::It is indeed a type of equivocation, I'd call it context-dropping or definition by non-essentials. By tolerance in a political context we mean tolerance of opinion, not tolerance of force or [[drug tolerance|physiological tolerance of drugs]], etc. Popper is not committing the fallacy here, he's describing it. Those who'd replace the properly valued political tolerance of peaceful differences of opinion or taste or peaceful practices with "tolerance" as an ''absolute'', as if we must "tolerate" those who initiate force against others, are destroying the very concept whose value they expect you to recognize emotionally, but whose nature they don't expect you to identify consciously. (That phenomenon of replacing thought with emotion is the essence of [[Orwell]]'s [[Newspeak]].) [[Ayn Rand]] called the fallacy involved the [http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anti-concepts.html anti-concept]. Popper's not arguing against tolerance, he's arguing that we have to know what we mean by words like it that have multiple and possibly contradictory senses in the context where we use them. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 05:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
::It is indeed a type of equivocation, I'd call it context-dropping or definition by non-essentials. By tolerance in a political context we mean tolerance of opinion, not tolerance of force or [[drug tolerance|physiological tolerance of drugs]], etc. Popper is not committing the fallacy here, he's describing it. Those who'd replace the properly valued political tolerance of peaceful differences of opinion or taste or peaceful practices with "tolerance" as an ''absolute'', as if we must "tolerate" those who initiate force against others, are destroying the very concept whose value they expect you to recognize emotionally, but whose nature they don't expect you to identify consciously. (That phenomenon of replacing thought with emotion is the essence of [[Orwell]]'s [[Newspeak]].) [[Ayn Rand]] called the fallacy involved the [http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anti-concepts.html anti-concept]. Popper's not arguing against tolerance, he's arguing that we have to know what we mean by words like it that have multiple and possibly contradictory senses in the context where we use them. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 05:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
:::Replacing thought with emotion is not the essence of Newspeak. The essence is that if a language is not capable of expressing a certain idea, say "freedom", then nobody can imagine the concept or try to bring about its existence. Newspeak only works if [[linguistic determinism]] is true, and very few linguists believe it is. --[[Special:Contributions/140.180.249.151|140.180.249.151]] ([[User talk:140.180.249.151|talk]]) 07:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
== mizrahi and sephardi jew politics ==
== mizrahi and sephardi jew politics ==
Revision as of 07:56, 26 November 2012
Welcome to the humanities section of the Wikipedia reference desk.
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.
From the article: The shoal was named after the East India Company tea-trade ship Scarborough which was wrecked on one of its rocks on 12 September 1784 with all lives lost. How did contemporaneous people determine that that ship was wrecked in that location if all lives were lost, thus leading to the name assignment? The Masked Booby (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The account in the first reference linked to from the article (whose link doesn't work but can be found in Google Books) says that "parts of the wreck had been afterwards discovered by sloops sent in search of her". I've no idea if that's true but it's a plausible explanation. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second link appears to contain an account by the captain of the Scarborough, describing the shoal. So maybe the "all lives lost" bit should be removed. Rojomoke (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that as well but I couldn't actually verify it was by the captain of the Scarborough and not some other captain. The source plays pretty fast and loose with captains' testimonies. Both of the sources are a little problematic (one is a guy's diary from many decades after the incident in question, the other is a mariner's handbook — neither genres are exactly known for being spotlessly accurate when it comes to historical names of things). --Mr.98 (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That page was incorrect - Hanukah is eight days everywhere in the world. It's not clear why the error was there. It may have been due to a calculation: 8 days festival - 1 Saturday = 7 days off school, but Hanukah can occur in such a way that there are two Saturdays... and in any case the wording was misleading, so I've fixed it. Alternatively, the mistake could have been because on most religious Jewish festivals (Rosh Hashanah being a major, but not the sole exception), in Israel the observance is one day shorter than in the rest of the world. We don't appear to have an article about this phenomenon, so I've posted at WT:JUDAISM to see what can be done. So, two more successes for the Ref Desks in improving mainspace. --Dweller (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't trust some random website to give reliable info, particularly when it offers no explaination. The entire month of Ramadhan is almost definitely not a public holiday in Qatar, I say that without even looking at sources but a quick search finds [2] for example which while perhaps not up to WP:RS looks far more reliable then your one and at least has some decent explaination with sounds plausible. My guess is even the first day of Ramadhan is not a public holiday. However in a number of Muslim countries there is an official start to Ramadhan and there may be legal requirements, at least for Muslims, as well as there being changes to social and business behaviour during the month. Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What does "unless one of the Muslim country celebrate both Ramadan and Eid ul-Fitr" mean? First of all, as mentioned above, Ramadan is not a holiday where Muslims sit at home feasting. Life goes on as normal except for a few things like abstaining from eating/drinking/sexual relations of any kind during the day. Eid-ul-Fitr is the holiday, a celebration of the end of Ramadan lasting a day or two or three depending where you are. Second, a Muslim country would "celebrate" both or none (they all recognize both by the way). If you recognize Ramadan then you have to recognize Eid. And if you don't recognize Ramadan then how can you recognize Eid which is celebrating the end of Ramadan. Even Eid-ul-Adha in practice is three days at most. Both Eids being ten days long in the kingdom probably just means that the government shutting everything down but people move on with their private lives after a day or two, kind of like how schools shut down in the USA for the entire week of thanksgiving (as they are right now) but everyone going on with their lives except perhaps for the actual day of Thanksgiving on Thursday. Even then plenty of stores/restaurants will be open (not counting the crazy black Friday fanatics).184.96.226.214 (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the same article: "In Denmark the summer holiday lasts 7–8 weeks". But I am thinking the OP meant the literal interpretation of holiday, as in religious holy days. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)][reply]
I'm not sure why people are thinking that. From the OPs original question it seems clear to me the OP is referring to official public holidays and not including those limited to schools only. The Ramadhan bit may have confused matters, but I think it's just that the OP incorrectly assumed Ramadhan is a holiday. Of course the concept of public holidays isn't always clear cut, e.g. in the US, and it's true in many countries there's nothing stopping businesses remainining open on some or all public holidays (usually with extra payment to staff) and so retail ones at least often do so and it's also true in some countries a fair amount of businesses (particularly offices) shut down longer then for the number of public holidays during certain periods, but it's not clear the OP cares about that. Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should've been more clear by saying public holiday, but I honestly didn't expect this confusion to arise at all. I realize people work on Ramadan, but this page led me to believe [3] it's a 29 (or 30) day long public holiday in Qatar. A8875 (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing my comments above. While I do feel the original version was sufficiently clear, given the OP's unfortunate retroconning without making this clear in the modified post when so many people have responded (which included me) and some people have already clearly been confused by the original post, I'm not going to criticise anyone but the OP here. Nil Einne (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The term "holiday" originally meant "holy day", so on that basis presumably Ramadan would qualify, as a "holy month" of days. That's assuming it really is considered a "holy" month. Muslims could correct my impression, if it's false. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 12:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notice I said "originally". And in fact it is still sometimes used as an equivalent to "holy day", but often not. And Blueboar is right that the OP should clarify just how he's using the term "holiday". Brits use the term "on holiday" to mean "on vacation", and I doubt that's what the OP means, but who knows? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The entire month of Ramadan, and the time of Lent, for examples, are clearly not "public holidays". A public holiday is where most everyone gets the day off from work. So the probability of any public holiday lasting more than a day or two or three, is pretty remote. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this page says that only the first day of Chanukah is a public holiday. the others are "Hebrew observance". In England and Wales, we get Good Friday and Easter Monday off, creating a four-day weekend. Although Easter Sunday isn't a public holiday, it's the only day of the year when big supermakets are forbidden to open. Alansplodge (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They've tried that in Australia too, in some states, but they figured that if a shop wants to trade that day, and enough staff are willing to turn up that day, and customers want to shop that day, a government of a secular state has no right to tell all three sets of parties that they cannot engage in this economic activity. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]06:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point. In essence, every Sunday was once a public holiday for those American cities that had blue laws. Blue laws are pretty well gone, but they still operate in some places, by custom if nothing else. (That again harkens back to "holiday" meaning "holy day".) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 12:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Easter Sunday closing was a compromise contained in the Sunday Trading Act 1994, which reformed the rather bizarre sunday trading laws then in force. Before then it was legal to by a pornographic magazine but illegal to buy a Bible; you could buy a Chinese take-away but not fish and chips. Large supermarkets are also restricted to six hours trading on a normal Sunday. Alansplodge (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As highlighted by the OP and explained in Public holidays in the People's Republic of China, China does have the well known Golden Weeks, formerly 3 now 2, so there arguably are public holidays lasting more then two or three days (since they normally get the entire 7 days off). However the system there is somewhat unusual, while they normally get 7 days off during the week, they only get 3 days of extra actual non working days from the week. The golden week arises from moving a weekend (possibly also with the moved day off if the holidays wall on the weekend, as is the case for other holidays and in the norm in some countries) so they work 7 days some other week. In fact while I'm not sure, I believe depending on when Mid Autumn festival falls it's possible they will have longer then 7 days during the National Day golden week. Since AFAIK, the golden week (7 days) is supposed to begin with the first day of the event, I'm also not sure what happens if it falls on a Monday (do they normally move the weekend before the Monday or some other weekend meaning they have 9 days off?) In any case, as I understand it, there is or was some degree of government involvement in the process. (This compares to in some other countries like NZ where it's common for people working in offices and some other jobs to have about 1-2 weeks off during the Christmas - New Year period as a result of four holidays, Chrismas, Boxing Day, New Year's Day, day after New Years combined with the weekends meaning people only have to take a few days of work off for a long holiday. While the companies or businesses themselves may semi force this by shutting down during the period, there's no real government involvement.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like each logo is just an 'E' overlapped with the initial of the place where the college is located. I'm not sure why Brugge gets a lower-case 'b', but it does. See Monogram. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The symbol on the left, under which is written "Brugge", is a "b" with a crown standing for the city (it exists on the city's coat of arms) with an "E" behind, which is obviously standing for "Europe" and the college. In this light, the symbol of the right is clearly an "N" with a crown standing for Natolin, with the same E behind it, but I'm not sure what usage this symbol has otherwise. --Atethnekos(Discussion, Contributions)11:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Me again. This page says "The crest shows a Gothic letter B with a crown. This logo was first used by the city in the 14th century and was later placed in the crest." So the reason it's written like that, is that it's been done that way for 700 years. Alansplodge (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some more research indicates it may have been a kamilavka: [4]. I'm not sure the hat is universal among Mizrahi Haredi men more than one of many styles worn by such men. Just as the last time a question like this was asked, there isn't a universal hat worn by all such men, rather there are a wide variety of hats so worn. --Jayron3217:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet more: This webpage is from "The Philippi Collection" which claims to be the largest collection of clerical headwear in the world, and the collector appears to be an expert on the topic. You could contact him for his opinion; there is a contact link on his webpage, and he could give you an answer. --Jayron3217:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That I know. I think it is an archaic spelling of some Hawaiian name for an extinct volcano in Kauai, but I don't know what is the modern name.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the King's Staff or the Queen's Staff in Hawaii? Members in it were titled Col. and they were not politicians, distinct from the cabinet and privy council, yet they weren't ordinary royal guards. Hawaii modeled its monarchy after Britain so maybe something similar existed there too.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was forgetting the Master of the Household who is also a former military officer, currently Air Marshal Sir David Allan Walker. He also has a deputy, currently Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Richards; they look after the running of the official residences, a bit like a hotel manager. The Keeper of the Privy Purse who is the Queen's official accountant, used to be an ex-military officer, but since 1996 they have had a background in commercial accountancy (probably a good thing really). Alansplodge (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How segregated is Iraq and Israel?
When someone carries out a terror attack, how can he be assured that he's not killing his own people? AFAIK, in Israel there's a significant Arab-Israeli population, are they fair game for the Hamas? And in Baghdad there are different Arab sects, are they so divided that a terrorist won't end up killing people from his side? Comploose (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming that a terrorist bent on destruction will think very clearly and logically. You are also assuming that a terrorist will have severe qualms about hurting any of his own people and will avoid so at all costs. I disagree with both assumptions. While for some people it may be true, there are plenty of maniacs for whom killing the enemy must be done at all costs even it means the lives of their own compatriots or even their own life (hence the suicide bombers). There is also a question of self-identity and who a terrorist would consider "his own". I think you are confusing ethnicity with religion. Yes, there are Arab Muslims, Arab Jews, and even Arab Christians. But the tensions are along religious lines. A Palestinian Arab Muslim suicide bomber wouldn't care if you are Arab or not. He wants to blow up a Jew with him.128.138.138.122 (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The terrorist might even reason that there's no "real" harm to the faithful among the collateral damage, because they should instantly into the arms of God. Or, they might reason that they are actually infidels and thus they don't matter. Either way, he bombs. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming that the guy who blows himself to pieces is the same guy who leads a terror organization. They are not. The former is the mad one, but that doesn't imply that the latter is not rationally planning and manipulating this mad guy for his own purposes. So, how does it fit these purposes, if the terror act ends up killing people who are not considered fair targets? It's clear that the enemy of Hamas might include Israeli Arabs (although I am not sure about it). But what if a bomb kills a group of Muslims that are not considered enemies? I have specially in mind attacks in the center of Baghdad or on the market. Comploose (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They don't care from a human perspective, that's clear. But what about from a "bad marketing" perspective? Terrorists need to draw attention to their cause. If they start blowing people that are not perceived as the enemy, helpers of the enemy or somehow inferior, that would erode the support that they need to hide, buy weapons, get apprentice terrorists. Comploose (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re Israel, the UN released a report last March condemning the systematic segregation in the country. news report, UN report itself. Relevant Wikipedia articles may include Israeli settlement and Israeli West Bank barrier. I’ve found it hard to locate interviews with Hamas that address your question; perhaps because I don’t speak the languages. In this one, Mahmoud Zahar says he would disarm any splinter groups that seemed to pose a risk of Palestinians shooting Palestinians. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That might help with determining the segregation between Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews, but it won't help with the issue of Israeli Arabs, who in 2006, made up 20% of Israel's population. They have the same rights as any Israeli Jew, including, it would seem, the right to be blown up on a bus. --Dweller (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. The communities do tend to live separately, on the whole, although without this being enforced, and there are some places of greater or lesser integration. But even in a town with easily understood "Arab" and "Jewish" neighbourhoods, on a bus with (say) 40 passengers going through a "Jewish" neighbourhood, while you might expect fewer than the average number of Arabs (8) the bomber couldn't be sure that there'd be no Arabs on board because people pass through places on their way to town, or visit other neighbourhoods to work. Bringing together both my points, while Tel Aviv may be mostly Jewish, it includes the ancient port city of Jaffa, whose population is roughly a third Arab (Muslim and Christian). --Dweller (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that an Arab in Israel carrying a backpack and entering a bus that no Arabs ever takes would raise some red flags. Probably they will have to take a less than perfectly segregated bus. Comploose (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how unfriendly the dominant culture behaves towards the minority culture... "Self-segregation" is often "imposed through means other than laws." --Jayron3215:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Barriers to entry in the mining machine maintenance industry in Australia
What are the barriers to entry in the mining machine maintenance industry in Australia? Not so high that an electrician who makes A$400 a week can't make a toehold and be successful enough to be able to secure an A$500,000 loan to buy your first mine? It would seem that when you're just starting, having been an electrician making A$400 per week yesterday, before you could take any mining machine maintenance jobs, you would first need equipment, employees, at least some sales and accounting staff, legal and tax, and probably more, none of which is cheap. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, suppose there are three: 1) How did he get the necessary equipment to start a mining equipment repair company with the amount of capital he had at the very beginning of his business, 2) How did he get people to work for him with the amount of capital he had at the very beginning of his business, and 3) How did he get access to the big money decision makers to hire him and his little (I'm assuming it was little) band of repairmen at the capacity he was capable of at the time? 67.163.109.173 (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that being a sub-contractor is basically a dispensation or stipend—the owners of real capital control the access to capital, machinery, contracts and labour; leaving the petits-bourgeois sub-contractor as fundamentally dependent—the chief barrier to entry is suck holing the bosses' arsehole. After that you face the barrier to entry that subcontracting is a useful way of grinding safety and profit out of a dangerous and non-profitable sector, much like the pastoral lease managers who were allowed to "buy-in" in the 19th century to deliberately send them bankrupt and soak up their capital. So chief barriers to entry are being an arselicker and being clever enough to be stupid enough to bankrupt yourself for a mining conglomerate. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like Nathan Tinkler bankrupted himself thanks to horse racing, auto racing, and other games more than mining, which, with luck it seems, made him the money to lose. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Barriers to entry, which curiosity of mine is motivated by his (as a concrete instance) apparently being able to overcome them while making A$400 a week, which is why I mentioned him. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you think a mining maintence business needs that much at startup. I imagine it could easily be just him and some basic equipment at the start (definitely the needing for accounting and sales stuff seems questionable, have you never heard of a small business before?). I'm also not convinced of the A$400 per week. Perhaps that was his wage when he started, but if you look at [6] it's sounds like it's very close to the minimum wage of around that period (say 1994), at least if I'm understanding it correctly as it seems to use a lot of abbreviations. My understanding from what I've read of tradespeople in Australia is nowadays at least and I strongly suspect it was also true then, a competent electrician's wage or earnings is likely to be significantly above the minimum wage. In other words, by the time he started his mining maintenence business at 26 (circa 2002) he would likely have been earning significantly more as a bog standard electrician then A$400 per week (in fact by 2002 that would be below the minimum wage). BTW, the CNN article you linked to mentions he secured the $1 million loan against his business and home. I note that no details are present either in our article or the article you linked to of his family, while I doubt they were millionares, perhaps they weren't that poor and helped him out either with his business or his home. Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't easily see some dude with a couple hundred (or even thousand) bucks worth of tools and equipment getting (and being able to deliver on the scale of) business of enough sales value to grow his "small" business enough to be able to secure a portion of a $1 million loan against it. Why would mining companies hire (consider on his business's very first sale's day) some dude with some tools when they have their own skilled employees (which he once was) or a bigger established maintenance company (which would be likely licensed, bonded, insured, etc.. such that if something went wrong (not exactly an industry where the idea of catastrophe including injury and/or death if something goes wrong is unimaginable), there was more infrastructure to go after than some individual dude and his pickup truck)? Are the barriers to entry in that sector in that geographic locale really such that any electrician with years of experience in mining equipment such as him could have done what he did? There were no doubt many people like him when and where he was. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The same reason companies usually outsource—to systematically weaken unions and employee solidarity, while putting the "risk" of operating certain elements of business onto smaller capitalists. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the MBTI called that?
The Meyers-Brigg Type Indicator test was invented by a mother and daughter team with the surnames Briggs and Briggs-Meyers. How did that become Meyers-Briggs in the name of the test? It should be BMTI surely? 81.159.114.101 (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator was devised by Isabel Briggs Myers (note: no hyphen) and Katherine Cook Briggs. They used their surnames, in that order. It was fairly common for women of that time not to hyphenate their maiden and married surnames. --NellieBly (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a somewhat common practice for women to change their middle name to their maiden name after marriage and eliminate their birth middle name entirely. I don't know when this practice started though, so I don't know if it is relevant here. Dismas|(talk)06:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the hyphenated or double-barrelled use of maiden name + husband's surname dates only back to the 1970's, the era when Ms. was invented. The use without a hyphen long antedates that, and was the norm for my mother and other female relatives of her generation in everyday matters. See, for example, Emily Post, Etiquette, 1922, p. 458. Textorus (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the exact original source above. I'd like to include a similar, but more detailed graph on the wiki for several articles and if there's enough info, write an article on the topic. Thanks for trying though.Smallman12q (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Her role was limited to a very minor battle between British and American forces, in the middle of nowhere. It's not clear that had the Americans taken over the small fort that was their objective, it would have changed anything in the bigger scheme of things. The only thing that could have changed the outcome of the War of 1812 was if, in Europe, Napoleon had managed to defeat or isolate England, making England incapable of defending its North American possessions. --Xuxl (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, her actions did influence Canadian views of the war. She became a symbol that boosted a Canadian sense of patriotism. That patriotism might not have influenced the outcome of the War in military terms... but it did influence how Canadians felt about the war... and subsequent relations between Canada, the US, and Great Britain. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, Laura Secord did not become a symbol until much later, when the war had been over for years (the article on her makes that clear). So, her actions were not used for patriotic purposes and had no effect on the further conduct of the War of 1812. --Xuxl (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend on whether Sandy Island (New Caledonia) was deliberately created as a fictitious place on a map, or done in good faith but in error. The people mentioned in the article don't know themselves how it came about, so we await the results of their research. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]05:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds a bit like the village of Quare that existed for more than a century on maps of Wiltshire, UK, when unable to identify a village the map maker, Christopher Saxton put 'quare', possibly 'query', meaning to come back and fix it. He never did and it appeared for 145 years before being discovered to be an abandoned North Burcombe. Richard Avery (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google Earth views are made from a complicated montage of different sources. For open sea they use wide, undetailed Blue Marble-type images. Where the map says there should be land, they splice in more detailed stuff, first from Landsat and then from more detailed commercial sources. The black blob looks like an artefact of this process - their workflow says there should be an island there, and so a more detailed (at least Landsat) image of that area should be used. But there isn't, so the system is stuck. I expect somewhere in a giant list of queries the system has generated for human attention is a task about this (one that'll surely get human attention now, given the publicity). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk15:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And indeed if one looks at the "island" with Google Earth, it renders a shoreline vector (from its defective shoreline database) that matches the black blob. So their map says there's an island, one the photo processor can't find. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk15:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks heaps, all. So does the black blob predate the idea of there being an island there, I wonder? Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC) (PS I'd like it if someone went there to discover indeed an island made of black jaggy pixels and illfitting collage-bits...)[reply]
Watchful eyes
In a very similar case to Sandy Island, above, we also have Argleton. A few months ago someone added a see-also there to the (non existent) Watchful Eyes, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Google does report some addresses with that location, but again it's not at all clear that it's in any way a "real" place. Is Watchful Eyes another only-exists-in-Google place? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk16:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the man on the right of the photo Ignacy Loga-Sowiński ?
"Ludwig Renn (left) and Sowinski in october 1954" says the Bundesarchiv caption
Hello Learned Ones ! "Mam opracować pewne zagadnienie" : I had prepared the question in polish , but never could get into their Reference Desk, so I ask you : Is the man on the right of the photo Ignacy Loga-Sowiński ? In 1954, he was (says the Polish article about him) a 40 years old "aparatchik". Thanks a lot beforehands for your answers ! T;y. Arapaima (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The more human-like an anthropomorphic rendition is, the more attractive it's likely to be. One example is that the early renderings of Bugs Bunny are considered "rat-like" and less attractive than the later renderings. And predatory birds and animals tend to be more attractive to us because they have binocular vision like we do, and don't look "beady-eyed" like their prey do. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lawyering in Texas
I wonder if any ref desk brainiacs can help me find out when Texas began requiring a law degree to practice law. I know that from early days in Texas, as in other states of the Union, it was originally the case that an aspiring lawyer could simply start working for and studying with an already accepted lawyer, and eventually learn enough to be admitted to practice in the courts of the state - no college degree or law degree required. My research so far via Google Books and other sources suggests that perhaps as late as the 1960's this was still posssible in Texas, but an exact answer seems to be locked away behind paywalls or in subscription journals. I'm not interested in other states, only in Texas - can anyone help with this question? Textorus (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't give you a date, but maybe this is some clue to help you chase it down. Legal self-help publisher Nolo.com was prosecuted in Texas for unlicenced practice of law - Nolo's own side of that is here. That committee's page is here and the applicable (current) law here. So if you can figure out when the Texas legislature passed that law, that at least gives you an upper bound. Looking at the law briefly, they don't seem to write it in a way saying "this law succeeds section X of law Y", which would have been a useful feature. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk21:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These cases don't really bear on my question - the statutes cited all apparently were last revised by the Legislature in 1987 - but by following some of the links, I ended up at the Texas Board of Law Examiners and this time discovered their online archive of past rulebooks for admission to the State Bar, dating all the way back to 1919. So I suppose I will eventually find the answer somewhere in one of those, unless anyone knows a specific date when legal apprenticeship was no longer an option in TX. Textorus (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update, for what it's worth: After paging thru the rulebooks, it seems that the rules changed on January 1, 1972, and only candidates who had already begun a legal apprenticeship before that date could be admitted to take the bar exam, except for certain hardship cases. Rulebooks after 1979 make no mention of such provisions, so that pretty much answers my question. Thanks for the lead. Textorus (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that nobody bothered to explore Africa until the 19th century? Egypt was one of the world's oldest and richest civilizations. Large parts (sometimes all) of North Africa was occupied by Assyria, Babylon, Rome, Greece, and the Abbasids. I think Arab traders frequently visited the Swahili coast. Yet somehow, there was never an adventurous king who got bored of life and decided to conquer the interior of Africa? --140.180.246.185 (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, Europeans became more ignorant about Africa, and the idea of 'darkest Africa' supplanted the classical idea 'Ex Africa semper aliquid novi' - 'there is always something new coming from Africa'. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the impassability of the Sahara Desert cannot be underestimated here. Navagation beyond the Canary Islands is very unfriendly to ships, there wasn't a good place to resupply, and overland routes were heavily guarded by the Subsaharan empires that grew rich by monopolizing the trade. There was certainly contact and awareness of those empires, but like other distant places (India, China), knowledge of them came third and fourth hand. Prior to the 16th century or so, there was also very little direct contact between Europe and China. Even into the 19th century, there was also the problem of disease; many African peoples had become resistant to native diseases (malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, etc.) that decimated any European expeditions into the interior. --Jayron3200:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
140.180.246.185 -- The Arabs knew of the Kenya-Tanzania coastal area as "Zanj" and it was prime slaving territory for harvesting unskilled hard-labor slaves to be sent to the Middle East; also, there was some sporadic influence from northwest Africa across the Sahara to the Sahel. However, it's unclear what motive ancient Romans or medieval Arabs would have had for mounting systematic long-range exploring efforts in Africa, when they had no expectation of finding anything there too much different from what existed in closer and more familiar regions. 15th-century Europeans had the highly-specific goal of finding a direct route (not controlled by Muslims) to India and the spice Islands, and they had ships built to stand North Atlantic waves and weather. So Europeans started sailing around Africa, but only the Cape region was at all promising for European settlement, and for most of the rest of the sub-Saharan coast there seemed to be little evidence of things to be found in the interior that would justify expensive or dangerous exploring efforts... AnonMoos (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Unlike Europe, Africa has a simple coastline, not allowing easy access by boat to any large area the way European coasts do. (For example, all of Britain is within 50 miles of the coast.) (2) Along the river banks in forested tropical areas, the vegetation is extremely dense, which discouraged explorers who did not necessarily realize that the forest floor was rather open away from banks where the sunlight penetrated allowing such thick growth. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on All of Britain is within 50 miles from the coast: This nominates Coton in the Elms as the precise British location that is most distant from the sea. It's either 75 miles or 45 miles from the sea, depending on your definition. This agrees with Coton, and says it's about 73 miles from the sea. These details are corroborated in our article Coton in the Elms#Distance from sea, which distinguishes between coast and tidal water. The distances there are given as 75 miles and 45 miles respectively. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]19:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I want to know difference between metropolitan and megapolitan cities. I heard abt this site. It has too much knowledge and always ready to help new users and students. Plz help me for this question. my contact no phone number redacted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.229.79.190 (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any 4 year campuses in the U.S. or Canada that don't--or are not allowed by specific state or province law to--have armed "campus police" officers? Is there any data or information available on years that these forces started forming, data on the last few states or universities to enact such forces? Thanks. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way10:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the Campus police article - it's got answers to many of the questions you ask. In particular:
"Campus Police in Canada do not carry firearms, but are generally given other law enforcement's tools of trade - namely handcuffs, body armor, batons and pepper spray.
Campus police do not exist in the Provinces of British Columbia and Québec. Instead, colleges and universities employ civilian security guards.
Campus police at public institutions in the state of Rhode Island are sworn police officers, but state law prohibits them from carrying firearms."
Itsmejudith -- why not? Many campuses are dispersed over several large areas and/or embedded inside cities. The range of problems that campus police deal with is often not too different from those that regular police deal with... AnonMoos (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that a college campus isn't a separate police jurisdiction, it falls under the police jurisdictions of the city, county, state, etc. So, one could rely on the regular police where an armed response is needed, and let the campus police focus on things the real cops would ignore, like the theft of iPhones, keeping in mind that arming campus police creates additional risks of it's own. StuRat (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's one approach, but the police associated with major universities in the U.S. often try to be a "full-service" police department for ordinary situations in their area of authority (though obviously the idea of a campus police SWAT team would be ridiculous). AnonMoos (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous or not, the article Campus police says Many departments operate some of the same units as municipal agencies such as detective units, special response teams (SWAT or SRT), canine units, bicycle patrol units, motorcycle patrol units, and community policing units. [bolding added] Duoduoduo (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"... a college campus isn't a separate police jurisdiction" isn't necessarily true. The difference in marijuana laws between the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan is well-known (See Hash Bash). Town and gown differences including college as sanctuary have long history. 75.41.109.190 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I bet they aren't legally outside regular police jurisdiction. More likely, the regular police are willing to turn a blind eye to certain crimes committed on campus, since they have enough work without taking that on, too. Incidentally, a more sinister motive for campus police seems to be so they can suppress crime statistics to make the campus seem safer than it really is. Unlike public police departments, which are required to report all crimes, private security firms can, and do, keep them secret when in their interest to do so. StuRat (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re to HiLo48: take the British railways, for example. In this dog's dinner of a set-up, the government runs a system whereby private train operating companies are given fixed-term contracts (known as franchises) to operate the vast majority of train services. But there are also one or two companies who are allowed to operate services along small sections of the rail network in direct competition with the main franchise holder. That is open access. Re to OsmanRF34: it's not a question of the "big guys" not allowing new kids to take part. The government gives the new companies the (limited) right to do so. --Viennese Waltz04:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the British privatized rail system, there was supposed to be a central infrastructure or track maintenance operator and various companies who would run trains on the tracks without being responsible for their upkeep. The track maintenance operator part of the system turned out to be a huge fiasco (see Railtrack), so I'm not sure this would encourage other countries to follow the British model... AnonMoos (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Viennese Waltz: it's not as if all companies were indeed independent just because the law says so. They are still open in a 'open' access market to all kind of trouble caused by big companies. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. In the UK (the only country I know about) there is nothing the big rail companies can do to stop small companies getting in on the action. Where there are limits placed on the ability of small companies to run train services, they are limits that have been placed by the government, not by the main train operator. The big companies are simply not able to "cause trouble" for new entrants to the market. --Viennese Waltz17:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there such a thing as open access at all in the United States? I thought all U.S. trackage was privately owned by rail companies, and there is no central infrastructure. Am I mistaken? → Michael JⓉⒸⓂ03:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit difficult to tell. There is Amtrak, of course, the primary (only?) provider of intercity passenger rail services in the US. According to our article, though, Amtrak does not own the track it runs services on: "Amtrak operates over all Class I railroads in the United States, as well as several regional railroads and short lines. Other sections are owned by terminal railroads jointly controlled by freight companies or by commuter rail agencies. Amtrak is able to do this because it has trackage rights, but it does not maintain those tracks or control train movements on those tracks." --Viennese Waltz14:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's because in the United States passenger rail has been a distinct second fiddle to to freight rail since the 1960s. Most railroads were eager to get out of the passenger business altogether, so in return for being allowed to dump their passenger-carrying obligations onto the federal government they have to let the government run passenger trains over their tracks. Not sure that there's anything very open about it otherwise. AnonMoos (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article 21 of the UNDHR
Article 21 of the Declaration of Human Rights says the following:
"Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."
How can this be reconciled with the existence of a minimum voting age in most jurisdictions? Are we not depriving children of a fundamental human rights? For the record, I don't support abolishing the voting age, but I'd like to know what legal explanation is given for not allowing children to exercise their human rights. Thanks! Leptictidium (mt) 15:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Children will, in a short time, be able to vote. SO they are part of "everyone". This is different from women, who will not magically become men at a later date, or people of ethnic minorities, who will magically become part of a different ethnic group. Children do magically turn into adults. So they do get to take part in their government. --Jayron3215:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, the UNDHR should have said "everyone has, or will have, the right..." The more accurate answer is that every society has more or less arbitrarily restricted political power to people it deems fit to rule. At this point in history, children are still considered their parents' property, and their role in politics is restricted to being used as rhetorical tools (Think of the children! Will someone please think of the children?) and propaganda (i.e. Israel's most inhuman army is killing babies!) --140.180.246.185 (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The dead cannot vote under normal circumstances, so I don't take your exception here. Adults with terminal diseases who expire before the next election lose their right to vote as well. --Jayron3217:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to when you said the justification for legally excluding children from voting is that it's not a permanent exclusion. However, in the case of children who we know won't make it to adulthood, it is a permanent ban on them ever voting. So, we need another justification. Quite simply, children lack certain rights, including the right to vote, but Article 21 doesn't make this clear. Perhaps you could argue that children be thought of as a subset of those not allowed to vote due to mental incompetence. However, some 17-year-olds are quite mentally competent, so that argument won't hold water, either. StuRat (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not what I said at all. I said that the justification that "they can vote when they grow up" is invalid. Only if no other justification can be found would one reach your conclusion. StuRat (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what about mentally handicapped people, who can also be denied the right to vote, and they don't magically turn into mentally healthy people either. And then there are convicted criminals who have lost voting rights. In short, these rights are just not absolute and are subject to (reasonable) conditions imposed by the state. - Lindert (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where are mentally handicapped denied the right to vote? This is not an uncontentious issue and pressure groups are successfully defending the right to vote of them. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In many places, but usually a court order is required to revoke someone's voting rights. According to this article 44 out of the 50 United States "contain constitutional laws and statutes that bar individuals with emotional or cognitive impairment from voting". Here is an overview per state. There are similar laws in many European countries, including the Netherlands where I live. - Lindert (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law (May 2012), states that "All democratic regimes, with the exception of Canada, Sweden, Ireland, Italy and Austria restrict voting based on mental capacity." - Lindert (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the (humorous) wisdom of Terry Pratchett: "Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote." and "He’d tried to introduce Ephebian democracy to Lancre, giving the vote to everyone, or at least everyone 'who be of good report and who be male and hath forty years and owneth a house worth more than three and a half goats a year,' because there’s no sense in being stupid about things and giving the vote to people who were poor or criminal or insane or female, who’d only use it irresponsibly."Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Locking them up in the first place could be seen as a violation of human rights. Imposing a monetary penalty for speeding could be seen as a violation of human rights. Requiring drivers to have even a minute's driving training could be seen as a violation of human rights. Requiring doctors and house builders and cooks to be trained could be seen as a violation of human rights. Requiring children to attend school could be seen as a violation of human rights. Banning recidivist trolls from Wikipedia could be seen as a prohibition of free speech and thus a violation of human rights. Where does it ever end? Lines getting drawn is a hallmark of civilization. The only issues are about which lines, and who draws them, and who's allowed to ignore them with impugnity. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]20:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article 29 says "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." In many circumstances, it is clear that imprisoning someone could be considered necessary for protecting the rights of others. I think it would be hard to argue that regulation of vehicles, doctors, etc. violates any widely-recognised human rights, and article 26 actually requires compulsory education. It is less obvious to me that withdrawing the vote from prisoners is justified. Many countries do allow all prisoners to vote, and in fact the European Court of Human Rights recently ruled that a blanket ban on prisoners voting violates the European Convention on Human Rights, which has similar wording to the UDHR on elections. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And why does it say "his" instead or his/her country? Seriously. Human rights are implemented by national laws, which have different perspectives on how to interpret the basis principles. 83.60.249.187 (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was drafted in 1948 and gender-neutral language didn't start to become a significant issue until the end of the 1960s (and wasn't taken seriously by many until well into the 1970s). AnonMoos (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. "He" is gender neutral, unless one counts inanimate as a gender. "She" is marked as feminine. This matter has been beaten to death and over again, so search the archives if you want references. μηδείς (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do I search for these references? Admittedly I'm not a native English speaker, but I've never seen anyone claim that "he" is gender neutral. I've seen people use "he" to refer to a generic person (in fact, I do it all the time), but always assumed that was because male is the default gender. (In French, for example, all pronouns and conjugations take the male form if the referent is a single male, a group of males, a group of both males and females, or of unknown gender. Yet nobody doubts that "il" is masculine, and "elle" is feminine.) --140.180.246.185 (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize, the original distinction in the Proto-Indo-European language was between animate and inanimate, who and what. The Hittite language, from the oldest branch of Indo-European, never developed a feminine gender. In the other branches, an -a (or -i) ending was generalized as a marker that certain animate nouns were feminine. There was never any masculine ending as such, which is why there is only one form for who/whose/whom. The Old English pronoun he has no masculine ending, for example; while the word she comes from the Old English pronoun heo with an appended feminine -o ending. The use of she is an exceptional marking of femininity, while the use of he simply implies animacy without comment on biological sex. In some languages like French, the animate/inanimate distinction in nouns has been lost, with only the feminine/non-feminine opposition remaining, so the issue is clouded. But the use of he for animate nouns of unspecified gender in English is a simple continuation of the historical condition. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I like linguistics, and that summary was really interesting. However, I can't help but feel that concluding "he" is gender neutral based on its history is an etymological fallacy. Language, unlike most other things, is strictly democratic: if 50% + 1 of English speakers think X means Y, then X means Y, and dictionary publishers will record X to mean Y. --140.180.246.185 (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to the point of French (and other Romance languages), even human gender pronouns don't work exactly like English. For example, possessive pronouns in French (sa, son) agree with the object, not the owner. Thus, while in English we would say "His dog" if a man owned it and "Her dog" if a woman did, in French you say "son chien" regardless of whether the owner is male or female. Also, French does have gender neutral third person subject pronoun "on", but it has no direct English translation, and can mean roughly "one" or "they" or even "we", depending on context.--Jayron3203:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis -- I don't feel like engaging in a whole general debate under this heading, but many feel that "exceptional marking of femininity" vs. a default unmarked assumption of maleness is the whole problem. P.S. The origin of the form "she" in Middle English is actually something of a mystery, and several contending linguistic papers have been devoted to just that topic. In Old English, eo was a monosyllabic "fracture" diphthong. Some have proposed a transfer of the sonority from the first element of "eo" to the second element of "eo", leading to a development something like [hēo] > [heō] > [hjō] > [çō] > [ʃō], giving middle English "scho"; however, such an origin of the "sh" sound is not attested in the development of any other word in the English language, and other scholars think that "she" doesn't come from "heo" at all... AnonMoos (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well then don't so debate. (I am fairly certain Lady Edith will accuse Lord Grantham regarding this in the next episode of Downton Abbey in any case.) The fact remains the use of he in parallel with who and opposed to what is a continuation of the animate versus inanimate contrast, not the "masculine", regardless of one's historical ignorance of that fact or ideological abhorrence of it. μηδείς (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Late proto-Indo-European / early Germanic / Old English had extremely few grammatical forms which could be called "animate" in any valid linguistic sense, so I have little idea what you think you're asserting. (The early proto-Indo-European — or perhaps proto-Indo-Hittite — situation you mentioned above is a rather hypothetical reconstruction without ascertainable relevance for the semantics of later languages.) The Old English interrogative pronoun distinguished masculine/feminine nominative hwa and accusative hwone vs. neuter nominative-accusative hwæt. Beyond that, it's mighty slim pickings for grammatical "animacy" in attested or solidly-reconstructed forms of languages ancestral to modern English. Many would prefer to call Old English hwa, hwone "epicene" anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is it! I tried a poetry course and I'd like to try some more, maybe economics, programming ? Now I'm looking for a list of massive open online courses. Not Coursera's or MIT's or Upenn's, just every mooc available now or in the coming months in the world. I might not find that list in Wikipedia : but do you have an idea if (or why) it's (not) already on the Internet ? Thank you! --82.227.17.30 (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you expecting something like the Quantum physics or Relativity theory? I have the impression (not corroborated by fact) that discoveries are running out. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OsmanRF34 -- Many physicists at the end of the 19th century thought that few basic principles or new fields of physics remained to be discovered, and that almost all future physics work would be concerned with the application of existing laws. They turned out to be completely wrong... AnonMoos (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "general belief". I don't know that there's anything which is "generally believed" by any majority set of the human population. There are people who believe some very strange things, and who's beliefs haven't been changed by any discoveries for some time. --Jayron3218:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may be thinking of the Martian meteorite Allan Hills 84001, the examination of which appeared to show extra-terrestrial life. Of this President Clinton said "If this discovery is confirmed, it will surely be one of the most stunning insights into our universe that science has ever uncovered"(ref). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk18:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I can very easily imagine a teacher wanting to expand his students' minds by getting them to research discoveries that altered established beliefs about human beings; and, moreover, getting them to not just come up with anything in the history of science but to focus on the 1990s. In fact, I'm having a hard time imagining an alternative context where this very specific question could have arisen. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]22:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
what are some of patents that are considered by legal experts to be quite broad, but which courts have uphold?
This question concerns legal theory, and is a call for specific references. In legal opinion, what are some examples of patents that are held to be particularly broad, by at least one expert in the field, but which courts have upheld? In terms of broadness, I am referring to the standard term of art in patent law. I am obviously not asking for any legal advice here, though I appreciate the subject may be somewhat specialized. I would also appreciate replies with specific, broad patents that have been disputed yet upheld..178.48.114.143 (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
bickering
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The question is answerable by anyone who is familiar with the subject that it figures in. I've moved the rest of the "is this a real question" discussion to small lettering.
Unhatted. This can be answered with straightforward references, and is a call for some. If you don't personally know of a single broad patent that courts uphold, you can say so. This does not suddenly mean that the questino is unanswerable, or should not be open to a reference from someone who does happen to know of one. For comparison, I don't know of any broad patents yet. I'm trying to find some. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added the words "in legal scholarship" and "generally" and "by at least one legal scholar" and am requesting references, and rewritten the question to make this clearer. Please do not revert again. This is not a request for anyone's opinion here, it is an extremely straightforward reference desk type of question. I appreciate that it may sound like speculation to someone who is not used to researching legal theory. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well (1) I am the mad hatter and I would not have hatted this, and (2) it's asking for legal opinions and history, not advice. I do indeed remember reading of overbroad patent decisions. Indeed, one can read the appendix to Michael Crichton's Next. μηδείς (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't fucking tell me to keep out of anything, Osman. And Crichton's appendix to Next (searchable here at Amazon) is a non-fiction essay with a whole list of useful references, much more helpful to the OP than your comments so far.
As the original inquiry, at least as it currently reads, asks specifically for references for what established experts consider "broad" and does not specifically call for speculation or editor-generated definitions, this seems to me an entirely appropriate and viable question for this desk. Whether the OP will get references which directly address the issue is another matter entirely, but there's no reason not to afford the request the opportunity to be addressed. Snow (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guys - I feel the current state of this question is daunting to anyone who might have some simple references. I would like to move the discussion portion of this question to the talk page, and then leave a neutral version of the question and the single answer that was provided so far. I will do this if this is no objection in the next few hours. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change reverted. Though I think consensus will continue to validate this as a perfectly acceptable thread and while I agree in principle that this question would look a lot cleaner with this discussion removed (and that the talk page is the better location for it in any event), it's not really appropriate to remove other users' comments from a discussion-based namespace without significantly more serious cause than exists here. Snow (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised no-one has mentioned the Wright brothers patent war; the patent there effectively covered fixed-wing aircraft and was upheld by various court cases. George B. Selden at one point was ruled by a court to hold a patent on "any automobile propelled by an engine powered by gasoline vapor", per our article, though this was overturned on appeal the following year. Both were upheld by US courts, and while I don't have access to the legal literature, I suspect searches focused on those two patents are likely to produce a rich stream of commentary. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much any valid Business method patent falls under this heading — things that most intellectual property experts think are too broad, but have upheld nonetheless. The entire category is considered overly broad by IP experts. Innovation and its Discontents has a number of specific examples of overly broad, upheld patents from over the years. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you could link to at least one of the references from that book? (One of the specific patents it mentions which have been upheld). Thanks :) --178.48.114.143 (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do hadith numerations differ and how to correlate two numerations? I'm reading an English translation of Bukhari (e.g.), but I want to know how some hadith sounds in Russian, but there is a very different numeration here. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know exactly how these different systems are related, but the website sunnah.com has a translation of Bukhari with multiple citation systems (see e.g. [7]), so you might be able to use that to find the corresponding hadith (I don't read Russian, so I can't check this). - Lindert (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say unambiguous support. Other countries are supporting Israel as well, like Germany, although Germany also supports the enemies of Israel, so its support is not unambiguous, but quite broad in the terms of weapons delivered. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How the aftermath plays out would be critical to determine where support would go. For example, if Iran retaliates by trying to close the Persian Gulf to oil tankers, you'd also find Europe and most of the world opposed to Iran on that. StuRat (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the US currently supports Israeli air strikes. The US still wants to wait to see if sanctions work, doesn't believe Israeli air strikes would push back Iran's nuclear program by much, and expects severe consequences from it, such as the US possibly being dragged into a war with Iran. StuRat (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat, you seem not to know what the Operation Pillar of Defense is all about. Iran has only an ancillary role here and the operation is already over. This is not about striking the nuclear program of Iran. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, didn't read it carefully. There being a current military operation involving Israeli air strikes against Gaza and a threatened one against Iran confused me. (Of course, you could have made it easier on me by mentioning Gaza, rather than make me read the article to understand the Q.) StuRat (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
what would be an example of a short, bog-standard typical patent document for a device that is now commonplace? (it can be expired, by now.)
I would like to read an example of a short, bog-standard typical patent for a specific physical device, that is now commonplace after a period of patent protection during which it was purely proprietary. I'd like to read this as kind of a basis for how the patent was formated and so forth. I guess a good example might be some kind of as-seen-on-TV product, since those are typically ones where the invention was clearly new and not really obvious beforehand. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the Scottish independence vote passes, would the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland change? United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, perhaps? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different case, the colonies were not part of the name. I don't believe they will separate, and if they do, I won't speculate about a possible new name. Intrakiu (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it won't change the name, as it would still encompass 2 of the 3 countries of GB. If Wales were to secede as well, however, it would be a different question. On the other hand, it did change name when the Republic of Ireland seceded, so UK of E, W, NI is perhaps not entirely unrealistic. --Soman (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer to the original question is that no one knows the answer to that question, as it hasn't even been officially discussed yet, much less decided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is not very difficult to see. Yes, indeed, the name clearly would need to change, just as "Great Britain and Ireland" became "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" in 1927. The expression "Great Britain" was first used by King James I soon after the Union of the Crowns of 1603 to signify the personal union between England (which already included Wales) and Scotland. It was specifically adopted by Act of parliament as the name of the new sovereign state created in 1707, uniting the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland into "Great Britain". As a geographical term, Great Britain means the whole British mainland. Without Scotland, we plainly could not go on using "Great Britain" as part of the name of the rump state. Frankly, I am not sure that it would be appropriate to use "United Kingdom", either. Moonraker (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm missing something (or someone is). You tell us the answer is not very difficult to see, but you don't give us your answer. You just confirm that something would have to change, but you don't say what to. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]23:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you can't use "Great Britain", the obvious solution is to list all 3: "The United Kingdom of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland". Unless you want to make up something entirely new, like "EngNireWalesland". :-) StuRat (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the geographical logic might be, many Scots do not like to call themselves "British" - seeing the term as an English imposition - so might not object if the present name were maintained. The "Great" in Great Britain has nothing to do with assertions of power but was a mediaeval term to differentiate the island from "Little Britain" or Brittany - so, following that logic, the name "Great Britain" could be retained in the same way that Sudan has not felt the need to rename itself "North Sudan" since part of its former territory became independent. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The logical thing would be The United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland, however I'm sure that would send the Welsh into an apoplexy. Wales was never a kingdom, which is why it doesn't have its own piece of the Union Flag or the Royal Standard. Perhaps something like The United Kingdom of England with Wales and Northern Ireland. But I don't intend to worry about something that might never happen. Alansplodge (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They've long pretended they're separate nations when it comes to the Commonwealth Games. (Imagine the uproar if the 6 former colonies that are now the unified nation of Australia all had separate teams at such events.) Why not go the whole hog and make England, Wales and Northern Ireland three separate Commonwealth realms? I understand an independent Scotland would have that status anyway. That way, the Queen would be gaining more than she's losing, and the whole question of what to call this odd assortment of polities could be avoided. She'd be separately Queen of England, Queen of Scotland, Queen of Wales and Queen of Northern Ireland. Simple. It works for the rest of us. History would no doubt refer to these nations as the British Balkans. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]19:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Northern Ireland and Wales are both rather dependant on the financial support of the rest of the UK (perhaps that should read England). Scotland argues that they would be financially viable without us, once oil and gas revenues and the hoped-for increased aid from the EU are factored-in. I wonder if the Scottish electorate are brave enough to put that to the test. Alansplodge (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
England, Scotland and Wales are all nations. We wouldn't need to use the term "Southern Great Britain", as we already have South Britain, but I'm sure "England and Wales" would have more support than "South Britain". The words "United Kingdom" were first used because two separate kingdoms were united, and the Kingdom of Ireland no longer exists, so with Scotland gone the present United Kingdom would become two separate countries, one called Scotland, the other containing only one kingdom. That is why from a logical point of view I don't think we would need the word "united", although through inertia it might perhaps survive. Moonraker (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does Maryland have a body known as the Maryland Supreme Court or a variant thereof? I note that 48 US states have some sort of "Supreme Court" at the top of their judiciaries, and New York has Supreme Courts on a lower level, but I can't find any evidence that there's any court named "Supreme" in Maryland. Google produces lots of results, but all of them (like our Maryland Supreme Court) discuss the Maryland Court of Appeals, which is the state's supreme court, despite not having "Supreme" in its name. Nyttend (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why, though. Is it because they are geographically near the US Supreme Court, so calling them both the same thing would be confusing ? To me, however, what they did is likely to cause more confusion. StuRat (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. To StuRat, the Maryland Court of Appeals was established in 1776 and the U.S. Supreme Court not until 1787/1789, so your conjecture can't explain the original name (though it might have contributed to why it was never changed). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like my original question is being misunderstood. I'm not asking anything about Maryland's court of last resort — I'm simply asking if there are any Maryland courts called "Supreme Court". Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, no. There is no court called "Maryland Supreme Court", though the equivalent state-level court to the U.S. Supreme Court is the Maryland Court of Appeals. State supreme court is an article which discusses the situation in all 50 states. Most, but not all, states have a highest-level court named "Supreme Court". Maryland is one that does not. --Jayron3203:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was there an official reason given as to why the Gold State Coach was absent in Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee procession down the mall for her service of thanksgiving? She's used it in the procession in her previous jubilees, I suppose because it offers some continuity with the Coronation procession. I have my suspicions it may have been absent for several reasons; its weight of 4 tons and its age combining to make it fragile; and that, as the coach is a notoriously rocky and uncomfortable ride, maybe the Queen wouldn't have wanted to use it? Just wondered if there was an official reason? Mrandrewnohome (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I remember in the BBC commentary the remark was made that the Gold State Coach was deemed inappropriate for use in this time of austerity. Can't give a source for it though. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More likely out of consideration for the Queen's advancing years; "Head coachman Colin Henderson, who in recent years had the duty of walking alongside the coach, was interviewed by the BBC and explained: 'The carriage is on leather braces and not only rocks backwards and forwards but also oscillates, so I don't think it can be a particularly comfortable or enjoyable ride.' Queen Victoria once even refused to get inside the ornate Gold State Coach. She complained about the uncomfortable ride, saying that it gave her 'distressing oscillations'".[8]Alansplodge (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Galileo's situation is complex. Galileo's troubles were as much political as religious, he had his own defenders even within the church heirarchy itself, i.e. Cardinal Caesar Baronius. Also, I know of no evidence that Galileo was an athiest. Our own article calls him a "pious Roman Catholic", and I know of no reason to suspect he wasn't. --Jayron3203:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There have surely always been atheists. Even some of the people who were nominally Christian or whatever, were unacknowledged atheists. There was more pressure to conform back then, but what people believed in their hearts was beyond the reach of authority, as it is now. I don't know what you mean by "church's counts had any power on atheists". -- Jack of Oz[Talk]23:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also Medieval Inquisition - which covered anyone who did not abide by church teachings, for whatever reason. The article says that "Among the possible punishments were prayer, pilgrimage, wearing a yellow cross for life, banishment, public recantation, or, occasionally, long-term imprisonment." Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think what would happen to such a person would depend a lot on the specific time and place, but such a person would at least have been shunned. Marco polo (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Magicknight94 -- I think there's been a phenomenon of "tavern skepticism" for a long time (even in the middle ages) -- hard-bitten characters in low drinking dives uttering often rather crudely skeptical and/or blasphemous sentiments. The tavern skeptics/blasphemers could certainly get in trouble in some cases, but they weren't generally what the Church considered to be the most serious threat. Usually the authorities took much more seriously those earnest thinkers or organization founders who were trying to develop alternative theological systems and religious movements. AnonMoos (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to determine a person's true beliefs aside from their behavior, and many people may go to church for reasons other than being Christian (social reasons, "go along to get along", forced to, etc.) There have undoubtedly been athiests at all times in history. --Jayron3203:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes people were accused of atheism, like Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II or Peter Abelard, although I don't think they were atheists in a modern sense (well...maybe Frederick). Sometimes people are recorded as questioning certain basic tenets; for example King Amalric I of Jerusalem, who apparently once doubted the Resurrection. By the way, not Christian Europe of course, but there was somewhat an atheistic streak in Islam, Ibn al-Rawandi for example. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC) (Oops, sorry, I see Sluzzelin already mentioned that...) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for a nice video series about developmental psychology. It is animated and rather creepy at times. It is also old in my eyes. Finally, I think it may have been produced by the psychology department at Stanford or involved Phillip Zimbardo in one way or another. On the other hand, I may be mixing up different video series. This was from my high school psychology class. Thanks Wikipedians! 97.93.199.163 (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the Stanford marshmallow experiment dealt with developmental psychology. It was done in 1972, and strangers promising to give sweets to small children, as a reward for certain behaviors, might seem a bit creepy. Were the videos related to that ? StuRat (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That experiment is funny. Alas, it is not what I am seeking. More information: It was a set of maybe 8 videos (again, animated) that each went through (I think) Erikson's stages of life. E.g., 1 video for infants, 1 video toddlers... 1 video for adolescents... 1 video for near-death elderly couples (which was the funniest). 97.93.199.163 (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a link between conservatism and religion?
Basically, I noticed that the United States seems to have conservative tendencies. Abortion, same-sex marriage and the like are hot issues. They also don't have free healthcare and education (to my knowledge at least). On the other hand, Europe seems tobe more liberal leaning; many European countries allow same-sex marriage, abortion is allowed in most countries, and in some countries, you can even keep a small amount of marijuana at home and the police won't arrest you, or at most will just fine you. Europeans also seem to have a high standard of living. And let's not even get started on Canada. What I noticed is that, in the United States, most people are religious, especially those living in the Bible Belt, while many people in Europe are atheists, agnostics, or people who don't go to church anymore (except maybe France). So basically, does religion play a major role in conservatism? I think there's an article about that, but it doesn't seem to elaborate on the reasons. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew00:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not an answer to your question, but France is actually one of the least religious countries in Europe and the world - about 50% are atheist or agnostic, by my understanding. Moreover, the US has free public education (up through the secondary level) and is theoretically going to have a convoluted form of universal (if not free) healthcare.
Now to your question: Religion (at least Christianity) is by nature a conservative institution, because it is based on dogma (aka "canon") rather than adaptation to the times. In many ways religious conservatism is linked to social conservatism, as the most literal readings of the Bible prohibit abortion (or even birth control, for that matter) and homosexuality, and prescribe Creationism as the answer to "how did we get here?" in opposition to Darwinian evolution.
However I would argue that religious conservatism is only a small part of why the United States tends to be more conservative than European countries. There is a significant economic aspect - the idea of the "welfare state" is stigmatized in the US, whereas in some countries it is seen as one of the most important social advances of the past century. There is also the glorification of the military culture that needs to be taken into account. And of course, correlation is not causation: generally those who are not educated tend to be more conservative and more religious, especially if they do not benefit directly from the government's social policies - they are more aptly "traditionalists" than conservatives, in that they don't support the older ways because they inherently work better, but because that's "just how it's always been". 24.92.74.238 (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My aunt is an Episcopal priest (ie a Christian), and as liberal as they come. She likes to say: "The 'Christian Right' is neither Christian nor right". Blueboar (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they certainly seem to reject many of the teachings of Jesus, like pacifism and caring for the poor, in favor of Old Testament values. As such, they don't seem entitled to claim to be "Christian", to me. StuRat (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Say a group were to come in that wanted to repeal same-sex marriage and abortion in Europe. Would these people now be liberal or conservative? If the status quo is liberal ideology, then is conserving it still liberal? There is a corollary contraposition in the preceding sentences. Additionally, you may want to look at separation of church and state for more information about your question. 97.93.199.163 (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that "putting things back they way they were in the good old days" would include locking up homosexuals in prison or mental institutions, right ? StuRat (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that's why I qualified my statement with "sometimes". If one were to argue that everything about today's world represents progress compared with yesterday's world, I would laugh in their face so long and hard I'd probably have a heart attack. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]19:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat apparently never noticed that the reactionary-conservative-liberal-radical rubric he was taught in high school is total and complete bullshit. --Trovatore (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OP means 'conservative' and 'liberal' in their political spectrum senses (i.e., right and left) and not in their most literal incarnations. 24.92.74.238 (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I don't think it works to generalize about the United States. I live in Massachusetts, which is quite liberal in the US sense of that word, is not very religious, and which has had gay marriage and universal healthcare for several years now. Marco polo (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the American drift in this direction is the stronger link between conservatism and ignorance. Hence religious schools have declined as the neo-Know Nothings have taken over the churches.
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121125/A_NEWS/211250301/-1/A_NEWS04
It's a national issue, according to Sean Kennedy, a visiting fellow at the Lexington Institute who produced a report on Catholic education that was released in July. Kennedy reported that 167 Catholic schools across the nation closed in the past year, that national Catholic school enrollment has shrunk in the past few decades from 5.2 million to 2 million
This is one of my pet peeves... Too often, when people use the word "Christian" in political terms, they are really referring to the various Evangelical or Fundamentalist denominations. These denominations do tend to attract political conservatives (and do take an outspokenly conservative political stance in their dogmas)... but the membership of the older "mainstream" Christian denominations (Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.) are far more mixed in their politics (with both conservatives, liberals, and moderates... in both clergy and laity).
Being religious has nothing to do with ones political stance... but one's political stance can influence the form that one's religiousness will take. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, the various Christian denominations tend to take a very liberal view of political issues such as spending on social benefits and immigration. The days of the Church of England being the Conservative Party at prayer departed decades ago - see Faith in the City; "An unnamed Conservative Cabinet Minister was reported as dismissing the report — before it was published — as 'pure Marxist theology' and another Conservative MP claimed the report proved that the Anglican Church was governed by a 'load of Communist clerics'". Alansplodge (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Philippines and plastic bag bans (yet again)
I'm very much aware that I've asked this question twice, but both times I asked them, results were inconclusive, usually because I did not choose the right words in asking the questions. Hopefully this time, I can finally get some good answers on the topic. My question is: Does the Philippines have a higher number of plastic bag bans than other Asian countries? (excluding Bangladesh) If so, what are the possible reasons why the Philippines does and other Asian countries don't? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew00:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well as I said in reply to your last question, per your own comments the Philippines does not have a greater level of plastic bag ban then Bangladesh, so your comment is apparently excluding Bangladesh even though this hasn't been stated for whatever reason. Nil Einne (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the question you are trying to ask is: Excluding nations that have a national level ban, which Asian country has the most number of purely local/provincial level laws banning or restricting plastic bags? Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK... my guess is that you will not get a good answer to your question here on Wikipedia. I doubt there are sources that compile statistics on local/provincial level plastic bag ordinances in a given country. The best you might get are guesses based on anecdotal evidence... ie someone saying: "well all the towns near where I live (in country X) have anti plastic bag ordinances... so country X is a contender." Blueboar (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I am so curious is because my city is one of the so-called "pioneers" in the boom of plastic bag bans in the Philippines; it was among the first cities to do so. I was wondering if a similar trend exists in other Asian countries. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew07:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Googling for lists so far I'm finding only very general lists of countries here and here and here. Plus the blog Plastic Bag Ban Report which has entries for China, India, Philippines, Thailand, United Arab Emirates and Vietnam so may have more specific info.
What's worrying about that interview is that he wants to have time to "do things". British monarchs are not supposed to do things, other than they are what they are told to do by people who have been elected to do things. Charles already faces opposition to him becoming monarch - it may never happen even if his mother dies first. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ghmyrtle, your last sentence is very contentious. Many people have their opinions on individual members of the Royal Family, but all that matters is the law, and the law says that Charles will succeed his mother as long as he doesn't die first or become a Roman Catholic or marry one. It would take an absolutely extraordinary and unprecedented circumstance for the parliament to change the law to exclude Charles from the succession. Not being as well-liked as William is most definitely not such a circumstance. There are these grumblings of his dabbling in matters some say he should not be dabbling in; but rest assured, they would never amount to such a circumstance either. He has desired the throne for far too long to seriously jeopardise it now. All the signs are that his desire is undiminished, hence his sense of frustration; there's no evidence he's contriving to make himself ineligible to accede. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]19:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those two cases are about people who came to the throne, and some time later ceased to be monarch, for whatever reason. They are not comparable to a legitimate heir being deemed ineligible to ever accede in the first place. There are existing laws that would make Charles ineligible, such as becoming or marrying a Catholic. But I'm not aware of any case where a law was passed to specifically exclude an otherwise legitimate heir from the line of succession. That's what I mean by "an absolutely extraordinary and unprecedented circumstance". -- Jack of Oz[Talk]20:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a very long time since the eldest child and heir apparent of the British throne has been passed over; William I, Count of Boulogne is the most obvious example I can think of; on the death of his older brother Eustace, he should have been next in line and heir apparent to his father Stephen as King of \ngland. Stephen passed him over in favor of the heir to the Empress Mathilda in order to bring an end to the long civil war that marked his reign, see Treaty of Wallingford. Edward of Westminster, Prince of Wales was also written out of legitimate succession when the House of York seized control of the monarchy during the War of the Roses, though he died less than a month after his father's final deposement. And, during the same war, there was the curious case of the Princes in the Tower. Since then, with the exceptions already noted with the removal of Catholics from the line of succession that resulted in the deposition of James II and the eventual inheritance of the House of Hanover, I can't think of any other clear English or British heirs apparent that were passed over. --Jayron3206:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And regarding Charles being written out of the succession: it would require extraordinary means to do so; under the Statute of Westminster 1931, changes to the succession require the positive votes of all 16 countries where the British monarch reigns. Doing so is fairly unlikely. --Jayron3206:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure that Medeis didn't so much have a question as much as she wanted to point out Charles's remarkable public statement that, interpreted uncharitably, can be read as saying he wishes his mother would hurry up and die. Though I have no great affection for royalism, I might suggest that, in this sort of situation, it's better to try to find the charitable interpretation, however strained it might be. --Trovatore (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually what shocked me was the logical implication of his words. Two interesting facts from Tammy's first source, is that prophesying the monarch's death by witchcraft was a capital offense because it might scare him to death, and that a 19th-century law that expressing support for the overthrow of the monarchy (even peaceful usurpation or republicanism) is punishable by a one-way lifetime trip to Australia. The US has no law of treason in regard to the President as President. Oswald might have had treason charges brought against him if it were proven he was working for or to aid a foreign enemy. McKinley's assassin Csolgosz was electrocuted for first degree murder, and no other charge.
The open questions as I see them are, what are the actual laws still in effect? And does Charles have any sort of immunity? However unlikely a prosecution would be, if he were to write a tract urging her to step down in his favor he would seem subject to lifetime transportation according to the 1848 Felony Treason Act. μηδείς (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible for people or their parents and grandparents not to have cousins or siblings? (A family of only children)
Is it possible for people or their parents and grandparents not to have cousins or siblings? (A family of only children) I've heard of the one child rule in China but are they families that exist with a Lineage of only children? Are there any famous people or families like that? Neptunekh94 (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well... it depends on what you mean by "cousins"... it is certainly possible if you restrict the definition to first or second cousins (common grand parents or great-grand parents), but as you go back through the generations, it becomes highly unlikely that every generation of ancestors (both maternal and paternal) were single-child families. Sooner or later, there will be at least one ancestor that had a sibling who has living descendents. So you might not have any first cousins, but you probably do have at least one ninth cousin or tenth cousin out there... somewhere. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested in perusing the truly massive study at [9], which unfortunately is specific to the United States. Anyway, according to that, 10% of unmarried Americans have never had sex by age 44, which is the highest age for which this really enormous survey goes. Amongst married Americans, only a little over 2% in that age group have never had sex. Since almost 100% of Americans get married at some point in their lives, 2-3% seems like a reasonable percentage of middle-aged Americans who have never had sex (or at least would never admit it, even in an anonymous survey). Someguy1221 (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it seems somewhat questionable. This source [10] for example says one in ten people 50 to 54 have never been married. (It also claims one in three never marry at all but I'm somewhat unclear how they determined that figure as it's supposed to come from census figures so I'm not going to quote it as reliable. Based on some other sources, I think they're actually talking about the percentage of adults who have not married yet, in which case the source is IMO using very poor wording.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the 2000 census data [11], 4.5% of people 60 and over have never been married. While some of these people may eventually marry, it's resonable to assume the percentage of people who never married is likely to be higher since some people will obviously die at a younger age when fewer of them are married (if we ignoring the complicating factor of marriage affecting death rates). Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even these 4.5% of never married over 1960 seems strange to me. What about all the homosexuals and incorrigible single womanizers? They amount to more than 4.5% of the population. The data doesn't pass my bull-shit detecting plausibility test. Linenld (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the figures particularly unbelievable even if we ignore the possibly those who don't marry are more likely to die at a younger age. Historically, plenty of gay people married people of the opposite sex due to social pressure and other reasons. (And I think your overestimating the number of 'incorrigible single womanizers'.) Remember since it was the 2000 census, we're talking about people born in 1940 or earlier. If you're going by current marriage trends, you're likely to be mislead since all the trends suggest marriage is getting less popular which may mean 40 years from now there will be a much higher percentage of people over 60 who never married, but obviously can't have an effect on those already over 60 who married sometime during their life. (In fact the first source I linked to strongly suggests we should expect the percentage of people over 60 who never married to have increased likely by a fair amount in recent figures.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How would reliabilism justify knowledge?
We all know that reliabilism is under externalism. But my questions are, if knowledge is justified by an outside source then how is it going to relate to the person who would say that what he has is knowledge? and Would it not turn as another form of evidentialist claim if the external justification should relate to the person to assert that what he has is knowledge? Because it requires his/her cognitive skills so as to believe and recognize an external justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 13:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We all know that reliabilism is under externalism - Well, this little black duck doesn't know that, because he doesn't even know what either of those two things is. They have links but I don't have a week spare to read and absorb the concepts contained therein. But that aside, what would it mean for one -ism to be "under" another -ism? -- Jack of Oz[Talk]18:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's normal for externalists to claim that you don't need to know that you know x in order to know x. K(S, p) → K(S, K(S,p)) is false for many externalists (where K(z, y) means "Some person z knows some proposition y" and S is a person and p is a proposition). The K(S, p) speaks to the first- order knowledge of S, and the K(S, K(S , p)) speaks to the second-order knowledge of S.
That does not fully answer your question, I know, and I don't think I can because I don't know all the different externalist positions. One influential paper: Tyler Burge (1988), “Individualism and Self-Knowledge” in the Journal of Philosophy, 85, pp. 649–63. Burge says "Knowing one's thoughts no more requires separate investigation of the conditions that make the judgment possible than knowing what one perceives." His theory is that the mental event involved in K(S, K(S , p)) contains within it the mental event involved in K(S, p). And S need not recognize an external justification for K(S, p) in order for there to be K(S, K(S , p)) because the object of the mental event of K(S, K(S , p)), that is, the mental event of K(S, p), is already beheld by S. So take reliabilism. The reliability of the belief in p is the justification for K(S , p). The reliability of the belief in K(S , p) is the justification for K(S, K(S , p)), let's call that the second-order reliability in this case. The recognition that "the reliability of the belief in p is the justification for K(S, p)" is not the justification, but the second-order reliability itself is the justification. The second-order reliability is guaranteed by the first-order reliability, because the second-order knowledge content is merely the first-order knowledge which S does have as a mental event and which has its own reliability.
So really, he is calling out the line of thought you have advanced as a sort of category error: An epistemological theory says what it is for someone to know some proposition, including what it is for someone to have the relevant justification. You then turn around and say: "Well, for S to know p is for S to have that justification, so for S to know that S knows p is for S to know that S has that justification, ergo, externalism falls apart". Burge is turning around and saying: "No, it's externalism all the way down. For S to know p implies that S has that justification, but the knowledge itself is not merely that S has that justification. For S to know that S knows p is not for S to know the first-order justification, but is rather that S has the second-order justification."
Why did the Southern states ratify the 13th amendment?
I was watching Spielberg's Lincoln movie yesterday, and I was wondering why the Southern states decided to ratify the 13th amendment abolishing slavery? According to the wiki page, states like Virginia, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, all ratified it, almost immediately after the war!
Borisblue (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a somewhat long story. The basic version is that after Johnson took power (after Lincoln's assassination), he largely halted many of the efforts of Reconstruction and scaled them back to, "if you ratify the 13th amendment, you can join the Union again." (Which was how Lincoln thought Reconstruction should start, not end.) At that point it was an expedient move to get out from under martial law, and by that point it was clear to all that they couldn't just re-institute slavery (nor did they really need to). Read the Reconstruction article if you want to get a better sense of the whole history. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. 98 is partly correct. Virginia, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Arkansas were partly or completely under Union control by the end of 1864, and those states formed Unionist state governments amenable to the abolition of slavery. These states typically had two rival governments, one loyal to the Confederacy and another loyal to the Union. See, for example, Louisiana in the American Civil War and Restored Government of Virginia. It was the Unionist governments of these states, not the secessionist governments, that ratified the 13th amendment. For the other Southern states that ratified the amendment during the 1860s, Mr. 98's explanation is correct. Johnson made ratification an implicit condition for readmission to the Union. See this account. Marco polo (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody really knows, but it is an interesting question, given how much of a role fiction plays in the lives of human beings. There's at least one book that speculates on the topic, but I view this kind of neuro-cultural speculation with some suspicion, personally, because we still really are grasping around in the dark when we are trying to talk about even how the brain works, much less how the brain evolved. But it's at least an attempt at a learned explanation. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fiction is certainly an early human invention... In a world where there is a great big hungry lion hiding in the bushes outside the cave, it's nice to imagine a world where someone in the tribe might actually be brave enough to face the great big hungry lion and drive it away (psst... hey Ogg... hint, hint). Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that, like dreaming, they give us an opportunity to think about how we might handle that situation, and thus prepare for a similar situation, in case it does occur. As such, life threatening situations in fiction are more desirable, since preparing for those is most important. (I always do that: "Get down on the ground, you idiot, can't you see they're shooting at you ?") StuRat (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Muslim meal times
My young daughter has a friend who is Muslim and, from what I can gather, the family originally came from Egypt. The parents seem like nice folks, though there's a sizable language barrier between us, hence my reason for asking here. One thing we've noticed is that the family seems to have (what seems to us) odd meal times. I'd like to learn more about this as the girls frequently visit either family's home, so it would be good to kind of know how everything is set up. I think it's pretty standard for people to eat a breakfast soon after rising, a lunch sometime around noon, and then a supper/dinner five to seven hours after that. Obviously there's a lot of variation, but I think that gives a rough average, yes? This family seems to eat their breakfast around noon, their midday meal sometime around two or three in the afternoon (or later) and then has supper very late, just before bed. At least, that's the impression I'm getting via the kids, who are not always the greatest informants! I've tried Googling about Muslim meal times, but everything I see is in regards to Ramadan and other fasting practices, which I don't think are at play here. Any help? Is this a standard Muslim meal schedule? An Egyptian thing? I'm quite aware it could just be an idiosyncrasy of the family, too. Matt Deres (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frommers has a little Egyptian mealtime info. This report talks about restaurants closing at 2 am being a controversial curtailment of their normal hours. Given the climate, I'd expect this is the effect of a siesta rather than theology (and the Frommers link says things are different during Ramadan). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk16:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's likely to be just an idiosyncrasy of the family. There are plenty of families of all religions and ethnicities who like to get up late, have a leisurely breakfast and so on. --Viennese Waltz18:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, so it does. Thanks for the link; I guess I was looking from the wrong direction, going from Muslim -> lunch instead of lunch -> Muslim. Thank you also to Finlay; I'll check those links as well. Matt Deres (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do either of the parents work an unusual shift ? This might explain the odd meal hours, if they are trying to have their meals together, despite the unusual shift. StuRat (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, 'most' is an overstatement. "The list includes eight out of 41 NSDAP regional leaders who held office between 1926 and 1945, seven out of 47 higher SS and police leaders, 53 out of 554 Army generals, 14 out of 98 Luftwaffe generals [and] 11 out of 53 admirals in the Kriegsmarine." However, it is true that many Germans took their own lives following the end of the war. Our article Mass suicides in 1945 Nazi Germany states that "[t]he reasons for these waves of suicides were numerous and include the effects of Nazi propaganda, the example of the suicide of Adolf Hitler, victims' attachment to the ideals of the Nazi party, and a reaction to the loss of the war and, consequently, the anticipated Allied occupation of Nazi Germany." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's a "Nazi member"? A Nazi party member? Answering your question, the alternative fate of falling into Russian hands or facing the death penalty was not very attractive either. I do not believe in a general feeling of guilt, given the reactions at the Nuremberg by some leaders or trying to bury the past by the general German and moving on. Philoknow (talk)
Who can claim, at least in the Western civilization, to be educated? Do you need a degree? Read the news regularly? Speak foreign languages? Recite poetry? Correctly spell without spell checker? Standard accent? Eat with your mouth shut and say please and thank you? Know the bible by heart or better be an atheist? Where's the valid canon? Linenld (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One criterion by which readers decide if a writer is "educated" is his ability to avoid using a different word than the one he intended, such as writing "cannon" when he means canon. In speech, someone might be regarded as "uneducated" (or perhaps an autodidact if he mispronounced a word, such as pronouncing "chaos" beginning with a "chay" sound rather than a hard "c" sound as I once did when as a child I had only read the word and never heard anyone say it. "Proper" grammar and spelling are an initial hurdle in presenting oneself as "educated." Eating habits and saying "Thank you" might be indicators of a "proper upbringing" more than of "education." I don't see Americans expecting an educated person to recite poetry and speak a foreign language. I found several descriptions which have been written of what makes a person "educated." Some were more like what makes a person relate to God and others well, but one which seems more mainstream is [12]. Edison (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"We expect a physicist to know that in the quark theory, the only elementary particles are quarks and leptons, but it is hardly necessary for a lawyer, doctor, or sociologist to have this information, and hence we would treat it as specialized knowledge." Justify the commas after "theory" and "information" and you will rise even further in my estimation. :) Tevildo (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was something I hadn't read. "In the quark theory" could be regarded as parenthetical and hence deserving of two commas. Or not, in which case it gets none. But not just the one, as written. I don't have a problem with the comma after "information", but it's not essential. I still think it's a bit of an overkill to say he "knows nothing" about punctuation. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]00:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opening this out as it might be relevant to the discussion. "Nothing" was admittedly excessive - Mohanan's punctuation isn't as dreadful as many pieces of text that one reads on the Internet, but he does not appear to have studied any formal rules of punctuation in great detail, choosing instead the "bung a comma in every now and then when it looks OK" approach. This reminded me, indirectly, of a very interesting programme on the radio a couple of weeks ago about E D Hirsch and cultural literacy. Mohanan takes the opposite position, in that his essay considers the goal of education to be the development of appropriate thinking techniques and methods for processing information - this is important, true, but it might be regarded as placing too little emphasis on the acquisition of actual _facts_. Although nobody today would regard the full-blown Gradgrindian approach as acceptable, I would still argue that knowledge of facts themselves in addition to methods of obtaining them is an important component of "educatedness". Tevildo (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well the examples listed are really couple different things: being educated (formal education), having good etiquette, and learned (bilingual, recite poetry, etc acquired by formal education and/or experience) . For Canada and US, the relevant articles would be Educational attainment in the United States & Education in Canada (or look at this under Educational attainment). One can "claim" to be educated at any level, however in my opinion the very bare minimum would be completing high school but it'll be a more reasonable claim if one complete some sort of post-secondary level of education (College Associate degree and up). Royor (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Linenld -- I don't think that either being an atheist or memorizing the Bible has much to do with it, but to be "educated" in a Western sense, you do have to know in a general way about certain Biblical episodes or incidents (the Sermon on the Mount, the Golden Calf, etc.), even if you don't believe in them. By the way, Muslims place greater emphasis on personal scripture memorization than either Christians or Jews do... AnonMoos (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There a lot of good points above; I would only like to stress how important the context is for answering this question. There are situations where only those people who have completed a doctorate would be called "educated". Likewise, there are instances where completing any formal education at all would be considered so. My opinion is that for the average person in urban North America, obtaining a post secondary degree would probably be a minimum requirement to have people refer to you as "an educated person." It's not that others are uneducated, it's just that there's a rising standard in what it means to have a formal education; with so many people having bachelor degrees, it would be difficult to be called "educated" without one.
Context comes into it further when you talk about what your degree is in. For some people, only individuals who have completed a course of study in something highfalutin like medicine or English literature would be considered "educated", while the folks that only got, say, a business degree would not. Matt Deres (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think perfect punctuation is required for a person to be considered "educated". In fact, few people other than professional editors (not all of whom are highly educated) manage perfect punctuation. This is OR based on my experience as a professional editor who has at times had to edit the punctuation of highly educated persons. Marco polo (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Mark Twain said: "I have never let my learning get in the way of my education." There are lots of forms of education... an auto mechanic may not have completed high school, but he can be quite educated on the topic of automobiles. Blueboar (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Educated is too broad a term to attack usefully. An elementary education is the ability to read, use a library, do arithmetic and write a paragraph in full sentences. A proper education is the ability to do algebra (including exponents), to write a report and a formal letter, to find yourself on a map and the way to your destination, to follow and participate in politics, to run a household, and to earn a living. A liberal education requires some knowledge of world and classical history, the scientific method, the arts, familiarity with logic, the use of a foreign language, the ability to write an essay and a lab report, and to have a good notion of the extent of your own ignorance. A doctorate requires mastery of a classical and fluency in a foreign language, authoritative expertise in some technical area, the ability to do independent research, to write a thesis, and to defend it and yourself in a dissertation. Approximately. See the trivium, the quadrivium, and paideia. μηδείς (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Turning into a market maker (not in the stock market)
Is it by any mean illegal to take part in a market as a bigger player and buy all offered products at a specific price and only sell them back into the same market with a margin of profit? It would mean that you indeed are the market maker and decides for all (smaller) players that the prices have to go up. It would only work if you have considerable more means than others, or when other similar players are doing the same. As a concrete example, imagine that you buy all offered offices in a district, which normally trade for $500/sq ft, and try to re-sell for $600/sq ft. You do it systematically, and each time an office get offered by less than $600/sq ft you go there and buy it. Linenld (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that strategy would work. Nobody would want to buy in an area where such real estate manipulation occurs, so you would end up with property worth less than what you paid for it. Real estate agents would also figure out your strategy, and only sell to you for $599 per square foot. StuRat (talk) 04:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's called buying low and selling high which is called investment when the big guys do it and scalping when the little guys do it. It's neither monopoly which requires government force to make people buy from you and only you or price fixing which is competitors getting together and colluding to charge the same amount. In either of those cases there might be a temporary swing one way or the other, but so long as the government doesn't prevent it market forces will cause a correction. What it sounds like your big guy is trying to do is corner the market. Again, that's never been accomplished without government backing, as people catch on and react as StuRat indicated. Again, for a great read and the go-to resource on free market economics rationally explained go to George Reisman's http://www.capitalism.net/ and download his college textbook for free as a pdf on the left of the page. μηδείς (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
symbols of France, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, and Spain
Canada is known for its maple leaf, USA is known for its stars and strips and UK is known for its Union Jack. What about France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Germany and Spain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of France's oldest national symbols is the Fleur-de-lis, though it is considered somewhat monarchical. There's Marianne, which is something like the "Uncle Sam" symbol is for the U.S., a personification of the nation; France's equivalent of the U.S. Bald Eagle is le coq gaulois. --Jayron3203:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the short answer is - no, there isn't. They're just different ways of naming orchestral organizations. So while Edmonton's orchestra is called the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra, and Calgary's is named the Calgary Philharmonic Orchestra, the nomenclature doesn't point to any difference in the makeup of the orchestra, or the way they are governed, or their mandates in their respective communities. In some larger centres, where there may be several orchestras, you find both names being used - like the London Symphony and the London Philharmonic - or the Vienna Symphony and the Vienna Philharmonic. And some orchestras don't use either, like the Philadelphia Orchestra or the Cleveland Orchestra. However both names do carry the connotation of a full, well proportioned orchestra that includes winds and strings, as opposed to a Wind Orchestra or a Chamber Orchestra. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Separatists winning the Scottish Parliament elections.
Is the Scottish parliament election not a local election? When is the last time Scottish separatist parties won a 60% majority, or anything like that? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Scottish Parliament is not a local election; local government in Scotland is a different layer of government. The SNP has never won 60% in a Scottish Parliament election - all four are shown in Scottish parliament#Elections. I don't believe the SNP has ever enjoyed a majority of votes, Scottish seats at the Westminster parliament, Scottish seats in the European parliament, or Scottish local authorities. In the last general election the SNP polled 20% of the vote in Scotland. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk23:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Scottish Parliament was conceived as part of a system of regional government (English regional assemblies and the Welsh Assembly were created the same year) and has powers devolved from Westminster. It's a creation of Westminster, very like a local authority, and for now in theory it could be abolished quite quickly there, though there would be a political backlash which might well cause many more Scots to vote for independence. Moonraker (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that clears a lot up. Almost as if they had created three US state legislatures where before there had only been local and national government. I had thought the Scottish parliament was separate from and equal to the Westminster parliament. μηδείς (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for the name of the fallacy that occurs when thinking about tolerance. It is summed up in this quote:
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society... then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them...”
― Karl R. Popper
It is indeed a type of equivocation, I'd call it context-dropping or definition by non-essentials. By tolerance in a political context we mean tolerance of opinion, not tolerance of force or physiological tolerance of drugs, etc. Popper is not committing the fallacy here, he's describing it. Those who'd replace the properly valued political tolerance of peaceful differences of opinion or taste or peaceful practices with "tolerance" as an absolute, as if we must "tolerate" those who initiate force against others, are destroying the very concept whose value they expect you to recognize emotionally, but whose nature they don't expect you to identify consciously. (That phenomenon of replacing thought with emotion is the essence of Orwell's Newspeak.) Ayn Rand called the fallacy involved the anti-concept. Popper's not arguing against tolerance, he's arguing that we have to know what we mean by words like it that have multiple and possibly contradictory senses in the context where we use them. μηδείς (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing thought with emotion is not the essence of Newspeak. The essence is that if a language is not capable of expressing a certain idea, say "freedom", then nobody can imagine the concept or try to bring about its existence. Newspeak only works if linguistic determinism is true, and very few linguists believe it is. --140.180.249.151 (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
