Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 16

Is China's political system robust enough to withstand the global financial crisis

Given that inflation and corruption are endemic in the PRC, how well can they withstand the current financial meltdown (assuming that it gets worse)? On another point, I'm only guessing here, but if a financial crisis, on the same scale as that in the US, were to (somehow) originate from the PRC I believe that it would have a pretty hard time dealing with the problem (compared to the US). Does that sound like a reasonable assertion?

I don't know anything about economics so feel free to take me task with my assumptions.ExitRight (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since China is largely a worldwide purchaser of government bonds of other countries (they are a creditor nation rather than a debtor nation), and most of the western world is issueing bonds faster than they can print the promissory notes to cover their respective governemnt obligations to "prop-up" the banking industry, China is likely to "make out like a bandit" in the current crisis. As long as the US and UK governments don't go bankrupt in the current crisis, China stands to make a pretty penny on the interest on these bonds. Plus there's always the threat they could "call in the debt" which puts them in a position of considerable power, politically speaking, over the politics and policies of those governments. Scared yet? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately for the debtor nations you can't "call in" a bond. It's a promise to pay at a certain time in the future. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the closest they can get to calling in the debt is to not roll it over when it matures. Usually when a bond matures you just use the proceeds to buy another bond, if they choose not to do that and to stop buying new bonds entirely then the governments borrowing from China would have to pay more interest on their debt in order to attract other lenders (I'm sure they would still be able to find lenders, it would just be more expensive). --Tango (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that ExitRight is asking how the PRC government might fare if the current financial meltdown spreads to the PRC, rather than how the meltdown now mainly confined to Western countries will affect the PRC government. Of course, we can't know the answer to either question, since we can't predict the future. However, the PRC has a relatively fragile and undeveloped financial system, and it has had a real estate and stock bubble similar to the ones whose bursting is impacting the West. I think that there is a very good chance that the PRC will have its own financial crisis in the fairly near future. At the same time, its economy is somewhat dependent on exports to the West. Recession in the West, coupled with a drying up of credit within the PRC, would be likely to cause a rise in unemployment within the PRC. The PRC government has relied on steady economic advance to legitimize its rule, and an end to that economic advance could cause public dissatisfaction, already evident in many parts of the country, to increase, perhaps dramatically. Public unrest on a large enough scale could pose a serious threat to the Communist government. But we don't know whether unrest would reach that scale, and even if it did, the government might find an effective response. Marco polo (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't China as affected by the financial meltdown as the rest of us, given that the Hang Seng has been subject to the same falls as the Nikkei and other Asian stock markets? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to compare how much each country is affected, but China has definitely been affected. I believe they've already reduced growth forecasts. --Tango (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Marco polo, China does indeed have problems with its domestic financial sector, but it also has two things that we’ve never seen in a rapidly growing emerging economy: almost no foreign debt, and massive forex reserves. Therefore, any financial crisis China might (will) have cannot be a classic Balance of Payments crisis (which is a much more accurate term than currency crisis). I also would take exception to the comment that the PRC government has “relied on steady economic advance to legitimize its rule.” Progress hasn’t been all that steady (cf inflationary surges), and much more important there is no alternative to the current government, and no serious threat has been identified since the reforms began 30 years ago.

Itsmejudith, China and the Hang Seng are so very different that it is hard to know where to begin. The Hang Seng Index is Hong Kong’s main stock market index, and the Hong Kong economy is very different from that of China. China’s economy, moreover, is almost untouched by equities markets: the Shanghai stock market index is down about 70%, but real GDP rose 9% in the third quarter. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't you say Taiwan would be another historical case of the two things never seen? If I understand you correctly, I agree about how these things mean China is in comparatively good shape, also because its real economy is in good shape.John Z (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

John Z, Taiwan is indeed an example of a financial crisis being limited to the domestic side of the economy. Specifically, the 10th Credit Cooperative scandal in the 1980s looks a lot like the model China might follow. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

UK Banking problem ... solution

What would have happened if Scotland had gone independent of the rest of UK. As a result of which Bank of Sotland and Royal Bank of Scotland would not have been advanced loans. But National Westminster Bank belongs to RBOS. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If Scotland had gone independent it would have its own central bank that could have lent them money. The Bank of England or UK Treasury might have lent money to the parts of their businesses in the UK, as well, or at least protected depositor's money. --Tango (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, it's impossible to know, as we'd only be speculating what the fiscal arrangements would be for an independent Scotland. We don't know what regulatory framework Scotland would have, and we don't know to what extent, and in what manner, the central banking and monetary policy structures of Scotland would be disentangled from those of the rump UK. An amicable split would involve a distribution of the community assets (and liabilities) of the UK, and inevitable asymetries between the resulting countries would mean the negotiators of the schism would trade one thing off against another. It's likely Scotland would seek to join the Euro; we can presume (but cannot be sure) that it would either inherit or immediately join EU, EEA, and the panoply of European and international institutions. Secondly, it seems countries are taking responsibility for protecting banks that operate in their own country regardless of the nominal HQ of that bank. So it would seem rump UK would be responsible for banks trading in its economy, Scotland for banks in its (so each country is responsible for the business RBOS or HBOS or XBOS does in its economy). Unless you have banks that attract business from one country while having little actual trading or presence there (like Landsbanki) it's probably mostly a wash. But thirdly, the economies of Scotland and the rest of the UK are so deeply intertwined that, even with a political disunion, neither country could afford the other getting into trouble, and it would be in both countries' interest to help out the other. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting question; rather like Iceland, Scotland has big banks for such a small nation: RBS, HBOS, and also Lloyds TSB which is headquartered in Glasgow although largely an English company. It is questionable whether an independent Scotland would have enough money to bail out its banks. Being optimistic, you can look at what happened in Ireland recently where the Irish government guaranteed deposits by some subsidiaries of foreign banks[1] so if Scottish banks failed the English government might well still have intervened to protect English depositors in NatWest, etc - or, as is happening with Iceland[2], the English government might have taken more aggressive moves against Scotland. Who knows?--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

President and Vice President nominees

When the nominees for USA President and Vice President are out there, all across the country campaigning, are they protected by the Secret Service? Do they hire their own bodyguards? Both? What is the situation? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

They're protected by the Secret Service for 120 days prior to the election. See here. --Tango (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The USSS certainly protects both Rep and both Dem candidates - but (as with Presidential protection) they're responsible for protecting the key individual - security of overall campaign events is the responsibility of local and state law enforcement and often private security. To what extent notable but very unlikely to succeed candidates like Nader and Barr are USSS protected, I don't know. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"Major" candidates aren't strictly defined, but ABC News notes that "the criteria normally include an announcement of candidacy, prominence, major party affiliation, fundraising and matching funds." Various sources note that Ralph Nader requested, but apparently did not receive, USSS protection in previous election cycles. Going back to past major third party candidates, I find that John B. Anderson apparently had a USSS code name (though I don't see specific note of a detail). It would seem that James Stockdale (Ross Perot's VP candidate in 1992) accepted USSS protection.

It's also worth noting that "120 days" is the minimum. Obama received a USSS detail in May 2007. — Lomn 21:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful info and the link. Much appreciated. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

What determines the value of money and is there a safety for capitalist economies from the hoarding of wealth by the wealthy?

I have been researching what determines the value of money and havn't found a clear answer. Is it national gold stores, total demand for a nation's money or is it equal to the value of total material capital within a nation? The last idea I believe is correct because if all the material capital in a nation disappeared all the money in a nation would become useless and worthless. If you could enlighten me on this subject or direct me to where I could find an answer I would be eternally grateful and I also think the answer would be a useful addition to the wikipedia internet encyclopedia. I would also like to ask if there is some kind of safety net for national economies as most capitalist economies I believe with the knowledge I have are due to exhaust money supplies with the hoarding of wealth by the wealthy. This has not happened and so I suspect the production of more and more material wealth is sustaining the middle and working classes or nations are producing more and more liquid money sustaining the middle and working classes. If you could clear up this issue I would also be very grateful. 78.152.217.254 (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Does the article on fiat currency help?--droptone (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: If cash is taken out of the market (by hoarding or whatever), prices fall to match the new lower supply of cash. That's your "safety" for first-order effects, though this is a simplified picture. —Tamfang (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is an incorrect assumption built into the question. The wealthy do not hoard their wealth, removing it from the economy. They reinvest it for the very selfish reason that they want to make more money. By reinvesting, they stimulate more economic growth, providing jobs, creating goods and providing services. The money continues to flow. Anyone who actually hoarded their wealth would lose value because their wealth would be static - inflation would decrease their spending power. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

October 17

Fire Alarm

Some friends and I are

pulling a fire alarm  I live in the USA.  I hope this doesn't fall under the "legal advice" umbrella. We were way happy

Plato's and Aristotle's schools

I can't remember what their schools were called. I believe Plato's was Academia, or something with the word "academic" present, while Aristotle's was an "l" word, I think. Does anyone know to what I am referring? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.16.88.147 (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct, you mean Lyceum. PMajer (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

And the Platonic Academy. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Prediction in the Social Science

Are there any studies out there about the prediction's precision of social scientists? I am principally interested in economists, but other links are welcome. --Mr.K. (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Forecasting has some interesting comments about accuracy, but it is very technical. You might also look at prediction market, and (masochists only) econometrics. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

India Today

I remember that India Today had two articles: one about the stats of Indian couple and sex like for example which couple prefer to be at the top? man or woman? and another about kids acting like big people for example a little girl a manicure in a style that a woman would get. Where are those articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.206 (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Um have you tried [3]? It has a search function but only goes back to August 2007. If the article goes further back you can try the 'old format' [4]. Doesn't appear to be a search but you could try Google (most of the 'old format' archives appear to be at [5]). I briefly searched but could find an article about what your referring to, if you knew the date at least roughly, it would be easier Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sueing for Peace

What does it mean to "sue for peace"? I mean, it doesn't mean a nation actually files a lawsuit in a court or something. I'm just curious as to where this phrase comes from. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sue for peace has some information. Tomdobb (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The relevant sense of sue is "to make petition for," which is older than the legal usage (and from which that usage developed). Deor (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It means "I give up. Please stop hitting me." It is an appeal for more favorable terms than an Unconditional surrender. Edison (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's also sometimes used when there's a stalemate so neither party is in a position to force a surrender and one party decides they'd rather not waste resources on a pointless conflict. --Tango (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Subsidized Housing

Under what administrations was subsidized housing created and/or modified. What were the circumstances that may have affected these occurrences? While references are made as to years these things were done, I want to know what administrations, etc., were involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.154.234 (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It would help if you could be more specific. Are you referring to subsidized housing in the U.S. and if so do you mean on a federal, state or municipal level? At any rate, subsidized housing should give you a start. Tomdobb (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

At the US Federal level, that would be the Carter, Clinton, and Bush administrations. See Community Reinvestment Act. Wrad (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be the administration of Sir Alexander Grantham (1947-57), and is covered in public housing estates. :-) DOR (HK) (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

October 18

How long since the Chicago Tribune endorsed a Democratic nominee for President?

The Chicago Tribune just endorsed Barack Obama for President. This is a very unusual move for what many consider to be the conservative newspaper of record in the United States. How long has it been since the Chicago Tribune endorsed a Democratic nominee for President? --Halcatalyst (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm embarrassed. The answer is in the editorial itself: "This endorsement makes some history for the Chicago Tribune. This is the first time the newspaper has endorsed the Democratic Party's nominee for president." --Halcatalyst (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

And your link to Chicago Tribune also says it with the same source. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am totally gobsmacked . For many, many elections the Chicago Tribune editorial board has criticized Republicans, then seemingly the publisher came down from Olympus each election and dictated that they would endorse the Republican regardless. Apparently new owner Sam Zell departs from the rightwing legacy of previous owner "Col."Robert McCormick , who claimed that Franklin D. Roosevelt was a Communist, and who created a 47 star flag because he did not like Rhode Island. Edison (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Obama the first Illinois native to run as a Democrat, though? It's a bit less surprising since it's his home state (but still surprising). Wrad (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• He was actually born in Hawaii. --Halcatalyst (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
• Adlai Stevenson ran twice. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Though Stevenson was born in Los Angeles. --Halcatalyst (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

But was a Senator from Illinois. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The question is about "home state", not about nativity, sorry. So I'm assuming Stevenson wasn't endorsed by the Tribune even though he was from Illinois? Wrad (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he lost Illinois to Eisenhower both times despite being an Illinois governor. Wrad (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If The Wall Street Journal ever endorses a Democrat for president, it will be a chilly day in Hell indeed. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Library Records

Alright, I distinctly remember a scene from the film "Seven" where Morgan Freeman mentions that the government red flags certain books in public libraries, so that the reading habits of suspicious people can be recorded. For example, I check out ten books on making bombs, and my name gets redlisted, and my list of books checked out is observed.

Is this actually a system like this in effect anywhere in America? It seems like a gross invasion of privacy to me, but I'm not even sure if it's plausible or a film bending the truth. Wikipedia: be my mythbusters. Kenjibeast (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound rude, but have you been under a rock for the past 7 years? I don't even live in the US and I've heard of this lots, primarily in relation to the Patriot Act. (I never really checked out the details until now since it wasn't of great interest) As I understand it, particularly with the Patriot Act the answer is they can check out what you've been reading [6] [7] and they can also check out who's been reading a certain book but it's not some sort of automatic database and many librarians have given the minumum cooperation level required. This is also partially mentioned in USA PATRIOT Act BTW. As to the case when Seven was around (since it came out long before the PATRIOT Act), I'm not sure but I would think they could check out what you've been reading if they could get a search warrant to that effect. Nil Einne (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

N.B. Apologies I may have misunderstood do you actually live in the US? Nil Einne (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The American Library Association has claimed that the USA PATRIOT Act does allow for this kind of snooping and has lobbied vigorously against the law. (This law was passed years after Seven was released.) PATRIOT Act advocates say the ALA is engaging in fear-mongering. Librarians traditionally have guarded the privacy of their patrons and its unlikely they would provide the Feds with patron information without a warrant. Reading "dangerous" books is not a crime in itself, so obtaining a warrant would be difficult. In short, the tracking system you describe is probably illegal and definitely impractical. One can't rule out a some gov't agency secretly attempting this, but it is impossible without the quiet compliance of thousands of librarians across the country. —D. Monack ^talk 07:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, it isn't that the BOOKS are red-flagged so that if you check them out they look at you, so much as if YOU are red-flagged then they look at your library records among other things. But this sort of indiscriminate tracking is the sort of thing of conspiracy theory lore. There are certainly things you can do that are totally legal but draw attention to yourself (like filing too many FOIA requests on too many sensitive subjects—see the article on this guy). But I doubt just checking out books from the library will do it unless the librarian who checks them out to you feels fit to report that you checked out Pothole Blasting for Wildlife and then remarked joyously at what a BLAST you were going to have with the book. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Some U.S. libraries have checkout systems which erase any records once you return (or pay off the late fees) on your books so this tracking wouldn't even be possible in some places. Rmhermen (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I work at a library and our checkout system, Horizon 7.3, does not save a record of the books our library patrons have read. Library staff can only see books that you have checked out, requested, or have a fine for. Saving a list of books would not be useful for the purpose of the library and would take up server space. All libraries use different systems so there is no way the government can have a tracking system on such a large scale. ToyChristopher (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What is this a reference to?

I'm reading a very interesting novel, Earth Abides by George R. Stewart. There's a passage in the book that it took me a long time to make heads or tails of—I read it four or five times and the best I could get was that the author was possibly alluding to the character worried that her lover will care if he knows she has African ancestry. Later in the novel this is confirmed. Here's an excerpt from the passage:

"You're just a nice boy," [she said]. "You looked at my hands and said they were nice. You never even noticed the blue in the half-moons." He felt the shock, and he knew that she felt the shock in him. Now everything came together in his mind—brunette complexion, dark liquid eyes, full lips, white teeth, rich voice, accepting temperament.

I thought it was interesting that while right after this passage the author has this not matter to the character at all, the part about "accepting temperament" still betrays to my mind some institutionalized racism on the author's part (the novel came out in 1949). I digress. My question is, what is this about "the blue in the half-moons." If it's an allusion to something that is supposed to tip us about African ancestry, it's over my head.--68.237.2.254 (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Fingernails. See The Bluish Tinge in the Halfmoon; or, Fingernails as a Racial Sign. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's a reference to sickle-cell anemia. This is a hereditary disease caused by a fault in the gene related to the production of hemoglobin in the body. People with one copy of the faulty gene are said to have the sickle-cell trait, which improves their resistance to malaria, a disease prevalent in parts of Africa. So they are more likely to have children and therefore the faulty gene continues to exist in the population of Africa, or those parts of it. But people with homozygous two copies of the gene get sickle-cell anemia. I'm thinking that the "half moons" referred to are the bases of the fingernails, which can look bluish in the presence of circulatory problems -- such as sickle-cell anemia. (But I am not a doctor, or a geneticist for that matter, and don't know if this is really a symptom of this particular condition.) --Anonymous, 07:22 UTC, October 18, 2008.

• I've read that novel before (wonderful book, by the way, with a *very* devastating or uplifting ending, depending on how you look at it), and I always felt that passage was subtly betraying racism--even, as is clear, the thorough opposite is intended (it's 1949, so "miscegenation" isn't exactly acceptable... but then it's written by a Berkeley professor, so maybe it wasn't such a leap for some). But I never recognized the fingernail thing. Incidentally, I feel that the bland-white-young guy with the black-woman-as-love-interest is very common in post-apocalyptic stories, though the only examples I can think of right now are The Omega Man (with Charlton Heston) and 28 Days Later. zafiroblue05 | Talk 07:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks everyone. Very interesting. I suspected that this would not have an uplifting great ending (and thanks for not describing it in detail, Zafiroblue05!). I read the linked text, Jpgordon, phew; it's amazing to think people were obsessing over this crap at one time. So I guess the allusion is something that a lot of people would have recognized in 1949, that most people would say "huh?" to today. Going a little afield here, but it seems to me that Stephen King's The Stand owes a debt of gratitude to this novel (note that in there, there is no comparable mixed racial couple theme). Regarding the Omega Man, which is based on Richard Matheson's wonderful I Am Legend (recently made into a movie), I am trying to dredge my memory to remember whether the mixed race theme is present but coming up blank. Read that novella, its far better than either film. By the way, Richard Matheson wrote one of the most startling very short, short stories I've ever read: Born of Man and Woman; give it a read if you come across it.--68.237.2.254 (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    • There were three films of I am Legend. Don't forget the original, 1964 The Last Man on Earth starring Vincent Price. Rmhermen (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This is VERY interesting! Is there an article relating to this on the wiki? Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 08:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Stephen King has overtly indicated that this book was a huge influence on The Stand.

collect data on India's current account balance, capital account balance and forex reserves for the period 2001-2006 and list the major features

"Economic reforms have an adverse effect on food security." comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanamlakshmi (talk • contribs) 05:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I want data on india's currrent account balance for period 2001-2006  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanamlakshmi (talk • contribs) 05:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC) 

I guess the answer was never posted on in.answers.yahoo.com after October 6th? --W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Key_Indicators/2007/xls/IND.xls see lines 340-359. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

First photograph

View from the Window at Le Gras is the first photograph, wikipedia says. And yet I can barely understand what's going on in that photo! Has there ever been a "modern" photograph taken from the the same place to compare? zafiroblue05 | Talk 07:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's the only one I can find. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Impressive... it should be added to the wikipedia article --PMajer (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Do you have a link to the web page containing the image? Astronaut (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

US demographics by state

Hello all. Is there an article or category on Wikipedia that displays racial demographics of each state in the US, to allow a comparison of the racial makeup of each state? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.242.80 (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't find one. Maybe something linked from Racial and ethnic demographics of the United States has the information. Rmhermen (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) There's Racial and ethnic demographics of the United States, but it doesn't seem to break it down by state. You'll need to go through each state one by one, I think - they should all have the information in the article on that state, eg. California#Demographics. --Tango (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Someday someone will have to create such an article (me?). Thanks for all your help, though :) --24.211.242.80 (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Jack Kerouac - "On the road" - looking for a quotation

It was something like that: "We have to to go". "Where?" "I don't know, but we have to go" Can I have the exact qoutation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.196.100 (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I found it on Wikiquote here.

"Sal, we gotta go and never stop going till we get there."

"Where we going, man?"

"I don't know but we gotta go." --Masamage ♫ 18:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Foreclosed land

Where do I find free lists of foreclosed/seized acreage ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.224.43 (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

In what country? --Tango (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Decline of science fiction?

I have this feeling that science fiction is dying or at least in decline. My theory is that the sense of wonder is no longer its semi-exclusive property, what with the rapid pace of technological innovation we're experiencing. Is there anything to back this up, e.g. lower book sales, or other commentators, or am I just turning cranky in my decrepitude? Clarityfiend (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've heard that the combined popularity of Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings film series has expanded that market and caused producers and book publishers to focus on it more. Wrad (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

But the question was about science fiction, not science fiction and fantasy. --Anonymous, 18:13 UTC, October 18, 2008.

I'm well aware of that, but it's obvious that Science fiction and fantasy have fought each other for attention for quite awhile. Fantasy is winning the battle right now. That's what I'm saying. Wrad (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I took "that market" to mean fantasy and SF taken together, but you meant fantasy alone. Clear now. --Anonymous, 00:03 UTC, October 19, 2008.

I think the opposite is true; it's gone mainstream, and it's gone sad. TV series like Lost, Heroes, and Pushing Daisies are among the most successful and popular in the US; The Road and Kavalier and Clay won Pulitzer prizes; some of the most successful recent movies have been superhero flicks (Iron Man, Dark Knight). Now maybe these don't _feel_ like "proper" science fiction, and they're a lot more about fear and darkness and conspiracy than about the white heat of technological revolution, but bulletproof cheerleaders and mystical islands are sf nevertheless. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Consider List of highest-grossing films; of those 50 by my count 21 are science fiction. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

By my count, it's closer to 12. I think you have a very broad definition of sci-fi, more so than is standard. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

And as I look through it, nearly all of the scifi hits are from the 90s, not recently. Almost all of the recent hits have strong fantasy elements. Wrad (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Of the top movies of 2007, the first, third, and six are SF. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, in the past, you would find almost no fantasy films in the top five, while scifi films were everywhere. Now the scales are starting to tip, with three of the top 5 in 2007 being fantasy. Scifi isn't dead by any means, but it has lost a lot of ground to fantasy in recent years. Wrad (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Lost sci-fi, it's closer to fantasy. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the only one of those that I would completely agree is sci-fi is Heroes. Wrad (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Space opera, of the Star Wars variety tends to drive out science fiction, as does fantasy of the Harry Potter variety. Both offr the reader/viewer escape from the dreary every-day real world. Edison (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarityfiend, I think you're right. I think technology progresses so fast that nothing surprises us anymore, making sci-fi a lot less exciting. Even the SciFi channels hit Battlestar Gallactica series has fantasy elements. Wrad (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, wasn't earlier sci-fi also ground-breaking in terms of the social situations and questions it explored ? One example of this that comes to mind is the Kirk / Uhura kiss scene in ST. If that aspect of sci-fi today has dropped out, I think the genre will be much poorer for it. --91.32.95.166 (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is that SF itself - or what people see as SF - has developed and changed along with technological developments, so the boundaries between this particular type of "genre fiction" and "mainstream literature" have got blurred. Back in the early- to mid-20th century the emphasis was on science, the wonders of progress and the lure of futuristic technology; as technological change accelerated, the science bit became the setting rather than the subject of the story, and the characters and themes took over as central instead. For example, Neuromancer is always cited as a milestone in SF and the herald of a new sub-genre, but really it's a great story about people, set in a technological setting, rather than a story about technology.

I'm not sure it's a bad thing that the boundaries are blurring. Some so-called "genre" fiction, including some SF, is the equal of anything "mainstream". Karenjc 20:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that the line between "hard" and "soft" sci-fi has been blurred for many years. Hardly anyone would deny that Isaac Asimov is as pure a sci-fi author as there is; but one could argue that his books were more about the people than the technology. The Elijah Bailey stories are really just good detective fiction; the original Foundation trilogy stands with Atlas Shrugged and Animal Farm as work of dystopianism. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised by the description of the Foundation stories as dystopian. I've read pretty much all of Asimov's fiction and very little of it strikes me as fitting in that category. But this is a side point, of course. --Anonymous, 00:06, October 19, 2008.

Science fiction certainly isn't dying in any way, as someone mentioned, Lost gets millions of viewers every week (and Lost is definitely science fiction) and just recently Neal Stephenson published Anathem which got a throng of internet-people in a real tizzy (personally, thought it was just average). Not to mention The Dark Knight and other movies that are grossing a gazillion dollars.

I will agree though that science fiction is changing. The mid-20th century was really a golden age for a kind of literary tradition which is mostly gone nowadays. Science fiction served both as hard-hitting social commentary (1984 being the obvious example, but there are many others) and a way to explore existential and philosophical issues (Philip K Dick being the obvious example, but again, there are many others). Of course, there was a lot of crap too, but there's no doubt that there was a lot of great literature produced in the sci-fi genre during this time. This literary tradition has declined considerably in the 21st century. Today, almost all relevant sci-fi comes from television or movies, and it there that the evolution is happening. And in many ways, it isn't as interesting as great art (with a few exceptions, like Battlestar Galactica), even if it is very entertaining. There's very few Philip K Dicks and Ursula K LeGuin's around today. Belisarius (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Dare I suggest that if you think Battlestar Galactica is "great art" that it might be a sign of declining standards? ;-) I mean, I found it (usually) entertaining, but it was really just OK television (certainly couldn't compare in terms of writing with some of the really top-notch shows of the last few years, like Deadwood or The Wire). Certainly doesn't hold a candle to real writing like Dick and LeGuin. I thought Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go was pretty good modern sci-fi, though he's not a genre writer. But anyway, most of any genre at any given time is crap. For every Dashiell Hammett there were thousand horrible pulp writers. And sensibilities do change: writing in a Hammett mode today is unbearable, in my opinion—done to death, very cheesy. In pulp detective stuff, only the innovators are worth reading (James Ellroy, Elmore Leonard, etc.), and if they are successful then even they will be passé at some point. As for whether, in the case of sci fi, different social expectations of technology contribute to things... maybe. But that seems like a pretty simplistic explanation. There is a lot more to sci fi than being wowed by technology. And it's also possible that our relationship to technology has changed—it's no longer so much the 50s-60s dream of big spaceships going between galaxies, it's more about smaller, more subtle technological interactions that have inflected our lives on a very micro scale. The fears are not about alien races taking us over so much as they are about our insurance companies failing to cover us if our genes are wrong. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I obviously disagree with you on Battlestar Galactica. It's certainly have had it's rough patches, but overall I do think it absolutely measures up with Deadwood and The Wire. It's an enormously potent allegory of modern society and delves into deeply philosophical areas, and it does it (almost) as well as the great sci-fi writers of the 20th century.

As for most stuff being crap, that's absolutely true. That's why I linked to Sturgeon's law, in any genre or medium, the vast majority of published content will be terrible.

As for Hammett, I'm so glad you brought him up :) I absolutely adore Dashiell Hammett, I think he's one of the great ones. The reason why most of Film Noir and Hardboiled language today sounds ridiculous is not that his style of writing has gone out of fashion, it's because virtually no-one can write like he does. The stereotype of hardboiled language today is nothing like he wrote it. He didn't use long-flowering metaphors ("Her eyes where as deep as lakes and her hair like a volcano", you know, that stuff), he was incredibly direct and almost violent in his writing. If three words could contain as much content as five, he'd use three (or even two). As for it not working today, look at the movie Brick. It's a fantastic movie, and the language isn't ridiculous at all. Belisarius (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the proliferation of high technology has made it more difficult to write mainstream science fiction. We have space tourists, GPS, wireless everything, and are working on a cloaking device. Fifty years ago, a story that had anything like those in it would be mainstream sci-fi, but obviously not any more. In order to get that same sense of "wow", an author has to somehow get to the next level of technology or get into a more fantasy-type setting. Sure, you could go to another planet and meet some aliens, but it's been done to death and many aliens (not all) are more about fantasy than anything science based anyway. We've passed a point where technology doesn't really give us a sense of awe any more. Matt Deres (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing I like about Battlestar Gallactica is the theme in it that the line between messing with technology and messing with humanity is becoming more and more blurred. Wrad (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Fantasy is currently winning. Things that you would not even really think of as fantasy, such as alternate world stories such as Harry Turtledove's Timeline-191 mega-series, or S. M. Stirling's Nantucket/Emberverse series, (which is a "what if the modern day island of Nantucket was mysteriously transported into the Iron Age?"), or Eric Flint, et. al.'s 1632 series (which is a "what if a modern West Virginia town was mysteriously transported into the middle of the Thirty Years' War?") Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

For genres there's Hard science fiction,soft science fiction, social science fiction and science fantasy, though some look to need work. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a proliferation of technology, I think it's the opposite. Forty years ago there was a sense that technological advancements were going somewhere. The Apollo landing was the first step; next there would be a moon base, then a Mars base, then we'd head off in spaceships to the stars. Instead, no one's left Earth orbit since the end of the Apollo program. Same with the early developments in AI. People thought that programs like Eliza and SHRDLU were the first step, and soon we'd have computers as smart as people. Forty years later, SHRDLU is still about the best we can do. GPS and cellular phones are all well and good, but they're creature comforts. They don't point the way to a future society the way the moon program seemed to. -- BenRG (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What is science fiction? I've never really known, and I'm genuinely surprised by what people have identified as science fiction in this thread. Lost is science fiction? I'm only familiar with the first season or so, but I can't think of a single element of it that seemed remotely scientific. The Dark Knight is science fiction? In what way? Star Wars is not science fiction? I can't think of anything in Star Wars that makes it less scientific than, say, Star Trek (though perhaps that's because I can't see much that's scientific in either one). Our article on science fiction is not very helpful. It says, "Science fiction differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature." But that can't be right. Elves and orcs and unicorns are all unquestionably allowed by known laws of nature. It's warp drives and transporters and time machines that seem to be forbidden. Sword-and-sorcery fantasy has magic along with the broadswords, but I don't know how to distinguish magic from sufficiently advanced technology. Fantasy as a whole certainly isn't struggling, and I'm not convinced this alleged subgenre called science fiction even exists. In some sense every talented author defines a (sub)genre that dies when they do, and I don't think that's a bad thing. It's almost tautological—an author who's easy to imitate probably doesn't deserve to be called great. -- BenRG (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless you believe in the "they're all dead" hypothesis, Lost is science fiction. If you've only watched the first season, you saw a lot of the mysteries but missed the scientific explanations of what's going on. The last episode of last season even involved time travel. As for Star Wars, I thought lasers traveled at the speed of light! 206.66.66.1 (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this discussuon - enjoyed it a lot - I've often thought in recent years that sf writing is on the decline - at its best, sf writing is the literature of ideas, whereas in cinema, sf is generally just an excuse to have bigger cooler guns. Adambrowne666 (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

How much money does a porno website make?

Does anyone know how much money does a porno website make per month and per year generally? What is the online processing service charge fee? Thanks. 72.136.111.205 (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Try some of these links. -hydnjo talk 23:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

October 19

Prime Minister of Israel

Israel... why is Ehud Olmert still as Prime Minister in the article?. That corrupt resigned and now is Tzipi Livni. Please, can I modify that?, it's a TOP ARTICLE.--190.49.99.119 (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed a few ???? from the heading. KnightLago (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Made it even more meaningful. This isn't a question about the use of the word "why". -- JackofOz (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I gather, Livni isn't the Prime Minister until she organizes a government. Right now she is Acting Prime Minister. Grsz^X 01:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Estimated Living AND dead world population as of 2008?

Hi all.

I was reading up on the World population article, and its projections for world population in the future and in the distant past. I was wondering what kind of a number you'd get if you added all those figures together. Granted, a lot of people that were alive in, say, 1750 were also alive in 1800. And some possibly even in 1850.

So I'm curious, how many people would you estimate, are living/have lived as of 2008? And how would you go about calculating that figure?

Much help appreciated ! -=- Xhin -=- (talk) 04:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the article you linked to, there is a section on precisely this! Look at the number of humans who have ever lived, and you'll notice three things:

1. There's A LOT of dead people
2. It's really hard to estimate exactly how many
3. But the best estimates put the number of humans who have ever lived somewhere between 90-110 billion (meaning that whole "half of everyone who has ever lived is living now"-saying complete nonsense) Belisarius (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I read somewhere (maybe in a novel?) that the number of humans who had ever lived was the sames as "the number of stars in the sky". Certainly poetic, but very likely untrue :-) Astronaut (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's false. The naked human eye can only see a few thousand stars, even on a clear night. If you count every star in the galaxy, that's more than the number of humans who have ever lived, but on the same scale (about 200-400 billion). Algebraist 09:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's false as stated, but that's because Astro misremembered it. The passage is from the very beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey. And what Sir Arthur C. Clarke actually wrote there was:

Behind every man alive stand thirty ghosts, for that is the ratio by which the dead outnumber the living. Since the dawn of time, a hundred billion human beings have walked the planet Earth. Now this is an interesting number, for by a curious coincidence there are approximately a hundred billion stars in our local universe, the Milky Way. So for every man and woman who has ever lived, in this universe there shines a star.

So it's not "in the sky", as Astro said, but it is "in the galaxy", as Algie said. Those words were published in 1968, and the world's population has more or less doubled since then, but the estimate of the number of people who have ever lived is still about right. So for "thirty" in the passage, you can now read "fifteen". As to the number of stars in the galaxy, I can find some pages on the web that agree with the count of 100 billion given by Clarke and others that agree with the higher count given by Algie. I don't know which is the most reliable number today. I wouldn't expect it to be known all that closely anyway. --Anonymous, 22:27 UTC, October 19, 2008.

I've been told that not many people who've gone in for maths or computer science have ever died. Sounds good to me. Dmcq (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The "maths" part is just plain silly -- people have gone in for it since our ancestors began counting on their dirty, stubby fingers. As for computer science, the field is new (relative to math or even aviation) and so hasn't had much time have its adherents shuffle off this mortal coil. Mother COBOL developed the first compiler in the early 1950s, though if she were still alive, she'd be 101. An Wang died in 1990. Once you get away from the early days of mainframes, you're well inside normal life expectancy: Steve Jobs was born in 1955, as was Bill Gates; Dan Bricklin, co-creator of VisiCalc, is 57. While computer science is presently a young field, every person had a telephone in 1890 is dead. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This has already been asked.-Ohanian (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Humanities/2006_September_4#Number_of_Humans_Since_the_Beginning

hindu religion

Most of bhajans and shlokas in indian languages talk of ekoter kul. What doed this mean , how it is derived and why ekoter? (ekoter kul means seventy one generations) Refer to Gandhiji's favourite bhajan "vaishnav jana to tene re kahiye" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.53.226 (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In the Gujarati, kuL ekoter. For a beginning, see Vaishnav jan to. Strawless (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Origin of quote

Death Becomes Her is the title of a movie, but I've got a feeling it's quoting from somewhere/one. Does anyone know the origin of this as a quote? Not sure if it should be at the entertainment desk but since is askiing about a quote, it's here. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did a search to try to see if it appeared as a quote prior to 1992 using a google book search restricted by date and only found it used as part of a sentence, so if it is from somewhere else, many authors have used it in the past unselfconsciously not flagging it as a quote from anywhere else when they penned it. I know, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it can be a good indication when your left trying to prove a negative.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Could it be an allusion to Mourning Becomes Electra? Strawless (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, sounds good. @ Fuhgettaboutit, do you have a link or ref I can chase up, even if an author is freely using it without ref – not having much luck with google books myself. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

How about Moonlight Becomes You? --LarryMac | Talk 17:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we find out the origin of the meaning of "to become" in the sense of "to suit or befit", and track down some of the early examples of its use. (Side question) I've heard "<something> becomes you" and "<something> becomes her", but never "<something> becomes him". It's usually said in fashion-related contexts. Does this mean that it's now only ever used in reference to women, and if so, why? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And in the same way, I rarely hear 'becoming' in the related sense used with regard to a man. 79.66.33.140 (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

women in public life

1.women's participation in U.N.O
2.WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.109.216 (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What is your question? Julia Rossi (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Judicial

I'm inclined to think Judicial Investigative Committee, Judicial Misconduct Complaint, and Judicial Misconduct are best redirected somewhere, but I can't figure out where. Grsz^Review! 13:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be worthwhile to compile a single article on Judicial misconduct, and expand that article, as the other two seem subservient to it. The article could: a) define the nature of misconduct, with examples of different types b) examine how misconduct is invesitgated and c) what remedies are in place to both discourage and remediate if judicial misconduct is shown. These 3 articles deal with that. Lets put them all together into one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Investment Trader Weekly Report

I am in an Intro to Business class and I have to write a weekly report on my 3 stocks that I chose. I'm wondering how to write this report. Is there anyone who knows what I'm talking about? I'm so confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.34.68 (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that you should be looking for more than just the stock value; you should be doing research on the "fundementals" of the company with regard to its stock value. FWIW, insane TV personality Jim Cramer recommends that you do a minimum of 1 hour of reasearch per week for every single stock in your portfolio. Its good practice to learn EVERYTHING about the company you are investing in, such as what business are they in? What is the philosophy of the CEO? What is their business model? How do they do against their prime competitors in their own industry? In their larger sector? How is the industry or sector doing as a whole compared to other industries? How does the company's stock value compare to the real value of the company? How does the price of the stock compare to the earnings of the company? Etc. Etc. Remember, you're not simply buying pieces of paper; you are actually buying a piece of a company. If you own stock, you literally own that company. Its generally, therefore, a good idea if you know everything you can about that business you now own. I would base my report on that sort of information. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Iceland has gone bankrupt -really?

Can any country really go bankrupt? Surely all they need to do is to print more money to pay their debts? (This will result in inflation and a depreciated currency, but that's another story). 78.149.192.49 (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, not at all. There is no requirement that the creditors accept payment of debts in Iceland's currency; if they do, they are likely to demand that the moneys be paid on an open-market value as compared to a more stable currency; like the Euro or Dollar. All that bankruptcy means is that the debtor is unable to pay back the creditors under the terms of the debt. For a government, this can be caused if there is not enough cash on hand to pay back the bonds that are coming due. They could of course issue new bonds, but eventually people will stop buying bonds due to declining credit rating. After all, if the government can't even pay off the debts it has outstanding, who wants to purchase a stake in making that government even MORE indebted? Also, don't confuse specie (that is, hard currency) with money. The amount of printed currency in the world is a miniscule fraction of the "money" in the world; most money exists as bookkeeping entries in computer files. The debtors aren't paying off the creditors in stacks of bills; they are paying them off by transfering funds from one account to another. What is Iceland going to do with their debts, if their accounts don't have enough money in them to pay off the bonds they have outstanding? Printing more money is akin to declaring that there is just more money in the account.

"You only have $1,000,000 in your account"

"No we don't we have $10,000,000"

"How did you get more money?"

"Oh, we just said we could have more, and poof, there it is!"

Does that make any sense? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Aren't government bonds usually denominated in local currency? Governments (or rather, central banks, they are often independent these days) can just add an extra nought to an account balance of their choice if they want, but it would cause inflation. Private banks have accounts with the central bank so the government can pay any bonds owned by those banks (or owned by customers of those banks, I guess) by just increasing that bank's account balance. There is no requirement that another balance be decreased by the same amount. Of course, there is nothing a bond owner can do if the government decides not to pay, since the government controls the law and the courts, so it's up to the government whether they default and destroy their credit rating or "print" money and cause hyperinflation. --Tango (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course a government could do all of those things. The question is whether it is wise to do them. Governments, like any other organization, need credit to operate. Even short-term credit, i.e. commercial paper is needed for doing things like paying government employees. If the government behaves as you describe, then it is likely that no one will grant any credit to said government. Sure, the government could just print more money to pay its employees with, but that money wouldn't be worth more than toilet paper. Per Gresham's law, people would begin to hoard any foreign currecny (which has any real value) and would take that off the market, further devaluing the curency. So you then have a population, with cash that has no value outside of their own borders. You can't even import food, since no one wants your cash, and indeed since the food producers in your own country can get better value by selling the food outside of the country, you can't even hold on to the food your country produces. This is a recipe for popular revolt. "Them belly full, but we hungry, a hungry man is an angry man." The French Revolution was pretty much caused by this exact scenario, and Spain in the course of about 50 years went from world power to backwater nation due to these exact problems. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If Iceland were "financially embarrassed," and a ship or plane arrived with machine tools, clothes, food, books, fuel oil, electronics, cars, etc., I would expect that the Captain of the ship would be under instructions not to unload the product until funds have been transferred by the Icelandic government to the shipper in acceptable currencies such as dollars or Euros. The Icelandic government still has revenue coming in from income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, import duties and excise taxes. It is their choice which debts to pay. A shipper has the option not to deliver. A contractor building a road could stop work until paid. A present government employee could refuse to work until paid. Soldiers or teachers could go on strike, at risk of severe punishment. A retiree on a government pension has no options. Edison (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it's extremely undesirable to do either of those things (default on debt or print money) but if the government has run out of cash, it has no choice but to do one or the other (it can raise taxes, but that won't actually increase tax revenue past a certain point and takes some time to kick in so doesn't help with short-term cash flow problems). --Tango (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, government bonds are denominated in local currency but Iceland has a considerable amount of external debt including public external debt. According to this recent rating report, its public external debt was 30% of GDP and its total external debt was 7 times GDP (see 2008 Icelandic financial crisis#Sovereign credit ratings for more). So it's quite possible for a country to be unable to pay its debts. A country can also choose to default on its local currency obligations if it feels that the consequences of printing money to repay are worse than defaulting (see this for more). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Economy of Iceland article doesn't mention it, but I've heard that a lot of Iceland's GDP was investment income from wealth overseas. When the value of those deployed assets started to waver (And/or were frozen by foreign governments...), it means bad news for the overall tax base, reducing the creditworthiness of the central bank (government bond issues) and reducing demand for krona-denominated assets.

At it's core, the value of a currency is directly related to the value of the assets denominated in that currency. It used to be a lot of claims on overseas wealth. Now it's fish.NByz (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Kiwanis Club International constitution and bylaws

I would like to know more about this constitution and bylaws associated with this organization. I've conducted searches and have come up short, I don't seem to be able to find anything on it. I would be much obliged if you could help me track this information down and provide it for me, thanks in advance,

Jay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.86.97 (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Click [8] for some stuff on bylaws. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

poverty

i am trying to establish a good definition of poverty. one that is considered to be the globally accepted definition. any help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.106.222 (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Poverty is always relative: it's a measure of the local distance between the lifestyles, materials and technology available to the rich and to the poor.--Wetman (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The European Union's standard definition of poverty is "Persons, families and groups of persons whose resources (material, cultural and social) are so limited as to exclude them from the minimum acceptable way of life in the Member State to which they belong". Strawless (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of different definitions, a common one for "relative poverty" is an income less than a certain percentage (commonly 60%) of the median income for that country. Another common definition is less than $1 or $2 a day. Alternatively, you can choose a basket of goods that can just about sustain a person in that country (working out what are necessities and what are luxuries can be difficult, and will depend on the country) and work out the price of that. Which definition is best depends on what purpose you are putting your statistics to. We have an article, poverty threshold that discusses this. --Tango (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Teeth. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Many development economists define poverty as having access to basic "capabilities" (including being able to eat X number of calories per day, basic education etc.) You can draw that line wherever you want, but my point is just that, by that definition, every time relative prices change, the dollar value of the line in an arbitrary poverty threshold model ought to change.NByz (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You have two forms of poverty, which are economicly acceptable definitions. Relative, and absoloute. absoloute, is $1-2 a day. relative is a certain % of a the average income in a country. 90.242.193.191 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Half-joke: The definition for relative poverty in the "West" is there mainly, to keep people in "poverty" and thus the social workers and esp. the social state bureaucracy in bread and power. There is of course also real poverty here, some people I knew were dead poor. Inflation is a problem for everybody, of course is a nice clean way to rob the population of its money and create the illusion of growth at the same time. Inflation hits the poorer people hard and makes them realy poor, then you have to increase Welfare and bingo! another victory for state power--Radh (talk) 07:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Can USA Democratic or Republican Parties expel members?

Can the American Democratic or Republican parties expel members? Do they have any way of responding to entryism from the left or right? Can sections of the party be expelled over differences in ideology? If a party member with significant differences in beliefs from the local, state or national leadership, wins a primary can the party do anything to respond? --Gary123 (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In relation to your last question, if their differences in belief were so great as to warrant taking expulsion action, wouldn't they be hardly likely to have become endorsed as a party candidate in the first place? Unless their beliefs changed radically between endorsement and election, but that also seems unlikely. And if that were the case, why would they want to be associated with that party anyway? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As a practical matter, there is far less philosophical difference between the parties than they would have you believe. A Massachusetts Republican, like, for example, Bill Weld is far more "left" of say, a Yellow dog Democrat, such as Robert Byrd. Indeed, until the 1950's or so, the "solid south" was a Democrat stronghold, largely because of the Republican party's former history as the party of abolition, and no one has ever accused the south as being a particularly "liberal" part of America. In general, the concepts of "conservative" vs. "liberal" are more geographical than party-based. This has changed some in the past, but local "party machine" politics had, and in some cases STILL has, a greater effect on what affiliation a candidate has than actual political philosophy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There isn't really membership in parties in the US like in other countries. A party can refuse to endorse a candidate, and refuse to provide party funding. See David Duke. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this can happen, but appears to be very rare. There was a movement to expel Joe Lieberman when he lost his state's Democratic primary and ran as an independent[9]. "New Haven Democratic Registrar of Voters Sharon Ferrucci plans to research the request, which she said was the first of its kind in her two decades on the job." Edmund V. Bobrowicz was expelled from the dems after being accused of being a communist. A much more important historical example of something similar is the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. According to [10] Henry L. Stimson was expelled from the Republican Party for supporting FDR's aid to Britain, and Edwin F. Ladd was expelled from the Republicans for supporting Robert M. La Follette for president.[11]John Z (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, there is no mass-membership organization called the US Democratic or Republican party. There are only state and county parties that cooperate through national organizations such as the Democratic National Committee. A member of Congress can be expelled from his party's caucus by his peers but cannot be expelled from the national party itself. Whether a member could be expelled from a state party would presumably depend on the state. In Ohio, for instance, one automatically becomes a Republican by voting in a Republican primary, so there's no way the state Republican party could expel someone.

The two major parties generally accept that their candidates will have widely varying viewpoints, so there are few times in which a party would which to reject a candidate nominated in a primary. However, in extreme cases, such as when Lyndon LaRouche supporters won Democratic primaries in Illinois in 1986, the party can take actions such as publicly disassociating itself from the candidate, withholding party campaign funds and endorsing a third-party or independent candidate. However, the party cannot overturn the result of the primary election.

Both major parties are too humungous to be in danger of infiltration. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If someone said "I am a Republican, but I disagree with every major tenet of the party's elected representatives, and with every part of their platform" the party cannot prevent the person from registering and voting in the Republican primary. If the person were an elected official, the Republican National Committee or other Republican organizations could find someone to run against him in the primary and fund the opponent so well that the dissident would lose the primary and not appear on the ballot as a Republican, or they could support his Democratic opponent in the general election. If he were in congress, they could deny him committee appointments and restrict his opportunities to speak on the floor or to get any of his legislation to a vote. Edison (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe Lieberman criticized the Democrats so much, that he was challenged in the 2006 Connecticut Democratic Party primary by Ned Lamont. Lamont won the party nomination, but Lieberman ran as an independent against Lamont and the Republican candidate, and won the general election. Since he is not the Democratic Party candidate, he lists himself as "Independent Democrat" and votes in the Democratic Party caucuses in the Senate. This is how the Democrats can claim to have a majority in the Senate, 51 to 49. Most of Lieberman's actual floor votes are Republican-leaning, however. If the Democrats can manage to gain a couple more Senate seats in the November election, they may decide they don't want Lieberman in their caucus any more. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

October 20

history of the lily as a symbol

I am wondering if the lily was present at all in Islamic history as a symbol and if so, how was it used?Nbpm (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Try this google search: lily silent "ten tongues".—eric 19:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in fleur-de-lis or trefoil. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Chosen quotation

In the novel The Chosen by Chaim Potok, at the end of book 3 chapter 14, the last paragraph says "That evening after my last class, I went to the school library and looked fo Rav Gershenson's mane in the Hebrew and English catalogues. His name wasn't listed anywhere. It was then that I understood why my father was not teaching in this school." This line come after Reuven told Gershenson how he explained a difficult Talmud passage using literary reconstruction. I never understood what this paragraph meant, could someone please explain it to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.132.11 (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Reuven's father is unconventional, a scholar applying modern techniques such as literary criticism to the Talmud. The novel contrasts the conventional father with a modern-minded son, and a modern father with an orthodox son, so I take it Gershonen is in the same category as Reuven's father, a radical thinker. Don't have it handy and read too long ago, but from the article The Chosen (Chaim Potok) this: "David Malter, Reuven's father. Talmudic scholar, teacher, Zionist. Considered a heretic by fundamentalist Hasidim." Julia Rossi (talk) 09:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Obscure George Orwell question

Hi - does anyone know if Eric Blair/George Orwell had pet dogs or cats as a boy?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

At google books[12] on page 46 of Coming Up for Air, "For instance, it was only when I was nearly four that I suddenly realized that we owned a dog. Nailer, his name was, an old white English terrier..." but no cats. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Good work, JR, but of course Coming Up for Air is a novel, not a work of autobiography. Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Argh, I just realised that. Oops. Any chance it was based on personal experience? Somewhere he says he had a typical childhood, whatever that is. The novel has a bullfinch, cats, mice and more. Yours vaguely, JR 09:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there were a family dog and guinea pig during his time at St. Cyprians. Agathocleous, T. (2000). George Orwell: Battling Big Brother. p. 11. OCLC 43434842.—eric 18:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No doubt there are some personal experiences in Coming Up for Air, but the lives of George Bowling and Eric Blair could hardly be more different! Strawless (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You guys are great. Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Painting of a girl

I have a question that I don't really expect to be answered, because I don't have many details, but...

I remember seeing a painting once and I'm trying to figure out what it was/who it was by. It was a painting of a girl (perhaps even just titled "Girl" or something like that, but I'm not sure), fairly close-up, and her head was turned away from the viewer, so that all you could see of her, essentially, was her hair -- no facial features. In addition, the painting was extremely photo-realistic, to the extent of maybe even trying to fool you into thinking it was a photograph at first glance. The one other thing I am (almost entirely) sure of is that the painter was German.

Unfortunately, searching google images for "girl," "painting," and anything to do with "photo" seems to turn up two things: The Girl with a Pearl Earring, and soft-core porn. Any ideas would be appreciated. :) zafiroblue05 | Talk 06:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the painting of which you speak, but you might want to have a look at the works of Gerhard Richter to see if it's one of those. He is German and often paints in a photo-realistic style. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it's probably Richter's Betty. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That's it! Thank you. zafiroblue05 | Talk 13:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

VAT

I am a trying to find out a few things about VAT to help me in my business

If i send a VAT invoice to a customer, do I need to include my VAT number? Also should my customers have to ask expressely for a copy, or so I have to provide them with it automatically?

thank you

ML —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.142.166 (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you mean Value added tax in this context, Wikipedia volunteers cannot offer legal advice of this sort. If you want to know more about the VAT in general, click the blue article link. Otherwise, it would probably be best if you contacted someone in the revenue department of the city/state/county/nation where you live. Those people will be more likely able to answer your questions or to direct you to someone who can. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are in the UK, you need to know that VAT is collected and administered by HM Revenue and Customs. They have lots of helpful information on their web site, including a page on How to issue a valid VAT sales invoice, which says:

"If you are a seller registered for VAT you must give a buyer who is registered for VAT a VAT invoice for any standard-rated or reduced-rated items sold. If you are a retailer, you do not need to issue a VAT invoice or receipt unless asked to do so by the buyer. A VAT registered supplier may be fined if they do not issue a VAT invoice when asked to do so by a VAT registered buyer."

But if you are unsure about anything to do with VAT, you really need to contact HMRC or your accountant as soon as possible. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Grounding/justification for human rights

What are some of the arguments that have been advanced to support a system of universal inalienable rights? Kant used our shared rationality but a few "heated debates" about human rights have made me realise I don't know much about other thinkers' grounding for believing in universal human rights. A few pointers in the right directions would be very much appreciated. Thanks. 86.146.97.112 (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Kant is probably the one of best known philosopher to deal with this topic, but certainly not the only one. There's the judeo-christian belief that since every person is made in the image of God, we share a common set of rights that includes basic respect for other people. The golden rule appears many places in the bible, and is as basic a premise for universal human rights as I can find. Jean-Jacques Rousseau argeued for the existance of an implicit social contract, that is since people have voluntarily formed a society, there's an implied agreement therein to respect as universal certain conditions that make said society function. One could argue that as a basis for universal human rights. If you need more information on this topic, you could see our articles on Human rights, on History of human rights, and on Natural law and Natural rights. Hope that helps! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Many religious Americans believe inalienable rights come from God. The Declaration of Independence says that men are "endowed by their Creator" with inalienable rights. People with this view get upset when they run across arguments which seem to argue that the government, and not God, gives rights. They say, "if government can give rights, it can take them away as well." They see it as almost the same as not having them, as, if it can be taken away, it is not inalienable. Wrad (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and its not just the religious. The idea of a "right" is that it is different from a "privilege". A privilege is conditional; it can be taken away or removed if conditions are not met. By its very nature, a "right" exists outside of such confines; thus while a Government may "recognize" rights, it may not "give" them. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This creates a dynamic in which a person has a right to rebel against a government which does not recognize human rights, since those rights are given by a higher power. It was an important part of the US Declaration of Independence's argument. Wrad (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, it isn't that rights are "given" which assumes a causal arguements. Many arguements exist which do not resort to any such deductions. A case can be made that natural rights exist because humans exist; they aren't given by anything or anybody. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but the specific argument used by Declaration of Independence says that men are "endowed" with rights by their "creator", clearly indicating that its writers considered human rights as something given by God. I'm not saying it's the only way to look at things. I am saying that it is the way the DoI communicates it. (Very American-centric of me, I know). Wrad (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Read metaphorically, that's equivalent to "by their nature have". —Tamfang (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"Inalienability" does not mean that a right cannot be denied; it means that it cannot be transferred to another (Latin aliēnum 'of another'). If I sell you this chair, I alienate to you my property rights in it, which you can then enjoy exactly as I have up to now. But I cannot sell you my life or my liberties; I can lose either, but no one thereby has twice as much life or freedom than before. The historic significance of this concept has to do with the functioning of the State. It may be argued that by transferring some of your alienable rights to itself, e.g. by taxation or eminent domain, the State makes better use of them than you could; but such an argument cannot apply to what is inalienable. —Tamfang (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

My personal view is that rights are a solution to the problem How do we organize relations among individuals with differing goals, to maximize their overall wellbeing?. Seeking their source is like seeking the source of the numbers. —Tamfang (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What numbers? Wrad (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The concept of number. —Tamfang (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a similar problem. Some would say they came from necessity, others from God, others from aliens... Wrad (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) One advantage of the Declaration's phrasing and logic is that rights specifically do not come from governments. In fact, men establish governments to secure their rights; the governments derive their power from the consent of the governed; if the government fails to do its job, "it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it." Many in our time aren't too concerned with divine origin of these rights; the same outcome obtains if human rights arise from the state of being human. Many of the American founders were believers of a sort, though. (And there's an echo of the declaration of Arbroath (1323) in which Scottish lords explain to the Pope that they made Robert the Bruce king specifically to guarantee their liberties, and that he he didn't do that, they'd get rid of him and find someone who would (Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King). --- OtherDave (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hereditary peers

How many hereditary peers sit in the House of Commons? Kittybrewster ☎ 20:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There's Sir Robert Smith, 3rd Baronet. A baronetcy is a hereditary title, although technically not a peerage (and I don't think it entitled one to sit in the House of Lords prior to the reforms). Having gone through MPs elected in the UK general election, 2005, no-one else is listed with a hereditary title and I would expect them to be if they had one (Dr., Sir, the Rev, etc. are all included). None of the people listed at the bottom as having won by-elections are listed with a title, either. So, I think the answer to your question is "none". (But, since the reform of the House of Lords, I don't think there is anything stopping them from standing.) --Tango (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

True, baronets did not sit in the Lords. There have been peers in the Commons before; those of the peerage of Ireland were never excluded. I have the hazy impression that at least one hereditary peer (not of Ireland) was elected in the last Parliament. —Tamfang (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

See Peerage Act 1963: "In 2001, John Sinclair, 3rd Viscount Thurso, became the first British hereditary peer to be elected to the Commons and take his seat. Later that year, Douglas Hogg inherited the peerage his father, Quintin Hogg, had disclaimed but did not have to disclaim it himself to continue sitting in the House of Commons. In 2004, Michael Ancram became Marquess of Lothian on the death of his father and was also able to continue sitting as MP." It appears that all three of these still sit. I don't know if the article is complete. Loren Rosen (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of "Rt Hon"s listed at http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/alms.cfm. Does that mean they're from titled families? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It can (barons, viscounts and earls get it; marquesses and dukes get a different honorific), but it more likely means they're members of the Privy Council. An individual can of course be in both categories. See The Right Honourable. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Heavenbound?

Is there a common opinion or official fiat it Christianity (or Islam, Judaism or any other religion with a concept of heaven or hell) on what happens to the believers of rival faiths after they die? Would they go ti in heaven or hell or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.132.11 (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

With the exception of Buddhism, every religion I've studied (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism...) believes that all others will go to hell. Even in religions, different sects believe all other sects will go to hell. Further, many religions believe that faithful for other religions are enemies that must be stopped by any means possible, hence the endless religious based wars ever since someone came up with the concept of God. -- kainaw™ 22:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's always the case. For example, in Catholicism, I'm pretty sure that if one never heard "the good news" - if one never had the opportunity to be saved by Christ because, say, they lived in the New World before 1492, they'd still go to heaven. But someone more knowledgeable than me should answer this. zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a catch that I didn't mention. Most religious sects believe that those who had no chance to be part of the religion, due to not being told about it or being a child, will go to heaven. Some have different parts of "heaven" just for this case. That brings up the discussion of "what is Heaven"? Different religions have different precise definitions of it. So, again, I was being overly general in my previous answer. -- kainaw™ 23:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you still are, Kainaw. There's also the concept of the age of reason; a person from the undiscovered island of Mungabunga who'd reached that age and spent their life killing and raping, but knowing in their own hearts it was in some way "wrong", would have as little chance of getting to heaven as anyone else. But his brother who spent his life doing good works and spreading love and peace would have a very good chance. At least, that's what I was taught. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

See anonymous Christian. Wikiant (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

See Righteous among the Nations and Virtuous pagan. --Dr Dima (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong about Hinduism. It doesn't say that those of other faiths will go to hell, in fact most Hindus don't believe in the concept of a permanent hell in the Christian/Islamic sense, though people may be reincarnated in hellish places or circumstances. I think you are also wrong about Judaism. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

See Hell in Christian beliefs. Kainaw presents an extreme view. Some of the mainstream Christian denominations are very cautious not to claim that persons who are not members will go to hell. Few are like Rev. Fred Phelps. Edison (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The human race has been around for rougly 100,000 years. What about all the people who died before these religions were invented? 67.184.14.87 (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's explicitly stated in the Christian Bible that those who have not heard about Jesus will be judged by a different standard - i.e. they won't be condemned just because they never found out about him. A letter of Paul - sorry I can't remember the reference offhand. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I wonder what was meant by 'studied' when you said "every religion I've studied (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism...)", Kainaw. Or had you just been having a bad day? 79.66.33.140 (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholics believe in Purgatory. Mormons baptise dead folks into their church to give them a chance of joining their heaven. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as Calvinism is concerned, God has already decided who will go to Heaven. You are saved by His grace, and not by just hearing about God. In other words, if he has decided you are saved, he will send you this message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.5.221 (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

October 21

Finance - Rights and Warrants

I am looking for a good verifiable source that discuses the difference between a 'right' and a 'warrant' (financial terms). I suspect that they are used interchangeably or with slight market- or country-specific connotations (like "rights" tend to be issued with equity, allowing equity holders (to maintain relative ownership) and "warrants" with debt (to add speculative features and reduce the nominal coupon rate and interest expense).

The definitions on Investorwords.com support the debt/equity distinction, but I think it may be something more...

I was surprised that we didn't have an article on financial rights (also called "subscription rights"). If the definitions were close, I was going to include a line on the "warrant (finance)" page.NByz (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We do have a short article on rights issues. You may also like to read the Investopedia articles on warrants and rights. The terms are definitely not used interchangeably - although there are some similarities between them, there are also significant differences. In particular, warrants are long-term instruments - they typically have a lifetime of several years. Rights, on the other hand, have a much shorter lifetime. A company declares a rights issue in order to raise additional capital; shareholders may exercise their rights and purchase new shares, or (if the rights are transferable) they may sell them to a third party. Either way, the rights must be exercised within a fairly short timescale - usually a few weeks; if the rights are not exercised within that window then they lapse, and are worthless. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Latin initials

What do the initials "P.f." and "L.n." stand for in Latin names? For example:

• P(ublius) Cornelius P.f. L.n. Lentulus
• L(ucius) Cornelius P.f. L.n. Dolabella
• P(ublius) Cornelius P.f. L.n. Scipio Africanus
• P(ublius) Ventidius P.f. Bassus
• P(ublius) Cornelius P.f. Pn. Scipio

(None of those articles say anything, by the way.) — The Man in Question (sprec) · (forðung) 08:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't listed at List of Latin abbreviations, but according to List of classical abbreviations, P.F. can stand for Pia Fidelis, Pius felix, Promissa fides, Publii filius. We only have articles for one of those (Pia fidelis), and that doesn't appear to be the one we're looking for. A google search shows both Pius felix and Publii filius used in conjunction with individual names. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman naming conventions might help more. The little f means filius and the n means nepos (grandson). The first name means "Publius Cornelius Lentulus, son of Publius, grandson of Lucius". These guys are all from the same family so certain names were used over and over again. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted music in non-commerical media

Plenty of people circumvent the law and simply use copyrighted music for various Internet art (e.g. Youtube videos, Adobe Flash films, YTMND pages) at will. It'd be nice to see a change in this, where people actually started asking for permission, but I've gotten completed confused on how that's supposed to be done. So, for example, if someone wanted to legally use "Never Gonna Give You Up" in yet another Rickroll parody, how would they go about it? (Question is completely hypothetical.)--SquareOuroboros (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(Incase not known) Parody is sometimes dealt with seperately regarding copyright law as is providing a 'critique' of something.

I suspect the best place to start for obtaining permission would be to try to find out the 'owner' of the copyright you are wishing to use, and then emailing/talking with them directly (or if a large firm owns it their trademarks/patents department) who may be able to put you in contact with the appropriate department/provide documents to complete. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well that's pretty obvious. My question is more about how to go about figuring out who the owner is (the artist or the record company?) and how to contact them (finding email/snailmail addresses for popular bands seems next to impossible).--SquareOuroboros (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no simple answer to this, I'm afraid. There are actually lawyers whose sole job is to figure out who owns the copyright on various properties so it can be bought or licensed. It can be difficult, because there's no reliable and centralized source for this kind of information, and it gets even more challenging when it comes to the very obscure and/or old material. Personally, I would begin by contacting the record company. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There are licensing agencies that take care of this for the products of big corporations. For your Rickroll "parody" (most Rickrolls are not parody in the legal definition—just because something is funny doesn't make it parody at all) you'd probably contact ASCAP or BMI. You don't contact the artists—they don't deal with things like that 99.9% of the time (rare exceptions come into play with bands who generally don't license their material for films, for example, but occasionally intervene for projects they really support—Led Zepplin falls into this category if I recall). But as for "getting permission"—unlikely. These organizations exist for the money. This media is in a giant system of copyright ownership that generally speaking lacks flexibility. And they consider internet publishing to be a major broadcast and charge accordingly. If you ever want to get really depressed, look at how Corbis handles the licensing of its photos regarding the internet: you can't just "buy a license for use on the internet", they only license things for short amounts of time, so you'd have to continually renew it if you were planning on keeping the page up for any amount of time. It's all a real pain. These organizations are not set up for small-time, fun use, they are set up to make millions from TV stations and advertising agencies and things like that. They see "making it easy" as a problem, not an answer, as it cedes control and gives people the impression that copyrighted material should be used liberally. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Americans During WWI

Which of their constitutional rights were violated? Please include references. I can't quite understand the constitution's language, despite being a native speaker... 203.188.92.70 (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that Japan and the US were on the same side in WWI? (cf Asian and Pacific theatre of World War I). Perhaps you mean WW2; if so, Korematsu v. United States is the case to read. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

But they did also suffer during WW1 -- see California Alien Land Law of 1913, Webb-Haney Act (are those duplicate articles?), and Oyama v. California... AnonMoos (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Second World War, I meant. 203.188.92.70 (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You could try checking the Supreme Court's ruling in Korematsu v United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) (Wikipedia article here.) This was not a unanimous decision, and the Court seemed to tap-dance around the room-filling elephant of racism. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Habeas corpus. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Korematsu is a watershed case in American constitutional law. The Court upheld the forced interment of Japanese-American citisens relying on the extremes of war (which no one believes was necessary today). It set the pattern for the Court being highly deferential to military decisions. The language of Korematsu, stating the ordinary case, is soaring. It is the basis for equal protection cases since. A case denying rights is the lodestone for cases granting rights. 75Janice (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC) 75Janice

Okinawa Dugong v. Rumsfeld

What is the current state of the legal case Okinawa Dugong v. Rumsfeld (United States District Court, Northern District of California), also known as Dugong v. Rumsfeld. It doesn't appear on the court's decisions page or on its current business page, and news reports that Google finds date from 2007, when it appeared to be ongoing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, never mind, I think I found the ruling here. Dugong v. Gates. Somewhat comically, as part of the ruling saying the Dugong has (kinda) standing, Judge Patel cites the wonderfully titled case "Cetacean Community v. Bush". Gosh, you know you're unpopular when the dolphins sue you :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Cemeteries

In the UK, are municipal cemeteries (ever) consecrated ground, or would that apply only to churchyards?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Childrens Book Title

The book concerns a young boy who meets characters who turn out to be magical members of his family. Each family member controls a different aspect of the city. One for instance runs the police and the courts, another the schools (this one lives in the past) his eldest brother runs the dustbinmen. They cannot leave the city because they promised to look after him and are bound there by their oaths. It turns out he controls the future and technology and he tricks the bad ones onto his spaceship by writing them there.

Does this ring a bell with anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.106.253 (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are thinking of Archer's Goon, by Diana Wynne Jones. John M Baker (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

New Hampshire dates for voting since 1776

New Hampshire has never followed the "first Tuesday after the first Monday on November" rule. Can anyone refer me to an actual list of their election dates since 1776?71.129.57.40 (talk)jbdc+ —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC).

According to Image:Miltonballotpaper.jpg they voted on November 2 2004 with everybody else. Grsz^Review! 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I grew up in New Hampshire, and I never remember New Hampshire voting on any national election (president, senator, congress) on any date EXCEPT the national election day? Local elections, such as for boards of selectmen, are held on different days, but many states hold seperate local and national elections. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

ROBERT CLARK -NAME CHANGED IN 1958 IN N.Y.C.

A sculpture, versions of which have been installed at several high-profile sites around the world. The image was created for a MoMA Christmas card, and was later featured on a US postage stamp. Hint: The sculpture's creator was born Robert Clark but changed his name in 1958, 4 years after moving to New York City.WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE SCULPTURE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.48.229 (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't "stump the band": Please don't ask us questions you know the answer to. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

LOVE (sculpture). What do I win? —Tamfang (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Candidates from former American states

Hypothetical question: Let's say one of the United States secedes and becomes an independent nation while someone born in that state is running for President? Is that candidate automatically disqualified or kept under a sort of grandfather clause? And would people who were born in that nation/state while it was still a state be allowed to run for President? (The same could apply to US territories which become independent or are acquired by other nations.) 137.151.174.128 (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No state has ever succeeded from the US, so the answer to your question is hypothetical. We don't know what citizenship people would have after such an imaginary succession. These are matters that would have to be decided in some future negotiation, treaty, constitutional amendment, or legal ruling. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think what you meant is no state has ever succeeded in an attempt to secede.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Some state such as Alaska you mean? :) Well, of course some states did once try to secede, but the North didn’t recognize them as a separate state so presumably a presidential candidates from the south would have been regarded as still born in America. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Lincoln's second veep, Andrew Johnson, was born in North Carolina, which did secede from the union (though, as noted, the north did not recognize such secession), and was in a state of open rebellion at the time of the election. Lincoln, a Northern Republican, selected Johnson, a Southern (unionist) Democrat, as his running mate in 1864 specifically to mend the wounds caused by the Civil War. They officially ran as the National Union Party to emphasize its intent. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm presuming that as well as the requirement to be a natural born citizen you actually have to be a US citizen at the time you run for office (anyone confirm that?). So it would entirely depend on the agreements between the US and the seceding state. There are precedents for this, such as the citizenship arrangements between the UK and ROI on independence. Presumably someone born in the state before it secession, and retaining their US citizenship, would still be eligible. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that's the intent. Being a natural-born citizen means being such not just at some time in their life, but specifically at the time of the election and inauguration. I guess a person who was born in the USA, somehow lost their U.S. citizenship (perhaps as a child), but later regained it, could still run for president. Since we're dealing in absurd hypotheticals, is there anything to prevent an incumbent president from relinquishing his U.S. citizenship and still remain president? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

George Washington was considered eligible for the Presidency because he was born in what became a US state, even though it was before the formation of the country. But Alexander Hamilton was not eligible because he was born in a British colony that did not become part of the US. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton's biographer stated that Hamilton's supporters believed the constitutional requirements could be altered if he chose to run for president. The requirements were not so hallowed with age for his generation. I have no personal opinion. The Jeffersonians hated him with vigor. Hamilton never viewed the requirement as a hindrance.75Janice (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the case is like that of a certain Senator who was born in a US territory (the Canal Zone) which was later returned to the country that was created around it, and then ran for President. Since he qualified (?) at birth, the change in the status of the place he was born is not important . . . unless he also changed his citizenship. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

---

75Janice

Take John McCain for example. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone which today is simply Panama and no longer a part of the U.S. (Arguably, it never was.) He is still considered a "natural born" citizen. —D. Monack ^talk 02:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The economy will have to get a whole lot worse before I vote for an "unnatural born" citizen. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

BET telethon

When Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005, BET put on it's own telethon, and called it SOS: Saving OurSelves. The purpose was to raise funds for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Fashion designer Tommy Hilfiger and his son were the only Caucasian Americans to appear. Hilfiger donated $250,000 in the form of a check, and $250,000 worth of clothes. How much money was raised through that telethon?72.229.139.171 (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Differing sources give differing amounts - $14 million ([13]), $11 million ([14]) and 'more than $10 million' ([15]). Nanonic (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I read them, and got confused. Right now, I'm wishing someone would create an article on the BET hurricane relief telethon SOS: SavingOurSelves. That could give out more information.72.229.139.171 (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reason why a fashion designer and his son are mentioned as "the only Caucasian Americans to appear" ? DOR (HK) (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

October 22

"Joe the Plumber" airtime

Hi all,

Does anyone have any idea if there's a way to find out the number of minutes devoted to "Joe the Plumber" on the major news networks? Or if there's anything that suggests any one network devoted more time on it than another?

Thanks!

— Sam 00:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.120.108 (talk)

Have you looked at Joe the Plumber? Some of the cited articles might help. Gwinva (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Which historical Pharaoh would be a possible candidate for the one Yu-Gi-Oh! makes mention of.

I was wondering what historical Pharaoh could possibly be the one Kazuki Takahashi makes reference to in Yu-Gi-Oh! that lived or died about 3,000 years ago, or 5,000 years ago depending on which anime you are going off whether it is the Japanese version, or the english version, and it would help to know how many years back, and from what date, because with all the research I have been doing I have really not improved that much, or gotten much accomplished, and one link is that of "Howling: Atem vs. Atemu", and the guy that wrote it said that Takahashi basically disrespected the way Hieroglyphs are supposed to be interpreted, and I have found that a lot of possibilities arise with the pharaoh being Akhanaten, or Amenhotep IV, but also I don't know why, but I see a possibility that Tutankhamen could be that Pharaoh it is just that the dates seem to be what gets in the way, because, " Takahashi started working on his Manganka I believe about 19?2, meaning that I can't remember what decade, and Yu-Gi-Oh! was created 1996 I believe," and it is the year 2008 by now, and I am interested to find this out because I have a millennium puzzle necklace that was a trophy that someone had won, and they sold it to me, and I am trying to find proof that magic does exist, just like dragons exist, and aliens exist, and that the government has been covering it up just because of some dumb reason like they are afraid that if information got out that stuff like that existed that it would create mass hysteria, and mass panic, or in some peoples mind the fact that they would cover up something like aliens existing is for economic reasons, and also I want to see if I find proof that Yu-Gi-Oh! was not all 100% based off of fictional information it is not just that it might prove that magic exists like what the shadow games could do, or any proof that we might get from finding out if my millennium puzzle necklace is from the real Pharaoh.67.41.206.229 (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)