavior sounds reprehensible:

1) If the government has been good enough to not only keep you alive for 15 years "on the dole", but also gives you enough money to be able to have a computer with Internet access, then you should be eternally grateful to them and all the taxpayers who are supporting your lazy butt.

2) It's your responsibility to find a job, not the governments. If they do find you a job, be thankful, don't "look a gift horse in the mouth". There is no disgrace in doing a job that's "beneath you", the disgrace is in sponging off of others. Why exactly can't you find a job in 15 years, anyway ?

In the US, an able-bodied man who refuses to work would be out on the street. StuRat 00:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Tom Hark

What actually is the tune called "Tom Hark"? I've heard it refered to, but I don't know if I know it. Is there anyone who knows it who could express it to me in A, B, C notation (ie C B A B C C C or whatever), since I assume getting an image of the score would be tricky and annoying. Thanks for any help. Skittle 17:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Originally, it seems to be a South African pennywhistle tune from the 1950s, recorded by Elias and His Zig Zag Flutes (later Black Mambazo). Apparently it was also used as a signature for the BBC program The Killing Stones. These days it's a popular ring tone as well. I hope this helps you find a sound sample somewhere online.---Sluzzelin 18:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have said I found that stuff, but nothing had a score or sound file except possibly the ringtone sites, and I don't want to visit those incase they try to invade this computer. Thanks anyway. Skittle 21:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I found a short sample for you. I know it as a song by the Piranhas, a UK band (we don't have an article on them, only a stub on a US band with the same name). The sample can be found here - click the 'Audio' link.--Richardrj ^{talk email} 05:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah! Fantastic! Thanks so much! (Exclamation marks!) Turns out I do know it, but never heard it given a name. Thanks again Richard. Skittle 14:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. The Piranhas' version has some great lyrics, which I assume they wrote themselves to go with the tune. The opening lines are the priceless couplet "Does anybody know how long to World War 3/I wanna know, I've gotta book me holidee." --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Burckhardt and individualism

I read in an essay by Peter Burke, included with The Civilisation of the Renaissance in Italy, that Burckhardt actually renounced his thesis of individualism. He said "As far as individualism is concerned, I don't believe in it any more." Can anyone tell me more about this? It was his main theme in the Civilisation that individualism emerged in Renaissance Italy, so it sounds a bit strange. What were his reasons, and how far did he reject his idea? The Mad Echidna 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I can't speak for Burckhardt as I haven't read his work but a long-standing depiction of the Renaissance—now slightly mouldy—is of a time when people became fully aware and human. It was felt that before that time there were hardly any interesting individuals with their own ideas, merely conduits of the medieval church. Also the art was regarded as flat and cartoonish not like the realistic people shown in the newer art. In a similar way Harold Bloom wrote Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human which sees William as the first writer of real characters of real people rather then caricatures. Searching about a bit it sounds like Burckhardt believed that people were once more loosing their individuality in his own time to adopt country or party loyalties, so perhaps it was this he rejected. That was an amazingly trite summary of the subject, sorry. MeltBanana 23:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

papal absolution for the battle of hastings

I saw on a doco (Battlefield Britain) that the Pope actually granted absolution to anyone fighting for the Norman side in the Battle of Hastings. This seemed a bit odd, because I didn't think papal authority had reached a stage where the popes could grant absolution for battles. I thought that was some time after, and began with the First Crusade. Or perhaps it was for wars against Spanish Muslims, and I'm getting confused, but at any rate, I was quite sure it had only ever been granted for wars by Christians on behalf of the Church. Can anyone fill me in? The Mad Echidna 21:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a short article on the subject. Key phrase "This would be the first time a pope had been asked to adjudicate a disputed royal succession, and would create a precedent of enormous importance to Hildebrand" (the future Pope Gregory VII and the right-hand man of the then present pope). MeltBanana 23:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Boone & Crocket

Daniel Boone was born in 1734 and died in 1820. Davy Crocket was born in 1786 and died in 1836. Their lives overlapped 34 years. Did they ever meet and if so under what circumstances? 64.136.219.250 23:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't known but on reading the title expected a question on the Boone and Crockett Club. Rmhermen 20:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm lets see, Boone would have been 52 and living in Kentucky when Crockett was born in Tennesee. When Crockett was 13, Boone moved to Missouri while Crockett stayed in Tennesee. During the war of 1812 Boone was 78 (retired in Missouri) and Crockett was 26 (still in Tennesee.) Crockett joined just after or at the end of the war and served in the Creek War around the Ohio river.

Just a guess, but it doesn't look like there is any reason for them to have crossed paths. Crockett had probably heard of Boone but not vice versa as Crockett did not become famous until later. Nowimnthing 20:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

September 6

Actress Joyce Jameson's Cause of Death?

She died in 1987 aged 54. I can't find any reliable information about how it happened. I've searched online obituaries and other obvious sources, but they never list a cause. IMDb have recently put "suicide" on her bio, but of course this was only submitted by a user and I can't find any verification of it (IMDb had the incorrect date of death for her until I corrected it, so clearly their info can be unreliable). Psychonaut3000

arthur goldberg's sons

Bold text

Hmm, "Bold Text" -- Very cryptic question. Perhaps the subject can shed light on this. "Arthur Golberg's Sons" -- nope. Arthur Goldberg only has one son. Maybe the questioner (using "question" very loosely) is asking if little Robert Golberg was cloned? --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Philosophical belief (right vs. wrong)

I recall learning of a philosophy that basically states that right and wrong are relative, and, for instance, if the Nazis had won over and people believed that the Nazis were right (at least a majority believed this), than the Nazis would indeed be right. So basically there is no definite right or wrong, but only those ideas that societies hold to be right or wrong. Could anyone tell me what this philosophy is called? Thanks in advance :) Russia Moore 03:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What the majority of the people say is right is right. What the majority of the people say is wrong is wrong. I think this is called peer pressure. If you do not believe me then try and find a Saudi Arabian citizen that say "I'm an atheist because God does not exists." Ohanian 03:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Aha! I think I found my own answer :) I believe I was thinking of Moral relativism. But I would appreciate someone who knows a bit more on the subject letting me know if I defined it properly, or if there is a sub-belief that better fits what I described, as the name isn't familiar... -Russia Moore 03:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you do not want to read about Meta-ethics? Ohanian 04:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oooh, that's good, too! :) Russia Moore 04:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that the majority of people would likely never have agreed that the Nazis were right, in that the majority of the Earth's population was planned to be a giant slave colony under Nazi domination. They likely wouldn't have said anything publicly, if they wanted to live, but that doesn't mean they agreed with the Nazis. StuRat 05:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you've found the right concept when you found moral relativism. If you ask me, in its mild form it's a bunch of left-wing nonsense that has the potential to do harm in the sense that it seeks to understand rather than appropriately deal with immoral behaviour, (perfect example: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter",) and in its most extreme form it can be used to justify the most perverse of right-wing ideologies, such as Nazism. I tend to lean heavily toward the opposite - moral absolutism: What's RIGHT is RIGHT and what's WRONG is WRONG, regardless of the circumstances or culture involved. If, hypothetically the Nazis won over every person in the world to ascribe to their ideology, and if I were the only one left to say "NO!", I'd do so 'till the day they find me and kill me. Loomis 20:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Like moral absolutism, moral relativism is more of a philosophical caricature than a practical position. Merely because one cannot speak absolutely of moral standards does not mean one cannot speak of them at all, and thereby acquire morals to live by. A so-called moral relativist can be just as moral as a so-called absolutist, the only difference being that the relativist claims to acquire a new morality, while the absolutist claims to acquire a "true" or "truer" morality. But they're essentially doing the same thing: redefining the rules they live by. As for Hitler, I'd say he was not a moral relativist because he considered his behavior justified by "providence", which is presumably eternal, universal, etc. And he sure got a lot of people to go along with him, didn't he? Absolutism is unfalsifiable, because one can always claim to have discovered the "real" truth this time around, then later dismiss it as an illusion or ignorance or something. But the idea that the only alternative is "everything goes" is just stupid, and unfortunately a lot of people who oppose absolutism feel obliged to become nihilists, not realizing there are alternatives, such as rationality. Bhumiya (said/done) 03:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm in between, as I suspect most people are. While some moral rules are absolute (like "no setting your kids on fire"), others are more flexible, by culture, like plural marriages. StuRat 23:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And you would enter history as the last "evil person". Flamarande 21:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I take the view that there's no such thing as something that is always wrong, for all people in all circumstances; or always right, for all people in all circumstances. From that position, I'd say there could be some situation where setting your kids on fire would be preferable to them suffering an even worse fate, if those 2 fates were the only ones available to them. Horrible as it sounds, sometimes people need to make really, really difficult choices. LIke jumping from the World Trade Centre on 9/11 to a ghastly death on the sidewalk below, rather than waiting to be fried in the fire. Or like the dilemma faced by Sophie in Sophie's Choice. She was told one of her 2 children would be taken away to the gas chambers, and one would survive - but she had to choose which one died and which one lived. How could any parent make such a choice? But if you had to, you would somehow do it. "Right vs. wrong" doesn't seem to be a very useful frame of reference for such choices. JackofOz 00:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't think the Nazis were right, of course, and I understand that most people would believe the nazis are wrong had they won. Perhaps a better example would be if in most societies it was commonly viewed as "right" for people to steal from any unattended store, with the logic that the store's workers aren't doing their job well enough if thieves get away. One view is that this stealing is wrong, as it comes almost all from greed, and/or breaks biblical laws, etc. Another view is that if that was the culture's values, it would be right, as there is no "ultimate" right or wrong. Cannibalism is also another good example. Cannibals didn't/don't feel it is wrong to eat human flesh. They could be right or wrong, depending on your views. -Russia Moore 01:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

ethical considerations

what aare erthical considers of rocking out to Everclear as he singsabout his horridle life ! Jasbutal 04:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That the noise of his carousing disturbs others? :)

That he ultimately harms himself and others?

I don't know. :) What does he think? Rentwa 09:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Unusual Sexual Practice

Hi,

I have been searching the web for an answer to these questions for a couple of days and have been unable to find the answer, either because of ignorence on my part, or the info is just not out there. Most probably the former.

I once saw a porographic video in which the female involved was thrusting a small vibrator or dildo (my guess is approx. 1cm in diameter) in and out of the males urethra. I was suprised to find myself very aroused by observing this activity.

Can you please inform me as to what this activity is called both clinically and slangly? What physical pleasure may be derived by the male who is involved? And also, is this practice safe or potentially harmful to the penis and or urethra.

Thank you insight you can provide.Hornytoad62 09:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Hornytoad62

• I've never heard of such a practice, but I can tell you right now, that this is harmful to the penis involved. It is not made for things like that to be inserted and the urethra wall could easily get damaged. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• This would be urethral sounding. The external links in that article may be able to help you.-gadfium 09:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I once saw a video of a man inserting his penis into a woman's urethra and having sex with the orifice until climax. Unless it was very clever use of trick photography and prosthetics, I'm pretty sure that it was genuine. Scary, huh? --Kurt Shaped Box 20:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that would be very harmful. You might want to check out the differences between urethra and vagina :). —Daniel (‽) 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, man - it was her peehole. She had dildos inside her vagina and anus at the time. I couldn't believe my eyes either. Not erotic at all - but one of those things that you just can't help but watch to the end, and shudder... --Kurt Shaped Box 20:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"kids_in_sandbox.mpg?" JayW 21:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Something about Bulls

I've had a doubt since long time that why the bulls become aggressive on seeing red color..? Are they able to recognize only red color? Temuzion 09:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Our article Bullfighting says that bulls are actually colour blind and that the red cape waved at them is just a matter of tradition. It's more the twitching of the cape that gets them aggressive - plus the fact that, by this stage, the poor creature has already got a load of sharp sticks in it. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Vegetarians---Body building.

I want to know one thing clearly..! Do the vegetarians can't get perfect physique by going to gym regularly...? Is it true that being a vegetarian and still going to gym regularly would lead to the sapping of his stamina..? Do non-veg food is the only reason beyond the standard body building..? Temuzion 10:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Vegetarians can get enough protein, as well as every other nutrient needed for body building. It does require more effort, however, as certain foods, in certain combinations, must be eaten by vegetarians for optimal health. StuRat 11:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as vegetarians get all essential nutrients (see also our article on Vegetarianism), regular workouts should be healthy and increase their stamina. I don't know about "perfect physique"; as far as appearance goes, that is clearly a matter of taste. --Lambiam^Talk 11:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Irish Copyright Law

Does anyone how long copyright lasted on works in Ireland prior to the EU Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection (93/98/EEC) ? - ^Рэд_хот 11:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I just found it was 50 years after death of author. - ^Рэд_хот 11:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking for correct song title and lyrics

I'm looking for the correct title (though I think that I'm right) and lyrics to a song called "Heaven" by Bebe and Cee Cee Winans

It's probably out there, but lyrics to the title track seem rather hard to pin down. sorry. --Mnemeson 21:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Leighton Sumner

Hello I would like to ask someone if it would be possible to help me ? A painting was brought to my attention by the reading of a book called The Forest by a Mr.Rutherford. The book is about the New Forest's history, and on the back cover is a reproduction of The Chase by Leighton sumner. However it is so small I cannot see the details properly,and so I cannot try to draw it myself.I would really appreciate someone maybe downloading a copy of it onto my computer so I can print it out and have a go at trying to recreate it . Thankyou very much.

                            Kelly

Gang sign?

I have heard more than once that tennis shoes hanging from telephone wires mark gang territory. Is this true, or an urban legend? Pete

There are a lot of funny/scary answers on the straight dope I would think that given the number of kids screwing around throwing them up there just because they can would override any kind of meaningful signaling system. BTW they probably show up just as often in rich neighborhoods as poor. But the rich ones get better municiple services and they are taken down faster. Nowimnthing 19:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

See also Shoe tossing. --Allen 20:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The best part about the "straight dope" answers is how shoddy the thinking is on some of the replies, i.e. "it was proven to me" because he saw a correlation one time. In my neighborhood irritating kids throw their shoes up there for the hell of it. I think it's irritating. I don't live in the ghetto. --Fastfission 20:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Attorney-client privilege

Hello I was wondering what would void the attorney-client privilege or what are some of the exceptons?

seeAttorney-client privilege#Limits of attorney-client privilege Nowimnthing 19:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Orders of Succession--Royal Families

In the various national lists of succession order there are sometimes the notations starting "skipped". What does that mean? Also, names/titles listed in RED--what is the reason for that? <Email address removed on behalf of Nigerian bankers>24.28.87.194 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There could be any number of reasons for a person being skipped in the line of succession; they may be ineligable for some reason (e.g. marriage to a commoner will disqualify in some systems, or converting to a religion that's illegal or else incompatible with their position). Red links are articles that haven't yet been written. Be bold and help us create them! :) --Mnemeson 21:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, a person can die while their parent is on the throne. Later, their child can inherit the throne. I think this is what everyone hopes will happen with Prince Charles, as nobody particularly wants that tampon-wanna-be as a king. Of course, his Nazi-wanna-be son might not be any better. StuRat 23:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank god it will be Prince William and not "Nazi-wanna-be" Harry after Prince Charles. --The Dark Side 00:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Not if Willie marries a Papist. Now, if Charles would just marry one... - Nunh-huh 00:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Incredible Hulk

Who the hell keepos changing the incredible hulk around? first sentence of the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.48.157 (talk • contribs)

here's the history list for that article. You can see who changed what, and if you disagree with their edits, leave them messages on their talk pages/the article's talk page to discuss them --Mnemeson 21:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

September 7

Babies with .com/.org/.net/etc. in their names...

After reading about the GoldenPalace.com Monkey, I find myself wondering if anyone has ever named one of their children after a website, either for financial gain or simply because they wanted their kid to be called "kevin-smith.com" or something. Anyone know? --Kurt Shaped Box 00:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Check out List of unusual personal names. There may be some there. Anchoress 02:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey--do you believe in aliens?

My friend wants to conduct a survey: do you believe that extraterrestrial beings have visited Earth? Is so, please state why or why not. Thanks! --Bowlhover 00:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You probably won't get a great sample here, but here are some former surveys' results, people can still give their opinion if they want:

University of Connecticut survey: 60% of Americans believe in existence of aliens

Reader's Digest poll: 81% believe in intelligent life elsewhere, roughly 60% believe they are currently monitoring us, also finds older people more likely to believe

1997 Canadian poll: Almost 10% believe they have seen a UFO, 78% believe there is life elsewhere, 57.5% say there is a government cover-up of UFOs, also found the higher the education, the less they believe in life elsewhere.

There's just some mass data already collected, personally I don't believe any have landed here, but I don't have any reason, especially. I hope that helps. -KingPenguin 02:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Bowlhover, I noticed you changed the title of your section. I think it's important to be clear about what you're (or were originally) asking. The question was, do we believe ETs have visited Earth. Whether or not we believe that intelligent life (or any life) has existed elsewhere in the universe during the 9-16 billion years it's been around is a very different question. Anchoress 03:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Poll (Do you believe aliens have visited Earth)

NO

• KingPenguin no (copied from above)
• I don't believe ETBs have ever visited our solar system; the reason is because I find Einstein and the Rare Earth hypothesis compelling. Anchoress 02:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• I see no reason to think that such things have ever visited Earth, as per Occham's Razor. But nor do I accept the Rare Earth hypothesis, and think it highly probable that something deserving to be called life exists beyond this solar system. Bhumiya (said/done) 02:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Anchoress--however, I do believe there are intelligent alien life on another planet. (Regardless of whether the rare earth hypothesis is true, there are 7 x 10²² stars in the universe (which is 150 times more than the number of milliseconds that have passed since the beginning of the universe). --Bowlhover 03:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

YES

MAYBE/DON'T KNOW

I think it's possible, but the hard evidence is lacking. What I think is much more likely is that a race of non-human sentient beings has co-inhabited Earth for a very long time, and their appearances are often misinterpreted as being from beyond Earth. Just don't ask me to prove it. JackofOz 02:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Name of a garment

I am wondering if this particular garment has a name: it's a type of women's trousers, often calf-length, usually but not exclusively black, generally floppy or perhaps elastic in texture, and extremely wide, almost resembling hakama. I see them mostly on young women. Does anyone know what they're called? Bhumiya (said/done) 02:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Number of humans that have ever lived

I recently read this phrase in an interesting article in "Discover":

"Something like one fifth of all the people who have ever lived are alive today."

Is this true, that we are currently around 20% of all humans that have ever existed?? (I found it surprizing, though credible, but don´t know how to calculate the total number of homo sapiens that have existed). Thanks for any info. ==Joel==

Slanted and wrong info on Judith Reisman

I have received many legitimate complaints about the false statements and bias in Wikepedia about both me and my research.

Since basic research would have corrected some of your factual distortions this suggests that bias is an inherent problem Wikipedia has with my study findings.

Kindly correct the falsehoods and try to locate a more objective editor.

Judith A Reisman, PhD, President The Institute for Media Education