Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

May 24

Latin

How many people speak Latin as first language? --Latin learner (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Nullis? (Though I've probably got the declension wrong...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

32 Wikipedia contributors claim to be native speakers of Latin, the credibility of which has been disputed. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 09:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The contemporary Latin article says it is "a language native to no people". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in this article by linguist Ken Miner which distinguishes "speakers-from-birth" from "native speakers" (see pages 27 to 30). "Native speakers" learned their language "not mainly from [their] parents or the equivalent, but from slightly older other children in a living speech-community." In this distinction, a child learning Latin from their parents today would be a "speaker-from-birth", but not a "native speaker." --Cam (talk) 11:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that anyone learns latin form "slightly older other children in a living speech-community". The only "living speech-community" that uses latin is the Vatican... not known for having children running around. Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Although, looking through the list of Wikipedians claiming to be native speakers, quite a few seem to be catholics as well, which still, I think, uses Latin on occasion. Presumably if they were born into a family that uses Latin on occasion even in a religious context, they have grown up around the language for most of their lives. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

To the last 2 respondents: The Vatican does use Latin, but I think now only when issuing papal encyclicals etc, whose names are always from the first couple of words in the Latin version. They get issued in Latin and every other major and many minor language. Latin is not the lingua Franca of anyone at the Vatican, so even if they were all married with kids, they still wouldn't pick it up. Since the change in the early 1960s to saying the Mass in the vernacular, there must be thousands of priests now who do not know a single word of Latin, or no more than the general person would know from legal expressions or phrases or terms that other languages have borrowed. In fact, the legal profession would use Latin on a more regular basis than the Vatican does, these days. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 16:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

People do learn to speak Latin, but generally they have to get together in a special colloquium to find other people to talk to. I can't remember what it's called (Convocatio Latina? Something like that). You should ask Iustinus (talk · contribs) about that. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If you go to Rome, you will see that the confessional booths give a list of languages on a sign with lights next to them. When a priest enters the booth to hear confessions, the lights of the languages he knows will illuminate. One of the languages is Latin. The CIA World Fact Book[1] lists Latin as a language of the Holy See. If you speak Latin to today's Romans, they can generally understand what you are saying and cabbies can get you to where you need to go. The Italian version of the Latin article claims "Diverse scuole di oggi parlano latino (Schola Nova nel Belgio, Vivarium Novum in Italia)."[2] The Latin textbooks, Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata are used by native speakers of several different languages because they are written entirely in Latin, even the copyright information. So Latin is actively used by some today.

As an attorney, I cannot say that the legal profession uses Latin on a more regular basis than the Vatican. The vast majority of attorneys and judges did not learn Latin and have no idea what I am talking about it when I use it, although ancient words and phrases usually carry a certain gravitas with them and judges often pretend to know as long as you don't force them to reveal the depth of their scienter (Latin lawyer jokes are the worst kind). It was common for educated individuals to know and study Latin up until the early part of the 20th century. The New Latin article even mentions a biography of George Washington written entirely in Latin. Latin for "no one" is more commonly nemo or nullus.[3] [4] Gx872op (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Somebody must listen to YLE Radio 1's Nuntii Latini[5] news broadcast in Latin. Alansplodge (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of civilians on trains during the Anglo-Boer War

I found a quote by an attorney in Pretoria in the middle of 1900 stating that if he were captured he would be 'made a Prisoner of War, may be taken from my home and compelled to personally accompany Railway Trains - and in addition therto will have to pay a heavy fine as well as compensation for the damage caused'. I find this point really interesting, as I've not been able to find evidence of civilians being forced to 'accompany' trains (presumably to prevent the Boers from blowing them up?) or having to foot the bill of damage done to the railway in their locality. I was just wondering if you had heard about this, and could direct me to (or possesses) any sources that might give further details relating to this surely highly controversial issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.12 (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This page says it was done in the movie Breaker Morant. Searching for "human.shields boer.war" finds a bit more. --Sean 15:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote in The Great Boer War, "it is really inexplicable that the British authorities did not employ the means used by all armies under such circumstances--which is to place hostages upon the trains.". This guy claims that General Roberts "ordered that Boer civilians would [sic] be carried on any train moving through a known area of resistance, but this taking of hostages was soon forbidden by Prime Minister Chamberlain on the logic that any Afrikaner man the army could find to put on a train had already refused to join the commandos, and thus the commandos would view him as a traitor, not a comrade, eliminating the value of his safety as a deterrent." Clarityfiend (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Intellectuals without formal education

Please name some intellectuals who do/did not have formal education. --DHOD 1234 (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

How do you define "intellectual" and "formal education"? Charlemagne and could be considered an intellectual for his day, and did not have much in the way of a formal education. For a more modern example: Thomas Paine left school at 13. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I am talking about intellectuals and writers within the last 100 years. Please name such people who do/did not have university education. --DHOD 1234 (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

We have a list of autodidacts which names many. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 12:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Eric Hoffer is an interesting example. Herostratus (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Gore Vidal.76.218.9.50 (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Various computer people such as Steve Jobs.AerobicFox (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Steve Jobs had some university education, although he dropped out and never completed his studies. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, could Steve Jobs really be defined as an intellectual? I see him more as an enterpriser/entrepeneur. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the Troops

I saw today President Obama was at Buckingham Palace and he reviewed the troops with Prince Philip. While watching I was wondering where this tradition originated - maybe the reference desk crew have an idea?

Also is it taken seriously? For example, could Obama have told a soldier to stop slouching or drop and give him twenty? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that since President Obama is the Head of services as well as Head of State of an allied power, if he had pointed out some deficiency in a soldier it would have been taken very seriously. I imagine he would have to report it to the senior British officer present rather than telling the soldier to drop and give him twenty himself. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point - he would have to respect the ally's chain of command. Still if he were to notice something, maybe a soldier left their rifle's safety off, would he be expected to comment? Or would he not say anything to avoid a faux pas? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Not having been in the military himself, I rather doubt Obama would find anything wrong during an inspection as he would only have a rudimentary idea of what he was looking for. Googlemeister (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Troop review redirects to Military parade which has a short history section that unfortunately doesn't cover the OPs questions. But obviously the tradition of the troop review goes way back in history. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Inspecting the guard of honour (the honor guard in the US) was first used by Charles II after his restoration to the British throne. When a regiment previously loyal to Oliver Cromwell presented its allegiance to the king, Charles studied the face of every soldier lined up looking for any signs of disloyalty. When he was convinced that they were in fact loyal, he accepted them as an escort. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure he did not just use the possibility to scrutinise the loyalty of the troops through an already established tradition? What I mean is that I would think that the inspection of a troop of soldiers by a head of state would be older than even the time of Charles II. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. I suspect it started as a way of actually verifying that they were fit for battle, and making corrections where needed. This was probably back when kingdoms were tiny and the king could literally check out every soldier, and where the king also served as a military leader. StuRat (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the troops was a meaningful and important practice when the quality of the troops was in doubt, such as when a leader hired some prince to furnish a stated number of mercenaries (Britain, using Hessians against the United States in the 1770's) Trained troops will likely be better able to create a military impression when marching past a review stand. A review traditionally would also be needed of the weapons troops carried, since US militia forces often had rifles or muskets in bad condition or of inappropriate types. In battle, regulars were more likely to hold their ground, or to charge against a strong defense than an upstart army of untrained forces. Per "Ark of Empire: The American Frontier 1784-1803, by Dale van Every (1963), in the history of the US military after the Revolution and before the Constitution, General Harmar led poorly trained US troops against the Native Americans in Ohio, and the poorly drilled troops turned and ran for their lives at the first war whoop. A few years later General Mad Anthony Wayne drilled his troops for months, despite criticism that he was just afraid to take them into battle. In the Battle of Fallen Timbers, the Native Americans attacked, and expected a repeat performance, but after the first exchange, the well drilled soldiers fixed bayonets and advanced, as one would have expected Redcoats or Hessians to do, winning the battle. I would expect that Washington, Cornwallis, Lee, or other experienced generals could have evaluated what their troops were capable of from a formal review. If at the onset of the Libyan Civil War, such reviews were held of Qadaffi's Libyan Army and of the anti-Qadaffi volunteers, a good military leader might have made accurate predictions of what would happen when one of the forces faced the other in combat. Even political leader such as Obama who has not served in the military could note the difference between trained soldiers and a ragtag mob in review, but I expect a marching band carrying wooden rifles would still impress. Certainly leadership and tactics as well as logistics also determine the outcome of a battle. Edison (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Allowing an allied head of state to review the troops is obviously an act of courtesy, cementing the alliance. I wonder how far back that is documented. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think some of us are at cross-purposes here. President Obama wasn't reviewing the troops but was inspecting the guard of honour provided in his honour. Similarly Queen Elizabeth could not go to the USA and review Obama's troops but she could be accorded the honour of inspecting the honor guard. Reviewing the troops doesn't equal inspecting a guard of honour. As has been mentioned, reviewing of the troops goes back a long way--the Chinese and Roman emperors carried out troop reviews. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Fashionably late

Who decided that it was fashionable rather then just obnoxious to be late to an event? What is the historical background? Googlemeister (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question. Of course we got the well-known Jim Morrison lyrics from the song "Twentieth Century Fox" (no article) establishing 1966 as a sort of terminus post quem for the usage of the term in popular culture, but it would be interesting to see how much further back it can be traced. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

why would you introduce an esoteric Latin phrase, linking to it, only to misuse it yourself? I've never seen it in print or on the Internet, yet reading about it (for the first time) by following your link, it's clear you just misused it... (you meant ante or one of the other phrases on the page). The mind boggles... 188.156.250.194 (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

When trying to establish a chronology or date an event they are quite nice terms to know. Unfortunately from a slip of the mind I copy pasted the wrong bolded word from the lede of the article. I am sorry if I forced you to learn something new. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"I am sorry if I forced you to learn something new." Damn straight - apology accepted. 188.156.63.247 (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Didn't you know it's fashionable to season one's conversation with the occasional exoticism, but also that always getting such phrases exactly correct is a sign of a show-off, or worse, a pedant? It's therefore appropriate to be "fashionably incorrect" (an excuse I intend to use forthwith with great frequency). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Saddhiyama's latinism is very, very common, contrary to the snobbishly anti-intellectual assertions above. Anyone who has read a few pages of, for example, Shakespeare scholarship is familiar with the "terminus" usage. Yes, Sadd's typo gave the wrong one, but otherwise it's just obnoxious to contest the use of the latinism.76.218.9.50 (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

very, very common, ha! The New York Times has never once used it in the history of ever. Contrary to your implication, I am not "snobbishly anti-intellectual", but a straight-up rube. The suggestion that "a few pages of Shakespearean scholarship" are not esoteric is ridiculous. I bet you're one of the people who just breaks out in Greek typeface whenever you can, even for common words like monarch and philosophy. Talk about obnoxious... 188.156.63.247 (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's only certain kinds of events to which one can safely arrive late. Arrive at the movies late and you risk upsetting those fellow patrons who bothered to get there on time, and whose feet you will now trample in your attempt to push past to get to your seat. Arrive at many kinds of concerts/opera/live theatre late, and you won't be allowed in at all, or at least not till a "suitable break in the performance", which may not be till intermission or the end of Act I. Arrive late at the airport, bus stop or train station, and your plane/bus/train may have left without you. Arrive at a wedding or funeral late, and you may miss the important bits. It's really only private parties that "fashionably late" refers to, and I think it came about as a courtesy to the hosts, to allow them that extra bit of time to get the cooking finished and the place looking perfect before the first guests arrive, because there always seems to be a last-minute rush no matter how well prepared and organised you may think you are. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps. I think it's more likely that the Important People emphasise their status by coming late, knowing that nobody will dare criticise, and that everybody can see them make an entrance; and then everybody copies them. --ColinFine (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The expression "fashionably late" is certainly quite venerable. The earliest example I found in a hasty Google Books search is this one from 1811, and there are many others from the nineteenth century. With regard to why being (not excessively) late has been regarded as fashionable, I can only guess that it has something to do with it's being thought unseemly for the languorous well-bred to show too much eagerness or alacrity in any endeavor, or perhaps it's merely a polite recognition that a host or hostess isn't always on time with his or her preparations. Deor (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The ambitious character of Almeria Turnbull, who is both" fashionable late" and overdressed for the "family party" she's arriving at in Maria Edgeworth's novel shows that "fashionably late" was ambiguous even then. "Prompt as a duchess" was an approving phrase that was dinned into one's ears years ago.--Wetman (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It has been a tradition since at least the Roman clientela system, that powerful people could show their power by letting their dependees wait for them. I suspect the tradition has been kept in Europe during the age of feudalism, and was at least in practice during the age of absolutism. Of course at that time it was also applied by the aristocracy as part of their parlour politics. This could have transferred to social gatherings, where the people on the upper rungs of the hierarchy could show their power towards the lesser rungs by being "fashionably late". --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

But Louis XVIII of France said; "La ponctualité est la politesse des rois" ("punctuality is the courtesy of kings"). Our own dear Queen (God bless her) never keeps anyone waiting. Alansplodge (talk)

"Hurry up and wait" falls into the category of being "fashionably late". As for when such notions originated, probably Paleolithic man pondered the same question. Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of an old Russian tradition. When a family was going away for an extended period, after they finished busily packing and loading the carriages and checking all the children were accounted for etc etc, they would then all sit together in silence for a minute before departing. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. How often is a family in a rush to get going, and a hundred miles later realize that they forgot something. A quiet, reflective moment before leaving might help that problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Cannes Film Festival

How are films chosen to be presented at the Cannes Film Festival? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You can read the official page on preselection and selection — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Who decides which of the submitted films actually get shown? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of different strands with different methods for selection. The festival's organisers choose those for the main competition and Un Certain Regard, based on an open submission process: they have one selection panel for French films, and one for foreign films, each with assitants and advisors. I can't find the 2011 panels, but the 2008 list is here[6] and some members have been on the panel for several years. The International Critic's Week selections are made by the French Syndicate of Cinema Critics. The Director's Fortnight has its own selection procedure: the French Directors Guild appoints an artistic director, currently Frederic Boyer.[7][8] And many films are shown outside the auspices of the festival by anybody who hires a screening room or cinema. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

London Boulevard

Any word on when and whether London Boulevard will be released in the US? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Monthly billing

I notice that there is no article on monthly billing. Why not? I want to know: who invented it? Why do we still use it? And maybe this belongs under "language", but anyway, why do we call it a "month" after the moon, when it has nothing to do with the moon, and has little or no real meaning outside of finance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.69.103 (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

A month has no meaning outside of finance ? It's a widely used unit of time, in many different cultures. It was originally the length of a cycle of the moon, but that gave us approximately 13 months in a year, which was messy, as you can't divide them easily into 4 seasons, etc. So, months were adjusted to be longer, so now we only have 12 in a year. StuRat (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a cycle of the moon (27.3 days), nor did it lead to 13 months. The ancients weren't measuring time by something as difficult to observe and universalize as a revolution of the moon (which would involve, to be precise, fairly rare occultations of fixed stars). Rather, they used moon PHASES -- the basis of almost all lunar calendars -- which are far easier to universalize: i.e., it was the SUN-moon cycle (about 29.5 days), which would create about 12.4 months if there were no intercalations (which there usually were). So the "month" length is a simple rounding of the sun-moon cycle, surely one of the earliest celestial phenomena noticed by early human beings (much simpler, to a very primitive mind, than the yearly cycle, which takes much longer to pin down than "full moon, full moon, full moon" does). The concept of a "week," on the other hand, is inexplicable except as numerology.76.218.9.50 (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is, what are months used for? Other than that our language all but requires us to use them to specify dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.69.103 (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

To break the year into more manageable parts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

... more manageable for what purpose? For example, our watches show hours and minutes, but those don't seem to be the "real" time units in our modern world; the "real" time unit is the 15-minute block. We do scheduling as though our clocks simply numbered these blocks from 00 to 95, even though that is not what they in fact do. But we behave as though they did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.237.147 (talk) 05:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a normal human tendency to consider things in smaller chunks. It's also a more human measurement. "Let's meet on Tuesday May the 24th" somehow sounds better than "Let's meet on Year Date 2011.144", for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

the "real" time unit is the 15-minute block...really? I never heard of this before. Pfly (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

See also Lunar month. Pfly (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Methinks the OP has spent too much of his life in meetings, and needs a vacation. For maybe a month. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Original poster, I support your (implied) assertion that there should be a monthly billing article. Go ahead and create it. See Wikipedia:Your First Article. Before you write it up, be sure that, as mentioned in my link, you have some references and that you establish that the topic is notable in the article, else it'll get deleted. I think the question of "why" is interesting and the above speculation is just speculation. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The OP will also have to create an account before he can start a new article. Pais (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

May 25

What is the most northern community in Sierra_leone?

What is the most northern community in Sierra_leone? I'm just curious. Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You have a problem in that the northernmost part of the country's northern border is a straight east-west line, so multiple communities could be equally northernmost. Google Maps shows several settlements along the southern side of the border, although none of them have articles: the closest to the line appears to be Kobaia, just west of the eastern end of the line. Nyttend (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well done - see Kobaia, Sierra Leone: "Kobaia is the most northern community in Northern Province of Sierra Leone".Alansplodge (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Too bad the OP created that page after Nyttend answered the question. --Daniel 17:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! I hate it when that happens ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Grains for breakfast

Tonight I cooked rice to eat for my lunch tomorrow; while it was on the stove, it occurred to me that I sometimes eat rice at lunch and dinner and frequently eat oatmeal for breakfast, but I never eat oatmeal at other meals nor rice for breakfast. Furthermore, I can't think of ever hearing of others doing this in contemporary American society. Was my childhood in rural Ohio unusually devoid of breakfast rice and lunchtime oats, or is it common throughout the USA? If my experience were common, why do we eat these grains only at these times? I can't think of a nutritional basis for eating this way, so persumably there's some other reason, although I suppose I could simply be unaware of a nutritional reason. Nyttend (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in Congee which is often eaten as a breakfast. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Its article says nothing about the USA; I'm simply asking about American practice. Nyttend (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Rice Krispies are a breakfast food, if you consider that to still be rice. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

And oatmeal cookies can be eaten at any time of day! Pais (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

During the Middle Ages, peasants in Scotland, England and Wales ate oats at every meal.
Sleigh (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for insufficiently explaining: I'm talking about cooked hot grains of whichever food, prepared by cooking previously-uncooked grains just before eating them — I mean that I never heard of people eating oat porridge at lunch or dinner or newly-cooked rice (put it in water, boil the water, eat the rice) for breakfast. Nyttend (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's just cultural. How often do you eat vegetables for breakfast like carrots and broccoli? What about roast chicken with new potatoes? And in the other direction, how often do you eat pancakes or waffles or French toast with maple syrup or even fried/scrambled/soft-boiled eggs for lunch or dinner? There's no nutritional reason for it; it's just that in America (and presumably in other cultures too) we have an idea of what is and isn't appropriate "breakfast food", and it's just an accident of history that oatmeal (porridge) established itself as breakfast food in the U.S. and rice didn't. Pais (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Eating pancakes and french toasts and eggs for lunch or dinner isn't all that rare in the US. We have IHOP for exactly that purpose. Googlemeister (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this is splitting hairs, but if I go to IHOP and have pancakes etc. in the afternoon or evening, then - at least in my POV - I'm not having pancakes for dinner, I'm having breakfast at a noncanonical time of day. Pais (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have developed for myself a tasty (well, I like it anyway) dinner dish that I call an avenotto, after the pattern of risotto, based on oats. I brought it up in an earlier refdesk post, here. --Trovatore (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A traditional British-Indian breakfast dish is Kedgeree which is rice and smoked fish. Not very common nowadays though. Rice didn't figure highly in the British diet until the mid-19th century. mainly because it doesn't grow here. Alansplodge (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

And for the trendy foodies out there, there's snail porridge[9][10]. Alansplodge (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

All my life I've had rice for breakfast. With milk and sugar. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A sample size of one out of six billion or so is not very informative in itself. It might be more relevant if you were to explicate your geographical location, cultural background, and how representative you are of both. </snark> {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.74 (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Rice Krispies90.214.166.169 (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Pro-Communist bias of Wikipedia

The Wikipedia article on Augusto Pinochet calls him dictator, but the articles on Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong don't call them dictators. Why Wikipedia is misleading unsuspecting readers? --Drum of Mars (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah you seem to be under a misapprehension here as to how Wikipedia works. There is no central committee deciding on what wording should be used to describe various people in their articles. Everyone, including you, is free to amend any article at any time. So if you think Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao should be described as dictators, go right ahead and put that in the articles. --Viennese Waltz 07:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

But it's more likely to stay there if you can support it with a reliable reference. Alansplodge (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

BBC calls Stalin dictator [11]. Is this source OK for you? And google scholar [12] return a lot of results. Here is a book [13] published by Taylor & Francis and written by Adam Jones. Are you ok with these sources? --Drum of Mars (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not about whether those sources are OK with us, it's about whether the description of these people as dictators helps to improve the article. In my view it's a fairly loaded and culturally biased term which we should probably avoid. As Adam says below, it would be better to remove the description of Pinochet as a dictator. By all means insert those references into the articles on Stalin, but be prepared to defend yourself against others who may not hold the same view. --Viennese Waltz 08:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's more likely that we shouldn't call Pinochet a dictator. What does that really mean anyway? It's a word that may make Drum of Mars feel better about himself or something, but it doesn't usually accurately describe something that is actually rather complex. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Dictator is a loaded word. Should be avoided in any biographical description. HiLo48 (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's okay in the articles on Julius Caesar and his predecessors. Pais (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, but in that case it's a technical term in Roman law and politics. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the term; I think it's a WP:LABEL issue for a lede. It's also not necessary — the rest of the description is really quite straightforward enough (describing him as a general who takes over in a coup against a democratically elected left-wing leader and then kills all of the dissidents is more potent than the word "dictator"). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's curious that the OP suspects a "pro-communist" bias on account of the lack of the appellation "dictator" to the mentioned articles. "Dictator" doesn't feature in the lede of neither Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini, so couldn't it just as well be a pro-fascist bias? --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, this is not ref desk material. Take it up on the talk page of the respective articles if you propose a change. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion (and expanded the scope) to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (words to watch)#The term "dictator". I took concepts from here, and added others by my own. Feel free to continue the discussion there. Cambalachero (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Calling Stalin, et al., dictators like the original poster here wants could be construed as pro-Communist. See Real socialism. --M@rēino 18:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't Pinochet the one that actually said 'people need to remeber who the dictator is around here' in response to some complaints? Besides which, using the same precisely approved on wording for every article would get boring and repetitive. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Music identification

What's this piece of popular music? (x represents some percussive sound like a cymbal, C's in the bottom lines represent bass notes; song begins with a pick-up)

c..A.c.A........c..A.c.A........c..A.c.A........c..A.c.A........
     x       x       x  C    x       x       x       x  C    x

c.A.c.A.dedc.cAc..A.c.A.GG.G.GAc..A.c.A.dedc.cAc..A.c.A.GG.G.GA
    x       x       x       x       x       x       x       x

—Keenan Pepper 17:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Googling "identify tunes" gives a number of sites that claim to identify tunes specified in various ways. --ColinFine (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but none of them turn up anything for this. —Keenan Pepper 17:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Poor man's copyright and email

We all know that the poor man's copyright, as it's called, can be easily faked, as described in the article. My question is, do you think that it would be more reliable to email myself a document. Say I email myself something on Yahoo. It'll tell me that I sent this to myself on the exact date. There's no way I can somehow edit the email to add a document or change the date. And I doubt anyone could easily hack into Yahoo to change this information. Where's the problem? 69.207.146.64 (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The real problem is that "poor man's copyright" is, according to most sources for most jurisdictions, legally meaningless, and the precise methodology of implementing PMC (such as your email proposal) will not alter that. Our article on copyright registration notes that under the Berne Convention copyright is secured at the moment of creation, but that in the US, proactive registration with the United States Copyright Office provides various legal advantages. A copyright lawyer in your jurisdiction can provide you a detailed explanation of useful ways to protect your copyright. — Lomn 18:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It is trivial to fake email headers, including the date of the email. Sending it to Yahoo will not fix faked headers. -- kainaw™ 18:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You could fake the date in the email header, but not the date that Yahoo (and any mail servers in between) received it. --Tango (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yahoo will append a server date to the header, but you can add your own date with Yahoo's server ID in the header. That is used often by spammers to force their mails to sit back a couple years and not be grouped with all the other newly received spam. It makes it harder to select all the new emails in one group to delete them. Yahoo should auto-delete email that was sent too long ago (I've seen some spam dated as being received by the mail server in the 70's) and Yahoo should scan the header and delete bogus received messages from the header. I doubt Yahoo (or any online mail service) does either. -- kainaw™ 19:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the point Tango is making is there will be a date from Yahoo in the header which you generally can't remove or prevent from being added. The fact you can put your own forged server or email date is moot. Anyone looking at the headers can see all the dates and go by the oldest date. This could be forged but if you're trying to establish you created something before a date why would you? More to the point, presuming you don't have malicious intention you'll just send it to yourself without any forgery and check the headers establishing the recorded dates all line up and are within a few days of each other. The fact someone could have forged some of the dates is moot since anyone looking could tell that even if some of the dates are forgeries they don't matter unless you're trying to establish time with greater precision then within a few days. In other words, presuming the mail actually passed thru Yahoo's servers forgeries aren't generally an issue from a technical POV. I'm not suggesting this is likely to stand up in court. For starters your opponent is likely to question whether we can be sure the Yahoo mail servers didn't screw up and put the wrong date or fail to put a date (which you exploited either by brute force or by knowing how) or whether it's possible you had help from inside Yahoo. And a far bigger issue is that IIRC the commercial Yahoo Mail service has IMAP. While I've never done it myself my understanding is you can also import/add mail to a server via IMAP. Definitely I've seen talk of doing this via Gmail or Google Apps. In that case you could easily add an email at any time with whatever content, including headers, you want which was never sent thru any SMTP server. In other words, even though the content may be stored on Yahoo's servers, it's no better then you handing over a Eudora mailbox. Which is about as useful as handing over a Word document in an attempt to use the file and document creation, modified etc times. Nil Einne (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the "poor man's copyright" has never been used in any court. Secondly, the real problem is not technological, but legal. In the US, registration with the United States Copyright Office costs US$35 online and is required if you are going to sue for damages and attorney's fees. (Here's their FAQ.) Even if there were a non-repudiable digital certificate of some kind that Yahoo could affix to your e-mail that were to prove that you had mailed yourself the work on that date, when you walked into court with that certificate, the court would dismiss your lawsuit because of the lack of a copyright registration. (See here.) The law lags behind technology often, and this is arguably one of those cases. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

As everyone else has said, forging an email to make it look a couple of years old is very easy, and most mail servers will pass it on without a blip, as if it had just gotten stuck for a few years on a really slow server. Some servers started filtering out these out-of-place-artifact emails because they're virtually always spam, but a judge wouldn't be impressed by that.

I doubt you're going to find a way of "proving" your copyright that's iron-clad enough for a judge not to roll his eyes but is still cheaper and easier than just registering copyright the proper way. Not only that, in the USA you get additional legal benefits from actually registering it, so it's kind of a no-brainer.

Really, if you don't think you can make enough money with your work to cover the cost of a copyright registration (In USA: $35 online, $50 the old fashioned way), it's a safe bet that you're not going to have the money to fight it in court anyway, even in the unlikely event that someone wants to steal the work you're not making any money on! APL (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

About how much money total in 2011 dollars to go to the moon the first time

About how much in 2011 dollars was spent by NASA from the day John F. Kennedy said "We choose to go to the moon in this decade" to the day Neil Armstrong said "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind"? Yes, yes. Proceed to nitpick that other expenses made before the JFK speech must also be considered. I just want to know about the approximate expenses in the interval specified. Thank you. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Total NASA spending for fiscal years 1961 to 1969 inclusive was ~$220 billion dollars at 2007 prices, per our NASA Budget article. However, this certainly isn't a very meaningful answer - NASA was also running four other manned spaceflight programs in that period (Mercury, Gemini, the X-15, and the beginnings of the later-cancelled Apollo Applications) as well as its general scientific work, aeronautical research, and the entire unmanned orbital and planetary programs. The Apollo program article quotes an estimate of $170 billion adjusted to 2005 prices - but this of course also includes the costs of the six further flights, additional unflown hardware, and operations costs for 1970-73. A fair ballpark estimate might be somewhere on the order of $120-140 billion in current dollars attributable to Apollo up to and including Apollo 11, had Gemini and the unmanned programs still gone ahead. Shimgray | talk | 19:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Except the NASA article inflates 1961-1969 USD in terms of CPI. Consumer Price Indexes represent a consumption bundle of bread, rent, booze, books, movie tickets, petrol, etc. Spaceships are not built from money equivalent to bread, rent, etc… Spaceships, as megaprojects, are best compared as a proportion of generalised inflation corrected GDP. Using "Measuring Worth's" suggestions (http://www.measuringworth.com/indicator.html) and proportion of GDP, the 1969 NASA budget figure of USD4.2 billion is equivalent to 2010 USD63.3 billion. Notes about a particular budget year not being directly related to the cost of the lunar programme are worth remembering. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I feel a bit of a fool - I keep complaining at other people for quoting these sort of adjustments without checking! Yes, that calculation seems reasonable. One quick caveat, though - these are fiscal years, starting (presumably) in April. As such, only about a third of the 1969 budget is covered by "up to Apollo 11" and we can drop the total by a few percent accordingly. Shimgray | talk | 12:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The article "Apollo plus 50" (21 May 2011, The Economist) notes that "The Apollo project cost about $150 billion in 2010 dollars, five times as much as the Manhattan Project and 18 times the cost of digging the Panama Canal." Gabbe (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"Hap" poem

There's a depressing bit of verse that I sometimes recall a scrap of. It's very short, probably four or five lines, and I remember most of it. But somehow, no matter what permutations and combinations I try on Google, I can't find it. I think it might be by Thomas Hardy, which I think would put it in the public domain by now, so the omission is strange. The opening lines are something like My name is Hap/I'm fifty-odd. The narrator goes on to say he's never known a woman and wish to God/my father never had.

Ring any bells with anyone? --Trovatore (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Not yet, but here's a similar one that this site says is "translated from the Greek":

At threescore winters' end I died,

A cheerless being, sole and sad;

The nuptial knot I never tied,

And wish my father never had.

Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. It sounds as though Hardy (if it was indeed he) may have made a different translation of the same Greek source, rather than an original poem in this case. Still, I don't understand why I can't find the version I remember, and would appreciate it if anyone can. --Trovatore (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Dude, this should totally be a limerick.

Aye, me name's Hapless O'Brien

In me fifty-odd years I've been tryin'

I never could find a young wan

To wed if I can

Unlike Pappy - the more hapless O'Brien! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.157.117.3 (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Scansion is not great. The second foot in the first verse is an awkward trochee, and there are four feet in the last verse, which also rhymes a word with the same word. --Trovatore (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Update — 188 has made some changes since I wrote this remark. At this writing there are no longer four feet in the last verse. --Trovatore (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I have great historical perspicacity for ending as I begun: "The limerick form was popularized by Edward Lear [...] It was customary at the time [...] for the final line of the limerick to be a kind of conclusion, usually a variant of the first line ending in the same word." Also, I should add that we wore an onion on our belt, as was the fashion at the time. 188.157.117.3 (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I don't know that I agree with your take on the scansion. Did you try just reading it? 188.157.117.3 (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Hardy did write a poem titled "Hap", but it's not the one you're looking for. The title is the common noun meaning "chance" rather than a person's name. Deor (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks, I remember that one now. I seem to have conflated that one in my memory with the one I was looking for here. OK, that casts some doubt on many of my search terms, but I am still fairly sure about the rhyme of fifty-odd and wish to God. --Trovatore (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Finally found it. It's called "Epitaph on a Pessimist". It goes

I'm Smith of Stoke, aged sixty-odd

I've lived without a dame

From youth-time on; and would to God

My dad had done the same.

It is indeed by Hardy, and seems close enough to the Cowper translation of the Greek verse that I doubt it's a coincidence. --Trovatore (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

even though it's not depressive anymore, I have an improvement to my limerick. Like this I think it's pretty funny:

Aye, me name's Hapless O'Brien.

In me fifty-odd years I've been tryin'

I never could find a young wan

To wed if I can,

Unlike Pappy - the less happy O'Brien!

94.27.134.217 (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

lottery and taxes in the US

I am working on writing a short story where a person wins a $100 million prize in the lottery and uses 100% of it to start a non-profit. My question is, if he gives it all away is it tax free, or does the government still expect to get its pound of flesh? Googlemeister (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Lottery#Payment of prizes suggests that you are almost certainly liable for taxes (unless by a quirk of state law there aren't any). Shimgray | talk | 21:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This is kind of what happened to Joe Louis. During WWII, he decided to donate his fight winnings to the war effort and military-related charities. Unfortunately, the IRS still charged him taxes on the income, leaving him deeply in debt. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That isn't mentioned at Joe Louis#Taxes and financial troubles which suggests although he did give money to the government, he also gave it to to family which wouldn't be counted as tax-deductable charity in most modern context (and invested it in businessed that failed) Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It depends considerably on what your other income is, but the IRS does allow significant deductions for charitable contributions. In all likelihood, someone with no other income who just wins the lottery and then donates it all WOULD be stuck with a bit of a tax bill. The amount of deduction you get generally tends to be at whatever tax bracket rate you're in- i.e., if you pay 22% income tax, you get to deduct 22% of your charitable contributions. This is all highly tentative, of course. IdealistCynic (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not actually how it works. At non-lottery non-AMT levels, you deduct 100% of your charitable contributions from your taxable income, and your final taxable income then determines your tax bracket. Thus, charitable contributions could reduce your taxable income to a point where you pay no taxes. However, we note at itemized deduction that charitable contributions have an upper cap of 30% to 50% of AGI -- while someone with a middle-class income might conceivably string together enough deductions to pay no taxes (50% charity, some mortgage interest, personal deductions, etc), a guy who just won $100 million won't stand a chance of doing so. — Lomn 13:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, the cost of old losing lottery tickets can be deducted as they comprise the "investment" made toward becoming a lottery winner. Keep your old losing tickets.Greg Bard (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Indian caste system

Why does India continue to have the caste system? --75.40.204.106 (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it did before. For an analogy, do you think it's a coincidence that if someone is an ancestor of someone who was brought over the Atlantic forceably and as a slave, that person is statistically less likely to have access to good education, statistically more likely to be in an environment where they are surrounded by guns and violence, etc, as compared with someone who is an ancestor of someone who chose to come over the Atlantic? Of course it is not a coincidence, and I am surprised by the implication of your question "Why does India continue to have the caste system", since for me, it is hard to imagine why anyone would raise a question in that form. Put another way, I can't imagine anyone, for any reason, asking "Why does America continue to have an income disparity between the richest and poorest?" No matter what developments there are in the next 300 years, I just can't imagine someone asking that question at any point between 2011 and 2311: the answer would be obvious at any point during that time. It continues to have it because it had it before. 94.27.140.159 (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The article Caste system in India might help answer that question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the Indian government still actively enforce the caste system? --75.40.204.106 (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It does appear (from the article) to employ a sort of "caste affirmative action" for which purpose it keeps track of caste statistics and so forth. I don't think it actually forces people to comply with the caste system though, though it does appear to be essentially mandatory as a social/local convention in a lot of places. IdealistCynic (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the same sort of thing that's happened to the burakumin in Japan. There, even though it's illegal to look up someone's ancestry to determine if they're a buraku, they're still viciously discriminated against (and they're something like 60% of the yakuza; hmmmmm...). In India, the caste system is just as entrenched in their national past (although much larger and more intricate), so it continues on; there are some protections now, but they're largely symbolic. The only way to affect real change is to get a Shigeru Kayano-type figure who disrupts business as usual enough that people will finally listen. In Kayano's case, he managed to get a huge amount of protections for the Ainu, and though they still have serious problems they're much better off than 20 years ago. That sort of thing hasn't happened to the same extent yet in India, so it persists. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC) I am, of course, referring to the countryside; I thought I had put that in, but I must've accidentally removed it somewhere along the lines.

Caste discrimination is not visible in urban India. Actually there is a reverse caste discrimination in India. See Youth for Equality --Reference Desker (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Pedant's note: it is a common error, and in other contexts can be confusing:

"if someone is an ancestor of someone who was brought over the Atlantic forceably and as a slave, that person is statistically less likely to have access to good education"

Ancestor -->descendent. Or recast the sentence: "if someone's ancestor was brought over the Atlantic..." </pedantry>. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You could also use the word "ascendant". You are the descendant of your ancestor, who is your ascendant. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You're too hard on yourself, Brainy Babe, because that's not remotely pedantry. Just because we can quickly work out what someone means when they actually say the opposite of what they mean, and just because it may be a common error, does not mean it's OK for them to keep on using a word in a completely non-standard and misleading way. They need to be apprised of their error and sent packing down the path of righteousness. You done good. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Jack, that is quite a boost, coming from you! BrainyBabe (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

May 26

Third parties in the US

Why Americans don't vote for third parties? For example people having left-leaning economic view and liberal social view can vote for the Green Party, people having right-leaning economic view and liberal social view can vote for the Libertarian Party, people having social conservative views can vote for the Constitution Party. They get votes, but they never won election, this means most people prefer the two major parties. Why? --Reference Desker (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

One reason is that third parties tend to focus on a narrow range of issues, and so they lose people who care about other issues... another is that third parties tend to take a hard line stance on the issues they do focus on. While this attracts those who care deeply about those issues, it leaves the vast majority of Americans, who are actually relatively moderate in their politics, feeling alienated. Blueboar (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, the American electoral system works "best" with two parties: because the winner of the largest percentage of the votes is the overall winner, it is often true that voting for your preferred candidate can result in the victory of your least preferred candidate — if you choose a third-party candidate instead of the major party candidate that you'd be more likely to vote for, you're effectively subtracting your vote from the total of your preferred major party candidate. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

About all third parties can do is screw things up. For example, in the Al Franken vs. Norm Coleman Senate race a couple of years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's called Duverger's law. Voting for a third party in the U.S. winner-take-all plurality-wins system may be seen as helping the person you least want to win by splitting the vote on your side of the political spectrum. This is exactly what happened in 2000 when the non-right-wing vote was split between Al Gore and Ralph Nader. Also, voting for someone who has no chance of winning is considered "throwing your vote away." Third-party and independent candidates generally only do well when the candidate is already well-known or has a lot of money, making his or her election not completely out of the realm of possibility from the beginning. -- 174.116.177.235 (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It also happened in 1992 and 1996, when Ross Perot's entry helped to get Clinton elected and then re-elected. Supposedly Dole pleaded with Perot not to run in '96, but he did anyway, helping to syphon votes away from Dole. The all-time master screw-job might be the 1912 election, in which the GOP defied logic and renominated Taft. TR got more votes than Taft, but by going with the unpopular choice, the GOP basically handed the Presidency to Wilson. Oops! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider voting for a third candidate to be "throwing your vote away". I believe that any candidate who wins more than 5% of the vote is eligible for federal funding. Does anyone know when this last happened, though? Eliyohub (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

FPTP doesn't explain everything. UK has FPTP and has regional third parties, and a third party on an ideological basis (Libdem). Why are there no regional monopoly third parties in the US? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. On the regional issue, I would say it's my sense that no region of the US really sees itself as a separate nation in the same way that Scots nationalists do. The closest would be the South, but there is little desire by now to relitigate the Civil War. (Note though that George Wallace's party did indeed capture five southern states in the 1968 election — that was probably the closest thing to a competitive regional party since at least World War II.) I am not sure what makes the difference between the competitiveness of the LibDems and the absence of any similar competitive party here. --Trovatore (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That was around the time that the "solid south" was transitioning from Democratic to Republican, as the two parties seemed to have switched places ideologically. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

On a smaller scale, the Vermont Progressive Party has a few seats in the state legislature and their founder was elected to the Senate as an independent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Qrsdogg (talk • contribs)

I think it's because of what Reference Desker said, that third parties tend to be too narrowly focused, and most folks don't really trust them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Another reason is that third party candidates tend to lose so voters don't see much point in a vote for a person effectively destined to lose (it's self fullfilling, people don't vote for them because people don't vote for them.) (Disclaimer, this is just my opinion and I can't cite sources for it.) RJFJR (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo mentioned that the UK has FPTP and more than two parties. So does Canada, where there are at least four major parties and several significant lesser ones. And while Bloc Québécois clearly has a regional focus, the other three do not. The recent federal election there shook up the relative power of the four parties quite a bit. Perhaps a factor here, in addition to FPTP, is the difference between Westminster systems and the US system (Presidential system?) In the US system presidential elections (and I assume the question is about electing presidents, as their have been and currently are third party governors, members of Congress, etc) aggregate votes to the state level, so whole states vote for a candidate (with rare exceptions). In the Westminster system, as I understand it, the people do not vote for the Prime Minister, rather for the MP of their local electoral district (riding in Canada)--something roughly equivalent to a Congressional district in the US (this is why US presidential election result maps color the nation red or blue by state, while Canadian federal election result maps color by riding, never by province; sometimes US result maps show states by electoral college strength, but that merely shows the voting strength of each state; people do not vote for specific electors). While this alone doesn't explain why the US is so dominated by two parties, I suspect it is an important factor. Imagine if in US federal elections you did not vote for president, senator, and representative, but only for your representative. I suspect under such conditions it would be easier for third parties to get a foothold in the sytem. Pfly (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be more like a parliamentary system. In fact, it used to be more that way. Until about a hundred years ago, Senators were elected by the state legislatures rather than by the citizens directly. And we still vote for electors for President, not directly for the President, as it's really the states, via the electoral college system, that choose the President. The influence of third parties, historically, has been to splinter the votes and to elect the opposite candidate. That's why third parties don't work. Now, if you had a third party that was truly distinctive from the other two, and popular, they might have a prayer. Libertarians would like to fill that void. But their views, taken in total, are generally at odds with the electorate, so they really have no chance to win separately, but only as "conservative Republican" types. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this a recognisable, coherent community?

I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned the matter of how electoral districts are defined, and in particular the effect of Gerrymandering. This produces (and in some cases is explicitly designed to produce) a duopoly. In many US states the delineation between electoral district is performed by a commission composed mostly or entirely by elected politicians, so they're deciding on the boundaries that elect either themselves or their friends. Rather than fight about it, you often get bipartisan gerrymandering, where the two parties agree upon (really sometimes downright insane) boundaries that systematically produce unassailable majorities for both, and cut out anyone else. If you were to design a system for fairly and sensibly drawing these lines you'd probably come up with something akin to the Venice Commission guidelines, which roughly amounts to "recognisable communities, cognizance of historical lines, selected by an impartial group"). In that light, if you consider the California 38rd shown to the right, or the similarly bonkers California 11th) you can't see a rational reason to draw the boundaries the way they are. Look at the committees who do the choosing - rather than politicians, the UK uses the various Boundary Commissions for the job; they're Quangos, so while not entirely beyond political influence they're not stuffed with politicians. Contrast, for example, the members of the Ohio Apportionment Board (all elected politicians) with the Boundary Commission for Scotland (a judge, a retired civil servant, and a business woman - no politicians (bar the nominal speaker)). The results are evident in the maps of the two - note the bizarre configuration of the Ohio 6th and 13th (map) vs the fairly rational equivalent for Scotland here). Federal courts have intervened only in as far as lines are drawn to disfavour ethnic groups, and most states don't have laws that explicitly forbid this (see [14], where several have laws that explicitly permit incumbent protection). Why does this matter for third parties, or voters who are disillusioned with both parties in the duopoly? As there are so few genuinely marginal districts there's nowhere for another party, or for independents, or single-issue parties, to survive. Large built-in majorities encourage extreme candidates (the primary is bitterly contested, not the general election) and make defecting to another party, or going it alone, suicide. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at File:NC-Congress-12.PNG the map of NC's 12th congressional district, which is even more of a "salamander" than was the original "Gerrymander". The purpose of that district was to give a collection of black voters a voice in Congress. Whether that kind of thing really works well, or tends to isolate, is debatable to say the least. But it's been that way for awhile now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

California's redistricting law has changed, so now the redistricting is to be done by a commission consisting of equal numbers of Republicans, Democrats and independents, and their charter calls for them to design compact districts based on communities. We'll see how that works. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason that third parties do not win are several-fold, and not as innocent as some of the previously given reasons. First of all, the media certainly does portray third parties as marginal and irrelevant; however the critical question is 'do they portray this because it is reality, or does the reality form because of the image promulgated by the media?" So too, for the organizations that sponsor debates. They limit the participants based on who is a viable candidate. However, if we don't get to see them in a debate, then how can we really know who is viable? Obviously the two-parties have a duopoly; however what is not obvious is all the things they do to keep the duopoly. All election reform takes place within the context of the two-party system, so any reform of the negatives that arise as a result of the duopoly are never discussed, nor addressed. The existence of the electoral college also contributes to filtering out third parties, and in fact, any convoluted voting system more complex than simple majoritarianism will necessarily contribute to minimizing third parties. Also, the talented campaign management and staff tend to gravitate toward one of the two parties, rather than fight uphill for a "fringe" third party. These people have careers to think about. In the end, the biggest reason is $$$. Greg Bard (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There are a few reasons why Duverger's Law applies more in the U.S. than in Canada or the U.K. Firstly, the U.S. has a lot less party discipline than the Commonwealth countries. That means a Democrat in California can take different positions from a Democrat in Alabama. It doesn't work that way in the U.K. or Canada, which is why you get parties like Canada's old Reform Party or the Bloc Quebecois, whose members had to form new parties when the national parties wouldn't go along with their views. Second, the U.S. has long had primary elections in most states. This allows an "outsider" candidate to run for office without having to run on a third-party ticket. It's a lot easier to win a major-party primary election and then use the party's resources to win the general election than it is to win a general election on a third-party ticket, unless you're very wealthy. There's also the attitude that people like Ralph Nader should have run in the primary of the major party closest to their views instead of splitting the left-wing or right-wing vote by running in the general election. Finally, the end of the two-party systems in Canada and the U.K. was largely due first to socialism and then to separatism. The U.S. has always had less attraction to socialism than most other countries, and separatism has pretty much been a dead issue in the U.S. since 1865. Also, the three major parties in the U.K. are now so close ideologically that one can switch parties without worrying that the evil boogeyman party on the opposite side of the political spectrum will benefit from a vote split. This is not the case in America, where the Republicans and Democrats remain very far apart on basic issues. When the British Labor Party was really left-wing, the Liberals didn't win many seats. If the Canadian Tories move farther to the right and the NDP proves that it has staying power, I could easily see Canada bifurcating into a two-party system as has happened in B.C. and Saskatchewan. -- 174.116.177.235 (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Be aware that the Republican and Democratic parties have instituted all sorts of laws at the state level which make it hard for thrid parties to get on the ballot, requiring them for example to obtain a certain number of petition signatures in every county to get on the ballot and to lose ballot standing if they fall under a five percent vote.

Note that long standing policy on presidential debates held that anyone polling above 5% nationally would be included. Ross Perot participated in the 1992 debates on that basis and garnered a %20 popular vote. Then the debate committee, chaired by three democrats and three republicans, cahnged the threshold to 15% in five major polls and excluded Perot from the 1996 debates as "not a serious candidate."

Blame the extra-constitutional collusion of the two incumbent parties. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct etiquette

Hello all, me again :) I recently volunteered at an event but forgot to wear socks (as I usually don't wear them); luckily my guidance counselor had anticipated that someone might forget and brought a pair of his own to lend to me. What would be the correct etiquette to return them to him? I am interested in particular in the details of how I would word it; i.e., the only response to "Do you want these back?" would be "You can keep them", but I don't really feel right keeping them. Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(1) Launder them; then (2) return them at your next opportunity. If he says "keep them", then keep them... maybe in your glove box, in case of a similar situation in the future. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Alternately, buy several new pairs, and send them to him, with thanks and a suggestion that he hand them out the next time the situation arises. If he does this regularly, as seems evident, it is more likely to be appreciated. The appropriate response to an unexpected gift isn't 'repayment', but an indication of appreciation of the intent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This can be culturally specific though. Some cultures value acknowledgement through a directly related material intermediary (multiple pairs of similar socks); other cultures have ritualised acknowledgement mechanisms like greeting cards or flowers. Australia, for example, sometimes has an idea that "Australian native flowers" are in some ways more appropriate to give to men than other flowers. Working class cultures often use beer as a method of acknowledgement in Australia. "A slab" (24 x 375mL, 4.5% beer) is a good way of acknowledging the favour materially without demeaning the volunteer spirit in which someone else did you a work related favour. If you paid them you'd be making them "work"—fixing someone's computer or motorcar might be worth a slab. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

But beware of overthinking what ought to be a natural, simple and spontaneous gesture. I agree totally with Baseball Bugs on this occasion.

Just on the flower thing: A woman could give a man flowers in this sort of situation and get away with it not being seen as a come on. But a man giving another man flowers, even native flowers? No way, unless there's some sort of sexual chemistry going on, or hoped for. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I was also going to comment similarly on the flowers. That would be a cultural thing. Unless it's culturally normal for men to send flowers to each other, stay away from that. I like the beer idea... provided that the OP knows that the guy likes beer and which brand. But giving the guy a bunch of new socks really sounds like the ideal and safe thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch

Rupert Murdoch held left-leaning views while he was a college student and supported the Labour Party. When the shift in his political view began and why? --Reference Desker (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Unlike the pre-Tony Blair Labour Party, the Labor Party is a centre party albeit with a small Left faction and a small Centre-Left faction. The Right faction controls the Labor Party.
Sleigh (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume the "Labor Party" you're referring to is the Australian Labor Party. Whereas, the "Labour Party" you mention is the Labour Party (UK). True? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

He ended up in conflict with the leadership of Oxford Labour group; Gerald Kaufman tells the story of how he investigated Murdoch for breaching a ban on canvassing for executive post (recounted in [15]). Soon after that, his father died, he returned to Australia, and he became managing director of News Limited. That seems to have been the spur to the change in his political views; as the Rupert Murdoch article states, by the mid-1960s, he was a consistent supporter of John McEwen, although he briefly backed Gough Whitlam. Warofdreams talk 12:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Business Cycle Graphs

Where can I find the time-series data used to generate graphs like ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorstein90 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Start with OECD, or official statistics services for individual countries. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Did George Washington whip his slaves?

Topic says it all. ScienceApe (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

According to George Washington and slavery, "As on other plantations during that era, his slaves worked from dawn until dusk unless injured or ill and they were whipped for running away or for other infractions." However, it's likely the whipping was done by the slave overseer rather than by GW himself. Pais (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Even Jefferson, for all his noble rhetoric about a self-evident inalienable right of liberty for all humans, failed to live up to these high ideals with respect to his slaves. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please provide a reference for Jefferson saying he believed in the "inalienable right of liberty for all humans" including non-Caucasians, slaves and women? Or did he believe in liberty for free white men? Edison (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Words by Jefferson (with help by Benjamin Franklin), emphasis mine. Now if he meant it to be that inclusive is debatable, but he certainly wrote it using inclusive language. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, an earlier draft of Jefferson's declaration said, "Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative [veto], suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce." (Emphasis in original.) These views didn't stop Jefferson from profiting from slavery both financially and sexually. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What's you point, Mwalcoff? That clause had NOTHING to do with an anti-slavery postition. To quote from one of WP's articles: "The clause was the opposite of "anti-slavery" -- it complained about the freeing of slaves. The clause did complain about King George vetoing attempts to put tariffs on the slave trade -- an economic not moral issue in Jefferson's Virginia, where the slave trade was diluting the value of slaves-as-property. Georgia and South Carolina needed slaves-as-workers, and thus opposed Virginia's proposed tariffs on slaves.[4] Jefferson expressed outrage that the Virginia tariff was vetoed, and with florid rhetoric called George a hypocrite (in effect) for supporting the slave trade -- but that wasn't the relevant point: The clause was included in the section of the Declaration concerning war grievances, and its specific grievance is that, following Lord Dunmore's Proclamation, England was granting freedom to runaway slaves who joined the army. So, as opposed to being "anti-slavery," the clause complained about the freeing of slaves."76.218.9.50 (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So how did TJ feel about the rights of women? How did he reconcile "all men" being equal with his owning slaves? Edison (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect TJ didn't even imagine the idea of (non-widowed) women having equal rights independent of their husbands or fathers. So he probably was neither for nor against equal rights - they were not even part of his mental landscape. Whole books have been written about Jefferson's hypocrisy of owning slaves while proclaiming liberty for all. He was always in favour of emancipation in theory, but eventually resigned working towards it in practice. He would not or could not free his own slaves without a general emancipation (which would have been either gradual or included compensation). Jefferson was deeply in debt, many of his slaves were mortgaged for a lot of the time, and he wasn't consequent enough to do what he could at the price of personal ruin. Not a perfect human being, but then, who is? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

George Washington had a very low estimate of the willingness of his 300 slaves to do a day's work, of their honesty and of the ability of his overseers to make them work. The overseers whipped the slaves after giving Washington reasons, in writing why the whipping was needed. "It is easy to say 'the overseers whipped the slaves.' But if Washington gave permission, he might as well have wielded the lash." "An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America"(2004) By Henry Wiencek, page 111. He apparently also had female as well as male slaves whipped on occasion, since he wrote: "Your treatment of Charlotte was very proper, and if She or any other of the Servants will not do their duty by fair means, or are impertinent, correction (as the only alternative) must be administered." "George Washington and slavery: a documentary portrayal" (1997) by Fritz Hirschfeld, page 36. While President, Washington was criticized for not providing adequate food for his slaves. Yet "the lot of the Mount Vernon slaves was a reasonably happy one" perhaps by comparison with the worst establishments. "George Washington: Farmer"(2004) by Paul Leland Haworth, pages 98-100 . Edison (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

complete list of "common" urban services and memberships

RefDesk is not for playing games

the followng are by no means esoteric: - gym membership - dry cleaning service I would like a complete list of every by no means esoteric urban services and memberships that a man or woman in their thirties living in an urban center like London and making an average (close to the median) salary would be likely to have/use. I'm just interested in, say, the most common 50. 94.27.243.9 (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC) "Services and memberships" is rather vague. Would you include financial services ? health services ? transport services (season tickets, Oyster cards, Boris bikes) ? store cards ? baby-sitting circles ? book clubs ? postal services ? milk rounds ? waste collection ? internet shopping ? Gandalf61 (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC) I don't have statistics but other possibilities would include: public library, online DVD services (Netflix/LoveFilm/etc), professional organisation (for lawyers, engineers, accountants etc), trade union (for teachers, lecturers, nurses, civil servants, etc), sports club, university or school alumni association, political party, membership of organisation devoted to particular leisure interest (e.g. Camra for beer drinkers, Ramblers' Society), DVD/video game rental store membership, supporters club for sports team, membership of discount store (like Costco), membership of campaigning organisation like Greenpeace or Amnesty ... --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC) (OP again here). Absolutely! Every one of these qualify. We are very far from the top 50 though, and nowhere near extremely common services like a tanning salon, or getting a freaking haircut! Both of which are in common use. Actually, I think these rank way, way, above something like supporter of a sports team - after all, what working adult doesn't get a haircut! 94.27.134.217 (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC) So, we have the list below so far. Please keep adding to it! The later you get to a more common service (common being defined as in use by a greater number of working adults in the UK -- specifically London, let's say -- in their thirties and making around the median wage, the more points you lose. So, if it takes you till #49 to mention electricity - a service everyone uses - you lose a lot of points! Remember, pretty much everything you would exchange money for except receiving a product is a service in my defitition. Anyway, keep adding to the list! Try not to lose too many points... 1. financial services (bank) 2. health services (your GP, etc) 3. transport services (season tickets, [[Oyster card]]s, [[Boris bike]]s)? 4. store cards 5. baby-sitting 6. book clubs 7. postal service 8. milk rounds 9. waste collection 10. internet shopping 11. public library 12. online DVD services ([[Netflix]]/[[LoveFilm]]/etc) 13. professional organisation (for lawyers, engineers, accountants etc) 14. trade union (for teachers, lecturers, nurses, civil servants, etc) 15. sports club 16. university or school alumni association 17. political party 18. membership of organisation devoted to particular leisure interest (e.g. [[Camra]] for beer drinkers, Ramblers' Society) 19. DVD/video game rental store membership 20. supporters club for sports team 21. membership of discount store (like Costco) 22. membership of campaigning organisation like Greenpeace or Amnesty Don't forget tolls, parking fines, speeding fines, driver's licence, television license. Change Internet shopping to Internet connection. Sleigh (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC) OP is what you're actually saying that you already have such a list and you're judging us volunteer RefDesk helpers by our ability (or otherwise) to match the items on your list? Sorry not playing your little game. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No. I was being metaphorical - I have no such list, just a few hunches. Actually, I am very disappointed in the REFERENCE DESK not being able to give me a more definitive resource. This isn't ___-__, this is the aggragate list of services in use by MILLIONS of adults, sorted by the number of them who use it, and taking the top 50-100. I don't have such a list. I want one! Sorry I wasn't more clear. 188.157.253.76 (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Printing of the one dollar (USA) bill.

Why is there no article (even on Documentaries like History Channel, etc) about the very small printed spider on the front of the U.S. one dollar bill and why it's on there? Thank you.76.93.186.28 (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it isn't noteworthy. Look at the pattern along the bottom of the front of the bill. You will see the same thing in the repeated pattern in the background. Simply because most of the repeated pattern is blocked by the shield around the 1, you get some people assuming there is an owl or spider there when anyone with a tiny bit of observational skills can plainly see it is just part of the repeated pattern. -- kainaw™ 18:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"anyone with a tiny bit of observational skills can plainly see" is a bit of a put down of the OP, Kainaw. It wasn't necessary to go to such extremes to make your point. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you going to kick him in the grammar too? What does "bit of skills" mean? 188.157.253.76 (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Printed patterns can sometimes seem to show things that weren't necessarily intended to be there. For example, the U.S. 20 dollar bill can be folded in ways that its back appears to be connected with 9/11.[16] Another example (maybe intentional or maybe not) is the subliminal "arrow" contained within the Federal Express logo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The FedEx logo is far more properly classified with things like the previous Big Ten Conference logo, being the deliberate[17] incorporation of specific symbology in negative space, than with after-the-fact manipulations such as the $20 bill. For those not familiar with US collegiate sports, the Big Ten famously retained its name after accepting its 11th member, thus the incorporation of "11" in negative space. The new logo for the now-twelve-member Big Ten is just silly. Ditto the ten-team Big 12. — Lomn 02:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Re the 9/11 dollar thing, there was a similar, but much more amusing trick you could play with the old £10 note... Mix the Queen with Charles Dickens on the reverse, and... hey presto! Her Maj becomes John McEnroe. --13:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

And on the last pound (£1) note, Isaac Newton had a Toblerone beside him for some reason[18]. Alansplodge (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's a picture of the spider (in my opinion, the Toblerone is better). Alansplodge (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking for a book

I remember hearing about a book (nonfiction) that gave tips on how to read someone's writing and infer things about their writers from the minutiae of how they use language. These inferences are very circumstantial of course and must be taken with a grain of salt, but it seems like a useful skill to have. Does anyone know what book this might be? I'm not looking for a specific book, just one that broadly matches the description. Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC) (EDITED TO BE CLEAR)

Start with the article graphology, and if you want to go further, there are references there. --ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No no, sorry I think you misunderstood (my fault). I mean writing as in the content and how the language is used, not the text itself. Sorry for any confusion. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Forensic linguistics? BrainyBabe (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Historiography may not be what you're after, but it shares similar interests. --Dweller (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Close reading might be ... close. --Sean 19:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Could be literary criticism or stylistics (literature). 92.24.191.98 (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Should simple living / minimalistic living seen as liberal or conservative?

Good evening Wikipedians.
On the one hand, simple living seems liberal, as it breaks away from the "normal" consumeristic norms of society (with antropocentric consumerism being generally accepted, or even expected from people, without any questions asked).
But then again, simple living is actually an old concept dating from the days of yore.
Now that we are on the topic, could ANY counterculture, no matter how old the concept (e.g. grunge, gothic), be seen as liberal? Even Victorian Revivalists?
Thanking you in advance,
Suidpunt (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you're using the liberal/conservative dichotomy as understood in the United States? It needs to be understood that neither of those is actually a philosophy. They're both coalitions. The conservative coalition in particular has some very philosophicallly disparate elements that really can't stand each other (the libertarians and the social conservatives have almost nothing in common except for some common enemies). So it doesn't make a lot of sense to ask how to apply the terms to things other than politics. --Trovatore (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I certainly can't talk for the US, but the "simple life" has always been regarded as a conservative thing here in Europe. There was one such back-to-basics in pre-War Germany, but I can't recall its name. Volk-something I think. However, with the rise of "hippie" ideals, then the communes were both both back-to-basics and an extension of liberal values to an extreme. So I guess either would be appropriate. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Völkisch movement, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"Simple living" implies thriftiness, which is what I would associate with "classic" conservatism. There are very few of those kinds of conservatives around anymore. In fact, the concept pretty well died in the U.S. after World War II ended and prosperity finally came after 15+ years of deprivation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I know several people who subscribe to this ideology while holding political neutrality. They base their thriftiness on the example of Jesus who said to "“If you want to be perfect, go sell your belongings and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven, and come be my follower” (Matthew 19:21). Jesus also subscribed to the ideal that "'It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’'" (Luke 4:8). Thus it is entirely possible to be minimilistic and to be neither conservative nor liberal (in a political context). I myself do my best to do this, but sometimes I like stuff too much. Schyler (one language) 00:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a factual answer to this question; there are both liberal and conservative people who live simply. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

We have an article, simple living, which even has a "Politics" section. As it points out, the political party or viewpoint that probably comports most with the concept is the Green Party, which conservatives typically despise as an ultraliberal extremist fringe wacko group. On the other hand, simple live-er Ted Kaczynski seems to have hated leftists, as well as modern society in general. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

In the UK at least the Green Party is anything but Liberal. Bunch of Stalinist control freaks more like...

ALR (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd go that far, but I do think it's important to point out that "left" or "center-left" does not imply "liberal" in any philosophical sense. That's part of what I was getting at in my first response. The political coalition called "liberal" in the United States includes a few genuine liberals (the ACLU, for example), but also has elements that are not particularly liberal (trade unions may or may not support protections against arbitrary State power), and some that are really rather anti-liberal (such as the supporters of identity politics). These last usually don't self-apply the L-word, but call themselves "progressive" or some such. --Trovatore (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Simple living has traditionally been seen as conservative, with early well-known examples of such views including the tendency of educated classical Athenians for Laconophilia. (Their position was in opposition, to some extent, to what they perceived as the material and political excesses of radical Athenian democracy. The Spartans had more kings, less money, a great deal less clothes, no fine cuisine, and no impressive architecture, so were just generally more conservative all round.) A number of Greek texts around this era and earlier lament the profligacy of the young, their lack of respect for tradition and their elders, and so forth. As a slightly more modern commentator (it might have been H. D. F. Kitto) observed, one can easily find a spiritual affinity with the "conservative" ancient Greek commentators, until one finds that the "unnecessary luxuries and extravagances" were things no more excessive than the use of chamber pots as an alternative to having to visit the nearest field during a rainstorm. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I note that in present day Greece [19] the Conservatives are opposing the public spending cuts advocated by the Socialists. Meanwhile in Brazil, [20] the Communist party has amended the law on preserving the rainforest, to allow small farmers to make more money. It's all a bit confusing.  Card Zero  (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you know why Surigao del Sur is one of the poorest province in the Philippines?

Since the inception of the province of Surigao del Sur to the present time , its boundary road from that of Surigao del Norte known as Noventa or KIlometer 90 could not be fixed properly to the dismay and suffering of its populace who traveled to Surigao City for health, business , official or other related reasons. Much worst during rainy days and the presence of mining companies in the province, many of the potholes before became a great risks for travelers and transportations alike. When could this problem end? Not until we get honest and dedicated government officials as contrast to the previous corrupt ones who only enriched themselves. Please help our province improve by fixing our roads as it is mandatory for commercial, business and health purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.84.191.131 (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this is the reference desk for Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia. If you have a question whose answer we can look up for you, that is our function. We can't help you fix your roads, and we can't even really help get the word out. You need to contact your elected officials, or write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper; or perhaps you should run for office yourself, get elected, and adjust the province's spending priorities yourself. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Quote on 9/11 monument @ New York New York, Las vegas

Does anyone know the exact quote and source?

Do not follow a worn path (path well tread) Make a new path and leave a trail — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave-n-rose (talk • contribs) 22:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Googling seems to come up with "Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail". --

And here's a discussion of the source: not Emerson. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read the link, but as a general rule of thumb, if it wasn't Emerson, it was Thoreau. 188.157.184.168 (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The link says "I WILL not follow where the path may lead, but I will go where there is no path, and I will leave a trail" in My Little Book of Prayer by Muriel Strode, The Open Court Publishing Company 1905 and in another work in 1903. However there were several other claimants at around the same time - none of them were Emerson or Thoreau. The exact wording above ("Do not follow...") seems to date from the 1970s. Alansplodge (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ivy League Colleges

I am a high school student and I've received a lot of mail from colleges interested in me because of my ACT and SAT scores (both only a smidgen from full scores ;) inviting me to take campus tours, giving me posters, online registration, etc. Do Harvard and Yale do this (send mail to students they're interested in) too? Or is this only a characteristic of the "lower colleges"? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call schools that aren't "Harvard and Yale" lower colleges. There are many other colleges (some of them public schools) which outrank Harvard and Yale in many, many rankings. --Jayron32 23:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Ivies do send that kind of information to prospective students. However, receiving it doesn't mean you have a shot at being accepted. I read an article recently about how prestigious schools send out lots and lots of stuff like that knowing that few of the recipients will get in in order to lower their acceptance rate and seem even more prestigious. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

All schools "recruit" to various degrees, but at the highest end of things it is often by underrepresented demographics or geographic area, rather than just raw scores alone. (The number of people in Southern California or New York who get near perfect scores must be quite large; the number in Nowhereville, USA, is quite small.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This sort of advertising from small specialty liberal arts colleges with unique programs is typical. If you have any in mind you would do very well to investigate them with a tour ahead of time, and understand their reputation. Cornell offer(s/ed) early decision application. They put you in contact with an alumnus. Consider taking summer courses at a college that interests you. Large big name schools usually have much more diverse opportunities than small schools. Smaller schools are better for artists and writers who are looking for individual mentorship. μηδείς (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Ivy League schools send this kind of mail as well. Regardless of whether or not you have a chance of getting in, they're making money of your application fees. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

May 27

Detailed unspecified music

I'm looking for no piece of music in particular, but that has several facets. I want it to have a heavy brass section accompanying forte tenors in the chorus. Also, it should be written in, for, and by a Russian. Thanks Wikipedians. Schyler (one language) 01:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright

I'm a little confused about copyright law, viz. music distribution. When is it possible, legally, to share music with, say, a friend? 74.15.138.241 (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Define "share". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe...the act of taking music I purchased and giving either the original copy or a copy thereof to others. Seems like a good definition to me. 74.15.138.241 (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Giving away the original is fine. That's called a "gift". Making copies of it is not fine. That's likely a copyright violation. Whether it can be prosecuted or not depends on (1) whether they catch you and/or (2) whether you or someone else tries to make money from it. I know plenty of folks who make copies of stuff for their friends, such as creating collections from variant sources. Is it illegal? Probably. If in doubt, ask an attorney. There's also a Copyright article here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Bugs is correct. Giving away the original copy is fine. Lending your original copy is fine. Selling the original copy is fine, at least in the US (see first sale doctrine). Making a copy and giving it to a friend is a copyright infringement. Making a copy at all is a copyright infringement, in fact — the whole point of copyright is that only the copyright owner is allowed to make (or authorize the making of) copies. The exception to the previous two sentences for copyrighted music, in the US at least, is if the copy is a fair use, as discussed in that article. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, a few questions (incidentally, I'm not seeking legal advice, and don't do much music sharing...just curious about what the laws are): Suppose I purchased a digital copy of a song off a legitimate music distributor. (1) Am I free to do what I want with this copy, without actually copying it? (2) Hypothetically, suppose I, in secret, made digital copies of the song, and tried to give one to a friend online but got caught. Would the burden of proof fall on the music company to prove that I made a copy, rather than gave the original? (3) Is making a Youtube video of a song actually copying it? (4) How were/are things like Napster, Limewire, etc. legal? Thanks! 74.15.138.241 (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"Making a copy at all is a copyright infringement, in fact" - I have to disagree, at least for the US. There are several cases where one can legally make a copy - for example, a private, non-commercial analog audio copy is provided protection from infringement by the Audio Home Recording Act. ^Avic_ennasis @ 18:10, 23 Iyar 5771 / 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This depends very much on the jurisdiction. "Copyright" is not really just the right to copy. It contains the right to limit distribution, but also to create derivative works. This is surprisingly subtle. In Germany, e.g., if a building is sufficiently significant to come under the architect's copyright, you cannot even change its outer aspects without his or her agreement. You also cannot buy all copies of a book, strike out certain passages, and resell it. On the other hand, you used to have a "right to private copying", i.e. you could make a copy for your own use of all media that legally came into your possession (if by buying, borrowing from a friend, or via a library). IIRC, this was restricted in the latest revision of the law (due to the obvious potential for misuse with digital media), but will probably be re-introduced in some form or another (the Pirate Party has around 2-3 percent here - not enough to be represented in parliament, but enough that the other parties take note of their topics). Napster's argument was that they don't copy, they only provide information on where to copy from (and they were ruled illegal anyways). Peer-to-peer programs like LimeWire are not illegal per se - they can be used to trade free data, e.g. Free Software or media released under a Creative Commons license. LimeWire was hit with an injunction to disable sharing of illegal content, probably because the judge decided that their business model was to enable illegal copying, and judges are not, usually, stupid... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Here in Finland we still have that right to make a copy for private use: for example, it's legal to borrow a CD from the library or from a friend and make a copy for yourself. Since this is a statutory right, it is not affected by any fine print on the CD case. In compensation we have a special fee added to the consumer prices of blank audio media. The proceeds are distributed to copyright owners and artists, as authors receive compensation for library use of books. The system was devised when the music business was panicked about compact cassettes, and I suppose it worked well enough for some time. But since practically all blank media sold now are data media (in no way dedicated to audio use), this system is somewhat obsolete. There are committees considering new ideas - one of them just the other day suggested adding the fee to consumer prices of broadband connections... It never ends, does it.--Rallette (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not clear that the first-sale doctrine applies to digital files under US copyright law. This is a topic actively debated by legal scholars and I'm not sure there has been definitive case law on it yet. The tricky thing is that existing copyright law is designed for expressions fixed in a tangible medium; it isn't really very clear if it is about pure information streams outside of their mediums. It gets terribly complicated when you start to try to apply that clunky legal concept ("tangible medium") to a modern, digital computer (is it the hard drive? the RAM? if I copy it from one place or another on my hard drive, has anything changed? if I make two copies on a single hard drive, what does that mean? if I can't copy it from one hard drive to another, what can I do with it?).

The boundaries of fair use with regards to copying digital files are also not clear. The whole area of case law is still very new — some of the fundamental cases involved (e.g. MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.) are not yet a decade old, and the technology changes faster than the law does. A great overview of many of the key issues involved, written for those who are new to copyright law, is Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture, which you can download for free off of his website. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your answers! 74.15.138.241 (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The above answers are completely incorrect in regard to copying something you own and giving it to someone as a gift (presuming you don't post it online!). This is NOT a colorable case for copyright infringement (and, for the zillionth time, we are talking about CIVIL LAWSUITS, not CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, in most copyright cases). As usual, people on this board are talking out of their b--ts when the subject is LAW. Yes, you CAN copy something you've bought and give it to a friend. Period.76.218.9.50 (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read the carefully worded answers above before writing "people on this board are talking out of their b--ts when the subject is LAW". None of the answers on this reference desk should be taken as giving legal advice, and the law varies considerably by jurisdiction. Dbfirs 09:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Murder in space

Which law does apply in space? For example if an astronaut kills another astronaut in International Space Station, under which law they will be prosecuted? --Go99h (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, how the homicide investigation will be carried out. --Go99h (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Same as on a ship in international waters: the law that usually applies is the law of the country of the ship/craft registration. Some countries says they also have the right to apply their own laws if the victim, or the criminal, has the nationality of that country (e.g. France).

If it is on the ISS, then it depends in which module the crime was done (modules where made by different countries). If is it during a spacewalk on the ISS it would be the country of the closest module. But if it ever happens, it is possible that the owners of the ISS will all get together, ignore these rules, and setup a special court. --Lgriot (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Lgriot: apparently that was how it was in the original agreement (1988), but when the Russians came in it was revised (in 1998) and now all persons aboard the ISS are subject to the jurisdiction of their own country, except in some cases a country may claim jurisdiction if its own nationals were harmed. See this (in particular page 335).--Rallette (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledge the superiority of your reference, Rallette. I was talking based on a book I read and it was published in the 90s. Thanks --Lgriot (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

And interesting point if I understand the ref correctly is that under the pre 1998 (the 1988) agreement the US could claim jurisdiction under any circumstances in other words even if none of their personnel nor any of their modules was involved/affected Nil Einne (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting: you should write a space mystery (like Murder on the Orient Express...in space) cum legal drama. Especially if you can include wizards or paranormal teen romance (perhaps back on Earth), and, somehow, make the thing autobiographical, I can't imagine that any publisher would pass on such a diversified offering...Let me know if you need an agent. 79.122.125.45 (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the subject of Solarstation by Andreas Eschbach (minus the wizards, teen romance, paranormal, autobiographical aspects). Don't know if it has been translated into english yet. Pleclown (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Under Article 22 of the 1998 agreement states have jurisdiction over their own nationals, although if a crime committed damages the property or harms the people of another state, that other state has jurisdiction unless the original state insists on prosecuting it themselves. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 15:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Noone answered my second question. How the homicide investigation will be carried out? --Go99h (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Since no one linked to yet it, here's our article on Space law. --Zerozal (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, the treaties/agreements do not discuss who becomes chief investigator of a crime. Presumably any court that decides that it is "competent" (in the legal sense) to deal with an alledged crime will appoint an investigator? Regarding practical matters, my assumption is that the investigator will not visit the ISS, but will interrogate the witnesses remotely. It is really too expensive to go there. --Lgriot (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

what financial transaction would on any level (even farcically) seem to imply a negative valuation (market capitalization) of a company?

What financial transaction could on any level (even farcically) be construed or misconstrued, joked as giving a company a negative valuation? I can think of this one:

• I own stock 1000 shares in XCorp, and here's 100 bucks if you'll take it off my hands! Therefore: the shares are "worth" (again, jokingly), negative -$100.

The problem with this is that you have to already own the stock. What about some kind of derivative? Like: I will pay you $100 now for the option to take 1000 shares of XCorp off my hands later for an additional $100 (again, me paying you to take them off my hands), if I have XCorp shares then!

What else? What about debt? Something about XCorp putting up shares as collateral, having negative value... so... what... Normally collateral is if they want to borrow money from them. So, negative collateral would be if I want to borrow money from them. Like: "Okay, XCorp, you can lend me $1000, but only if you put up 1000 shares of your stock as collateral, and if I can't pay you back, I get the stock?" That doesn't really work, does it... So, how would you make this contrived (farcical, joke) negative valuation being used as collateral work?

Oh ye creative geniuses: what other examples can you think of in this vein! 79.122.111.99 (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Normally stock is limited liability, but if there were some exception that made the stockholder liable for company debts then it would make sense to offer to pay someone to take the stock and relieve you of liability. The question is then whether it is possible for owning the stock to include liability. RJFJR (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

sorry (op here) but you don't get the question. it's not whether it 'makes sense' - it's whether you can do it as a joke! (I.e. not an arms length transaction)... what joke transactions can you imagine not done at arms length that, were they done at arms length, would mean a negative valuation? For example, if I give you my junk car and $20 to "take it off my hands" - but it's not an arms-length transaction - this would e a good example. If you gave a stranger $20 totake your car, this would be a transaction at a valuation of your car of -$20. Like this do you understand? 94.27.199.132 (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

One possible example for you. Our article Acorn Computers says that in early 1999, "the ARM Holdings share value had increased to a point where the capital value of Acorn Group was worth less than the value of its 24% holding in ARM". You'll need to do some unpicking as to the whys and wherefores - the history is that Acorn had originally co-founded ARM and the original ARM processor was invented by Acorn, which is why Acorn had this large stake - but in theory this means that the company that owned the ARM shares (Acorn) was adding negative value by doing so, since the shares that it owned were worth more than its own market capitalisation. The subsequent offer by a third party to Acorn's shareholders, which resulted in the de-listing of Acorn from the London stock exchange, was a transaction which could be seen as implying this negative valuation. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge, I think you're in a unique position to answer my question! You've come up with a real example :) I'm not asking for an actual real example, though, so you have considerable more leeway for creativity! I'm just asking for something we COULD do. For example, right now, I can offer to send you this pen next to me and a quarter for the trouble of taking it -- ostensibly this values the pen at -25cents by some metric. So... what can YOU AND I do (theoretically - no one has to actually have done it!) and not in good faith, not at arms length... just, as a "joke" and stretching the limits of interpretation, what can you and I do together that would, say, result in a transaction "valuing" a company at a negative amount? (for that particular transaction). I think if I currently held shares and offered to pay you to give me your broker's contact information so I can go about transferring them to you, along with $1000 for the trouble of taking it off my hands... then this particular transaction (which is totally possible: I mean, we can do it!) would include a negative valuation of the company... But, I don't happen to have any stock in it, so I"m looking for more examples along the same vein. Do you see what I'm getting at? I don't really need a historical example, just something you and I can do I right together. Thanks. 94.27.214.110 (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

And again, we're talking about a joke, and stretching interpretation. It doesn't have to be something a judge or anyone else would agree with! For example, it would be very hard to convince someone that sending a pen and a quarter for accepting it in an envelope really in any way means the pen is worth -25 cents. Instead, we are talking about a joke and stretching the limits of plausability - we are asking about troll accounting, joking, not being serious or defendable but only facetious. By this standard, I expect there to be more possibilities than have been enumerated so far... 94.27.214.110 (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

religion

meaning of Gnosticism - gnostics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.212.241.120 (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

See Gnosticism. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Nearest Relative rights

My understanding of a nearest relatives rights with regard to a patient detained under S.2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 was that they did not have the right to appeal to a mental health tribunal.

On reading your information on Nearest Relative rights, you say that they have the right to apply for the discharge of a S.2 patient. If this is correct, and the Responsible Clinician then issues a barring order, does this mean the the Nearest Relative will then have the right to apply for a MHRT?

Cheryl Dare — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheryldare1 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not offer legal advice, per WP:NOLEGAL. Please consult a solicitor instead. Gabbe (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Singers' accents

Hi. Is there a term/do we have an article about the strange exaggerated (American?) accent some singers affect? For example, I heard Here Comes the Rain Again (again) the other day, and heard Annie Lennox's distinctly odd pronounciation of "emotion" as "emosharn". I've never heard a Scot pronounce the word emotion in that way in spoken English. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Variations of cod-American (to British ears) accents and/or diction have been the fashionable default for decades in British pop music, dating back at least to the introduction Skiffle and of Rock & Roll from the USA, if not before, to the extent that singers like David Bowie who employed a more British-English accent (in his case, inspired by actor/singer Anthony Newley, if I remember correctly) stood out as unusual. The Beatles, for example, may have sounded quite foreign to American ears, but in the UK their otherwise familiar Scouse accent was distinctly skewed towards what to us sounded "American." The Britpop movement was in part a reaction against this general fashion, and performers like The Proclaimers who sing in strong Regional accents also stand out somewhat against the "Transatlantic" background. I've been struggling to find references for this phenomenon (much of the above is simply remembered from the past 50 years), so it might be a good topic for an article if anyone (else) can find the appropriate material.

Shorter response - I dunno, but there oughtta be. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.166 (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As a native of the north-eastern U.S. I always wondered why so many singers adopted what sounded, to me, like a vaguely Southern accent - drawling a couple of vowels, dropping an R or two - even if they're from my neck of the woods. The dropped R's, at least, make this Platonic ideal singing voice a bit more compatible with many English accents, but I don't know why those particular ideals evolved. Perhaps it is to do with imitation being flattery: it seems to me that (for example) many American punk singers imitated Joey Ramone's unique vowel pronunciations, and many heavy metal singers tried (with varying degrees of success) to hit the same high notes that Robert Plant did to great effect. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that these are probably cases of Mid-Atlantic English. Our article on that topic mainly refers to Americans who adopted elements of British pronunciation during an era when those pronunciations had prestige (and market cachet) in the United States. However, in recent decades, I think that it has been British performers who have altered their pronunciation, partly for reasons of fashion, but also no doubt partly for greater marketability in the United States, with its potential for much higher sales figures than could be attained in the UK alone. Marco polo (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Madonna has gone Mid-Atlantic. You wouldn't know she was an Italian girl from Detroit. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not just a British phenomenon. Many Australian singers do the same thing. My impression is that most are not even aware of doing it. It's just what one does when one sings (if one doesn't think about it). Much more a fashion thing than for marketing purposes. HiLo48 (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

In some cases, sung pronunciation is altered not so much to make it sound like the accent of some group or other, as because of the exigencies of singing itself. When I sang choral music, I was taught to use non-rhotic pronunciation, for example, on the explanation that the R semivowel is problematic when sung. The [i] vowel poses its own challenges and is often shaded a bit, especially in high passages, I suppose towards [e]; it's possible that some listeners perceive that as part of an accent, though I wouldn't know which one. --Trovatore (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I've seen fashion changes over the years. I did choral singing in Australia in my youth through to the 1970s. We were expected (sometimes taught) to sing with what I felt was a British accent - probably middle class Londonish. As I mentioned above, a lot of Australians, including choral singers, now use more of an American accent when singing. When John Williamson from Quambatook turned up in 1970 singing Old Man Emu we were all shocked that someone could sing in Australian. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Very true. But I'd just add that his speaking and singing voice have characteristics that I'd call extreme. Very few Australians actually sound as uber-Australian as that when they talk or sing. Which I guess is why he's carved out a unique niche for himself. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I never considered Annie Lennox's pronunciation as American in this instance. OK the usual pronunciation of "-tion" is usually "shun" but IME there are variants of Scottish accents in which her exact pronunciation as "-tion" would not be unusual. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This research from New Zealand suggests that an American accent comes naturally for singing rock and pop because it's an American style of music; "For example when we sing reggae we are more likely to use a Jamaican accent but even someone from Jamaica might use a southern American accent when they are singing country and western type songs". Personally, I find it hard to sing Men of Harlech (sounds great in the bath - to me anyway) without affecting a Welsh accent :-) Alansplodge (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The phenomenon is far from recent. Up until about 1940 or 1950, many American singers and actors affected a British (or at least upper-class Northeastern U.S.) accent when they were trying to project a refined air of Glamour and Sophistication; but after about 1910 or 1920, many British singers would sometimes affect American ones, coinciding with the rise of jazz, phonographic recording, the wireless (radio) and later talking pictures. For example, while Dame Vera Lynn may sound irretrievably British to some North American ears, a song like "We'll Meet Again" (1939) is not sung in any recognisable British regional or class accent; it's a sort of generalised American (at least to British ears), although it's hard to think of someone who's more iconically and patriotically English than Dame Vera. A couple of decades later, The Rolling Stones covered and imitated the American blues singers they'd grown up admiring as schoolboys. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Mick Jagger does a hell of a better US southern accent than he does an Irish one. Have a listen to him singing Faraway Eyes as the dude travelling home early Sunday mownin through Bakersfield....; then go and listen to him as he attempts an Irish accent in Ned Kelly (film)!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Intellectual/scientist cum businesspeople

Please give some examples of people who are both scientist/intellectual and businesspeople, preferably those without formal education. One example I know is Edison. --DHOD 1234 (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thales#Business (the first thing that occurred to me, unfortunately)? Deor (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd nominate Sir Charles Wheatstone, best known today for his contributions to science, who at 14 was apprenticed to his family's musical instrument trade. Later inheriting and running the family business, and becoming a successful musical instrument inventer (of, notably, the Concertina), gave him the skills and finance also to make scientific instruments and pursue groundbreaking research in the field of acoustics. [A tip of the hat to Sydney Padua for introducing me to much of this through her webcomic The Thrilling Adventures of Lovelace and Babbage.]

Another good candidate would be George Stephenson. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.166 (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Back in the 18th century an example would be Benjamin Franklin, an autodidact who was a publisher as well as a respected scientist. The OP mentioned Thomas Edison. It was far easier to be considered a "scientist" in the 19th century than it was later, when a far higher proportion of clever tinkerers were afforded high school and college educations. Several men born in the 19th century were inventors and were considered scientists, as well as heads of major industrial companies, without apparently having any formal college education. In the same era as Edison a competitor and later business partner, Joseph Swan, another inventor, was considered a scientist although his article only mentions his being apprenticed to a pharmacist. No higher education is mentioned. Henry Bessemer, head of a steel company, had no higher education, but was lauded as an engineer and scientist. Like Edison, Guglielmo Marconi "did not do well in school" and was "educated privately" per his article. He was from a rich family, so his interest in electricity was fostered by tutoring in a college lab of Righi. There is no information in his article that he was enrolled as a college student or that he received any college credit, but maybe someone could research this. (Edited to add: [21] says he was "educated for a short time" at the Technical Institute of Livorno". So he might not have completed course credits, or if he did, he would qualify as a dropout, like Tesla). Marconi was considered a scientist, receiving a share of the 1909 Nobel Prize in physics, and was a tycoon in the radio business. The Wright Brothers never completed their high school educations, but were considered scientists as well as heading an aircraft company. Noted architect Daniel Burnham failed the entrance exams to get into college, but apprenticed to learn architecture. His company was very important in introducing steel framed skyscrapers, such as the Flatiron Building in New York City. Edison (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if Trevor Baylis and James Dyson count for this? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think they would fall foul of the OP's "preferably those without formal education" stipulation. Although neither went the conventional university degree route, they both received normal primary and secondary educations plus formal tertiary education at non-university but nevertheless respected institutions, in fields at least tangential to the disciplines in which they became successful.

I was thinking about Michael Faraday, who taught himself science by reading the books he encountered as an apprentice bookbinder and became a prominent professional scientist, but although he also undertook much public and commercial advisory work (for some of which he was presumably paid), he might not fit the OP's definition of a businessperson. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.166 (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

At the time of the Industrial Revolution (and before that, the Scientific Revolution), boys were lucky to be educated to 14. After that, they were bound out as apprentices, which was a long period - up to seven years - of what could be called on the job training. So does that satisfy the OP's conditions? A lad apprenticed to a miller or a blacksmith could go on to develop significant improvements to energy and engineering technologies. Lots of links from the first two articles. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Paris Hilton

Does she have university education? --DHOD 1234 (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No. She only has a GED - not even a full high school education. -- kainaw™ 15:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? Her parents need to be whacked upside the head. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Too rich to care.--Wetman (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Gilliam Asperger's Disorder Scale (GADS)

Is this available free on the web? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering it seems to have been published in 2001 and is for sale at several sites like Amazon.com, I would say no. At least, legally, it's still under copyright, so any copies you find would be illegal. ^Avic_ennasis @ 18:19, 23 Iyar 5771 / 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but if it is, it should be called eGADS. 94.27.214.110 (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Requirement for signatures to be consistent?

I'm looking for pointers to laws or contracts that require a person to use a consistent signature on documents. Would a person be able to use an arbitrary signature that differs each time they sign a cheque, or a credit card payment authorization? If not, what legislation or contract prevents that? An example from any country would be fine, but I'm especially interested in Canada and the US. Sancho 19:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: I've found an example where notaries public in the Cayman Islands need to sign documents with a signature that is consistent with a specimen that is on file. However, my question is about the general population. Sancho 19:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe there is a general requirement for signatures to be consistent. Like most people who have to sign their names multiple times every day, my common signature is very poor (a C followed by a long up-down zig-zag pattern). But, when I bought my house and opened by check account, I was told that I had to sign with a "complete" signature that showed by whole name. So, it appears to me that the requirements of the signature depend on those involved in the legal work. -- kainaw™ 19:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The only legal purpose of a stable signature is identification of the signatory. There's no legal reason you cannot sign each cheque with a different signature, but if you do that then you can expect that most of your cheques will be returned 'not paid', which will cause you inconvenience. This will be because the bank cannot identify who signed the cheque. It's a security issue. Google legal signature. 190.56.18.72 (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"There's no legal reason you cannot sign each cheque with a different signature, but if you do that then you can expect that most of your cheques will be returned 'not paid'". Obviously, this is not true, as almost everyone can attest. Why do people make stuff up in their responses on this board, especially in regard to legal subjects?76.218.9.50 (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't "made up"! At one time, banks in many countries checked the signature on each cheque, and would return unpaid any cheque without a signature or with a signature that didn't match the one held on record. Modern banking seldom has time for this attention to detail, but I think probably still does a signature check for large or unusual amounts. Perhaps someone with knowledge of current banking practices can conform this? Dbfirs 08:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that you may not even need to sign the cheque for it to be valid. Under certain circumstances, the sole reason for the signature is as a signal of intent. (That is, it's an indication that you agree to be bound by the contract/agreement. See point 2 of Signature#Function_and_types_of_signatures) As I understand it, in certain jurisdictions just the act of filling out the cheque is seen as enough of a signal of intent that it creates a valid cheque, even in the absence of a signature. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As a followup, then: is there an example of precedent in North American case law where it was decided that the intent was what makes a signature, rather than the form? Sancho 17:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat relevant and contains references : The Straight Dope : Does it Matter if you Sign a Contract With a Name That's Not Your Own?.

APL (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright question

Alright, should I upload this as fair-use and reduce the quality, or could I upload it as PD? The image was published between the years of 1935 to 1940. Albacore (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That depends on whether or not it was published with a copyright notice, and whether or not it was renewed. If the image was published without a copyright notice, {{PD-Pre1978}} applies. If it did have a copyright notice at the time it was published, but that copyright was not renewed, it would have then lapsed into the public domain and {{PD-US-not renewed}} would apply. ^Avic_ennasis @ 22:16, 23 Iyar 5771 / 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Grandville artwork

Does anyone know where high-resolution images of Grandville's artwork (especially his metamorphoses) can be found online? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 22:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

May 28

American journalist who brought the existence of black supremacism to the general public

I remember reading an article about a black american journalist who was amongst the firstS to bring about the existence of black supremacism to the general American public in the 60-70s, in the form of a television documentary. Any ideas? I'm not sure, but I believe it was a PBS production. It was controversial. Raskolkhan (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Murder on a plane

Hypothetical situation: I'm a German, taking an American Airlines flight from London to New York. Halfway across the Atlantic, I take a dislike to the Spaniard sitting next to me and beat him to death. Who's got jurisdiction? --Carnildo (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

We had a similar question the other day about Dominique Strauss-Kahn's arrest in New York. See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Air France plane on US soil. The same rules likely apply. Dismas|^(talk) 01:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If you've got diplomatic immunity, then Germany. Otherwise the USA. And maybe also Germany and Spain, depending on what their laws say. 174.53.163.119 (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Multiple jurisdiction is common. In this case, Spain would definitely have jurisdiction; and others might have concurrent jurisdiction, depending on their "long-arm" laws.76.218.9.50 (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"Ministry of Helth"

The topic is langauge, but this is more of a history question: according to the English language spelling reform article,

In 1969 Harry Lindgren proposed Spelling Reform 1 (SR1), which calls for the short /e/ sound (as in bet) to always be spelt with <e> (for example friend→frend, head→hed). For a short time, this proposal was popular in Australia and was adopted by the Australian Government. In Geoffrey Sampson's book Writing Systems (1985) he wrote that SR1 "has been adopted widely by Australians. Many general interest paperbacks and the like are printed in SR1; under Gough Whitlam's Labour Government the Australian Ministry of Helth was officially so spelled (though, when Whitlam was replaced by a liberal administration, it reintroduced orthographic conservatism)".

"Ministry of Helth"? Really? I'm Australian, though a few decades to young for any firsthand knowledge of this one, and I find it hard to believe. It should be legitimate--the quote referenced in the article is real, from an academic book--but I can't find any other references to back it up, and the claim stretches credulity. Can anyone more conclusively prove/disprove it? — maestrosync ^talk — 07:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

To answer my own question, it seems that spelling reform was a pet project of the Minister for Health, Doug Everingham, who may have used the "Ministry of Helth" spelling himself, but it wasn't otherwise adopted widely. In 1981, years after the Whitlam government had been dismissed, he entered a press release into Hansard saying "in its first decade SR1 has been used in published anthologies, a novelette and a government discussion booklet which I issued on community helth policies for the A.C.T"[22]. Notably absent from the list of not-particularly-impressive achievements is anything about the name 'Ministry of Helth' being officially adopted. — maestrosync ^talk — 07:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's complete rubbish, really.

See Minister for Health and Ageing (Australia), which has the sentence: From 1972-1975 under Doug Everingham, the Ministry was named the "Ministry of Helth" in some contexts due to Everingham's support of Spelling Reform. My emphasis added. And I would also add "informally" to make it clear the Helth spelling was never officially adopted for either the name of the portfolio (then Minister for Health) or the department (then Department of Health).

We don't even have "ministries" as such in Australia, so the form "Ministry of He(a)lth" has no status, official or otherwise. Federal ministers are "Minister for ...", and their departments are "Department of ...". Most state titles are similar, except in South Australia, which has "Ministers of ...".

Since we're talking spelling, Gough Whitlam led a Labor (not Labour) government, but it followed small-l labour principles. The government of Malcolm Fraser, which replaced Whitlam's, could not possibly have "reintroduced orthographic conservatism", since it was never abandoned in the first place. For all his labour credentials, Whitlam is a thorough-going classicist and an upholder of conservativism when it comes to the language, his use of which having brought him a certain renown, and imo he would never have permitted this spelling change to be formally promulgated. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that dose of sanity and clarity Jack. I was a "Commonwealth Public Servant" (as we were then known) in the Whitlam days, and exciting days they were. I can vaguely recall some discussion of this idea, and can even remember the term SR1. For those unaware, this was the first non-conservative national government in Australia in 23 years. A lot of long term LabOR stalwarts had to be rewarded with senior jobs, so the government was stacked with loose cannons seeking change. It's no surprise that an idea like this arose, but it definitely went nowhere. I'd like to see a study of all (or at least a lot of) the other "exciting" ideas that arose and died during the short life of that government. Anyone remember Aldonga? HiLo48 (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This is like old home week for me, HiLo. I not only remember "Aldonga", I was born there - well, in Albury - and spent my first 10 years there. I'd moved away well before 1972, but any questions about the future of the city were always naturally of great interest to me. I'm visiting there next week for the first time in about 5 years. I also worked for the Department of Health at the time Whitlam was elected, but my area was immediately split off to form the new Department of Social Security, so I had no experience of Doug Everingham and his ways. I had to be content with Bill Hayden, and I can still remember a circular from the new minister, promising us exciting times ahead (yes, but maybe not for the reasons he thought), and how he wished to get around and meet all of us individually (er, that was never going to happen). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

are there people with no citizenship?

Can you renounce your last citizenship? (e.g. US citizensihp), or would they not let you if you don't have another one? 79.122.91.246 (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about your specific question, but there are remote tribes which aren't registered with governments at all, so they of course don't have citizenships. See uncontacted peoples. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 09:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

See Garry Davis and statelessness. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with TreasuryTag's answer. You don't have to consent to become a citizen of a place, although you can of course renounce it. Many people aren't registered with a government but are nevertheless citizens of the relevant country because, for example, they are born to parents who are citizens. Generally, there is no duty for a person to register a child for that child to be a citizen, unless that child is, for example, born overseas.

An uncontacted tribesman who lives in the Brazilian Amazon is probably a Brazilian citizen (unless Brazilian law makes an exception for certain indigenous peoples).

The concept you want is the one pointed out by Gandalf61 - i.e. stateless persons. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You may not agree, but it's nevertheless true. Citizenship requires some degree of awareness. If the person is not aware that there is a Brazilian government, and the Brazilian government is not aware of each tribesperson, then there is no citizenship. They couldn't turn up in Rio and demand a passport. They couldn't stroll along to a polling station and insist on being allowed to vote. They're (I'm guessing on this one) not included on population stats.

I think that in most countries (certainly the UK) there is a legal requirement to register births, and if one fails to do so within six weeks, one can be fined under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953. The child will obviously still be considered a citizen because it's not their fault that their parents were irresponsible. But in the case of tribes, they live their whole life disconnected from government activity, so how can there be citizenship? ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 10:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

One question is what you mean by "citizenship" - obviously to consider yourself a citizen requires personal awareness, but to have a government consider you a citizen does not (e.g. imagine if you your parents register you at birth in the UK, but then move you to some other place without ever telling you you were registered with UK citizenship - the UK has you registered as a citizen, and you've never renounced it (because you're not aware of it), so the UK will still consider you to be a citizen, regardless of the fact that you're unaware of it.) I don't know if you are speaking with specific knowledge of Brazilian nationality law, but the article says that Brazil applies jus soli, that is, everyone born in Brazil is a Brazilian citizen, regardless of parental status. My surmise is that uncontacted people, if born in Brazilian territories, would be regarded as having Brazilian citizenship. They *could* turn up in Rio and demand a passport or demand to vote, if they ever figured out what "a passport" or "voting" was. The only limitation probably being having to prove they were actually born on Brazilian soil (e.g. weren't just a Bolivian claiming to be an uncontacted tribesman) and the regular regulatory/registration hoops that any other native-born Brazilian would encounter. (I assume you're not claiming that someone, even an adult, who has never bothered to apply for a passport or register to vote isn't a citizen because of it.) The not being counted in population tallies is because, as uncontacted people, the Brazilian government doesn't know they exist. It's quite possible that once being made aware of them, Brazil would count them in the population. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness requires that laws on renunciation make that renunciation usually contigent on acquiring another citizenship (and also generally forbids countries from depriving people of citizenship if it will render them stateless). Although there have only been 37 countries that have ratified or acceded. I have an idea there was another UN convention that said something similar that was more widely accepted but can't find it and perhaps I'm just remembering wrong (since I can't find mention in any document even in those which discuss the concept). Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Have in mind that laws on citizenship are not universal, each country has its own one. Cambalachero (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

For the 37 countries who ratified or acceded to the convention in theory it shouldn't matter. They are forbidden (by and large) from rendering people stateless whatever their citizenship laws as they have agreed to be bound by the convention. However the issue can arise when countries differ in their interpretation of whether people have acquired other citizenship e.g. [23] although Malaysia would likely be seen as the party at fault here and they have not ratified or acceded to the convention anyway. (And countries may differ in their interpretation of what they ratified or acceded to e.g. as with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and it's unlikely the UN Security Council will take up the issue of country X's apparently violating the treaty by depriving Mr/Ms ABC of their citizenship.) As an interesting example, I found out you're supposed to pay a fee if you want to renounce your Malaysian citizenship e.g. [24] [25] [26] [27]. Except that Malaysia discourages dual citizenship (per the constitution) and will generally terminate your Malaysian citizenship if you acquire it (although it isn't automatic) so they want you to pay for something they are trying to do anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The answer to the subject-line question is: YES, it is possible for someone to have NO citizenship. Legislation sometimes attempts to rectify this by looking for the relevant loopholes, including some of the loopholes associated with the bogus problem of Obama's citizenship (see the US laws passed in the 1930s or 40s about unwed mothers, etc., and the discussions motivating parts of those laws -- there was a lot of concern about loopholes creating citizenship-less people).76.218.9.50 (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

When I was in Australia 20 years or so ago, I met a Scout Leader from Brunei who was a stateless person and had a document from the UN (I believe) to prove it. I think his place of birth was Malaysia but it was a long time ago and I'm struggling to recall the details. He thought there were some advantages to being stateless and seemed to be able to travel around as easily as us everyday folk with passports. Alansplodge (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

why is london on weird time?

why isn't london on normal european time, like Paris? it's right next to Paris (just accross the english channel, pretty much) so why isn't it in the same time zone? 188.156.238.160 (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You've got it the wrong way round. London is on the right time, Paris (only about 11 minutes IFIRC ahead of Greenwich) has gone an hour ahead. DuncanHill (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

All time has been historically derived from the Greenwich Meridian, which was – and sort of still is – at 0 hours. (There's a GMT/BST issue. – hence discussions like this which suggest we might decide to have "permanent summer time" which would put us on the same time as Paris for c.half the year. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Greenwich Mean Time is based on taking noon to be when the sun is overhead at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, London. Not all the weird. It has historically been considered more convenient for Great Britain, mainly to the west of London, to all be in the same time zone as London: presumably the French have found it more convenient to be in the same time zone, Central European Time, as countries further to the east. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Until the Second World War France and Britain shared the same time zone. During the German occupation, French time was advanced to match Germany, and they never reverted afterwards. On the first day of the German occupation of the Channel Islands they did the same thing there and advanced the clocks by two hours, but unfortunately didn't tell the person who had the keys to the government buildings in St Helier, so they were locked out until the normal opening time. The islands reverted to British time after the war. The plain fact is that the CET timezone is much wider than the 15 degrees one would expect, but from the perspective of solar time the UK is in the correct timezone. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

cost and time between London and Paris

If I wake up at 3 AM in the morning in London and decide "Today I'm going to Paris" how much will it cost me to go to a train station and buy a ticket for that day? How long will my trip take? 188.156.238.160 (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply that I will do it right away - I can go back to sleep for a few more hours. I just mean, without booking in advance... 188.156.238.160 (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

£179.00, one way, London St Pancras to Paris Nord. And you won't be able to leave until this afternoon. If you had booked at 3am, there might have been tickets available earlier! Book here. --Kateshortforbob _talk 10:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Forgot about the second part of your question. The first available train takes 2 hours and 25 minutes, the shortest seems to be 2h 15m.--Kateshortforbob _talk 10:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, French people travelling to London no longer have to ask for a ticket to Waterloo. It was a great gag while it lasted ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

TIPS and U.S. Sovereign debt

Sovereign debt can be inflated away, inflated away, inflated away...
Of course, any move by the U.S. government to inflate away its' liabilities ("printing money") would crash the dollar, and with it, the U.S. economy. But if the alternatives are worse, it may be forced to do just that.
My question is, what about the part that can't be inflated away, however much money is printed? Yes, I'm talking about Treasury Inflation-protected Securities and other Inflation-indexed bonds. How do they feature in the equation? They may compose only a small portion of the debt, but do they have any significant ramifications on U.S. Sovereign debt repayment calculations? Of course, one factor is the link between the US Consumer Price Index (to which the bonds are indexed) and the "money printing". How strong is this link? What's the correlation factor between the two? And do the TIPS affect the U.S. debt problem?
Also, as a somewhat separate issue, I see many people posing a theoretical return to the Gold Standard. But precious metal prices can be Shorted away. At least until someone with the money says "Stand and deliver the metal" - then all hell breaks loose. So how could a "gold standard" ensure stability, if it, too, can be (and has been) manipulated?
Thirdly, also on currency matters, the U.S. hates the weak yuan. but if Black Wednesday could force reality into an artificially overvalued currency, why can't the reverse be done to the Yuan? I know the Yuan isn't supposed to trade on world markets, but how about a non-chinese-approved "black market" smuggling Yuan out of China? Could it force a collapse of the artificially low Yuan?
(I hope I don't cause a storm here - I know U.S. economic policy is a controversial subject). Eliyohub (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This format is not really suited to handling three difficult and largely unrelated questions all at once. Could you please isolate the one you would most like us to deal with? Looie496 (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to inflate away the debt. You can just print money and use that money to pay off the debt. That act will cause inflation, but that's just a by-product. The inflation caused by printing the money won't usually be enough to make the government poorer overall. During hyperinflation, that can happen though. --Tango (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

O.K. Apologies. Lets' focus on the first question, then. Do TIPS present a kink in the strategy of "printing money" to cover the debt? How big a kink? And what is the correlation factor between "money printing" and the consumer price index? (This is relevant, as TIPS are indexed to the CPI). Eliyohub (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said, you don't need inflation to get rid of the debt. You can just pay it off with the printed money. The inflation is a by-product, not the goal. --Tango (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Environmentalism

I'm looking for a news source dedicated principally to environmental issues. Does anyone have any recommendations? 74.15.138.241 (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You can find some at User:Wavelength/About Earth's environment/Sources and User:Wavelength/About Earth's environment/Electromagnetic fields.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

See also List of environmental periodicals and List of environmental websites.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Chinese Calligraphy Help

I am just beginning my study of this art form and I have a few questions. 1) Every text I've read insists that one should learn Chinese calligraphy, painting, and the language at once to be proficient at calligraphy. Why study painting as well and what benefits does learning the language impart? I can understand from a practical point why learning Mandarin would enable a student to further his studies, but what aesthetic advantages does learning the language supply? 2) There are some characters that are printed and brush-written differently (復, for example). Where can I find a list/more information about these? 3) I think I may benefit from professional instruction. How can I locate a teacher?CalamusFortis 23:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't answer, but you might be interested in a book called "How to Write Chinese Characters" by Johan Björkstén, Yale University Press, copyright 1994, ISBN 0-300-05771-7. RJFJR (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the book has only the basic principles of Chinese calligraphy and I already have a decent book on the basics. I appreciate the thought, though.CalamusFortis 01:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As for the question #2, difference of what? Simplified and traditional in the infobox? Or script differences like this? Oda Mari (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, answering 2) isn't as simple as Kai Shu vs. Hsing Shu or simplified vs. traditional; Chinese calligraphy uses traditional characters, with simplified being easier for everyday writing and printing. The only way I can clarify is to refer readers to this YouTube video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kq044ZQRC0. Note that the first two characters inked by the artists look different from how they are written in the video title. Only a few characters here and there are modified for the brush and I'd like to know both which ones and the reasoning, if any exists beyond tradition, for the modified shape.CalamusFortis 08:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Hepburn: miner, unionist, social reformer

Hi there, Looking for some information on Thomas Hepburn, the wiki article is unreferenced and I not seen anything really helping me on my way. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by MedicRoo (talk • contribs) 23:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

May 29

Net worth of billionaires

When we say that the net worth of a billionaire is US$50 billions, what does this figure include? Does it mean the billionaire has this money in the form of readily available cash, or does it include the value of their homes, movable assets (cars, aircraft, yachts etc), shares etc? If the second is correct, the amount of readily available cash will be much smaller, right? --123Wosd (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The articles Net worth and Wealth (economics) go over this a bit. And yes, it includes houses, cars, etc. Dismas|^(talk) 00:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"Readily available cash" means things that are easily liquidated. The balance sheet for a corporation will have a separate line for this called "cash and cash-equivalents" or the like, yet the "worth" of the company will be different. Similarly, a measure of "worth" can be defined differently, so it depends on the source's definition of "worth." Generally, "worth" does NOT exclusively mean "cash and cash-equivalents," so in all probability the answer to your question is "it includes more than the form of readily available cash."76.218.9.50 (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Right. A lot of billionaires are really "paper billionaires," as their net worth is primarily in the equity of their companies, such as Larry Ellison's 22% or so stake in Oracle. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Prince El Darago of Italy

Who was Prince El Darago of Italy who visited Hawaii with Prince Oscar Bernadotte in 1884.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

El Darago doesn't sound like a common Italian name. Are you sure it isn't something like del Drago? --151.41.134.156 (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume this is your source? Gabbe (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Networks' past projects

Sometime in the 1980's, ABC had these public service announcements. One was for Don't Do Drugs. One was for Don't Drink and Drive. One was for Project Literacy U.S. (PLUS). Meanwhile, CBS had this literacy project called Read More About It. The project had some referals to books after the closing credits of some certain television specials, mini-series and television movies. In the early 1990s, ABC had this public service announcements. One was for Children First. The other was for Never Stop Learning. I'm interested in more information about these past projects. Where can I find the information?24.90.204.234 (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Nevada

Is Nevada the most libertarian state? --DHOD 1234 (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

According to this, South Dakota is the "most libertarian" though I don't know if they define it the same way that you would since "most libertarian" is vague. Dismas|^(talk) 03:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

copyrights

i thought of this after seeing a question about copyrights in the archives. if you buy an album , it become your property rite? So why cant you dispose of the content s of the album as you please? Why is it that we are bound by copyright laws?

or is it implicit that when we buy an album we r telling these guys that we wont copy it . is there some sort of an agreement between the company and the consumer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.135.77.108 (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You should probably read our Intellectual property article. But yes, when you buy an album, you are usually buying the right to play it, not to make multiple copies of it to pass on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

In oral arguments before the Supreme Court in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., Don Verrilli, representing MGM stated: "And let me clarify something I think is unclear from the amicus briefs. The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod. There is a very, very significant lawful commercial use for that device, going forward." Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (3/29/05), 04-480

And that was from years ago. It shows that they almost expect people to upload/copy it in some fashion. As for the why, imagine this scenario - You have a good idea for a song, which you decide to produce and sell for 1 dollar. Now imagine someone pays you 1 dollar for your song, then turns around and sells 1000 copies at 10 dollars a piece. Wouldn't you be upset that someone else was making tons of money from your work? Copyright laws exist to prevent this. (How well they do that is up to debate.) ^Avic_ennasis @ 07:11, 25 Iyar 5771 / 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Intellectual property is an abstract concept, different from physical property. It recognizes that forms of authorship are themselves a form of property right that transcend the medium they are printed on. So when you buy a book, you are not really buying a wad of paper, ink, and glue. You're buying a piece of authorship — what matters most are the order of the words on the pages, not the fact that there are pages. Now, with physical books and CDs, there is a thing called the first-sale doctrine, which says, if you bought it, you can do what you want with it, within the limits of copyright. So you could lend it to a friend, or sell it on eBay, or use it to decorate your house. Copyright law says, well, you bought the physical book, but you don't own the intellectual material inside the book. So you can't start your own printing press and make your own copies of the book, much less sell them.

This makes good sense for most of us, who buy the argument that indeed, if everyone could be their own printing press and sell an author's work without giving any money to the author, you'd be severely reducing incentives for authors to write new books. We also generally recognize the unfair nature of, say, a press producing books by an author without giving them a cut of the royalties. (There are some who say, "well, there would be some authors who would write for the pure joy of it, even if they didn't get paid." This may be true, especially when the bar for new content creation is low. But I challenge those advocates to watch someone else get very rich off of their own creations, and not feel a bit irked about it.)

The queasy and difficult bits comes in when we start talking about information completely independent of any static medium — such as on a computer. The ease of reproduction, in particular the way in which copying or "sharing" data does not reduce any physical commodity makes us feel that it is somehow different from, say, a physical book. If I "shared" with you my physical book, there would still only be one book in circulation. If I share an MP3, there are now two in circulation. This means that generally speaking, the only property that comes into play is intellectual property, divorced of its physical manifestation. Exactly what rights the content producers have, versus the content users, with regards to paid for intellectual property are still being worked out, and no doubt this area of law is going to continue to evolve for many decades to come, as the stakes have gotten very high all of the sudden.

So, to answer. You "own" a physical book, or CD, or poster. Your purchase, however, was only for the physical medium, not for the song or text or image itself. Those rights are still held by the author (or, more likely, their publisher). That does not mean you completely lack any rights there — see fair use, for example — but you do have limitations. The goal of this system is to enrich authors and publishers, with the hope that this will make authors want to be authors, and thus produce more culture. A great primer on all of this which discusses many of the benefits and pitfalls of intellectual property systems, is Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture, which you can download free from his website. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

We have an article, History of copyright law, that will be good for answering the question of "why". To answer your question about an implicit agreement with the author, no, there is no implicit agreement; just a law that you have to follow. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Tallest building in the US

On an old episode of QI, Stephen Fry said that, until the building of the Washington Monument, the tallest building in the US was in Baltimore. Could somebody say what it is? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This page says it was the Phoenix Shot Tower in Baltimore (234 ft). However the Phoenix Shot Tower page says it was replaced as the tallest in the US in 1846, by the third Trinity Church (Manhattan), at 281 feet. Since the Washington Monument wasn't finished until 1884 there could well be other buildings ranking tallest in the US between Trinity Church and the Washington Monument. Pfly (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Another page that might answer the question is List of tallest buildings in the United States#Timeline of tallest buildings. Neither the Phoenix Shot Tower nor the Washington Monument are listed—I'm guessing they are not counted as "buildings". Still, St. Michael's Church, Old Town, Chicago, 1869, was the tallest at 290 feet. Pfly (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Black Saturday Bushfires

What lessons have been learned regarding the disaster and what changes have been made? 220.233.83.26 (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

We have a policy not to do people's homework for them. Read Black Saturday bushfires and its associated sources, and you will learn what you need to learn for your assignment. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Name of the philosopher

moved from WT:PHILO. Skomorokh 10:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, what's the name of the philosopher who ~3k years ago, he said something like that the humankind was recent, opposed to the view that it always existed. He argued that in 20 years he saw humanity evolve a lot, and that it implied it had to be recent, because otherwise technology would be much more advanced in his time. I read this argument long time ago I don't remember where, and now I want to see the article about this philosopher. Thanks! José Henrique Campos (talk) 09:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please elaborate. By writing "~3k years ago" do you mean a philosopher who lived more than 3000 years ago? --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure about it being 3000 years ago, as opposed to 2500 years ago ? From our article at ancient philosophy, we don't have any listed quite that far back. (I assume there were philosophers back then, but, since that predated writing in most places, they left no record.) StuRat (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Also such an application of the Idea of Progress to technology as well as human evolution doesn't seem readily applicable to any of the philosophers of pre-modern times. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the date. I read it long time ago, and now I can't find it anywhere. If I remember well he argued something about some improvement on the ships used in his time. Maybe I'm just confusing things. Thanks guys! José Henrique Campos (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Was bush sr the last US president to have any sons?

May ur first child be a masculine one lol just kiddimg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.139.10 (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Almost certainly Yes. Danny Williams is alleged to be son of Bill Clinton but this is just a a colorful story that is unlikely. George W. Bush has only twin daughters Barbara and Jenna. Barack Obama has only daughters Malia Ann and Natasha of whom at least one is not the twin of the other. May all your children be born naked. Just kidding. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

CL3 — Stormfront is not a reliable source one way or another, to say the least. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that was part of CL3's point Nil Einne (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Castilian Spanish, revisited

Hey all, I asked a question on the language desk a few weeks ago (archive) about what a Latin American would think upon hearing Castilian; I've been away from technology for the past 4 weeks and just got back. I notice that the responses I got were mostly about comprehensibility, which really wasn't the point (I already was pretty sure they were comprehensible); this is really a culture question. Additionally, there is another factor that I did not bring up last time: I am of Korean descent, and Spanish has practically no presence in East Asia (besides the Philippines). While I studied in Spain, I got strange looks when I spoke Spanish with the proficiency that I do- and this was from educated Spaniards, who had gone to college, who had traveled the world, and who spoke several languages themselves! - and I was speaking their dialect! I know that I will mostly be dealing with signficantly less educated American speakers, so my question is really, what would be a Latin American speaker's reaction; i.e., would they be less comfortable dealing with me in Spanish, etc.? Thank you. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Two advices: statements about "signficantly less educated American speakers" are a bit unwise. My second advice is not to use the English language wiki for such a matter; try rather the Spanish language wiki. They know probably more about the issue and can probably provide you with better answers. Flamarande (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I don't understand the above question. "Less comfortable" than what? I think you may be alluding to your looking Asian yet speaking Spanish, and you may actually be asking How will a Latin American Spanish speaker react to me, an Asian, speaking Castilian Spanish to them, but that's a guess on my part. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Flamarande that it would be better to ask this question on the Spanish Reference Desk, since there are few, if any, native Spanish speakers from the United States on this desk. However, since Spanish-speaking Latin Americans in the United States would not generally expect a person of Asian descent in the United States to speak any Spanish, I expect that they will be pleased that you speak any version of their language and will just assume that you learned it in Spain. However, I would suggest that you not make any assumptions about the level of education of Latin Americans that you may encounter. Some may be as well educated as you are. Also, I would suggest that you always ask whether U.S. Latin Americans would prefer to speak Spanish or English instead of presuming that they all prefer Spanish. Many U.S.-born Latinos are more comfortable speaking English. Marco polo (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Foreigners in Japan during WWII

What happened to the foreginers in Japan during WWII? I know there where Koreans in Japan, but Kora was a Japanese colony at the time - I am referreing to foreign citizents. Does wikipedia have an article about this? I haven't found one. Where they put in prison camps, or repatriated by force? Thank you --Aciram (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There were about 5,000 Americans in "Japan, occupied China, Manchuko,Thailand and French Indo-China" in December 1941. The Japanese treatment of foreign nationals was widely condemned. Foreigners were threatened with beheading by Japanese officials demanding confessions of espionage.Per the same AP story written when the prisoners were returned to the US, the Japanese threatened that bad things would happen to their wives and children if they did not confess. Americans and Canadians suffered from beri-beri and pellegra due to starvation by Japanese authorities. Some foreign prisoners lost 60 pounds. The average loss in captivity was 20 pounds. Prisoners often were allowed no heat in the winter. Priests were threatened with execution. Prisoners were beaten and choked when they refused to sign statements. US citizens in Japan were for the most part imprisoned and abused severely after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declarations of war. Some US spouses of Japanese citizens lived lives much like those of the average Japanese citizen. Some foreign religious workers led unmolested lives if from neutral countries. US diplomats and American journalists who had written articles critical of Japanese policy were severely punished, even though the articles had been approved by Japanese censors. Japanese diplomats in the US were treated far better prior to the exchange. By international agreement, US and Japanese journalists and diplomatic personnel were exchanged by passage on the Swedish ship "Gripsholm" in 1942.The ship first picked up Americans stranded in Sweden and East Africa. US prisoners in Japan were transported on a neutral ship to that same location, at which time the Japanese were allowed passage back home. The Gripsholm carried more than 1100 North and South Americans back home. There was no trust by the Allied powers that the Japanese would keep their word with respect to exchange of citizens. .Edison (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't deny the Japanese treatment of prisoners wasn't good but the article you refed doesn't mention general starvation. Instead it mentions a food shortage in HK and that prisoners held there (no mention of dietary related problems elsewhere) suffered from those conditions and the weight loss. It also mentions how the aforementioned priests were held for 3 days with insufficient food or water. It's not clear how this compared to the general non Japanese non prisoner population in HK and whether there was any intentional campaign of starvation of either the prisoners or the whole of HK (barring the Japanese population). Also it's a newspaper article from during the war so probably isn't the greatest ref. Nil Einne (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

is it easier to do laundry if all your clothes are dark/colored?

Is it easier to do laundry if all your clothes are dark/colored (without any reds/pinks)? Is this hard to accomplish? 79.122.104.75 (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

P.s. I mean all the clothes you own - making a choice to get rid of anything else, and just have clothes like that. 79.122.104.75 (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean to do laundry without having any colors run. Having all whites would be the easiest, I suppose, as you could also use bleach without concern about fading colors. However, I have a mixture of colors and whites, and don't bother separating my laundry, unless I have a new, colorful item which is likely to bleed. I do have some whites which suffer from this practice, but they then become things to wear around the house, with better clothes that don't do this reserved for going out. StuRat (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I know people who limit their wardrobes (professional and casual) to one, two or three colours: one, now dead, wore only white, changing the fabrics to suit the season; black and white only for one; beige, cream and brown for another. I know others, like StuRat, who wash everything together, regardless of colour. There is no need to throw what you own out; just limit your on-going purchases. Bielle (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What happens to the clothes I own that don't match my new scheme if I don't wear them? Will they die by themselves after a while of not being worn? 79.122.104.75 (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

They are not likely to be alive, hence they are not likely to die. Clothes, left undisturbed, can hang for hundreds of years in a closet. How long has a Cardinal's hat hung in the rafters of a cathedral after his death? Edison (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There are issues with moths and things, though. If you know you aren't going to wear something again, just give it to a charity shop. --Tango (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

norwegian book

what does Skriftetaler mean or what is it about? Author Skaar and Thyrgesen, published in Christiania 1868 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.216.166 (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

May 30

Which Android apps help users make money the best?

I just got the Xperia Play from Best Buy last night, and now, I'm hoping that with the many thousands (really, where are the stats on the # out there now?) of apps available for download, there will be plenty that'll help users make some quick bucks. (They don't all have to be quick, of course.)

Therefore, what are some best free and best paid apps of this nature? (Please list them separately.) --70.179.169.115 (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)