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

November 12

74.14.117.196 questions

These all look like home work questions, and we don't tend to answer such things, though we may provide some pointers. I've pushed your questions down a heading level and inserted my own first level heading. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, encourage the answering of all homework questions (I wont be the one to do so though). I believe it can only lead to my children having a competitive advantage in the job market in the future. 38.112.225.84 (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Having other people do your work for you does not give you a competitive advantage over the long term. Having one's own skills is far more beneficial. Teach your children that and they'll be better off. Give a man to fish, he eats for a day; teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime... --98.217.8.46 (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It is as important to know how to obtain information from others as it is to be able to find out the knowledge for yourself.194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You missed the joke: answering the homework questions of others will harm them, leaving 38's more virtuous children ahead. —Tamfang (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Haha! I'm using that joke.

But also, I don't think we should have a problem with linking them to the proper articles and remind them to use the search feature. Mac Davis (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the IPs appear to come from different locations. If they didn't there would be an obvious retort Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Athenian

How was the Delian League transformed into the Athenian Empire during the fifth century B.C.E.? Did the empire offer any advantage to its subjects? Why was there such resistance to Athenian efforts to unify the Greek world in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.196 (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Peloponnesian War

Why did Athens and Sparta come to blows in the Great Peloponnesian War? What was each side's strategy for victory? Why did Sparta win the war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.196 (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hellenistic and Classical Age

How does Hellenistic art differ from that of the Classical Age? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.196 (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Athens, Sparta and Thebes

Between 431 and 362 B.C.E., why did Athens, Sparta and Thebes each fail to impose hegemony over the city-states of Greece? What does your analysis tell you about the components of successful rule? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.196 (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

How and why did Philip II conquer Greece between 359 and 338 B.C.E.? How was he able to turn Macedon into a formidable military and political power? Why was Athens unable to defend itself against Macedon? Where does more of the credit for Philip's success lie-in Macedon's strength or in the weakness of the Greek city-states? What were the major consequences of Alexander's death? What did he achieve? Was he a conscious promoter of Greek civilization or just an egomaniac drunk with the lust of conquest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.196 (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

For your last question, see false dilemma. Algebraist 01:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course we have articles about all of these that might be a good place to start. Delian League, Peloponnesian War, Hellenistic Greece, Classical Greece, Alexander the Great, Philip II of Macedon...I don't know if we have one about the Athens/Sparta/Thebes question though. However, the better answer would be to read your text book... Adam Bishop (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The answers your teacher wants are in your textbook. If you crib answers from the internet, it will be pretty obvious. I say this as a teacher who has gotten kids kicked out of school for copying history homework answers off the internet. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

How does he look like

How does a Moor man in Mauritania look like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.196 (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Take a look through Category:Mauritanian people and it's various sub-categories. However very few of the individual people articles have photographs. Astronaut (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This set of photos includes several photos of Moors in Mauritania. Marco polo (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Afro-Arab

Which Arab countries have black population? in your article Category:Afro-Arab says so but I need to know which country has the most and which one has the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.196 (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My guess would be that Sudan would have the largest black Arab population. Wrad (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

homosexual African-American & homosexual White American

How many homosexual African-Americans and homosexual white Americans are there in the U.S.? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

More than elsewhere. {rimshot} —Tamfang (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that the incidence of homosexuality varies from "race" to "race". People of certain cultures may be more open about it than those of other cultures. The numbers would be proportionate to the relative numbers of African-Americans and "white" Americans. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the article on African American, in the 2000 US Census there were 36.6 million African Americans living in the US. Estimates to the number of gay people in a population vary, but usually stated as 2%-7%, which would mean that there are something like 700,000-2,000,000 gay African Americans in the US. Note though that this is an imprecise calculation, it doesn't take into account homosexuals living as heterosexuals, and completely disregards the Kinsey scale. There are probably many, many more that are bisexual or have homosexual leanings, the 2-5 part of the scale. Belisarius (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Kinsey Scale doesn't imply normal distribution. However, you're right in that there're probably a lot more people living homosexually than will admit so openly, especially given common biases in African American culture. You might be able to find some data on openly homosexual people (1-2% of men, 2-3% of women, if I recall the number correctly). Steewi (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that the Kinsey Scale is normally distributed, I just meant that that 2%-7% refered to the more extreme ends of the scale, and that more people in the middle, that might not be 100% homosexual, but could easily fall in love with someone of their own sex. Belisarius (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Jack, if you thought I said something about rates of homosexuality, I didn't: I said something about concentration of Americans. —Tamfang (talk) 05:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't assume that the US consists only of white and black. Another lead is down-low and Men who have sex with men in general. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

US one-party state

I just read that the US is now effectively a one-party state, because the same party has the president plus a majority in both the house of representatives and the senate. How uncommon is this? I am surprised at the lack of info on past US elections on Wikipedia. We love lists, don't we? So why can't I find a list showing all the elections? (Even the Dutch elections are covered a whole lot better on the English Wikipedia.) Amrad (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh..... that's an extremely misleading usage of the term one-party state. A one party state is usually used to describe a state where only one party is allowed to form the government which is definitely not the US. The US isn't even close to a Dominant-party system yet (a country where realisticly only one party can form the government) IMHO. I'm not sure why you think we're lacking info on US elections. We have an article on every Presidential election from 1789 to now Template:U.S. presidential elections, the same for the Senate Template:U.S. Senate elections from 1908 (I think this is the beginning, the Senate members used to be elected by the state government rather then directly by the people of the state IIRC), and the House from 1789 Template:U.S. House elections. If you want lists, we have a bunch of stuff like List of United States presidential elections by Electoral College margin, List of United States presidential election results by state (and while not strictly election related List of United States congressional lists) and Category:Lists relating to the United States presidency may interest you). Our Template:U.S. gubernatorial elections is somewhat incomplete but wasn't what you were discussing. We also have an article on each Congress from the first Template:USCongresses. So really, I personally strongly suspect our coverage is far better then that of Dutch elections, although I've never looked at Dutch election articles extensively. As for your specific question, according to History of the United States Democratic Party, the Democrats has the same control from 1992-1994 (and actually for the 40 years preceding 1994 except 1981-1987 they had both houses so any Democrats presidents during those 40 years would be the same thing). According to History of the United States Republican Party, the Republicans had control of both houses from 1994 to 2001 then 2002 to 2006 and since Bush took control in 2000, they had all 3 in 2000, losing the Senate in 2001 to 2002 (I can't recall exactly but I think one Senator abandoned the Republican party, I'm sure many articles mention it somewhere) and then regaining it until 2006. It does note that their gains in 2002 were somewhat of an oddity since "This marked the first time since 1934 that the party in control of the White House gained seats in a midterm election in both houses of Congress" Nil Einne (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There's also a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth among Republicans and conservatives -- the ones who keep chanting that the U.S. is really a center-right nation -- because Karl Rove's dream of a permanent Republican majority has turned out to be...premature, at the least. One effect has been a great deal more fretting about "one-party rule" than you heard when the GOP was in control of the presidency and Congress. I recall Speaker Dennis Hastert's notion that legislation could come to the House floor only if supported by "the majority of the majority." In other words, a bill supported mostly by Democrats, with enough Republicans to give it a chance of passing, would be stalled the leadership because it wasn't supported by at least half the Republicans.

Party discipline among the two major U.S. parties is also more a theory than a practice -- e.g., Joe Lieberman, who was the Democratic nominee for vice-president four years ago, actively campaigned for McCain/Palin. (Yeah, yeah, he's an "independent.") Committee chairmen in the House and the Senate have a great deal of power, and the president doesn't always have many ways to sway them. A challenge for Obama will be managing the conflicting agendas of longtime liberal Democrats and newer more conservative ones like Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The complaining is not just among Republicans. Historically, whenever the same party has controlled the White House and the Congress (regardless of which party it is), economic growth has slowed, unemployment has risen, and real wages have fallen. Wikiant (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with Rove that most people in the US are of a center-right persuasion, but I think the question is more where the center is. The US is farther right than Europe, at least as I understand it, but why are they the center? As a follow-up-esque question to the OP, there's a bit of a perception that in recent years that politics is moving away from the middle and that some increase of Political radicalism is happening? SDY (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Some data. Algebraist 14:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I love articles like that: "If we ignore anything that doesn't fit with the conclusion that I want to push, the data backs my conclusion completely!" -- kainaw™ 15:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Just looking at the conclusions of the first few paragraphs, I have substantial doubts about the article. That people don't know what party is more conservative may indicate that they simply don't care about politics, not that they know the "other side." To be more formal with the questions, though:

• 1. Is there any evidence of increasing radicalization of US politics?
• 2. Is there evidence that McCain intentionally abandoned the moderate vote? (i.e. leaked memos, emails, and other documents, not the conclusions of pundits).
• 3. What, if any, rigorous definitions are there for a "center" in US politics?

In all cases, I'm looking for political science answers and neutral data: Declarations against interest, numbers from at least nominally neutral organizations (i.e. at least somewhere between Fox and MSNBC) and "big picture" academic speculation, not blogs and pundits. If there are no answers along those lines, so be it. SDY (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The lastest exit polls, all over the news and interweb, say that 22% of US voters identify themselves as "liberal," 44% call themseleves "moderate", and 34% say they are "conservative." For conservatives, this indicates a center-right nation. For liberals, this indicates that the average American is too stupid to know that he's a liberal. ;-) 71.72.148.80 (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To me it indicates that whoever did the survey was too stupid to ask a question that actually results in meaningful answers. Self-identification works well for things like race which experts agree is a pretty meaningless concept (so if you really want statistics on it, self-identification is your best option), it doesn't work for political opinions. --Tango (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious you don't like the results, which has resulted in you saying some silly things. :-) The poll did produce a meaningful result -- how people identify themselves on a simple political spectrum -- but of course a more detailed survey would produce more useful data. And experts do not agree that race is a "pretty meaningless concept"; the biological validity of race is now doubted, but as a social construct, it's anything but meaningless. 71.72.148.80 (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a very meaningful question. Though it seems useful to politicians decided whether or not to use the word liberal, which I'm sure is very important. It's a bit better in context. 71.72... here is obviously going on about the results from the "Edison Media Research" exit polls as reported by the AP and CNN.

There are some surprising (to me) results. 76% of voters attended college, but only 44% of voters graduated college. That seems like a pretty wide split. It also amuses me that among this year's voters there are more conservatives than liberals, but more democrats than republicans. APL (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Moses's Egypt?

Where can I find a good definition of the term Egypt when used in Exodus? It's certainly not the modern country Egypt. It was the name of a rule or civilization or country back then. Do we know which specific date or pharaoh Moses interacted with?

I'm trying to figure out what the name these Egyptians themselves would have given to themselves as a people or to their nation.--206.248.172.247 (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Exodus#Dating the Exodus has some information on when the Exodus might have happened, if indeed it happened at all. Algebraist 12:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So I'm looking at Egypt between 1500 and 1200 BCE. New_Kingdom_of_Egypt--206.248.172.247 (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Tradition generally holds that the unnamed Pharaoh in Exodus is Ramesses II, though documentary evidence is sketchy. That the Exodus is undocumented by non-Hebrew sources is unsuprising. The Hebrews were a relatively small group of people; and were likely not recognized by non-Hebrew peoples as distinct from any of a number of other Canaanite tribes, such as the Philistines. Slave revolts were not uncommon in Ancient Egypt; and The Exodus, while a defining moment in Hebrew history, probably doesn't rate as much more than a blip on Egyptian history. The basic theme of the book (member of enslaved class rises to high government official and has a positive impact on his own people) occurs multiple times in the old Testament, cf. Joseph, Daniel, etc. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

According to our article Ptah, the likely name used by New Kingdom Egyptians for their country was Hat-ka-Ptah (pronounced haht-kah-ptah)—"the house (or estate) of Ptah." This name was the basis for the Greek place name Aigyptos, which later morphed into our name Egypt. Marco polo (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing how adding a couple of hs can make pronunciation clear. —Tamfang (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Fastest growing sorority?

I'm trying to find the fastest growing sorority in the U.S. I did a quick search on google and there are a few that mention it but I don't exactly trust the sources. Help would be very much appreciated. 71.244.5.124 (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

descendants of ancient famous figures

Do they know the lineage of any ancient kings, emperors or other famous or important people? I know this Italian guy who swears up and down that he's a direct descendant of Julius Caesar and I can't convince him that no one knows that for sure. 63.245.144.68 (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no well-established descents from antiquity. That doesn't stop people from believing in them. There are some reasonably well-proved descents from persons living as early as 400 if you accept Irish chronicles as sources, but none dating back to Caesar. I suspect you'll never convince your friend, though: if you lower your standards of evidence you can claim descent from almost anyone, including fictional figures like Wotan, Adam, and Eve. - Nunh-huh 20:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that Wotan or Adam and Eve are mythological figures rather than fictional ones. Malcolm XIV (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Descent of Elizabeth II from the Franks is an interesting read. --Cameron* 21:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Many Jews claim descent from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah. Wrad (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There is apparently a pretty good line of descent from Confucius, but descent from Caesar would be very difficult to prove conclusively. Steewi (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason he says he's descended from Caesar is because Roman Mythology says that Caesars family were descendants of the goddess Venus, so he thinks he can say he's descended form the Gods. Not that he actually believes this, he says it sort of tongue-in-cheek, but it would be cool if he could prove that. 63.245.144.68 (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If someone from 1000s of years ago has descendants alive today, chances are most of the world population is descended from them (bar a few isolated tribes somewhere possibly). At the very least, if Julius Caesar still has living descenents then anyone native to western Europe is probably descendent from him. Assume his lineage has doubled every generation and generations average 25 years that means he should have about 2^2000/25=2⁸⁰~=10²⁴ descendants by now. Seeing as the world population is about 6.5x10⁹, you can see that there has clearly been such an enormous amount of inbreeding to the extent that almost everyone will descended from him by now. --Tango (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I claim direct descent from Mitochondrial Eve, so there. 38.112.225.84 (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Kohanim claim direct descent from Aaron. Queen Elizabeth II is supposedly descended from Mohammed. ([1]) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

OH WOW!! Does this mean I can trace my lineage back to Caesar and therefore the gods too?! :D BAD ASS!!! I'm gonna tell everyone I know that I'm a demigod. (Of course, I won't bother to tell them that they are too...) 63.245.144.68 (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you think about it, every one of us is descended from people who are utterly lost to history because they only started keeping records relatively recently. But some of them might have been kings in their own time. No matter how far back you can trace your most distant known ancestor, they had parents, and they had parents ... and so on, back at least 80,000 generations. Whatever we know of our genealogies is just the tiniest tip of the iceberg of our actual history. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I have the same family name as a notable writer from over 1,000 years ago. Since the name is somewhat uncommon, I've often wondered how I could find out if we are distantly related? Astronaut (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to trace genealogies precisely that far back, but the general principles Tango alludes to above mean it's very likely you're descended from whichever of his relatives have surviving descendants at all. Algebraist 16:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Mikhail Lermontov claimed to be descended from Thomas the Rhymer a.k.a. Thomas Learmont following the same principle...AnonMoos (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Often, people use a book named something like "Famous Descendents of Charlemagne" to trace lineage to notable people. The problem is that the book was created, not for accurately defining family lines, but for allowing those who paid nicely to have a book that shows they are descendent from royalty. I've looked at it and it claims I'm descendent from British, French, Norwegian, and Turkish royalty. So, you can see that it is important to take lineages of long ago as best guesses, not facts. -- kainaw™ 16:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no way of verifying a descent from Julius Caesar - he only had two children mentioned in ancient sources - his daughter Julia, whose onnly child was stillborn (she died in childbirth), and his (probable) son by Cleopatra, Caesarion, who was murdered on the orders of Augustus while still a child. Caesar is supposed have had numerous affairs, but any other illegitimate children he may have had have gone reported. Brutus, the son of Caesar's mistress Servilia Caepionis, is likely too old to be Caesar's son, but Servilia had other children who could conceivably have been his - but even if you could trace your descent to any of them, you couldn't definitively claim to have been descended from Caesar. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently one of my late great-grandmothers was an exiled Nepalese princess. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 00:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A lady who my brother worked with was part of the exiled Eritrean royal family and supposedly is related to the Pharoahs. 63.245.144.68 (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The further back into their ancestry you go, the more likely any person is to have royal heritage. And many royals had the opportunity to have lots of children, which poorer people couldn't, especially in societies which allowed the men more than one wife at a time. French artist and film maker Marjane Satrapi, for example, acknowledges that she is descended from Persian royalty in the ninetenth century; however, Satrapi points out that "the kings of the Qajar dynasty...had hundreds of wives. They made thousands of kids. If you multiply these kids by generation you have, I don't know, ten to fifteen thousand princes and princesses. There's nothing extremely special about that." Saudi Arabia is a monarchy ruled by the House of Saud, which includes thousands of members, although not many of them have any political power. Etc. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

On this subject, are there any direct descendants of Christopher Columbus and the passengers on the Mayflower?72.229.139.171 (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

what is the period of time the supreme court hears cases

is the period of time an hour?

is it something else?----

What do you mean, the time between when one case stops and the next starts? I doubt there is a set period. --Tango (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If you mean how much time is allotted for oral arguments, the Supreme Court web site states that hearings are scheduled for one hour,(I assume the time is split between the parties) and two cases are scheduled daily when the Court is in session. There is no set time for reaching a final opinion. I assume that when all the opinions (majority, plurality, concurring, dissenting) are prepared, the decision is announced and explained by one of the justices. The Clerk's Office releases the opinion the same day. 75Janice (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)75Janice

Yes, the time for oral arguments is split evenly between the two parties (and believe the time the judges spend asking them questions from the bench counts as part of their time; does anyone know for sure?). - Jmabel | Talk 00:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hard to tell what's being asked here, but the Supreme Court of the U.S. is prescribed to start a term on the first Monday of October. So the 2008-2009 term began on October 6th and it sounds like that when a term ends, so the Justices can take off on other gigs or vacation or whatever, is not prescribed and varies somewhat but is usually mid summer, sometime around July or August. 38.112.225.84 (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It may help the OP's understanding to mention that the Supreme Court, like other appellate courts, does not hear cases. It considers appeals from lower courts. No new evidence is presented. Instead, advocates for the two sides present briefs and other documents either in support of the ruling of the lower court, or in an effort to have that ruling overturned. Most of the real work goes into these documents. As Jmabel points out, the oral argument time is brief, and talkative justices (some of them making points to one another in the form of questions to the attorneys) can gobble up a lot of that. The justices (and their clerks) spend a great deal of time going over documents presented on both sides, and more time drafting the court's eventual decision. Even a straightforward case like Feist v Rural Telephone Company 499 US 340 (1991), which dealt with copyright, resulted in a thirteen-page decision. Virtually every paragraph contains references to two or three other cases. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Run on a currency?

The last line of Invergordon Mutiny says

"The Invergordon Mutiny caused a panic on the London Stock Exchange and a run on the pound"

I know what a run on a bank is, but what does a "run on the pound" mean? --Carnildo (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Much the same: the value of the pound against other currencies falls. I'm assuming currency exchange rates were not fixed in that period. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

People rush to exchange their pounds for foreign currency which appears less threatened. Wrad (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

In that period, would they have been exchanging their pounds for foreign currency, or for gold? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Foreign currency, mainly, there isn't enough gold to buy gold with it all. When people trade foreign exchange they don't generally own the currency they're trading, they borrow in one currency and use that to buy another currency, the amount of money you actually need to have in your account (called the margin) is pretty small (10% is common [ie. if you have $10,000 in your account you can buy $100,000 worth of foreign currency], sometimes less, probably much less for big institutional investors [since they're low risk - at least they were a year ago...]). --Tango (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I should say, you don't necessarily have to buy and sell currency in order for it to be a run on the pound, selling things valued in pounds (UK based assets, mainly) and buying things valued in some foreign currency has the same effect. --Tango (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

November 13

Babylon as a symbol of "orgiastic decadence"

What does orgiastic decadence mean? Elchananheller (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Orgiastic means "pertaining to an orgy". And also decadence. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Any relation...?

Hi all - does anyone here know whether rock musician Eddie Vedder is related to 19th century symbolist artist Elihu Vedder? I haven't been able to find a source which mentions a possible connection, but thought someone here might have some idea. Thanks in advance, Grutness...wha? 01:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd infer yes from this but in exactly what way, I don't know. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This geneology: [2] confirms that Eddie Vedder, through his mother Karen Lee Vedder, is related to Elihu Vedder the painter. Following BOTH of their lines back, the closest common ancestor for both of them was one Harmen Albertse Vedder, one of the original settlers of New Amsterdam, who migrated to what is now Schenectady, New York from Amsterdam, Netherlands. H.A. Vedder was Eddie's 10th generation ancestor, and was Elihu's 5th generation ancestor, making them 4th cousins, 5-times removed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This book title

I remember reading the wikipedia article for this book a long time ago and I want to buy it. I remember some guy murdered his friend with a shovel or something. He goes to hang out in a police station or something and finds a city inside a giant cave. I remember that the constable had all sorts of witty wordplay. Then in the second half of the book he dies and repeats all his adventures as a ghost with the murdered friend. Anyone have an idea? .froth. (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a punt on The Third Policeman. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Two hours of googling couldn't turn that article up.. I was searching "shovel" instead of spade, "constable" instead of policeman, "cave" or "cavern" instead of underground chamber.. THANK you ! .froth. (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel that Flann O'Brien would appreciate that sort of google-fu :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Back from the dead

Someone goes missing, is declared dead, their will is executed, and then they turn up alive. What happens? --Carnildo (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of instances of this, and it much depends where it happens. In undeveloped countries, there are cases of these people being treated like zombies and stoned. In developed countries there is a lot of red tape to go through and it's sometimes impossible to be officially recognised again. I don't have immediate access to sources, but this sort of thing is often reported in Fortean Times. If they have commited pseudocide they usually end up in jail.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There's also List of premature obituaries and the John Darwin disappearance case in the U.K. Darwin was arrested for fraud along with his wife after turning up in 2007. Both received prison sentences in 2008. Idaho-an Jeremy Bass has to prove he's alive here[3] after a mixup. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

See also Association of the Dead. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What a terrible article! (pseudocide). You've written more than the article says. Actually let me copy what you've written into the article -- i hope you don't mind! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.126.76 (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me find the original projections of social networking sites such as Facebook and Myspace

duplicate question removed --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Role of the Israeli prime minister

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am currently doing a school project on Israel, more specifically its political system, and I was wondering: what is the role of the prime minister in Israel ? I have found information on the role of the Knesset (declare laws, dismiss the prime minister, etc.) and the President of Israel (ratify laws approved by the Knesset, meet foreign dignitaries, etc.); but my search for information about the PM's duties remains unfruitful. Most of the information that I find is related to the history of the position. Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The PM leads the government meetings and is in charge of the work of government in general, he takes over the role of resigning ministers, he decides the government agenda, and has final word in foreign policy decisions. (My translation of the Hebrew entry)Elchananheller (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

While Prime Minister of Israel isn't very helpful, most of the information at Prime Minister is relevant. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Calling Joe de Maistre

Yo, I'm intending to expand the Joseph de Maistre and have a question about how to refer to the cantankerous old git when omitting his first name. Is it "de Maistre" or simply "Maistre"? I have seen both conventions used in the literature, and am wondering which would be more proper for our purposes. Any informed response appreciated, the skomorokh 05:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To me, "de Maistre" sounds more formal and is therefore preferred here. The one time it's abbreviated in the 1911 Britannica article, it uses "de". (But de Sade truth is, there doesn't appear to be a strong consensus.) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than inspecting our gut-feelings for the answer, as the US President does, let's note clearly that the comte de Maistre is referred to as "Maistre", just as the marquis de Lafayette is called "Lafayette": Try saying, "De Lafayette, we are here!" See?. --Wetman 06:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Je ne parle pas 18th century mannerisms, desolee. Is "de Maistre"/"Maistre" not then a surname but rather a title of sorts, "head-dude of Placename", where Placename thereafter serves as a metonym? the skomorokh 06:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Nor me, but conventionally the Australian artist Roy De Maistre is referred to as "de Maistre", fwiw. Maybe it's just Australian-style. Why the capital D in the article title, I've no idea. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Even stranger still that he is the son of a chap called "Etienne L. de Mestre". Immigrant populations have a tendency to disregard the mannerisms of their ancestral homelands, so I'm not sure how much of an indication Roy's example is to us...unless that is he styles himself as "Roy, comte de Maistre...'just call me de Maistre'"! the skomorokh 09:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Portia de Rossi is referred to as "de Rossi". You would expect to find people like Herbert von Karajan (who's referred to as "Karajan") and Hans von Bülow (who's referred to as "von Bülow") under K and B respectively. Dutch people whose names start with "van", who are referred to as "van ___", are categorised under the final name (e.g. Eduard van Beinum is found under B), except for Vincent van Gogh, who appears under V rather than G. Why we make an exception in his case I've never quite worked out. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

von Braun, von Neumann, van Johnson ... My personal theory is that people add the extra bit to emphasize the person's significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Whose system are you discussing, Jack? Because in American alphabetization, they would all be under "v". In Dutch ordering, the tussenvoegsel would always be ignored. Rmhermen (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The de may become an integral part, particularly of a non-aristocratic name, as Dupont. To appear to be knowledgable if one really isn't might be pretentious. If one actually is an Ochs von Lerchenau, then to insist upon correctness might make one a figure of comedy. But it is "the luck of the Lerchenaus" not "the luck of the von Lerchenaus", and even an American will hunt in vain under D for Lorenzo de' Medici. --Wetman 21:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Really, Rmhermen? Are Herbert von Karajan and Ludwig van Beethoven really listed in the V section of an American encyclopedia? I wonder. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

In Britannica Online, Ludwig's listed under the Bs. Ernst van de Wetering, a Dutch art historian, is in the Vs, as are Belgian priest and academic H.L. Van Breda and Dutch inventor Cornelius van Drebel. So it goes. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I find it quite odd that Britannica (a formerly British publication now headquartered in Chicago) follows neither the Oxford Guide to Style nor the Chicago Manual of Style's guidelines [4] but its own mismash. (Diemen, Anthony van for one Dutch explorer; van Neck, Jacob for another near contemporary) Rmhermen (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Charles Dickens Quiz Question

I've got a very vague quiz question I can't find an answer to elsewhere on-line & I don't have time to read the complete works of Dickens so I wanted to ask if anyone can answer the question: "According to Charles Dickens 'who was willing'?" Thanks

See "Mr. Barkis" in David Copperfield (novel)#Characters in David Copperfield. Deor (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks AllanHainey (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

first world war and Vatican

oh Did Vatican join the first world war? Was there any war that this country join? If yes, please explain a little about that. Thank you. 114.58.129.58 (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Holy See (which at that point was of unclear status, having lost almost all its territory to Italy but not yet acknowledging this fact; see Prisoner in the Vatican) took no part in the first world war. The Vatican has not taken part in any wars since, and indeed has almost no military. Before the loss of the Papal States, the Papacy took part in lots of wars over more than a thousand years of history. Algebraist 13:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Vatican is not a country. It is a city-state. There is a big difference there when discussing foreign relations (such as going to war). As far as joining a war, a military is required. It is not reasonable to claim that a country with absolutely no military involved in a war has "joined" the war. The Vatican has a ceremonial unit of the Swiss guard. It is not for combat. It has a police force that is not used for combat. All true military defence is provided by Italy. Basically, if your intention is to claim that the Vatican is the only country never to go to war, you will have redefine "country". -- kainaw™ 13:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The article cited above by Algebraist is a good place to start; as noted between 1861 (when the modern nation of Italy was born) and the 1929 Lateran Treaty, the status of the Holy See was in question. Between those years, there really wasn't a Papal States as we come to understand it; the Roman Question was left unresolved however, for all intents and purposes there was no secular state between those years. Also, it should be noted that the "Vatican City" is really just a small complex of buildings in Rome. It covers just over 100 acres, or 44 hectares. By comparison, London's Hyde Park is 390 acres, and New York's Central Park is 843 acres. The entire population of Vatican City consists of ordained clergy who handle the daily administration of the Catolic Church. There are a handful of non-clergy employees: accountants and other minor clerks, a few police officers, and the ceremonial Swiss Guard, which while an official "armed force" really just wear goofy outfits and stand around. The Vatican has no military force, and could not actually be involved in any war in any meaningful way. If we answer the question literally; the territory of the Vatican during WWI was a de facto part of Italy (even though it was "officially" an unresolved issue), and so it "fought" on the side of the Allied Powers during WWI. However, if we consider that the Catholic Church did not officially endorse either side during WWI, and essentially The Vatican = The Catholic Church, then one could also claim that it was neutral during WWI. In any event, it isn't really an answerable question, because, as kainaw notes, the Vatican is not really a "country" in the classical sense... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Swiss Guard: "really just wear goofy outfits and stand around"? Then what are there "SIG P225 pistols and SIG SG 550 assault rifles" and head of state protection training for? Rmhermen (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, fine, "really just wear goofy outfits, carry big guns, and stand around". As the Swiss Guard are all first active-duty military of the Swiss, they do have extensive military training, but they are really just an honor guard, and they are trained and prepared to defend the pope. But they aren't a "military force", and are not organized or prepared to undergo military operations of any sort! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Offensive operations, no. (They are not commandos, and there are not enough to do much) Defensive operations, sort of. (In an emergency, I think that they would be able to shed the "goofy" uniforms for bullet-proof vests etc. and put up a pretty effective last-ditch defense...those guys train a lot.) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, declarations of war is a fairly offensive act; no one declares war and then sits back and waits to be invaded. Yes, the Swiss Guard do have the training to handle themselves in a gunfight, and could probably be expected to defend the territory of the Vatican in an organized manner should it come to that. However, to consider them a military force on par with that of any other sovereign nation is stretching it a bit. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:15, 13 November 2008 (UvcTC)

Standing around is what being a bodyguard is all about, most of the time. They are of course ready to defend the pope if it becomes necessary. Algebraist 15:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

They wear Goofy outfits? Like this [5] ? That's one dangerous group of men. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Being a city-state with almost on military is no guarantee against declaring war. San Marino declared war on the UK in WWII. - Jmabel | Talk 17:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

San Marino, at 23.5 square miles, or 15,000 acres or 6000 hectares, making it 150 times the size in area of Vatican City. Its population of 30,800 is about 36 times the size of the Vatican's. Plus, since San Marino's military defense is, by treaty, handled by Italy, it's declaration of war on the UK was merely a formallity; Italy had declared war itself, and San Marino was powerless not to declare war. It really should be noted that the Vatican City really is a sui generis creation. There is no other "sovereign state" like it in the world. Even really tiny countries like San Marino or Liechtenstein, or true "city-states" like Singapore don't compare in any meaningful way. Remember, the entire "state" is a dozen or so buildings, a few gardens, and a big plaza tucked away on a hill in Rome. To attempt to fit it into the standard model of what a "country" is expected to do is simply silly. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The closest parallel to the Vatican's status I'm aware of is the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Algebraist 03:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Vatican also has thousands of missals they might find useful if war broke out. Edison (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thousands of missals!!!! ROFLMAO.... That's fucking brilliant... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And that fool Stalin only asked about the divisions. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Bengali Christians and Buddhists

Is there any Christians and Buddhist presence in West Bengal and Tripura like Bangladesh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.30 (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the 2001 census, Tripura at that point had a population 3.2% Christian and 3.1% Buddhist, while West Bengal was 0.6% Christian and 0.3% Buddhist. This compares with Bangladesh census data of 0.6% Buddhist and 0.3% Christian. Algebraist 14:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

there are factions of buddhists that they call them as "Baruah's" or "Mog's" and seem to have lineage towards bangladesh and are sparsely scattered accross assam and have a very little presence in states like delhi as well and their language sounds like an extract ob bangla itself.but with the recent influx from bangladesh the muslims have superceeeded them by leap and bounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikram79 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Educational background of Sara Palin

I can not find information on Palin's education. Did she graduate high school, college or have and advanced degree? How did she rank in her class? If she went to college, what was her majors and minors? Can she use a computer, cell phone, fly an airplane, etc? What is her IQ? Dawgrg (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Rick

→ Sarah Palin#Early life and education. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 17:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

She attended a number of colleges, each for a fairly short time, before finally graduating. No explanation has been printed for her moving from school to school. Edison (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Jim Jones Massacre

When all those people died, how were the remains handled? I cannot believe the mammoth job to organize and dispose of the bodies somehow. I'm sure it took days to clear up. Does anyone have any information on this? --12.170.106.12 (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Our article on Jonestown does contain some information about what became of some of the bodies. About 70 were examined by a medical examiner, so one assumes these were removed to a morgue somewhere, and 7 were returned to the U.S. for a more formal autopsy. As far as the other 800+, it doesn't say, but they must have been disposed of somehow... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

They all came back to the United States in metal coffins. They were returned to families when possible. Approximately 400 went unidentified (including a lot of the children), and are buried in a mass grave, with an accompanying monument, in Oakland, California. Here's the (rather devastating) entry at Find-A-Grave. Antandrus (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking for Fairytale or other stories..

I am looking for a fairy tale or any other story (don't remember) in which there is some mystical world/land in which only comes to life whenever the main character shows up and then freezes or ceases to exist once the main character leaves.... thanks in advance.--12.170.106.12 (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats a tough one, but I think the dragon in Puff,_the_Magic_Dragon kinda counts.

A dragon lives forever but not so little boys
Painted wings and giant rings make way for other toys.
One grey night it happened, jackie paper came no more
And puff that mighty dragon, he ceased his fearless roar.

His head was bent in sorrow, green scales fell like rain,
Puff no longer went to play along the cherry lane.
Without his life-long friend, puff could not be brave,
So puff that mighty dragon sadly slipped into his cave. oh!

--Jabberwalkee (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Bagpuss --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

How about Brigadoon? Thomprod (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe Biden endorses...

Before he became the pick for VP, did Biden endorse Obama only, or did he first endorse Clinton, and then later changed his endorsement to Obama? Also, if he only endorsed Obama, did he do this before or after Clinton lost? ScienceApe (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

May 27 2008 [6] said: "Biden, who has not endorsed a candidate after dropping his own bid earlier this year." Clinton conceded on June 7 [7] so I guess Biden made no endorsement before that. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

June 7 2008 [8] said: "Biden, who has not endorsed a candidate after dropping his own bid earlier this year." Clinton conceded on May 27 [9] so Biden made no endorsement of her. would have made more sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.126.76 (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Um except the reference which said Biden had endorsed no one was from the May 27th. Clinton conceded on June 7th. (Per the references.) We obviously don't no for sure that Biden didn't make an endorsement between May 26th and June 7th but given Clinton's campaign was already considered dead by all and sundry then, it seems rather unlikely. Obviously this is just a guess, hence PM said so and perhaps you can find a reference after June 7th but since this was what PM had and given the details, it seems unnecessary Nil Einne (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(Newspaper) layout: why this?

This is probably a trivial question, but still one I couldn't find an easy answer to. Why are newspapers layed out the way they are, with columns tastefully arranged on the page? Why not just have everything top-to-bottom, left-to-right, sorted by descending importance, pictures on the sides? Wouldn't this actually be easier to read while still properly directing attention? In general, how much of layout is objective? Is there active research to what's easier to read and does this influence design, or is it mostly tradition and instinct and what people are used to?

Again, it sounds like there should be some beginner's book on something that explains this, but I wouldn't know where to start. Pointers are welcome. 82.95.254.249 (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The (somewhat trivial but correct) answer is that newspapers are arranged as they are because that is what appeals to the readers. If, for example, readers found that having articles ordered by importance was useful, then newspapers that were so arranged would garner a larger market share (on average) those that weren't and would eventually replace the non-arranged newspapers. Then we'd be asking why are all newspaper articles ordered by importance. Wikiant (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that, often (but not always) in the U.S., where there are two competing daily newspapers, the layout is often quite different between them, perhaps as a sort of branding. Consider the Boston Globe vs. the Boston Herald or the New York Times vs. New York Post vs. New York Daily News, or the Philadelphia Inquirer vs. the Philadelphia Daily News. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Historically, newspapers were laid out in columns because the manual method of selecting type and building up the article was easier with narrow with blocks. Headlines - using larger type - could be wider. The same thing applied when pre-cast type changed to hot metal type. It is only since the advent of computers that freely chosen layout has been possible. Also there have been many studies into how people read and it turns out that llong line lengths are less readable than medium length ones (you have to move your head or eyeball excessively) whilst very short ones also have a problem in that words don't comfortably fit and the flow gets broken up. -- SGBailey (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Another reason is marketing: if every front-page story starts at the top of the page and continues down past the halfway point, then when the paper is folded in half and stacked or placed in a vending machine, people will need to buy it if they want to finish reading the stories. --Carnildo (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the way they're laid out allows multiple stories to appear on the prominent page-one-above-the-fold spot, so even if the the #1 story doesn't grab you, one of the lesser ones might. --Sean 00:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, they need to fit articles around advertising space, which is usually more of a priority than whatever news they pull of the wire. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

To answer your last question, tradition and expectations (not instinct) influence newspaper design (as well as other periodicals) in an extreme way. They do push the boundaries on occasion but generally it is a pretty conservative field. Part of what drives the tradition (and expectations) are the practicalities listed above. It is certainly not the case that people want to read wide pages of small text, which is what a newspaper would be if it were the way you described. It's incredibly hard to keep your place in such things—it's easy to get lost in the middle of a paragraph or to jump from the end of a line to the wrong beginning of a line. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless I've missed it, no-one above has mentioned another obvious advantage of columns, which is that it becomes difficult to read text that's in a block that's significantly wider than x-times the height of the font. In turn that's because it's more difficult for the eye to spot where the next line begins. You can check this out for yourself by printing a block of single-spaced prose on A4 paper. At 12-point or above, one column that is the width of the page is fine. But anything 9-point or below becomes far easier to read if you spread it over a few columns. AndyJones (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC) PS Sorry, I see SGBailey did actually touch on this. AndyJones (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting, AndyJones. I'd never quite realised that before, but I'll keep it in mind. It will, of course, depend on which typeface you use: Verdana 12 is a lot bigger than Times New Roman 12, which is why I almost always use Verdana 10 in my private writings. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Factors that Affect Air Fuel Price in India

Is the air fuel price increasing in India now? If so, are the insurgent separatist groups that operating in the Northeast(Assam), affecting the price of air fuel in India or is there not enough oil to supply the demands in India? Sonic99 (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

According to this recent article air fuel prices are falling in India, as one would expect, since air fuel is made from crude oil, whose price has been falling for several months. It is unlikely that insurgent groups in Assam would affect the price for air fuel, except perhaps locally within Assam. India's main refineries, which produce its jet fuel, are located along its coasts, far from Assam. Marco polo (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I heard that Assam provides like 30% of the crude oil in India. Since insurgent groups are attacking oil refinery, it would have an effect on the price of the jet fuel. India would have to pump more oil from other areas of India. Sonic99 (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Anthropocentric viewpoint and animals

I have three questions:

• why there are so limited number of political parties for animals?
• why these parties have so limited public support?
• I want to know the names of some persons who have philosophical works from non-anthropocentric viewpoint. The only person I know is Pentti Linkola who supported the Holocaust with the logic it helped to maintain the ecological balance by reducing overpopulation. Are there past or contemporary philosophers like him? I did not find any more name in wikipedia. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't harangue the Reference Desk volunteers. The Reference Desk is not a soap box.--Wetman 22:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What you are talking about? I was reading the article Pentti Linkola and found it to be interesting. His viewpoint is out of mainstream, and my question is if there are others like him. If you do not know anything on this topic, do not engage in this thread. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Otolemur asked legitimate questions, he was not delivering a speech. Please be civil to other users Wetman. ScienceApe (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(a) There are a lot of charities and other organisations that work for the welfare of animals. Few are political parties. Most have some elemnt of political lobbying. (b) They have limited support because, generally, humans are more interested in things relating to humans, animals are secondary. Many political parties have a view on animal welfare, but they aren't animal welfare parties. (c) Can't help. -- SGBailey (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

When animal rights and philosophy appear in the same sentence, Peter Singer springs to mind. Algebraist 00:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Does Peter Singer's views strike you as non-anthropocentric?--droptone (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in the article on specieism. 38.112.225.84 (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the answer to the first two questions in the original post is this: there are still far too many human beings in need of help, and so parties and individuals prefer to put their scarce resources into more productive endeavors.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The second question probably answers your first question. Politicians are in the business of getting elected, so anything not likely to increase those chances is unlikely to flourish. Lack of public support is probably caused by confusion, both in the sense of people not being sure they want to support something that can be a very nuanced topic and also in the sense that people are often unsure of their own opinions on it. There's a delicate balance of the objective, the ethical, and the subjective there that often leads to strange situations. If you ask a question like, "Do you think it's wrong to experiment on animals?" or "Do you think it's ethical to eat animals?" you'll get the usual yeses and noes, but also some shockingly strong responses both ways, which sound more like someone trying very hard to convince themselves their opinion is correct. I imagine that's a difficult topic to build a platform on; one step the wrong way and you're not simply out of line with what some people want, you're out of line on a topic where opinions carry a lot of emotional baggage. Much easier to pound the podium about abortion or gay marriage, which will also be emotionally charged but also more binary. Matt Deres (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember a thing called the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Should turn up on a Google search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.6.82 (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

UK Gold state coach

How are the paintings and the gold leaf on the state coach protected from the elements. For example if it was raining and the state coach was going to open parliament or something, what would stop the watercolors from being damaged? --Thanks, Hadseys 22:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Queen usually uses the Irish State Coach for the opening of Parliament. The Gold State Coach has only been used three times during her reign: for the Coronation, and during the Silver and Golden Jubilees. I would assume that the paintings on the side (which are not watercolours) are varnished. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The putty on the windows at Chatsworth House is covered in gold leaf because it protects better than paint. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Did whites participate in the Biafra war?

I wonder if any white soldiers/fighters participated in the Biafra war? Perez del Toro (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Our article Biafra War mentions that foreign mercenaries were involved, including Count Carl Gustaf von Rosen. Algebraist 00:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

November 14

US State Legislature Control

I was looking for updated information on which parties control which legislatures. Most of the information on Wikipedia does not seem to have been updated since the election, and it's been difficult to find a concise summary of the results on Google. Maybe I'm missing an obvious source, but any help would be appreciated. NoIdeaNick (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you try the National Council of State Legislatures? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a ton, that's exactly what I was looking for. 24.136.14.105 (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

famous schools for the gifted

first of all, we don't seem to have an article school for the gifted. secondly, are there any famous ones, with like famous alumni. did any really famous people in the world originally go to a school for the gifted. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.126.76 (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

See Talented and Gifted, a disambiguation page that will likely lead you to where you want to go! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you had to tell me how to get to the article seriously reminds me of http://www.uttyler.edu/faculty/amendoza/Pictures%20and%20Stuff/Far%20Side--gifted%20school.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.126.76 (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

what's the wrongest anyone's been?

What's the wrongest anyone's been. I don't mean like understandings that are so off they're "not even wrong". Instead I mean, like Columbus thinking he was in India. That type of wrong. I'm thinking of candidate answers that killed 3,000,000 people. Any takers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.126.76 (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Like a single person, or perhaps an entire societal attitude? Cuz leeching and blood letting were accepted medical practices for hundreds of years, and likely killed more people than the disseases they were supposed to cure. Famously, George Washington died after an intesive combination treatment that involved leeching, bloodletting, and highly toxic levels of mercury treatment. There is some speculation that poor people in the 18th century may have had longer lifespans because they could not afford such "medical treatments." --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

World War I was supposed to be "over by Christmas", they were pretty wrong about that. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone predict that Tommy Atkins would play football with the Hun by Christmas? —Tamfang (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

List of incidents famously considered great blunders may be of interest. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What a great article. It gives "further reading" references to some books on this very subject, too, such as Wrong! The Biggest Mistakes Ever Made by People Who Should Have Known Better. --Masamage ♫ 08:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed a great article, but don't tell the deletionists, or they'll be onto it in a flash. One of my favourites, not listed there, is the affair of the Hitler Diaries. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Last words of General John Sedgwick at the Battle of Spotsylvania (1864): "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..." Antandrus (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, Terry Kath, original guitarist for the famed band Chicago, noted to his friends "Don't worry, it's not loaded". He pointed the supposed empty gun at his own head and, well, he was wrong... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Some general, I've forgotten sent his supply train across a big river where the enemy was, so that they enjoyed all his supplies. A military plan devoid of any hint of correctness. Edison (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

More recently, George W Bush being so sure Iraq was involved in 9/11 he was prepared to order an invasion, leading to a pointless and almost unwinnable war that has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, and seriously damaged the USA's reputation around the world. Astronaut (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily say that the reasons for the Gulf War arose out of a mistake. Bush wasn't the sharpest knife in the box, sure, but he was surrounded by advisers and there are plenty other geopolitical reasons for the war. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Embarassing declarations include the British Prime Minister in 1930's, Neville Chamberlain who irrepressibly waved a peace agreement signed by himself and Herr Hitler containing the resolution to commit to peaceful methods, calling the moment "peace in our time". And the salesperson who told me a few (hundred?) megabytes were all the memory my first computer (and I) would ever need! (though that doesn't involve a squillion deaths, the computer didn't live long). Julia Rossi (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Its worse than that MS-DOS, the original precursor for Windows, had a real limit of 640 KB of memory access (that's 640 KILO bytes). The reason supposedly was that Bill Gates believed, quote "Nobody will ever need more than 640KB RAM" see: [10]. The quote is possibly apocyphal, but the 640 KB ceiling was real. It was so rediculous, that for generations of MS-DOS and early versions of Windows based off of it (like Windows 3.1) developers had to work some pretty silly kludges into the software to access any memory over 640 KB. Meanwhile, Mac-OS and Unix were happily accessing any amount of memory you had on your machine. Its probably the earliest example of how MicroSoft could create an inferior product with rediculous limitations, and yet through sheer force of market dominance, force it down our throats. The company has been doing things like that now non-stop for 20 years. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

</soapbox> --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the 640k thing was somewhat reasonable within the parameters of the original Intel 8088/8086 chip hardware architecture -- the chip had 20-bit memory addresses, which only allowed for 1 megabyte of directly-adddressed memory. Of the sixteen 64kbyte "segments" in this 1 megabyte range, the IBM-PC architecture reserved two segments for ROM-BIOS, two segments for device BIOS, and two segments for memory-mapped video, leaving ten segments (640k) for main memory. The problems started when PC operating systems continued to be based predominantly on a "real-mode" 8088/8086-compatible architecture for over ten years after the introduction of the IBM PC (despite often running on 80286 and 80386 chips), so that programs ran up against the inherent limits of the 8088/8086 architecture. Reserving fewer segments within the 8088/8086's 1 megabyte for BIOS and video memory (i.e. establishing a 704k limit or 768k limit or 832k limit in place of the 640k limit) would have delayed the day of reckoning only rather briefly.

The real problem was that the Intel 8086 could have rather easily supported 24-bit addressing, which would have allowed a 16-megabyte addressing space. This decision to have a 4-bit shift between memory "offset" and "segment" on the 8086 (and so 16-byte memory "paragraphs") instead of an 8-bit shift between memory "offset" and "segment" on the 8086 (and so 256-byte memory "paragraphs") was apparently made by relatively low-level people at Intel ca. 1977 for immediate narrow technical reasons, but has had very major consequences for the history of microcomputers (see http://groups.google.com/group/alt.folklore.computers/browse_thread/thread/11741a79f76a671a etc.) -- it's very dubious whether there would be a Microsoft operating system oligopoly today, if the 8086 had had 24-bit memory addressing instead of 20-bit... AnonMoos (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Confession time here: in my first job I had to write a report comparing the then newly-released 8086 and the Zilog Z8000 microprocessors. My report contained the immortal words "I can't think of a reason why any microprocessor would need more than one megabyte of RAM". DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of humanity today and throughout history has believed and acted upon a belief in a god or gods.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And they'd all be wrong, would they? I'm interested to know how you can be so sure. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That discussion cannot take place here (and such discussions rarely bear fruit) but if you really want to know, we should do so by email. Even your or my talk page would be a poor place if this was going to be discussed in any detail.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The world's religions serve a vital purpose ... keeping hatmakers employed. If not for the bizarre headware dictated by many religions, the whole haberdashery industry might collapse. And perhaps the mercury fumes emanating from the silly hats of "His Eminence" and others might explain some of the insane and sadistic decisions religious leaders make. StuRat (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Midgley, Jr. probably indirectly killed more people in the last 90 years than many others in history. Nanonic (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This was not the "wrongest" anyone has ever been, but it makes the list somewhere and it was fun to watch: The Mystery of Al Capone's Vault. cheers and happy weekend to all, 10draftsdeep (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

He also saved an impressive number of lives: CFC-based refrigerants were much safer than the ammonia-based refrigerants they replaced. --Carnildo (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

We must include the blunders of Mao Zedong, who, between the The Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, killed tens of millions of his own people. During the "Leap", he encouraged farmers to abandon farming and build backyard steel mills. This resulted in starvation due to a lack of food, and useless, low quality steel being produced by melting down existing high quality steel products like plows. Then, during the CR, he encouraged mobs to execute anyone with an education, thus draining the nation of a generation of potential scientists and teachers who could have improved China's economy, status, and power. Only after Mao died and a new generation could be educated could China climb out of poverty. Stalin also killed tens of millions, but most were intentional, the result of genocide committed by starving ethnic groups he considered to be of questionable loyalty. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. In the history of enormous, colossal, catastrophic blunders, very few things can measure up to good ol' Chairman Mao's absolutely idiotic Great Leap Forward. I've been racking my brains, and while I can think of a number of other mistakes that have changed the course of history forever (Pompey's decision to force Ceasar to stand trial, thus bringing the Roman Republic to an end, for instance), but nothing has the quite the combination of being A) preventable, B) predictable, C) mindnumbingly stupid and D) unimagniably catastrophic like the Great Leap Forward. 83.250.202.208 (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's decisions in 1941 to expand World War II have to rank highly. First he went to war against his former ally, the USSR, even though he had not, as he originally intended, defeated Britain first. Then after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, he decided to get in on this as well by declaring war against the US, while still at war against both Britain and the USSR. The three opponents together did a far more effective job of finishing off his regime than any one of them might eventually have managed to do alone.

Also in World War II, consider the US decision to develop nuclear weapons. It made sense from the perspective available at the time -- there was no question that if Hitler got them first, the war was lost. But in retrospect we know that there is no way Hitler was ever going to get them, and the US was the only country that could have afforded so much money in wartime for a project that might come to nothing. We can't know how history would have unfolded if they had not decided to try it, but there seems at least a chance that nobody else would ever have been willing to. Now, the number of people killed by nuclear attacks has not yet reached into the millions, but there are still a helluvalot of those things out there waiting to go off. --Anonymous, 05:15 UTC, November 14, 2008.

It's hard to tell if the US nuclear weapons program was a blunder or not. Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union were all working on them, and although nobody would have had weapons in time for WWII, the Soviet Union would probably have produced their own weapons in the mid-1950s. With only one side having nuclear weapons, the most likely outcome would be Soviet domination of Eurasia, with a strong possibility of a large-scale nuclear war at some point. --Carnildo (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Mother of all battles. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean that invading Kuwait was an error for Saddam, as it led to both Gulf Wars and his eventual trial and execution. The first Gulf War seemed successful for those nations which opposed Iraq, in that they evicted Iraq from Kuwait and weakened Iraq's military, with minimal casualties on their side.StuRat (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the computer memory infills because I couldn't find it in the pedia and it's interesting to see how people such as the salesman simply carried/y on imparting the authoritah of hearsay. Does misleading millions of people count? Re Great Leaps Forward, there's also Robert Mugabe (allegedly) and others who claim progress at the expense of millions of lives. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

To avoid Fuhghettaboutit's mistake above, I'll nominate as most wrong any religious belief other than the beliefs you, dear reader, hold. Big mistakes the lot of them (except that one, of course) due to the incredible cost, uncountable waste, deaths, incredible number of wars and zillions of hours of silly practices resulted from them. All for nothing. --Psud (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If we're talking about taking on an overly strong opponent in a war, Francisco Solano López, President of Paraguay, declaring war on both Brazil and Argentina, and being sufficiently hostile to Uruguay that they declared war on Paraguay. The War of the Triple Alliance proved a disaster for Paraguay, with perhaps 90% of the adult male population being killed. Warofdreams talk 10:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Capital Adequacy Ratio

Am searching for the differences of Bank of International Settlement (BIS) ratio/Capital Adequacy Ratio(CAR)/Risk based capital (RBC) ratio. No clear answer to this question tru Google or en.wiki, anyone here can help me out? Tks. --Loihsin (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much time to check this myself, but you should try to find the original prescribed regulatory documentation for each of these (google would be the best place to start) and bear in mind that it will differ depending on where you are in the world. In South Africa, for example, the CAR ratio is (in my experience) used in the insurance industry and is a formula prescribed by the regulator and determined by the actuarial society and is very similar to that from Solvency II. If you used the expression "Risk-based capital ratio" I would imagine it being the Basel II prescribed formula for banks. The BIS's website seems like a good place to start for that one. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

the shifting sands of the census

I'd like to get the US census numbers that were used to determine representation in each cycle. I suspect that most listings of state populations in today's reference books do not reflect the 3/5 rule, nor the exclusion of "Indians not taxed" where that was applicable. Where should I look? —Tamfang (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Any source which has the separated-out demographic Census tabulations (not just a simple overall total population count) would enable you to perform your own calculations. Why not start at the official site http://www.census.gov/ ? AnonMoos (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have 1800 or 1810 at all. —Tamfang (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the verb 'To stonewall'

Hello Wikipedia,

I've leart a new word today courtesy of an american friend -to stonewall, meaning to refuse to cooperate ("I stonewalled to buy some time"). I'm just wondering what the origins of this word are? Is it a reference to the stonewall riots adn the gays who refused to cooperate or walls made out of stone i.e. immovable objects)? Also, do we know when it first entered the language so perhaps we can deduce some sort of motivation (i.e. why not 'to brixton' or 'to brickwall'). Hope this all makes sense!

Thanks, 82.22.4.63 (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a possibility:Stonewall Jackson, cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It almost certainly is; the term derives from Jackson's tactics in one of the early battles of the American Civil War, if I recall correctly. the skomorokh 14:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)The Online Etymology Dictionary says "Metaphoric use of stone wall for "act of obstruction" is first attested 1876; stonewall (v.) "to obstruct" is from 1914" so we know it's not related to the 1969 riots. I have not located anything with a more specific etymology, and nothing pointing directly to Mr. Jackson; you might want to move this question to the Language Reference Desk. --LarryMac | Talk 14:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(multiple ec) The evidence in the OED suggests that the word's use as a verb was originally cricket slang, "to block balls persistently, to play solely on the defensive," with the first citation being from 1889. It rather quickly came to be used to refer to a political tactic, "to obstruct business by lengthy speeches or otherwise" ("orig. Australian, now chiefly N. Amer.", says the OED, with a first citation from 1914). It's clearly a reference to behaving like a literal stone wall, with its capacity to block access or movement and to cause missiles to rebound. It's now used in the general sense of "to obstruct", of which I suppose obstructing by refusing to cooperate could be considered a specific form. Deor (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) The Wiktionary entry on it (here) has a Wikipedia reference box to the Stonewall riots. However, I think the use of the term dates back much earlier, and the current use of the term dates back to the events of 1969. Of course, I could be wrong. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

According to First Battle of Bull Run#Battle, footnote 19, Brig. General Barnard Elliott Bee, Jr. said "There is Jackson standing like a stone wall", giving Stonewall Jackson his nickname. So, the term was definitely in use from then on that to mean "a person providing an obstruction". The term may have been in use before that, as well. StuRat (talk)

Before the Civil War, "Stonewall" generally referred to a wall made of stone. During and afyter the war, it typically recalled Jackson. Sports figures named Jackson often used it as a nickname. The use of "stonewalling" as a description of withholding information from a legal inquiry achieved great prominence during the Watergate investigation of abuses by the Nixon administration in the early 1970's. Nixon himself was ultimately heard on tape telling his aides "to stonewall it." "Stonewall" became a "catchword" of the Watergate case [11]. Edison (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A comment on "stonewalled to buy". I've never heard it used quite like that. Maybe "They wanted me to buy it, but I stonewalled", or "I resisted buying it", but not "I stonewalled to buy it". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You're mis-analysing the sample sentence. Is the idiom to buy time unfamiliar in Oz? —Tamfang (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks guys, thats really interesting. jackofoz, i was referring to buying time (i.e. delaying) so surely that would be correct usage?82.22.4.63 (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord! It's the end of life on Earth as we know it! I somehow misread "time" as some other word for a physical object. Please disregard my comment. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, my first reaction after glancing over this thread was that whoever said "I stonewalled to buy ______" is using the expresison wrong... so you're not alone :)

Demographics of the Market Street/Civic Centre area of San Francisco

In this article about the distribution of votes for and against the recent California Proposition 8 (2008) in San Francisco, CA, the San Francisco Chronicle shows this map. The article's point (which didn't come as a surprise to me) is that support and opposition for this proposition was much more strongly correlated with race and religion than with the traditional (economic) divide of opinions. I understand why Chinatown and Visitacion Valley (which have high proportions of Asian Americans) are strongly in the yes camp, and in general one can say that the SE area (below 280) has a higher proportion of African, Asian, Hispanic, and Pacific-Islander Americans than do the other parts of the city. That leaves two anomalies. The first (the big block out west, at Lake Merced south of Sloat) seems largely to be the zoo and golf course, so I'm not concerned about that. What I don't understand, and what I'm hoping someone can explain, is the Precinct 6327 block (Civic Centre / Market / northern SoMa). From my (not terribly recent, not terribly detailed) visits to that neighbourhood it seemed to be an odd mixture of retail, highrise high-end residential, and yet homeless shelters, drug dealers, and porno stores. So what demographic characteristic does this precinct have (and what differentiates it from its much more "no" oriented neighbours)? Or is this, like the zoo precinct, just an artifact of a precinct that has very few voters? Thanks. 87.115.8.152 (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• The highrise high-end residential towers there are probably the bulk of the voters in that precinct: the Four Seasons, the Museum Tower, the Paramount. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that there are also less glamorous apartments at the Folsom Street end of the precinct that probably have a large Asian (especially Vietnamese) population. Though I agree that most of the actual registered voters probably live in the luxury condos. Marco polo (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it vandalism?

In which jurisdictions is it considered vandalism to destroy one’s own property in anger? Bwrs (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC) (Moved from Talk:Vandalism)

Aside from being specific to a jurisdiction, it may also be specific to the type of property. If I set my house alight, even if I don't want or don't call the fire department, someone will, if for no other reason then to protect adjoining lands and property. Arson is arson almost everywhere. In fact, if my means of destruction of almost any personal property is fire, I'd better have a permit, or that will likely be illegal, too, though I don't know about a specific charge for vandalism. Blowing things up -even if owned by you- is generally frowned upon across the world.៛ Bielle (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It may depend on how you do it. If you set it on fire or blow it up, the authorities would obviously have an interest. But if you dismantle it brick by brick, as long as you do it in a way that doesn't render it structurally unsound and in danger of collapsing and killing any occupants, that might be more acceptable. Not legal advice, just a private thought made public. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Another possible issue is that some kinds of property are protected by law. Here in Toronto the city has strict regulations about the destruction of large trees. Many places have protection for buildings designated as having historic status. And so on. --Anonymous, 02:40 UTC, November 15, 2008.

What is meant by Bhakthi yoga?

What is meant by Bhakthi yoga ?Definitions,general principles, philosophy&practice.Now a days what is the importance of yoga?“ —Preceding unsigned comment added by GEENA SAJITH (talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

See Bhakti yoga and the other articles linked therein. Deor (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference - Nonverbal communication - psychology

Hi everyone, does anyone know of a psychological study where people would disregard any negative verbal information as long as the visual information was positive eg smiling? Any help would be much appreciated, many thanks! 82.47.58.246 (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hindostan, BS

What does BS stand for? Kittybrewster ☎ 21:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the context? I tried searching that term and didn't get many hits. Is it notation in a genealogical record? Laenir (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It is in 1881 English census. Presumably British Something. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

British subject, perhaps? Algebraist 22:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes. Of course. Silly me. Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Spiriting informants

What is a “spiriting informants”? I need for translate Counterintelligence Corps (United States Army) in it:Counter Intelligence Corps. Sorry for my bad english. Thanks.GJo (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the sentence. The full text is 'One of CIC's operations in post-war Europe was the operation of a "rat-line" - a conduit for spiriting informants and defectors out of the Soviet Zones of Occupation to safety in South America, via Italy, with false identities paid for by CIC.' Here 'spiriting' is a verb and 'informants' is a noun. An informant is someone in eastern Europe passing secret information to the US, while to spirit, in full to spirit away, is 'to remove without anyone's noticing'. Algebraist 21:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you.GJo (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Drugs to fight boredom at work?

Are there any known drugs that increase how long an employee can work before their productivity drops off due to boredom, and that do not lower baseline productivity? NeonMerlin 22:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Caffeine. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The article Uppers is an eye-opener. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A good night's sleep. Solid lunches. Some snacks, to keep your bloodsugar up. Also, Desktop Tower Defense. 83.250.202.208 (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Nicotine. Though someone has slapped a forest of fact tags onto the Psychoactive effects section. Time to ref-hunt..... Fribbler (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ritalin. --Sean 16:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

ettiquette differences?

Wikipedia has some excellent "comparison of" tables (lists). Do we happen to have one comparing the etiquette rules of several countries? If not, could I find such a table elsewhere?

I am specifically interested in: United States / Britain / France / Italy / Germany / Russia and Japan. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.126.76 (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a table, but you could read individual articles and make your own comparions:

Customs and etiquette of Japan

Etiquette in Canada and the United States

Etiquette in Europe

Grsz^{11 →Review!} 00:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Killed or wounded in Action - information policy

I hope this fits in this category! A good friend of mine is married to a US Army soldier. She is german and he is on duty in Grafenwöhr/Germany. His second deployment to Iraq is imminent. My question: Are there official guidelines how his wife (who is living in Germany outside the base) will be informed if he gets wounded or even killed. By phone? Personally? Thanks in advance --84.56.86.54 (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

He probably has better access to that information than we do. My guess would be that they would do it in person, deaths are infrequent enough that it's perfectly practical to visit each widow(er) personally, so why wouldn't they? --Tango (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not a question I would or should ask somebody who is just before his deployment, that's why I ask here. The special thing about my matter is in addition, that she does not live in the United States and is no US citizen. I agree, that she probably will be visited by military officials, but is this really the moment when she gets the message or is she informed before otherwise. Eventually the army is not informed about her whereabouts all the time. Maybe there is somebody in military duty who knows about this issue or how the army normaly proceeds. Nevertheless thanks for your fast answer Tango, greetings from Germany, --84.56.86.54 (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't ask him, but I would expect him and his wife to have discussed the matter. There's a good chance someone her will know the procedure, let's wait and see! --129.234.157.91 (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This link gives some details:

The current Army’s Casualty Notification Process for Notifying the Families of Deceased and Wounded Soldiers

The Army’s policy is to notify all Family members listed by the Soldier on the Department of the Defense Form 93, Record of Emergency Data, in a professional and respectful manner. Notification is conducted in-person, by a two-Soldier team in Class A uniform, between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. local, unless special circumstances arise.

The Casualty and Mortuary Affairs Operations Center in Alexandria, Virginia, directs and oversees Army casualty notifications. One of the Casualty Assistance Centers (CAC), located at 27 geographically-dispersed United States and 6 overseas sites, will be directed to execute the casualty notification.

The goal is to notify the primary next of kin, who is the person most closely related to the Soldier, within 4 hours of the CAC receiving the initial casualty report. The primary next of kin is usually the spouse for married Soldiers and the parents for unmarried Soldiers. This procedure is directed by Army Regulation (AR 600-8-1). The only time this procedure would change is if we have exhausted all avenues to locate the primary next of kin. In such cases, we would seek alternatives (local authorities such as hospitals, police agencies, etc.) then, perhaps, neighbors. In cases where the spouse is the primary next of kin, we would complete these actions before contacting the Soldier’s parents.

The notification team consists of a notification officer and a Chaplain if available without unduly delaying the notification. The notification officer must be at least of the same rank as the casualty, and be at least a Sergeant First Class, or higher, for enlisted Soldiers; Chief Warrant Officer Two, or higher, for Warrant Officers; and Captain, or higher, for commissioned officers. If a Chaplain is unavailable, another Soldier in the grade of Staff Sergeant or higher, accompanies the notification officer.

After the primary next of kin is notified, the Army notifies the remaining next of kin listed on the DD Form 93 (Emergency Data Card). In the event the notification team cannot locate the primary next of kin, notification to the other Family members can proceed on a case-by-case basis.

I googled "army policy notifying next of kin" to find it. --Sean 17:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Greetings --84.56.72.16 (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Such a notification team should have a GPS unit to find the address of the next of kin, so that they never walk up to a house and ring the bell just to ask for direction, thereby giving someone a heart attack if they have a family member in Iraq or Afghanistan. Edison (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

November 15

Why did Western Europe take over the world?

For the record, I have read Guns, Germs and Steel and think that it does a decent job of explaining why the masters of Planet Earth were determined to come from somewhere on Eurasia. However, it falls short at explaining the takeover of Western Europe rather than, say, Arabia or China, both of which were much larger, organized, and advanced (culturally and scientifically) than any of the fledgling feudal European kingdoms during the Middle Ages. Both areas had basically all of the advantages to civilization described in Guns, Germs and Steel that Europe had, so why are Europeans and their descendents doing so much better than either modern Arabs or modern Chinese? Was it geographical factors, cultural differences, or are there distinct historical events that influenced this? 69.177.191.60 (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Islam as a "unified force" that would take over the world was hampered largely by 2 factors, neither of which had much to do with Western Europe. First was that it was beset by political and doctrinal infighting; after a while various Islamic successors states to the Caliphate became more concerned with fighting each other than spreading the faith. Secondly, the Sack of Baghdad in 1258 by Mongol forces had a devestating effect on the Islamic empire; it was the equivalent of the loss of Rome to the Roman empire, and the Islamic world went into rapid political decline shortly thereafter. While Islam as a faith would continue to spread for a long time, Islam as a geo-political force was effectively done.

China's sense of superiority was also probably the source of its own downfall. Rather than seeing its superior technology as an advantage to be pressed in conquering the world, it saw other, lesser, cultures as unworthy of themselves, and this led to a long period of isolationism and inward turning. Even when there was a strong, centralized, chinese state, it was MUCH more concerned with keeping ferners OUT than in conquering other lands. Plus, China for large patches of history was FAR from a unified state, like Islam, it was often reduced to a bunch of squabbling infighting fiefdoms, more concerned with infighting than with conquest.

How do those reasons sound? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Another classic argument about the decline of the Islamic world (which I'm not sure I agree with) is that religious philosophies became increasingly anti-science, which stifled their status as a technical power. Wrad (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that geography can explain Western European predominance, except that Europe's fragmentation into islands, peninsulas, and watersheds divided by the Alps facilitated its political fragmentation. That fragmentation promoted a competition among European states that did not exist in the same way in China, where a single, central empire was idealized and existed for much of Chinese history. Even when China was fragmented, technology was seen as something rather grubby and beneath the interest of warriors and scholars. Science and technological advance occurred under the Umayyad and especially the Abbasid Caliphates, but they were not harnessed to extending the caliphate's power, perhaps because religious fervor and military prowess had been so successful at extending that power without technological enhancement. Also, Islam frowns upon the killing of Muslims by other Muslims, and this may have stymied military competition among the Islamic states that followed the devastation of the Mongol conquest. On the other hand, by the late Middle Ages, an intense rivalry had developed among the states of Western Europe. Furthermore, Western European rulers aligned themselves with the urban merchant class in a quest not only for military but also for economic predominance. This rivalry spurred Western European states and entrepreneurs to develop and adopt technologies that would give them an advantage over their rivals. It was this rivalry that spurred the development of the increasingly effective weaponry, shipbuilding technologies, and navigation skills, as well as accounting, bureaucratic, and managerial innovations that made European enterprise and civil administration more effective and efficient than its Asian counterparts. The rivalry of Spain and Portugal first with Genoa and Venice and then with each other led both to develop colonial and mercantile empires. The rivalry of the northern European states first with their Iberian counterparts and then with each other led to further technological and entrepreneurial advances, to further world conquest, and ultimately to the Industrial Revolution, which then gave Western Europe (and the United States) a vast advantage over other parts of the world. That advantage, however, has narrowed considerably over the past quarter century. Marco polo (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Europe became dominant only recently. In the thousands of years of mankind, Europe became dominant around 1500, which is when colonization really started happening. So that's only 500 years, and already we are seeing the beginnings of that being changed. Before Europe became dominant, India, the Arab world, East Asia were the most sophisticated and advanced cultures in the world at different points of time. As for how Europe became dominant, it's because of a few reasons. One was the establishment of unified states that warred against other unified states. This constant struggle meant that each unified state tried to advance their technology and defeat the other unified state which was doing the same thing. As a result, all of Europe advanced tremendously. Europe did not invent the gun (China did), but their acquisition of it, and their utilization of it against other European states meant that all European states would start to field their own gunpowder weapons in full force. Unified states also meant that people could perform trades to earn money to buy food instead of hunting or foraging for food in order to survive. Since they didn't have to hunt for their own food, they could focus their attention on education, which in turn helped advance their civilization even further. These advances improved their power projection in the form of sea going vessels. They then traveled to far away lands and brought with them all of the advanced weapons and technology they acquired due to incessant fighting amongst each other. The Americas and Australia were relatively isolated from the Old World and did not have access to the advances in weapons and technology made there, like the gun. They also were not exposed to Old World diseases, so they were annihilated when Europeans made contact with them. European colonization was most successful in these lands because of it, and sure enough, we see the results of that still to this day. European diaspora make up the majority in these countries. Europeans colonized other lands in the Old World like India and parts of the African continent, but they were not nearly as successful because India and Africa populations were already exposed to Old World diseases, and in the case of India, was also advanced in technology, weapons, and social structure. ScienceApe (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a long and complicated answer to these questions, but I've always been of the opinion that a big part of the reason why Western Europe and America dominates geopolitics today is the steam engine. Europe was the first to enter the Industrial Revolution, which massively increased production and GDP and thus came to dominate other cultures. Certainly, people might argue that Europe was important before that, and it was, but not necessarily much greater than, say, China. The Industrial Revolution sealed the deal, IMHO. 83.250.202.208 (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Industrial Revolution happened in the late 1800s though. Colonization started around 1500s. If anything the Industrial Revolution accelerated Japan's industrial growth. Decolonization occurred just 50 or so years after the Industrial Revolution. The 1500s was when Europe really started to become dominant, so really the Renaissance was what did it. ScienceApe (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the industrial revolution started in the late 1800s, the article on the subject itself states that it started in the late 1700s. As I said, I've no special qualifications or advanced reasoning behind it (read as "Feel free to ignore anything I'm saying, because it's very possible that I'm wrong"), but while Europe was certainly a big power before it (quite possibly the biggest), it wasn't as head and shoulders above the rest of the world that we might imagine. I've always seen that as a kind of eurocentric perspective. Certainly, very few, if any, European powers was as important as China was in the 1700s. But then the Industrial Revolution happened, and BAM!, Europe and the US were absolutely dominant.

Lets make a thought experiment: suppose that China would've been the first ones to go through the Industrial revolution, and that the steam engine was invented there. Do you really think Europe would still have remained dominant? Personally, I've no doubt that the concept of "the West" as the most important place in the world would have been a historical relic, like the Roman Empire or Genghis Khan's Mongolian Empire 83.250.202.208 (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayron's answer is well-considered, but it begs the question: if the Islamic expansion and the Chinese empire(s) were spoiled by in-fighting, what exactly do we make of western Europe, which was at least as divided politically and religiously? Catholics v. Protestants, French v. English, Spanish v. Moors, Vikings v. everyone, etc. House arrest for scientists, mountains running through the continent, islands and peninsulas keeping even close neighbours from integrating meaningfully, a church that thinks of the Dark Ages as the Good ol' Days. I don't know that the schisms facing China and Arabia were so much worse. Sometimes I think Europeans expanded outward so successfully because they were so desperate to get away from one another. Matt Deres (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there such a place

As I saw in Miracle Landing, one of the passengers who boarded that fateful flight claimed he entertained at the Liki-Liki. Is there really a place called the Liki-Liki somewhere in Hawaii?72.229.139.171 (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a Drive in, but that is spelled Like Like. Apart from that it appears to be as real as Podunk. (The word means "tight" if you trust a dictionary. I suspect that one colloquial use describes a "red light district" establishment.)76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

These folks may disagree... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What does a Native American language have to do with whether a place in Hawaii is real or not?72.229.139.171 (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Why is there something rather than nothing? 122.161.173.212 (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Something defines itself against the nothing. Both are cousins of everything which, depending on your view, may include nothing or exclude it. But nothing is quite something, even having its own article. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sticking to philosophy, while I didn't really understand that, answering all those tons of questions on the refdesk is surely giving you splendid karma, Julia 122.161.173.212 (talk) 09:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Whereas there is an artile about nothing there doesn't seem to any article about something (disambiguation) in the sense you seem to mean. So I have come to the conclusion that nothing exists whereas something doesn't. Dmcq (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily a valid conclusion, Dmcq. WP does not yet and never will have an article on everything (even if it does have an article on everything). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Because if there is nothing (rather then something), then you would NOT be here asking these sorts of questions. The fact that you are here asking these questions, means that there must be something rather than nothing. 122.107.203.230 (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

See anthropic principle. --Tango (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As always, Google (with a little help), provides the answer. 83.250.202.208 (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your good wishes 122.161 *blushes* though, Julia Rossi (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure there is a "something"? Totnesmartin (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember that this question was posed by Stephen Hawking in Brief History of Time. I read that book at a young age, and so I think it became a big part of me. I always assumed that it was one of those questions that, by definition, science couldn't ever answer; science relies an awful lot on "being." Because whatever there would be, there wouldn't be matter and energy or the stuff that our brain is made of. Also, as the very concept of "being" is just a human construct that helps us solve problems, I don't think we really have a concept of "not being." That makes this one of those philosophical questions that exist only because of the limitations of the human mind.NByz (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Mu. — DanielLC 16:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

My philosophy class covered this last year. This is evidently a question which science can never answer. (Leave it to Wikipedia to try though. :) There is a proof for why this is true. I don’t want to misguide you with a half remembered paraphrase, but if you’re really interested in the question get a hold of Core Questions in Philosophy: A Text with Readings ($3 used from Amizon.com). The relevant proof should be in the first few chapters. Hope that helps. --S.dedalus (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

White Horses

Iranian Leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speech in America. He mentioned " WHITE HORSES ". Please provide any references you have. Are the white horses part of Iranian mythology / religion, or perhaps ancient Hindu mythology / religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snodgrass3 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that followers of the Mahdi believe him (?) to arrive riding a white horse. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The white horse has a long history, rich in mythology. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

We need to add some mythology to that article! It doesn't include any yet, and the horse worship article is exclusively Western European. Try these perhaps:

For Persian mythology: Rakhsh the hero Rostam's white horse, Tishtrya the rain god/star Sirius who took the form of a white stallion for an epic battle, Mithra the god who rides a chariot pulled by white horses (that part is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article). The four horses of goddess Anahita's chariot are also described as white. Saoshyant is sometimes described as riding a white horse, just as Kalki.

For Hindu mythology: Ashvamedha the sacred sacrifice of a white horse (our article doesn't mention the white part but see the images), Kalki the final world saviour who rides a white horse and Uchaishravas the white horse of Indra. (Indra liked to steal the white sacrificial horses, btw; this is a theme of many stories, see Sagara.)

For Islam, maybe see Sirat al-Mustaqim the straight path of God (again, though, you need an outside source for the white horse reference: the souls of the virtuous are helped to navigate it because their good deeds turn into a white horse they can ride to the end.)

As BrainyBabe says, several other cultures have white horse myths and symbolism as well. Cheers, WikiJedits (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's so interesting – any chance of a White horse (mythology) article? Julia Rossi (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure - have started it, but would love more help :) WikiJedits (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Arguments made against womens' and blacks' rights in U.S. History

I am looking for newspaper articles or other things written before women and blacks had civil rights in the U.S.A. arguing that they should not be given those rights. I don't want paraphrased quotes or anything; I actually want to see things which were written in that time with (as detailed as possible) arguments against racial and sex equality. Are there any such documents available online? - 15:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC) User: Nightvid (unregistered)

You could do worse than starting with the Cornerstone Speech. Also, the New York Times, in a magnificent move, has made all of its articles back to 1851 available online. Just go here and search for "suffrage" in June of 1919 or "civil rights" in the Sixties. This one has some choice words on why the women of Alabama should not suffer the dangers and humiliation of being permitted to vote. Then, as now, states' rights, are a frequent high ground for anti-equal-rights folks. --Sean 17:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There must also be anthologies that collected these, after the battle was (mostly) won. Any historians or librarians around? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Plessy v. Ferguson is a famous court case about rights for blacks. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There was this thing about a good wife being able to influence how her husband and sons voted, I think. Or maybe it was that the husband also represents the wife. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 08:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

State of nations

Um, this is quite some question, but I thought this would be the best place to ask it as it has the most knowledgeable people who could answer it or at least guide me in the right direction. (Also please note that in formulating this question, my intention is not to sound racist or culturally insensitive, but to explore, and possibly rule out, all scientific possibilities) The question is - why are the different countries of the world in such different stages of development - economically, socially and culturally? Is there any basic set of principles that can be used to explain why, for instance, Europe and North America are economically advanced, law abiding societies with a vibrant intellectual discourse? Why virtually all of Africa is mired in poverty and warfare and has nothing much to show by way of civilizational development? Why Indians, after expounding the deepest philosophical principles in ancient times that still leave us struggling for comprehension, suddenly decided to take it easy and whithered away in a morass of apathy? What factors do we ascribe these differences to - race, climate, pure luck? And how do we take into account the apparent paradoxes - like North and South korea which share a common history and culture but the contrast between them could not be more stark. Please note that I don't want the answer in terms of historical developments ("North Korea became communist - that's why") - but what laid the foundation for those historical events - what was in the temperament of the people that precipitated or allowed the historical events to take place. I am sorry this is a very long question, but I will be deeply indebted for any clues which may help me investigate this further. Any books or literature which deals with the subject shall also be appreciated. Best regards -- ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, lots of people have written extensively on the subject, but I would recommend a book to get you started: Guns, Germs, and Steel is probably the most recent and best known book to tackle the subject, and is a great read. Many people would recommend it as an introduction to the topic. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the previous response. Much of what makes one country succeed and another fail boils down simply to geography. In the North and South Korea example, it's due to the difference between the strict Marxist communism of NK versus the capitalism in SK, but geography explains why Korea was split in two. The North is simply closer to China, which means the Chinese reinforcements were operating closer to their home bases and were thus able to stave off US/UN forces in the Korean War. Had Korea been attached to China at the southern end, I'm sure NK would be the successful capitalist nation and SK would be the miserable failure of a communist nation. For another example, the geographic location of the US provided relative protection from the destruction of WW2, thus leaving the US in a good position to sell goods around the world to countries which had their factories and infrastructure destroyed in WW2. StuRat (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Wealth and Poverty of Nations" by David S. Landes is another great read on this front. People who take a serious interest in this area study development economics. This field tries to answer these questions by using all the normal economic methods. They hypothesize about what factors make an area rich or poor, gather data (often back through time as well), and perform regression analysis to see if they were on the right track. There are lots of insights that this branch of economics offers about how to form policies that encourage capital accumulation, optimal public finance (providing public goods etc.) and how important human development is.NByz (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Languages

I've moved your question to the Languages reference desk, where many knowledgeable volunteers hang out. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Bangladesh.

The Satanic Verses published in Urdu?

Per VRTS ticket # 2008111510013913, is Rushdie's book available in Urdu? The closest I've found is in Persian. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-15t21:19z, -- Jeandré, 2008-11-15t21:26z

culture/art as oppression

Hi, Can we consider culture, and art in particular as a form of oppression, leading to a cultivated class dominating a non-cultivated class ?

Mass culture makes people more intelligent, and in the same time more stupid. Can we push further and say the same thing about culture as whole ?

Do you know any thinkers who wrote about that ?

thanks

79.87.251.15 (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

When's your homework due in? Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Not homework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.87.251.15 (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to argue that culture limits free will, which is oppression. Consider the recent election. There was a black guy who got some minor publicity for publicly announcing he was voting for McCain. Because his choice opposed that of the assumed "black culture", he claimed to receive death threats. Similarly, it is possible to argue that pride is equivalent to hate and, when applied to culture, pride in culture is equivalent to hate for other cultures. Therefore, having pride in one's culture equates to oppression of other cultures. These are, of course, extreme views and are, in my opinion, distortions of reality. -- kainaw™ 22:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, all of such assertions require a great simplification of terms... "culture" is a complicated concept. I'm not even sure one can say that "mass culture" makes people both intelligent and stupid. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel like society forces us to have a certain amount of culture, to know the major artists and writers. Otherwise, we are not respected. Like a class struggle, not between the bourgeoisie and the proletarians, but between a cultivated class, and an non-cultivated class

What you are talking about is not "culture", writ large, but a specific canon. They are not the same thing. People who know nothing of Shakespeare still have a "culture". A canon, by contrast, is a specific subset of culture understood to be mandatory of a "cultured" person ("cultured" here meaning something quite different than "culture"), which is not the same thing. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Stepping outside of a more intellectual frame for a moment, it is possible to influence the way people think through mass-market communication. Propaganda, for example, can work through posters and billboards, but also through celebrity endorsement, television shows (cartoons, talk shows, soap operas, etc.), movies, radio, and in general, art and even word-of-mouth (rumor-mongering). Aside from deliberate propaganda, unintentional influence happens when writers, celebrities and others involved in mass-communication include their thoughts and values in the way they communicate. In the past, otherwise well-intentioned communication reinforced ideas that are now considered offensive. Enid Blyton's Noddy books were thought to be ill-considered because of the use of golliwogs as naughty characters, even though she was continuing a tradition of their use in that fashion. Steewi (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there are two uses of "culture" here. Yes your "culture" in the sense of your sociological environment can be oppressive, but I think the questioner meant "culture" in the sense of art, theatre, etc. For myself, I don't see that culture can be oppressive any more than anything where some people can do (or appreciate) it and some can't. Sport could be considered oppressive to the same extent; so could community activism (some people are good at it and some aren't). DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Theological Libraries in the Northwest

Does anybody have any information about theological libaries in the northwest (or in North America)? I'm looking the largest theological libraries in the different regions of our countries. I need a list or information about the number of volumes in said libraries (perferibly the number of volumes in the 200 collection). Any info on the size of theological libraries would be appreciated as it would give a number for comparison. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.25.62 (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Contacting the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) may be an option. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York says its Burke Theological Library has the largest theological collection in the western hemisphere, but then Princeton Theological Seminary claims theirs is the biggest in the US. Harvard Divinity School also seems to be pretty large. We have a Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in the United States that you could look through, although it is not further categorized by region and not all the articles have info about the library. But it's a start I suppose. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

English

What is the term for the "Basement garden", you know, the space outside on the basement level... Gridge (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC).

Um, huh? Wouldn't it be "solid dirt"... A basement is at least partially underground, so right outside the basement would be, you know, a big chunk of solid earth... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It could be a sunken garden - dug down to basement level with containing walls all around it but open to the sky. --Tango (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that's exactly what I meant. But what is the term? Gridge (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

Ah. I am an idiot. Of course I have seen such things. I did a google search and a google image search for the term "basement garden". While it returns an occasional picture or discussion of what you describe above, most of them are about gardens IN the basement (i.e. indoor gardens with grow-lights). Its a good question, and I feel silly for misunderstanding it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. English is my second language, and I am still learning how to express myself better. Gridge (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

The OP may be referring to the light well (plus steps) which you find on the entrance side of some Victorian (and other) terraced houses in the UK or Down Under. This generally goes across the full length of the house but isn´t wider than two metres. Unfortunately, I have no idea what the proper term would be. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I know two answers to this in British English, based on the form of architecture known as a terraced house (American English: town houses are sort of equivalent). The space in front of the house was the entrance to the kitchen in the basement, and was called the "area" (hence, "area steps" and "area railings" -- the latter removed in WWII, leading to many deaths at night time). It was always concreted, and used to be used for coal storage and deliveries. Nowadays these may have been covered over and the interior extended, or conversely festooned with hanging baskets and large potted plants to give visual appeal when looking from inside. The space behind the house may be a proper garden, in which case the dwelling on that level is referred to as a "garden flat", or it may likewise be concreted and treated as a patio, whereas previously it was for rubish bins and laundry hung out to dry. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And whaddayaknow, we have an article: Area_(architecture). But strangely not light well (though I don't think areas are solely or mainly for light). BrainyBabe (talk) 10:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Gridge (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

November 16

Fail.

<removed discussion. The reference desk is not an advice column> --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

?Just Curious

I have a dictionary it is old i just dont know how old! It is called the new german english dictionary published by David McKay! If any 1 knows anything about this please respond back i have searched n searched n found nothing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.54.39 (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You searched? I copied and pasted "new german english dictionary published by David McKay" into Google and the very first hit was:

Herbert, F. C. & L. Hirsch; A New German - English Dictionary: General Use

PHILADELPHIA, 1940C

Published by DAVID MCKAY COMPANY

I strongly believe that 1940C means that it was copyrighted in 1940 - which would be very close to the actual printing date. -- kainaw™ 01:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Gay Right movements

Hello Wikipedia,

I have a theory that gay rights typically develop by initially regressing (often significantly) before surging forwards.. Whilst this is certainly the case in the uk, where the passage of section 28 both galvanised the gay community and , with time, appauled a fair section of the straight one, i wonder whether its more universal. I would guess that a similar thing happened after the stonewall riot in the states but (at last my question!) is there any evidence for the same thing happening now? After 8 years of Bush, literally culminating in the passage of proposition 8, is there any evidence to suggest that actually support for gay marriage (especially in other "blue" states) has increased as people realise just how pissed off the gay community is? I've been following the protests and feel a little bit excited. am i being naive?

Thanks,82.22.4.63 (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Polls suggest that opposition to or support for gay rights (among heterosexuals) in the United States varies substantially between generations. That is, older people are more likely to be opposed to gay rights, while younger people are more likely to be sympathetic. I think that this is partly a matter of growing up with neutral or positive depictions of gay people in the media and partly of greater exposure to gay people as more gay people have come out over the years. Exposure to gay people may lead heterosexuals to find that they are not disturbing or dangerous.

Now, this is certainly OR and unencyclopedic, but I have been involved in the gay-rights movement in the United States for more than 25 years, and I don't think that you can generalize or theorize about rights regressing before they advance. Instead, I think that there has been a gradual advance with periodic setbacks. Also, I think that Proposition 8 is not exactly the culmination of 8 years of Bush. Bush is actually extremely unpopular at the moment—the most unpopular president for as long as the popularity of US presidents has been measured—and the support of Bush and the Republican Party for anti-gay policies should, other things being equal, make those policies unpopular. Finally, I'm not sure how gay protests against Prop 8 are affecting public opinion, if at all. While they may be empowering for those who take part, I doubt that the protests will change anyone's mind, though they might make the Mormon Church think twice before taking such a visible role in backing anti-gay laws. Marco polo (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Your theory may mirror that gay rights activism swells in participation by being confronted with significant failures. I just posted an article on the Save Our Children campaign of 1977 and 1978 that has since been identified as a motivating factor for many gays to become politically involved. I imagine the passing of Proposition 8 in California and Amendment 2 in Florida will do the same. However, opposition to gay rights also increases at the same time. There are some patterns, but not a lot. Gay rights activism only started in 1969 with the Stonewall riots. Before that, it was a different approach called Homophile activism that was much less confrontational. The 1977 Save Our Children campaign was the first challenge to the new activism and the small advances made since 1969. --Moni3 (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Employment by small business in Jamaica

Hey, I used to be an occasional contributor to the RD and now need some help myself. I'm trying to find out what portion of the Jamaican workforce is employed by small business. I'm not picky as to the definition of small business, and while I'd prefer as recent statistics as possible, I recognize that that may not be possible. Any help would be appreciated. --Ybbor^Talk 01:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, perhaps the Small Business Association of Jamaica would be a good place to start your research? Maybe if you contacted them directly, they could point you in the right direction... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Also have only a contact to offer :) The Statistical Instutite of Jamaica only seems to have general employment figures (eg employed versus unemployed by age and gender) though they also have a chart of Employment in Large Establishments, by Major Industry Groups - perhaps you could guess that those not employed in large establishments are employed in small ones and combine the two to get a rough estimate. I don't know how much self-employment would throw that off. They also have an email contact for data requests. WikiJedits (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what my ethncitity is.

I was born to a Welsh-Italian mother (fully Italian), and a Welsh father. But my father has also of Armenian descent, and the man that impregnated the sister of me was from Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlokwittaka (talk • contribs) 02:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting your ancestors or their governments? Louis Waweru  Talk  03:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel a strong attachment to either Welsh, Italian, Armenian or Swedish culture? —Tamfang (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

One's sister's ethnicity is not necessarily identical with one's own, so it sounds like you have no basis for including Swedish as one of your options. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The ethnicity of one's sister's babydaddy would seem to be less important than the ethnicity of the sister herself. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That makes you Welsh-Italian with some Armenian ancestry from your father's side. If you live in the say, the UK, then you'd be a Welsh-Italian Briton (or whatever your resident country is). Agree with Adam Bishop about your sister if you mean she has a different father. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I took it to mean his sister's boyfriend...even though that doesn't really make any sense. Now that I read it again I'm guessing English is not Mlokwittaka's first language. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think yours is the best guess. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You are whatever ethnicity you want to be. Seriously, concepts such as "ethnicity" and "race" are really only relevent in terms of your personal relationship between you and the culture you live in. For example, my ancestry is about 3/32 Native American and 29/32 French Canadian, and yet I really wouldn't consider myself anything but American. Yeah, there's a few French Canadian bits knocking around in my cultural heritage (a few recipes in the recipe box, mainly) but I really don't self-identify with any culture except the American one. Do you feel a stronger connection to where you live or where one of your parents are from? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think the action of "self-identification" seals questions of ethnicity, any more than it does questions of sexuality. I can "self-identify" as much as I like but it is not in my gift to repudiate objective assessments of my ethnicity, which it is of course possible to make. My father was Welsh and my mother was English, therefore my ethnicity is Welsh/English. I can say that I feel English, because I feel a stronger connection to England than I do to Wales, but that doesn't make me English. I am certainly not whatever ethnicity I want to be. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Except, what makes a Welshman different from an Englishman, beyond arbitrary location of birth, and the arbitrariness of your parent's location of birth? I mean, you are just as likely to find Norman French, Scandanavian, Brythonic and Goidelic Celt, etc. etc. in your ethnic background as either a Welshman or an Englishman. It is entirely your relation to your culture that matters. Lets say that you consider yourself to be Welsh-English. Lets say you marry an English woman. What are your kids? Let's say they each marry another Englishperson. What are THEIR kids? Let's say you find that a great-great-great-great-grandfather of yours was a Spaniard. Does that make you Spanish-Welsh-English? What if that great-great-great-great-grandfather had an Arabic grandfather? Would that make you an Arabic-Spanish-Welsh-Englishman? You consider yourself Welsh-English, so that is your ethnic group. I generally put "French-Canadian" on the U.S. Census form, but I could also put "American" or "French" or "French-American" or "Canadian-American" or "Canadian" and be equally "right", from a legal standpoint. It IS all about self-identity; any other measure is just sillyness. See also One-drop rule for the rediculousness of where this goes wrong... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute the complexity and even arbitrariness of ethnic groupings. What I object to is the notion of self-identification itself, which seems to me to be the height of selfishness. If you self-identify as (insert type of ethnicity or sexuality here), then you are basically saying that the only person who can make those definitions is you yourself. You are sticking two fingers up at all the societal norms and conventions that have evolved over time. Myself, I prefer to abide by those norms and conventions, and allow myself to be defined by them. Where will it end? If I walk down the street in an elephant costume and declare to anyone who cares to listen that I am an elephant, does that make me an elephant? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 18:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it makes you an idiot, because an "elephant" is not an arbitrary classification as different from "human". Ethnicity, however, is entirly arbitrary. What makes one group different from another is entirely dependent on cultural context, and there are no objective means to measure it. Even when genetic studies are done, they arrive at this conclusion, for example, showing that it is impossible, from a DNA perspecitive, to tell the difference between a Greek and a Turk, or between a Palestinians and Jews, and yet no one would deny that these are 'distinct' ethnicities given their cultural context. Likewise, in America, the Sioux, the Navaho, the Mohegan and the Cherokee are all considered one "ethnicity", yet are as far apart culturally as are the English, French, Russians, and Greeks. However, you will find that most national governments use self-identification as the only method for gathering "ethnicity" data, because its the only method that works. See the U.S. Government's position, which states "The categories are designed for collecting data on the race and ethnicity of broad population groups in this country. They are based on social and political considerations -- not anthropological or scientific ones. Furthermore, the race categories include both racial and national-origin groups." Also see this official US Census description of "Race": "Race is a self-identification data item in which respondents choose the race or races with which they most closely identify."

As long as you assume people aren't going to be intentional assholes about it, and aren't just going to lie to make a point or be otherwise obnoxious, it works rather well, since ethnicity is ONLY defined in the cultural context; only the individual can decide how they relate to the culture, and most people will make an honest assessment of the situation.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Saying "You are whatever ethnicity you choose to be" is a rather extreme position, nonetheless. It verges on doublethink as far as I'm concerned.

I could choose to describe myself as Chinese if I wanted, but that wouldn't make it true. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not "whatever ethnicity you choose to be" it's "whatever ethnicity you idenitify with, giving an honest assessment of your own situation." Again, if I asked you to be honest about your ethnic background, you wouldn't say you were "Chinese", you'd give whatever cultural definitions are important for you in defining your relationship to the culture you live in. Again, you could be an asshole and say "I'm a Klingon", but that's not what self-identification is about. Self-identification is not about whatever whim you choose to have, its about how you relate to your culture. You can't assume people are going to be obnoxious, and again most aren't. For one person, having one Italian grandparent may be siginficant in describing their own ethnicity as, say, Italian-American, but for others they may feel a closer cultural connection to their another part of their cultural heritage. I can't tell you what your own situation is, and as long as you are honest about it, there's nothing wrong with you self-identifying... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I misquoted you. What you actually said was You are whatever ethnicity you want to be, which you now appear to be retracting. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You didn't misquote me, I spoke imprecisely. I increased the precision of my original statement with details, which should have provided the context for the discussion. The fact remains still that with the arbitrary nature of ethnicity, the most accurate system is still self-identification... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that ethnicity is mostly self-identification up to a point, as long you're free to do this. In another context you can be overruled by society's perception, or cultural context (eg, 2005 civil unrest in France – if you are a migrant in the banlieues, the projects or "ghettos", you might think yourself French and equal, but others may not be so tolerant of that). So, it's contingent still, Julia Rossi (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

On fate: are we a function of the universe?

"These are the things that hydrogen atoms do when given 13.7 billion years."

That is what I heard Brian Cox say in a TED talk he gave a few months ago. He was picking up random objects and saying that, over and over. I found that to be very intriguing. I took away from the concept that the big bang happened, the laws of the universe turned on, billions of years passed playing out those rules, and they continue to play out today.

I can deal with the concept when it applies to non-living things, but what stumps me about that idea is when life comes into the equation. Since we're all made of the same things that non-living matter is, and the same laws of nature apply to us...then wouldn't we just be a result of this big bang seed? Meaning even our actions, and thoughts...

Essentially, I'm very curious to know what science (or not) has to say about free will. Not just for rational beings but for the universe as well. In other words, is our universe playing out a predetermined fate? And if so, are conscious beings somehow separate from such a predetermined universe, or is this WP:RD just what happens when you give hydrogen atoms 13.7 billion years? Would there be a universe that evolves to look at itself and ask questions in an attempt to understand it? Louis Waweru  Talk  03:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

See fatalism and determinism. In my opinion it is a pretty useless philosophy (and certainly not science). Quantum mechanics pretty much says we don't live in a strictly mechanical universe. The result is that one would expect, given enough time, some sorts of complexity to emerge, but there's nothing to guarantee one specific form of it. So we rewind the universe and set it up again. Do we get the same thing? We get stars, planets, sure. The same stars, the same planets? Probably not. Do we necessarily get Earth, and you and me talking on the internet, right now? Probably not. Do we get life somewhere, complex structures doing complex things? Sure. I like to explain complex probabilities to undergrads like this: taken from the moment of your conception and your roommate's conception, what are the odds that you would be roommates at this institution? Phenomenally long odds. But what are the odds that you, if you came to this institution, would have a roommate here? Basically 100%. The specific roommate is not important, the statistics of their improbability are meaningless. Whether something is probable or improbable depends on how you demarcate the problem. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a very brief note on free will and fate that is usually overlooked... Fate does not preclude free will. If I know you are fated to choose to eat Fruit Loops tomorrow for breakfast, that doesn't mean you lost free will. The choice is yours, it is just known what your free will choice will be. So, it is rather simple to have a predetermined fate that includes free will. As for conciousness, the entire question of "Do we exist?" has been around for thousands of years. Do we really exist? If we exist, are we what we think we are? Are we really thinking? What is real? You can't answer these questions with science. Science is based on our perception of what we believe is existence. Philosophy is where you go for circular arguments about what it means to exist. -- kainaw™ 04:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what compatibilists say, anyway. — DanielLC 16:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not what Brian Cox was talking about. If you leave a piece of bread sitting around, it'll get moldy. If you prick me, I'll bleed. If you order something online and pay by credit card, the item will arrive in the mail some time later and your credit card bill will show the charge. These are statements of the predictability of the world, and they're not at all what philosophers are talking about when they talk about "determinism". Cox is saying that a large enough amount of hydrogen, left to its own devices, will eventually produce stars and galaxies and all the heavy elements, and probably life—but not the same pattern of stars and galaxies, and certainly not every little detail of human history. It's not quite correct, since it has to be the correct concentration of hydrogen and there was a lot of helium too, but it's still interesting to think about. -- BenRG (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all...I haven't abandoned this question. It's just a huge can of worms...still sorting through the articles. The determinism article is very cool, lots of fun idea in there. Though it looks like I won't be able to really understand where these wikilinks lead unless I have a few years of physics under my belt. Do you guys think that's the case? Louis Waweru  Talk  16:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It just takes the will to learn. And it depends on the degree to which you want to understand them. Bell inequality and the EPR Paradox are pretty complicated and they both play into the quantum interpretation of determinism. But the basic points are not that hard to grasp with a little prep work and some clear exposition. (Unfortunately Wikipedia is not always the greatest source of either of those things. But that's why we have the Ref Desk, no?) If you want to really understand the math and the philosophy at a level at which you could really make sense of the nitty gritty details, yeah, that takes a lot of work. Systematic training is not the only way to do it, but it's the most common way. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

See also the anthropic principle which says that of course the Universe came out exactly the way it did; if we believe the laws of the Universe to be both exact and universal, it couldn't turn out any other way... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the anthropic principle applies here, not in the way you are using it. It is not an argument for determinism. It is an argument about the epistemological problems with asking certain questions. And we know the laws of the universe are not exact (quantum mechanics is statistical). Asking whether the final product would be exactly the same given the same exact starting conditions is not the same thing as asking whether the starting conditions could be different, which is what the anthropic principle usually governs—we have no reason to think the starting conditions could be different, but we have good reason to think that even with the same starting conditions the results would not be exactly the same. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

near collision with another flight

I saw on a video description on YouTube one of the ill-fated 9/11 flights nearly collided with a Delta Airlines flight. Is this true?72.229.139.171 (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

UAL 175 missed Delta 2315 by approximately 200 feet about 10 minutes before it crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center. — Lomn 20:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Paradox

<moved from the science desk>

Don't know if this goes here or not, but it refers to the question of "immortality" of an organism above. (Will bump it to humanities if not.) Re the Theseus paradox: in the article I noticed a "road-sweeper character Trigger states that he's had the same broom for 20 years. But then he adds that the broom has had 17 new heads and 14 new handles." Part of its proof of being the same broom is a photo beside the owner. If Washington's renovated axe changed hands, would it then be a different axe? Thanks, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy isn't science, and the ship of Theseus and related stuff is philosophy. But a short answer: it depends on your definition of sameness. You consider yourself the same individual you were as a child, but over the course of 20 years or less you've been completely rebuilt. The axe is the same axe after changing hands because it would seem wrong to you or I to consider it to be a different one... And that's what it comes down to - if you would call it the same one, it's the same one, if you think it isn't, it isn't. You may think the sweeper's broom is not the same one he started with, he may think it is the same, so for you it's different, for him it's the same. You only need reasons for holding your opinion of sameness when trying to convince others, or if others are depending on the answer. --121.127.209.126 (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out that Only Fools and Horses is a comedy and Trigger was always saying stupid things, that was the point of his character, he was the only one that considered it to be the same broom and only because he was an idiot. There was no attempt by the writers to seriously suggest that is was the same broom. --Tango (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only does your body get rebuilt continuously, there is also less of "you" in "you" anyway [12]] Nevertheless everyone would probably describe themselves as a human being. @Tango At what point of e.g. replacing bits on an old junker of a car does it cease to be the same, then? 76.97.245.5 (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There isn't any kind of a paradox here - it's just a lack of words within our language to describe various kinds of sameness. If we had a word that meant "thing which has had all of it's parts replaced but which at no time has been replaced in-toto" - then the so-called paradox would evaporate. Trigger is not incorrect in saying that it's the same broom - he's merely using one of the many meanings of the word "same". This variation of the meaning of the word also happens to be one that people are not good at thinking about. It's very unlikely that even one of the atoms that was in your body when you were born is still in there - but I'm sure you'd say you were the "same" person. Does that make you as stupid as Trigger? This lack of linguistic rigor causes all sorts of real world trouble. For example, in most US states, an "antique car" is one that is more than 25 years old. Antique cars are exempt from many kinds of roadworthyness and environmental laws - but an antique car, for which every single part has been replaced with modern parts is still an antique car. SteveBaker (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say there are some atoms still in your body from birth. Perhaps some calcium atoms in your bones. This might be less likely in women who have breast-fed, though, as that tends to leach calcium from the bones (which may, or may not, be replaced later). StuRat (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Can the paradox be extended or limited by its association with someone or something (such as the car having a time-linked category or resemblance) or say, a human who has to prove their identity to a third party though they "know" they are the same physical/biographical person they've always been? Maybe this has already been answered in some way, but there seems to be more to it. Am thinking of what the metaphorical "fingerprint" of a thing's sameness/continuity might be. Is there a word for it?

Not sure if there's a term for it, but the important part to me is if a unique pattern remains from the original. In the case of a person; the DNA, fingerprints, appearance, voice, and a large portion of the brain structure remains of the original person even after most or all of the cells have been replaced. The same is true of a city, which will likely retain many of the same roads, buildings, etc., even if the people have all been replaced many times. In the broom example, however, there's no characteristic unique about the original which the modified broom also has. Thus, the resulting broom after all the modifications is no more like the original than it is like any other broom of the same design. StuRat (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You are not entirely correct. There is some degradation in DNA over time, fingerprints (at the very least at the microscopic level) do not remain exactly the same, voices do not remain exactly the same. In short, the "sameness" in pattern you observe is only an approximate sameness. The only difference between your examples and the broom is that the broom's "lack of sameness" is occurring at a more readilly noticeable level. Wikiant (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I think the point is while approximate, the "sameness" is still sufficient that your fingerprints are more like your old fingerprints then probably anyone else's fingerprints. Also partly true with your voice. Even more true with your DNA (baring identical twins or clones). On the other hand, I doubt it's true for the broom, I suspect I could easily find a broom which is more similar to the original broom then the current 'version' of the old broom of at the very least, the difference between at least one other broom and the old broom, and the current version of the old broom and the old broom would be the same Nil Einne (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the point. The pattern remains sufficiently the same, even after the components have been replaced, for a person to be identified later, especially if DNA is used. This is not true in the case of the broom, where there would be no way to tell which is the broom with all the components replaced. StuRat (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but one fact was hammered into my head in school: after your brain is done growing, you never get any more brain-cells. The brain-cells you have stay there for life, they don't regenerate. If there was one part of the human body that was associated with identity, it would be the brain, no? So the ship of Theseus paradox wouldn't really apply to people, because what makes you you (i.e. your brain) never changes. No? 83.250.202.208 (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if you take it down one level, if you could "tag" the individual molecules and atoms in each brain cell (like water molecules, proteins, DNA, stuff like that) you would likely find that over time, they would all get replaced with new molecules. Water is and other molcules are constantly entering and leaving the cells, molecules break down and are repaired or replaced, etc. etc. This is EXACTLY the Theseus Paradox in the sense that the individual brain cell may remain unchanged as a larger object, yet every part of the brain cell is changed over time... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

financial management

what is financial management ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.239.4.12 (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You might wish to read Managerial finance and Corporate finance. Financial management leads to both. Parker2334 16:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Marx quote on Schopenhauer

Can anyone find a quote by Marx on Schopenhauer in which he defends him from the attacks of contemporary philosophers, and states agreement with his ethics of "Caring for others"?--Gary123 (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The extensive Marxist Internet Archive doesn't have any quotes by Marx on Schopenhauer. It does have two quotes by Engels, firstly: "What prevailed among the public since then [1848] were, on the one hand, the vapid reflections of Schopenhauer, which were fashioned to fit the philistines..."[13]; and secondly "Our second-rank poets are scarcely readable after one generation. The same is true of philosophy: beside Kant and Hegel we find Herbart, Krug, Fries and finally Schopenhauer and Hartmann."[14]. In other words - entirely hostile. Warofdreams talk 10:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Patent

I found in The chemical news and journal of physical science, William Crookes, London vol. 23, in 1876, that a patent was given to « J.L. Petit, Birmingham, Warwick, Novembre 28, 1874 ». Please, how must I understand « Birmingham, Warwick » ?? Many thanks in advance. --Égoïté (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

'Warwick' is presumably short for Warwickshire, the county which Birmingham was in at the time. Algebraist 17:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Has Birmingham moved into another county since then ? :-) StuRat (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In the early 19th century (especially before 1832), Birmingham was known as not really fitting into the traditional administrative structures very weell, since it had relatively recently greatly increased in population at a location near the meeting-point of three different counties; it was rather notorious that Birmingham didn't have any representation in parliament, despite being one of the largest cities in the UK. Today it's part of the "metropolitan county" of West Midlands (county)... AnonMoos (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Many Thanks, --Égoïté (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning that county-level boundaries in England these days change a lot more frequently than people in some other places might be used to. It's almost surprising to find a place that hasn't "moved into another county". (Okay, I exaggerate, but still.) --Anonymous, 05:17 UTC, November 17, 2008.

Such a situation is sometimes confusing for, say, Americans. It is often taken that both U.S. States and U.K. Counties are "first level divisions", and so must behave in the same manner. However, U.S. States are a "bottom up" organization, are semi-autonomous, and the U.S. is a Federal system. U.K. Counties are "top-down" administrative divisions, really have no local autonomy to speak of, and the U.K. is of course a unitary state. Another way to put it is that Counties in the U.K. are a creation of the national government and exist solely for the purpose of administration; thus their boundaries and existance is largely up to the whim and needs of that government. In the U.S., the states are self-organized entities (to a point...) and operate like little "mini-countries" with regard to handling their own internal affairs. The U.S. national government (by the U.S. Constitution) is only responsible for interstate relations and foreign relations. Such an analog does not exist in the U.K. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There have been territorial disputes between US states, though. See the Toledo Strip War. StuRat (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Those disputes only back up the above analysis. These disputes show that the individual states consider their own territories to be somehow sovereign in some fashion... In the UK, if the national government wants to move a border between counties, or create a new county out of whole cloth, they just do it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham was historically part of the county of Warwickshire, whose county town was (and still is) Warwick. In 1974 it and the towns surrounding it - Wolverhampton, Walsall, Dudley, Sandwell and Coventry - were conflated into the county of West Midlands. This administrative county was abolished quite recently (2001 IIRC) but the postal region of "West Midlands" remains. ChrisRams 88.108.144.235 (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As our article on West Midlands (county) states, it ceased to have a county council in 1986, but still remains as a metropolitan county. Some services are still delivered by county-wide agencies, such as the West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive or West Midlands Fire Service. Warofdreams talk 14:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Why were lots of houses built during the 1930s slump in the UK?

In the UK, semi-detached houses built in the 1930s are very common. Yet the 1930s was a period of economic depression, so why were so many 1930s semis built? Who paid for their construction? Who bought them? By contrast in the current much more modest economic downturn, comparatively few new houses are being built or sold. Thanks. 78.151.145.226 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Lots of council houses, many as a result of slum clearance programmes. There were two interwar acts of Parliament, in 1919 and 1930, which encouraged, and compelled, councils to built new housing. Of course there were lots of private houses built too. The 30s weren't doom and gloom for everyone, and some parts of the UK did not experience much in the way of a slump. This page has some interesting statistics on interwar housebuilding. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it was mostly private housing I was thinking of, since I have spent many years living in the good old archetypal 1930's private semi. I understand why coucil housing was built due to government command, I'm still puzzled why so much 1930s private housing was built. The article you link to makes the interesting side point that the bigger houses, including bigger gardens, resulted in more gardening and less escaping to the pub to drink. Maybe, with the abolition of Parker Morris Standards and the horribly small houses on tiny plots, the reverse trend has already established itself. 78.151.145.226 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer is that the depression was never uniform throughout Britain. Places like central Scotland, the north of England and South Wales; places dependent on traditional heavy industries and coal mining were seriously affected, yes. But the South of England, in particular, went through a boom period in the mid to late 1930s. Lots of new light engineering and other service industries developed at a time when prices were falling and incomes rising. Hence the boom in private building. You should read Orwell's novel Coming Up for Air, which gives some insight into this in the character of George Bowling, the 'ten-pound-a-week man.' Emma Dashwood (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the 1930s semi detached housing estates around London were constructed when the new electrified railways (in particular the Metropolitan Line to the North West and the Southern Railway commuter lines to the South East). These railways allowed people to work in the centre of London but live in a leafy suburb that was well connected to their work. 62.25.96.244 (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a great deal of ribbon-building along the new arterial roads. I.e. semis stretched out all along the roads, one row deep. We ought to have an article on ribbon building. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We do (although it needs work) - see ribbon development. 15:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Because there was "nowhere for the market to go but up"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.195.51 (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Shipping cost, cheapest prices

Hello, I just saw this eBay page and was wondering how much it would cost me to ship a 24-inch CRT TV from Colorado to Texas. The UPS website calculator says it will cost upwards of USD 140 ... Does the rate go up that quickly between a 15 inch and a 24 inch? Does the eBay seller get a discount that I am not eligible for? Thanks. Kushal (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you are comparing a 15 inch LCD monitor and a 24 inch CRT monitor. CRT screens are over twice as heavy as their LCD counterparts. A 24 inch CRT monitor can weigh in at just over 80 pounds. Whereas a 24 inch LCD monitor weighs in at 23 pounds. As of 23:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC), the UPS website shows that an 83 pound package would cost about $60 to ship via Ground. Carnth (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

How many divorced Indians are there in India?

How many divorcees are there in India? What is the divorce rate in India? Sonic99 (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a start. [15]98.227.90.212 (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Montesquieu/Diderot Impacts

How did Baron de Montesquieu and Denis Diderot impact social equality, democracy, human rights, constitutionalism, and nationalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.166.189.137 (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you ask: How did Baron de Montesquieu and Denis Diderot impact social equality, democracy, human rights, constitutionalism, and nationalism? Merde, I have completely forgotten the answer to this brilliant question of homework. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

November 17

How to implement/awareness Human Rights in different community around world?

Human Rights is Concepts as a standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, so can any one suggest more on this? To aware masses towards human rights concepts in different community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvindbagadgeri (talk • contribs) 10:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This does rather sound like a homework question. Start reading something like Human Rights and look and see if there are any Human rights organisations, try to get more infortmation about what they do already - what techniques they employ to raise the profile of human rights. Additionally consider just what is meant by 'rights', because we have few rights that are agreed upon universally. Each culture and society has its own practices and ways of life. Philosophically at least it could be seen as dubious that we decide our vision of human-rights is 'correct' and then those who fail to live up to those standards need 'education' or pushing to live to the standards we define. The United Nations Human Rights Council will also be a useful link. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Some only-slightly-cynical people would say that one step towards improving human rights would be to abolish the United Nations Human Rights Council, which allows countries such as Saudia Arabia(!) and Pakistan(!) as members, while devoting over half its time and agenda to the single country of Israel (which under any even remotely objective tally is not involved in anything even remotely approaching 50% of the world's human rights violations). Of course, Israel is uniquely excluded from United Nations Human Rights Council deliberations in a way that no other country in the world is, since Israel is a member of WEOG only in New York, while the United Nations Human Rights Council[ptui!] is based in Geneva... AnonMoos (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone, by virtue of being human, may define "human rights." However, to have an effect on other cultures and value-systems, we need a universally accepted definition. To my knowledge, the only one is the Western-oriented UN version. So, start by defining what you mean, and then move on to defining why you have the right to impose this definition on other people. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Pronounciation of Deskovic

Is the surname (e.g. Jeffrey Deskovic) pronounced in a Czech fashion (Deskovits) or in some other way.? 203.188.92.71 (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That would depend on where the name came from. It doesn't sound Czech to me, but if it is, it would be pronounced Deskovits; that is, unless it was originally spelled Deskovič, in which case it would be pronounced Deskovich.

But if, as I suspect, it's from one of the Balkan countries (Serbia or Croatia most likely), it's pronounced Deskovich. On the other hand, in English-speaking countries many -ic names originally from the Balkans have become anglicised and are pronounced -ik.

Hence, one Deskovic might be -ich, another might be -ik, and a third might even be -its. You'd need to ask them to be absolutely sure of how their name is pronounced. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I think they meant the wrongly convicted Jeffery Deskovic (wrong link there). By the way, I think, unless it's changed since I last saw it, the article needs categorization. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 08:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think my analysis still applies, though. Afaik his name is not well-enough known for anyone here to know how he pronounces it. A journalist who wanted to do a TV or radio piece on him would need to check with him or his family as to how to say his name. An online or newspaper article wouldn't have this problem. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Edgar Allen Poe question

what is the best methodology to a recitation named acritic of the fall of the house of usher by edgar allen poe??please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.86.124 (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your question. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the OP is asking how to recite a critique on one of Poe's works. If it has to be word-for-word, memorize it. Nobody wants to watch you read. If it doesn't have to be word for word, memorize small sections to prove your points and then give your recital from memory. Never ever stand and read from a paper or turn your back to the audience and read from powerpoint slides. -- kainaw™ 16:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The whole point of giving "oral examinations" or "dissertations" of this type is that ideally, you should know what you are talking about. It's relatively easy to write a paper about something you really don't understand; anyone can paraphrase the work of others, footnote it, and put a bibliography at the end. Doing so does not mean you know much of anything about what you wrote. The thing is, to speak extemporaneously on a topic you have to display some general knowledge on the subject, and that is quite harder. For example, pick something you love and know really well, like lets say your favorite band, or sports team, or food; and talk about it. You could probably spend twenty minutes talking quite knowledgably about these things because you truely know it. The idea behind these sorts of oral recitations is to demonstrate that you know something about the topic at hand, and aren't just reading from a paper. Anyone can read words on a paper; it means something to be able to understand something well enough to explain it to someone. My recommendation is to read the work over and over, and talk about it with others. Get some practice explaining the work you are supposed to be critiquing with your family and friends. Have THEM ask you questions about it. If you can't answer the questions, write them down and try to figure out what the answers are. The more you practice speaking on a subject in this way, the better you will get at it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to offer a different opinion here. For me, at least, it simply isn't possible to memorize pages of text verbatim. If this is true for you, as well, I suggest you glance up from the page and look at the audience's eyes, scanning a different part of the audience each time, then look down for the next line. Follow the text with a pencil so you don't lose your place when looking up. Hopefully, a word or two at the start of each sentence will be enough to trigger your memory, and you won't spend much time looking down. With an overhead projector or slide show, you also have the "excuse" of looking at the material in order to position and move the pointer, so it needn't look like you're reading it. For an example of someone who should NEVER attempt extemporaneous speech, we need look no farther than Bush. Amazingly, when he speaks in Spanish, he is quite eloquent, apparently because he follows the written text to the letter. StuRat (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, as for the specific case of reading a critique, I'd include some dramatic passages from the work itself, as that's likely to be more interesting than the critique. Of course, you need to link them together, by adding comments on the passages you read aloud. As for the Fall of the House of Usher, no critique would be complete without noting how the end corresponds with the end of the movie Carrie. StuRat (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

just so you know, the op probably means: what is the best methodology to a recitation named A Critique of "The Fall of the House of Usher" by Edgar Allen Poe?? It's possible that the poster means composing his own work, ie that "named" just means he should give it that title and then write it himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.195.51 (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

video documentary about original composition of the bible

In the 90s I viewed a documentary about the history of the sources and composition of the Bible. The documentary's host and/or author was a heavyset, bald, biblical scholar who spoke in an English dialect (at least to my American ear). He was obciously a biblical scholar and I vaguely recall that he or his recent ancestors had emigrated from Greece. I do not recall his name nor the name of the series and I hope someone may that information and make it available to me. The documentary aired on PBS in series format over numerous evenings. Any assistance in learning more about this documentary will be appreciatd, especially information on how to obtain a copy. Thank you. 75.163.72.83 (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You may be referring to the series Testament, aired originally on BBC's Channel Four, written by John Romer and produced by Antelope Films in 1988. Photos of Romer can be found [16] at both the top and the bottom of the page. Marmot seems to have all 7 parts of the series [17]. ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC) (I don't know what the lock is after my link to Marmot. Perhaps someone more experienced in wiki mark-up can explain. ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

Why did the proto-indo-european peoples spread so far?

I've been reading about the history of Indo-European peoples and I'm sort of confused. What made these obscure tribes spread so far and what made them so dominant in the new lands they arrived in? Was there some sort of ancient pre-historic empire that existed then later fragmented leaving behind traces of their language like with the Roman Empire and Latin forming the Romance Languages? Or was there just some unexplainable mass migration? 63.245.144.68 (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

1) There certainly wasn't any kind of centralized government (much less an "empire").

2) Language spread is not always the same thing as mass migration.

3) For a nice basic introduction to some of the relevant historical questions and hypotheses, see chapter 15 of The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond... AnonMoos (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Language spread has generally reflected population move or conquest. Rarely do people just decide to start speaking some other language that is cooler than theirs or more useful for commerce or some other reason, although it does happen on occasion. Edison (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the conquest could have been accomplished by a relatively small elite, as happened in many historical cases of language change, such as the shift in Ireland from Irish to English. Probably a similar process spread Latin across much of Western Europe. There was not a mass migration from Italy, but a conquest by relatively small numbers of soldiers, some of whom may have settled among the local population. In order to retain their elite status, local elites began speaking Latin, and eventually the less privileged population followed their elites. The spread of English or Latin probably offers the best analogy for the spread of the Indo-European languages, since there is no clear archeological record of large population movements at the appropriate point in prehistory. The early Indo-European languages had probably already differentiated from proto-Indo-European before their speakers spread very far, based on evidence of reciprocal influence among the first generation of Indo-European languages. These peoples probably shared a military technology that gave them a considerable advantage over other European (and Southwest/Central Asian) peoples: a mastery of mounted warfare and perhaps the world's first cavalry. Since they were already fragmented into different peoples and tribes, they did not form a united empire, but they were able to dominate the peoples they conquered long enough for the conquered to adopt (and adapt) their language. Marco polo (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

After reading several books on the subject, like Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins from Colin Renfrew or On the Origin of Languages by Merritt Ruhlen, or books from Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza and Jared Diamond, I am strongly tending to think that Indo-Europeans discovered agriculture in the fertile crescent and expanded from there. I don't believe they came from north of the Black Sea / Caucasus, nor that horses were better from where they came from. Agriculture gave them a major advantage over hunter-gatherers, and so they were able to take over the land with barely any resistance. --Lgriot (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most linguists do not tend to be convinced by Cavalli-Sforza's theories, and Ruhlen's "Mega-comparative" work is quite controversial... AnonMoos (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Why isn't this at the Language desk? AnonMoos (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

My take on the shift to English from Irish in Ireland is that it had much more to do with the famine than anything to do with elites or conquest. Communities spent some of their money in the middle of the famine bringing in teachers so they could learn English and get a job quicker when they or their children emigrated, and they actively spoke English at home to help with this. Dmcq (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, what I'm trying to ask, I guess is: Why did so many people adopt the Indo-European language and culture? If it was conquest, what made these people spread so far and conquer so many people? I read somewhere that it was because the Indo-Europeans were the first people to invent the chariot. Was it just a technological thing then? 63.245.144.68 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC).

November 18

Contract law essay

Donald Diggers Ltd tenders for the contract to construct a new hotel for Opulence Ltd. Donald quotes a highly competitive price on the basis that the contract is concluded on its standard terms. Opulence awards Donald the contract, which is duly signed on Donald's terms.

Initially, work proceeds smoothly and according to schedule. However, Donald's workforce is affected by an outbreak of bird influenza and it proves extremely difficult to hire the replacements needed to keep the project on schedule.

Donald is forced to pay premium rates. Donald approaches Opulent to see if Opulent will share the additional cost. Opulent needs the hotel to open on time as it has invested a considerable sum in publicizing the opening and hiring a top celebrity to perform the opening ceremony. All this will be wasted if the opening is delayed. Opulent therefore agrees to contribute $5,000 to the additional labour costs.

The work is completed on time, the opening goes ahead and the first guests arrive. Soon, however, problems start to appear. The swimming pool proves to be only six feet deep instead of seven feet as specified in the contract and it is marked on the outside of the pool. One of the guests breaks his nose after diving in. Some guests contract food poisoning after eating in the one the hotel restaurants. Overall, considerable adverse publicity has been generated, future bookings are low and some bookings have been cancelled.

When Opulent complains to Donald, the latter responds that the food poisoning has nothing to do with its work. Moreover, in respect of the swimming pool, Donald points out that all Opulent needs to do is to change the sign on the side of the pool to indicate its true depth. The market value of the hotel, Donald claims, is unaffected by the shallower pool. Moreover, Donald refers to clause 4 of the contract, which provides as follows:

"All liability for defective installation of swimming pools, whether arising by reason of negligence or otherwise, is hereby excluded."

For its part, Donald is seeking payment of the additional $5,000. Opulent denies that it is legally liable to pay this in any event. Even if it so liable, opulent is withholding that sum by way of set-off against Donald's maintains that Opulent is legally liable to pay extra $5,000 and relies on clause 7 of the contract, which excludes any right of set-off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blak thot (talk • contribs) 13:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating as the question is, I refer my learned friend to the admonition that we will not do your homework. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to find that "fascinating" question, Tagishsimon. It is an essay, a "case study" even, but what, specifically, we are being asked to assist with, I am not sure. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm no lawyer, but here's my opinion:

1) For a standard contract, the client has no obligation to help the contractor defray unexpected costs. There are such things as "cost plus" contracts where the client agrees to pay all the contractor's costs, whatever they end up being, plus a profit margin. These are popular with US defense contractors. In a standard contract, though, the contractor assumes all the risk.

2) If Opulent did agree to pay $5000, even though under no obligation to do so, then they must pay it.

3) The food poisoning incident doesn't mean Opulent can demand money back from the contractor any more than they could demand the $5000 from Opulent.

4) Disclaimers such as the swimming pool liability waiver may be unenforceable, depending on the jurisdiction. You can't just waive all legal responsibilities for your work by getting the customer to sign something. The injured person could also sue the contractor directly for negligence. If there is proof that the contractor intentionally mislabeled the depth of the pool, knowing this might result in injury or death, then the decision makers at the contract company may even be found criminally negligent and sent to prison. Similarly, if Opulent can be shown to have known about the mislabeled depth, then they could be found to be civilly and/or criminally negligent.

5) The contract's statement that no set-offs are allowed also seems likely to be unenforceable.

6) The contractor's argument that a shallower pool is "just as good" is completely spurious. If Opulent contracted for a deeper pool, they are entitled to get a deeper pool, or have the amount of money refunded which will be required to deepen the pool.

In short, this sounds like the contractor from hell. They will lose in court and in the court of public opinion. StuRat (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And your answers are, in short, why you are not a lawyer ;) I'd opine that for 1 - 3, we do not have enough information to answer the supposed questions. I disagree with your take on 4, 5 & 6. Oh - and that's why this desk is not the right place for this question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to explain your reasoning for any of this ? Item 6, in particular, seems quite clear-cut. Do you really think a contractor can provide a mislabeled, shallower pool than the contract specifies, say it's "just as good", and demand full payment ? StuRat (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's just take the "clear-cut" item 6 as an exemplar, shall we? If there's an exclusion clause in the contract in the form "All liability for defective installation of swimming pools, whether arising by reason of negligence or otherwise, is hereby excluded", that would tend to do. We have no evidence one way or another that the 6' depth arose out of negligence, so any discussion of whether that element of the clause is enforceable is moot. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If I were Opulence I would contact an attorney. I assume Opulence foolishly signed the contract without any competent legal review by an attorney, which would have spotted and deleted the egregious "swimming pool clause." Edison (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What this is, is a standard question asked in law classes. Silly names, highly complicated and unlikely situation - all the signs are there. If the admonition to "do you own homework" wont' stop you, seriously what are the chances that a group of guys on the internet are going to know more about this than you? You did go to the classes didn't you? DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Awami League and Bangladesh Nationalist Party's alliance

Who are allies with Awami League and who are allies with BNP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.49 (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• The articles Islami Oikya Jote and Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh say they are in alliance with BNP. Since BNP is a conservative right-wing political party, it is natural right wing parties will be its allies. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Psychology question: name this feeling!

(Sorry, I realise psychology isn't within humanities, but I didn't see a reference desk for social sciences.)

Does anyone know if there is a name for this feeling (and I mean 'proper' name as used in psychology etc., not just 'acting-like-a-two-year-old' correct as that may be!)? If for example I wanted to watch a movie but my wife insisted on watching something else on another channel, and then half an hour after my movie starting she said she wasn't interested in her own programme any more and that I could watch mine after all, I'd get even more upset now that I was allowed to watch the movie partially than if I'd not been allowed to watch it at all.

I suspect this is for one or more of the following reasons (which one, I don't know, and there may well be other possible explanations too): 1) I feel upset but I can't properly justify that feeling, because in the end I was actually allowed to watch my movie; this leaves me with an 'unspent' or 'frustrated' feeling of anger. -or- 2) I feel that I am not in control, when someone else first decides that I cannot watch something, and then decides that I can (and, by implication, should), effectively making the decisions for me and treating me like a child. -or- 3) I have trouble relating to the change in circumstances: having reluctantly accepted the fact that I cannot watch the movie, I then find it difficult to adjust to the new situation.

Perhaps a movie isn't the best example, though - as any movie fan knows, watching part of a movie is worse than not watching it at all. In my case the same feeling can arise in all similar contexts where I can't do something that I want when I want it, and then get given the chance to do it when I consider it to be too late. And just to repeat/clarify, this is not about being upset at not being allowed to do something, this is about being *more* upset about being eventually allowed to do it, only too late. Also, I'm not that interested in hearing what a baby I'm being or that I should talk to a shrink, but rather knowing if there's a name for this particular complex (in other words, if the issue is recognised more widely, or is it just me!).

80.175.227.165 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I'd say with me it would be because it appears watching what she wanted wasn't so important to her after all so there wasn't a good reason for not being able to watch your movie. Since you love her, you don't mind sacrificing your movie if it's important to her, but since it wasn't important to her you're annoyed that you sacrificed it for nothing. I'm not sure there's really a technical term for it, it's just annoyance that something bad has happened for no good reason. --Tango (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This happens to me when I stay at my parents' house. I start watching a TV program, while Dad is in the other room watching a different program. Then, he comes in and turns over to watch the same program, while the program is still on in the other room. Then he falls asleep within 5 minutes because he is not actually watching the program. I turn back, and he wakes up 10 or 20 minutes later demanding his program to be put back on. I complain to Mum, who has been sitting in the other room all along, enduring his program and expecting him to come back in, so she comes in and switches over to a totally different channel, and I am expected now to watch 'my program' in the other room, even though there is only about ten minutes left of it. It's just an annoyance.--ChokinBako (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess the feeling is being "ripped off" due to shenanigans about control and being manipulated. You might like to look at Eric Berne's ideas about the dynamics of unsatisfying interpersonal behaviour ("games" involving "victim", "persecutor" and "rescuer") put forward under Transactional Analysis. There are bigger issues of powerplay, disempowerment and empowerment, but I can't find the interpersonal scale in wiki. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd call it resentment. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Does Bangladesh have a military alliance with India or Pakistan today?

If a country were to attack Bangladesh, would India or Pakistan send military to help Bangladesh? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering it was formerly a part of both of those countries, before the Bangladesh Liberation War and the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, probably neither. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 16:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

See Foreign relations of Bangladesh. --Tango (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Bangladesh and India are more all less enemy countries. India is accused by Bangladeshi authorities for helping terrorist organizations against Bangladesh government such as the Banga Sena. See the article Illegal immigration in India, India and Bangladesh have a bitter relation over immigration issue. Bangladesh regularly accuses India of being an aggressive and imperialist country in South Asia (as many countries in the international politics accuse the United States of being an imperialist power), this is known as "Indian expansionism" in South Asian countries. Similarly India accuses Bangladesh for funding anti-government organization within India like the United Liberation Front of Assam. The founder of ULFA Paresh Baruah lives in Bangladesh and his extradition efforts by India proved to be unsuccessful and it is common knowledge in Indian political circles that Baruah is protected by the Bangladesh government. You can also read the article 2001 Indian–Bangladeshi border conflict. Border disputes and short armed conflicts between the Border Security Force and the Bangladesh Rifles are frequently reported in Indian and Bangladeshi media. Simply put, the bilateral relations between India and Bangladesh are not warm. Internal politics also plays a role in the bilateral relations. In India Hindu fundamentalism and in Bangladesh Islamic fundamentalism influences this bilateral relation. To properly understand India-Bangladesh relation, a quick overview of the history will be helpful. Historically India helped Bangladesh to be a separate nation from Pakistan, but please keep in mind that it was a complex period. India helped Bangladesh liberation war primarily with of the following motives:

• The 1971 Bangladesh atrocities resulted in huge refugee influx in India from Bangladesh. At that time India had only to three options: 1) let the refugees freely enter India (which will be devastating for India's economy) 2) prevent the refugees from entering India at border and 3) remove the root cause behind this refugee problem i.e. the East Pakistan government. India choose the last.
• India and Pakistan has a natural enmity from 1947 over Kashmir issue. It is obvious India will help the enemy of her enemy.

But even so, Indira Gandhi once told Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, "If I help you, after independence you will help a Bengali separatist movement in West Bengal against the Indian state." Mujibur Rahman assured Gandhi he will do nothing like this. So you can see from the very beginning, India and Bangladesh had a suspicion on one another.

I will say that the bilateral relations between Pakistan and Bangladesh have improved in recent years and now Bangladesh is more closer to Pakistan than India. In the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, while India is the strongest country, Pakistan plays the role of the major anti-India military and political power and Bangladesh generally supports Pakistan on this issue and views India to be an expansionist country which wants a regional hegemony. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Were battles in the middle ages fought 24/7?

I'm working on a research paper and i was wondering if battles fought in the middle ages were endlessly fought from dusk till dawn all the time until they were won. or if there were set resting periods that the armies took for sleep and such. if so, how long were such periods of time? 140.198.155.68 (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, each battle and combatant will have different rules, of course, but, in general, it was difficult to fight at night due to the lack of artificial light. Carrying torches would illuminate you're own forces more than the enemy, and also limit your ability to carry and use weapons, and subject your side to fire-related injuries. So, most armies would retire for the night rather than take heavy casualties from falling off cliffs, riding their horses into trees, shooting at each other in the dark, etc. A full moon on a clear night might provide enough light for battles on certain nights, though. StuRat (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

When the fighting stopped because it got dark, did a soldier ever observe "It sure is quiet out there." With the response: Edison (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Yeah--TOO quiet," implying that perhaps the enemy was stealthily advancing under cover of darkness, and prepared to launch a sneak attack or to attack at first light. Edison (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am completely agree with StuRat. Due to lack of technologies which are necessary for war at night time, military strategists of the era certainly did not choose the night as a proper time for battle. Some references [18][19][20] suggest there were incidents of battle at night. Per this, Vikings are known to have attacked during night time. But certainly it was not the norm. Moreover the Vikings were pirates, thus their attacks do not fall under the definition of war. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Per this, night attack in the middle ages in Japan was considered to be a surprise tactic. It was not the norm. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that in Medieval times, battles were mostly formalized engagements, and were not really about "destroying the enemy" as it was to proving to them that, by your own superior number, tactics, and weaponry, the war wasn't worth fighting. They really did line up their armies at an open field and launch them at eachother like set pieces on some sort of giant gameboard. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

% of us population that knows who noam chomsky is

What percentage of the us population knows who Noam Chomsky is? My friend estimated over 25%, but I think that is way too high. Also, as a baseline, we were trying to find out his total book sales in terms of absolute numbers sold. However, this type of information seems to be hard to come by in general. The best I could find were rankings of bestsellers by week, etc. Where would I be able to find this type of information (specifically, total number of books sold by Noam Chomsky). Thanks, --Thegoodearth (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky has a good amount of information about Noam Chomsky. It also has a number of external links which might help. He's certainly sold a lot of books. This says that his 9/11 pamphlet sold 1/2 million copies, for example. Gwinva (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

is it true that japanese school-children stand?

Is it true that in at least some schools (elementary? private schools? don't know exactly) the children stand while being instructed instead of sitting down at desks or benches...