Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:54, 30 January 2010

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

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.

January 25

Copyrights and linking to URLs

I vaguely remember hearing a story some time ago about a webmaster in Europe (can't remember which country) who was successfully sued by the owners of other European websites for copyright violation because he'd linked to their URLs. Am I remembering rightly, or have I mangled something in my memory? And if so, how is it that websites in this European country are able to link to any other websites without getting sued for the same reason? Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of relevant international cases on this—see Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing. Most cases that have been decided in favor of the site owner revolve around deep linking—e.g., skipping a site's pay wall or ads or whatever. But not all of them. Courts have successfully made a muddle of the issue by not really clarifying the technical differences relating to what is allowed and not allowed, and, to be fair, the technical differences are not necessarily very clear either (deep linking is not handled any differently than any other kind of linking in the HTTP protocol, for example). This is, to be sure, an evolving area of case law. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suffice to say that the courts bungled that case. Unless I am mistaken, a company can easily mask all their premium content from the unpaying public with a login mechanism. Vranak (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if you push for technical solutions, there will always be technical workarounds, and pretty soon you are in DRM territory. Which isn't an attractive option either. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but make the workarounds illegal. When linking to an image on a free website becomes cause for a successful lawsuit, we've clearly strayed into fascism. I think it similar to telling somebody what you read in a newspaper and being fined $1000 for revealing company secrets. Vranak (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, so you're arguing for a technical solution, rather than a legal one, but then if someone tries to circumvent the technical solution, you just make that illegal. Why not just outlaw it in the first place and skip the run-around, especially since technical solutions generally do not work and only serve to clog up the works? I don't really see the connection between linking images and fascism, to be honest. I'm not a fan of onerous copyright regimes but it's not like linking images is a fundamental right (any more than copying music illegally is, which is just as easy). I don't see the newspaper analogy—it's more like sending someone an MP3 over e-mail. Easy to do, but not copyright kosher. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple really. If you want something to be private on the web, you put it behind some protection. If you don't even bother with that first step -- even if it can be circumvented -- you don't have a leg to stand on. Besides, I am a little suspicious of keeping anything private, unless of course traffic is too high and you can't afford to upgrade. Vranak (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It comes about in complicated ways. If I copy a picture of Mickey mouse from the Disney website onto the computer that runs my website so that this image shows up in my web page - then I've illegally copied that image and since I broke the copyright law - I'm in deep trouble. But suppose I put an HTML <IMG SRC="xxxx"> tag into my web page and instead of 'xxxx', I put the URL of a picture of Mickey Mouse from somewhere on the Disney web site - then I'm still going to be sued because the same picture of Mickey Mouse shows up on my web site. But when you think about it, I didn't copy that picture. The picture is still on Disney's computer and was inserted into that page on the user's computer when he visits that page - at no time did I copy the file - the image was never even sent to my computer! But it looks like I copied the image when I didn't - and the law has pretty much decided that it's still a breach of copyright to do that. Clearly, the law had to change to accomodate that obvious loophole - and it more or less has. But it gets tougher if I instead wrote <A HREF="xxxx">Click here to see Mickey Mouse<\A> - because now, the end user clicks on those words and goes off to a legitimate page on the Disney web site where the picture is. The legal case for the second of these being illegal is very fuzzy indeed...but some people have been successfully sued for doing that. The difficulty is that it's only a small step between that and me simply linking to the top level http://www.disney.com site - which has to be legal in order for the World Wide Web to function at all! But it's tricky - I think it's OK to link to their main "Mickey Mouse" page: http://disney.go.com/characters/#/characters/classics/bios/mickeymouse/ but I might be breaking the law by linking to their logo image: http://a.dolimg.com/media/en-US/globalmedia/legal_footer/images/games.png (although in this, specific case, I'm going to claim "fair use"). The law is exceedingly vague at this point. SteveBaker (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Finnegans Wake in the public domain?

Just curious about the copyright status of Finnegans Wake by James Joyce. Tried finding out myself but got confused. Thanks, ♠TomasBat 02:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the public domain in countries where copyright lasts 60 years after the author's death, such as Canada. Since it was published after 1923 it is not in the public domain in the United States. Marnanel (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which jurisdiction you are talking about. In the U.K. it is not (70 years after author's death = 2011), in the U.S. it is not (95 years after publication = 2034), but in countries with 60 or shorter after author's death, then it is. Whichever country you are in determines the laws you have to abide by (see Berne Convention). --Mr.98 (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[The UK copyright expires on the following January 1, techicaally making Joyce's work copyright until January 1, 2012. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 15:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)][reply]

A Dessert That Looks Like Turkish Delight

What is the ingredient called "matica" or something found in a transluecent dessert that is not as colorful as Turkish Delight?174.3.98.236 (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Mastic? Nanonic (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our local Turkish supermarket[1] sells Turkish delight described as "mastic flavour". As I could only think of the mastic which is used in sanitary plumbing, it was a bit of a puzzle to me but all is now clear. Alansplodge (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significance of "z"

What is the significance of adding a "z" at the last of a word. I have noticed these in many blogs and social networking sites. For example:

"better" is written as "betterz" or "bettarz"
"navel" is written as "navelz"
"boys" is written as "boyz"
"girls" is written as "girlz"

What is the meaning of this? When should I use spelling like these? --Qoklp (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neverz. :) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're all evolved forms of Leet since it's entry into mainstream conciousness and it's application to various internet memes such as lolcats. The S->Z transformation can be traced back as far as the word Warez and possibly earlier. Nanonic (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For plurals, that's the way it's pronounced. "boys" is not pronounced "boy" + "s"; it's pronounced "boy" + "z". I guess writing it as boys emphasizes the plural. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an occasional user of the naughty z, I'd say it just emphasizes the silly. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Text-only communication is difficult. We don't have good ways to express tone, emotion or intent by intonation as we do in normal speech. When humans invented writing, it wasn't intended to be used for informal conversation - but here in the Internet, that's almost the only way it's used! We're gradually finding ways to add back what we're missing from spoken language. Emoticons and adoptions from "Leet-speak" is often used to add 'flavor' to bland text. There are hundreds of these things out there in the online world: Sometimes I'll say "Mmmm'k" instead of "OK" to indicate some doubt about what I'm supposed to be agreeing with...that's not in any English dictionary, grammar or style guide (I think it started in South Park) - but it expresses something that's tough to say in mere words. Sometimes I'll say something and follow it with a bunch of ^H^H^H^H^H's - which (for incredibly complicated reasons) means that the preceding word is one that I've humorously left in the text when I "really meant" to delete it. So I might say humorously say "Qoklp is an idiot^H^H^H^H^H really smart person" - meaning that "officially" I'm not calling this person an idiot - although that's what I really think. In many places, TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS IS CONSIDERED TO BE "SHOUTING".

So, similarly, replacing the 's' with a 'z' is a way of lightening tone, expressing silliness and sometimes adding a nuance of meaning that wasn't there before.

As for when you should do it - well, don't! Not until you've absorbed enough of the culture of the group you're talking to to know what their conventions are. For example, here on the Wikipedia reference desk, we've developed a possibly unique convention that writing things in small text indicates that a response is intended as a joke. You don't see that in many other places and if you just start sticking small font jibes at people into non-Wikipedia reference desk posts, or "crossing out" the word "idiot" with ^H's then you may end up seriously upsetting someone who expects to see a smiley-face emoticon instead.

Like verbal 'slang', these conventions come and go - and are geographically unique (although the word "geography" takes on a different meaning on the Internet where Wikipedia talk pages and FaceBook blogs are like different countries with their own dialects and accents).

SteveBaker (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My wife, incidentally, would take issue with the idea that is that written language is devoid of emotional cues. People have been using written communication extensively for a long time now—even "common" people have for the last 150 years or so. Yet it is only with these electronic gizmos that people start feeling the need to pepper everything with graphics and misspellings as a way to indicate emotional states, sarcasm, etc. She sees this as a decline of language instruction and people taking the easy way out. (There are plenty of ways to indicate emotional cues in writing—writers have been doing that for centuries.) I agree with her maybe 50%; I see some of this as a problem that people are writing now who wouldn't have done so in the past in any significant amounts, and really don't know how to do any kind of evocative writing, which is a somewhat different way to phrase the problem. Horrifically, though, one sees this kind of language being put by college students in their term papers, smilies and all, because that's the only way they know how express themselves in text... THAT, I refuse to accept, as a teacher! --Mr.98 (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to see I'm not the only one clinging to the outdated^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H subtle nuances of "^H". — Lomn 15:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which we oldsters remember as the backspace on the old teletype machines. "^" being the control key). 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though Steve has a good point about "geographical" meaning, such things can also have a temporal location. I doubt many younger internet users would get the joke about ^H being a backspace that would delete previous characters (removing them from the screen on VDU terminals, but displaying literally as "^H" if you has a teleprinter that simultaneously printed on paper). I think it goes back to the days of typewriters where you could backspace the carriage head and overtype what you had just written, typically with hyphen characters. A similar effect can be achieved using the Wiki markup like this: "Qoklp is an <s>idiot</s> really smart person" and appears as "Qoklp is an ~~idiot~~ really smart person". Astronaut (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Z for S substitution predates 1337-speak by at least a few decades, if not more. Boyz II Men was one of the most popular singing groups of the late 1980's, back when the interwebz was basically where a few defense industry computer geeks hung out. Heavy D and The Boyz comes from around the same time. People over at The Language Desk would probably be able to dig up some much older refs for this. I would not be shocked to find such misspellings, intentional or not, to date from many many many years before now. Oddly enough, slang and cute misspellings existed longer than the internet did. Heck, the term Okay has been said to be an abbreviation of "all correct" ("oll korrect"), as an intentional cutesy misspelling, for a long time, and serious etymologists consider that a very likely scenario. It would be no different than the s/z switch here. --Jayron32 21:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Replying to a comment above) Sure, there are ways of expressing emotion in writing, but until the last decade or so written communication were read days or weeks after being composed. The writer usually puts a good deal of time into a book or letter, so fleeting emotions that last for seconds aren't written down. In contrast, it takes only a second to type a message on MSN, so it's necessary to express these fleeting, seconds-long emotions, something that written English has never been used for. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used to belong to a youth-organized and youth-run gay youth group back in the early '80s (back when it was still fairly risky and radical to come out). One of our guerilla awareness-raising campaigns was to tag various public places around our city (such as subway stations) with the words "GAY KIDZ" in magic marker as graffiti. (Yes, I know, it was vandalism, but if it made parents think twice or other kids realize they weren't alone, we felt it was worth it.) I think we felt "gay kidz" looked cooler than "gay kids". Marco polo (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Inbreeding

Are Hawaiian royalties more inbred than Charles II of Spain? Charles II descent from only from about 200 years of inbreeding between cousins and cousins and aunts/uncles and nieces/nephews so he was deformed. Hawaiian royalties descend from all unions described above and half-brothers and half-sister marriages even a full sibling marriage and a daughter and father marriage in the span of less than 100 years, but they were not known to have any deformaties founded in Bourbons. KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inbreeding tends to emphasize genetic defects, but it can't cause them. Charles II had a great many ancestors with the defects causing the Habsburg lip, so the inbreeding in his ancestry served to focus the effects. On the other hand, the Hawaiian royals (and another famously inbred dynasty, the Ptolemaic dynasty) presumably didn't have any genetic defects that cause deformities, so there's no reason for deformities to appear. --Carnildo (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a negative trait only manifests itself when an individual has inherited double recessive forms of a gene, then interbreeding can greatly increase the number of double-recessive descendants of people who had one dominant and one recessive (and so appeared perfectly healthy).... AnonMoos (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. What inbreeding does is reduce genetic variation. That tends to make the expression of recessive traits more likely. Dominant negative traits quickly get bred out of the gene pool, while recessive negative traits don't (since people with only one copy of the gene can reproduce with no difficulty). That means most negative traits are recessive. That means having more recessive traits tends to mean having more negative traits. A lack of genetic diversity also means that the entire population (or family in this case) is likely to be susceptible to the same infections, increasing the chance of them all being wiped out at once. (When an entire population is inbred it also means it can't evolve as quickly to deal with changes in environment, since the now-beneficial traits don't exist anywhere in the population so you have to wait for mutations that could take hundreds of generations rather than just having an existing trait spread throughout the population over a few generations. That isn't really an issue with a single family, though, especially when we can use technology to deal with changes.) --Tango (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WW2 Casualty Rates by type of land unit? (infantry / tank / artillery)

I already have a pretty good idea of how things went for the naval and air arms, hence their omission. I'm wondering, if one was drafted (or volunteered) into a major power's armed forces during WW2, what were the relative chances of survival? Was it better to be infantry or a tanker? Artillery seems the safest, unless you get overrun... then you're really SOL eh? I know these figures will vary widely depending on which nation we talk about, but I'd be happy with some good info for ANY of the major European combatants... thank you! 218.25.32.210 (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which nation's military are you most interested in? The rates would probably be very different for the different nations. Germany's tank survival rates could be very different from the UK, or the US, or Japan. Googlemeister (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either America/UK or Germany on the Western Front in 1944 onwards would be interesting. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without checking my sources, something like 90% of combat casualties in World War II-era armies were suffered by the infantrymen. While tank losses where high, tank crewmen had surprisingly low casualties - most tank crews escaped unscathed when their tanks were destroyed. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

prime minister

who is the pm if australia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simbusiva (talk • contribs) 09:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Prime Minister of Australia. By the way, you could have Googled this yourself and found out much faster than by posting your question here and waiting for someone to respond. Dismas|^(talk) 09:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be Ricky Ponting ? Or maybe Robbie Deans ? The Russian Christopher Lilly 14:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was Bruce. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Lands of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Crown lands of France is a great article, for a defunct monarchy to boot, but I am dismayed to not know of any similar article or website which might have the same information for the British Isles (a region that actually still has a monarchy over most of the land), for the Anglo-Irish, Scottish or Manx monarchs, although I have seen some maps of Wales and Cornwall which delineate those issues, such as between the Prince of Wales, Earl of March and also the Duke of Lancaster. Please help me find information, especially in pictures, which may show me the Crown lands irrespective of any particular title, although I am aware that the Lancastrian inheritance does in fact have its own peculiar title with respect to the Crown. What would be even more helpful, is if somebody could actually make these articles. I don't know if this should be referred to another page at Wikipedia for article requests or whatnot. Cheers! 70.171.236.188 (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is at Crown Estate. There are some maps at that organisation's website - here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It seems that there are no longer any broad swathes of territory held by the Crown anymore, but a map showing the expansion and contraction of their possessions isn't at that website. It's amazing how the French history is extensive, yet an extant monarchy has little of the same coverage. Thanks anyway. Perhaps somebody else knows, or has access to records so they can make graphics for Wikipedia Commons, just like the article I referenced above. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several books in existence on what, before the 20th century, tended to be called the "Royal demesne". The only relevant historical information at the Crown Estate site seems to be that:

"After the Norman Conquest, all the land belonged to William "in right of The Crown" because he was King. Despite centuries of change in law and custom, the underlying ownership of The Crown still exists and there is always a presumption in favour of The Crown unless it can be proved that the land belongs to someone else. The Sovereign's estates had always been used to raise revenue, and over time large areas were granted to nobles. The estate fluctuated in size and value but by 1760, when George III acceded to the throne, the asset had been reduced to a small area producing little income..."

Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, does this directly tie into English enclosures and Scottish clearances, the eviction of Irish from their lands and the penal transportations to the Province of Georgia and New South Wales? Has land mostly reverted to commoners now, rather than remain in the hands of powerful parliamentarians? 70.171.236.188 (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you need this book: [2] --TammyMoet (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think people here are totally confusing two different concepts. There's the "royal desmesne" which is what the Crown lands of France is discussing, which is basically those lands over which the French King has "effective sovereign control" as a legal Head of State and then there's the "Land which the crown owns outright as a private posession of the Crown". For much of history, the Kingdom of France operated much closer to how the Holy Roman Empire did; that is the King was a nominal ruler over all of France, but only had effective control over a small area, and the local rulers were essentially sovereign over their own territories even if they were nominally fiefs of the French King. This makes sense because the HRE (essentially the "Kingdom of Germany") and France share a common ancestor, the Frankish state of Francia.

It also helps to remember that the King of France grew out of the title of "Duke of France", i.e. ruler of Île de France (Paris), which was just another Duchy of Francia. The fact that the Dukes of France also became the Mayors of the Palace of the Frankish kings and that they also came to rule the most important Duchy in West Francia had a lot to do with how they became Kings of France. Though the Ducal title evolved into the "King of France", historically the other duchies in West Francia had just as much claim to their own territories as the King had to the Île de France. In other words, though the Duke of France began calling himself the King of France, and thus claimed nominal suzerainity over the other dukes and counts and whatevers around France, those other rulers basically said "What makes THAT guy more special than us?" In fact, during the early years of the Kingdom of France, there were other such territories that just up and called themselves "Kingdoms", including the Kingdom of Burgundy and Kingdom of Provence (later merged as the Kingdom of Arles). The process of the evolution of the Kingdom of France into a strong, central monarchy coincides with the timeline laid out in the Crown lands of France article, essentially that article is much more about the centralization of power into the French King rather than a timeline of the private posessions of the crown.

The Crown Estate article is just about the private lands owned by the British Crown; this has nothing to do with the territory over which the monarch has effective sovereign control. The history of the centralization of power in England is very different from that in France, and its feudal organization was always different than that on the continent (see Bastard feudalism for the pecularly British version of the feudal system) since Continental feudalism grew out of the organization of the Frankish Empire, and England was never, ever part of that empire. --Jayron32 03:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know well what you mean, so please try to understand my question. The Crown's original fief was Wessex and in that, Winchester--just as before, when the centre was Tamworth in Mercia. I wish to know a similar history of fluctuation in territories for England here. I am aware of some maps which show Crown lands in Scotland vis a vis the mormaerdoms and will have to go look them up again, but I'm pretty sure there aren't any maps showing the progressive loss or accumulation of these lands. I have an atlas which show Tudor Crown lands in juxtaposition from Church and private lands, but this is only for the mid-16th century. I also have a map which shows the major holdings of the Lancastrian and Yorkist competitors, but of course, this is only the mid-15th century as well. I suppose we would have to assemble a mix of different maps in order to come to some greater understanding as to what the landscape looks like in the court rolls and the livery badges. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we don't know what you mean? Do you mean you are looking for the 1) territorial changes of the Kingdom of England or those lands that were the 2) personal property of the English Crown. Those have different meanings. Even #1 would be hard to nail down, as the Plantagenet Kings of England also controlled substantial territory in the Kingdom of France which was not part of the Kingdom of England (see Hundred Years War), but rather land held in fief of the King of France (though, as noted above, rather independent from...). So, for example, Henry II of England was also the Duke of Aquitaine, but the latter title was not part of his English posessions. However, many maps and history books oversimplify this situation, treating all Plantagenet lands as part of "England", even if they weren't.

The deal is, with a few minor changes around the Scottish Borders, the Kingdom of England maintained a relatively constant territory for most of its history. There were some English fiefs which maintained a special legal relationship to the Kingdom (Lancaster, Durham, and Cornwall comes to mind, see County palatine), but I am not sure these ever reached the level of independence that most of the German or French fiefdoms did. --Jayron32 07:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How were East Anglia, Mercia and Northumbria assimilated into Crown domain? After all, there were still earls and then dukes of Northumberland, earls of March, etc. I understand that these titles have been regranted even if the King held them once or twice. How could Wales be assimilated into the Crown if there is still a Principality and Marches? Just because the Crown has suzerainty and de facto control, doesn't mean it has de jure control or actual possession. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the Norman Conquest, the ruler of "England" was really the "King of the English" or "King of the Anglo-Saxons", that is the king of the people of England, not of the territory (see Popular Monarchy). There were actually several kingdoms on the island, as you note, and at times, one of the Kings would be declared "Bretwalda" or "High King", that is "King of All of the Anglo-Saxons". However, this office was originally not heritable, and different Kings from different Kingdoms held the title at different times. Alfred the Great made the Bretwaldaship the permanent ownership of the Kings of Wessex, by claiming the title "King of the Anglo Saxons", though it had functionally been so since his predecessor Egbert of Wessex. The title stayed as such, with at least nominal recognition of the seperate existance of the constituent Kingdoms of England until the Norman Conquest (with the notable exception of the Empire of Cnut and his relatives). Once William the Conquerer came into power, he swept away most of the Anglo-Saxon administrative and political organization, and replaced it whole sale with a Norman-French one. It was with William that the title went from "King of the English" to "King of England", and even the nominal seperate existance of the old Anglo-Saxon kingdoms (Mercia, East Anglia, etc) disappeared. [{Wales]] was incorporated into England functionally during the reign of Edward Longshanks and officially with the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542. Scotland, as you know, came into personal union with England during the reign of James I and VI and the two states ended their seperate existance with the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain via the Acts of Union 1707. --Jayron32 18:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we've gotten off topic. The first replies by Ghymrtle and TammyMoet were on track. I shall rephrase for direct context: When did Wessex no longer form the body of the Royal Demesne within England (not France, as English holdings there were the same as Irish (Robert, Duke of Ireland, Earl of Oxford), Scottish (William, King of Scots, Earl of Northumbria/Huntingdon/Northampton) and Manx (William, King of Mann, Earl of Salisbury) holdings in England), or did it ever and what, if so, did take its place and when? Would the Late Saxon switch to London (Danelaw sway over the seat of government) be the time when the Royal Demesne shifted and what body of lands would that be called, or was Westminster simply the working capital of England, whilst Wessex remained the country estate of the Crown? Compare the two centres of government in the Netherlands; Amsterdam and the Hague--one could see Winchester as the Royal capital and Westminster as the Witanagemot/Curia Regis/Parliamentary capital. Norman surnames are most numerous in Wessex and that is where the Lady Matilda had her strongest support (albeit with Robert of Gloucester's help otherwise) versus King Stephen, who was based in London and perhaps, likewise had support in the Danish countryside of England, as in the era previous. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 07:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian recipe

Does anyone know the Australian name of the recipe that consists of picking a selection of tins whose labels have all been eaten by ants or termites, and then trying to make a meal out of them? — PhilHibbs | talk 14:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the most bizarre damn thing I've ever heard of. Are you sure this is an Australian ... er, practice (I hesitate to call it a "recipe")? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 14:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if one of the cans turns out to be dog food? Or worse, SPAM? Googlemeister (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for "bizarre damn thing" too. Something to do with 'Hobos' comes to mind, Ah! "Mulligan Stew"? But that is an American term. I was actually going to suggest ~~"Pot Luck"~~ "Potluck"! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That scenario sounds vaguely familiar - a joke from a movie, or a sit-com, or something like that. And not to do with Australia. But "pot luck" would be a good term for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Hash Magandi" (or "Magandy") comes to mind. I think it means anything that comes to hand thrown in a pot. I beleive this is a military term, but whether this is specifically Australian or not I don't know. Google couldn't shed much light on it. Another similar idea is "airborne stew" (many references on Google but no definitions - ignore the ones that mean mixed air-pollution). It's the sort of thing that old ex-army Scout leaders used to reminisce about. Alansplodge (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of the story of a British family during the Second World War receiving an unlabelled tin from their Canadian relatives. Upon opening, it contained a grey powder, which they assumed was a dried soup of some sort, and duly boiled it up with some water. The soup was a bit thin and gritty, but any variety in the diet was welcomed in times of rationing. A couple of days later a letter arrived from Canada, telling them that their elderly relative had died, and his last wish was for his ashes to be scattered in the Mother Country, and the family had sent them under seperate cover in an unlabelled tin. DuncanHill (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with Bugs here, I'm certain I've seen this somewhere before. The Simpsons and Look Who's Talking spring immediately to mind, but it's entirely possible they simply had similar scenes to the one I'm picturing in my mind, without mentioning unlabelled tinned food. This is going to drive me mad...! Vimescarrot (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a hunch, I googled [cans without labels seinfeld], and it's not cans, but it's the same idea: The Label Maker episode. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey! when i was kid living in UK in the early 1970s, the BBC would play test patterns and short films before regular programming started after school. One of the short films was called "CATTLEMEN" and it was about a couple of Aussie drivers running a road train (truck hauling multiple trailers) full of cattle across the outback. When they stopped for dinner, they would start a campfire, take out a giant cast iron frying pan, and then open the larder and pull out unlabeled cans to add to the pan. One of the guys would ask "how many cans" to judge how hungry they were! must have watched this short at least a hundred times as it was on almost every day. ever since, when our family makes a hash, usually out of leftovers, not cans, we call it Hash Magandy! enjoy. 24.188.166.127 (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not heard of "hash magandi", but it's presumably a blend of salmagundi. --ColinFine (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I loves mah Hash Magandi. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Potluck article suggest a few synonyms, for itself ; potluck dinner, Jacob's join, Jacob's supper, faith supper, covered dish supper, pitch-in, carry-in, bring-a-plate, fuddle. But this is more of an informal dinner gathering with all contributing a dish. This link may interest, Origin of potluck Quote "Meal leftovers would be put into a pot and kept warm". 220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burgoo? American again. I vote "bloody unlikely" :-), the OPs original idea it was from Oz. (Though could be a 'traditional' word that has fallen out of use) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My question is, what if you have plenty of tinned food but all the labels are intact? Or, you have tins with missing labels, but the reason they lost their labels had nothing to do with ants and termites? Are you supposed to place a pile of assorted tins of food in some place where ants and termites can get to them, and then wait for a few months? What if you're starving right now? And since you know what they contain when you expose them to the ants and termites, how do you forget that you ever knew what was in them when you eventually retrieve them and open them? This is a real philosophical conundrum, this one. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys need to get some more clarity from the OP on where he heard about this. Otherwise you're just chasing your tails. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should such a request for clarity go to his talk page, or be kept here? Either way, the guy edits only occasionally.[3] 2 edits in the last week, and only about a dozen in the last 3 months. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cons have it

Could anyone please tell me the name of the New Zealander who ran a Ponzi style investment scheme in the US, and about whom there was a movie made ? This film portrayed him playing a ruse on leading businessmen in Australia by ringing up a radio station and claiming he was a big time investor. He also tried to have something to do with rebuilding the World Trade Center. Also, if anyone knows the name of the other guy who conned millions out of investors in a salted gold mine he cooked up in Asia, then allegedly faked his death by jumping from a helicopter after getting his money out. Also, the American who tried to fake his death on the Cook Strait ferry in the 1980's, as well as the guy killed in a car crash in the Mount Victoria tunnel in Wellington, who was found to have a briefcase full of money, making the whole thing look very cloak and dagger. I have tried typing them in, but nothing. Thanks . The Russian Christopher Lilly 14:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pyramid and Ponzi schemes may help, if you're prepared to trawl through them all. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The gold mine fraud in Indonesia is the Bre-X scandal; it was not the principal but the chief geologist, Michael de Guzman, who allegedly jumped out of a plane (there are rumours that his death was faked, of course). It was a huge affair in Canada in the mid-1990s. Don't know about any of the others.--Xuxl (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. I saw it on a documentary, like Discovery Channel or American Greed, although I recall he was not American. Clever but wicked idea. Like the ones about Breaking Vegas, or the forgers, like the guy who counterfeited Canadian currency, and the other who faked One Armed Bandut tokens, and the other who worked out how to get those machines to pay up on command. Like something out of a movie. Even real life can be as intriguing as the films. If anyone can recall the others, please say so. Thanks. The Russian Christopher Lilly 11:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar epoch at Easter?

In Spain, I encountered a date that the notice for tourists translated into a date 32 years or so apart. Is it possible that this date was counted from, say, the resurrection of Jesus? David.Monniaux (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you could be more specific. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I have a one-page list of "eras", and no such era appears in it–not that that means it doesn't exist. If the difference were in the other direction, the Era of Augustus is dated from the Battle of Actium in 31 BC. - Nunh-huh 20:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 26

Charity idea

I've had this idea for the last few days and I was wondering if anything like it has been implemented anywhere before. Basically, there would be a database of people who, while they may have a few extra dollars every week, are essentially living paycheck to paycheck. And if they could get maybe one credit card bill or car loan paid off, then they would be able to have a bit more breathing room and maybe even have some savings. So, they'd sign up and pay in to the system maybe $5-10 per month. And each month, the organization would choose one person to be paid all this money. So, say you had 100 people in the group and each paid in $10. So, that month a person gets chosen and receives the $990 (not including their $10 since it was their month). Then the next month, it goes to the next person on the list and so on. Granted, there would have to be more rules and regs but basically, I think you get my idea. And of course, the groups would have to remain relatively small otherwise it might take years for someone to get to "their month". Even at 100 people, that would be a while to go all the way around. But anyway, has anything like this ever been done? Dismas|^(talk) 02:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how much "administrative costs" the group managing your scheme takes "off the top", this essentially sounds like a type of Ponzi scheme. --Jayron32 02:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)I see where you're coming from. But to be honest, if we change the conditions only very slightly, we end up with a friendly society, in which for regular payments one can be entitled to a loan; or change them again and we have a lottery. Change them once more and we arrive at premium bonds. I think you can see the seeds of the destruction of your own scheme, too. You'll get the $990 at a less than optimum time. And you'll probably have a job making everyone stick to the 100 payments necessary - a problem that does not affect the more scalable examples in my answer. Bottom line, for me, it's utopian & hence will not work.

Meanwhile I don't think it is anything like a Ponzi scheme. Let's assume the admin costs are, say, $900 per week. The payout if $90 per week. So long as everyone understands that, there is no Ponzi element whatsoever. Ponzi typically depends upon converting money received from new investors to pay interest to previous investors. Simply having humongous admin fees is not the same thing at all. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a korean kye, though on a smaller scale. See this Straight Dope article, as well as this explanation here. Both pages stress that strong ties among the different parties are necessary to ensure that no one reneges. Buddy431 (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you modify it so that you only get the $990 when you need it... then it's just (poorly organized) insurance. --Mr.98 (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No wealth is created by this scheme, so I fail to see any benefit. Why doesn't everyone just use that $10 a month to pay off their own debt? By the end of the scheme, everyone will be in the same position as they would have been without the scheme. All that is different is that some people got to pay off their debt sooner than they otherwise could, so pay less interest, and others paid it off in one lump sum at the end of the scheme rather than regular instalments, so paid more interest. It just creates inequality, that's all. It's just a (possibly deterministic) lottery, except with a high enough chance of winning that you can expect everyone to win eventually and a rule that says you can't stop playing after you win. --Tango (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it would work or made financial sense or that I had all the details ironed out. I just thought my idea was slightly novel and was looking for similar ideas. Dismas|^(talk) 08:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This system probably doesn't make sense where you have access to banks (it would be more efficient if everyone just pay the $10 to their bank account every month). It can be a good idea where access to other types of saving does not exist, though, as the system does not have to "store" the money anywhere. For an abstract discussion of systems looking somewhat like your idea, including the problem of people leaving the system, see this academic paper. Jørgen (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the helpful links and such! Dismas|^(talk) 08:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing new under the sun, Dismas, but you get cred for having a positive idea. This is virtually identical to how a Starr-Bowkett Society operates. Or did. That was how my Dad got his first home loan, and I still remember my by then slightly dotty grandmother, well into the 1980s, decades after they became defunct, telling me to "Join a Starr-Bowkett, my boy, and you won't go far wrong". It's been literally 25 years since I was last consciously aware of thinking about Starr-Bowkett Societies, so "thanks for the memories". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This idea is implemented in various parts of the world, and was the topic of an NPR Planet Money podcast. I believe the episode was Making A Life On $2 A Day; the comments about "RSCAs" refer to this sort of savings club. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rotating Savings and Credit Association--Nricardo (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't find it at RSCA. I added a disambiguation link there. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is how the earliest building societys (forgive spelling) operated in Britain. The money was to buy a house rather than pay off debt. Now the building societies have enough money up front to lend you, and they have turned into banks. 92.24.54.79 (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina special

Exactly how much money was raised to help Hurricane Katrina victims on the 2005 Larry King Live three-hour special "How You Can Help"?24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Print a verse of a poem.

How can I get printed on my screen the verse of Twas the night before Christmas? Thank you Gerald Buckley <contact info redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.189.32.54 (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "printed on the screen"? Do you mean like a picture of the text that you could use as wallpaper? Or do you mean a website that contains the words? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article A Visit from St. Nicholas (the actual title of that poem) contains the full text of the poem, if you click the "show" link in the little blue box (as it is almost 200 years old, the text is in the public domain.) Even easier, if you type "A Visit from St. Nicholas" or even "'Twas the Night Before Christmas" into http://www.google.com you get an uncountable number of websites with the full text. --Jayron32 07:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wikisource:A Visit from St. Nicholas. --Tango (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He also asked this question (under a different IP, but same city) at the Help Desk. Probably best to keep it here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph or JOSFH camp in Vavuniya

Somebody told me that the Joseph camp in Vavuniya actually had nothing to do with somebody or something called "Joseph", but that it referred to "joint operation" something. I could not find much reliable confirmation on the web, but here is a reference to "the Joseph camp (Note: the reference is to the former JOSFH or Joint Operations Security Forces Headquarters) in Vavuniya". However, this 2008 report from the French asylum agency uses the name "camp Joseph" and says that nobody knows its meaning, but that there is a "Joseph Lane" in the vicinity of the camp. There are also references to a JOSSOP (Joint Services special operation) camp [4] [5]. Is there any reliable source on the correct name of this camp and its origin ? Apokrif (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography Question

Pl help me identify the nation

1. It was once part of a much larger group, it continually fought outsider control and finally became independent 2. It actually received significant financial assistance for a number of years but the assistance is again under review by its major benefactor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.74.9 (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could be any of the countries of the former Soviet Union. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or any former British or French colony. Googlemeister (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could be Iraq. Or Israel. (Both once under British rule, right?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israel has never been under British rule. Palestine and Iraq were mandated, basically rule (some people disagree). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or Haiti. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Madagascar, for which aid is now under review because of what most foreign governments see as an illegal coup. Marco polo (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every time this user asks this type of question, someone asks the user to tell us where the questions come from so we can better provide an answer. The user has rudely and stubbornly refused to explain where the questions come from. Therefore, it is not necessary to list every possible country that could match the criteria. One is good enough. -- kainaw ™ 18:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was pointed out on one occasion that he's getting the questions from here. I assume the OP pledges to donate the $100 prize to Wikipedia? Ka renjc 19:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, Karenjc. I had missed it. No more help on these quiz questions (from me, anyway). Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This also came up on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the sure cure would be to keep supplying answers that we're certain are wrong. For example, one answer to this question could be "Zsa Zsa Gabor". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or just wait until it is over and say: I know. I know. Palau. -- kainaw ™ 13:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Say if it really was so, Joe.

Having watched Band of Brothers, I was impressed by the first episode, Currahee, which showed the members of the 101st ready to embark for that unfortunate debacle ( not their fault ) in Nomandy. They showed Englishmen dressed up as German SS and other such. Good idea to familiarise the men as to whom they would be coming up against, but did this really happen, given that although the miniseries is based on fact, the article states there were some historical inaccuracies and licences. I have tried to look everywhere to find out, but nothing. I also realise this could be considered an Entertainment question, but ultimately I am asking about a possible historical fact. And if this was true, and say the Germans had captured the south west of England, would they have shot the cockney gent in question, considering his intention in wearing the uniform was not to spy, but to educate ? Not that legal details like that ever concerned the Nazis, considering Hitler's Commando Order. Thanks, The Russian Christopher Lilly 13:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that he would have been shot - as would a German caught by the Allies in a British or an American uniform. I don't think in this case the Nazis would have acted any harsher than the Allies. The Geneva Conventions are thin on details but spies are apparently required to be given a trial under the earlier Hague Regulations though.[6] Rmhermen (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting link about Allies in German uniforms here[7]. Alansplodge (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here[8], a soldier who dressed as a German as a film extra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansplodge (talk • contribs) 16:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Training exercises would almost certainly have been abandoned if the Germans had actually invaded Britain (or at least moved further from the front line) so your hypothetical cockney would have been very unlucky to be in the middle of a training exercise in a German uniform right when the German paratroops drop. Also they probably didn't wear German uniforms except when actually on the training grounds, to avoid the reverse problem of a 'German' being shot by an overzealous Home Guard solider. If you are in a German uniform when real Germans suddenly arrive you would probably take off enough of the German uniform so as to make sure your own side didn't shoot at you. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

german spies would be expected (at the very least) to speak German, and to actually be trying to pass themselves off as german soldiers and infiltrate german ranks. some poor, hapless dogfoot who got caught in a german uniform would probably be treated like any other PoW. --Ludwigs2 09:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, if the cockney portrayed on Band of Brothers had been captured before taking off his uniform by a more decent German, I suspect they would hold a court martial to determine if his intention had been as a spy - which in the context shown on the programme in question, it was not. I wondered about whether some of his own side might shoot him, mistaking him for the real thing, but I think ( although maybe unreasonably ) that the allies would have thought the thing through before getting the man to don the uniform.

I assume this really did happen as shown at Upottery, which as I said, was a good idea. As for spies, they get what they deserve if caught, as the Geneva Convention itself says - I have seen photos of the executions of the SS men who caused mayhem at the Battle of the Bulge - as long as there is a proper trial. Sometimes a bit much to hope for on the side of the Nazis especially, considering the kangaroo courts Freisler ran in the name of the Fuhrer, but then, Nuremberg itself should have dealt with all war crimes - not just those of the enemy. Not that I would have wanted allied spies to be shot, but if those are the rules, the spy should know them, then they can't complain when caught.

One interesting thing was a documentary I saw about a British officer who tried to escape Colditz Castle by dressing up as one of the more famous German guards all the men knew. The ruse was spotted, and he was marched back to his cell, but was not shot as a spy. I suspect his intention in wearing the faked German uniform was not to spy, but to escape, but I assumed the Germans would not see the distinction. It appears in this case they did. But then, with the Great Escape, the Germans did execute others who were clearly not spies. Thank You all for Your help. The Russian Christopher Lilly 12:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colditz was a camp for officers. The Nazis treated different groups of prisoners very differently, as even a swift think will reveal, and would have treated officers with greater care than enlisted men. That said, I'm unconvinced they'd really have shot enlisted men for using a uniform as a ruse. From my vague memory of Pat Reid's book, when they used fake uniforms, they ditched them immediately they were out of the castle compound. --Dweller (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The British could make the claim also that since the uniform was not real, there was no actual " wearing of enemy uniform ". I assume more organised SOE units would used captured uniforms, as the character in Band of Brothers said his was. But this is just a game of semantics, since the point of wearing either a real uniform, or one that looked real, was the same - to deceive. I have always been intrigued by the German Paratroopers in The Eagle has Landed, with regard to their insistence on wearing their Fallschirmjaeger gear underneath the captured British/Polish ones they had on for their trip to Norfolk. They said it was to avoid a firing squad, but my thought on that, was that the British would likely have shot them anyway, because, regardless of what they wore underneath, they were still wearing enemy uniform in order to deceive. By their rationale, the SS men at the Battle of the Bulge could claim that, yes, they were captured in American clothing, but did they not still have the SS tattoo indicating their blood group under their armpit ?

Of course, The Eagle has Landed is fiction, trying to make itself look like fact with Higgins' use of the false document technique, but this is an interesting question - would the British have shot them ? I would have. In the end, ironically, their very insistence on wearing their uniform is their undoing, when one of them is killed in the mill saving the little girl from drowning, when his Iron - or Knight's - Cross is exposed. Had they decided not to do something which might not have made a difference anyway, they may have gotten away with their plan. Again, though, a story - although I am sure that similar things did for real occur in the War, which had such an effect. Yes - I forgot about each side's regard for the others' officers - as shown at Andersonville during the US Civil War, where the South sent the enlisted Northern prisoners. I guess the nobs all stick together, and always will - get every one else to fight their wars for them, and play friendly among themselves.The Russian Christopher Lilly 11:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finance: Comparing exchange rates and import-export data

Hello fine folks! I have a homework assignment where I have to chart the export import data for india over the years and compare it to the exchange rate over those years and see any correlation and match that to theory. I am not entirely sure what exchange rate figures I should use because the exchange rate fluctuates daily whereas export import figures are yearly. Should I use the mean? Or something else? What will be the best metric for this comparision? Any help will be deeply appreciated. --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Export and import data are generally available on an annual basis (sometimes more often, but using quarterly figures would complicate your task needlessly). I agree that the exchange-rate figures are the trickiest. First, there is the question which exchange rate to use. The US dollar exchange rate will be affected by fluctuations in the dollar that have nothing to do with India's trade balance. The same is true for any other individual currency. Therefore, I recommend that you use a trade-weighted index for the exchange rate, which is available from the Bank for International Settlements. The BIS data are monthly, which raises the question how best to compare this data with the annual trade data. You could calculate a mean for the year, but if your goal is to assess the impact of trade on exchange rates, it might make more sense to cite the weighted exchange rate for December of each year. However, this is a judgment call. Perhaps you should ask your instructor's advice on methodology. Marco polo (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Is it correct that trade figures are calculated at the end of the year - by using the end of year exchange rates? Because if that is so then it would make complete sense to proceed like you advise. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source should include a note on the basis for its figures. If your source is the Indian government, then I would think that the trade data would be reported in Indian rupees, which gives you a choice of how to figure the exchange rate, though I think year-end figures make sense if you are trying to capture the effect of the trade. If the Indian trade data come from an international agency and are expressed in terms of a currency other than rupees, then the agency should make clear its method for calculating those figures. However, I don't see a particular reason why you have to use the exchange rate as of, say, May 1 of a given year just because that was the rate your source used to convert its Indian data for that year. It would still be valid, I think, to use a year-end rate if you want to capture the effect of the trade balance on the exchange rate. Marco polo (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like this is a pretty open task. Can you choose how you present this data? I'd be tempted to plot a line graph with two y-axes, one for the exchange rate and one for the trade, on left and right of the graph. That way you can plot all the monthly exchange-rate data in one colour, and all the year-end trade figures in another, and see if there are any patterns. This has the advantage of clearly showing the fluctuation in the exchange rate. 86.179.150.105 (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That sounds like a very good idea for graphical representation (I can chose the presentation). In fact I have even managed to get hold of the the monthly export import data, as well as the monthly (dollar) average exchange rates. Now the only question is - is it meaningful to compare changes in exchange rate and export-import month-by-month? I mean is there a month-by-month variation in trade depending on exchange rate? 220.225.87.66 (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’m afraid Marco polo is leading you astray. Using an index is going to give you nonsense results, and December only data will distort the actual results from all previous months. Given that the question is about trade, which is overwhelming conducted in US dollars, the relevant exchange rate is Rs:US$1. And, as you are looking at several periods, the proper rate to use is the period average. So, for 2004, don’t use the year-end (single hour or day) rate, but the average for the entire year. There’s a nifty calculator (free) at http://www.oanda.com/currency/historical-rates. Oh, and full disclosure: this is all original research, or as my boss calls it, “doing your [i.e., my] job.” DOR (HK) (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think it's time for a little disclosure... actually my instructor said she will mark me on the basis of my judgement on how to compare exchange rates to foreign trade. The period average was the first thing to come up in my mind - but it was too obvious so I thought I'd ask here. I know it's a little unethical, but I'm in a tight corner, I am usually very good :( 220.225.87.66

It should be pretty logical: I'm interested in all trade during a certain month / quarter / year. So, I shouldn't use an exchange rate that only applies to a specific day (year-end), and since I need a "real-world" exchange rate, I can't use PPP or a trade-weighted index. Matching the exchange rate with the period of trade is easiest if I use an average for the same period (month / quarter / year). Bingo! DOR (HK) (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I confirmed with my instructor and she said using month-by-month period average and export-import data (which I have) makes sense. She also confirmed that I should use dollar exchange rate instead of trade-weighted index. Thanks a bunch :) --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.87.66 (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What percentage of anti-abortion Americans oppose the death penalty?

Thanks. 66.65.139.33 (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I googled [anti-abortion death penalty] and bunch of references came up, one of which could be a survey of the type you're asking about, but I haven't time to do that search right now. I did find this[9] article interesting, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vital statistics down through the ages ?!?

I am fairly certain that what I am looking for exists. I am probably using the wrong search key or search criteria.

I am looking for a summary page of the known vital statistics of mankind down through time.

I want to look up things like: How tall was the average ancient Roman? How much did he probably weigh? What was the life expectancy of an adult? What might have been the infant mortality rate? What diseases and other causes of death were most common? How does that compare to Chinese, Gauls etc. of the same period, of later or earlier periods?

Surely someone has assembled this kind of speculative reference based on skeletal remains etc. for the use of archaeologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Case (talk • contribs) 20:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that this information has ever been collected in a single location, though it is readily available, usually in the form of anthropological comparisons to 'modern' man. you could probably find cross-historic comparisons for specific vital statistics - e.g. body size - with a simple google search, but I don't think you're going to find a compendious cross-historical, cross-cultural table anywhere. if you do, though, let me know - that would be interesting. --Ludwigs2 09:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you make a start by looking into the armour we have from each of those cultures and periods. --Dweller (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A particular view on this question can be found in Mark Nathan Cohen, Health and the Rise of Civilization. It has very extensive references that you could follow up. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biological anthropology texts might have some answers, but as said above, you'll probably find that there isn't a single source of data. You might have to trawl through a bunch of journal articles and papers to find the data. Steewi (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 27

Registered Agent

What states DO NOT require that you have a registered agent or physical location open for business located within the state? Most publications say "almost all states" or "most states", so which states are the acception? If I have a business in California and am qualified with SOS office in all fifty states, which states will I not need to use my registered agent for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.43.168.68 (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should consult legal counsel on this issue, including the question whether you really need to be registered in all 50 states. John M Baker (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communism

My history textbook says that there are currently only 5 communist countries: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. However, I thought that Iran was also communist. --75.34.66.67 (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While its arguable which countries were or are communist, I think its very hard to make a case for Iran. Iran currently is a weird mixture of autocratic republicanism and theocracy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autocracy, republicanism and theocracy are all systems of government. Communism is more of an economic system. If you use one of the more relaxed definitions of communism, you could have a communist state that used any of those systems of government. --Tango (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iran is not Communist. See Iranian Revolution for more understanding about what type of government they have had in place since 1979—it explicitly rejects both Communism and liberal capitalism. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I thought that communism is the same as totalitarianism. --75.34.66.67 (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. It might be said to be a type of totalitarianism, but not all totalitarianism is Communism. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong both ways. Totalitarians Hitler and Mussolini were not communist, and many communists are not totalitarian. See e.g. Italian Communist Party. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP's comment has a curiously familiar ring. Regardless, in a multi-party state like Italy, or anyplace where there are free elections, they can't espouse totalitarianism or they wouldn't draw flies. But when one party rules with no opposition, regardless of whether it's communist or fascist, you're at great risk of getting totalitarianism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be strictly correct, there are no communist states. By definition, a communist state is one without any social or economic class divisions, and also no government (known as a Withering away of the state). The goal of modern "communist parties" is to bring about a future communist state. Communist party-run countries come in two flavors: So called "Marxist-Leninist" states, modeled after the Soviet Union, and "Maoist" states, modeled after China. Generally, the so-called "communist" states in Europe, Africa, and the Americas tend to be "Marxist-Leninist" in nature, while those of Asia tend to be "Maoist" in nature, with the notable historical exception of Mongolia, which under the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party was clearly aligned in the "Soviet"-type of communism rather than the "Maoist"-type. During the 1990's, in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, most single-party communist states begrudgingly became multi-party systems, though many such states (Mongolia and Albania come to mind) still live under the strong influence of their communist parties, even if they are no longer single party communist states. In fact, the list the OP comes up with at the beginning, while simplistic in its understanding of what "communism" is, is roughly right, in that those 5 states are probably the only 5 remaining single-party-communist states left. But as noted, communism still has a strong presence in many multi-party republics. The OP is, of course, completely wrong about Iran. There were some very early, abortive attempts to establish a communist state in Iran, see Persian Socialist Soviet Republic. This was never a significant event in the history of Iran, and communism never really got a foothold there. --Jayron32 02:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One other note on the above good discussion is that it's probably a stretch to claim that China is much of a communist country anymore. (Totalitarian, yes.) See "Socialism with Chinese characteristics", a euphemism if I've ever heard one. (That article needs plenty of fleshing out with a description of the actual situation on the ground, though.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is China still a communist country? Billionaire capitalists owning factories and abusing peasants and workers, with the aid of the army to suppress rebellions? How is North Korea a communist country, when it is a hereditary absolute monarchy? Edison (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea never was a communist country (except in that ham-handed American way of lumping everything from state socialism to Marxism under the rubric/epithet 'communist'). North Korea is a classic socialist dictatorship (e.g. an autocratic society with a single-party government that ostensibly tries to destroy class distinctions in society. China was once a bit closer to communism - as far as I can tell it used to be a sort of regional syndicalism overlaying the traditional Chinese political structure (rural/agrarian communities bound together through a remarkably strong central bureaucracy). China's been going through it's version of industrialization, however, and commercial centers like Shanghai and Beijing have developed a noteworthy capitalist class and strong democratic movements. I suspect over the next 20-30 years it will shift away from marxist philosophy towards some sort of communitarian democracy. who knows, though.

North Korea hasn't even had Marxism-Leninism as its principal guiding ideology for a long time. Under the older Kim, Juche largely supplanted classic Communist ideology, while under the younger Kim Songun has been pushing aside Juche to some degree. AnonMoos (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iran is a self-styled Islamic republic. It has some strong republicish institutions, but in recent years the Islam-based branches of government have been expanding their control over the political system. liberal republicanism is pretty much a fading memory there. --Ludwigs2 09:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't agree with that last part. Iran was a lot more theocratic shortly after the Islamic revolution under Khomeini. Power has devolved to the secular side, but even that secular side is a far cry from a free society. However, compared to most of their neighbors, Iran has a much more diverse and open political landscape. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which Bank?

In this picture you can see Scotiabank on the right, excellent city center in the middle, but a bank on the left has it's name obscured. What is this bank?174.3.98.236 (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the building beyond to the right says "SALVATORI". This is in Port of Spain, a city in Trinidad and Tobago, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is Frederick Street. The Excellent City Centre store is on 3-5 FS. Scotiabank is at 1 FS. So our bank, by my reckoning, is 7 FS, or perhaps 7-9FS. But I cannot get to a name yet. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a writeup about the Salvatori office building [10] which was at Independence Square and Frederick Street, if that helps any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this page lists major banks in Trinidad & Tobago. My best guess is First Citizens Bank. --Jayron32 04:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a list of First Citizens branches, one of which is in Independence Square. --Jayron32 04:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is, their branch in that neck of the woods at 62 Independence Square does not match the Excellent City Centre at 3-5 Frederick Street. But it is the only ~ns bank I've found for POS. Oh - and the font doesn't match, and what is the green sign all about ... seems to say express? --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How old is the picture? That writeup I posted above says something about the building being demolished in 2006. Unfortunately, Google Maps is inadequate at this point. I wonder why the OP wants to know? Maybe it's driving him nuts and he's bringing us along for the ride? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this site lists the Excellent City Centre at Independence Square and NOT Frederick street. Maybe the ECC has entrances on both thoroughfares, and as such, would have an address BOTH on Frederick and Independence Square? --Jayron32 04:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps shows 62 Independence Square just north of Frederick, seemingly a couple or three doors away from the former Salvatori Building, as with the photo. So presumably that's Frederick in the picture. I'm no expert on cars, but they look 1990s or so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Googling ["independence square" "port of spain"] and then looking for images, this one shows that general street scene looking the other direction:[11] You can see that same building, with the current version of the First Citizens Bank logo, so I think that's got it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit. Three people just worked together as a team to idetify a building located thousands of miles away from any of them for an anonymous IP address. Seriously, I think I am going to cry. I don't know if its out of joy or depression. --Jayron32 05:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to get at least something resembling an acknowledgment from the IP OP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wife always puts it in perspective by singing "Too Much Time on My Hands". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It being a tad chilly in the midwestern USA, some of us just wish we were there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using that same image search, several pages in you can see the old bank logo, that green thing someone was pointing out earlier. I can't directly link to it for some odd reason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swazi Cultural Costume

How do you make the mahiya?174.3.98.236 (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re edits

i have admitedly cotroversialy added to a number of discussion pages, even to my intial discredit in math rangeing somewhat against the dictum

First and formost as a psycologist i would like to apeal to you to allow the more stabbaly voiced original coments on the self harm page and the black comedy page.

these allow for the disting pointing to the word gaisha and originaly contianed reference to bdsm cross referenced to two films john wiliams `femail trouble` and `secutery`

wist the monica of bdsm may be in apropriate i would suggest it posible that the article i would like to reference a clasiscs reference to womanhood And found in the edit traces of the login firmbelevolence or abhorentlygood.

to save your dismisal. The article took a romantic view of marage as salavery placed title to woamn and paraled this with good service and in contrast untalented prostitiution

Once more apealing for a more direct solution to the isues of self harm, whair pornography of bdsm in my opinion apeals in many ways to misoginist deviance rarther than femail rights, thoug in this regard i state, without qualification the rythem method many women practice is based on cutting and as such has pertinant refernece. i can tell you this from the perspective of a cathloic boy who first asked to study psychology then asked to be grouped into the womans RE class.

I leave this matter in your hands.

Sincerly Ben Dewhurst. <email redacted>

Further referneces brodcast in past six months 'The surgery' BBC advice show.

Alass no classics student. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.151.70 (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a header to your question to differentiate it from the material above. I have also removed your email address. Replies to RefDesk questions are made here, not by email, and publication of your email address on a highly visible site like Wikipedia can leave you open to nuisance email from spammers.

This is the first and only edit made by your IP address, so your previous contributions may have been made while logged in under an account, or your IP address may be a dynamic one. From what I can gather, you have contributed what you term "controversial" material to several articles, which may have been removed by other editors. Contributions to Wikipedia are welcomed if they are verifiable and neutral, but please note that Wikipedia is not a primary source and does not publish original research. If your contributions relied on your own theories or ideas, unsupported by any reliable published sources, then they will probably have been removed for this reason. This applies to all editors, no matter what their background or academic expertise.

The best place to discuss potentially controversial changes to an article and seek consensus for them is on the talk page of that article. Regards, Ka renjc 11:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I think I've found the edits in question: you were editing as 86.142.216.142. Your edits were indeed mainly to talk pages rather than articles, and that's the right place to suggest improvements if they are controversial. Or you can be bold and make the changes yourself, if you are sure they satisfy Wikipedia's editing policy. This is a page for questions about the humanities generally; I'm afraid the volunteers here have no more say than any other editor on what goes into individual articles. By the way, you can sign your comments (on talk pages, not in articles) by adding four tildes at the end of your comment, like this: ~~~~. This will produce a signature and datestamp that will help other users identify your contributions and communicate with you more easily. Regards, Ka renjc 11:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since your question here shows a rudimentary grasp of English, maybe your contributions would be better received at the Wikipedia of whatever is your first language. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the political and spiritual persecution to me for Chinese and HK people

PS:All attached photos and files will be sent once u get me back. == —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fionliang (talk • contribs) 14:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is a reference desk. We answers questions here. It isn't a place to post your story. I didn't see any questions in it, and we can't give you legal advice on how to proceed. We cannot rescue you out of China. I suggest you get a blog or some place more appropriate for posting such things. This is not the place. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a bridge to sell you. 66.65.139.33 (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Economic theory explaination for the earning power of bankers?

1) How does economics explain the unusually large earning power of bankers? Issues I can think of: 2) what skills etc do they have that are worth millions and cannot be done by younger people for less money? 3) Are they on some sort of % commision basis of their deals - if so exactly what deals are they? 4) Is the high remuneration because they are inside a 'walled garden' where lots of money sloshes around which is not thought of as being so precious as it is outside? 5) Are they 'partners' and hence get a share of the profits which normal employee do not? 6) Have bankers total remunerations just been exaggerated by the media, and your average bank employee dosnt get paid much more than comparable non-banking jobs? Serious answers only please. 78.146.106.225 (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The theory that explains it is the same theory that explains all free market prices -- demand and supply. The demand for bankers is high (likely due to the increase in the importance of financial transactions), and the supply of bankers is low (likely due to the increasing knowledge required to be a successful banker). If the high-paid banker's job could be done equally well by someone who would require less money to do the job, then the stockholders would insist on the bank hiring the lower priced person. If the stockholders are not pushing for the lower priced person, then there is some reason (perhaps not immediately obvious to you) that the higher priced person is preferred. Wikiant (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...not to further any conspiracy theories, but, of course, much stock is in practice held by funds (operated by bankers) and small stock owners (who often do not care to vote, but rather follow the suggestions of their bank on what to do). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd dispute this; personally I'd argue that the wage these bankers receive isn't tied to their marginal product. I'd suggest tournament theory as an alternative model; however that's just a stub at the moment; the basic idea is that high renumeration is paid to a few at the 'top'; with the other 'competitors' - read workers - vying to take this prize.

As for point 6, I'd assume that the standard behind-the-counter bank teller is on a comparable wage to other high-street workers. It may be useful for you to make the distinction between your high-street banks and the stock-playing, risk-taking investment banks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roydisco (talk • contribs) 16:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the answer to this varies depending on the economic theory used. personally, I lead towards the marxist explanation, e.g. that bankers belong to a separate class: banker's remunerations are determined by fraternal feelings that tend to magnify over time, whereas most workers' remunerations are based on contractual obligations that tend to get minimized as expenditures. for example, you'll rarely hear banker's salaries defended in terms of productivity - usually they are defended on the grounds of leadership, economic insight, trustworthiness, or other intangible personal qualities which never apply to workers from different segments of society. --Ludwigs2 17:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently hear banker's salaries defended in terms of productivity. Bankers earn their banks 100's of millions of dollars/pounds/whatever, so they get a few million for themselves (or whatever the numbers may be). That argument is very common. The more common argument, though, is simply supply and demand - bankers get paid a lot because otherwise they would go to other banks that are paying more. Whether you like it or not, we live in a capitalist society and that's how it works. No further explanation is necessary. --Tango (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The key point made here that I don't think was made clear is that the high-paid bankers (or CEOs or company Presidents) do not get to that position by making decisions that lose a lot of money. They have some skill such that when placed in a situation along with many others, they came out with more profitable solutions. They are usually rather old because it takes time to prove that the decisions made in the past are actually profitable. As a company, it would be rather silly to replace a person who has been proven over 20 years of service to make timely and profitable decisions with a young kid who claims to have a lot of promise and a much lower salary. It isn't the company that depends on the decisions, it is the employees and stockholders. Stupid decisions hurt a lot of people. The person who makes the top decisions needs to be proven. People who have the experience and history of making good decisions will go to the highest bidder. So, the companies that pay the most get the best leaders. An anecdote to demonstrate the point: TWA didn't want to pay a lot for a CEO. They hired Carl Icahn. He bled TWA for everything of value that it had, left the company, continued to reap huge value out of the company, and forced it into complete bankruptcy. If they had paid more for a CEO, it is highly probable that TWA would still be a leading aviation company. -- kainaw ™ 17:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall reading an article a couple of years ago that showed that CEOs who win awards subsequently perform worse than they did before the award. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? I couldn't find it with a quick Google search, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not just imagining it. It was legitimate research; some guy actually looked at the performance of executives before and after they gained recognition, though I'm not sure how large his sample size was. Anyway, the point is that I think a lot of what makes a powerful executive attractive to a company is not so much his track record but his reputation, which are not necessarily directly corrolated. Stock prices will rise when a company hires a well regarded CEO, regardless of whether he's the best choice for a company. Buddy431 (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That could be explained by regression towards the mean, which occurs in many similar situations. 78.149.231.228 (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These answers are surprisingly narrow in scope. Of course bankers' salaries are largely a matter of supply and demand, and certainly in the present economic environment banks and therefore bankers are able to generate incomes out of proportion to people in most other occupations. Is that because banks and bankers are more productive than other economic agents? I doubt it. Instead, you have to consider what it is about the present economic environment that makes such outsize incomes possible. If you examine this carefully, you find that government regulations and policies guarantee banks and bankers privileged access to money, particularly at present. Interest rates held below market levels by central banks through such policies as artificially low discount rates and quantitative easing. Regulations guarantee privileged access for large investment banks to cheap central bank funds, and allow investment banks to make use of these cheap funds as leverage in risky and speculative investments, such as the carry trade, that generate large returns. Further, governments offer an implicit guarantee to banks that encourages and supports these risky but lucrative practices through such policies as Too big to fail. So bankers' salaries are determined narrowly by supply and demand but more broadly not in a free and unregulated market, in which banks would have to compete for talent with, say, engineering firms. Instead, they operate in a highly protected market such that nonfinancial enterprises cannot compete for their talent. This highly protected market allows banks to bid for talent at rates that are out of proportion to other economic sectors. Marco polo (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall from the news that the bankers paid millions a year are partners of the bank. In that situation, in a group of equals, then you would want another partner to be paid as much as possible in the hope or expectation that you would be paid a similar amount. So normal economic rules of supply and demand (which appears only to apply to employees and not this situation) may not apply to the Übermensch of banking. Are such banks, I wonder, owned by shareholders or just by the Partners? 78.149.231.228 (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The largest banks are publicly traded, but most shareholders accept the recommendations of management, and shareholders generally have little direct say about compensation. Certainly bankers, like anyone else, expect to be paid as much as their peers, but I do think that supply and demand apply. However, see my explanation above for why the demand curve is so high in this industry. Marco polo (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Partner" in this context is just a title with very little meaning. There are hundreds of them at most big investment banks, they are the most senior people (with varying ranks within the partners) and they will have profit-sharing rights and things and will almost certainly own a large number of shares (or at least options), but most of the bank will be owned by pension funds and other institutional investors, the same as any big public company. --Tango (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’m with Wikiant: simple supply and demand is the basic answer. There is a very high demand for executives who can bring in billion dollar profits (deals such as IPOs, M&As and LBOs), but very limited supply (the younger people mentioned don’t have the contacts, experience and knowledge to do the job, or else they would). Hence, those who have track records of being able to generate such profits (and not lose their bearings in the process) can command extremely large compensation packages. Those packages have typically been a base salary (sometimes only US$250,000) plus bonuses in the form of cash and / or stock options. The total can be tens of millions of dollars, for a very successful executive. And, money is money, whether it is inside a ‘walled garden” (??) or not.DOR (HK) (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the ready supply of money is relavant: I imagine that staff costs would be a small insignificant proportion of your costs in a financing deal of some kind if you do a lot of them. Its an interesting point of Marco Polo's that banks have priveledged access to much lower interest rates than other businesses. Given the ready supply of cheap money, and that high remuneration may not affect profits much (I speculate), then those who decide the salaries and remuneration have an incentive to raise those of others as high as possible so that their own income can be put at a high level by comparison - I forget the word used about trade unions who used to make similar comparisons for their workers. So in short, is the high remuneration a result of the privelidged access banks have to money at low or zero interest rates? 89.242.92.249 (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, in combination with the workings of supply and demand. Marco polo (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expect the real answer is that banks are clever enough to be able to calculate that its in their interests to motivate staff greatly, and that they will pay their staff any amount of commission if it results in a little extra revenue for the bank per deal, and a lot of extra deals as well. Even if the staff commission is a tiny fraction of a percent of the amount of the deal, it is still lots of money. And banks do have access to lots of money - its cheap to them. 78.149.174.141 (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading that a similar thing happened in Nelson's day. Captains who got their prize money from capturing four or five enemy ships could afford to buy an estate in the country. 92.24.73.102 (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Port Elmina

I'm interested in learning who Port Elmina, in Ghana was named after and the woman's history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.194.32 (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was named after the Elmina Castle, originally titled São Jorge da Mina (St. George of the Mine) by the Portuguese and before that the settlement was known as A Mina (the Mine). The mines in this case referring to the Gold mines of the Gold coast. Nanonic (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name my poison: question about alcoholic beverages

(What follows may sound like a wind up, but it isn't.) I've never really liked any alcoholic beverages and for social reasons I'm trying to "find my poison". I've tried several kinds of wine, which to me all tasted awful (imagine drinking motor oil) and Baileys, which was marginally more potable simply because I like sugar and dairy.

It is probably alcohol itself that I can't stand then. My questions are:

To verify this, should I try vodka, given that that is as close to pure alcohol as you can get?
Is there any alcoholic drink that doesn't taste like alcohol so much?
Should I just keep trying? Is it an acquired taste?

(PS: I know it would be done with the best intentions, but please let your answer not contain words like "peer pressure". I am a 31-year-old project manager and more assertive than John McEnroe (but in a good way!).)

Thank you in advance. 83.81.42.44 (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try: cider and blackcurrant ; Buck's Fizz ; mudslide ; Long Island Iced Tea ; chilled rose wine ; or sweet sherry. I know someone who claims to dislike all alcoholic drinks, except for shots of akvavit from a bottle frozen in a block of ice and eaten with smoked herring (personally I think that's far from a newbie drink, but maybe you have the same biochemistry as my friend). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should observe that many drinks are drunk fridge cold (lager, white wine) or freezer cold (many spirits), so if you're experimenting at home it pays to get the temperatures right. And don't drink cocktails that some smart guy at a party claims he knows how to make (the world is full of bozos who make martinis that taste like industrial drain cleaner); go to a decent bar and have a pro do it. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, of course, haven't actually answered your questions, so:

vodka still tastes like alcohol; if the alcoholic tinge itself is the problem, and adding ice doesn't help, then vodka isn't the answer
a well made margarita (the grandmother of all alcopops) tastes like nice limeade
it's an acquired taste, and there are any number of tastes to acquire

-- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar tends to hide the taste of alcohol. You should try sweet drinks. That's why you found Baileys more acceptable. However, if you are doing it for social reasons, Baileys is considered a "girly" drink (by far the best thing about Christmas is having an excuse to drink Baileys!). You don't mention beer - what beers have you tried? There are lots of different ones. You should try a real ale, an English-style lager, maybe a Belgian beer and an eastern-European lager, they are all different and you may find one you like. You should also try cider. Or, you should try not giving in to peer pressure, which applies to 31 year olds just as much as it does to teenagers! Being tee-total is pretty socially acceptable, these days. --Tango (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not all alcohols appeal to all people. I find that beers gives me allergies, wines (unless they are very dry) are a bit cloying, and rum just disgusts me. bourbon or whiskey, though, appeal to me, and there's not much I enjoy more (taste-wise) than a well-made manhattan (which is maybe the best balance you'll find between classy, masculine, and sweet). but you know, if you've gone this long without getting a taste for alcohol, I'd suggest you avoid developing one. drinking doesn't add much to life except an excuse. --Ludwigs2 18:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should not yield to convention and just tell people that you do not like alcohol. The current medical opinion is that its bad for you - cancer as well as heart and circulation problems. Yes, I have heard the old cliche that one drink a day does you good, but the newest medical opinion is that its bad even in small quantities. The good stuff in a glass of wine can be got in greater quantity by eating one apple instead, I understand. 78.147.135.237 (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by all means try vodka. But do NOT sip it slowly, and do NOT drink it at anything above freezer temperature (don't worry, it doesn't freeze). If you disobey my instructions, it will probably disgust you, so don't say you weren't warned. Swallow a cold shot straight down in one go - it will warm you in a way that few things can. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vodka doesn't have a very strong taste. You could try it with coke, lemonade, orange juice or whatever soft drink you like.--Frumpo (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like alcoholic beverages, why not just not drink them? You'll be the healthier for it -- even doctors who recognize the purported health benefits of red wine accept that it's still better not to drink at all. I would hope that by 2010 it's socially acceptable to have a Diet Coke when out with friends. -- 199.172.169.21 (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moderation in all things, but IMHO it is an acquired taste. All the better, if you took to it too well, it may not be healthy in the long run. That said try Bundaberg Rum. COI statement and Flag waving, I am Aussie. ;) (and I can't stand beer) 220.101.28.25 (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might also try amaretto sours, which taste more like candy than cocktails, and White Russians if you like the taste of coffee. If White Russians are still too strong, you can order one with no vodka (which leaves you with Kahlua and milk), or just order a Kahlua and cream (assuming your waistline is of no importance to you). - Fullobeans (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found apple or pear ciders to be the most drinkable alcoholic drinks. The taste is mild, and the alcoholic tang is less salient. While I do agree that it's not important to be a drinker, I'll accept that there are some situations where it can be very beneficial to be able to have something. Steewi (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All you jolly drinkers out there might like this one:[12] That's Spike Jones behind the bar, and the hiccuping guy with the grey derby and the fake mustache is The Man of a Thousand Voices. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My partner also hates the taste of alcohol, but he is fond of mojitos. It is a sweet drink, but I don't think it has an overwhelming feminine reputation. Marco polo (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the consensus seems to be: get something without too much alcohol and mask the taste with stronger flavors. You could try mead, of which there are many varieties. Of course, finding it will be a problem in many areas. Buddy431 (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not get something with very little alcohol if you do not like it? Very very little alcohol - in fact no alcohol at all? 89.242.92.249 (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you would have to learn to drink in order to be sociable. If your friends can accept the fact that you don't drink when you all go out together, then I think you needn't worry about losing them or their respect. If they ostracise you because they think you're a wuss, then that's their problem. If you're wanting to learn to drink because of work reasons (i.e. going out with the boss, or whatever), I suggest you learn golf. It's a lot less fun, involves carrying stuff for your boss, and occasionally gives you a fantastic sense of achievement when you pull off the one-billion-to-one odds hole-in-one through sheer jammy luck - not unlike a regular day at the office :) --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 10:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK (and I suspect elsewhere) alcopops were invented for those in your very position. In my youth, it took some time to acquire a taste for bitter and other grown-up drinks. Now you can drink yourself stupid without serving this apprenticeship. Is this an improvement? Alansplodge (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forcing yourself to drink alcohol when you don't like it is nearly as foolish as forcing yourself to smoke tobacco because your friends do. Any bar should have non-alcoholic drinks available for drivers - ask for one of those. 89.242.92.249 (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I do, having discovered I dislike the taste of alcohol, I make a point of not drinking any, it works every time. Though I do occasioanlly have to persuade people that it does actually have a taste and smell, many seem not to have even noticed the fact. 148.197.114.158 (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

white and Japanese

The common traditionary interracial among white/asian couples suppose to be white male and asain female but for Japanese tribes I see something a little bit strange. I've never known anybody who is Japanese mom/white dad but I only hear of white mom (female) and Japanese dad (male). Is this just me observational bias or for Japanese still white dad (male) and Japanese mom (female) is nore common. I've never hear that pattern.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every single time you ask one of these questions, it is always observational bias. You have, in the past, been directed to databases of racial marriage data in the U.S. You could just as easily look up the numbers yourself based on past data. Every time you say "I have never seen..." it means you are basing your statement on your personal experience alone. You are an insignificant (statistically) person, given you are one of 6+ billion world citizens, and one of 330+ million American citizens, so the fact that you have or not experienced meeting some couple with some arbitrary racial mix means nothing, statistically speaking. It wouldn't be getting so weary if you didn't ask the exact same question, with subtle differences, several times a week. Oh, and Japan hasn't been a "tribal" society for several thousand years, so you may want to choose your terms more carefully. --Jayron32 18:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The commonality here is that (as a general rule) men are more likely to seek out 'exotic' partners, while women tend to prefer more conventional partners. so, in caucasian areas, men will be more likely to marry non-caucasian women than women will be to marry non-caucasian men; in japanese areas men will be more likely to marry non-japanese women than women will be to marry non-japanese men; and etc. --Ludwigs2 18:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

meh. save that for article space. if you disagree, then disagree. --Ludwigs2 21:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Reference Desk. We are supposed to provide references for the questioners, not OR opinions backed up by nothing. Your claim is just as OR as the OP's observation, and without at least a stab at a reference you aren't helping. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actor Dean Cain's father his half-Japanese ancestry and his father's father is full Japanese ancestry, apparently. I've seen him, on TV. Maybe the OP hasn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I suspect Jayron has it right, and that it's an observation bias that's getting warped into a slightly scurrilous/prejudicial truth-claim. though for the life of me I can't figure out what the psychological bias is (only that the presentation speaks to bias) - there's no major japanese-American interracial prejudice that I'm aware of. --Ludwigs2 19:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've only hear father being Japanese and mother being white. That is one of my old bus driver who is full japanese and marry to a white wife same as my neighbor and a girl in my high school who was in journalism.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two is just not a viable sample..hotclaws 22:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Hotclaws. I know of a WW2 soldier stationed in Japan who marrried a Japanese lady and brought her home to Australia. I believe that this was known to happen irrespective of race, if not as common as British war wives marrying American GIs as an example. 220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've worked it out, the OP has his theory backwards. In the poorer south east Asian countries, I think there undeniably would be a bias. There would be far more white males travelling to poorer Asian countries to find wives, as opposed to white women trying to find husbands. We could argue "why" but I'm quite certain that is not an observational bias. The fact that this effect might be far less in Japan, because Japanese women generally don't need to "marry out" to escape poverty might be what the OP is interpreting incorrectly as a bias there. Japan is a very strange mix of east and west you can't really compare it to places like thailand or vietna,, it definitely has eastern influences but is far more westernised then most other Asian nations. Vespine (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Along the same lines as Vespine, I know from being raised as a (British) Army brat that male soldiers stationed in foreign countries in a colonial, occupational or post-occupational situation not infrequently marry 'local' wives; such military forces have traditionally contained a much lower proportion of unmarried females. In the case of the British Army, prolonged presences in Hong Kong, Singapore and (post WW2) Germany have (to my personal observations over 4½ decades) resulted in significant numbers of Chinese, SE Asian and German wives of British military personnel; the same consideration probably apples to the American post-WW2 presence in Japan (and, for that matter, Germany). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't feed the trolls. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a very white uncle, whose first wife was part Maori, part Japanese, and therefore my cousins are white, Japanese and Maori. I didn't think this was unusual. The Russian Christopher Lilly 11:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

African American Muslims

Do African American muslims specifically know that they are from a islamic heritage? I figure that there is at least a chance, and maybe a good one, that they are descended from Africans that were Sub-Saharan that had nothing to do with Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.39.222 (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are descended from Africans that were Sub-Saharan that had nothing to do with Islam, correct. -- 89.247.56.36 (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

almost all African-American muslims are muslims by conversion. Africans brought to the US as slaves were converted to Christianity (to the extent that slave owners cared about their religion). One of the effects of the freeing of slaves is a push away from christianity as a 'slave' religion. this caused a resurgence of African tribal faiths in the Caribbean and a number of African Muslim movements (particularly during the civil rights movement) in the US. --Ludwigs2 18:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How ironic it is that "Islam" supposedly means "submission". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, submission to God's will is a bit different than submission to a slave-owner's will, though I suppose it may not appear that way to an actual slave-owner. The irony would surely be lost on most Muslims.

and don't look at me for more - I'm not a dualist.

--Ludwigs2 19:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The slippery part is what the actual will of God is. And Islam has no monopoly on that dilemma. I read something about Malcolm X that explained why he converted, in that Muslims seemed to be free of racial prejudice, at least in his experience. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's interesting; I wonder if he'd still feel the same way? granting that mainstream muslim beliefs are generally a bit more open-minded than equivalent christian beliefs (if only because muslims incorporate christianity as part of their spiritual history), radical Islam - which was largely non-existent in the 1960's - has become a fairly major player, with strong racial statements. the world keeps keeping on, I guess... --Ludwigs2 19:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard telling. It can be the "grass is greener..." effect. Someone sees something in one institution that appears to be lacking in another, or vice versa. Paul Robeson famously embraced Soviet Russia, a country so desperate for a decent standard of living that Will Rogers once said, "They ain't got no income tax; but they ain't got no income!" Black Americans have also embraced Judaism and Christianity. Ultimately it has to touch something in someone a certain way, to attract or repel. (Getting too far afield from the OP's question here.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has also been a great degree of antagonism between sub-Saharan Africans and Muslims in many cases, including slave-raiding by Muslims. Relations between Christian Africans or followers of traditional religions on the one hand and Muslims on the other have often been strained in places like Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania. I'm sure some slaves were Muslims, such as Abdulrahman Ibrahim Ibn Sori, but my guess is they were a small minority. -- 199.172.169.7 (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very few African-Americans (I mean people of African-American culture descended from slaves) know much, if anything, about their African ancestors. Few records survive, and for most, their African ancestors lived more than 6 generations ago. Therefore, for the most part, they do not know, and neither do we, whether some of their ancestors were Muslims. Some of the regions of Africa affected by the trans-Atlantic slave trade, such as Senegambia and upper Guinea, had largely or overwhelmingly Muslim populations, so many African-Americans probably do have Muslim ancestors. Because descendants of Africans brought to North America were largely converted to Christianity and differences in African ethnic heritage were not a barrier to intermarriage, most or all African-Americans probably also have non-Muslim African ancestors. Marco polo (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A celebrity is a person who is well known for his well knownness." Daniel J. Boorstin

Does anyone know the source exactly? (book, year, page) -- 89.247.56.36 (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read several of Daniel J. Boorstin's works, including The Discoverers and The Creators, and I don't remember that quote, or even that type of quote, appearing in his writing. Which is not to say that it wasn't in one of his other books. He was also a public figure, serving for a long time as Librarian of Congress, so he could have just as easily spoken the quote during a speech or a public function. --Jayron32 18:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is from his book The Image, which I once read long ago. 78.147.135.237 (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article, Famous for being famous, which would benefit from an etymology. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The exact quote is "A celebrity is a person who is known for his well-knownness." (Slightly different than the one given above.) Daniel J. Boorstin, The Image: A Guide to Psuedo-Events in America (Vintage Books Edn., 1992 [1961]), p. 57. It's searchable on Amazon (but you have to search for the right phrase.) I've updated his Wikiquote page. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: famous for being famous, Google Books has this example from 1907, referring to "an actress famous for being famous". Warofdreams talk 00:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought whenever someone talks about famous for famous' sake is Beau Brummel. Steewi (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me, it's that woman. You know the one I mean. The one whose name I refuse to utter. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, never heard of her. DuncanHill (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the one that, if you were to stay in a particular hotel in the Capital of France, you may have to inadvertantly refer to her? That one?--Jayron32 04:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that one. See, you do know who I mean. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Cruella de Vil? ;) AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Isn't that what they say about Paris Hilton ? What other use is she ? I guess some can even tell me that. The Russian Christopher Lilly 11:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The good thing about most celebs is that they are exemplers of slimness and fitness, and thus encourage the same and the health benefits that come from them. Of course notorious celebs also do a lot of bad unhealthy things too. Yes, I know about anorexia. 89.241.39.207 (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish/Afghanistan/Pakistani Anthems

Does anyone know if there is more than mere coincidence that results in the apparent high degree of similarity between the melodies of the Turkish, Afghan (current), and Pakistani national anthems? Thanks for any information. --152.3.128.132 (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Click here for the anthems of Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan, each with its heartwarming lyrics. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But does anyone know something about the music/melody of each anthem, specifically, whether the apparent similarity between the three anthems' melodies is concidental or intentional? --71.111.194.50 (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Population of German Empire

I'm trying to find the maximum extent of the German Empire, in terms of population and land area, but as importantly a good source for them. Articles, such as list of largest empires contain unproven - if believable - numbers, but I really need an FA quality source, if possible. (Not for an FA, FTR.) This was probably in 1914, and so any population or area from that year - qualified or not - would be great. Some on-line sources omit colonies, which I really need included. Thanks for all your help. 92.20.218.135 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified or not?174.3.98.236 (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This[13] source says 66.9m in 1913 and 67.1 in 1914. I suspect this excludes overseas colonies. This site[14] gives a ratio of population of Germany to population of German colonies of 6:1 Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) The article German Empire that the OP linked to has the information in there, as well as a list of sources. Maybe he/she could take a look through them, if he/she hasn't done so already. --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 11:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does mention a population and area in the infobox but this is specifically "Area and population not including colonial possessions", which I could really do with. (I can't see a further mention in the text.) By "qualified" I meant whether the source said "maximum extent", which I'd imagine it wouldn't (in contrast to simply giving a population and area figure for 1914). 92.20.218.135 (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got one - anyone who wants to add it to the list and/or articles, it is here. 92.20.218.135 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What protestant sect did the Diggers belong to?

What protestant sect did the English Diggers belong to? --Gary123 (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Diggers were a Protestant group; they have been described as Puritan, but were in conflict with the more mainstream Puritan groups. This book suggests that Winstanley had spent time as a Baptist and a Seeker. After the dissolution of the Diggers, he appears to have joined the Quakers. Warofdreams talk 00:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is some background to these groups in English Dissenters. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When did the Chionites begin invading (eastern) Afghanistan?

According to the Zabulistan article the Kushanshas were driven out of (eastern) Afghanistan by the Chionites in AD 420. But I'm sure the Chionites were in Afghanistan earlier than 420. Perhaps the article means that by 420 there were no Kushanshas in Afghanistan. So the question is, when did the Chionite invasions actually begin? ExitRight (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this book, evidence suggests that the Chionites were indeed in parts of Afghanistan by the mid/late fourth century. Warofdreams talk 15:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. ExitRight (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

Flag Ratios

Which is the most common flag ratio?

Is it 2/3?174.3.98.236 (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This suggests 2:3, at least for national flags. There's a ton of variation, though, and in some cases it doesn't appear to be very standardized. The U.S. Flag article says that the official government specification for U.S. flags is 10:19, but that in practice most sold are a different ratio (2:3, 5:8, or 3:5). The Union Flag is typically 1:2, but a 3:5 varient exists. The Canadian Flag, on the other hand, seems quite standardized at 1:2. The Mexican flag is 4:7, which the article points out is subtly different than the Flag of Italy, which is 2:3. Good stuff. Buddy431 (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2/3 is the most common ratio. This website may be of use to you. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 02:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How come I didn't get an edit confilct, seeing as I posted after you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddy431 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The code tries to merge edit conflicts if it can. If both people just add something to the bottom of a section, it is usually easy to merge it, although for some reason it always adds them in the wrong order... --Tango (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why flag makers didn't start using the golden ratio a long time ago. Or maybe they did but it proved inappropriate for some reason. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the Union Jack. the ratio 1:2 is used by the Navy (because it's windier at sea and a longer flag flies better) and the Army uses 3:5. Nations that consider thamselves to be maritime powers (eg Netherlands) tend to have longer flags than landlocked ones (eg Switzerland). Alansplodge (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Canadian flag, the white part is square, so having the overall flag 2:1 allows the red bars to also be 2:1. Personally, I think 2:1 rectangles are more attractive than golden-ratio rectangles anyway; unfortunately, flags that long need a stronger wind to support than than squarer ones do. --Anonymous, 04:41 UTC, January 29, 2010.

Eating the gross

Like many Westerners, I find the idea of eating eyes (e.g. fish eyes) and noses (e.g. pig snouts) pretty disgusting at a base level. I am aware that there are other cultures relish such things, though, and I am sure that if I were raised in one of them, I would relish them as well.

Here's the question: I don't think anyone taught me that fish eyes and pig snouts were disgusting. There was never any example made of them, I am sure. My just having never eaten them before (or knowing anyone personally who had) doesn't strike me as reason enough to find the idea disgusting. Or is it? Why do I (and others) react in this way—in a way that seems rather primal?

The standard answer is "culture, duh." I am not disputing of course that culture could make me have liked these foods. But can their absence in my culture be the root of my repulsion? It strikes me that such a thing would not be strong enough, by itself. But maybe I am wrong, or am missing something? I'd love any thoughts/links/associations that this brings to mind. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's all in what you're used to. I like lutefisk and hate liver. And I am not Norwegian. Or maybe that's the reason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a white European male, I grew up near a "Chinatown" in a multicultural city, I'm consider myself very adventurous when it comes to food, even proudly so amongst my peers. Pigs ear, fish cheek, chicken feet, giblets, tripe, all sorts of stuff I've never seen anyone eat before. Some of those things had not appeared at all in the culture I grew up in, predominantly eating my mum's European cooking. But fish eyes I agree, I think that's gross, and the kicker: my dad, being a fisherman's son, certainly ate fish eyes! Also my brother grew up in the same culture eating the same food and he isn't as adventurous as me. So, I think it must be an extremely complex issue with various influences and associations not easily traced or deduced! Vespine (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that many others eat is probably "safe". It's just a question of taste. Caviar to me sounds every bit as gross as fish eyes. And probably a lot more expensive. But I love oysters, and many folks are repelled by them. The key is, try it once. You might like it, you might not, but it won't likely kill you. And keep something palatable nearby to "wash it down", just in case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"but it won't likely kill you": but it can. Be careful with anything you eat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddy431 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In one of his programs (I think the series about chickens) chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall ranted a bit about (British) people no longer eating all the edible bits of the bird (and then making its carcass into soup), which he thought was a disservice to the chicken. In other programs he's persuaded people to eat offal, something else that the British used to do much more of than they do now. The people in the program, or at least the younger ones, had similar feelings about kidneys than you do about noses. Fearnley-Whittingstall's general theory of meat seems to be "people would eat better meat, and a greater variety of meats, if the lost habits of the past could be regained". But one might argue that old Hugh takes his thesis to something of an extreme. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 02:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eating a dish with the title of "offal" could take a degree of courage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Scots courage" if you mean haggis, a dish so offal it is illegal to export to some countries. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having just read the description, it sounds like it could be tasty. Try anything once! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

from a psychological perspective, a lot of this is learned by experiment and observation. if you have kids (or have been around them) you'll notice that preteens - particularly boys - always go through a stage where they are fascinated by ickiness, and go out of their way to try to gross each other (and any available adults) out. that's a testing phase, where they learn what is and isn't acceptable in the culture. In the US, you don't have to see cooked fish eyes to learn that they're gross - all you have to do is mention them, or anything similar, and get a good giggle as the adults squirm. mention cooked fish eyes in China and no one bats an eye; there are (assumedly) other things that gross out Chinese. --Ludwigs2 07:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the word always... Vimescarrot (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Always remember to never say "always" or "never". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can never remember that, and I'm always sorry for it later. ah, well... as the quiet men in robes often say, rejection of human norms is the conformity of the rebel. If we can't except how much we're like everyone else, we'll never really be any different.

This philosophical moment brought to you by the National Rifle Association in collaboration with PETA; working together towards a world where we can hunt animals for pleasure, humanely.

The NRA started out as an environmental group in the 1930s that was dedicated to saving the rare Blue Eagle. Then new management came along, and the organization decided it would be more fun to shoot it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Federalism, Banking, etc

How have the two become stated by American Republicans and even Democrats, that they are "Conservative"? This doesn't seem historically accurate. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Political terminology doesn't make much sense. It usually makes some sense when it is first used, but then the meaning gets warped and extended and the word is applied to new situations and then it doesn't make any sense at all. Try not to worry about it and just think of them are arbitrary names for ideologies. --Tango (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the greatest American example of political terminology changing over time is the fact that "Republicans" were the party of Lincoln (anti-slavery) and "Southern Democrats" were extremely pro-segregation / anti-Civil Rights movement... whereas now, most minorities (except Cubans) in America identify very strongly with Democrats - a complete 180 degree switch. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Hoover personally presided over the split between the Republican party and African-American leaders and organizations, and FDR sealed the Black-Democratic alliance, leading to an awkward period of almost 40 years when both Blacks and Segregationists were significant components of the Democratic party... AnonMoos (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that terms such as "conservative" have much consistent meaning over 220 years, but there has been a fairly consistent differentiation in U.S. politics between a Hamiltonian orientation and a Jeffersonian orientation... AnonMoos (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why has human nature changed so much?

It seemed that the generals and political leaders in ancient times cared a lot about fame and glory: they strived to have the largest empires, the best cities, and the most glamorous buildings just for the sense of accomplishment that this gave. It's puzzling that today, no developed country is willing to devote significant resources to human spaceflight. The first mission to land a man on Mars or build a moon base would surely be considered one of the greatest achievements of the human race; a thousand years from now, high school history students will learn about it from their textbooks. I can imagine that many Roman emperors would do anything to achieve that much fame. Why is it that no leader today is willing to pursue this glory?

This is not an argument for or against human spaceflight; I'm not saying that the pursuit of glory is always noble (sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't). I'm just curious: why the change in human nature? --99.237.234.104 (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because planning and implementing a mission to Mars (or a lunar base) would take longer than a typical term in office. Politicians in a democracy only care about things that will happen before the next election (ok, so maybe that is overly cynical, but it's not far off). The leaders you talk about were generally leaders for life. So, I don't think it is a change in human nature, it is just a change in form of government. --Tango (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about that, but your explanation assumes political leaders care only about maintaining power. The Roman emperors did of course care a lot about staying in power, but a lot of the time, constructing expensive buildings only wrecked the economy and did little to increase popular opinion (or military power). I suppose, though, that a U.S. president couldn't take all the credit for a 16-year project whereas a Roman emperor could.

That said, I'm not sure it's impossible to start constructing a moon base within 4 years. The Apollo project took less than 10 years, and that was with 1960's technology and zero prior experience in going to the Moon. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got it with the credit thing - if the glorious Mars landing happens under the next guy's watch, he'll get the credit for it, so what is the point? I don't know what Kennedy's motives were for starting the Apollo programme, since he set the deadline after he would have served his maximum of two terms, maybe he felt the early stages would be glorious enough to be worth it, or maybe he was just rounding up and intended to get it done before his 8 years were up (remember, he wasn't seeking glory for the sake of it, he was doing it to show that the US was better than the USSR, so it's a little different anyway). As for building a lunar base in under 4 years - you are absolutely right, it would be possible. It would be very expensive and risky, though. The American people were willing to accept that cost and danger during the 60's because of the cold war. I don't think the people of any developed nation now would be so willing. --Tango (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ancients knew their time on Earth was limited and they knew their limited role on it. So they went a little nuts and did what they felt needed to be done. Now, there's no impending twilight in a man's life (at least not widely). Either that, or it's just simply how the world evolved. First you're picking clams out of the sea in Africa, then you're slaughtering Muslims in the Crusades, then you're playing XBox live with some n00bs. Vranak (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The space program began in the Eisenhower administration, was given a kick-start by JFK, and then advanced under Johnson and Nixon. There were specific reasons it was done, having to do with national priorities. There's no pressing need to send men to the moon or Mars now, when robotics have advanced to the degree they have. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robotics certainly hasn't gotten to the point where humans are unnecessary. Humans are still much more flexible and intelligent problem solvers than machines. Take the Spirit rover, as an example: first it had to deal with low levels of sunlight caused by dust settling on its solar panels. Then it got a rock stuck in its wheel. As of now, it's spent the last several months trying to free its wheels from some soft sand. Imagine how easy it would be for a human to fix all of these problems. Dust on the solar panels? Brush it off with your gloves. Rock in the wheel? Bend down and take it out, all in two seconds (mission control took days to fix this problem). Wheels stuck in sand? If it's a human-sized vehicle, push it, lever it, start digging out the sand around its wheels, make a pulley to pull on it, or disassemble it and reassemble at a convenient spot. I haven't even mentioned the fact that Spirit takes days to get anywhere or make detailed measurements of its targets, things that a human could do in five minutes.

It's possible that robots will eventually improve to the point where human spaceflight is completely useless for anything other than glory, and it's possible that this will happen soon enough to make investing in human spaceflight unnecessary. I don't know enough to say whether any of these two possibilities are realistic. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, robots aren't better than humans, they are just far cheaper (and safer). It's a matter of value for money and, as with any value-judgement, people disagree on what the values of robotic and manned missions are. I think the real place for humans in space is with long term missions - if you want to mine water on the moon and turn it into rocket fuel, for instance, you're going to want to do that for years and that is going to involve maintenance. Maintaining technology is something best done by people. A 90 day science mission to Mars (which is what Spirit was planned as - well, 90 Martian days, anyway) shouldn't require much maintenance (and I think all the problems you mention happened after the initial 90 days), so humans weren't required. I think the same is going to be true of most science missions - human spaceflight will come into its own when we find something else worth doing up there. --Tango (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has strayed far from the original question, but note that you could send out several hundred robotic spacecraft for the cost of one Manned mission to Mars. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting robotics are better, but it's as Tango said, they're more economical and they're much better than they were in 1975. The conspiracists like to think that Apollo was faked and then ended before it could be found out. The real reason the moon missions were truncated is that the public had lost interest and weren't willing to fund it anymore. People have forgotten that even then a good segment of the public thought Apollo was a waste of money. And there's still really no good reason to send men back to the moon. Getting back to the original question, basic human nature really hasn't changed all that much. Read some of the advice Confucius gave people thousands of years ago, and see if it doesn't read like a modern self-help book. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to note that before Rome was an empire, it was a republic whose leaders had term limits, and they usually didn't really do anything noteworthy. They were mostly concerned with military victories that would get them a nice pension and maybe a cool nickname, or retirement as governor of a sunny province. As Augustus said, he found Rome a city of mud and bricks and turned into one of marble. Previous leaders never really had an opportunity to undertake massive construction projects, they just weren't around long enough. The one exception I can think of is Appius Claudius, who built the Appian Way. (And who are the most notable republican Romans, anyway? The ones who declared themselves dictators for life, of course.) Adam Bishop (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A full-scale ongoing manned space exploration program is extremely expensive, and is not the kind of thing which a leader of a democratically-ruled country can unilaterally decree into existence in order to leave a glorious personal legacy. During the second half of the 1960's, the U.S. and USSR were in a kind of national prestige race to be the first to the moon; this was good for the U.S. space program, in that it made available a lot of money which otherwise might not have been available, but it also meant that the program was very narrowly tailored to Kennedy's goal of sending a man to the moon before 1970, and so did not leave a very good foundation for continuing manned spaceflight after the Apollo program was cancelled... AnonMoos (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few things. One is that your extrapolation of what human nature "used to be like" is fairly romantic and probably wrong. Second is that expensive projects that don't have immediate benefits are a hard sell in a democracy. Even in a dictatorship, at some point the rubber hits the road—the USSR couldn't afford to endlessly spend on space, either. Third—a base on the moon or Mars. OK, it sounds kind of exciting at first. "A new exploration!" But what about two months later. "Well, guys, it's real nice... there's a rock over here... another over there... and, uh.. yeah." It loses its romance pretty quick and suddenly we're spending how many millions to keep a couple people on a few fairly empty rocks. Interesting to geologists, no doubt. But the political glory fades fast. Such is the story of the US foray into space... space travel was exciting in the 1960s and early 1970s. But by the 1980s and 1990s it was pretty dull—school teachers in orbit, oh boy. So I think rethinking what the "glory" is meant to accomplish in this case is worth doing. Who are we trying to impress, exactly? And why? --Mr.98 (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly more comfortable in the near future but maybe catastrophic in the far future is the preferred way of thinking today. Maybe that "primitive" thinking of the past that society is more important than the individual had evolutionary reasons? Will there be a Darwin award for nations who destroy themselves by throwing away everything that worked (boo, it's too conservative and outdated) and introducing social innovations the long term effects of which are not only not fully known, but speaking even slightly critical about them being a taboo? --131.188.3.20 (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about China, or certainly someplace other than the USA, as the USA has lots of internal critics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nazis targets

Jews, gays, gypsies, Bibleforschen (is it right?), etc... but who was targeted first in the Nazi Germany? --SouthAmerican (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific in your question? A target in what context? Military? Political? Social? I am not sure I follow what information you want here? Could you elaborate? --Jayron32 04:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring seems to be the first of the laws that allow for what we would consider the persecution of a minority (at least, I can't find any earlier ones). --Tango (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First target was Westerplatte. Vespine (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Vespine, I am talking of minorities persecutions like Tango says... who was the first group to be targeted. --SouthAmerican (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at this page http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller you will see a famous poem which has many forms. Perhaps one of the variants has the information you're looking for? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The first Nazi concentration camps ... were intended to hold political prisoners and opponents of the regime." The Nuremberg laws of 1935 and 1936 were "primarily directed against Jews" but other 'non-Aryan' people were subject to the laws" [15]. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a page on that: First they came... In all the versions he mentions the communists first (a historian's supportive take on this is here). We have to decide what is meant by "targeted": does it count if oppressive laws are passed against a particular group, or only when they are sent to a camp? Marnanel (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses as well, although since Nazism is so un Christian, why stop at them ? They also went after the physically and mentally impaired. I believe the famous preacher Niemoller kicked up a stink, forcing the Nazis to back down on killing such people. The Russian Christopher Lilly 12:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's "Bibleforschen"? TomorrowTime (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bibelforscher seems like it would be bible researchers. de:Bibelforscher redirects to Bibelforscherbewegung, in English the Bible Student movement. However, no mention is made of the Nazis in that article. Following a schism, part of the Bible Student movement became the Jehovah's Witnesses. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazis targeted the Jews primarily and originally. The first major law they passed was the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, which kicks Jews out of the civil service (which was a large body of professional jobs in Germany, including lawyers, teachers, etc.). The Nuremberg Laws explicitly stripped Jews of their citizenship. The policies against other groups come primarily later, years after the Nazis started targeting the Jews. This is not to say that the other groups had it easy. But the Nazis made persecuting the Jews a special policy of theirs, something they started from the very beginning (1933), something that, in retrospect, unsurprisingly led to so many millions killed. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to say who was targeted first, because the political ideology of the Nazis included both the eradication of political opposition as well as the Jews. But I would say that they targeted Socialists, Communists and Social Democrats first, because it was part of the struggle of the Nazis to gain ultimate power both in government but also on local level where they often physically expelled leftist strongholds from city quarters etc. When the Nazis had gained that power, following further cleansings of political opposition, including the moderate right, they concentrated on the Jews and other minorities like the ones mentioned by the OP. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my quick research online, it appears the very first oppressive thing the Nazis did (through their control of the state) was to ban outdoor Communist demonstrations a couple of days after Hitler became chancellor. The next day, they put a three-day ban on Vorwärts, the paper of the Social Democratic Party. As mentioned above, it didn't take them very long to start oppressing others. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally put their political persecutions in a different box than their "identity" persecutions. People choose whether to be Communists, etc. The Jews didn't get the choose being Jews (not under the Nazi's definitions, anyway). Neither the Roma, or the homosexuals. There is also something of a moral difference here—political parties oppressing other political parties is fairly standard, especially during times of strife, but the Nazi approach to the targeting minority populations was seen as fairly extreme even at the time. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the earliest (1918-20) days, the key themes were anti-Bolshevist, anti-Communist, anti-WWI war reparations; pro-nationalism and pro-workers social welfare. In the second phase, anti-Semitism – blaming “international Jewery” (i.e., Britain and the USSR, later to include the US) – became key themes. The French occupation of the Ruhr region in 1923 earned that country special attention. From there on, it basically became a party opposed to everyone but itself. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

are couples that have anal sex more likely to stay together?

are heterosexual couples that have anal sex more likely to stay together than ones that don't? 82.113.106.100 (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Especially if they get their tube of K-Y mixed up with their tube of SuperGlu. This discussion reminds me of this story that Drew Carey told:[16] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couples that are compatible with each other are more likely to stay together. Some compatible couples have anal sex and some incompatible couples have anal sex. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see how this would be a factor in any way, though intrigued as to whether the OP is using this as a carrot to persuade someone (or is that just my cynical mind mis-reading the OPs intentions?). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds that way to me too. I think the "if you love me, you'll do this for me" approach in itself leads to breaking up rather than not - if you really love your partner, you wouldn't force her to do things she's uneasy with. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two words: Farrah Fawcett. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

uh... I hope that's a reference to the burning bed, otherwise it's a really disturbing non-sequitor. --Ludwigs2 19:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you want me to spell it out for you, fine: Farrah died from anal cancer, which, according to the news reports at the time, is typically associated with anal intercourse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't know that. ok. --Ludwigs2 01:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"if you really love your partner, you wouldn't force her to do things she's uneasy with." How do you know the OP is a man? You know, some women are into that sort of thing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And even if they are a man, there are still even more possibilities still out there.--Mr.98 (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ya learn something new every day. If I see a prediction that the Cubs are pegged to finish in the second division, this image will seem fitting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Health insurance

Why do most of the US-americans oppose health insurance? Which reason make the opponents think that is something this bad that it must come from the Nazis? It is a good thing? --Loi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.211.75.218 (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know that many people "oppose health insurance", but some are more suspicious of governmentized medicine than corporatized medicine, while for others it's the other way around. AnonMoos (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public opinion on health care reform in the United States might help you here, particularly the section on polling results in 2008. An argument made against government-run health insurance is that it's "Socialized medicine", which implies that it's a form of socialism. People who are against government-run healthcare are implying a connection to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and National Socialism in order to scare people.

In fact, a majority of Americans support the creation of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read on the Internet, it's indeed just a very vocal minority that's actively against it, while something like 60% (or was it 65%? Somebody correct me) actually support it. The movement against the health care reform is in this way similar to the creationism movement - this too may seem (and indeed, does seem) to a casual non-US observer as a prevailing line of reasoning in the US, when in fact it's really just a vocal minority that actively supports and endorses it. Unfortunately, in the case of creationism by now almost half of the US population is also a passive supporter... TomorrowTime (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first article I linked gives 62% and 64% in two pre-2008 surveys. It also refers to FiveThirtyEight.com, which has a range of numbers [17]. The number is bound to vary according to who, what and when exactly you ask. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AlmostReadytoFly. Public support will doubtlessly vary depending on when and by whom the poll was conducted. It's also important to distinguish between support for health care reform in general, support for government-run health care in general, and the current congressional health care bills. I am in favor of health care refom (as I suppose most Americans are), but I oppose government-run health care (as I suppose most Americans do). It has nothing to do with Nazis or Communists or scare tactics or comparisons to the Creationist movement. I simply oppose the current government's intention to run an industry where it has no constitutional authority to do so. Our president recently remarked, in a moment of perhaps unintentional candor, that UPS and FedEx are doing better than the U.S. Postal Service. Why do many continue to believe that it would do better with health care? Kingsfold (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the Americans who make things happen have gold-plated insurance and don't see why their taxes should be used to give insurance to the have-nots. Senators never have a missing tooth, you'll have noticed.--Wetman (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But aren't there 59 U.S. Senators that do want their taxes (and ours) to be used to give insurance to the have-nots? The argument for a public option was framed in terms of covering all Americans, but the current plans fall woefully short. Kingsfold (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Kingsfold hints at the basic capitalistic argument, or I might say the libertarian argument. If the government creates a business, it will likely be a not-for-profit. Hence its costs and its prices will be lower. Simple economics tells you that the other health insurers will have to lower their prices in order to compete. To keep costs down, those insurers will have to cut people's salaries and/or lay them. The reduction in both corporate and individual income will shrink the tax base that supports the government. The government will have to further extend the national debt in order to make up the shortfall. I should point out, regarding Obama's apparent slam against the postal service (who says he's not Reaganesque?), that you can send a letter across country in about 3 days for 44 cents. Try doing that with FedEx or UPS. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

44-cent point taken, and I agree with and appreciate your help with the economics; but can we agree that the President was referring to the difference in efficiency and profit? UPS and FedEx have found a way to survive without government subsidization and actually turn a profit, while the Postal Service can't. This is why (in my opinion) the Postal Service should stick with doing what it does best (delivering letters) and get out of the parcel delivery business. Case in point: my wife and I ordered some USPS flat-rate boxes for holiday shipping toward the beginning of December. They finally showed up about 2 weeks ago. (!) This is really my point. Imagine having to wait that long, not for some holiday boxes, but for your perscriptions. Kingsfold (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you meant "Professor" as sarcastic or complimentary, but either way, it made me smile.Kingsfold (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that you can't send a letter UPS or FedEx for 44 cents is likely because those two companies don't focus on mail, per se. If they did, I'd bet rates would be even lower than 44 cents, and they wouldn't go up almost every year. Kingsfold (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsfold, I think you misunderstood part of my post. Although numbers vary, percentage support for a government-run healthcare option is roughly in the 60s. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to what source? Not Gallup, who puts opposition slightly ahead. Not CBS, not The Washington Post, not Rasmussen. Where are you getting your figures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsfold (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to do is compare the current privatized healthcare "system" in the United States with publicly funded healthcare in any other advanced developed country (and every advanced developed country other than the United States has publicly funded and regulated healthcare). In every one of those countries, healthcare costs less in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, and in almost every one of those countries, statistics show better outcomes than the United States in terms of things like life expectancy, infant mortality and so on. In other words, publicly funded and regulated healthcare is proven to deliver better results at a lower cost. The reason is that people in public healthcare systems make decent incomes for providing healthcare, whereas in the U.S. privatized systems, corporations maximize their profits, and deliver exorbitant incomes to executives by employing a vast bureaucracy focused on denying and limiting care. As others have said, most Americans would like universal healthcare and are in favor of a governmental role in providing it. As for why such a large minority of Americans are opposed to this, it is mainly a matter of ideological rigidity and deceptive propaganda from the private healthcare industry delivered by the U.S. corporate media. As for why U.S. legislators are opposed to public healthcare despite majority popular support for it, you have to understand that U.S. legislators are completely beholden to moneyed interests for crucial campaign funding. Marco polo (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A conservative acquaintance of mine summarized their stance well: "There is no constitutional right to health care." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't compare the postal service and FedEx like that: it's illegal for anyone but the postal service to deliver the mail. FedEx and UPS are courier services, not postal services, so you need to compare them on a product that everyone offers, such as overnight delivery or ground-transport parcel delivery. --Carnildo (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to let the President speak for himself: "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems." Kingsfold (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following are the assertions above that I don't believe are safe assumptions:

1. "People who are against government-run healthcare are implying a connection to the USSR and National Socialism in order to scare people."

2. "A majority of Americans support the creation of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers."

3. "It's really just a vocal minority that actively supports and endorses (the movement against the health care reform)."

4. "All the Americans who make things happen have gold-plated insurance."

5. "Publicly funded and regulated healthcare is proven to deliver better results at a lower cost."

6. "[Americans' opposition] is mainly a matter of ideological rigidity and deceptive propaganda from the private healthcare industry delivered by the U.S. corporate media."

I don't even care to argue the merits of these arguments here. I'm simply stating that the assertions above are not necessarily grounded in fact or evidence (or, at least none was cited). My initial comment on this topic was an attempt to clarify that it is possible to oppose government-run health care purely on principle. Again-- I'm all for health care reform, but let's apply some common sense and actually FIX what needs to be fixed. Kingsfold (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Survey results can be misleading, depending on the way the question was asked. If the question was, "Should government fund health care?", 60 percent might say yes. If the question was, "Do you want your taxes to go up to fund health care?", the percent might be lower. It's vaguely similar to the abortion issue. A majority might say they oppose, yet Roe v. Wade sits there, 35+ years later, only narrowly challenged. Even when there was a Republican monolith in Congress, nothing was done legislatively to address this issue that was supposed to be so important to the GOP platform. That's the current dilemma with this topic. Everyone says something needs to be done, but not everyone is willing to do what it takes. The overall point being that surveys don't necessarily square with the realities of public policy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. But I don't see any citations to any recent polls that say that 60% of Americans favor government-run health care. To me, this topic is as much about presenting verifiable data as the very merits of the argument. Anyway. I've said too much here already. Thanks for stimulating a few extra brain cells today. ^_^ Kingsfold (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsfold, you have made as many assertions not grounded in evidence as others have. I can easily provide evidence for the assertion I made, which is number 5 in your list above. This report is the factual basis for my assertion. Can you explain—considering the fact that publicly funded and regulated healthcare is proven to deliver better results at a lower cost—how opposition to public healthcare is based on anything other than ideological rigidity, self-interest (on the part of the healthcare industry), or ignorance, perhaps as a result of deception? Marco polo (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Kaiser poll from this month doesn't say this, but does say that 54% agree with the statement, "It is more important than ever to take on health care reform now." This is of course quite an ambiguous statement. The trouble, as this fivethirtyeight.com article shows, is that the opposition is demonstrably based on false information about the current bill, which has been eagerly spread by the Republican Party. When the individual elements are polled, the bill suddenly becomes popular. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many Americans hold the dogma that government is bad. 67.243.7.245 (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsfold, you are wrong on the sourcing of point 2. I started off by pointing to the sources (the sources of the linked article and FiveThirtyEight), which you misread. I pointed this out, which you then claimed to be unsourced. As an aside, the polls you cited ask about the current plan rather than a public option.

Point 1 I will concede is a personal judgement (OR), but if you care to look through the past year's current affairs media for the times when Obama is called a socialist or a Nazi, the use of the scare phrase "socialized medicine" and (for example) the time when Barney Frank had to defend the reform plans as not being the start of a new holocaust, I think you might see it's not a baseless judgement.AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Philip Pullman's Sally Lockhart novels
I thought it was here that there was a story about a Victorian girl who was being trained up to take over the job of a vicious monkey/servant who slaved for an old old person. I seem to be wrong. Can you help please? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. Tzaddik's monkey. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Socialism and the United Kingdom
1) Am I correct in thinking that there is no serious dispute within Britain that the United Kingdom is technically a socialist state and has been for some decades? (After all, the Labour party used to sing "We'll keep the red flag flying" at party conferences). 2) Since watching the US controversy about improvements to their health-care system, where "socialism" or "socialised medicine" has been used by some as bogeymen to try to scare off people, do Americans realise that Britain is a socialist state? 89.242.92.249 (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On your first question, you are wrong on both counts. The UK is not "technically a socialist state" and there are all manner of opinions on the matter. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 16:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Though your IP resolves to the UK, I've got to comment that the term 'socialist state' isn't used at all in the UK as far as I know. I'm sure you could have an interesting conversation with someone about it, but as your question is about popular beliefs and values, the answer would be: no one thinks about their government in terms of being a 'socialist state' or not in the UK.

On the second point, I think it's important to realise that terms don't translate that well and that comparing different countries' use of them is nonsensical. To be short, I don't think any U.S. politician would care how the term 'socialist' is used in the UK when they compare the two countries. User:Krator (t c) 16:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that the term "socialist state" is rarely used in the UK, but the Labour party describes itself as a "democratic socialist party" for example. 89.242.92.249 (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c):No, you are not correct. I suggest you read Socialism. The Labour Party was indeed founded on the basis of socialist principles, and to some extent still retains some of them over a century later, but when in government has generally been motivated by pragmatism rather than ideology. What some Americans regard as "socialised medicine", is, by my understanding, a mixture of state and private funding which is broadly common across many (probably most) European countries. If some Americans do think that Britain is a "socialist state", they have been very seriously misled by their education system and media. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Socialism article says itself that "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party". So the Labour party is wrong about itself? That article seems to include a lot of what I would have thought of as communism rather than socialism. 89.242.92.249 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The single adjective 'democratic' can change a lot of the meaning of the word 'socialist'. In my country there's a party that calls itself liberal socialist, with economic policies of the Milton Friedman kind. User:Krator (t c) 16:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (again) - There is a very big difference between what the Labour Party would historically have liked to achieve, in theory, and what has actually been achieved on the ground in Britain towards those goals. A "democratic socialist" party does not achieve socialism overnight or by diktat - it achieves what it can, when it can, through the democratic process. "Politics is the art of the possible." Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost no-one here in the UK would agree that we live in a "socialist state" according to the definition of socialism used over here, which is broadly the one that appears at the beginning of the socialism article. However, there are many words that have different meanings in British and American English, and it looks as if "socialism" is now one of them. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are greatly mistaken, most Labour Party voters would agree that we aim for what is described in the second paragraph of the Socialism article. Otherwise why would they vote for the Labour Party and put it in power currently and regularly in the past? That 2nd paragraph seems to be the policy of both the main parties. Due to less political militancy than in the past, perhaps nobody puts labels on things anymore in case it frightens off a few voters. 89.242.217.38 (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You originally claimed that "there is no serious dispute within Britain that the United Kingdom is technically a socialist state". Let's be clear - that claim is absolutely and transparently wrong. Now you are shifting to a different claim about what "most Labour Party voters" are aiming for. I think that claim is also wrong. Do you have any evidence at all to support your claims ? Gandalf61 (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you left out the first five words? Evidence? The votes of all the people who put the Labour party, a "socialist party" by its own description, in government. I think you are using the Straw Man arguement as a witting or unwitting diversion, although I am not an expert on these things. British people dislike capitalism like Americans dislike communism, but not as much. 78.149.174.141 (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also sometimes get a sense that to many Americans "socialist"="communist", a sense I don't get from talking to all but the most extreme right-wing Brits - and get even less from people from France/Germany/Italy etc. --Dweller (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
American conservatives (which is what they call themselves even though they often really aren't) use the terms "liberal", "socialist", and "communist" as essentially equivalents. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Labour party doesn't always govern the UK. When the Conservative Party is in power, they don't abolish all the welfare provision. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Labour's actions in recent years include examples such as the scrapping of the 10p tax rate, which make it clear that casting them as committed to socialist principles is a gross simplification to the point of making no sense whatsoever. See also New Labour and Socialist Labour Party (UK). --Dweller (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the UK has socialized one aspect of its economy (i.e. the health care industry) doesn't mean that its entire economy is socialist. Thanks to Medicare and Medicaid, the US health care industry is already half socialized (in terms of dollars spent). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The things that suggest that Britain was at least recently a socialist state include: 1) free universal healthcare, 2) free education, including a few years ago free higher education, 3) social security payments without time-limit, 4) public sector housing and emergency accommodation provided to people in need (at least in theory, usually in practice too), 5) higher proportionate taxes for wealthier people, 6) the Labour party currently in power now (and often in the past) which describes itself as a "socialist party", 7) that until not so long ago the Labour party always sang at party conferences the song The Red Flag. 89.242.217.38 (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Free higher education was abolished by the Labour Party if I remember correctly. Also since 1945, the Conservative Party has been in power for 36 years and Labour for 27 (OK I know it doesn't quite add-up but you get the point). Was Margaret Thatcher a socialist? I think not, yet she continued with many of the policies listed above (although she did curtail some too!). And Labour still sing the Red Flag - some a bit sheepishly though. Alansplodge (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally, what makes a socialist state socialist is "public ownership of the means of production." Thus Labour governments after World War II nationalized the coal and steel industry. That form of socialism was widely believed to have been discredited by the 2000s, even among officially socialist parties like the Labour Party. When Labour took over the British government in the 1990s, there was no chance that they would nationalize industry like their predecessors did. (In the past couple of years, nationalization has been revived for failing companies considered too important to let fail, such as Citigroup and General Motors.) A government social program is not inherently socialist unless it involves government ownership of something. The Canadian health system is not by and large "socialist" because most doctors are in private practice and even the hospitals are generally non-profit organizations rather than arms of the state. So while Obama can be accused of socialism for the GM rescue, and perhaps for the "public option" insurance plan that he wanted in the healthcare bill, he can't be accused of trying to make America socialist because he wants everyone to have health insurance. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To 89.242.217.38: Numbers 2 & 5 are true of virtually every industrialized country, including the U.S. "emergency accomodation for people in need" is sheer common decency, not socialism, and is implemented at some level by every civilized country. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had heard that it was commonplace for homeless people to sleep in cars in the US. I wonder if, by removing the political labels, the politicos are introducing socialist policies under the radar of the voters that they would object to if they knew what the label was. Probably a good thing. 78.149.174.141 (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A better way to phrase it might be that politicos are trying to kill policies that voters would probably agree with if they thought about it by applying the label "Socialist" to them. McCain spent a lot of effort on trying to get the label "Socialist" to stick to Obama. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who owns the copyrights to Alberto Vargas playing cards?
I am looking to get permission to use an alberto vargas pin up girl, but I do not know who owns the particular image. The girl that I would like to use is from the playing cards that Alberto Vargas did in the 50's. Sometimes called the Vargas Vanities. The particular pin up is on the Jack of Clubs. It can be seen here: [18]. Any contact information would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.98.71 (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Hearst Corporation seems to have the copyright to a lot of Alberto Vargas's work. (I assume this is because they own Esquire Magazine.) Hearst has held a trademark on the term "Varga girl", though my USPTO search seems to indicate they let the marks' registrations expire a few years ago. (The common law trademarks probably survive.) Anyway, Hearst does license out the rights to use the Vargas images. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.. but I think that these deck of cards were done after Vargas left Esquire magazine. Seems that there was a big debacle between the 2, and Esquire keep the "Varga" girls, and Vargas went on to sign works as "Vargas". These deck of cards were signed "Vargas". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.98.71 (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HELP: Bond prices
Can you please give me a source where I can get the current prices of various bonds issued by Telefonica, and the exchanges they are traded on? Muchas gracias!! ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page at telefonica.com lists their outstanding bonds and their CUSIP numbers, so you could go look up the prices at your favorite financial information site. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O I love you man! This is perfect. I needed similar info for vodafone too - I have the maturities and coupons but not the exchange information (nor cusip numbers). Do you think it is possible to gbet it ? :) ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really need cusip numbers for Vodafone. There is no exchange information and there are some 40 bonds in all :(

Also which sites give bond prices for CUSIP numbers? I am not able to find any. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 types of interracial marriages
I'm still confuse on 1.5 and 1 and 2 generations. For this I'm still confuse on what the first column "all spouse" mean, and US +US/FR the second and 3d column. Does second column menas when spouse A is US Born when spouse B have one parnt US Born and another one Forign raise. What is US and US born mean. Does this mena spouse who is non-white have both paents born and raise in USA. of course Asian Americans is born at US just have parnt born oversea like me I'm born oversea and came to USA < age of six. Lomn (talk · contribs) point out I'm not clearly understanding the sourcing which causes alot of confusion, and i was just making up ratios when the site don't have it. Just bear with me, my english command still weak it is language delay is a document learning disability it is tough to improve.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think at this point you need to e-mail the owner of the site and ask. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mein Kampf
What is the legal status of the book Mein Kampf in Germany? --84.61.165.65 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like someone asked that awhile back. In any case, did you check the article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm understanding Mein_Kampf#Current_availability correctly, it's legal to own Mein Kampf in Germany, but new copies are not being printed. At least not in Germany. But it also states that most German libraries carry heavily commented and excerpted versions of Mein Kampf. I assume that it's legal to publish these versions in Germany? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...according to this article[19], apparently it's illegal in Germany to print Mein Kampf even with an accedemic commentary. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, because the reason it's illegal is not any anti-Hitler law, it's the fact that the state of Bavaria legally assumed the copyright after Hitler's death and just doesn't permit anyone make copies, in any fashion. User:Krator (t c) 02:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the legal status of the book Mein Kampf in Germany in the year 2016? --84.61.165.65 (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per German copyright law, the entire text is scheduled to enter the public domain on December 31, 2015, just over 70 years after the author's death. This means that the book will be published in Germany just as the rest of the world (unless they change the law). Flamarande (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean can? Nil Einne (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violations for unauthorised sequels
With the death of J. D. Salinger in the news, I'm wondering about the recent legal case involving the guy who wrote an unauthorised sequel and was sued by Salinger for copyright infringement. While it makes sense that US law allows authors to prevent others from using their characters without permission, why would this be a matter specifically of copyright law? I can't understand how it would be an issue of copyright if nothing is copied. Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is copying the character. You can't claim nothing is copied if the character is copied. What you are really asking is: What is the legal definition of "copy" as it relates to copyright law in the United States? -- kainaw ™ 23:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The actual reason is that the sequel would be attacked by the author as an unauthorized derivative work, which, as the article states, is defined in copyright law. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the ways in which the common explanation of copyright scope—that you copyright expression and not ideas—falls flat. You can copyright ideas, as embodied by characters, even general plots, etc. There are some cases of derivative works of this sort being ruled fair use—like The Wind Done Gone, which was ruled as a "parody" (in the legal sense)—but "parody" is very limited. It is a very murky legal ground, and is where a lot of the "standard wisdom" about what you can and can't copyright breaks down terribly. It was not clear, a priori, what the ruling in the Salinger sequel case which way the courts would go. As it turned out, they went against it... but it's a super fuzzy line. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also Harry Potter and the International Order of Copyright, which may be of interest to you. Nanonic (talk) 08:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 29
Victoria and Albert- a serious question
Is it true that whilst Victoria and Albert deeply loved each other, they were also heavily into fisting and anal sex? This is actually a serious question as Ive heard that she was extremely 'adventurous' sexually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.251.94 (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, the kinky Queen Vicki often had Prince Albert in the can. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of them are dead. Who else would have known? Its very unlikely given Victorian prudery and that a law against sodomy was I think introduced during Victorias reign. Also very unlikely they would want to be perverts. 89.242.37.55 (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So who was going to prosecute her?--79.76.251.94 (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
British monarchs are expected to obey the law. If they violate the law, there is a constitutional crisis. As with Edward and Wallis. He married a divorcee, so he had to abdicate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slight correction - he wanted to marry a divorcee, so he had to abdicate. He abdicated before he got married. --Tango (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. As I recall, the issue resurfaced to some extent in Prince Charles' situation with Camilla. Which raises the question, what if Edward had refused to step down? I doubt they would have taken him to the Tower of London and lopped off his head like they did with another Charles a few centuries ago. (Nowadays they let the tabloids metaphorically do that kind of work.) But would his heirs (if any) have legally been considered unqualified to succeed him? Although the article Edward VIII abdication crisis reads between the lines that the legal/constitutional issue was perhaps an "excuse". I gather that where Camilla is concerned, the powers that be didn't consider her to be anywhere near the scandal that Wallis Simpson was, or at least Camilla was no more of a scandal than Prince Charles himself was. Off the track. So sorry, old chap. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they made him wait until Camilla was past menopause, so I assume it was a live problem to them until then. 86.180.52.43 (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But would his heirs (if any) have legally been considered unqualified to succeed him? Yes. Section 1.2 of His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 so provides: "His Majesty, His issue, if any, and the descendants of that issue, shall not after His Majesty's abdication have any right, title or interest in or to the succession to the Throne, and section one of the Act of Settlement shall be construed accordingly. " Marnanel (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And having a stable full of children is no indicator that they were "adventurous". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely a fist-full, or hand-full of children, no? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard that before and if it were true I doubt history would have recorded it, since they would have kept quiet about it. --Tango (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is the Prince Albert piercing, which was named after rumors of what some young and ultra-trendy military officers in the Victorian period supposedly did in order to wear tight trousers without showing a bulge; however any factual historical connection with Prince Albert himself is almost certainly quite remote at best... P.S. you are a troll. AnonMoos (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You heard wrong. Next? --Dweller (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question probably comes from a troll, but it does have a serious answer: No, Victoria and Albert did not engage in these practices. As shown here and in other sources, Victoria was told in 1857 that she should have no more children, and she plaintively asked her doctor, "Can I have no more fun in bed?" So she was not even aware of basic ways to have sex without progeny, much less these more exotic practices. I suppose it's theoretically possible that she could have learned between 1857 and Albert's death in 1861, but that seems highly unlikely, especially since the only one who could have taught her would have been Albert, and if he had had an interest in exotic sex it presumably would have manifested itself before they had nine children. John M Baker (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably from the same sort of sources as "Catherine the Great died by being crushed by a stallion while in flagrante delicto". The general belief is that such rumours are circulated by political opponents to cast aspersions on people's memories. -- 174.21.224.109 (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you happen to hear this rumour from someone who was trying to convince you to try the same thing? Perhaps this explains your fancination with your anus... Nil Einne (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statute of Westminster 1931
Why is the Statute of Westminster 1931 called the "Statute of Westminster?" Couldn't that name apply to any law passed by the British Parliament? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's called that because it says it's called that. Article 12 says: "This Act may be cited as the Statute of Westminster, 1931". Why it says that rather than anything else, I don't know. Marnanel (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The name references the earlier Statutes of Westminster. Perhaps the intention was to signify that this was on the same order of constitutional significance in terms of re-organising the empire as the earlier statutes were in establishing the legal/legislative system of England?

At the time of the earlier statutes, law were often called "the Statute of XXX" according to the place of enactment (which was not always at Westminster). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gestalt Laws of perception.
Q:What are the Gestalt laws of perception?Tj-sayed (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the article on Gestalt psychology? Or the section on Gestalt theory in the Visual perception article? -- œ ^™ 05:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
\::They left behind some neat pictures, but I'm not sure we recognize any "laws" from that school of psychology. Edison (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
list of things that are real and notreal at the same time
For some writing I'm doing, I need a nice list per the above - so far I've got 'the number 5' and 'the idea of truth' - would love some examples that aren't too jokey or religious.
Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Why is the number 5 both real and not real? Would the same apply to other numbers as well? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - sorry, must have come across as bizarre - just a way of saying that mathematics is at once an invention and a discovery - at once part of the phenomenal universe and something we project onto it - makes more sense in the story... Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is reality? Well-depicted fictional characters live in my mind. As do elements of my fears and dreams, fantasies and worries. That they only have a semblance of reality to me, is irrelevant - the structure of the atom may be real, but it's less real to most people than Harry Potter is. --Dweller (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Reality#Philosophical_views_of_reality and other subsections of that article. WP:WHAAOE --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leibniz described the imaginary numbers as "almost amphibian objects between Being and Non-being". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely! Thanks 194.171.56.13 - I love Liebniz. Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I love Liebniz" - what a great name for a light-hearted TV programme, with a dash of philosophy. --Dweller (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The best of all possible TV programmes!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Reality" is anything that can be observed and/or whose results can be observed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our Reality article does not quite agree. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The state of things as they actually exist" is a perfect definition. But knowing what that state of things is, is our reality. Here's an example: Is backwards time travel possible? Is it part of reality, or potentially so? Maybe it's possible. Maybe it's even part of reality. But we don't know unless we can observe it or observe its effects. It's reasonable to assume that we only know part of the "overall" or "true" reality. One purpose of science, then, is to discover more of that true reality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, getting back to the original question, it still depends on what "real" means. You can imagine humans traveling backwards in travel, or form a concept of what you think it would involve. So the idea is real. But there is no evidence that it's actually possible for humans to travel back in time, except in their memories. So if thoughts are "real", then those are real things. But whether actual backwards time travel is part of reality, is yet to be determined. Logic tells you it's not possible. But that doesn't mean someone won't come up with a solution to the problem tomorrow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to suggest Hobbes as an example, and I am being perfectly serious. --LarryMac | Talk 19:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tea and No tea? Mitch Ames (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan White Care Act voters
According to the article, "The act passed in the United States House of Representatives by a vote for 402 to 4." Who were the 4 that voted against it?--Rockfang (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=101&session=2&vote=00097 The 'nays' were...Humphrey (R-NH), Helms (R-NC), Roth (R-DE), Wallop (R-WY) and there was a not-voting Heinz (R-PA). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)According to what I'm seeing, the article may be incorrect. There is a link in the article - "Pub.L. 101-381" - that leads to the Library of Congress THOMAS summary page for the bill, and from there the "All Information" link shows the Senate and House votes -
5/16/1990 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 95-4. Record Vote No: 97.

6/13/1990 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by voice vote.

Following the Record Vote no: 97 link will show the yea and nays.

The reference for the the 2009 extension/reathorization indicates that a roll-call vote was taken in the House, with 408 ayes, 9 nays, 15 present/not voting. (I don't know why one source lists affirmative votes as "yea" and the other as "aye".) --LarryMac | Talk 12:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the edit which added the line about the "House vote". The article referenced for that addition does have an not quite clear mention of a 402 to 4 vote, but it's not clear exactly what vote that was or when it took place. Since the THOMAS link does lead to information about the 1990 vote, I am going to be bold and strike the line in question. --LarryMac | Talk 12:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
UK Companies
What are the implications of a company turning itself from a public limited company to a private limited company? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know it is the ability to offer shares to the general public which a private limited company cant do. BigDunc 13:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So why would it go the other way? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous reasons, financial information must be made available for everyone, competitors and customers included, which could lead to a takeover with a competitor buying a large number of shares. BigDunc 13:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong here, but I believe that Manchester United F.C. switched from being a plc to a private company when the Glazers bought the club. Once you reach a threshold number of shares in one person's hands, they are obliged to buy all the other shares too, and the shareholders can't resist the move. I don't know what this process is called, but no doubt we have an article about it. In the case of MUFC, it has meant a debt-free club becoming overnight saddled with almighty debts. --Dweller (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds a bad idea then for the plc shareholders to agree to it. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that they are offered a large amount of money for their shares of the company. That's the point - if you think you are being offered better than a fair price for your shares, you sell. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, in the US, the public Chrysler Corporation became Chrysler LLC, a private company. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you've managed to get over 50% of the outstanding shares through the markets, then I'm pretty sure the shareholders can always reject a takeover bid. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Human motivation through stigma
Hi, I was looking to hopefully find a quote or something that generally says -
humans and institutions are motivated primarily by stigma, and will take the shortest route to avoid it.
Does anyone know of someone who has written something like this please?
Many thanks Last Polar Bear (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't heard that before, and before putting too much stock in it, check the article on Hierarchy of Needs. What you're describing is not basic, it's about halfway up the pyramid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And for what it's worth, I googled [motivated primarily by stigma] and found plenty of references with those individual words, but ["motivated primarily by stigma"] as a string was not found. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you're really looking for quotes about 'shame' as a motivation (stigmas are merely social mechanisms for inducing shame). most psychological theories view shame as a pathological form of motivation, while most sociological theories avoid anything as affective as shame. I'm not aware that anyone has ever suggested that shame is the primary, healthy source of human motivation. --Ludwigs2 18:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great Awakening sermon/essay
I'm looking for a sermon/essay from the first or second great awakening, written by a prominent figure from one of those times. In it, the preacher talks about how people are having fits and seizures and speculates as to why this is. Unable to find a concrete reason, he concludes that, overall, despite the seizures, the awakening of men's souls is a good thing. Wrad (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I expect several writers and speakers of the period addressed this but Jonathan Edwards' Some thoughts concerning the present revival in New England is a prominent work which makes mention of the ecstasies. meltBanana 23:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's probably the one I had in mind. Wrad (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Employment prospect for Bachelor of Arts in History
I'm at brink of entering university and doing "Bachelor of Arts in History" at Murdoch University, Western Australia. History of all kinds has always been passion on mine and this is really what I want to do. But what worries me is how useful this degree is in real life? I know this course is open ended, with writing units and units that teach research and critical thinking skills applicable in wide range of areas, but I'm not convinced. Give me some practical examples of jobs people with this educations do (exclude actual historians since demand there is so low, and exclude any kind of teaching, that's not my thing). I've done my research, but didn't find much. I've also been thinking about double majors, perhaps with "Journalism" or "Security, Terrorism and Counter-terrorism". Any suggestions on second major in related areas to expand employment prospects are welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.81.141 (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, people with degrees in history often go on to law school. I don't know whether that is a possibility in Australia. Another career path that people with history degrees sometimes follow is to go into city and regional planning, which often requires some knowledge of history. If that kind of career interested you, you might want to focus on the history of the city or region where you'd like to work. However, my best advice to you would be to contact the department of history at Murdoch University and ask them for examples of careers their graduates have pursued. They could also tell you whether a degree in history would qualify you for law school in Australia, if that interests you. By the way, I'm not sure journalism would be the best course of study if you are concerned about employment, since employment for journalists has been declining steadily, at least in developed countries, for several years now, with no sign of a change in trend. You would have to compete for work with experienced journalists who have been laid off. Marco polo (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have data for Australia, but the data for the US is likely rank-correlated with what you'll experience in Australia. See this for mid-career median salaries by undergraduate major. Also, see this for self-reported job satisfaction by undergraduate major. Wikiant (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure how that helps the questioner. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming that when the OP asks, "how useful is this in real life?" he means "how useful is this in real life to me?" How much happiness and income people with the degree obtain is probably a reasonable answer. Wikiant (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All that tells you is compared to what other people have said about other fields of study. It doesn't actually tell you anything about what you do with a History degree. And it doesn't take into account the self-selecting aspect of it. I am positive that studying astronomy or economics would not have made me happier. If I were the kind of person who was attracted to astronomy or economics, then maybe they would have done it for me, but these kinds of reported statistics are not prescriptive. They do not tell you that someone runs a "higher chance of being happy" by studying something else. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the statistics are not meant to be prescriptive, but descriptive. I suppose the issue boils down to the question: "Given selection bias and causality issues, would you rather be aware of what these stats reveal or not?" In other words, if 80% of people report that they like Guinness, it doesn't mean that I will like Guinness, but it may mean that it is worth my while to try it. Wikiant (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In things where the cost is low, that would make sense (if you don't like Guinness, you are only out a couple of dollars), but for things like career choices, or what you major in college, I'm not sure the statistics are as useful, unless you're someone who, for example, is only focused on "what career will pay me the most right out of college," in which case they can be useful (though sometimes misleading). The problem with the college major is that you basically only get one (or two), and the investment is quite high, so there is little possibility of "sampling" and finding out that indeed, 80% of the world prefers things you do not. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than law school and doing more history, history as a field does not necessarily prepare you for any particular career track. In this capacity it is worth just looking at the kinds of jobs people get who come out of the Humanities/Social Sciences in general. In this sense it is not very different than being an English major, or an Anthropology major. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a large number of jobs that just require you to have a degree, it doesn't matter what the degree is in. You could get any of those jobs. --Tango (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much everyone I know who got a BA in history (in Canada and the US) went to teacher's college, law school, or graduate school (also in history of some sort). Grad school is probably the least useful of these, but very useful for avoiding the real world for at least another six years...or forever, if you count getting a job in academia to be avoiding the real world. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Government positions often find history graduates to be useful. For ministerial advisory positions, professional researchers, library staff, etc., it can be very useful. These are the people who assist in providing reports to politicians, inquiries, etc. on demand when a background report, context, etc. is needed. Documentarists, interviewers and the like often employ researchers to prepare for the shows. When you're watching TV, on any non-fiction show, you'll probably find there are a few people listed in the credits as researchers. Perhaps investigate what the ABC, SBS, etc. might have for that. Otherwise, as Tango says, there are a lot of jobs for which your degree will be sufficient, as long as you passed it well. These often include Australian Public Service graduate positions, overseas English teaching positions, some industry management positions, etc. Steewi (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Tango suggested above, the achievement of passing a degree in any subject will develop and demonstrate important skills and capabilities, and greatly increase your potential value to diverse employers, many with no apparent direct connection to that subject. If (like many others at your age) you do not already have a specific career in mind, you are much more likely to complete a degree successfully if it's in a subject that interests you.

Furthermore, your experiences at university over the next few years are very likely to reveal to you new areas of interest, and opportunity, of which you were not previously aware. It's even possible that new fields not now in existence may have developed by the time you graduate. Neither you nor we can easily anticipate such contingencies.

To give an example somewhat relevant to you, a friend of mine at university (in Scotland) got a degree in Mediaeval History: within a few years she was in charge of the computer systems in an office within the Ministry of Defense (in London), because despite her academic speciality she was still the most capable person they had to do that job. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was graduated with a BA in history (in the USA) last May, and I'm in the process of getting into a Master of Library Science or Master of Library and Information Science program (depending on where I end up going), if that interests you at all. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Creationism and the Flat Fish Eyes
How do creationists (don't know right term) explain the location of the Flat Fish eyes? --Reticuli88 (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems more that they question Darwinism on the basis that it wasn't a survival selective trait. I'm sure someone will be along to explain exactly why the creationists are wrong (invariably they are!). There is a link but the one I found is wikipedia blacklisted (first link on this google search http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=creationism+flat+fish+eyes&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=) ny156uk (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely they would explain by saying God created the creature that way. Am I missing something? Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flatfish eyes have never been a problem for Creationists. It has however been a problem for Evolutionists, in that no intermediate stages were found between fish with eyes on opposite sides of the head and fish with eyes on the same side of their head. Until recently Evolutionists have had to say "I don't know". Now they believe they have found some intermediate fossils. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does Creationism adhere to the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old? If so, then there's no time for evolution. The real fundamental issue is about the age of the earth. Regarding intermediate stages, it's important to keep in mind that fossils are only "snapshots" in time. It's entirely possible that some species never happened to get fossilized or that we haven't found them yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For (some?) young-earth creationists, it's somehow fine for all the present diversity of animal species to have developed from a small number of "kinds" on Noah's ark in 6000 years, but impossible for Darwinian evolution to have happened in 4 billion... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's where God's guidance or "intelligent design" comes in. However, presumably the flood wouldn't have bothered the fish any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I can better understand, what was the creationist reason for God's reason to create the location of flat fish eyes so imperfect? --Reticuli88 (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They wouldn't pretend to know why God did every little thing He did. They might well say that all this variety was just because God likes variety. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Imperfect ? POV! :-) Maybe to provoke discussion. Or God just has a real wicked sense of humour! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am speaking out of complete ignorance of the subject, but how do we know that intermediary creatures did not behaviorally spend part of their time upright and part of their time laterally oriented? And wouldn't it be possible that evolutionary pressures favored the lateral orientation, which in turn favored the eye orientation we see in present day flatfish? What I'm saying is that I don't really understand why the existence of flatfish is at all a challenge to theories of evolution. I think behavior traits are also biologically determined to some extent. With both behavior and such features as eye orientation modifying over the same periods of time, it is not so hard to imaging the present form of fish to have evolved from a fish that swam upright with eyes in the more common placement. Bus stop (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not difficult to reason out non-essential evolutionary change, except to those who begin with a particular premise. What they fail to understand is localization. The evolution of languages is a reasonable parallel to biological evolution. There's no apparent "need" for "ego" in Latin to have evolved into "yo" in Spanish, but it did anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we have 5 fingers instead of 6? Why are some people blonde and some black-haired? I don't think there is a reason for every single aspect of anatomy. In fact, there isn't a reason for anything. Evolution is random. There is no purpose. It just seems like it because the most appropriate mutations are the ones that are reinforced. Aaronite (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evolution is not random. Variation is random (more or less). But evolution is definitely guided by the constraints of the environment (evolution is not the same thing as mutation—evolution is the selective process, mutation is the basic background variation to be selected from). That is the entire point of natural selection. Whether everything has an evolutionary "point" or not is debated (see, e.g. spandrel)—some think that you can come up with good evolutionary reasons for just about everything, while some thing that there are some things that fall outside of the work of the pressures. But it is not random. It is not teleological—moving to some specific end—but it is not just happenstance. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's possible that this may have strayed from the original question. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question was how do creationists explain exotic creatures? The flip side of that is, how do evolutionists explain exotic creatures? To the creationist, it's easy: God liked the idea of a fish with both eyes on one side, so He created one. (God is assumed to have limitless powers of imagination.) To the evolutionist, it's almost as easy: fish with some genetic tendency toward that capability headed toward a specific localization of this trait (not consciously, of course) and over a long stretch of time this particular species was isolated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
generation values
i'm still confuse when first, 1.5 and second generation. I'm I'm born oversea and came to USA < age of 6 would I be 1.5. For people who is forign raise or US born does this mean one paent is US Raise while anohter is oversea raise. Since my math teacher at high school came to USA at age 14 would she be first generation?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the Immigrant generations article. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting reference books or other available material for ""Impact of Culture in negotiations"
Hello Sir/ Madam, Am doin my MBA and I need your valuable assistance in finding reference books for my project topic being "Impact of Culture in negotiations" which comes under my subject "Organizational Skills and Negotiations".Would appreciate your prompt assistance with this.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karmacravitz (talk • contribs) 23:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I usually recommend looking over Kiss, Bow, or Shake Hands, which is an etiquette book for business people who travel internationally; the book also makes claims about different cultures' decision making process: whether direct evidence is more important to them than the pronouncements of an authority, or having a group consensus; or the other way around. It is not scholarly and systematic but will have useful data points. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
January 30
Business plan
I am trying to write a business plan for my small company. Does anyone know where I can find a good template? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.177.84 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our articles Business plan and Content of a business plan might help. In particular the first reference listed in the former. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 295: / Line 295: @@
 :The question probably comes from a troll, but it does have a serious answer:  No, Victoria and Albert did not engage in these practices.  As shown [http://books.google.com/books?id=gcQg4DOH7VEC&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=victoria+albert+%22no+more+fun+in+bed%22&source=bl&ots=XCpmE54XO_&sig=VcO0cv1OeEjM2MXTFc3ek00q10k&hl=en&ei=KghjS_aaN8uztgeZj6S3Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=victoria%20albert%20%22no%20more%20fun%20in%20bed%22&f=false here] and in other sources, Victoria was told in 1857 that she should have no more children, and she plaintively asked her doctor, "Can I have no more fun in bed?"  So she was not even aware of basic ways to have sex without progeny, much less these more exotic practices.  I suppose it's theoretically possible that she could have learned between 1857 and Albert's death in 1861, but that seems highly unlikely, especially since the only one who could have taught her would have been Albert, and if he had had an interest in exotic sex it presumably would have manifested itself before they had nine children.  [[User:John M Baker|John M Baker]] ([[User talk:John M Baker|talk]]) 16:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
+::It's probably from the same sort of sources as "[[Catherine the Great]] died by being [[Legends_of_Catherine_II_of_Russia|crushed by a stallion]] while ''[[in flagrante delicto]]''". The general belief is that such rumours are circulated by political opponents to cast aspersions on people's memories. -- [[Special:Contributions/174.21.224.109|174.21.224.109]] ([[User talk:174.21.224.109|talk]]) 05:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 Did you happen to hear this rumour from someone who was trying to convince you to try the same thing? Perhaps this explains your fancination with your anus... [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 20:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:54, 30 January 2010

January 25

Copyrights and linking to URLs

Is Finnegans Wake in the public domain?

A Dessert That Looks Like Turkish Delight

Significance of "z"

Royal Inbreeding

WW2 Casualty Rates by type of land unit? (infantry / tank / artillery)

Archives

prime minister

Crown Lands of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Australian recipe

The cons have it

Calendar epoch at Easter?

January 26

Charity idea

Hurricane Katrina special

Print a verse of a poem.

Joseph or JOSFH camp in Vavuniya

Geography Question

Say if it really was so, Joe.

Finance: Comparing exchange rates and import-export data

What percentage of anti-abortion Americans oppose the death penalty?

Vital statistics down through the ages ?!?

January 27

Registered Agent

Communism

Which Bank?

Swazi Cultural Costume

Re edits

the political and spiritual persecution to me for Chinese and HK people

Economic theory explaination for the earning power of bankers?

Port Elmina

Name my poison: question about alcoholic beverages

white and Japanese

African American Muslims

"A celebrity is a person who is well known for his well knownness." Daniel J. Boorstin

Turkish/Afghanistan/Pakistani Anthems

Population of German Empire

What protestant sect did the Diggers belong to?

When did the Chionites begin invading (eastern) Afghanistan?

January 28

Flag Ratios

Eating the gross

Federalism, Banking, etc

Why has human nature changed so much?

Nazis targets

are couples that have anal sex more likely to stay together?

Health insurance

Philip Pullman's Sally Lockhart novels

Socialism and the United Kingdom

Who owns the copyrights to Alberto Vargas playing cards?

HELP: Bond prices

3 types of interracial marriages

Mein Kampf

Copyright violations for unauthorised sequels

January 29

Victoria and Albert- a serious question

Statute of Westminster 1931

Gestalt Laws of perception.

list of things that are real and notreal at the same time

Ryan White Care Act voters

UK Companies

Human motivation through stigma

Great Awakening sermon/essay

Employment prospect for Bachelor of Arts in History

Creationism and the Flat Fish Eyes

generation values

Requesting reference books or other available material for ""Impact of Culture in negotiations"

January 30

Business plan