Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

November 4

Importance of F-117A shootdown? Greatest victory in the history of warfare?

In what was, without any doubt, the most uneven war in the history of the world, in which a small, 9 million people country, alone without any allies, weakened by 10 years of previous international sanctiones, faced the entire NATO pact, which included all the top military forces of the day (mind you, Russia in 1999. was very much different to Putin's Russia), so in what was an extremely uneven fight, I remember when our Air Defense Missile shot the top modern F-117A down it was regarded as a miracle and it was celebrated for days, I remember my father running to the balocony and firing a full clip in the air in celebration, the state TV ran pics of a shot down plane for months and so on...

Now, granted, Milošević and his TV had every interest to exaggerate the importance of this event, especially during the war itself, as it really improved the morale of the entire nation dramaticly. I was a kid then and obviously I was as happy as everyone. But recently, Russian president Putin, while meeting our new president, mentioned this incident and said how great of achivement this was and how examining the part of this plane helped the Russian army and so on... So I was wondering, objectively, how important this event was in the history of the military and history of the world? Would it be fair to say that, given the ratio of the confronted armies, this is one of the greatest achievements in the history of warfare? For years I considered this to be more of a propaganda tool than a serious success, but if president Putin, after almost 15 years, found this to be important enough to mention, then it might actually be more important then first thought: would it be fair to say that the shotdown of F117A is the biggest air-fight victory in the history of warfare (obviously not in scale, but in difficulty)? Was there ever a success similar to this since the war planes were invented up til present day? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.92.23 (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

1999 F-117A shootdown for our article on the incident. Tevildo (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems like an exaggeration to me, but in any case I'll just note that we have an article about the incident, 1999 F-117A shootdown. Looie496 (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

We don't answer shoot down requests for opinions, predictions or debate. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It was one of the most difficult victories, NATO had total air superiority and it was able to suppress anti aircraft activity almost completely. You only had to switch on your radar for more than a handful of seconds and it was guaranteed that a HARM missile would be on your way. The Attack on H3 is an action of comparable difficulty. Of course, the military impact of that attack was much larger. Count Iblis (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The answer to the OP's question would derive from the answer to this question: Who won the war? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As to how remarkable this was, or whether there were other air conflicts that were as or more remarkable, I could not say. However, it must be understood that this was not a development of any particular importance. Only a single aircraft was affected, and there was no impact on the outcome of the conflict. Its primary significance was on the morale of the nation. Putin or his advisers were aware of this, which is why he mentioned it. John M Baker (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It was a shocking event to those who thought the Stealth was invincible, and makes for an interesting story, but it had no real impact, as the NATO bombings succeeded in liberating Kosovo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Why doesn't the Army fake Taliban chatter?

I was just watching a documentary about how soldiers in Afghanistan complain that every time they leave base, they hear Taliban spotters reporting it on the radio. Question: why don't they fake and pervert these communications? For example, they could simply record comments in an area and rebroadcast them randomly day and night. Or why don't they use NSA voiceprint/transcription capabilities and actually take conversations from other places, re-record them automatically with the voices of locals who broadcast recently? Couldn't they use drones, dropped sensors, etc. to spread this kind of confusion all over Afghanistan, and use their own secure network so that their own people can ignore the false communications? Wnt (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll assume that you have assumed that both the American soldiers and the Taliban are stupid. There is no benefit to the Americans for faking and perverting the chatter on the radio. As soon as the Americans do this, the Taliban would use codes in their chatter and then the Americans will lose their ability to monitor the contents of the chatter. This will make the life of the American soldiers HARDER because now they will have to divert resources to breaking the new code. 202.177.218.59 (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you asking about the legality of fakery? Or suggesting a battle plan? How is this question remotely referenceable? 71.246.157.82 (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it might work once. For example, if the US planned to launch a major operation, they might want to send this kind of counter-intelligence signal right beforehand, to confuse the enemy. StuRat (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, both of the suggestions I made had simple codes in mind: because the Army would be rebroadcasting the Taliban's own communications, just at the wrong times, they should be properly coded. (Unless they actually have a datestamp built in) And if the codes became really sophisticated, then the Army could still crack them, then use them to riddle out who is telling who the new code. I mean, the spies make a routine thing out of cracking into SSL and TOR, I think they can handle Taliban on walkie talkies! But yes, there might be a limited number of fake messages that deliver the best return because they're believed. Wnt (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

OP, is there some reason you are convinced that the Army (etc.) doesn't "fake and pervert" enemy communications? DOR (HK) (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Was thinking the same thing Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, something no one has yet mentioned with all the sophisticated code technology at the military's disposal (and I am in agreement that they probably are doing this but as stated above, they realize that there are only a few very key opportunities to do so before they are playing coding games for hours on an ever more developing code, while all signals are being more verified by the Taliban et.c)

Anyways, given the sophisticated technology why not just . . . triangulate the radio frequencies & do what the military does best, take them out? I might not be up to date here but the one thing I would never do is expose my location via triangulation by yapping into a walkie talkie as a sophisticated and coordinated fighting force is pin pointing my exact location as I'm target painted. Something tells me that the situation I just described is actually the event that usually happens, and yes I'm aware that it's the roof of the world without easy naval air strike access (landlocked) but as Ron White is apt to say "heck, even Poot could take him out", in many cases at least. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 07:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The Taliban would then do their broadcasts from schools, hospitals, etc., so that the US would bomb those locations. StuRat (talk) 08:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I was confused by this at first but then realized that they could move schools and hospitals by the bases to then broadcast from them. The 'optics' of war indeed. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps. Or, if there's no hospital or school nearby, they could send a runner to the nearest one and have him broadcast from there. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, NATO don't publicise whatever it is they're doing in the way of electronic warfare and SIGINT. The British Army's specialists in this area, 14 Signal Regiment (Electronic Warfare), have had 5 men killed in Afghanistan, so they haven't been sitting on their hands. Alansplodge (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind about code-breaking is that it is a time-critical exercise. If you cannot distinguish intelligence from a forward scout and someone discussing a shopping list within 10 minutes, then the value of that information is drastically lowered, as the scout may have moved elsewhere. 10 minutes is not a long time for anything that involves multiple parties and possibly a chain of command. Also, a takeout operation is not free. If you send soldiers, you risk an ambush. If you use a sophisticated smart weapon, or a large enough dumb weapon, you are expending significant resources, and you risk collateral damage. And it would be quite easy to fake signals and provoke such strikes. As an aside, I keep remembering the Vincennes engagement with some outrigger-powered rubber dinghies that preceded her shooting down Iran Air Flight 655. If she engaged the boats with her 5 inch guns (probably the cheapest adequate weapon system they had on board), and even if every shot kills a boat, she was still costing more in ammunition than she destroyed in rubber boats. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That's why I think this question isn't really referenceable. But here's a hot question that a lot of people are wondering about now, that maybe someone here can shed some light on: Isn't it ILLEGAL to take Gaddafi's stockpile of weapons and give them to Jihadist rebels fighting in Syria? 71.246.157.82 (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I would expect recognition codes to be changed daily to prevent what OP suggests.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

search for the meaning of life

Is the search for the meaning of life meaningful? I am referring to the search itself. 220.239.51.150 (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It has as much or as little meaning as you decide to ascribe to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I can only add that the answer to life, the universe and everything is 42 [1].--Mark Miller (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That was one of Adams' ribs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I came across a great quote last night, from Pablo Picasso: The reason for living is to find one's passion. The purpose for living is to share it. He had no comment on the meaning. But the Sufis had only two rules about the search for enlightenment/meaning: 1. Begin; 2. Continue. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I would amend step 2 by adding "until further notice." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the world community of Sufis is indebted to you for that improvement. Are you at all related to King Alfonso X of Castile, known as "El Sabio" ("The Wise")? He once said: Had I been present at the Creation, I would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of the Universe. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The 21 employees of a small linoleum firm shared with me just now that they are passionate about my vinyl flooring. I wish I had attained such enlightenment myself.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The more you search, the less you will find. Count Iblis (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You might be thinking of the platitude that the search for the meaning of life is itself the meaning of life. (I most recently heard this offered as a rebuff to Q (Star Trek).) It's a temptingly easy way to get rid of the problem. It's interesting that the opposite conclusion seems to get rid of the problem even faster: if the search for meaning is not meaningful, we might as well stop. However, the meaning of life is probably a massively complex and open-ended idea as described in the article (particularly Meaning_of_life#Popular views), and the search for it is meaningful but is not in itself the meaning of life.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That depends whether you're looking from a secular or religious perspective. From a secular approach, there is no meaning: life exists because the universe is conducive to it, life's sole end is to cause more life. A particular life is just a probabilistic outcome. As a result, morality is just an evolutionary byproduct. Hence, its definition is not absolute, nor does anyone have the absolute right to condemn you for any amoral action. Moreover, the universe doesn't care about our accomplishments, or lack of. "Do what you want, if you can get away with it." Thus secularly speaking, since there exists no meaning, the search for it is also meaningless. I can't speak about the other religious perspectives, but from a Christian perspective, there is a meaning of life. Discovering it, is quite revealing and rewarding, and I would recommend anyone else to also discover it. It's beautifully simple really, but it bears no effect unless you trust it's veracity. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, because the morality which "is just an evolutionary byproduct" is still real and meaningful. For a minority of people (those few atheists who are authoritarian enough to think they have hold of absolute truth) it can also be seen as absolute: many others consider morality to be purely relative (pure moral relativism), and opposed to that is another viewpoint: that we are continually accumulating knowledge about morality, making it an imperfectly grasped absolute to be aspired to but not reached. The various values listed in the Meaning of Life article under "To do good, to do the right thing" are not selfish (not a matter of "what you can get away with"), but do not entail religion.  Card Zero  (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Then I posit this: secularly, what reason is there to not be selfish, why should you care about "doing good, or doing the right thing"? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Because it is good, and the right thing. And because we don't need imaginary beings telling us so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You miss the point of my question: why should doing the right thing matter to the secular? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I need no God looking over my shoulder to act in accordance with who I am. That is built in to me by evolution and my upbringing. There are psychos around the place, I am not one. I doubt that they are reformed by religion - they'd simply see it as something to use. Dmcq (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That is what I'm saying, secularly, morality is an evolutionary byproduct, and thus to live a moral life is a moot idea, in relevance to the objective of life. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a fine question.

• First, let's agree that it's untrue that human behavior is controlled by an individual's genes. (Nobody mentioned this yet, but I can sense the idea "genes force us to be selfish to further their own reproduction" lurking around, and I want to head it off at the pass).
• Now, an easy observation: the lack of a reason not to be selfish is not a reason to be selfish.
• The Ayn Rand followers who see unselfishness as emerging rationally from selfishness probably deserve a mention. They continue to call the result "selfishness", which I think is misleading.
• It seems relevant to mention the idea of knowledge as non-hierachical (there's surely some Karl Popper reference for this): there's no fundamental fact from which all other facts can be deduced. This gives knowledge a web-like structure, which must also apply to knowledge about morality, so when you ask "from what do you derive your attitude to life in general" I can say "from all my other preferences, feelings and attitudes, and the things they seem to signify". I know that's something of a cop-out, but it's a personal matter and my answer is unlikely to be completely transferable to another person; and a discussion of it is unlikely to be encyclopedic in tone. In essence I believe in a sort of bootstrapping where impersonal values like valuing knowledge (for everyone) emerge gradually from childish attractions to things that are shiny or sweet or fun.
• Finally: I'm tempted to say I don't know. I have thoughts, but this is not a forum and I'd struggle to provide anything like a reference.

 Card Zero  (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't concerned with your first point on the idea. My objective is to discredit living a moral life, as a valid meaning of life. It is a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds subtle. I was taking "morality" as analogous to "meaning of life" in this context (and "meaning of life" as analogous to "purpose of life"). I generally understand morality to equate to the answer to the question "what to do next?". You are likely understanding the terms a bit differently.

If your point is that various forms of unselfish behaviour (such as the generic "helping others to attain their goals") lead to circularity when applied as the sole purpose of life, I completely agree.  Card Zero  (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"why should doing the right thing matter to the secular". Our brain evolved in a certain way, it executes an algorithm to determine what we should be doing. The concept of "the right thing" and "the wrong thing" are derived from that. Count Iblis (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Technically yes, but I think that gives genes undue credit. Technically all other concepts, such as (to pick three at random) "jet engine", "cocktail", and "grandmother" also derive from the evolution of the brain, in that the evolution of the brain provided minds, and minds were capable of creating these ideas; but by the same reasoning you could give the credit to the sun as a vital root cause, or to early bacterial life, or a gas cloud that became the solar system. Really, no, it's minds that did it. (But perhaps you meant to include the evolution of ideas within culture when you say "our brain evolved"?)  Card Zero  (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Ayn Rand makes some interesting arguments. First, only living beings can actually have values or states of beings that matter to them by nature. Objects that cannot be destroyed have no reason to act one way or the other. An indestructible robot would have no natural values--any we programmed into it would be our values parasitically. Objects like stones cannot act, so even though they can be destroyed, it would be anthropomorphism to attribute values to them. Hence a system of values can only make sense for living, especially rational animals; and moralities based on the whims of God or categorical imperatives are [my words]unscientific poppycock.

She asserts further that an individual's own life is his highest value. This may make some psychological sense, but organisms for which reproduction is not ultimately the highest value go extinct. Rand did not understand evolution, which she viewed as an open question, and was not a lover of children or family. Most people either live through their children or sublimate that into their creations or causes.

Rand also made two versions of the following argument. The weak version is that if you want to live, and only if you want to live (in the successful long term) is it necessary to pursue certain values in an if, then relationship. She also tended to more strongly argue that living the rational life was the only moral choice, with rational usually implying sharing her personal values. That is putting the cart before the horse, and she seems to have used it mainly to browbeat her associates into following her dictates when necessary. The weaker argument is much more persuasive. If all you care about is being a great painter, you still need to keep up your health, avoid being jailed, obtain your needed materials and skills through effort, and so on. In that sense, each person is free to find the meaning of his own life. And even if that meaning is to kill Hitler, a certain rational plan must be followed. This is also a premise behind the show Dexter. To fulfill his own "evil" urges in the conventional sense, Dexter is forced to do "good" so far as the overall scheme. The weaker version also allows for people like the 9-11 bombers, whose actions were either deluded (their belief in their 72 virgins) or very short term satisfaction of their intense hatred.

You can read much of this covered in brief excerpts at the Ayn Rand Lexicon, available on line, and with bibliographical citations. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There must be a whole bunch of people around with the belief that they can and should act rationally. As if we had even half a handle on what that means yet. The delusion just seems to lead to them doing stupid things and making themselves and those around them unhappy. Dmcq (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Rand's not promising a rose garden. She's just saying you as an individual should pursue your own rational self-interest, as there's no reason (duty to God or the state or others) not to. She doesn't even have a problem with you dedicating yourself to God or others if it's done in the context of a free country. Ultimately everyone is his own arbiter of what's rational and what are his own highest values. (This is discussed at length in Rasmussen and Den Uyl's The Philosophical Thought of Ayn Rand.) Rand (and before her, Agatha Christie) quote the "old Spanish proverb": God said, take what you want, and pay for it. But, of course, if you think robbery is a rational means of living you maybe shouldn't complain if someone shoots you in his own self defense. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"You are like this cup; you are full of ideas about Buddha's Way. You come and ask for teaching, but your cup is full; I can't put anything in. Before I can teach you, you'll have to empty your cup." Bus stop (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

We can't and should. The same goes for being correct about anything else.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Survivors of the Holocaust

Why were there people to be liberated from the death camps during the Holocaust? What I mean is, the point of the Holocaust was to exterminate various groups that the Nazis felt were inferior, right? So why was there anyone left to rescue other than those who the Nazis hadn't gotten around to killing yet? The people that I often see pictures of were in no condition to do any work for the Nazis, so I don't understand why they would be kept around long enough to have been rescued. Dismas|^(talk) 11:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Killing and disposing of corpses takes resources, which by the late war, the Germans were in short supply of. It should be noted that they were killing them at a pretty alarming rate. That the war ended before they got done doesn't mean they weren't trying to finish the job. According to the article The Holocaust, 6 million Jewish people were killed, not counting other "undesirables". That's a staggering number.--Jayron32 12:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Life expectancy for slave labour was low. New slaves were required to replace the slaves who died.
Sleigh (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There was a show on maybe the History Channel which I was watching recently. One of the survivors talked about how these trains would arrive and many of the ones arriving would be killed within the hour. Presumably some who were young and strong were kept around for that slave labor you refer to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you really have to take into account the way in which the war went, the amount of resources in this particular discussion would appear to be man power. As the German Army began to lose the war and more men were lost to the fight, the very resource needed to kill such a large group of people that had survived the brutal transport to the camps. And there were no short supply of peoples that the Nazis sent to the death camps. Simply put, the output to the death camps exceeded the energy they expelled to eliminate every living person rounded up. Many were kept alive to be that manpower more and more, but by then the math was just overwhelming and you couldn't kill fast enough to just cover up the stupidity. I can't answer your question: "the point of the Holocaust was to exterminate various groups that the Nazis felt were inferior, right?" I don't know what the point of the Holocaust was. Does anyone know the accurate answer to that?--Mark Miller (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Public execution of Michał Kruk and several other ethnic Poles in Przemyśl as punishment for helping Jews, 1943

I'm not sure that I fully understand the question, which I think that you answer yourself: […] why was there anyone left to rescue other than those who the Nazis hadn't gotten around to killing […]. Some escaped: there were mass escapes from Sobibor and Treblinka, for example - and if you haven't already, you ought to take half-an-hour to read Grossman's Hell of Treblinka - and there was an uprising designed to sabotage the crematoria at Aushwitz. Jan Karski, although not Jewish, deliberately got himself arrested and into Aushwitz, and then escaped from it. In addition, Jews were hidden by their Gentile neighbours - the book 'Forgotten Holocaust' by Richard Lukas, is particularly good on this, but see also the film In Darkness, and also the article Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust - and Jews themselves hid in the forests - see the book 'Ordinary Men', which describes a German sweep through a forest, and finding Jews hidden in bunkers, and the Bielski partisans. The Polish Underground had a special section, Żegota, dedicated to aiding Jews (see also: Irena Sendler). Other Jews, including the notorious Chaim Rumkowski of the Łódź Ghetto, tried to accommodate themselves to the Nazis through collaboration (see also: Żagiew).

Other issues; the Jews in L'vov (which included Simon Wiesenthal) appear to have been almost extraordinarily fatalistic. There were also 'good Germans': Wiesenthal himself was helped to escape by a chap called Adolf Kohlrautz and, of course, there were individuals such as Oscar Schindler and Wilm Hosenfeld. Others, such as Georg Ferdinand Duckwitz, seem to have been motivated by distaste at anti-semitism and he was largely responsible for the almost complete preservation of the Danish Jews. Finally, some Jews escaped by chance: had the British not bombed Dresden, Victor Klemperer would almost certainly have been killed.

After the 1942 defeat at Stalingrad and subsequent Red Army offensives, it became increasingly obvious that there had been systematic massacres of the Jews. At the same time, huge resources were being applied by the Nazis not to wage war effectively but to continue the process of mass murder - seen most obviously in the use of rolling stock. (The historian Michael Burleigh in his book The Third Reich: A New History argues pretty convincingly that after Stalingrad the Germans became more interested in exterminating Jews than fighting the Russians.) The SS was busy first trying to destroy the evidence - at Treblinka, for example - and only the Red Army's rapid advance prevented Aushwitz and the remnants of the Łódź Ghetto being sanitised in the same way. After Stalingrad it became increasingly obvious that the war was lost and individuals started trying to use the remnants of the Jews as bargaining chips: see, e.g. Joel Brand and there is some evidence that Himmler was trying to use the Aushwitz Jews, transferred to Bergen-Belsen just in front of the Red Army (a transport that itself demonstrates the militarily absurd use of rolling stock), as some sort of gift to the advancing British.

The simple answer is, I suspect, along these lines: that, notoriously, the Nazi high command was always pulling and pushing against itself, as its leaders tried to interpret the wishes and curry favour with Hitler. The extermination camps were (almost) all in Poland, not Germany (which made sense as this was where the main Jewish populations were); and as the decision regarding the 'final solution' was not made until 1942 - which coincided with military reverses - that left a perilously short period in which to carry out the genocide. As it was, the speed of the Soviet advance in the summer of 1944 prevented the complete elimination of Central European Jewry. 86.183.79.59 (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Dismas: remember that those in the camps weren't necessarily killed. At some camps, many people weren't killed per se; they were worked to death as slaves, making munitions or other things — killing them outright would have reduced industrial output. Nyttend (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Nyttend; the Auschwitz-Birkenau complex extended over 40 square kilometres and was vital to the German war effort. Only one part of the complex was used for extermination. The chemical firm of IG Farben had it's own camp, Auschwitz III-Monowitz, which with 12,000 prisoners supplied the labour for a huge synthetic rubber plant. Krupp and Siemens-Schuckert had camps there too - see List of subcamps of Auschwitz. These concerns were kept going as long as possible - you can't wage war without tyres for example. When the Soviets were getting close, the extermination facilities were destroyed and anyone that could walk was marched back towards Germany with the expectation that most would die on the way - see Death marches (Holocaust). The rest were left where they were to die of starvation and typhus. That story was repeated in the many camps all over occupied Poland and Germany.

The Allies liberated those who had either survived the death marches (15,000 died on the march from Auschwitz alone) or who were still alive when the camps were liberated - many were in such a bad state that they died after liberation despite medical aid. German efforts to get rid of surviving prisoners included marching 5,000 of them into the sea and shooting them (see Stutthof concentration camp#Death march, or packing them into an ocean liner offshore, with the apparent intention of sinking it when full - the RAF sank it anyway, killing 5,000 - see SS Cap Arcona (1927). So there wasn't any lack of effort on the German's part. Alansplodge (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between death camps (extermination camps) and work camps (arbeitslager). See the Definitions section of the extermination camps article. Very few people were liberated from the death camps. Labor needs of Nazi Germany changed throughout the war, and this affected whether prisoners were worked to death or killed outright (or left to die of exposure and hunger in the case of Soviet prisoners of war). Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder describes this pretty well, though given the subject matter, it's pretty horrifying reading.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Arthur C. Clarke

What are some of his most interesting books save for the 2001 series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.124.224.51 (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be a matter of opinion, and discussing our favorite books isn't really what this desk is for, however you can peruse his works at Arthur C. Clarke bibliography which lists the books he has published. --Jayron32 15:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I went through a stage of reading quite a lot of his work some 20 years ago. The best, to me, were Childhood's End and The City and the Stars. 'Childhood's End', I read as a parable about the European Community; the first half in particular.

Clarke himself rated Stanisław Lem as the best science-fiction writer.

You might also like to look up Harry Harrison, and in particular his Stainless Steel Rat series which are entertaining but not particularly 'challenging', and Iain M. Banks, whose works I am currently ploughing through. His best (so far) is The Player of Games. 86.183.79.59 (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Childhood's End is widely considered his masterpiece. The next two in my opinion are The City and the Stars and Rendezvous with Rama. Beyond those I think his best work is in short stories and novellas, many of which are classics. Looie496 (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Childhood's End was conceptually similar to 2001 in a number of ways, or maybe I should say 2001 was similar to Childhood's End. It's an excellent read. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, my. Childhood's End stank. Still stinks. Stinketh. Imagine a 200-page expansion of a 20-page short story in which demonic aliens (they literally look like devils, horns, batwings, etc.) institute worldwide socialized medicine so that human children can become personless bits of the universal mind. Kind of, "Obamacare induces autistic bliss". Zamyatin's We is positively fun in comparison. Rendezvous with Rama is excellent. That, and 2010 are worth reading. If you are really interested, Kim Stanley Robinson's Icehenge is the best book 'by' Arthur C. Clarke. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hence the slippery slope of the OP's question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

My biggest gripe with Clarke is I see him as a bit of a one-trick pony. To me it seems that the man cannot write a yarn in which the world does not end, one way or another. That said, a couple of the apocalypses are interesting, provided they're contained within a short story rather than dragging you towards Ragnarok through a whole novel. So I recommend The Star and The Nine Billion Names of God. --Trovatore (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone still needs to stitch the ending of 2001 with the ending of Dr. Strangelove together, to fulfill that final comments in the 2001 book. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I rather liked Tales from the White Hart and other short stories, his novels not as much. His characters are just so unmemorable, they don't enhance his longer works. (They have to get by on plot; they do, but they could have been so much better.) The only one who stands out to me is Harry Purvis from Tales. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hm. I remember Calindy. But that probably says more about me than about Clarke's powers of characterization :-) --Trovatore (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Case citation help needed

I'm not sure what it is, but something seems wrong with citation #4 at Henderson County, Kentucky — I've tried to put in all the elements from case citation for Handly's Lessee v. Anthony, but it just doesn't look right. What's the correct citation of this decision? Nyttend (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Indiana v. Kentucky, 136 U.S. 479 (1890) is the cite for the case at the link. Handly's Lessee v. Anthony, 18 U.S. 374 (1820) is the correct citation for Handly's Lessee. Coding it in a template would look ''[[Handly's Lessee v. Anthony]]'', {{ussc|18|374|1820}} - hope that helps. GregJackP Boomer! 16:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Um, oops; I completely failed to realise that I was linking the wrong case. Thanks for the help, especially with the template coding. Nyttend (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry even lawyers do that sometimes, and in front of judges! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 00:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

November 5

Restoration of the Monarchy after the English Civil War

Hi, why exactly did the English Parliament restore the monarchy after Cromwell's Commonwealth? Every other revolution tended to abstain from having a monarchy, unless the revolutionary government was deposed by a foreign power, such as the downfall of the French Republic.

They didn't have a strong successor after Cromwell died.
Sleigh (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, the monarchy was restored in France by coup (twice, by Napoleon and Napoleon III), not by a foreign power. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the OP meant the Bourbon Restoration of King Louis XVIII by the coalition powers after Napoleon was defeated (also occurred twice, first in 1814, and second in 1815, after the Battle of Waterloo). Sodacan (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The English Parliament that restored Charles II was a very different one that had his father killed years earlier. The English republicans began to fight amongst themselves after Oliver Cromwell was dead. They weren't sure if they wanted his weak son Richard Cromwell to continue as Lord Protector or a proper republican constitution (the latter faction was led by Sir Arthur Haselrig). Charles Stuart was the best choice because he was willing to compromise on almost everything, this made it easier for him to return. The House of Stuart was restored in 1660 alright. But was it really the same kind of monarchy that was restored? Sodacan (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't perceive the forces that removed Charles I as joined at the hip in terms of republican motivation. There was a right old pot pourri of issues with Charles I - personal rule, taxation, Scotland, his hideous people skills, religion etc - and for many of those who rebelled against him, the more pliant (as Sodacan points out) Charles II was very much palatable. Furthermore, Cromwell's replacement with his son would have been seen by some as replacement of one dynasty by another, even less palatable one. Finally, there will have been those among the rebels who never wanted Charles I deposed, some who never wanted him executed, but got caught up in the sweep of events. It's too easy to look back and see a homogenous group of people linked by one ideology, when that's simply not the case. This is the case with modern political bandwagons, too. --86.12.139.34 (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Despite Charles II seeming to be more palatable, it took only six months for his newly royalist parliament to get around to executing 10 of the regicides of Charles I and disinterring 3 others in order to re-execute them. Astronaut (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

And, of course, the Restoration as such only lasted for 28 years, until the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the concommitant Bill of Rights 1689, which put an end to the absolute monarchy of which the Stuarts were so enamoured. Tevildo (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that the Commonwealth was desperately unpopular. Once in power, Oliver Cromwell was more of a military dictator than a parliamentarian, and Richard Cromwell had already been deposed by the army before Charles was recalled. [2] My local parish paid for the church bells to be rung for three continuous days when the king returned. Alansplodge (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

This continues to bother me.

we do not speculate on the morality and motives of living people, see WP:BLP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That Mr. Sandy Berger has performed valued services for our Nation is a matter of public record. That he seemingly acted out of character on multiple occasions at and around the National Archives is also a matter of public record. It is only logical to conclude that he acted either reasonably or unreasonably. There is no assertion the he acted unreasonably. Therefore we may conclude that he acted with reason(s) even if only in his own mind. If you have the means, please direct me to any documents that shed light on the question as to "Why?" Mr. Berger acted in a fashion contrary to the laws and regulations concerning protected government documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.77.215 (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC) You'd have to ask him that. --Jayron32 12:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC) I think the basic problem here is the assumption that people act for only one motive. I can easily act in the interest of a particular nation in general, but then decide (like e.g. Snowden and Manning) that a higher interest demands that I act in a way that may be perceived as harming that nation. And I can just as easily decide that my personal interest demands that I act in a way that may be perceived as harming that nation - maybe because the US embassy offers me US$ 100000000 to switch Merkel's secure cell phone with a compromised fake, or maybe because the North Korean secret service has my mother in law as a hostage, and threatens to release her if I don't give them the plans for the bomb. And it's not always clear if the overriding impulse is higher or lower - when Nixon ordered Watergate, he probably was of the honest opinion that his continued administration was in the interest of the nation. Or maybe he just wanted to stay in power. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Close per BLP. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Does the Korean War which started on 25 June 1950 continue thru this day?

My understanding is that there was an "Armistice Agreement" concluded between the government of North Korea and the United Nations Command. What are the practical results of the lack of a "peace treaty"? For instance, what are the barriers to the United States establishing an embassy in Pyongyang? For instance, what are the barriers to the North Koreans establishing an embassy in the Washington DC metropolitan area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.77.215 (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Korean War, especially 2013 when it declared the armistice to be null and void, North Korea continues to treat South Korea, the USA, and anyone else connected with the armistice as an enemy. That's the barrier. If NK were to decide it has had enough of this after 60-plus years, it could declare and put into practice a non-aggression stance, put out feelers for a peace treaty, and ask for diplomatic relations with those other entities. And it's certainly possible. We had a ten-year, bitterly fought war with North Vietnam, and now we have diplomatic relations with the united Vietnam which was once our enemy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but let's look a bit deeper. Why does NK want to keep the hostilities going ? They certainly must know they would lose a shooting war, so what's with with the brinkmanship ? (I see no reason to think China would help them, if they invaded SK, and the US would certainly fight them, as US troops are in SK.) It's because their government needs an enemy to justify it's existence. This way they can say "The military dictatorship is the only way to protect our citizens from the enemy". StuRat (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice to see some sources for that. Might be right, but I can think of a lot of things that might be right. For example (just a question) -- suppose you live in North Korea and suggest a peace. What would happen to you? Is there anyone there who can suggest a peace? Wnt (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of the generals probably could, especially if it's put as "We need a long period of peace so we can restore our economy and use it to build up our military for the eventual war". StuRat (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

There never was a final Soviet-Japanese peace treaty after WW2 (due to the Southern Kurile Islands issue), yet the Soviet Union (then Russia) and Japan have had relations... AnonMoos (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Russia and Japan have Soviet–Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956, but NK and SK don't have a similar agreement/treaty. Oda Mari (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That agreement stopped the state of war but wasn't a formal peace treaty. Hack (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Oda Mari is correct that it's more than exists between N.Korea and the U.S... AnonMoos (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"Eleventh hour" armistice

The phrase "wikt:eleventh hour" long precedes the Armistice with Germany, signed on "the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month". According to the article the armistice was actually signed at 5 am to go into effect at 11 am. I suppose it is not likely that other events, i.e. Germany basically losing the war, and the abdication of the previous day, could have been shifted, and at least some time was needed for the message to go out. Still, I wonder: by how much was the armistice delayed, and how many people died, in order that the negotiators could have their sound bite? Wnt (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

And note that "the 11th hour" means "just in time", while many would find it to have been entirely too late, allowing millions to be killed in WW1 and sowing the seeds for WW2. StuRat (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

There was a BBC programme a few years ago about men who were killed on the last day of the war, including some after the Armistice came into effect: see here for some details. I don't know whether the time of the Armistice was delayed for a soundbite, but it really would have taken some hours for the orders to get to all the active units, and obviously there has to be some fixed time for the ceasefire. Even in WW2 there was a long gap between the German surrender and the official end of hostilities. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on the above programme...Last Day of World War One...its just not a very good one. Tommy Pinball (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Remember that the diplomats and the generals didn't assume that the real war was over at 1100 hours on 1918-11-11. Before the Hochseeflotte was scuttled at Scapa Flow seven months later, its ships and men were kept under constant (although sometimes minor) guard; when they violated the armistice by scuttling the ships, they were sent to prisoner-of-war camps. Unlike the conclusions of other wars, e.g. Japan's surrender in World War II, the 1918 armistice was highly conditional: Germany could have continued fighting for a good while longer (it was losing, but it definitely hadn't yet fought to the end), so since they knew that the fighting might not yet be over, it wasn't a waste of effort to continue fighting through 1059 hours. Finally, also note that the last casualty of all, Henry Gunther, was really a victim of his own hubris or stupidity. With one minute to got before the armistice, he began attacking a group of German soldiers; they basically tried to stop him non-violently, since there wasn't any point to continued fighting, but he shot at them, so they shot him in self-defence. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay this time for real

Sandy Berger chose to plead guilty to a single federal misdemeanor charge on April fools' day 2005. By pleading guilty he loses (or waives) his right to remain silent in the Federal Criminal Court context concerning this charge. Did the sentencing judge question Mr. Berger as to the motive for his criminal conduct? Did Mr. Berger's lawyer, Mr. Lanny Breuer, make any substantive statements concerning Mr. Berger's criminal conduct either within or outside of court? Was Mr. Berger represented by any lawyers in addition to Mr. Breuer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.77.215 (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Trial transcripts are sometimes posted in the internet. Have you looked for this one? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this the Sandy Berger week? Anyway, Freedom of information in the United States might grant us the right to request these trial transcripts too. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

If he gets fed up with the US, he could move to his own island and become a Berger King. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

funny 49.226.188.31 (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It would depend on the terms of his plea bargain whether or not allocution was required. A defendant usually agrees to allocute in exchange for a lesser sentence. But as Bugs says above, only the trial transcripts will tell you for sure whether this was the case in Mr. Berger's trial.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 04:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Novel ridiculing a character convinced of his self-importance

It is, I think from the end of the XIX or beginning of the XX century. It's not a novel that is on everyone's mind, but a slightly obscure work, which still managed to be a classic. Any suggestion? OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Diary of a nobody? 77.98.28.96 (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Joesph McCarthy HUAC hearings

McCarthy was asked something like :Have you, sir, at long last, no decency at all?' Would like exact quote, name of who asked it and citation of any background info. Many thanks, Bill Forester PWForester (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

"Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers Guild. Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" See Joseph N. Welch. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Transcript and video: [3]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

And BTW, it was the Army–McCarthy hearings, not HUAC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Right. Not many senators in the US House. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Why no special elections for US executives (president, governor...)

Why are no special elections for the offices president and governor held in America when the incumbent dies, resigns or is impeached? On the federal level the vice-president assumes the office of president, in the states usually the lieutenant-governor (in most states) becomes governor. Why is there no special under such scenario? Vacancies in the Senate and House are filled with special elections (I don't know about the state legislatures). A special election for presidents and governors would provide legitimacy for the officeholder. A vice-president or a lt.-governor who assumes the office shorty after the inauguration is head of state for almost four years without being elected to this post. --92.226.203.131 (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

But voters know the system, and when they go to the ballot box, they know they're not just voting for a president, but also for his running mate who would, in the event of the president's death or resignation, become president, and so they take that possibility into account when casting their vote. I mean, if Jesus Christ ran for president but had Adolf Hitler as his running mate, that would deter a lot of people from voting for Jesus (with his track record of being struck down in his prime and all). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Both ineligible anyway; not natural-born citizens. --Trovatore (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. Everyone knows Jesus is from Texas and Hitler from Massachusetts. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the Hitler part, but I'm sure there are a lot of hombres named Jesus in the American southwest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would a Jewish person pick a nazi party member as a running mate? ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 03:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

To balance the ticket. And keep in mind we're talking about a parallel universe here - a universe in which Hitler might have been best known for job-creation in the wallpaper business. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There are no special elections because the US Constitution doesn't allow for it. It specifies how and when the Prez and the Veep are elected. For members of the Congress and Senate, it leaves it up to the states how to fill vacancies. And if Jesus dies and fails to be resurrected, the country is stuck with Hitler until or if he breaks the law, in which case he can be "recalled", i.e. impeached. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's not clear that an impeachable "high crime (or) misdemeanor" even has to be against the law. One position is that "an impeachable offense is whatever the House of Representatives says it is". That's almost certainly true in practice — the Supreme Court would almost certainly reject any lawsuit claiming that the conduct for which a president was impeached was not against the law, as not justiciable. --Trovatore (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

True. But in any case, the impeachment process allows for getting rid of a sitting president. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The chances of it are incredible high, 8/ 44. I hope every voter considers carefully the vices of all candidates. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Probability is not the same as historical frequency, but if you do want to estimate it that way, you should say 8/43. There have been 44 presidents only if you count Grover Cleveland twice. It's the difference between a set and a multiset. --Trovatore (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how 8 out of 44 counts as "incredible". I have no difficulty whatsoever believing it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Be it 8/44 or 8/43, there's a lack of any citation that this average is statistically significant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"Statistically significant" is a technical term that is meaningful only in the context of statistical hypothesis testing. What hypothesis are you testing? --Trovatore (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether 8 of a country's 43 executives dying in 200+ years is "incredible" or on par with other countries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I calculate for Great Britain/United Kingdom 5 out of 45 former Prime Ministers dying in office, one of whom (Compton) is described as "a figurehead". 11%. And for France, 4 out of 29 presidents, including the Fourth Republic presidents who were titular, plus Louis Napoleon and the transitional ones after 1945. 14%. Incumbents can't be included, for obvious reasons, so in the US it should be 8 out of 42. 19%. This comes up as non-significant when I run a chi-square test on it - you might want to take further advice about the stats on the Maths desk, but really we need a bigger sample of comparable countries. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

In more ways than one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Senate vacancies are filled at least temporarily by appointments by the state governor. Depending on state law and when the vacancy occurs they may end up serving the remaining term. Rmhermen (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? If your senator dies, there's still 99 other senators. The Senate can still continue to do its work if a crisis develops. If your congressman dies, there's still 434 other congressmen. The House can still continue to do its work if a crisis develops.

If your Governor dies, no-one else can do that job until a replacement is elected. What if there's a crisis, or the governor is in the middle of some important policy push? There wouldn't be a Lt Governor, because why would you create an elected position whose sole purpose is to take over for a week or two until a special election. There'd probably be someone to take over, the Senate President, Secretary of State etc., but that person wouldn't have a mandate and would probably not get anything done pending the special election. At best, you'd have weeks of stagnation. At worst, you could have a constitutional crisis, as nobody has a mandate to lead the state. 92.30.141.47 (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

A crisis? Like the state Obamacare portal not working? A policy push? Like outlawing 24oz sodas? What in the world does a governor do that needs doing immediately, other than to issue death-row reprieves, or call out the state militia or national guard in case of invasion or earthquake? And why couldn't an acting governor do that? μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Think about it. This question relates to Presidents/Governors. If Bush died in the aftermath of 9/11, or Obama during this years shutdown. The country would be waiting weeks for a special election to be held before proper steps could be taken. An interim acting president would not have the mandate of a Vice President-cum-President to do anything.

If there was a special election during the 2013 shutdown due to some catastrophe making the presidency vacanct, we'd probably have Acting President Boehner for a few weeks (like I said originally, if you have special election, you do away with a reason for having a Vice President. The Speaker would probably be next in the line of succession). Then after a month or two, you'd have a new President. Not having a special election process for executives means there's a directly elected number two who takes over instantaneously should the worst happen.

Also can you imagine if say, Clinton died in April 2000? Can you imagine getting a nationwide special election together, including fundraising, primaries, debates? And you'd have Dennis Hastert in charge for a few months. And then of course, there'd be the regular election in November. 92.30.165.141 (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

November 6

Someone in ancient times predicting cars & airplanes.

I read somewhere long time ago about that some ancient philasopher or something was predicting automobiles & airplanes many hundred / thousunds of years before they were even invented!

Not in the bible btw, It wasn't that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.209.159.215 (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you're thinking of Leonardo da Vinci? Here's his car, and here's the Smithsonian's discussion about his airplane and some diagrams. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

More specifically here: Science and inventions of Leonardo da Vinci about helicopters. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Heron of Alexandria. Count Iblis (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The article mentions a cart, but where's the airplane? He's no Heron, he's a penguin. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Roger Bacon? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"It is possible that great ships and sea-going vessels shall be made which can be guided by one man and will move with greater swiftness than if they were full of oarsmen...

It is possible that a car shall be made which will move with inestimable speed, and the motion will be without the help of any living creature...

It is possible that a device for flying shall be made such that a man sitting in the middle of it and turning a crank shall cause artificial wings to beat the air after the manner of a bird's flight...

Similarly it is possible to construct a small-sized instrument for elevating and depressing great weights, a device which is most useful in certain exigencies.

It is possible also that devices can be made whereby, without bodily danger, a man may walk on the bottom of the sea or of a river...

We may read the smallest letters at an incredible distance, we may see objects however small they may be, and we may cause the stars to appear wherever we wish..." [4]

Roger Bacon, On the Marvellous Power of Art and Nature (c. 1267) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Archytas (400 years before Heron) is reputed to have built the first aeroplane. Tevildo (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that our article, and now this forum have successively improved the story - from the original: "For not only many eminent Greeks, but also the philosopher Favorinus, a most diligent searcher of ancient records, have stated most positively that Archytas made a wooden model of a dove with such mechanical ingenuity and art that it flew; so nicely balanced was it, you see, with weights and moved by a current of air enclosed and hidden within it. 10 About so improbable a story I prefer to give Favorinus' own words: "Archytas the Tarentine, being in other lines also a mechanician, made a flying dove out of wood. Whenever it lit, it did not rise again. For until this . . . ." To me this sounds like an ordinary model airplane. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Nostradamus refers to air combat and air travel in Quatrain 71 of Century X. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

According to: [5], [6], and [7], C10Q71 is:

 
"The earth and air will freeze so much water
when they come to venerate on Thursdays.
He who will come will never be as fair as
the few partners who come to honor him."

,

I don't see how that refers to either.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Nostra's predictions were so vague that a lot can be read into them. I could read the above quatrain as predicting the entity known as the Thanksgiving turkey. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh ye of little faith, this Nostradamus for Dummies article says it was C1 - 63 and 64. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Which does say; "People will travel through the sky, safely, over land & seas..." [8] and "At night they will think they have seen the sun, when they see the half pig man: Noise, screams, battles seen fought in the skies..." [9]. We don't seem to have invented a "half-pig man" yet. Alansplodge (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

No but we have been implanting porcine heart valves into man for about 50 years, and injecting diabetics with porcine insulin for longer. Not to mention the mouse with the human ear... --TammyMoet (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I am trustfull of you, Clarityfiend, even though I know little about the Chinese and gunpowder. Might Nosie' not have been thinking about the Middle-Ages animal trials ? --Askedonty (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You have now made my morning- the trial of an egg laying rooster is perhaps the most interesting things I've come across all week (I hope the rooster was acquitted, though).Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Presumably most of these "convicts" served their sentences by being served? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem so: " l'autorité supérieure prononçait solennellement la malédiction et l'excommunication des animaux ravageurs" ( the higher authority solemnly pronounced the curse and excommunication of the animal pests, this according to our French version of the same article ). Wonder that leaved them edible? --Askedonty (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Excommunicated? Does that mean they had at some point been baptized? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That very objection finally came to publication ( ~1583) "Giving sentence of excommunication against vermin (...) such a sin and blasphemy who seriously want to submit for the raw excommunication of animals is just the same as if someone wanted to baptize a dog or a stone." But I'm personally certain that the severity of the claim was undue. The fact may have been that the Church was missing the proper legal term for designating her right process for a curse. --Askedonty (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

At times the medievals were saner than we are on the point. I wouldn't mind watching Tilikum (orca) get hauled out of his tank at the end of a harpoon. Wnt (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a reason they're called killer "whales". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

According to QI the name "killer whale" is a misnomer arising from a transposition of the elements of a Spanish name meaning "whale killers" (i.e. [dolphins] that kill whales) - see Orca#Common_names. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Somebody forgot to tell that to the orcas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

All that aside, it's safe to say that the half pig man thing is the origin of the expression "Pigs will fly". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

To get back to the original query, some revisionist Hindutva scholars argue that various modern inventions originated in ancient India, and amongst these theories is that the 'viman' would correspond to a airplane or helicopter. --Soman (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

see http://books.google.com/books?id=t_FttoJVFLIC&pg=PA85 "Viman Vidya. Turning to Vedic literature, in one of the Brahmanas {Satapatha Brahmana, II, 3, 3, 15) there is mention of a ship that sails heavenwards." --Soman (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Old Shoreham

Where is Old Shoreham, in the context of a place that formerly had a manor? Is it Shoreham-by-Sea? Google tells me that it's in Sussex, but I didn't see anything more detailed. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed Shoreham-by-Sea. See this article for a detailed history of the area. Tevildo (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

centuries

why is the 1800s the 19th century? 49.227.37.110 (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Work it backwards and you'll see. The years 1-100 were the first century, 101-200 would be the second, and so on. Dismas|^(talk) 05:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The same way the year 2000 was technically in the 20th century, with 2001 being the first year of the 21st century. There was no year 0 and there was no century 0. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The date reads as the "so-manyeth month of year such", not "so-manyeth a year and so-many a month". Thus, there is no year zero. The first January, would be read as the "first month of the first year". Centuries work the same. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

People always talk of the lack of Year 0 as if that's somehow a surprising thing. It's an irrelevant red herring, a furphy. If you're commencing a new sequence of things, whether it's years of a new era, or page numbers of a book, or US Presidents, or modern Olympiads, or just about anything really, who would start with anything other than 1? Sure, there's an apparent discontinuity between the BC series and the AD series, but (a) who ever said they should have been continuous, and (b) it's easy to map BC years to a number line if that's what you need for mathematical purposes. It's an entirely arbitrary convention that we call them years BC (or BCE) anyway and run the series backwards. That is at least as counter-intuitive as not having a Year 0. In any event, whether there's a Year 0 or not has no bearing on the OP's question. Even if there were a Year 0, the 1st Century would be 0-99, the 2nd Century would be 100-199, ... the 19th Century would be 1800-1899. And then we'd be having people ask "Why isn't the 19th Century the years 1801-1900, or the years 1900-1999, or the years 1901-2000?". In or out, Year 0 solves nothing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

What I mean with "centuries work the same", is that instead of "eighteen centuries and fifty years", it is read as the "fiftieth year of the nineteenth century". What I'm saying that years and centuries in terms of dates, are to be treated as names, not numbers. Like the tile of a book. You don't describe where you are in an encyclopedia as G-H and 200 pages, you read as the 200 hundredth pages of I-J. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Somebody on British TV at the Millennium celebrations said; "If you have ten cakes, you don't count the first cake as "cake zero" and the last one as "cake nine" do you?". Alansplodge (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Was this even much of an issue prior to the use of computers and the prominent use of 0's and 1's? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it stems from our use of "the 1970s" and "the 1980s"; if you count your decades in this way, they do indeed start with a zero and end with a nine. Alansplodge (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And the 50s and the 40s and so on. It's a convenient reference, but it doesn't necessarily match the specific frame of years anyway. What we think of culturally as "the 60s" really didn't get cranked up until the Beatles came over and until about the time Nixon and the Vietnam War ended. So "the 60s" really ran from about 1963 or 1964 to 1974 or 1975. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"Who would start at anything other than 1"? Musicians: see Interval_(music). They start counting at 2.  Card Zero  (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

So why did Lawrence Welk introduce the next song with, "An' a-one, an' a-two..."? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Dancers count "5-6-7-8"... --TammyMoet (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

If you think of history as a time line, there's no year 0, but there is a 0 point. Year 1 on that time line contains (retrofitting it) points for January 1 through December 31, 1 AD or CE. Year "-1", on the other side of that 0 point, contains points for January 1 through December 31, 1 BC or BCE. And so on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

For the same reason that a 21 year old is in his or her 22nd year. You get to be 21 after you have completed the 21st year. The age records how many years you have lived. History gets to be 1800 after it has completed the 18th century. Ignore the "year zero" digression. It's completely irrelevant, as Jack says. Paul B (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

In English we say, "How old are you?" In Spanish it's said as ¿Cuántos años tiene usted?, which means "How many years do you have?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

See "Off-by-one error".—Wavelength (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Birth ages are easy enough: people wouldn't want to say, a moment after the birth, that the baby is a minute, an hour, a week, a year old all at the same time. So they have to start at 0. The problem with centuries is that there is supposed to be something between < and >. If the date were accurately known, would Jesus have been born the year before Christ or the year after the Lord? Mathematically one expects a year "=C" separating BC and AD. Likewise, one expects a century 0 between century 1 and century -1. These being absent, the math will never work out. Wnt (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where you're getting the "after" from: AD is anno domini, "year of our lord". Saying that a baby is born in its first year seems cromulent. Well, kind of. Maybe not.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense that while the infant is 0 years old, it is in its 1^st year. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The article Anno Domini talks about the dispute over whether Jesus was thought to be born in AD 1 or in 1 BC. (It also mentions that He is now thought to have been born several years "BC".) Infants less than two years old are often referred to by their ages in months. If less than a month old, in weeks or days, etc. Saying that one's newborn is "0 years old" is not really useful info. And in US census, children less than one year old are often listed as things like "5/12" in the "age" column. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Not really the point I was trying to make. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts:

1) Many computer programmers like to start counting at 0, although I find this confusing, as then you get the problem that when you refer to the "1st item in the list", does this mean the one numbered 0 or 1 (with the 0 item called the "zeroth item") ?

2) This all stems from the lack of a 0 early on. Roman numerals, for example, don't normally use a zero. They wouldn't say "we have zero olives", they would say "we don't have any olives". Even today, there's still some reluctance to use zero (doesn't the second phrase sound better ?). StuRat (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

We start counting arrays at 0 so that certain convenient sums add up. Starting at 1 means you end up subtracting 1 before doing certain common kinds of processing (the underlying processing for finding elements of an array expressed in 2 or more dimensions springs to mind).  Card Zero  (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course, but then the issue comes up as to whether we should do things in a way that works best on computer, and force humans to adjust to lists starting at zero, or do them in the way that's best for humans, and make the programs adjust to us. I come down firmly on the side of humans here. We could also keep every number in binary or hex, and force everyone to use those, but we don't find that to be acceptable, either. StuRat (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's different from the way floors of a building are counted in Britain isn't it? When you have climbed a flight of stairs after entering from the sidewalk, you are only on the first floor. In the US they count floors like centuries, and you would be on the second floor. Edison (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we think of it as the first floor up whereas you count the ground floor as the first floor you come to (from the pavement). We then use -1 for the first floor down. Dbfirs 23:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

This debate is so strange. It's difficult to understand why people keep repeatedly fixating on the lack of a year zero, or methods of counting floors. Its totally irrelevant to the question asked, as Jack said a while back. A lack of year zero is only relevant to whether or not the 19th century, technically, begins in 1800 or 1801. It has no bearing on why we call the 1800s in general the "19th century" (which is what the questioner asked). We call it that for the same reason that a 21 year old is in their 22nd year. And if that 21 year old lived to be 100, they would be in their 2nd century. And in the unlikely event that they lived to be 1800, they would be in their 19th century, and so on. If we designated a new-born child age "1" as soon as they were born, this would simply mean that they got to start their second century at 101 rather than 100, and their 19th at 1801. It would not alter the fact that their "1800s" in general would be their "19th century". Paul B (talk) 11:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It's analogous because the same lack of "=" between "<" and ">" applies. In a scheme with Year 0, it would only be natural likewise to have the "century of Christ" after centuries BC and before centuries AD. So, for example, you might have years 0-99 = century 0, 100-99 = century 1 after the [century of] Christ, etc. Wnt (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As with anyone's birth, there's not a "year 0", but rather a 0 point on the timeline. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I can't see how that is a relevant analogy, because the year 0 would make no difference to the logic of the terminology. The century 0-99 is still the "first century" (after whatever was deemed to be the starting event) in exactly the same way that the "first year" of a child's life is from their birth to their next birthday. Calling the first century "century zero" would be as irrational as calling the first year of a child's life "year zero". Even if one were to choose to call it that, it has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a year 0. You could call 1-100 "century zero" if you wanted to. It would make as much - or rather, as little, - sense. Paul B (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe they could have assigned a year 0, but they didn't. "They" being the inventors of the calendar. Using the 0 point as the divider between BC and AD makes total sense. Just as the point in time of your birth is "age" 0, followed immediately by an age of so many seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, etc. until you turn age 1. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Um yes. Obviously. But how is this relevant to the question? Paul B (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If it were so obvious, there would be no need for our various articles to add the disclaimer "...because there is no year 0..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

A somewhat bizarre answer. You are not responding to any point I made, or to the question. You may as well tell me that Julius Caesar was assassinated, and if I reply "Um yes. Obviously. But how is this relevant to the question?", say "if it were so obvious, there would be no need for our various articles on Julius Caesar". Paul B (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You lost me at the bakery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec) That's easy to get, but it's an infinitesimally small point that has no utility in any practical application. It's like insisting that we can never say "It is exactly 5 minutes past 3", because by the time it takes to say that, it's gone past that time. The best we can say is "a very short time ago it was exactly 5 past 3". Or "Some time during my saying this sentence, it will be exactly 5 past 3; but by the time I finish, it will have gone past that time". And that's hardly a recipe for world peace. It would be much more likely to induce violence in the listeners of such rubbish towards the speaker. But then, we live in violent times, so do your worst .... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this allows women to complain that their dates are "always either early or late". :-) StuRat (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

What is the origin of represent getting an idea by a light bulb?

Saw this in some of Pink Panther cartoons. Are there any earlier instances?--chao xian de lun zi (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

According to TV Tropes it originated in Felix the cat cartoons in the 1920s. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

What those two cartoon series have in common is that they are generally pantomime. So a visual cue such as a lightbulb coming on is used in place of a character saying, "I have an idea!" or "Now I get it!" Comic strips, even the ones with dialogue, have often used various symbols over the character's head to express thoughts or emotions: Question marks, exclamation marks, sometimes just a dash at an angle to indicate surprise or stress, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And don't forget "#%&!", etc., meaning a swear word. StuRat (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Grawlixes.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The general concept of using a symbol to represent what would normally be represented by words goes back at at least as early as 1862, when Victor Hugo sent a telegram to his publishers to ask how Les Misérables was selling. His query was, in its entirety: ?. The response was, in its entirety: !. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the charming Victor Hugo story is nonfactual. It's a variant of an earlier story, around since at least 1854, in which "0" represented no news (so I guess we can say that using a symbol instead of words goes back at least that far). Here's the story from Yankee Notions, vol. 3, p. 363 (1854): "But the shortest correspondence on record is the one between an American merchant in want of news and his London agent. The letter ran thus:  ? And the answer thus: 0 Being the briefest possible intimation that there was nothing stirring."

Thank you, dear anonymous editor. I'll pass this info on to the good folks at Talk:Victor Hugo, because it's currently mentioned in his article. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

In any case, ten years from now many children will have no idea what an incandescent light bulb is... AnonMoos (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

10 years might be a bit optimistic, as the CFLs still can't dim very well, and you must pay extra for ones that dim at all, and none of them handle cold weather and constant on/off cycles well. LEDs are still too expensive. And try warming a doghouse with either. Of course, once they do replace incandescents entirely, we might use "curly-cue" CFLs in cartoons. StuRat (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It will be like using a floppy disk as a "save" icon. No one will know what a light bulb is, but they'll know it is a symbol for "getting an idea"! Adam Bishop (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hour glasses haven't been used by most people for centuries, but we still recognise the icon. Paul B (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There are still hourglass-shaped egg timers. When we see one of those things on-screen, we hope the total time we wait will be closer to an egg-timer than an hourglass. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

And I use an "hour glass" (actually a 3 minute glass) for timing moves when I play Scrabble. It's a lot less stressful than a ticking timer or a blaring alarm. StuRat (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Does Days of our Lives still use an hourglass? (And why is the "our" not capitalized?) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"As boring as watching sand drop through an hourglass, so are the Days of our Lives." StuRat (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• The use of symbols long predates Victor Hugo, of course. In the case of the light bulb, there are historical antecedents. I would imagine this has something to do with the two primary definitions of illumination. Before electricity, probably dating to the Middle Ages at least, candles and lamps have been used as symbols of knowledge. I know oil lamps appear in the seals of certain colleges and universities. Dartmouth College's shield shows this pretty literally, depicting a book radiating light in place of the sun. --BDD (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This recent thread discusses a medieval picture of Hildegard of Bingen being inspired by divine flames on her head - they actually look a bit like octopus tentacles which confused several editors! Alansplodge (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

... and, of course, the original image from nearly 2000 years ago was of flames of fire. Dbfirs 17:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

unusual spy stories?

I like spy stories but find them incredibly boring and a huge waste of time. We live in a world where there are a ton of real, better things to do. I guess that some people like nothing more than playing "games" with other people who like nothing more than doing the same. Good for them.

Are there any modern, more unusual spy stories? For example: spies who find the work boring, and switch to a more interesting civilian life? And so forth.

I mean, in peaceful times you have to be pretty crazy and a waste of brain cells to want to do nothing more than loaf around pretending to be something you're not. Any stories about this? Curiousgg (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The Prisoner was sick of the futility of being a spy, and the story begins when he tries to stop.

This review of The Spy: Undercover Operation suggests some amount of sarcasm about the tedious reality of spying.

The character in A Perfect Spy has a mental breakdown due to excess spying, and goes into hiding.

There are a large number of spy stories with a theme of "omigod we're all amoral"; I assume you're not interested in those.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm still stuck back at your first sentence. Why would you like something that is "incredibly boring and a huge waste of time"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I mentally added the missing words:

"I like good spy stories but find most of them incredibly boring and a huge waste of time." StuRat (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I read it as expressing ambivalence. I too enjoy certain boring things.  Card Zero  (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain how that's possible? If you're enjoying something in the moment, then at that moment it is not "boring" to you. (Unless I have lost all knowledge of the English language.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@JackofOz:, Dunbar did it quite well. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather:, who or what is Dunbar? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Dunbar (Catch-22) --Viennese Waltz 11:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been a long time. I saw the movie, but the book is on a long list of books I started but never finished, because they failed the John le Carré Test. Interestingly, I've never even tried to read a le Carré novel. Since you will no doubt ask what the JLCT is unless I tell you, let me do the decent thing and tell you. He once wrote something that I absolutely resonate with: As a reader, I insist on being beguiled early or not at all, which is why many of the books on my shelves remain mysteriously unread after page 20. But once I submit to the author's thrall, he can do me no wrong (from the introduction to The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes, 2004). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 16:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Because you have different moods, of course. Something which may be boring to you at some times is interesting at other times. Also, right before bed something exciting might tend to keep you awake. StuRat (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

So, when it's one of the interesting times, the fact that the same thing can be boring in other circumstances is completely irrelevant to what's happening right now. And vice-versa. Right? If something can be both boring and exciting depending on the circumstances, why would one describe it in general terms as "boring" and then have to make exceptions for the exciting times? Why not describe it as "exciting" and make exceptions for the boring times? See, this is my struggle with understanding what people mean by attributes such as "boring", "interesting", "fun" and various others. A movie, for example, can be considered thrilling on one occasion and boring another time - but the movie hasn't changed. The viewer has changed, yet they're attributing the change to the thing they're focussing on, not to themselves. Take them out of that immediate "boring" context and ask them, without any prompting, for their general thoughts about that movie, and see if they regard it as "a boring movie". They'd probably have a lot more to say first, and may never even mention the word "boring" at all. Which is an implicit acknowledgement that the so-called "boredom" they were experiencing was theirs alone and had nothing to do with the movie, and they were projecting their feeling state onto it (very appropriate). So, when I see respondents here describe some book or whatever as "great", I reinterpret that in my mind as "He liked it a lot". I might like it just as much, or even more, or it might not be my cup of tea at all and I'll abandon it after 5 pages, probably fewer. These glib attributes are just opinions, and we all know what they're worth.

Sorry, I didn't mean to derail this thread, but I really do want to understand what Curiousgg and CardZero are trying to convey. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Certainly the person's state of mind plays a role, but so does the book, movie, etc., with some being boring to most people most of the time, and some being exciting to most people, most of the time.

I'm talking about situations where a movie is considered exciting to a person on one occasion, and boring to the same person on a different occasion. The movie hasn't changed, yet the person's description of it has, and that change in description exactly matches the change in their own internal state. This blaming of the supposed agent of boredom has no connection to what I'd call "saying what you mean and meaning what you say". Hence my questions to elicit what they really meant. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I remember a TV show where a pair of dead people awaited their fates, one of them a good person and the other evil. Both were given the same "reward", a lifetime watching family vacation slide shows. To the good person, this was her idea of heaven, while to the evil person, this was his idea of hell. StuRat (talk)

There are endless humorous spy spoofs, from Our Man in Havana to Get Smart, The Man Who Knew Too Little, Austin Powers, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I highly recommend The Innocent by Ian McEwan as a very unusual spy fiction. If you're interested in TV shows, The Americans is excellent - it is the story of a KGB couple working undercover in Washington, and is as much about their relationship as it is about espionage. --Viennese Waltz 09:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat akin to The Americans was 1991 BBC series Sleepers. Sleepers is more a meditation on the state of British society (at one point an MI5 "watcher" is castigated by his boss for having been indulgent enough to expense a Burger King lunch, and later has a run-in with the altogether more sinister watchers from the DHSS), rather than really being about spies. The espionage part merely affords an outsider's perspective. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

November 7

Arguments from authority

Argument from authority notes that "any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning" is fallacious. Can't there be any exceptions? The following argument is obviously deductive, and it seems to me to be valid:

What the Tsar thinks "evil" is illegal in Russia

The Tsar thinks that it's evil to eat peanut-butter sandwiches

Therefore, eating peanut-butter sandwiches is illegal in Russia

Isn't an appeal to authority always valid when the authority in question has the sole right to define the situation in question? For example, as autocrats, the Tsars couldn't be gainsaid (at least from within the system; let's leave out the Bolsheviks, for example) on questions of legality. Isn't this basically the same as a valid argumentum ad baculum, e.g. "If you drive while drunk, you will be put in jail. You want to avoid going to jail. Therefore you should not drive while drunk"? The latter is making an argument about the force itself, which is valid, and it seems that my argument is talking about the definition and the authority himself and is thus valid. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If the first two statements are considered to be true, then the third statement is likewise true. Maybe it's unenforceable, but that's not the issue. So if the article claims the argument given is fallacious, then the article is wrong and should be changed. Now, if the third line said, "Therefore, eating peanut-butter sandwiches is evil", that would be fallacious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no appeal to authority in that argument. (You'd have to add something like "it's true because the Tsar says it is", like Bugs mentioned - not "it's true that the Tsar says it is".) The reason for the "in the context of deductive reasoning" clause is to make an exception for inductive reasoning (because some people believe inductive reasoning is valid). It's really trying to say "some appeals to authority used in the context of inductive reasoning are not fallacious".  Card Zero  (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Our argument from authority article cleverly neglects to define what constitutes an appeal to authority in the first place, so there's really no reason to pay attention to what it says about them. (The very first thing a Wikipedia article about X should do is to answer the question, "what is an X"? If it doesn't, you know you're looking at a weak article.) Looie496 (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Note that this is called a "fiat", an arbitrary decree by a person in authority: [10]. StuRat (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You can accept on my authority that Card Zero has this right. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Might be good to note here that "fallacious" doesn't necessarily mean "incorrect".  Card Zero  (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The words "fallacy" and "false" both come from the same Latin root, fallere, meaning "to deceive".[11][12] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

And that, my liege, is how we know the world to be banana shaped.  Card Zero  (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That's more phallusy than fallacy. StuRat (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The world is kind of banana-shaped, if you're referencing the rare round species called the Banana globula. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a misconception that an argument that is of a fallacious form cannot be valid. An argument can instantiate a fallacious form and still be valid, so long as it also instantiates a valid form. What is forgotten is that an argument can instantiate multiple forms at once. So showing that an argument is valid is not enough to prove that it is not fallacious. Anyway, I third Card Zero on this one. I don't think any logician would classify that as an appeal to authority-type argument. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind providing an example? If you mean that there are multiple ways to convert English to logic, I understand; but it sounds like you mean something else. --As for the original, as mentioned, that's not an appeal to authority.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's start with a common logic error: "If it rains, then the ground will get wet, therefore, if the ground is wet, it must have rained recently." Now, if the ground is wet, it might have rained, but there are other instances where the ground is wet due to dew, snow melt, washing a car, etc. We could fix the logic error by replacing "must" with "may". We could do something similar with an argument from authority: "If an authority asserts that it is true, then it may be true." StuRat (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, of course. For example: "[1] If (R or S), then R. [2] ~(R or S). Therefore, [3] ~R." That is certainly valid (the conclusion follows from De Morgan's laws and conjunction elimination) even though it denies the antecedent in form. (I posted this example on the denying the antecedent talk page a while back, actually). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That's clever, I'll have to remember that:-) Thanks for the example, by the way- I was thinking you were meaning something in a different direction.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@Phoenixia1177: If you like clever logical tricks you may want to see some of the material posted on the internet by Raymond Smullyan or John Lane Bell. Example of a logically true statement: There is something such that if it is a unicorn, then all things are unicorns. I.e., ∀(y)∃(x)(U(x) → U(y)), where U is a predicate of being a unicorn and x and y are variables for any thing in the universe. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a tendency to get the converse mixed up with the contrapositive. The contrapositive has the same truth value as the original: If it has rained recently, the ground is wet. If the ground is not wet, then it has not rained recently. (The definition of "recently" will vary depending on the climate, but it still works.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

African Americans dressing up for church

Do African Americans have a greater tendency to dress up for church than other races? In literature, fictional or nonfictional, you can see that African Americans usually dress up for church, equipped with a nice Sunday hat and Sunday dress. In third grade, I acted as the background actor in a play that had one scene where the protagonists were looking forward to buy hats so they could go to church on Sunday. I think the play was supposed to be based on a children's book, because I remember the painted Easter eggs. 140.254.227.54 (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

In the old days, i.e. a generation or two ago, everyone of any race was expected to wear their "Sunday best" to church. Perhaps black churches have carried on that tradition better than whites. But it wasn't just church. For example, if you look at pictures of World Series crowds into the 1940s or so, the spectators tended to dress up, just like they would for going to the theater or the opera. Suit and tie were expected for office-based workers in general as recently as the 1990s. The culture of casual apparel is a recent phenomenon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yea! The book's title was "Chicken Sunday", and it's written by Patricia Polacco, first published in 1992. I read in third grade in 1998-1999. Good memories. 140.254.227.54 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This looks to me like race-baiting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a legitimate question - we shouldn't let fear of racism shut us off from legitimate anthropological discussions. For example, see [13] which supports the OP's assertion, and [14] which implies (though I'm not sure it says) that the tradition can be traced back to the era of slavery, in that the celebrants might first have dressed up to celebrate that they were free and could do so. But that's just me looking at the top couple of search hits - some serious students of the Humanities should be able to do a lot better at answering this. Wnt (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

He had me hooked until he started talking about fried chicken. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm taking the hat off this. Patricia Polacco is a recognized author, and "Chicken Sunday" is a book we list by ISBN in her article. I see nothing about fried chicken. This is a reference desk, not a guilty-until-proven-innocent criminal courtroom. Wnt (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Fine. He's all yours. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

lol get over it bugsa... 121.90.12.104 (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw your other entry. Have they stopped speaking English in New Zealand? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

no 49.224.47.226 (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Then you must have been out to lunch during that class. lol get over it ipu... ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Soz brah didnt mean 2 offend 49.224.47.226 (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I would just point out that any propensity to dress differently on Sunday is clearly not about race (i.e., supposed but scientifically debunked biological categories). It is about culture. African Americans are considered a racial group in the United States due to the survival of unscientific ideas about race, but in fact they are an ethnic group defined by a degree of shared historical experience and cultural traits. Just as long as we are clear that this has nothing to do with biology. Marco polo (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed this trend, particularly among African-American women, and especially at Easter, where special outfits are bought just for that occasion. This seems to have become a tradition. I even saw a TV show about this, where the women were trying to best each other on Easter Sunday. I think it might have been an episode of Everybody Hates Chris. StuRat (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that it's so much a special African-American thing as it is a case of some blacks holding on to customs which the majority of whites abandoned by the early to mid 1960s (see the famous 1948 movie etc.). There was a classic ca. 1960 Norman Rockwell illustration of a mother and her three children passing through the living room all spiffed up to attend church on Easter morning, while the husband of the (white) family slouches in his bathrobe in a chair with sections of the Sunday newspaper around him, obviously not going to church... AnonMoos (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It's just a cultural convention, and it's still maintained (by people of all skin-colours, eye-colours and hair-colours) where I live, though the recent American culture of dressing down for church is slowly creeping in. Dbfirs 17:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Napoleon French Language

Hello Napoleon eventually became the Emperor of France, but he was born in Corsican and didnt speak french very well, so when did he learn to speak french fully cos he had a hard time of it as a kid? 121.90.12.104 (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Our article Napoleon indicates that he attended a religious school and two military academies on the French mainland and then entered the army. He would have been surrounded by exclusive French speakers. At some point during his education (probably before he was admitted to the elite Ecole Militaire), he surely became fluent in French, even if he spoke with an accent. Marco polo (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, French was a lingua franca, especially for Europe, at the time (cf. List of lingua francas#French), in much the same way English is today for most of the world. If you travel to Germany, for example, you'll find many people who can speak English quite well today. --BDD (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Even before Napoleon, French was spoken in the upper classes of many parts of Europe. In royal courts from Russia to Spain, French was at various times at least a second language. See Francophile, which discusses how French culture and Language became the "thing", especially during the Age of Enlightenment. It would not have been that unusual for ANY upwardly mobile European with aspirations to learn French at that time. --Jayron32 21:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

His father was a lawyer and represented Corsica at the French court, so I would be surprised if he hadn't learned some French at home. Napoleon Bonaparte by Elaine Landau says that he left Corsica for school in France at the age of 9 years-old in 1779, and that he spent four months at a preparatory school in Autun specifically so that he could learn French (presumably to the standard that he would need at Brienne). Alansplodge (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Essentially I am wondering how a man like Bonaparte, a person who was bullied in his junior years for his Corsican accent, was able to become the unequivocal ruler of France whom every Frenchman (bar Royalists) accepted as their ruler. 49.224.47.226 (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Some factors:- 1. Napoleon was academically gifted and hard working, "one of the youngest military officers ever appointed in France" (Landau, linked above). 2. He went into the artillery, in which progress was down to technical skill rather than social status. 3. The French Revolution both destroyed the existing social order and presented France with some formidable military problems. Enter a clever, ruthless and ambitious young officer who was untainted by association with the former regime and had a bit of luck on his side - "cometh the hour, cometh the man". Once given free rein, he proved that he could deliver the goods on the battlefield. Finally, the various phases of the Revolutionary regimes collapsed in turmoil and in those circumstances, everybody wants a war-winning general to take charge and restore order. "Vive L'Empereur!" Alansplodge (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George W Bush were all elected US President despite having accents that are not the norm in most parts of the country. At least one member of this trio was widely held to have diminished mental capacity, but that was no barrier to his election either. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I hope you're not referring to the only US president to earn an MBA (from Harvard, no less)--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 04:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hitler and Stalin had funny accents too. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Of note, neither Hitler (Austrian) nor Stalin (Georgian) were of the ethnic ancestry of the country they eventually became leaders of. --Jayron32 01:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Austrian is an ethnicity. Rmhermen (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the point is he wasn't from Germany. You can use whatever name you want for whatever classification name makes you the most joyful. But he still wasn't from Germany. --Jayron32 02:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, but it depends how you define "Germany" - see Pan-Germanism and German nationalism in Austria. For many, Austrians were Germans. Alansplodge (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That all that is true in no way invalidates the notion that Hitler was not from within the borders of the political entity that he became leader of. Nothing you say is either wrong nor contradicts my point. You can continue to make true but inconsequential statements if you like, but Hitler will still have been born in Austria, which will still have been a separate state when he became leader of Germany no matter how many other true statements you also make. --Jayron32 12:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Of possible relevance to German v Austrian attitudes of the era is the remark attributed to Bismark – "A Bavarian is a cross between an Austrian and a human being." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

In the innovative but sometimes laughable 1927 silent film about his life by Gance, Napoléon (1927 film), young Napoleon at military school pronounces his name ""Nap-eye-ony" and the other French students laugh and say he said "straw to the nose." I can conceive of the last part being "auz nez" but how does "nap-eye" sound like "straw" in French? Edison (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Paille is French for straw. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

On Hitler's accent, Hitler grew up in Braunau am Inn, which is right on the border between Austria and what is currently accepted as Germany. Alansplodge has correctly pointed out that many Austrians and Germans during the late 19th and early 20th century considered Austrians to be Germans who were excluded from the German Empire through an accident of history. Most did not consider Austrians a separate nationality. Moreover, just 25 years before Hitler's birth, Austria was generally considered a part of "Germany" by most Europeans. Aside from this, Austrians and Bavarians speak essentially the same dialect of German, which Wikipedia has labeled the Bavarian language. Hitler's accent would have been indistinguishable from that of a Bavarian living in Germany, across the river from Braunau am Inn. According to the German Wikipedia article on the Innviertel, the region that includes Braunau, pronunciations in that region are more typical of Bavaria than of the rest of Austria. Even if Hitler had had a distinctively Austrian accent, most Germans would have accepted him as a fellow German nonetheless. Marco polo (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I know a Berliner who says that Hitler had the most impressive speaking voice of any German he had ever heard, regardless of message. He said nothing of the accent. Does an Austrian accent sound bad? For example, I think a Scottish (Craig Ferguson) or RP accent, or an old-time Atlanta Georgian or Roanoke Virginian accent sounds wonderful, as compared to Cockney, Lawn Guyland, or Brooklynesian. μηδείς (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wonderfulness is in the ear of the listener (a well known Cockney proverb) ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"Hitler had an Oberösterreichisch accent which sounds similar to Bavarian German. He rolled his "r"s like they do in Munich. It's a nice enough speaking voice." [15] Alansplodge (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"Essential Health Benefits" in Obamacare

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) mandates insurance plans cover ten "essential health benefits," including maternity/newborn care and pediatrics. Unlike with the other benefits, there would seem to be certain classes of people who, by nature, would never need these two. The EHBs result in more expensive insurance, because naturally the more types of treatments the insurance company has to cover the more it will charge. Does this mean, for example, that a single man without children will be paying a hidden premium for his health insurance to cover these "essential" benefits? If so, is this a bureaucratic oversight or an intentional effort to pool costs? I could understand an argument that one day he may have children, just as he may not be suffering from substance abuse or a chronic disease, or indeed he may not use the insurance at all. --BDD (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Does the man not benefit in tangible ways because the people around him are healthier.? I mean, even if I don't have kids myself, public schooling benefits me because all the people around me aren't stupid (ideally). So merely because a man is a healthy individual without children doesn't mean his qualit of life is not better because the people around him are generally healthier, and thus more able to be contribute to society themselves In Productive ways,rather than to be dependent on others because their mom didn't have access to good prenatal care. The childless man benefits because he lives I a better world. --Jayron32 21:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

OK so he may not have kids of his own (or he may have and not know it...) - but he could still fall prey to diseases that a woman couldn't such as testicular cancer: not to mention the other diseases that disproportionately affect men rather than women. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The article insurance defines it as "the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another in exchange for payment... Insurance involves pooling funds from many insured entities (known as exposures) to pay for the losses that some may incur." Jane Doe may never have diabetes or prostate cancer or use Viagra and may not be an avid skiier and thus will never break her leg on the slopes. Every person pays "hidden premiums" for medical services that they will not personally use because insurance is by definition an effort to pool costs. ZMBrak (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. I'm not sure who these people are who have no need for newborn care and pediatrics, but science would sure like to study them. :) Wnt (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

There are very few people who are not, at some point in their life, a newborn. APL (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Very few... Tevildo (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

These costs are already in existing health plans. Most plans will cover at least some sort of maternity costs. Insurers don't generally sell male- or female-specific plans now, and they won't under the ACA. Existing plans that cover preventative health will probably explicitly list that they cover regular prostate and breast cancer screenings, even though most people will never need coverage for both. Katie R (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That's helpful to know; thanks. FWIW I am one of those people who likes my current coverage and gets to keep it. I get coverage through my employer so this issue doesn't directly affect me personally, at least for now. This particular point just chafed me a bit. I could see the social benefit of mandating that I get motorcycle insurance despite the fact that I don't ride a motorcycle. But if insurance plans are already gender blind and will continue to be, I suppose it's not a big deal. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking for information on hosting e-archives in the cloud.

I am hoping to find more information on cloud services for smaller to medium sized archives thinking about moving their digital collections to a third-party vendor.

I'm looking to find information on costs, benefits as well as drawbacks to third-party hosting as WELL as cloud hosting vs. traditional, home-owned servers, etc.

Also interested in whether or not this is a good idea for archives based in inclement weather locals. Because cloud-based information can be moved to other servers when a storm comes through, I am wondering if this is a good idea to ensure that an entire collection of e-records would not be wiped out if a hurricane or tornado came through, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.119.222 (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Sky Drive by Microsoft? 49.224.47.226 (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you read through Cloud storage or File hosting service? They lead to Comparison of online backup services and Comparison of file hosting services. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

November 8

Deities

What are some examples of deities who have no, or few, preternatural powers? 58.109.44.185 (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The Pharaoh? --Jayron32 01:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The Duke of Edinburgh? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hirohito allegedly. Alansplodge (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wallace Fard Muhammad. Paul B (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Imperial_cult for an overview of divine rulers, which seems like a rich area of deities who have no or few preternatural powers. ZMBrak (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Any deities that don't actually exist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

See Psalm 115:4–8.—Wavelength (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Catholic saints generally have two miracles attributed to their intercession, does that count? I was going to mention Augustus Caesar, but I see ZMBrak has already mentioned the imperial cult. I am fairly certain the dead emperors were able to make it rain in the provinces; a prophet not being without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. μηδείς (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

  The Catholics do not consider their saints to be deities. --Jayron32 01:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That's why I asked whether it counted. Canonization is suspiciously similiar to deification by the Roman Senate or apotheosis, so much so it has ben denied by Benedict XIV. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of aspects of Catholicism which echo non-Christian or pagan traditions. That was part of the "sell". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Several Roman Emperors tended to be deified after death, although obviously without the aforementioned powers. Uhlan ^talk 23:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Haile Selassie I Rmhermen (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Legislative vetoes in the USA

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha ruled that the practice of legislative vetoes was repugnant to the US Constitution. Since that time, have there been any significant efforts to amend the Constitution to permit them? By "significant", I'm meaning any proposed amendments that get out of committee in either house of Congress. Nyttend (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought than anything "significant" that has managed to get through committee would have at least been listed on List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution. Almost every proposal dies in committee. It is only rare if one passes through to get to the full House or Senate. And even rarer to have it passed with a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, and then three-fourths of the states. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha#Later history gives examples of Congress using other processes such as fast-track legislation or the Congressional Review Act that can basically achieve the same effect as a legislative veto. So until the Supreme Court eventually decides to close these loopholes, Congress probably is not currently interested in going through any lengthy amendment process. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Different exchange rates

Why currency exchange spots are allowed to have exchange rates, different from those officially set by the national banks? Isn't it actually a fraud? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.174.25.12 (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

How is it fraud if they are up front about what rate they are using to do the exchange? And the rate that they use is different because they are providing a service and can charge whatever they like for that service. If their rate is better than that of the guy down the street, they'll make more money (other factors remaining equal). But at the end of the day, they both still have to make money and they do that by raising the rate a bit higher than the national banks who they are going to for their own money exchange. After all, a European money exchanger wouldn't be able to pay their employees if all they had on hand were US dollars.

In other words, you go to a European currency exchange with US dollars and they charge 5% (for instance) but they then need their original currency back. They need to pay their employees in Euros. So they go to a national bank and the national bank charges them 3%. The currency exchange makes the exchange with the national bank for the whole amount of the day's money and they have the 2% left which they charged the customer. That 2% is used to pay the employees, pay the electric bill, and pay for other expenses. Dismas|^(talk) 10:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

They could use the exchange rates published by the banks, then charge a fixed fee, or a percentage fee, but the international exchange rate might vaary during the day, or even during a transaction. They usually choose a rate for the day to include their profit and don't change this rate unless something really drastic happens to a currency. Dbfirs 17:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Banks in countries with market economies and floating exchange rates are allowed to operate a free market in currencies. In these countries, there is no "official" exchange rate. Instead, the price of currencies on the foreign exchange market fluctuates according to supply and demand. If a currency is offered at a given price and there are no bids, then the seller either needs to offer it at a lower price or abandon the exchange. Likewise, if there are multiple bids, the seller is free to accept the highest price bid. On free foreign exchange markets, official prices set by national banks have no bearing. However, it is possible for governments to control the legal prices of their currencies and to remove them from the free foreign exchange market by enacting foreign exchange controls. Even in these cases, if the official value of a currency is too far out of line with its free market value, a black market will almost certainly develop on which the currency is traded at a value closer to its free market value. While transactions on a black market may be illegal, I don't see how they or other market exchanges in which information is not withheld are fraudulent. Marco polo (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The smartest entity ever, with the exception of Spike Jones (or Peter Cook) eating alone.

Monty Python still exists. Graham Chapman is no more. "No one expects the S_______ Inquisition." Therefore Two or more may learn to expect said above event of a possible future.

Please, if necessary, correct my above "work". Stipulating that though at home, this is hardly work, i.e. homework. As always, thank you for your attention, your long memories, and your participation in whatever form(s) it may or may not take place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.77.215 (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Reformatetd to remove leading spaces - was causing fixed font and not wrapping correctly. Astronaut (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are asking. Please make your question clearer. --ColinFine (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Monty Python et al but don't know what you feel needs correcting. And don't see a question to answer. Dismas|^(talk) 14:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

As I'm not currently at home I'm afraid I cannot legitimately give you an answer, though I take it that by 'no one' you may be thinking along the lines of these twosomes? In any event no one was smarter than Peter Cook. Blakk and ekka 17:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• The user, whose IP geolocates to Louisville Kentucky, has made 26 edits to wikipedia, 19 of them new questions at the ref desk, and six of them follow-ups to those questions. Hopefully our chances are greater than the expected 6/26 we'll get a clarification of this question. μηδείς (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You couldn't have known this, but I find that the older I get the less tolerant I am of almost any use of the word 'hopefully', and particularly where used as a substitute for 'I hope'. Feel free to adjust your phraseology accordingly.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that a time or two. :) What would be a proper use of "hopefully"? Maybe something like "He was waiting hopefully as the train carrying his mail-order bride rolled into the station." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds legitimate. 'Hopefully' seems to be beloved of sport players, as is 'obviously' and 'try'. Such as this exchange: Interviewer: "What's your goal for this match, Brock?" Brock: Obviously I'm hopefully gonna try and win. (Comment: That's not remotely obvious to me. I'd have thought his goal was to win, not to "try and win", and most certainly not "hopefully" anything, particularly not hopefully try and win.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to take umbrage at that expression, and find I can't. Hopefully you'll come to accept it as I always have. It is curious whether there are any better alternatives than "it is to be hoped". Let me know if you come acrost any. μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Acceptfully, you may adopt any position you wish. Thinkfully, I'll steer clear of it, because umbragefully I still don't like it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Just about everyone can agree on backwards cowgirl. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This is so much fun for a thread the OP will never read. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Fully understood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Not by me. What's lrigwoc? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I missed an indention. I was responding to your -fully comment. I don't know from lrigwoc. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I think he's saying that no one expects the Spanish Inquisition, but two or more, putting their heads together, might arrive at possibility of expecting the Spanish Inquisition. And the question, such as it is, is whether his initial statement makes sense or should be worded differently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Was there another inquisition beginning with S? HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

None in the Monty Python world that I can recall. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you're correct and I also think this got discussed in Alice in Wonderland or Through the Looking Glass somewhere, perhaps when Alice is talking to one of the queens? Matt Deres (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It's in the conversation with Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking-Glass (no hyphen, no points).

ALICE: I mean, that one ca'n't help growing older.

HUMPTY: One ca'n't, perhaps, but two can. With proper assistance, you might have left off at seven.

Tevildo (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. The OP now has the perfect model for rephrasing his statement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

How did lawyers earn a bad stereotype of being immoral and being liars?

How did lawyers earn a bad stereotype of being immoral and being liars? To what extent in the law field does this stereotype apply? 140.254.136.169 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Lawyers have to defend their clients, which requires marketing skills, some of which are being weasels and liars to varying degrees. As regards the "immoral" part, what's the source for that? I've seldom heard lawyers accused of being "immoral" unless they were found to be running a brothel or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The stereotype goes back as least as far as Plato's Protagoras (c. 370 BC), at the very start of the legal profession. Tevildo (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

While witnesses in court are required to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" (or something like that depending on the jurisdiction), lawyers are not. They are required to present only those elements of "the truth" that illuminate their client's case in the best possible light. Even an accused who appears almost certainly guilty of a particularly heinous crime has this right. So what lawyers sometimes present is not "the truth" as most people would see it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That works both directions, lest we forget. There's no shortage of prosecutor misconduct out there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, but there's that negative word, "misconduct". In your example the state (or The Crown, or whatever) is the client. Is it really misconduct to present a subset of the truth on their behalf? I think you'll find that the opposite is, in fact, true. If a lawyer did not present his client's case in the best possible light, he would be legally guilty of misconduct. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not really symmetrical. A defense attorney is supposed to represent his client, period (though staying within the established boundaries). The prosecutor represents "the people" (or the crown, for you monarchists), but hopefully it is assumed that neither the people nor the crown actually want to punish defendants just for the sake of it. So the asymmetry is, a defense attorney who becomes convinced his client is guilty is still supposed to seek the best outcome for his client, but a prosecutor who becomes convinced (or even thinks it's reasonably likely) that the defendant is innocent, should drop the case in the interest of justice. --Trovatore (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

In the US, at least, the job of the defense attorney is to ensure that his client gets a fair trial. Regardless of the "truth", the prosecution must prove its case. And it is not necessarily the case that the prosecution won't try to railroad an innocent party. If you want a jim-dandy example of prosecutorial misconduct, read about Mike Nifong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Say you're the lawyer of a client who, in your opinion, is almost certainly guilty of murder. You accept a million dollars from this client to claim in court that he's not guilty, to deceive the court by presenting only favorable facts and ignoring the rest. That's certainly a form of lying, and some people might consider it immoral. Of course, even people who claim this is immoral could still believe it's necessary for the legal system. --Bowlhover (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

My impression, not based on any real depth of knowledge, is that in theory, a defense lawyer won't do everything - most notably, they refuse to "suborn perjury" by calling a witness to say something if they know it isn't true, can't use their position to pass messages from clients being held incommunicado, and even are supposed to report plans for future crime, so clients who tell their lawyers everything apparently can have nasty surprises. But, like massage therapists, some lawyers offer significant extra services... Wnt (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Based on my extensive experience watching TV legal dramas, my understanding is that a defense lawyer is not allowed to lie in court, with "lie" defined rather narrowly. That is, he can't say anything he knows to be false. But he has quite a bit of leeway to say stuff he doesn't actually believe. No one, obviously, should take this as legal advice. --Trovatore (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

And that type of deception can be as bad or even worse than outright lies. I'm also reminded of the line from the movie Liar, Liar: "What does my Dad do for a living ? He's a liar." ... "I think you mean lawyer." ... "Isn't it the same thing ?". StuRat (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hence this antique of a joke: Mike is walking through the local cemetery. On one stone it says, "Here lies a lawyer and an honest man." Mike says to himself, "Ay, begorrah, how did they get two lads into one grave?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here for everyone's edification. Dismas|^(talk) 22:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The theory of a defence lawyer in our adversarial system, was explained to me be a barrister in these terms... Supposing that a defendant were rich and well educated and didn't have to work for a living, then he would be able to spend a lot of time researching the law and finding the best way to present his case in court. Because few people have these advantages, the law allows you to employ somebody to do it for you. Whatever your lawyer thinks about the rights or wrongs of the case, it is his job to present your case in court to the best of his ability, so long as he plays by the rules. Alansplodge (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair statement. The client's attorney has to follow the "presumption of innocence" axiom. It's strictly the state's job to try to prove guilt; the defense need not help the state do its job. If the client is found guilty, though, the attorney then is stuck with taking a "guilty as charged" mode, in arguing the sentencing phase. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Your incompetent lawyer is the reason you lost in court to his cheating, lying legal counsel. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary War Titles

Hi, many conflicts occurred throughout Europe, yet most of them are named today by historical standards; the Seven Years' War and the Thirty Years' War for instance could only be named after they ended; and the First World War could only be named as such when a Second World War happened. According to an excerpt from a German diarist, Jeremias Ullmann, quoted in Osprey's The Thirty Years' War by Richard Bonney, the aforementioned conflict was named in simple terms such as 'the war': "'the war has lasted 30 full years, carried off many hundred thousand souls...'" Simply calling the conflict 'the war' does not seem viable to me, considering the fact that many other conflicts were being waged at the time, and these days we tend to name conflicts as they happen, such as the Syrian Civil War. So my question is this: what were the contemporary names of these conflicts; the Seven Years' War, the Thirty Years' War, the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War? Cheers, Uhlan ^talk 23:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe there was one in Vietnam in the 1960s, known to the locals as The American War. Perspective is everything. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to this forum, the term "Great War" was used to describe both the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War while they were actually in progress. At least some of the wars that you listed were actually an aggregation of separate regional wars. The need to have an umbrella term for the whole conflict may not have been apparent until much later. Alansplodge (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes the book also said that many locals called the whole conflict the Bohemian Rebellion, even after the war spread to northern Germany and France, yet there does not seem to be any definitive answer to the contemporary name. Uhlan ^talk 23:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, a quick Google reveals that the term "present war" is a well used expressions for wars that are still happening. I found Termination of the Present War (Definition) Act 1918 (First World War), The Enemy Alien Problem in the Present War (1915), Western territory of the present war (1862, American Civil War), The History of the Present War with Russia (1855, Crimean War), The History of the Present War in Spain and Portugal (1813, Peninsular War). Statements Relating to the Measures Adopted During the Present War, (1801, War of the First Coalition), An Impartial History of the Present War in America (1778, American War of Independence). Once a war was finished, it became "the late war" until somebody thought of a better name for it; for example A Compendious account of the most important battles of the late war (1817, the War of 1812). Alansplodge (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It's just the main thing, perhaps I did not make it clear in the original question, that the wars must have had specific names rather than just the present war, as per your answer, as there were many wars happening at the same time with the intensely militaristic society of pre-21st century. Uhlan ^talk 00:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seems that they said "the present war in wherever". The examples above include an Act of Parliament and an official British government statement. I couldn't find much else that helps; sorry, it's time for bed now. Alansplodge (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Our article on WW1 has some stuff about contemporary names. Matt Deres (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Whoever cited The term "First World War" was first used in September 1914 by the German philosopher Ernst Haeckel, who claimed that "there is no doubt that the course and character of the feared 'European War' ... will become the first world war in the full sense of the word was misinterpreting what that author said. He wasn't titling the war. He was merely saying it was the first war to date that had a global aspect to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

My favorite war name is the War of Jenkins' Ear, though it doesn't seem to have been called that while it occurred... AnonMoos (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the same as the War of the Austrian Succession, as it was part of that conflict. Uhlan ^talk 08:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

November 9

Do some primitive diet people really try to acclimate to rotten meat?

I ran across a bizarre link (www.ehow.com/how_7718564_prepare-rotten-meat-primal-diet.html) that makes me wonder if people really do that, or if the page is an elaborate practical joke with a potentially fatal punch line. Can someone comment on whether primitive diet people (or others) really try to get themselves used to eating raw meat? Extra info on how successful they are in acclimating, and how many casualties they suffer would also be very welcome. :) (Note: I'm not asking about the science of whether this is a good idea, just if people do it) Wnt (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Raw, or rotten? They are totally different things. I love sushi and rare beef. I just had a rare steak-and-gorgonzola salad to die for this weekend. μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

And what in the world does raw meat have to do with a primitive diet? Homo erectus used fire. μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The link above is about rotten meat produced under specific circumstances, which is why I found it surprising. Paleolithic diet describes raw foods, but not rotten meat. Wnt (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)i

Oh. Can one not make this a clickable link? follow the first link here μηδείς (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You could try searching that Swedish rotten fish delicacy, although I have no idea what it's called. Uhlan ^talk 04:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is just what is often called the pickling of meat done by northern peoples. The Eskaleuts (not sure which race, specifically) sew birds inside seal skins and let them ferment over the summer. The Nivkh people (used to) cover pits of fish, allow the fish to ferment, feed the fermented fish to dogs, and then eat the dogs. Calling it "rotten" meat is probably just marketing. μηδείς (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably refers to the (presumably) disgusting 'rotten' smell of the meat, although perhaps not to the Swedes... Uhlan ^talk 04:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You may be thinking of Lutefisk, which is not rotten, but may in fact taste even worse. There is also the matter of defining "rotten". Cheese, yogurt, beer and stinky tofu are all examples of foods that microorganisms have been allowed to grow in, but are perfectly edible. But eating rotten meat seems unusual to me - the bacteria that decompose meat are sometimes toxic or pathogenic to humans (in the four examples I gave above the microorganisms are harmless to humans). When I search online for articles about eating rotten meat, I just find a lode of sites warning not to do it. I don't find anyone suggesting that cavemen regularly ate rotten meat. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Which is the problem with the inaccuracies in language and with people's understanding of food science. Much (I dare say maybe even most) food is processed with some form of microorganism at some point, be it bread (yeast, anyone), cheese, wine, beer, yogurt, etc. etc. Such food is usually called (perhaps euphamistically) as "cultured", but really, its just bacteria/yeast/mold/ etc. The difference is really in "microorganisms that make my food tasty" versus "microorganisms that make my food cause me to be sick." Our language calls the former "cultures" and the latter "rotten", but that's the primary distinction. People have an odd phobia when dealing with the effect (even positive) of microorganisms on their foodstuffs. --Jayron32 04:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the question title should be changed from 'rotten' to 'raw' to avoid confusion. Uhlan ^talk 04:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Lew-eez-us. I'll quote the text of the put-on (?) so there's no more confusion: Cut the organic beef or chicken into small chunks. Place the chunks of meat in the jar; air it at least every 3 days. Airing keeps the bacteria moving and is necessary to advance the bacteria through all the stages of decomposition. Only air outside, as the smell of the rotten meat can linger in your home for more than 24 hours. After 1 month of frequent airing and rotting, begin sampling marble-size amounts of the now somewhat "high" meat daily. It will taste a putrid and may stir up past feelings of fear of food poisoning, maybe even to the point of inducing a panic attack. But within 10 to 20 minutes, you should begin to experience a positive and drastic change in mood and energy levels... Wnt (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

To be honest I really wouldn't trust an ehow website, I don't believe the articles have ratification from medical minds. Uhlan ^talk 04:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm not asking about the science of its advisability. I'm just curious if such a group of experimental subjects really exists that is available for study, as it would be unethical to initiate the experiment, but not to take advantage of it. (For example, I'd be curious whether they do acclimate over time, if they have higher or lower rates of autoimmune disease, asthma, ulcerative colitis, etc., whether their expression of odorant receptors changes, whether their serum levels of polyamines are different and if that has (various effects)... etc. Wnt (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that article is total garbage. In other words, the author laid a thousand year old egg. StuRat (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Rancid seal flipper is supposed to be a delicacy. While this explains the health hazards. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

We have an article on everything, in this case Aajonus Vonderplanitz and Paleolithic diet. I don't think the health benefits are very plausible, but of course, "rotten" is relative, and the perceived risk of raw food is not always justified. Also compare dry aged beef, which is a delicacy that only a barbarian would cook beyond medium. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Slightly about this -- rotting (fermenting) fish forms the basis for a number of Asian sauces, was the basis for the original Chinese ketchup, and also the basis for Worcestershire sauce. And the British believe in cooking everything to "well-done" including veggies until they are sure they are dead <g>. Collect (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed on your last point - at least one less than 50 years old <grin back through clenched teeth>. Alansplodge (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

[16] BBC: What is the UK's national vegetable? says And overcooked cabbage, cauliflower and sprouts are classic school dinner fare. [17] At two, Dad would return and start hacking away at the joint, and slices of beast, overcooked vegetables, and a fatsoaked pudding would be consumed etc. All recent still. Now I note that London appears to have foreigners undercooking veggies <g>, but the main idea is still there out in the countryside. At least until the EU issues some new regulations, of course. Collect (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

No one mentioned the Icelandic Hákarl, fermented shark buried in sand and pressed under stone for months, then hung and dried for more more months. Rmhermen (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• The putrid fish that Swedes consider a delicacy is called Surströmming. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 20:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Pheasant, and other game birds, is sometimes hung for days, even a week or two, until its otherwise unremarkable taste has matured. This, and a brief section in On Food and Cooking, suggest that the process which produces the desired effect is indeed bacterial decay and that the refined product, if not actually rotten, is on the cusp of being so. It would be interesting to know (neither source really says) whether this change in flavour is accompanied by an improvement in the flesh's food value (whether, e.g., the action of the bacteria has broken down otherwise indigestible tissues).-- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking for someone to verify the contents of an article

I'm trying to find someone who can find an article from the Manchester Guardian, May 19, 1984, by Polly Toynbee titled "The Value of a Grandfather Figure". There are a few copies floating around on blogs, but we want to verify that those are true to the published version. Any idea on where to find this? I don't have access to any paid archive services or anything beyond the big G.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The only Manchester Guardian I'm ware of was renamed to simply The Guardian in 1959. Is that the paper you're referring to? Someguy1221 (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. This is the non-official version of the article. Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If it is the Guardian, old editions are unfortunately not available for free. You can buy old editions from this site, but they are rather expensive. You may be able to contact that site to at least find out if Polly Tonybee actually wrote something in that edition. You may also make a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, to see if any Wikipedia editors have subscriptions to old newspapers (a lot of editors have rather extensive access to stuff through their local libraries). Someguy1221 (talk)

You the man...err guy. Thanks. Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

website problem

I've been looking on the website of Lil Bub. Apparently something is off. I can't seem to find her online store. When I try, all I get is her book. What's going on? Anyone know?142.255.103.121 (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Going to www.lilbub.com and clicking on "store" seems to do the trick for me. - Karenjc (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Is the Constitution of Brunei the Basic law of Brunei?

[Constitution of Brunei] Alevero987 (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm no expert but for any other country the Common Law tends to be separate to the Constitution, perhaps that is indicative of Brunei also. Uhlan ^talk 22:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The OP should be an expert by now, because this type of question gets raised about every week or two here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

About Brunei specifically? Uhlan ^talk 22:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the question that keeps getting repeated is what the official language or languages of Brunei are, and I suspect this question is a twist on that. The editor is obviously quite interested in Brunei (Alevero987 (talk · contribs)), but they might get faster answers re-reading the ref desk archives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

In Germany the Basic Law *is* the Constitution. Maybe this is indicative of Brunei also? 86.148.57.175 (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the term "basic law" is recognised in international jusriprudence, but given that the point of a Constitution is that all other laws must conform to, or at least must not be antipathetic to, its strictures and conditions, I can't see how any other law could be considered the "basic law" of a country. Keener legal minds than mine might be able to comment more usefully. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Did the value of Iranian dinar coins grow tenfold in 1932?

Hello,

I have read that the Iranian rial replaced the Iranian qiran at par in 1932. However, the dinar, which was a subunit of both currencies, was worth a thousandth (1/1000) of a qiran before 1932 and a hundredth (1/100) of a rial after. Moreover, new dinar coins were issued only in 1935. Does that mean that the value of the dinar grew tenfold at once, with the transition to the rial? Kulystab (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)