Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:35, 9 September 2006

Science	Mathematics	Computing/IT	Humanities
Language	Entertainment	Miscellaneous	Archives

How to ask a question

Search first. It's quicker, because you can find the answer in our online encyclopedia instead of waiting for a volunteer to respond. Search Wikipedia using the searchbox. A web search could help too. Common questions about Wikipedia itself, such as how to cite Wikipedia and who owns Wikipedia, are answered in Wikipedia:FAQ.

Sign your question. Type ~~~~ at its end.
Be specific. Explain your question in detail if necessary, addressing exactly what you'd like answered. For information that changes from country to country (or from state to state), such as legal, fiscal or institutional matters, please specify the jurisdiction you're interested in.
Include both a title and a question. The title (top box) should specify the topic of your question. The complete details should be in the bottom box.

Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please don't post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers.

Be patient. Questions are answered by other users, and a user who can answer may not be reading the page immediately. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to seven days.

Do not include your e-mail address. Questions aren't normally answered by e-mail. Be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites; making your e-mail address public here may make it very public throughout the Internet.
Edit your question for more discussion. Click the [edit] link on right side of its header line. Please do not start multiple sections about the same topic.
Archived questions If you cannot find your question on the reference desks, please see the Archives.
Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk.
Do not request medical or legal advice.
Ask a doctor or lawyer instead.

After reading the above, you may
ask a new question by clicking here.
Your question will be added at the bottom of the page.

How to answer a question

Be thorough. Please provide as much of the answer as you are able to.
Be concise, not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated.

Link to articles which may have further information relevant to the question.
Be polite to users, especially ones new to Wikipedia. A little fun is fine, but don't be rude.
The reference desk is not a soapbox. Please avoid debating about politics, religion, or other sensitive issues.

September 3

Human Rights Again

Sorry for asking this yet again, but nobody answered my final question: Generally, when someone says that they support human rights, do they mean to say it should be the basis of all law(that human rights can only be violated in order to protect other human rights), or that it is a good supplement, but other laws can overrule it with a good reason? --Life 02:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We answered your question as well as we can, whether you were happy with the answer or not. We don't know what everybody thinks, we can only tell you what we think. You shouldn't repost as long as your old Q is still listed on this page. StuRat 03:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heres the real deal, HR is the realm of the UN as they have a HR division that handels that for mankind. Everthing else is bogus PR for politicians. Note to fetus fans and animal lovers HR applies when you are born, not concieved, not when you are a bun in the oven, born. And animals dont have then either. Happy now? Good,-----Hobgoblin

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is just that: a declaration, just like the Declaration of Independence. As such they do not have the force of law. For instance, the proclamation that Life is an unalienable Right does not stop the United States from putting people to death. Individual countries may have laws or constitutional clauses guaranteeing human rights, such as the United States Bill of Rights. For more information I suggest the Human rights portal. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life, the thing is that in Britain we never had a written constitution. Most democratic countries did and it included some rights which were guaranteed. In Britain parliament could in theory pass any law it liked without bothering about peoples individual rights. For example, the right to free speech didnt have so much legal basis in Britain as in America. We have very strict libel laws which mean journalists/whistleblowers have to be much more careful in Britain. Arguably those very strong laws breach people's right to free speech and would not be possible in America.

The Human Rights Act in Britain is a way of bringing us into line with the US, European countries, etc, and have a list of rights all in one place. In a way, its a pity that Labour chose the European version rather than the American one, because some people hate Europe so much they are automatically prejudiced against it, whereas those same people would have no problem with exactley thesame text if it wasnt called European. Jameswilson 23:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, although not anything like as strong or effective, don't forget the Bill of Rights 1689 --Mnem e son 23:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that, in all of the discussions about HR lately, it hasn't really come up that a big part of the reason to draft guidelines is the effort towards antidiscrimination, yeah? It was brought up that the UN's declaration of human rights was a direct answer to the holocaust. It seems we're still hashing out what we mean by the human in human rights, the same way that every American history teacher loves to talk about the fact that all men created equal around here were (back then) specifically white men with land. We're trying to get away from that sort of thing...and genocide based on religion or skin color or sexual orientation or class, etc. All of this utilitarianism is great and everything (how do you objectively quantify things like total good and total happiness within a population?), but does it talk about race at all? I'm off to read the article, I s'pose.--24.250.33.247 00:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Websites for political discussion

Could someone please recommend to me some websites for discussion of political topics (including utopian topics) that is not dominated by libertarian and/or pro-free-market opinions? It would be a big help, and I thank you in advance for your answers. EDIT: Also please make sure it is not dominated by pro-animal-rights or religious type people. Thanks!!! --Life 02:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abovetopsecret.com (this is IMO a little out there, but I have found many a substantiated political discussion here) ChowderInopa 03:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo provides: Campaigns Wikia. I haven't yet looked in to it, though, so I don't know if it meets your criteria. I've also got my own political wiki, but that's in Dutch and in part based on a liberal/free market ideology. DirkvdM 05:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Dirk's views, I'm guessing that would be the "donate a nuke to a poor terrorist" site. But, being in Dutch, it could very well say something even worse. StuRat 09:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's primarily Canadian, but I recommend rabble. Also here on WP: rabble.ca. Hardly any animal rights activists and libertarians. Anchoress 05:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in US-oriented political discussions from an unashamedly liberal (in the US sense) perspsective, Daily Kos is one of the best known. --Robert Merkel 23:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I guess my description was a bit vague, but I am fairly authoritarian(EDIT: not extremely, but relatively extremely compared to most americans), and I was looking for a website favoring that.

For example:

-I believe in government-controlled industries and a government-controlled economy.

-I strongly oppose the hippie movement(except I agree with environmentalism)

-I am against freedom of religion

-I am generally in favor of freedom of speech, but compared to most americans I am "against" it

-I believe human rights in general should be "suggestions"

-I am against democracy, though I am not in favor of dictatorships nor totalitarian regimes

--Life 02:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does being opposed to freedom of religion mean ? You want everybody to be forced to follow some particular religion ? Which one ? Would you imprison those who refuse ? StuRat 06:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're opposed to democracy and totalitarian regimes, what are you in favor of, instead ? StuRat 06:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're views are rather difficult to interpret. My best guess though is that you'd probably like guys like Lenin, Kruschev and Brezhnev. Stalin though would probably be a bit much for you. A strong clue was your use of the words "utopian" and "authoritarian". As for your views, these three guys would probably agree with you on most of them. 1) They all believed in government-controlled industries and a government-controlled economy, 2) They would surely be opposed to the hippie movement, (though I'm not sure what they'd think of your environmentalist "twist") 3) They were definitely against freedom of religion (except for that particular religion called "atheism"), 4) As you, they would definitely claim to be in favour of freedom of speech, just not as "completely" as the American conception (translation: you're free to say anything you want, just as long as the government doesn't disagree with it), 5) They were completely devoted to human rights in principle, just look at the Constitution of the USSR. However, in practice these rights were regarded at best as "suggestions", and thereby largely ignored. 6) Finally, they were all obviously against democracy, but unlike Stalin, I wouldn't qualify them as "dictators". I'd say they would much better be described as sort of "CEO's" of a completely undemocratic, authoritarian political apparatus. Congratulations Life! Like it or not you're practically the dictionary definition of a Soviet Communist! With that in mind, I'm sure you can find plenty of forums to discuss your views. Loomis 22:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Open Rescheduling

With all the recent rain at the US Open (Tennis) in Flushing Meadows, many matches have been postponed. Now, Im curious as to two things. First, do the tournament managers decide to squeeze all the missed matches into the next day, or what? Especially when there are multiple days of rain, this boggles me. Then, ticketing. If someone has tickets, to, say, the Finals (to be played on a Sunday), and the rain causes this day to be postponed, would the ticketholders automatically get into the match the next day, for instance the Monday or Tuesday? Or would they need to go through Red tape to replace their tickets?Thanks so much, ChowderInopa 02:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the rules of the tournament. Wimbledon, which is notorious for rain, has different refund levels - less than half an hour of play, and less than two hours of play (as I recall). Anything more than that and nothing back. They try to catch up as best as possible (this can be both easier and harder later on - on the one hand, more people have been knocked out, so there are more free courts to catch up on, on the other there are fewer days in which to do it, and they need rest time), and in the unusual event where the finals take place on a day after the tournament was supposed to end, it's free entry on a first-come, first-served basis. Whether or not Flushing Meadows use the same rules, I don't know I'm afraid. --Mnem e son 03:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Kid #1 "We got more bounce in California"

"Bounce" by Soul Kid has in the last year become my most hated song because it sucks penis. I have been looking EVERYWHERE for a music video of it, but cannot find it. Could anyone help me out? By the way, to make sure we are talking the same song, the catch phrase is: "We got more bounce in California, than all y'all combined!!!" Thank you so much, ChowderInopa 03:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MOBILE PHONE MEMORY

Hi, I have a Sagem MYX6-2 and I would like to know if the phone can handle a 512MB or 1GB memory card. I have heard that if u use a 512MB or more it will "lag" the phone, am I right? I plan on storing music and pics on the phone. THANKS JON

The is the Reference Desk for questions on the topic of Humanities. A better place for this question might be the Computing, or Miscellaneous desks. —D a niel (‽) 08:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Computing, although a case could be made for Science. Definitely not here, though. StuRat 08:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movie title ?

I saw a made for TV movie (I think it was), maybe 5 years ago, where a small prop plane crashed, and the rescuers found it was loaded with cash and the passengers were all dead. They decided to keep the cash for themselves, but the money gradually turned them evil, killing off witnesses and each other. There was snow on the ground for most of the movie. Any idea what the title was ? StuRat 08:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a bit like A Simple Plan, although probably isn't. The search-films-by-plot thing on IMDB might be useful here. -- the GREAT Gavini 08:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's it ! Thanks. StuRat 09:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey StuRrat, just as I recommended in the topic beneath this one, IMDB has a special forum just for questions like that (movies of which you don't know the title anymore):[1]Evilbu 21:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time picturing that working very well. Besides, you have to register to use it. StuRat 06:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't. You just start a topic in which you give as much relevant information (the race of certain characters, when you saw it, language, landscapes, in colour or not, length,..) as possible. If you don't get an answer within 24 hours, bump it. Do make a decent title, the board is full of topics entitled "omfgh can ya tell me wath da film is goign copmletly insaneee!!". If only it were ruled like Wikipedia... But yes, you do have to register.Evilbu 15:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish film ?

I saw a short Spanish film in which two children are playing. The boy drops something on the girl's head and knocks her out. He runs home, thinking he's killed her. As the hours pass the community becomes more frantic and boy becomes more and more guilty until finally he eats some poisonous berries.

Then the girl returns with a bump on her head. The boy is begining to succumb to the berries and asks her 'Will you tell my mum I ate the berries?' and she says 'No!' Had me crying my eyes out! Anyone know its name? Rentwa 15:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a bit twisted but interesting. However, there is a chance you won't find an answer here, as this is not a movie board. I can only recommed asking a question like this(= a movie you've seen but you don't know the title) on this fine IMDB board "I need to know". [2]

Ta! I could also try esp.wikipedia. It does sound a little twisted, like Romeo and Juliet for infants! :) Rentwa 08:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So who dies? I can't take the suspense. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 15:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it ends! Too bad, isn't it? Rentwa 09:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Adam's speech censored?

Why is it impossible to get the full transcript of Adam Yahiye Gadahn speech on 2nd Sep 2006? After all he spoke in English. Does not the west believe in Freedom of Speech? Or is it Freedom of Speech for me but not for my enemies. Ohanian 09:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of speech is not for those who advocate murder/terrorism. Does he fall into that category ? StuRat 09:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he got to speak, so he wasn't censored. Maybe there was simply no one who actually recorded it and/or did the transcription. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ideological platform

In short, the “Azzam” video reconfirms clearly, in an English language that academic translators won’t be able to distort, that al Qaeda’s movement worldwide and in the United States is seeking total annihilation or conversion of the enemy: American and other democracies.

That's why they want to censor it, to prevent English speaking people from hearing the undistorted version. Ohanian 09:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure if it's being censored or not, but a lot of it is available for convenient viewing on the internet. I for one am grateful for a voice that appears to be able to speak in a rational manner. It is much easier to communicate and have productive dialog with individuals who compose themselves well, though what's really needed is a questions forum. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 06:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On that video, he's advocating murdering civilians, and "debates" whether they should intentionally murder women and children, too. I see no need to talk with anyone with such views, just kill him, before he gets a chance to do what he threatens to do. StuRat 05:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that some believe that Gadahn's speech may contain coded signals to terrorist operatives in the United States, and thus not broadcasting the entire videotape, just paraphrasing it, could help prevent the operatives from receiving their signals. See [3] for more on that. --Metropolitan90 00:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art!

hey im wondering if you could please answer these two questions for me.?

How did art come about??

When did people begin making art?

it would be much appreciated if you could please try and answer them,,,thanks heaps luv xkaylax ←XXkaylaXx 09:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)→[reply]

Have you read the article on art? Or the history of art? They may be of help. Dismas|^(talk) 10:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Assuming you mean visual art: Pre-historic art offers some insights and references regarding the second question. As for your first question, it might be older than art history and also depends on what we define as 'art'. See cultural anthropology, art, and aesthetics for starters. ---Sluzzelin 10:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you heaps

James Reeves' children's poems

I am trying to find out something about one of James Reeves' children's poems, but my search has come up with nothing. I do not even know to which poem it relates but here goes: I need to find out what creature in James Reeve's poem is found "...in mellow orchards rich and ripe..." and in which poem is it found.

Any help would be greatly apprecited!

Many thanks! Vic Laville Viclaville 11:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find anything with that exact quote. The closest poems I found were:

"I turned and looked on heaven awhile, where now

The moor-faced sunset broadened with red light;

Threw high aloft a golden bough,

And seemed the desert of the night

Far down with mellow orchards to endow."

George Meredith, from The Orchard and the Heath

"What is yellow? pears are yellow,

Rich and ripe and mellow."

Christina Rossetti from What is Pink?

I found one mention of orchards in a poem by James Reeves:

"Rockets and Roman candles make

An orchard of the sky,

Where magic trees their petals shake

Upon each gazing eye."

James Reeves from Fireworks

---Sluzzelin 12:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon rereading your question, I guess it could be from Reeves's Prefabulous Animiles where he describes creatures such as the catipoce, the chickamingus, the hippocrumb and the snitterjipe. I couldn't find any of these poems online. Sorry. ---Sluzzelin 13:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is the snitterjipe. apple-eater with luminous eyes, tickling whiskers ---Sluzzelin 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1968 air lingus crash/shootdown?

I see Brits read wikinaut stuff too, goodie, anybody out there remember the Irish sea crash of a passenger plane that may have been accidently (or not) shot down near a m.o.d. missal base in 68. Come on chaps tell us what you think. The offical secrets act never thought of the the internet. Take a chance. Pay no mind to those nasty GCHQ/MI5 goons at your door. That incident seems to be oddly unreported in the historical records.14:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about Aer Lingus Flight 712. Here is what the Irish Department of Transport released to the press in 2002 regarding this incident. ---Sluzzelin 15:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Official Secrets Act covers all mediums of communication, but is only binding on those who are specifically subject to it and talking about material they have obtained "professionally". I have no idea why you're waving the name around as though you think it means something. Shimgray | talk | 23:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Oyster Cult Lyrics

Could someone please update the BOC page and provide specific information and explanation about songs and lyrics. Many of the songs have lyrics which aren't immedietely decipherable seem to refer to events or myths of which I have little knowledge.For eg. on the interlinking of songs by phrases and sentences common to both like in 'transmaicon' and 'the red and the black' and the oftenly used address "ladies, fish and gentlemen" . PLease reply on these specific details immediately. What is the song "shooting Shark" about ? Thank You

Here is quite an interesting site offering song interpretations unfortunately it only has four examples of BOC lyric http://www.songfacts.com/search_fact.php?combinedartists=Blue+Oyster+Cult&-Search.x=9&-Search.y=4. BTW The Red and the Black is a book. MeltBanana 15:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, lyrics are a touchy spot on Wikipedia, because some individuals feel that reprinting lyrics enfringes copywrite laws. You can only talk indirectly about the content of songs for so long. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 15:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the chase

Hello , id like to ask someone if they could find a copy of the painting The Chase by Bernard Sumner. I would like to be able to print out a large copy of it so I could draw it myself . This painting was brought to my attention by reading a book called The Forest by a Mr. Rutherford, which is about the New forest's history , but the picture on the back cover is too small to be able to reproduce properly, as I cannot see the detail very well. I would really appreciate it if someone could help me with this. Thank you very much .

Kelly

I didn't know Bernard Sumner painted too (or is it a different Bernard Sumner?). At any rate I didn't find any artwork of his online. There's a painting by Richard Ansdell titled The Chase. Maybe this is the one you were looking for?---Sluzzelin 18:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise about this. The painters name is actually Leighton Sumner. I have absolutely no idea why I had called him Bernard I wasn't thinking of New Order at the time. Seriously though it would be a real joy for me to be able to draw this painting. Thanks again if any can help. Kelly.

Where is the Ditch family in Williamsburg history in the 1800's?

The Ditch family was a popular family in Williamsburg in the 1800's. In fact they had their own schoolhouse west of the city. It is now a home. It is near the Baker Farm where many of the Ditch family lived and died.

SEVERAL OF THE DITCH FAMILY ARE BURIED IN A CORN FIELD ON THE BAKER FARM (I thought this was illegal) . The tombstones are piled on the farm near the cornfield. I have pictures of them.

Mr Baker took me to this stop several years ago, but has since died. He had records of the DITCH family and copies are now in the hands of a Ditch relative in North Carolina.

I have a copy of the members of the Ditch Family who are buried there.

Your report mentions nothing about the DITCH Family, yet they are in census reports of that time. As far as the first schoolhouse in Williamsburg, I question the validity of any other being first but the DITCH schouse.

How could the researchers write an article and leave out an important family, who wer responsible for building the trown of Williamsburg?

....

Wikipedia's coverage of topics depends, to a large extent, on the whims of its contributors, including you. Not every individual who meets our eligibility criteria has an article. If members of the Ditch family are notable, you can add articles about them yourself (though these days you need to get an account to start an article). Be aware that for a topic to be covered on Wikipedia, it has to be, to some level, notable, and the information in the articles verifiable from external sources (books, newspaper articles, and so on). See WP:BIO for some guidance on who is and isn't an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a geneological database. --Robert Merkel 23:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodernism and Logic

Can anyone tell me any people who have written about how logic fits into postmodernism. In particular, perhaps, can any of the four primary rules of logic (Contradictions, excluded middle, identity and inference) be considered as universal. --Kiltman67 18:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by postmodernism? I can't see how logic fits into architecture, although I can see how it may figure in literature or music.

Re universality, Buddhism explicitly contradicts the excluded middle - 'neither it is, nor it is not' is the normal meaning of the 'Middle Way' between extremes, although it's often interpreted as 'moderation in all things', which it also means (eg the Buddha rejecting asceticism prior to his Enlightenment, but didn't indulge his desires either). Rentwa 00:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant postmodernism in a philosophical sense. Thanks for telling me about the excluded middle, I wasn't aware that Buddhists would in effect refute the claim. I'm interested in the other three which would appear more difficult to refute and anybody who's written more widely on how logic fits into postmodern thought. --Kiltman67 18:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The basis of our occidental philosophy is taken down by discoveries in physics such as quantic laws, including contradiction (see Schrodinger's cat). All we can say is that philosophy has to evolve ; did a current, named "postmodernism", talk about that, I do not know. -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better an occidental philosophy than an accidental one. JackofOz 22:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sure are negative to those who write in, we ask for help not criticism.

basics of Iraqi insurgency, especially suicide bombings

Hello,

it seems some users dislike my use of "dummies" so I use "basics":)

More seriously : I've been reading through Wikipedia articles but I'm still in doubt. As I understand it the Iraqi insurgency is complicated : there are Sunni milita, supporters of Hussein, Shia militia, Al Qaeda,....

But who are these men (or women) who target civilians(possibly by suicide bombing)? And who do they target? I've heard stories of men driving a car full of explosives right into a group of playing young boys. Are the acts by Sunnis against Shia muslims or vice versa, or does it really happen that fundamentalists are willing to target civilians in their OWN group (and if so, why?)

Thanks.Evilbu 20:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Al Qaeda in Iraq group may very well be willing to target ANY Iraqi civilians, just as long as it makes the US look bad because "all those deaths of civilians occurred while it was under US occupation". They don't care what happens to Iraqis, and would be quite happy if a bloody civil war killed every last Iraqi. Now for the goals of the other insurgency groups:

Sunnis: Gain control of Iraq, as under Saddam, and establish another military dictatorship. If that means killing every other Iraqi, that's fine.

Secular Shiites: Gain control of Iraq, using the current government structure. If that means killing every other Iraqi, that's fine.

Fundamentalist Shiites: Gain control of Iraq, and establish an Iran style theocracy. If that means killing every other Iraqi, that's fine.

Kurds: Achieve independence. If that means killing every other Iraqi, that's fine.

StuRat 22:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recall news reports of, for instance, a tennis coach getting shot and killed by fundamentalists because he was wearing shorts. Speaking broadly, the Kurds have fairly relaxed customs of religious observance, so the line may blur between ethnic fighting and religious killings. There is also the chance that certain suicide bombers specifically target one individual who collaborates with the occupation government and the deaths of other nearby civilians amount to (from the bomber's perspective) collateral damage. Durova 22:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I could be wrong but the story of the "madman suicide bomber" running his car bomb into a group of children didn't seem to target any specific person. StuRat, thanks for your overview, but where are the former Baathists in there?Evilbu 23:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ba'athists are Sunni Muslims - 'want to regain their control' category --Mnem e son 23:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and they don't particularly seem to have the goal of putting Saddam back as the leader. I suspect that each faction has their own leader who they want to be the new dictator of Iraq. StuRat 02:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! So as soon as the civil war's over, the... err... civil war can begin. Sometimes, I think the only way Miss World will be able to get world peace is if she's a nuclear physicist, and persuades the sun to swallow us up ahead of schedule... --Mnem e son 02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dictionary-thesaurus

How do I access the dictionary and thesaurus?

                              Fred DiDomenico

Remove from your shelf. Open to the letter that begins the word you desire. If you don't have one on your shelf, are you looking for dictionary.com ? --Mnem e son 23:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps the Wiktionary? --Maxamegalon2000 01:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest OneLook.com for a dictionary and Merriam-Webster for a thesaurus (although they have a dictionary, too). StuRat 01:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is he talking about MS Word by any chance?--Light current 03:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. In which case that annoying Clippy could be good for something. RTFM. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

there was a battle of world war 2 the was balanced??

It would help us if you stated your question a little more clearly. JackofOz 02:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example if a take the battle fo ww2, and look at the numbers of soldiers that were there, types of tanks, ships, and planes, what weapons the soldiers where using..... What batlle you should call that was balanced, (counting this and others aspects of the battle).

Nope. I still cant get it! 8-(--Light current 03:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he wants to know 'Which individual battle in WW2 was the most evenly balanced, with each side posessing the same level of firepower and manpower?'. That said, I haven't a clue of the answer. --Mnem e son 03:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, is this that I was talking about.

Battle of the bulge ?--Light current 03:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is actually a lot tougher than it seems. There's much more involved than simple troop numbers, artillery power, etc. Often these factors take a back seat to far more important factors like training, strategy, technological superiority, troop morale, positioning, weather, the differing level of losses tolerable by either side, the differing willingness of each side to violate the "rules of war" etc. These factors play an enormous part in who wins and who loses. For example, one side could have a 10 million troops with a million pieces of artillery, each with a range of 5km. The other side can have only 100,000 troops, and only 10,000 pieces of artillery, each one with a range of 10km. In this situation, though one army may be outmanned and outgunned 100 to 1, they may still have a better chance of winning. All they'd have to do is stay put, out of range of the enemy. But this may be a bit of an oversimplification.

Perhaps a better example is the German/Soviet battle for the eastern front. Certain elements were clearly in favour of the Germans, and certain others in favour of the Soviets. The Soviets ultimately won for a variety of reasons, most having little to do with the raw "power" of each respective army. Perhaps the Germans may have had superiour firepower, better troop morale, better training, better troop discipline, better strategy, the element of surprise, etc. Yet the Soviets had a higher tolerance for casualties, and were far better acquainted with the field of battle. Apparently, the Germans had neglected to take into account such factors as the extreme cold, as well as the geographical fact that Russia was so massive that the maintenance of a link for resupply of essentials was far more difficult than they had originally calculated. These are examples of the main factors that determine who wins and who loses, far more important than raw troop numbers etc. As such it would be impossible to determine which battle was the most balanced. The number of variables is far too numerous. Loomis 01:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "determine which battle was the most balanced. The number of variables is far too numerous." I dont want the most balanced just one or more balanced battles of ww2, donest need to be the most balanced one.

In that case any battle that lasted more than a few days would qualify as balanced. That would be pretty much all of them. Perhaps a better question would be: "please name some of the very few completely one-sided battles fought in WWII". All that comes to mind (and depending if you would even call these "battles" in any sense of the word because in some cases they were so one sided that the other side didn't even put up a fight) would be Hitler's early "conquests" in the Rheinland, Austria, the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and his rather quick victory over France. Most of the rest of the battles, (in Europe,) the ones that lasted weeks or even months would seem to be rather "balanced". Loomis 21:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midway. B00P 00:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Humans Since the Beginning

I am looking for an approximate figure of the number of human beings who have lived since the beginning of time. Thank you. ƒˆ®´∫ˆ®∂†∑ø

This question has been asked here before. It was either 10 billion people have ever lived, or 10 billion people have died. I think that 10 billion is the total of everyone who has ever lived, including the 6 billion alive today. Viva La V i e Boheme!

It depends on how you define "human being", but it's definitely larger than 10 billion, probably about 100 billion. See [4] and [5]. —Keenan Pepper 06:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"36 billion" is in my head from somewhere, possibly Cecil Adams. —Tamfang 06:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the previous discussion on this, but one big question was what you consider to be 'living'. Very few fertilised eggs make it to birth. So if you exclude abortions and stillbirths that would make a huge difference. Also, the number of babies that didn't make it to their third year is probably greater than the number that did. This has been largely solved in most parts of the world (except much of Africa), resulting in the overpopulation we have now. DirkvdM 08:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking the wrong question. A much better question to ask is the reverse question of how many human have been born from today going back to point X in the past. This question does not require the definition of what is a human. As you strext point X further and further into the past , you would probably find a large but fixed number. Ohanian 22:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easy to look at the world population today and overestimate the total number who have ever lived. See.Integrate under a theoretical growth curve (exponential? geometric?) to find the area. Here are the data which came with it: year world population (millions) -10000 4 -8000 5 -7000 5 -6000 5 -5000 5 -4000 7 -3000 14 -2000 27 -1000 50 -750 60 -500 100 -400 160 -200 150 0 170 200 190 400 190 500 190 600 200 700 210 800 220 900 226 1000 310 1100 301 1200 360 1250 400 1300 360 1340 443 1400 350 1500 425 1600 545 1650 470 1700 600 1750 790 1800 980 1850 1260 1900 1650 1910 1750 1920 1860 1930 2070 1940 2300 1950 2400 1960 3020 1970 3700 1974 4000 1980 4430 1987 5000 1990 5260 2000 6070 Analyses of genetic variabliity hint at a very small population of modern humans tens of thousands of years ago. What I like to see is a clear exposition of the assumptions and the error limits on the estimate. Edison 19:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Davies in About Time page 260 says "about 10% of people who have ever lived are living now" This would mean about 60 billion, but I haven't checked the references cited above by Keenan Pepper, so that looks like a good place to check. Just thought I'd pop this in as an extra curiosity. The Mad Echidna 21:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I meant to point out before, that's the population at a given moment, which excludes those who would have lived at that moment if they would not have died as a child. Until about 150 years ago that was a considerable amount (though I don't know how many precisely). Also, say the population was on average 150 million between 1000 and 2000. With an average lifespan of 50 years that would mean 3 billion people (counting in the childbirths would more than double that). Suppose this is exponential with an exponent of 2 (I hope I'm saying this right :) ), then there would be that number for every doubling, so that would then be 30 billion for the last 1024 times 1000 years. That's just one million years. The human article speaks of 6.5 million years of evolution (separate from chimps). So that would bring the total number close to 100 billion. This is assuming the average human life span has always been 50 years. DirkvdM 07:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my answer above was incorrect. Integrating the population curve would only give "people years" and an answer for the people who lived would require factoring in the lifespan of stone age hunter gatherers, then the lifespan of early farmers, then the lifespan during the great early empires etc, etc, with the industrial revolution and modern medicine producing longer lifespan in the developed countries. In the 20th century the world population increased because people kept having about as many children as they did when infant mortality was extreme. But in developed countries, the birth rate drops to actually achieve negative population growth. Edison 14:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regions of the United States

Which 2 states make up the Pacific Northwest?

Which state has the largest population in the Pacific Region?

The Pacific Northwest is generally considered to be Oregon and Washington. I would imagine that California has the highest in the entire Pacific region. If you meant just the Pacific Northwest, I would have to say Washington, since it has Seattle, Spokane and Olympia. Though Oregon has Portland and Salem, that is probably not enough to out do Washington. A good idea, though would be to look at the articles of Oregon and Washington (state). Glad to be able to do you homework for you. Viva La V i e Boheme!

What? do these kids sleep thro the lessons or what?--Light current 04:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not paying for them you do. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

See Pacific Northwest. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BIRTHDAYS

Hi, can u recommend any sites where u can find birthdays of celebs or famous people! THANKS JON

How about here on Wikipedia? Just type in their name (with capitalization) and hit 'Go'. If we know their birthday, it's usually in the first line of the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in who was born on a particular day, September 4th say, you just type 'September 4' in the search box and hit 'Go'. Then scroll down to Births to see who was born on that day. ---Sluzzelin 10:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.famousbirthdays.com/ --Proficient 03:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mesopotamian "kids these days" tablet

In the past few years I remember seeing various mentions (e-mails, internet forum posts, and just random statements from people) of a supposed ancient clay tablet from some early Mesopotamian civilization (I think it's most often "Sumerian," but lots of people get those details confuse) that supposedly is a rant equivalent to the modern day "kids are worthless layabouts" speech. Reportedly it complains about how children didn't respect their parents and were all criminals and so on and so forth. Try as I might, however, I can't find any legitimate source. Does anyone know if this is real, or if it is one of the many wild internet stories that regularly circulate? Eteq 08:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like it's made up, to me. Writing was difficult enough back then, using clay tablets, that you wouldn't do it unless you had something more important to say. StuRat 09:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no difficulty believing this. The realization that civilization is going to go down the drains due to the undisciplined character of youths is a message of the utmost concern and importance, and no efforts must be spared to get it out. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I wonder if it's related to something that went around in emails about 15 years ago. It was a polemic about worthless teenagers, with the punchline 'Who do you think wrote it? Not Nancy Reagan, not Jerry Falwell, but...' either Socrates or Aristotle, can't remember which. It was very funny, I wonder if it was apocryphal? Might have been Plato. Anchoress 10:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous apocryphal quotes of this kind floating around online. Some are attributed to Sumerian clay tablets, some to ancient Egyptian priests. Similarly, I found one pessimistic quote regarding youth on four different websites with four different alleged authors (Socrates(?), Plato, Aristotle, Hesiod). I'm sure there have always been people complaining about youth. But enlightened and educated people usually have more to say than just some unspecific rant. What about the famous quote "Youth is (truly?) wasted on the young"? Usually it's attributed to GBS, but I've seen Oscar Wilde given as its author too.---Sluzzelin 10:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extended to 'Life is wasted on the living...' by a Ghost in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, also something like 'The denunciation of the morals of the young is a necessary part of the hygeine of the old' by Tacitus I think. Rentwa 11:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like to have quotations ready for every occasion. —They give one's ideas so pat, and save one the trouble of finding expression adequate to one's feelings.

— Robert Burns, letter to Agnes McLehose, 14th January 1788 MeltBanana 15:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Roman author expressed similar sentiments - it may have been Cicero.

I remember hearing this being quoted back in the 50's. The punchline was - ha, ha - it was written by some ancient Greek.

Of course, the guy never said that it was the end of the world or that humanity was on the brink of destruction, just that civilization was collapsing. And he was right. Ancient Greek civilization did collapse shortly thereafter.

Sure, somebody will come along to run things, it just won't be the ones who have been doing it. From the time of Phillip of Macedon, Greece wasn't independent again for over two thousand years. B00P 01:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Roman Roads

Why on earth are there Roman Roads in Scotland??? (there are according to this webpage (which is a link from the wikipedia page on 'roman roads in scotland'): http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/map_romans_roads_in_britain.htm) Well i thought that the Romand never went into Scotland because of those nasty, un-civillized Scots, or Picks or whatever so why are their roads up there? I dont suppose there there because of trade as they wernt the freindliest people to eachover and if the scots just coppied the idea and building tekniques (oh no i cant remember how to spell!) then they wont be roman roads. Also the Roads are concentrated in the boarders and the glasgow, edingburgh area but theres a stretch near perth ( so obviously they havent just got a bit lost! ) And also again the map says something about the roman towns (or roman activitie in them) and there are lots in scotland.

thankyou...--84.69.73.1 10:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange. I know the Romans build Hadrian's wall to keep those Scots out. This is a map:[6] It's definitely more southern than cities like Glasgow.... Maybe they built those roads, but it the end they realized that they couldn't handle those tribes and gave up some of their ground? Evilbu 13:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, yes.

"Although the Romans had failed to conquer Caledonia they attempted to maintain control through military outposts and built a few roads. They were eventually forced to withdraw, admitting that Rome was too distant to maintain any presence in such a strong nation."

History_of_Scotland#Roman_invasion

TheMadBaron 13:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Romans certainly pushed much further into Scotland than Hadrian's wall, there is the Antonine Wall which encompasses most of the other roads. Also historians don't usually think of Hadrian's wall as a barrier to stop anyone, more of a way to control trade. MeltBanana 14:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communism/Nazism

On an Internet forum, I saw someone using a signature picture titled "Communist Prinny", and sporting a penguin with a Nazi armband saying "Nein, dood!". Now AFAIK communism and nazism are different things. Not only is communism a left-wing and nazism a right-wing ideology, but weren't they also direct enemies at some point? This makes me think that whoever drew the picture only knows that both of them are "those evil thingies in Europe" and got them mixed up. JIP | Talk 11:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The signature picture is borrowed from the video game Disgaea: Hour of Darkness. I agree that equaling communists to Nazis is careless. But you'd have to ask the creator Takehito Harada. ---Sluzzelin 12:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was photoshopped in by another person, which means asking the original creator of the work is fairly useless. (However, if he knew about the association and didn't like it, he could probably sue that person to the ground.) ColourBurst 04:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is often said that they are two extremes actually touching each other (both representing totalitarianism and repression). (German Nazis and Soviet communists did fight bloody battles in the Second World War, but amazingly they had a non-agression pact before that)....Or maybe the creator was indeed ignorant....Evilbu 12:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does show you how seriously people take communism nowadays though. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 14:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good point. Yes, Hitler did actually have communists exterminated in concentration camps. However, for some reason, people always associate the two. Most people get dictatorship and communism confused and incorrectly use it interchangeably. You are, indeed, right. Nazis were direct enemies with communists, and Nazis are not communists. Viva La V i e Boheme!

Remember that Nazis were "National Socialists". Lots of people equate Socialism with Communism. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, communism and Nazism were at odds with each other and it would be a mistake to confuse the two. However, I can't agree with the comment that "most people get dictatorship and communism confused and incorrectly use it interchangeably". While confusing communism with Nazism is an obvious mistake, I wouldn't say the same about confusing communism with dictatorship, as every communist regime that has ever existed has been a dictatorship as well. True, the two words have distinct meanings, but to assume that a communist state is a dictatorship wouldn't be all that innacurate at all. Loomis 00:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you feeding a troll here? (Unbeknownst to him, so I don't know if this counts.) No-one in their right mind would mix up Nazism and Communism. Then again, he also mixed up German ('nein') and Dutch ('dood'), so maybe he is indeed a bit simple. DirkvdM 06:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That thought occurred to me too, but I think dood is "dude", as opposed to the Dutch for "dead". -- the GREAT Gavini 15:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Knight

In English literature, we can find the story of king Arthur and the Green Knight. The Green Knight was called such because he was all green. Can anyone tell me if it's true that his eyes were red? Therefore, he wasn'tentirely green. Thank you in advance for your answer.

There is no mention of red eyes in the poem.--Shantavira 18:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure this isn't a homework question. Ah well if it is I would urge you to read the poem, even in translation, there are some top quality naughty bits later in the work.

304 and runischly his rede yȝen he reled aboute

It also mentions gold spurs and thread so no he wasn't all green. MeltBanana 22:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many times it is used kind of a like an expression. "He was all green" may refer to the fact that he was almost entirely green. --Proficient 03:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The poem doesn't mention his eyes specifically. Gawain's horse is tricked out in red. B00P 01:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy in America, by Alexis De Tocqueville

What is the signifance and relavancy of this writing?

To show you how to do your own homework. JIP | Talk 16:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Must...refrain...from repeating my previous reply to a homework question which connected Fort Boyard, the Monty Python Killer Rabbit, Stonehenge, the Great Fire of the London and the disappearance of the great supercontinent. Evilbu 21:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that answer kicked @$$! It totally put mine to shame ;-) --Mnem e son 21:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you perhaps the nameless user who replied then?[7]Evilbu 22:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the IP address one, then no, I log in and sign all of my contributions. --Mnem e son 23:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

poetic meter

I am wondering how to determine the meter of a poem which contains lines with 1/2 of a foot. Does one call it the shorter meter (trimeter) which counts only the full feet or is it called the longer meter (tetrameter) which counts the partial foot? 207.155.33.174 17:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Jo Anne Bennett, [e-mail removed][reply]

Can you give an example? In normal tetrameter, each line has four metrical feet. Are you saying most lines have 4 feet but some only 0.5 foot? Or 3½? In hexameter the feet have different syllabic lengths (dactyls and spondees), but they all count equally. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean something like 'Tyger, tyger burning bright'? I would call this a trochaic tetrameter catalectic. Maid Marion 15:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World War ll Symbols

my daughter and I are having a hard time finding any site about the symbols of world war two. She needs alot for a project. What are all the most important symbols ? Is there a place online to find them? Thanks a lot!Khen95 17:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean symbols as in graphics, logos etc. or do you mean metaphorical symbols? --Kiltman67 18:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need symbols as in graphics, logos etc. Thanks

Well the obvious things are things like the Swastika. Another good one would be things like propaganda posters. --Kiltman67 18:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Wikimedia's poster collection from World War II. ---Sluzzelin 19:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazi's made the people they persecuted wear special symbols. For example, Jews had to wear a yellow star of David, homosexual men had an inverted pink triangle, and homosexual women had an inverted black triangle. Do we have the full list in Wikipedia ? StuRat 02:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi concentration camp badges ---Sluzzelin 08:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Iron Cross springs to mind as well as the Flag of Japan. Let's not forget that there was a large portion of the war fought on the Pacific side of the planet as well. Dismas|^(talk) 13:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the double lightning bolts 'SS' of the Schutzstaffel. Philc _T^E_C^I 13:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the Pacific battle, the raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is definitely up there. ~~(but before you send your daughter to that article, I'm hoping that someone will please clean up the obvious vandalism...I'll try but I'm not sure I know how). Christ! This is an Encyclopedia, dammit!~~ Loomis 21:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any specifics that you are looking for, or are you in need of general WWII symbols? Because otherwise, the above suggestions should be fit. --Proficient 03:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross of Lorraine=symbol of French resistance,British Bull dog,Churchill's v-for-victory sign,RAF red ,white and blue roundels on aircraft wings,Dig for Victory posters-any help?hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 20:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The building of Taj Mahal

The Taj Mahal was built in honor of the king's wife, but was the architect who built it "rewarded" by having his eyes pulled out and possibly his hands crushed, or was this a different building?

I don't know about the eyes and it all seems to be more legend than documented history. Having said that, check out Taj_mahal#Mutilation_of_the_craftsmen. ---Sluzzelin 20:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apart from the hands, that sounds a lot like Saint Basil's Cathedral in Moscow. The tsar, Ivan the Terrible, didn't want him to design a more beautiful building.Evilbu 21:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says that he was blinded. --Proficient 03:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would that this happened to many architects from the 60's BEFORE they built the evil concrete slabs that disgrace our cities-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 20:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Persistent USA president refuses to give up and keeps trying to make Congress approve his Bill

Hello,

this could be a dumb question, but as far as I understand the USA system, the president has to propose a bill, then the House and then the Senate have to approve it, before he can sign it. But what stops the president from simply...proposing his bill over and over again? I mean : does a majority of NAY's in the Senate or the House also imply that the same bill cannot be proposed again for a certain number of months? Thanks!Evilbu 23:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the president of the United States cannot propose a law - only a member of congress can do that. The president can certainly urge, bully, or persuade, (and can veto a bill that has been passed) but s/he cannot directly propose a bill. Ziggurat 23:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your presumptions are wrong! Bills are introduced by Congressmen or Senators. The president can't introduce a bill. Even if he prevails upon a compliant senator to keep reintroducing the bill, there's no guarantee it will ever get out of committee; if it's just a repeat it's pretty much guaranteed not to, unless the political realities have changed dramatically in the meantime. Hundreds of bills are introduced each year and die at the end of the session as they've never been voted out of committee. So reintroduction wouldn't automatically mean reconsideration. - Nunh-huh 23:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is this committee you mention? And what about the resolution to go to war in Iraq in 2003? (or should I not compare acts with bills and resolutions,...) Thanks!Evilbu 23:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever committee the proposed bill got sent to. The Iraq resolution, for example, was sponsored by Dennis Hastert (and dozens of others); the House International Relations Committee was the relevant one in this case. Acts, bills, resolutions, all the same sort of thing. The President certainly can and does ask for bills, and they'll generally get introduced if he (or someday, she) wants them, but the President has no official role in regard to legislative actions until the bills are approved by both houses. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should learn more about those committees then, they are quite powerful as they are the first people able to block such a proposal. So if the president finds no senator or representative his proposal will never be executed? But in a sense, replacing the president with that member of congress, it is possible for him to keep proposing the same?.... And does this have anything to do with how Ralph Regula's persistent behaviour keeps blocking any move to rename Mount McKinley?Evilbu 23:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A member of Congress introduces his proposed legislation as a bill
other members of congress can add their names as cosponsors
the bill is given a number when it is introduced (for the House, it starts H.R.; for the Senate, it starts S.)
The bill is then referred to a committee with jurisdiction over the primary issue of the legislation. Sometimes it is referred to a subcommittee, or to multiple committees.
The chairman of the committee decides if there will be a hearing (with the possibility of amendments). Usually a subcommittee holds the hearing, and the full committee decides whether to vote the bill out of committee for floor debate, and issues a committee report with the text of the bill as amended and a recommendation.
Once the bill is voted out of committee, it will be debated and brought to a vote if and only if the Speaker of the House (or the Majority Leader of the Senate) decides to do so.
If it passes this vote, the bill is referred to the other chamber, where it repeats the above process. The other chamber may approve the bill as received, reject it, ignore it, or amend it before passing it.
If only minor changes have taken place before passage by the second chamber, the legislation is once again voted on (a concurring vote) by the first chamber. If major changes have occurred, a conference committee is assigned the task of reconciling the two versions into a single bill. If the conference committee can't do so, the legislation dies. The conference committee's report must be voted on again by both House and Senate; if either rejects the report, the bill dies; if both approve, the final bill is referred to the President for action (signature or veto).
If he signs it, it become law; if he vetoes it, it doesn't unless Congress votes by a 2/3 majority to override it.

That's the way it's supposed to work. In practice, if the House leadership is behind a bill, they can bring it to the floor as soon as it gets off the printing press. To get back to the original question, my guess is that something in the rules of the two chambers prevents a member from reintroducing legislation in the same two-year session of Congress. However, nothing stops members from reintroducing a failed bill after the next election. Some bills are proposed several times before becoming law. -- Mwalcoff 00:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So lots of people can block a bill, starting at the committee level, and proceding up the chain to the Speaker or Majority Leader. That's why committee positions and the offices mentioned are powerful. I don't know about Regula; he keeps introducing a bill about the mountain, but the fact that it has to be reintroduced is evidence that it doesn't get very far. Clearly his proposed law doesn't actually block anything yet, since it's only proposed. - Nunh-huh 00:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's the deal with the mountain. The president can't make statutes. However, his administration can make regulations and do other things Congress allows it to do. Congress long ago granted the administration (specifically, the US Board on Geographic Names, which is under the Interior Department and, ultimately, the president) the authority to name landmarks. However, Congress can revoke or restrict that authority. In this case, Regula, who represents William McKinley's hometown of Canton, Ohio, wants to prohibit the administration from renaming the mountain. If Regula's bill was to pass, the Board on Geographic Names would be unable to rename the mountain until Congress repealed the law. -- Mwalcoff 01:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish monks

Hi, Wikipedia. I read somewhere that Irish monks, using lightweight boats, made contact with North America before the Vikings did. Is this true? Partisan 5 23:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions differ; it seems unlikely and without much evidential support. See St. Brendan. - Nunh-huh 23:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean coracles?--Light current 02:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More likely currach--Downunda 06:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know someone repeated the St.Brendan voyage successfully-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 20:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

His name is Tim Severin. See his book, The Brendan Voyage. B00P 01:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 5

brazil battles of ww2

Where a can find (or tell me) the list of all battles that brazil fought on ww2??

Try this. Russian F 01:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Brazilian Expeditionary Force page has some more information, though not a list of battles as such. --- Sluzzelin 08:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the Expeditioanry Force talk page: Main BEF victories are: Massarosa, Camaiore, Monte Prano, Monte Acuto, San Quirico, Gallicano, Barga, Monte Castelo, La Serra, Castelnuovo, Soprassasso, Montese, Paravento, Zocca, Marano Su Panaro, Colechio and Fornovo. Reference: http://www.custermen.com/ItalyWW2/ArmyOrg/BrazileOrg.htm Lisiate 21:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dissapearing cultures

The world is rapidly shrinking. In the past century, more progress has been made in the transportation industry than ever before. So now that (nearly) anyone can go (nearly) anywhere on earth, won't individual cultures start to dissapear as the world all combines into one culture? Russian F 01:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Chinatowns exist outside of China which proves that culture does not disappear outside of the home country. Cultures only disappear when they're overpowered by another i.e. the european settlers versus the first nations. --The Dark Side 02:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most people in the world still don't have the option to travel, and will live and die within a few miles of where they were born. However, for that portion of the world that is mobile, I believe you are right, we are headed for one world culture. There are forces which oppose this, but I believe they will eventually lose the battle. In the last 100 years, many languages and cultures have disappeared, and the cultures of Europe and America, and even Japan, have merged to quite an extent. Expect more in the future. StuRat 02:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My take on it is that cultures are clearly not static and set in stone so it's relatively meaningless to say individual cultures will disappear, rather individual cultures will just become more similar (though probably never becoming identical because of heritage if nothing else). It's certainly true that certain elements of culture will disappear, but this is natural and even without globalisation this would still occur, all globalisation has done is speeded up the process and emphasised it. What seems likely are that as individual cultures become more homogenous more sub-cultures will splinter off with their own elements. It certainly seems that as the internet has grown and become one of the most powerful tools of globalisation many more sub-cultures have grown out of it. --Kiltman67 03:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultures diappear and appear all the time. It's much like what evolution does with species. But there is indeed a movement towards a worldwide monoculture. This is, however, probably not so much because of the ability to travel but more because of the Internet, English as a wordlwide lingua franca and transportation of goods, making local products disappear. Ideally, the last bit should happen because the new products are better, but in reality it has more to do with marketing, so the cultures that control the information exchange (the media) will determine which products are being used. A first note is that this monoculture will eventually disappear too, and new cultures will then emerge. A historical example of this is the Roman Empire. But another thing is the nature of Internet. it allows individual people to start new things that can conquer the world. Wikipedia is a good example of this. And the Open Source movement in general. Culture has a lot to do with information, 'spreading the word'. And if individual interactions become more important than dictates from the top, then there will be more variation. Also, within the confines of a monoculture, subcultures will emerge. Some people will always strive to distinguish themselves from the masses. If a certain distinction catches on it will itself become a mass (?) and other people will then move away from that. So yes, cultures disappear, but that's nothing new and new ones will emerge to take their place. Whether the total cultural diversity (compare with biodiversity) will change, I don't know. Easier access to information will reduce it but also increase it. But it will certainly become less bound to physical location. DirkvdM 07:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you measure cultural diversity (of a region or of a planet) by counting the number of languages spoken there, there does seem to be a quantifiable decline. I don't think we will be seeing the same diversity between cultures and their development again, neither on a large scale of say Chinese vs European culture nor between various tribes on a smaller scale. This doesn't necessarily call for pessimism, of course. The only way I can imagine a cultural re-diversification is through almost complete isolation of various human groups over long periods. ---Sluzzelin 09:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is one benefit of a single world culture, by eliminating cultural clashes, perhaps many wars can be avoided in the future. Religion seems to be the last sticking point, as much of the world remains stuck in the mindset that they should kill anyone who has different religious beliefs than themselves. Religion is also more resistant to change, as any change is perceived as causing everyone affected to burn in hell forever, which is not generally true for other aspects of culture, like language, dress, art, food, etc. StuRat 21:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got my doubt as to whether religion is such an important cause for clashes. I think it is more often an excuse or a way to identify the enemy (as in Ireland) or a way to get people to rise up. There will have to be a malcontent in the first place. If you manage to make people beleive the problem or the solution is connected to religion it will be easier to mobilise them. And in such an atmosphere some religious fanatics might even give up their lives for the 'good cause'. Nationalism is another such force, which can be equally potent ("for England" and "God save the queen" or the constitution or democracy or the 'free world' (whatever that is) or whatever similar shite). Money is the third one, although that works more individually too. I do agree with you that worldwide standardisations will help peace and that religion is one of the most persistent culturalisms. DirkvdM 08:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic diversity of Generation Y

What percentage of Generation Y in the United States is Hispanic? What percentage is Asian? Wiwaxia 04:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using [8] for the 2000 figures and assuming Generation Y's definition of Generation Y, we get around 17% Hispanics and only around 1% Asians/Pacific Islanders. ColourBurst 04:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only 1%? But Generation Y is the most ethnically diverse generation in history. How can it be less Asian than the nation as a whole? Wiwaxia 05:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I made a mistake in my calculations (I forgot to put in the sum symbol in the excel table), it's actually around 4.5%, 5% or so if you include PIs. ColourBurst 13:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to you define "most ethnically diverse"? Is there some ethnic group in Generation Y that didn't exist in Generation X? Even before Generation X, the U.S. was very ethnically diverse, having some representatives from every country in the world. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP refers to the increased growth of the Hispanic and Asian populations in the U.S., but that doesn't necessarily involve an increase in Gen Y proportions (because of immigration patterns), nor is it necessarily "more diverse" (depending on the definition of diverse. Just because there's a token amount of people from every country does not necessarily make a country more "diverse" if everybody's supposed to act like the majority but doesn't get treated so). ColourBurst 14:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, "ethnically diverse" only means that many ethnicities are present, that term says nothing about the treatment of the various ethnicities. Also note, that at this point, there is no majority in the US. If only Caucasian, non-Hispanic, English-speaking, Christian males are considered, those comprise far less than 50% of the people in the US. StuRat 21:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While you're probably technically true regarding the "majority", there are several factors, one of the major ones being that debates regarding policy are never framed in gender and racial terms at the same time (never mind gender, racial and religious terms), which make that assertion less useful than you think. ColourBurst 04:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, as the term minority means all of those things. The term WASP also refers to race, ethnic origin, and religion simultaneously (although not gender). StuRat 05:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tailoring sites

Can anyone suggest any good sites about tailoring mens suits, I can not seem to find any. Other than the wiki article web links. Any other good sites would be nice.--206.251.1.200 06:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some of these might be worthwhile: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=tailored+mens+suits&btnG=Google+Search. Sorry if you have already searched through these. --Proficient 04:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best place to live on earth

I would like to live somewhere where:

The cost of living is very cheap

Where the landscape and scenery are beautiful

The climate is nice

Where I am unlikely to get a disease (eg tropical diseases, malaria etc)

Where I feel safe - little or no violence

Where there is some health care should I need it

Where I am unlikely to lose title to my land or house

I know a similar question has been asked, and the answer was New Zealand (how can I best find and marry a New Zealand chick?) or Costa Rica, but my criteria are different. I don't care about wars in the past. I do care about the cost of living - there are many places much cheaper than New Zealand, but I don't know how much they fulfill the other criteria. Thanks.

Have you considered Austria or Switzerland? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland, at least, has a high cost of living. I was thinking of somewhere perhaps in the third world where my small western income would be enough to live in a mansion and employ a few servants ( - although that may not be a very PC attitude, on the other hand at least it gives them some jobs.)

it is a surprise-a place like this is stuttgart,germany.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.196.166.161 (talk) .

Define a "nice" climate. Everyone has a different idea of what they like. --Dweller 11:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere where it never snows, where you don't need central heating, but its neither unbearably or monotonously hot (it would be nice to feel cool sometimes). And I do not like much rain - max. of say 25 inches a year. I know the rain criteria would knock out a lot of places, so I could relax this crieria.

Perhaps Findyourspot.com is for you then. Dismas|^(talk) 12:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've tried Findyourspot. It suggested small cities in the US that are quite unknown to me, although I expect they're nice. I'm not sure how the US would score regarding fear of violence and abscence of equal healthcare for all.

Can't go wrong with God's Own Country... Or what about Scotland? -- the GREAT Gavini 15:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I can add further criteria, I'd like to be able to put my money in a bank and not worry about it disapearing, plus I'd don't want local officials to be corrupt.

I think in practice this question is: of those third world countries with a low cost of living, which are safe and disease free?

If being able to live cheaply is one of the main concerns, you might consider a stable Central American country, like Costa Rica or Belize. However, the threat of hurricanes makes it advisable to build on high ground, far from the beach. StuRat 21:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who threw New Zealand into the ring for the last question, let me try my hand with a different recommendation.

Argentina has had a very low cost of living since the economic turmoil of 2002, but it is the economically most developed country in South America, measured in GDP and HDI. It's about halfway on the Corruption_Perceptions_Index. The climate varies hugely across the country, from the tropical north to the frozen south, but in the middle you get quite varied seasons, which I regard as a plus, but you might think the winters too cold and the summers too hot. I'd suggest a major city, such as Córdoba or Mendoza, but not Buenos Aires - too big. Mendoza has some lovely scenery around it. I haven't been to Cordoba. I'll let others comment on the state of health care and violence, but I believe that the health system is well developed.-gadfium 03:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helth care is for free, violence and crime are low in smaller cities. I would suggest you some middle size city in Córdoba Province or Santa Fe Province. Nevertheless, Argentina is getting expensive again... Mariano(t/c) 08:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Argentina, if you start your argument with 'since 2002' then obviously it is not a very stable country.

New Zealand scores on all counts except 'cheap', although I suppose the South Island has some nice opportunities to live off the land if that's your thing. And if you spend all your time hiking (or 'tramping' as they cal it there) then housing will only cost about 50 euro per year (about the price of an annual hut pass). See http://www.backpack-newzealand.com/nz/article12.php. The only cost left then is food (and the bus rides to the next park).

About the rain, don't just look at the total figures. In Indonesia, for example, during the rainy season, apart from a possible drizzle early in the morning, it rains just once per day, when it poors. But that's always at the same time of the day, so you can plan when to be indoors. After that it's nice and cool, so the rainy season is actually one of the better times of year. In other tropical countries something similar might be the case. And if you like it cool, just go live somewhere higher up.

Also note that the cost of living is low in third world countries when it comes to the basic necessities. Any western goodies will cost as much as they do in the west or possibly even more (unless you make use of the corruption, but you didn't want any of that). DirkvdM 08:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina had a major economic crisis around 1999-2002 which caused a succession of short-lived governments, some fairly limited riots, and a significant fall in the value of the Argentine peso relative to other currencies. Apart from that, it's been relatively politically stable since 1983. Compared to other countries in the region, I think that's pretty good. Uruguay might be worth considering too, although it doesn't have the spectacular scenery of Argentina.-gadfium 09:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't forget that Uruguay's far more dangerous than Argentina.

According to Worldwide Cost of Living Survey 2006 of Mercer Human Resources (MHR), the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina is the 4th cheapest urban area in the world. [9] Another Latin American city, Asunción in Paraguay, remains the least expensive in the list, but its crime rate is higher than Argentina, the health care is worst, and financial stability is nearly inexistent. —Coat of Arms (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina's the most economically developed country in Latin America, and in my opinion the most European one, with 85% of the population being white. Additionally, it has many cities founded by European immigrants, e.g. Villa General Belgrano, established by Germans, and Puerto Madryn, constructed by Welsh settlers. See Welsh settlement in Argentina and Irish settlement in Argentina for more information. --Nkcs 00:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you seemed more concerned with cost of living and landscape, rather than urban amenities, Costa Rica sounds more likely than Argentina. - Jmabel | Talk 19:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recruits in Full Metal Jacket

How many is Parris Island recruits in Full Metal Jacket? --Vess 10:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over 80 actors are credited as playing Parris Island recruits according to IMDb.---Sluzzelin 12:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dukes

To whom it may concern, please could you find out for me who was/is the Duke of Varr and if there is an Earl of Varr?

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Regards Maria63.174.7.252 11:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Maria Benjamin[reply]

Maybe you're thinking of the title Earl De La Warr.---Sluzzelin 11:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

economy

guilt edged shares and their preference by investors.why?

Ha, ha - that's a telling typo if ever I saw one. See gilts. The reason they are preferred by some investors is that they are relatively risk-free, being issued by governments. However, with that lower risk comes a lower return on your investment. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what Freud would think of that slip oOoOOoOh--205.188.117.12 15:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose socially responsible investing could be called "guilt investing". :-) StuRat 21:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man

http://img178.imageshack.us/my.php?image=22bzl2.jpg

Can you please tell me who this man is who discovered a certain celestial body.

That would be Giuseppe Piazzi, discoverer of 1 Ceres. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jobs

why is it that left wing is always complaining that there aren't enough jobs? When in fact there are more jobs in america than in any other country in the world, and more jobs than at any point in american history? bill Clinton had less jobs in his economy, yet the media keeps saying there aren't any jobs? Aren't people more proprous than at any point in american hiostory? why does the media want us to go back to clintons run away taxing and fewer jobs? Why does the media always take the deomcrat party side?--Fruntwoken 15:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're not; there aren't, so what; they don't; no; they don't; they don't. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, nice answer. Afraid I'm gonna be a little wordier; ever heard of Fox, who are so close to the white house that one of their anchormen seamlessly slipped into the role of White House Press secretary earlier this year? How about the collapse of US household income over the past seven years? Is there anybody left outside the RNC who thinks the current government expenditure levels are even remotely sustainable, particularly at the current tax levels? Are people who work at Target not happy to be there, because it means that unlike loads of other people they know, they at least have jobs? (Yeah, that last one's only anecdotal, but it was certainly the prevailing opinion at the one I worked at) --Mnem e son 15:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can just use McJob. That's the generic "Republican-created jobs suck" word. No need for an anecdote. However, I notice something wierd where I work. Liberal/Democrats tend to watch Fox news and complain about how Conservative/Republican they are. Conservative/Republicans tend to watch CBS/NBC/ABC news and complain about how Liberal/Democratic they are. I wonder if the questioner purposely watches news that he doesn't like. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The people in the U.S. complain about jobs because it is a local thing, relative to the past, and not compared to other countries. Most U.S. Citizens have never been outside the U.S. or have any idea how people in other cultures live. In the U.S. there are less jobs than there were during the Clinton administration, Gas prices are much higher, the wage rate is depressed (most people in most industries have gotten no raise, or very small raises in the past 7 years). One of the big reasons for less jobs and lower wages is the movement of many jobs out of the U.S. As countries like Mexico and India have a growth in wages and jobs, and towards a more normalized global economy, the country with the best wages in the world is normalizing downward. At some point, someday a global economy with little wage differential between countries may exist. It is a long way from there (not in my lifetime) and when we get ther, the averager wage rate for most jobs in the U.S. will be substantially lower. (except for jobs like the salaries of elected officials).

Overall people in the U.S. are considerably less prosperous than any time in recent history. You have to account for the huge and ballooning deficit that has been created in the past 7 years, mostly by the war. As for taxes, many, if not most Americans are fed up with the fiscal irresponsibility of the Republic controlled government. Sure, no one wants high taxes, but increasing spending and cutting taxes for seven years has left us with poorer roads, poorer schools, less support for social services or health care. It's a mess, and many people are actually asking for fiscal responsibility in government, and an increase in taxes to pay for the things that we need. I'll let the coming elections speak for themselves, but it is a safe bet that there will be a net loss of republicans in office. Candidates that have a platform of fiscal responsibility, healthcare reform, responsibly ending the war Iraq, stopping the erosion of civil liberties, and elimination of U.S. human rights violations will have the best opportunities. Atom 16:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, the richest portion of society is getting richer, while the rest of the US is getting poorer. This is because the richest benefit from tax cuts, (lack of) energy policy which favor oil company executives and shareholders, (lack of) global warming and pollution policy which favors industrial executives and shareholders, (lack of) health care cost controls which favor medical and pharmaceutical industry executives and shareholders, and trade policy which favors retail executives and shareholders by shipping manufacturing jobs offshore to low wage employees. StuRat 20:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't make it clear if this question is just about the US. So I'll give you a Dutch experience. I've been unemployed for 15 years now (apart from a two year 'break'). I try to find a fitting job, but can't. The present very right-wing government decided that unfitting jobs should also do. So they found me a job:

take an envelope, put a card in it, put it to the side

Then after stuffing about 100 envelops I got the great job-variation of putting a rubber band around every dozen and putting them in a box (the biggest challenge in this job is that one has to be able to count to 12). When the box was full, someone else would collect it. And when the raw material ran out someone else had to bring a new supply. We weren't even allowed that variation. After a few weeks I decided to walk out, "fuck the consequences" (which they told me could be the termination of my social security income). Luckily, the social security lady was very understanding and didn't cut my income. So far that is all they managed to find for me, so where is that abundance of jobs then? They've got all the administration of unemployed and their abilities and all the vacancies and their requirements. A bit of cross-referencing should solve the problem, right? DirkvdM 08:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From an American perspective, your behavior sounds reprehensible:

1) If the government has been good enough to not only keep you alive for 15 years "on the dole", but also gives you enough money to be able to have a computer with Internet access, then you should be eternally grateful to them and all the taxpayers who are supporting your lazy butt.

2) It's your responsibility to find a job, not the governments. If they do find you a job, be thankful, don't "look a gift horse in the mouth". There is no disgrace in doing a job that's "beneath you", the disgrace is in sponging off of others. Why exactly can't you find a job in 15 years, anyway ?

In the US, an able-bodied man who refuses to work would be out on the street. StuRat 00:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is as programme in which the government hires a company to find me a job. My point was that if even professsionals with all the info at their fingertips can't find me a job, then what chance do I have? And that is what the first question was about.

About my being lazy, I work here, don't I? It's not a paid job, so doesn't fit in the free market approach to employment, but that's not the only possible view to employment. You suggest that receiving money from the government for no work is immoral. But society is set up in such a way that there will always be some people out of a job. If you set society up like that, then you have a moral obligation to feed and house those people. The money I get is little more than that (well, it's about double that because my housing is dirt cheap - I live in a student house). In comparison, a computer with internet connection is peanuts.

Also, putting an intelligent person in a stupid working environment is more disruptive than constructive, as studies have shown. And at the factory, they were glad to see me go, for that very reason - I didn't fit in and caused tension. By the way, if free market principles were apleid here, the whole factory would not exist, because the work would be too expensive - it's normally done by prisoners and handicapped people, who don't cost anything - none of the workers there (including me) received any pay. DirkvdM 13:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is work? I come here to relax and have fun and learn as much as I can, and (hopefully) contribute as much as I can after I get home from work. Loomis 21:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hark

What actually is the tune called "Tom Hark"? I've heard it refered to, but I don't know if I know it. Is there anyone who knows it who could express it to me in A, B, C notation (ie C B A B C C C or whatever), since I assume getting an image of the score would be tricky and annoying. Thanks for any help. Skittle 17:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, it seems to be a South African pennywhistle tune from the 1950s, recorded by Elias and His Zig Zag Flutes (later Black Mambazo). Apparently it was also used as a signature for the BBC program The Killing Stones. These days it's a popular ring tone as well. I hope this helps you find a sound sample somewhere online.---Sluzzelin 18:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I should have said I found that stuff, but nothing had a score or sound file except possibly the ringtone sites, and I don't want to visit those incase they try to invade this computer. Thanks anyway. Skittle 21:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a short sample for you. I know it as a song by the Piranhas, a UK band (we don't have an article on them, only a stub on a US band with the same name). The sample can be found here - click the 'Audio' link.--Richardrj ^talk ^email 05:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Fantastic! Thanks so much! (Exclamation marks!) Turns out I do know it, but never heard it given a name. Thanks again Richard. Skittle 14:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The Piranhas' version has some great lyrics, which I assume they wrote themselves to go with the tune. The opening lines are the priceless couplet "Does anybody know how long to World War 3/I wanna know, I've gotta book me holidee." --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burckhardt and individualism

I read in an essay by Peter Burke, included with The Civilisation of the Renaissance in Italy, that Burckhardt actually renounced his thesis of individualism. He said "As far as individualism is concerned, I don't believe in it any more." Can anyone tell me more about this? It was his main theme in the Civilisation that individualism emerged in Renaissance Italy, so it sounds a bit strange. What were his reasons, and how far did he reject his idea? The Mad Echidna 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't speak for Burckhardt as I haven't read his work but a long-standing depiction of the Renaissance—now slightly mouldy—is of a time when people became fully aware and human. It was felt that before that time there were hardly any interesting individuals with their own ideas, merely conduits of the medieval church. Also the art was regarded as flat and cartoonish not like the realistic people shown in the newer art. In a similar way Harold Bloom wrote Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human which sees William as the first writer of real characters of real people rather then caricatures. Searching about a bit it sounds like Burckhardt believed that people were once more loosing their individuality in his own time to adopt country or party loyalties, so perhaps it was this he rejected. That was an amazingly trite summary of the subject, sorry. MeltBanana 23:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

papal absolution for the battle of hastings

I saw on a doco (Battlefield Britain) that the Pope actually granted absolution to anyone fighting for the Norman side in the Battle of Hastings. This seemed a bit odd, because I didn't think papal authority had reached a stage where the popes could grant absolution for battles. I thought that was some time after, and began with the First Crusade. Or perhaps it was for wars against Spanish Muslims, and I'm getting confused, but at any rate, I was quite sure it had only ever been granted for wars by Christians on behalf of the Church. Can anyone fill me in? The Mad Echidna 21:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a short article on the subject. Key phrase "This would be the first time a pope had been asked to adjudicate a disputed royal succession, and would create a precedent of enormous importance to Hildebrand" (the future Pope Gregory VII and the right-hand man of the then present pope). MeltBanana 23:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boone & Crockett

Daniel Boone was born in 1734 and died in 1820. Davy Crockett was born in 1786 and died in 1836. Their lives overlapped 34 years. Did they ever meet and if so under what circumstances? 64.136.219.250 23:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't known but on reading the title expected a question on the Boone and Crockett Club. Rmhermen 20:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm lets see, Boone would have been 52 and living in Kentucky when Crockett was born in Tennesee. When Crockett was 13, Boone moved to Missouri while Crockett stayed in Tennesee. During the war of 1812 Boone was 78 (retired in Missouri) and Crockett was 26 (still in Tennesee.) Crockett joined just after or at the end of the war and served in the Creek War around the Ohio river.

Just a guess, but it doesn't look like there is any reason for them to have crossed paths. Crockett had probably heard of Boone but not vice versa as Crockett did not become famous until later. Nowimnthing 20:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good analysis. I've read several Boone biographies and there's no mention of any meeting, and I suspect you're right that Boone never heard of Crockett. The closest "should have happened" meeting with Boone is the Lewis and Clark Expedition, which passed near his home in Missouri. There's no record that Boone met the L&C Expedition, except in folk tales. • Kevin (complaints?) 04:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 6

Actress Joyce Jameson's Cause of Death?

She died in 1987 aged 54. I can't find any reliable information about how it happened. I've searched online obituaries and other obvious sources, but they never list a cause. IMDb have recently put "suicide" on her bio, but of course this was only submitted by a user and I can't find any verification of it (IMDb had the incorrect date of death for her until I corrected it, so clearly their info can be unreliable). Psychonaut3000

arthur goldberg's sons

Bold text

Hmm, "Bold Text" -- Very cryptic question. Perhaps the subject can shed light on this. "Arthur Golberg's Sons" -- nope. Arthur Goldberg only has one son. Maybe the questioner (using "question" very loosely) is asking if little Robert Golberg was cloned? --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical belief (right vs. wrong)

I recall learning of a philosophy that basically states that right and wrong are relative, and, for instance, if the Nazis had won over and people believed that the Nazis were right (at least a majority believed this), than the Nazis would indeed be right. So basically there is no definite right or wrong, but only those ideas that societies hold to be right or wrong. Could anyone tell me what this philosophy is called? Thanks in advance :) Russia Moore 03:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the majority of the people say is right is right. What the majority of the people say is wrong is wrong. I think this is called peer pressure. If you do not believe me then try and find a Saudi Arabian citizen that say "I'm an atheist because God does not exists." Ohanian 03:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I think I found my own answer :) I believe I was thinking of Moral relativism. But I would appreciate someone who knows a bit more on the subject letting me know if I defined it properly, or if there is a sub-belief that better fits what I described, as the name isn't familiar... -Russia Moore 03:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you do not want to read about Meta-ethics? Ohanian 04:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, that's good, too! :) Russia Moore 04:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the majority of people would likely never have agreed that the Nazis were right, in that the majority of the Earth's population was planned to be a giant slave colony under Nazi domination. They likely wouldn't have said anything publicly, if they wanted to live, but that doesn't mean they agreed with the Nazis. StuRat 05:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've found the right concept when you found moral relativism. If you ask me, in its mild form it's a bunch of left-wing nonsense that has the potential to do harm in the sense that it seeks to understand rather than appropriately deal with immoral behaviour, (perfect example: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter",) and in its most extreme form it can be used to justify the most perverse of right-wing ideologies, such as Nazism. I tend to lean heavily toward the opposite - moral absolutism: What's RIGHT is RIGHT and what's WRONG is WRONG, regardless of the circumstances or culture involved. If, hypothetically the Nazis won over every person in the world to ascribe to their ideology, and if I were the only one left to say "NO!", I'd do so 'till the day they find me and kill me. Loomis 20:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like moral absolutism, moral relativism is more of a philosophical caricature than a practical position. Merely because one cannot speak absolutely of moral standards does not mean one cannot speak of them at all, and thereby acquire morals to live by. A so-called moral relativist can be just as moral as a so-called absolutist, the only difference being that the relativist claims to acquire a new morality, while the absolutist claims to acquire a "true" or "truer" morality. But they're essentially doing the same thing: redefining the rules they live by. As for Hitler, I'd say he was not a moral relativist because he considered his behavior justified by "providence", which is presumably eternal, universal, etc. And he sure got a lot of people to go along with him, didn't he? Absolutism is unfalsifiable, because one can always claim to have discovered the "real" truth this time around, then later dismiss it as an illusion or ignorance or something. But the idea that the only alternative is "everything goes" is just stupid, and unfortunately a lot of people who oppose absolutism feel obliged to become nihilists, not realizing there are alternatives, such as rationality. Bhumiya (said/done) 03:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in between, as I suspect most people are. While some moral rules are absolute (like "no setting your kids on fire"), others are more flexible, by culture, like plural marriages. StuRat 23:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you would enter history as the last "evil person". Flamarande 21:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take the view that there's no such thing as something that is always wrong, for all people in all circumstances; or always right, for all people in all circumstances. From that position, I'd say there could be some situation where setting your kids on fire would be preferable to them suffering an even worse fate, if those 2 fates were the only ones available to them. Horrible as it sounds, sometimes people need to make really, really difficult choices. LIke jumping from the World Trade Centre on 9/11 to a ghastly death on the sidewalk below, rather than waiting to be fried in the fire. Or like the dilemma faced by Sophie in Sophie's Choice. She was told one of her 2 children would be taken away to the gas chambers, and one would survive - but she had to choose which one died and which one lived. How could any parent make such a choice? But if you had to, you would somehow do it. "Right vs. wrong" doesn't seem to be a very useful frame of reference for such choices. JackofOz 00:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I don't think the Nazis were right, of course, and I understand that most people would believe the nazis are wrong had they won. Perhaps a better example would be if in most societies it was commonly viewed as "right" for people to steal from any unattended store, with the logic that the store's workers aren't doing their job well enough if thieves get away. One view is that this stealing is wrong, as it comes almost all from greed, and/or breaks biblical laws, etc. Another view is that if that was the culture's values, it would be right, as there is no "ultimate" right or wrong. Cannibalism is also another good example. Cannibals didn't/don't feel it is wrong to eat human flesh. They could be right or wrong, depending on your views. -Russia Moore 01:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I am pretty much a relativist, moral or otherwise. I sometimes find myself thinking that if some people don't want democracy then we shouldn't force it down their throats. But then that is in contradiction with itself - I 'reject' democracy on democratic grounds ("...if that is what they want..."). But then I think about the fact that Hitler came to power through a democratic process and realise that democracy isn't quite perfect either, so what basis do some have to force democracy upon others (which in itself is of course an undemocratic act). And then I get aheadache and stop thinking about it, and then realise that that is probably why a lot of people dislike moral relativism - shooting your enemy is a lot easier.

Of course, to fight an enemy you also have to understand them. Take for example the rise of Pim Fortuyn in Dutch politics. He was a moral absolutist, saying that Islam is evil. So he was pretty dangerous, so a non-relativist lefty decided that it was better to not seek to understand but take action instead and killed him - the sort of thing Loomis prefers, judging by his comment. But I, being a relativist, tried to understand what was going on. And so did the other parties. And when they figured it out they incorporated it into their own policies and thus caused the LPF to disappear as fast as it appeared. And many argued (and I agreed) that that demonstrated the strength of Dutch politics. It is slow because it takes all possible views into account, but thus it also keeps the people happy and when it fails it corrects itself throught the existence of a political party for every possible political view, which the other parties can then adapt to.

I suppose that in the Netherlands, with some 10 parties in government, we have a morally relativistic political system. Which I like, but I suppose that is exactly because I grew up in the Netherlands, but then that would be a morally relativistic observation. Not that there is anything wrong with that, of course - damn, this headache.... :) DirkvdM 14:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you "force democracy on people who don't want it", then they are free to change their Constitution to whatever form of government they want. Or, more likely, there will be some coupe, and nobody will bother to oppose it, as happened in the case of Hitler. So, setting up a new democracy should just be seen as a temporary form of government until they get the form of government they really want. On the other hand, if you set up a dictator, there may not be any way to go from that to democracy, even if that's what 90% of the population wants. Why set up any form of government ? Well, in a case like Afghanistan, where the old government has been removed (and rightly so), you have to replace it with something, don't you ? StuRat 00:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ethical considerations

what aare erthical considers of rocking out to Everclear as he singsabout his horridle life ! Jasbutal 04:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That the noise of his carousing disturbs others? :)

That he ultimately harms himself and others?

I don't know. :) What does he think? Rentwa 09:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual Sexual Practice

Hi,

I have been searching the web for an answer to these questions for a couple of days and have been unable to find the answer, either because of ignorence on my part, or the info is just not out there. Most probably the former.

I once saw a porographic video in which the female involved was thrusting a small vibrator or dildo (my guess is approx. 1cm in diameter) in and out of the males urethra. I was suprised to find myself very aroused by observing this activity.

Can you please inform me as to what this activity is called both clinically and slangly? What physical pleasure may be derived by the male who is involved? And also, is this practice safe or potentially harmful to the penis and or urethra.

Thank you insight you can provide.Hornytoad62 09:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Hornytoad62[reply]

I've never heard of such a practice, but I can tell you right now, that this is harmful to the penis involved. It is not made for things like that to be inserted and the urethra wall could easily get damaged. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This would be urethral sounding. The external links in that article may be able to help you.-gadfium 09:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I once saw a video of a man inserting his penis into a woman's urethra and having sex with the orifice until climax. Unless it was very clever use of trick photography and prosthetics, I'm pretty sure that it was genuine. Scary, huh? --Kurt Shaped Box 20:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that would be very harmful. You might want to check out the differences between urethra and vagina :). —Daniel (‽) 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, man - it was her peehole. She had dildos inside her vagina and anus at the time. I couldn't believe my eyes either. Not erotic at all - but one of those things that you just can't help but watch to the end, and shudder... --Kurt Shaped Box 20:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"kids_in_sandbox.mpg?" JayW 21:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something about Bulls

I've had a doubt since long time that why the bulls become aggressive on seeing red color..? Are they able to recognize only red color? Temuzion 09:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Bullfighting says that bulls are actually colour blind and that the red cape waved at them is just a matter of tradition. It's more the twitching of the cape that gets them aggressive - plus the fact that, by this stage, the poor creature has already got a load of sharp sticks in it. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A slight elaboration on that: the bull is first pissed off by sticking little spears in it, so that it wants to attack something - anything that moves. Bulls are not only colourblind, they've got rather bad eyesight. So if the only thing around that moves is a 'cape' it will go for that, ignoring the man standing next to it, holding it. Since that man could be a tree, the bull will not ram it - it's not that stupid. But after a few fights it figures out what is going on and will go for the man. So bulls are killed before they get too smart. In Spain that is. I've heard that in Mexico they can't afford to kill the bulls, nor hurt them. So they re-use the bulls more often and piss them off buy moving closer. At least they give the bull a fighting chance. Brave mexicans. DirkvdM 14:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarians---Body building.

I want to know one thing clearly..! Do the vegetarians can't get perfect physique by going to gym regularly...? Is it true that being a vegetarian and still going to gym regularly would lead to the sapping of his stamina..? Do non-veg food is the only reason beyond the standard body building..? Temuzion 10:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Vegetarians can get enough protein, as well as every other nutrient needed for body building. It does require more effort, however, as certain foods, in certain combinations, must be eaten by vegetarians for optimal health. StuRat 11:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as vegetarians get all essential nutrients (see also our article on Vegetarianism), regular workouts should be healthy and increase their stamina. I don't know about "perfect physique"; as far as appearance goes, that is clearly a matter of taste. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All that assuming they take very good care with what they eat. i once had vegetarianism forced down my throat at a rainbow gathering, which made me really sick. Fruit is healthy. Too much fruit isn't. Nothing but fruit is dangerous. (The fruit, the whole fruit and nothing but the fruit. :) ) DirkvdM 14:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that an all-fruit diet is unhealthy, but there's no reason why a vegetarian diet should be limited to just fruit. There's also vegetables, grains, nuts, legumes, etc., and for some there's also eggs, milk, or even fish. StuRat 00:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Copyright Law

~~Does anyone how long copyright lasted on works in Ireland prior to the EU Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection (93/98/EEC) ?~~ - ^Рэд _хот 11:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I just found it was 50 years after death of author. - ^Рэд _хот 11:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for correct song title and lyrics

I'm looking for the correct title (though I think that I'm right) and lyrics to a song called "Heaven" by Bebe and Cee Cee Winans

It's probably out there, but lyrics to the title track seem rather hard to pin down. sorry. --Mnem e son 21:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I want to search for song lyrics, I use a distinctive phrase from the song (assuming I know one) as the key. Searching for the title mostly gets lists of titles, in my experience. —Tamfang 07:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leighton Sumner

Hello I would like to ask someone if it would be possible to help me ? A painting was brought to my attention by the reading of a book called The Forest by a Mr.Rutherford. The book is about the New Forest's history, and on the back cover is a reproduction of The Chase by Leighton sumner. However it is so small I cannot see the details properly,and so I cannot try to draw it myself.I would really appreciate someone maybe downloading a copy of it onto my computer so I can print it out and have a go at trying to recreate it . Thankyou very much.

                            Kelly

Gang sign?

I have heard more than once that tennis shoes hanging from telephone wires mark gang territory. Is this true, or an urban legend? Pete

There are a lot of funny/scary answers on the straight dope I would think that given the number of kids screwing around throwing them up there just because they can would override any kind of meaningful signaling system. BTW they probably show up just as often in rich neighborhoods as poor. But the rich ones get better municiple services and they are taken down faster. Nowimnthing 19:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The best part about the "straight dope" answers is how shoddy the thinking is on some of the replies, i.e. "it was proven to me" because he saw a correlation one time. In my neighborhood irritating kids throw their shoes up there for the hell of it. I think it's irritating. I don't live in the ghetto. --Fastfission 20:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it marks an area inhabited by sole brothers-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 20:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Attorney-client privilege

Hello I was wondering what would void the attorney-client privilege or what are some of the exceptons?

seeAttorney-client privilege#Limits of attorney-client privilege Nowimnthing 19:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of Succession--Royal Families

In the various national lists of succession order there are sometimes the notations starting "skipped". What does that mean? Also, names/titles listed in RED--what is the reason for that? <Email address removed on behalf of Nigerian bankers>24.28.87.194 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There could be any number of reasons for a person being skipped in the line of succession; they may be ineligable for some reason (e.g. marriage to a commoner will disqualify in some systems, or converting to a religion that's illegal or else incompatible with their position). Red links are articles that haven't yet been written. Be bold and help us create them! :) --Mnem e son 21:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a person can die while their parent is on the throne. Later, their child can inherit the throne. I think this is what everyone hopes will happen with Prince Charles, as nobody particularly wants that tampon-wanna-be as a king. Of course, his Nazi-wanna-be son might not be any better. StuRat 23:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank god it will be Prince William and not "Nazi-wanna-be" Harry after Prince Charles. --The Dark Side 00:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not if Willie marries a Papist. Now, if Charles would just marry one... - Nunh-huh 00:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible Hulk

Who the hell keepos changing the incredible hulk around? first sentence of the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.48.157 (talk • contribs)

here's the history list for that article. You can see who changed what, and if you disagree with their edits, leave them messages on their talk pages/the article's talk page to discuss them --Mnem e son 21:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 7

Babies with .com/.org/.net/etc. in their names...

After reading about the GoldenPalace.com Monkey, I find myself wondering if anyone has ever named one of their children after a website, either for financial gain or simply because they wanted their kid to be called "kevin-smith.com" or something. Anyone know? --Kurt Shaped Box 00:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out List of unusual personal names. There may be some there. Anchoress 02:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be quite funny indeed if there are such names. --Proficient 05:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's laws prohibiting such a name. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KentuckyFriedCruelty.com it isn't a baby, but it is still pretty interesting. Viva La V i e Boheme!

Survey--do you believe in aliens?

My friend wants to conduct a survey: do you believe that extraterrestrial beings have visited Earth? Is so, please state why or why not. Thanks! --Bowlhover 00:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You probably won't get a great sample here, but here are some former surveys' results, people can still give their opinion if they want:

University of Connecticut survey: 60% of Americans believe in existence of aliens

Reader's Digest poll: 81% believe in intelligent life elsewhere, roughly 60% believe they are currently monitoring us, also finds older people more likely to believe

1997 Canadian poll: Almost 10% believe they have seen a UFO, 78% believe there is life elsewhere, 57.5% say there is a government cover-up of UFOs, also found the higher the education, the less they believe in life elsewhere.

There's just some mass data already collected, personally I don't believe any have landed here, but I don't have any reason, especially. I hope that helps. -KingPenguin 02:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bowlhover, I noticed you changed the title of your section. I think it's important to be clear about what you're (or were originally) asking. The question was, do we believe ETs have visited Earth. Whether or not we believe that intelligent life (or any life) has existed elsewhere in the universe during the 9-16 billion years it's been around is a very different question. Anchoress 03:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My question is whether you believe ETs have visited Earth. Sorry, the section name is misleading (I haven't changed it though). --Bowlhover 03:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two distinctly different questions here:

Do you believe that somewhere in the universe intelligent life exists (besides on earth)?

Most NASA scientists would answer, Very likely yes.

do you believe that intelligent alien life visits earth as "UFOs"?

Most NASA scientists would answer, Pfft, and then avoid further conversation with you. Durova 04:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll (Do you believe aliens have visited Earth)

NO

KingPenguin no (copied from above)
I don't believe ETBs have ever visited our solar system; the reason is because I find Einstein and the Rare Earth hypothesis compelling. Anchoress 02:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You find Einstein compelling? You're a bit to late then , lassie. :) DirkvdM 14:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Dutch joke I don't get! Is it just me, or ... :) Loomis 21:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to think that such things have ever visited Earth, as per Occham's Razor. But nor do I accept the Rare Earth hypothesis, and think it highly probable that something deserving to be called life exists beyond this solar system. Bhumiya (said/done) 02:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Anchoress--however, I do believe there are intelligent alien life on another planet. (Regardless of whether the rare earth hypothesis is true, there are 7 x 10²² stars in the universe (which is 150 times more than the number of milliseconds that have passed since the beginning of the universe). --Bowlhover 03:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My father was a career NASA scientist who dedicated his life to explorating outer space. The most excited I ever saw him was when he described the slim possibility of life on Jupiter's moon Europa. If intelligent aliens ever visited earth, he certainly had never seen credible evidence for it, and he he could barely restrain his disgust at UFO enthusiasts. Durova 04:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Without good evidence, I cannot have belief. --Fastfission 14:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without good evidence you need belief (but then there's babel fish#Existence of God). DirkvdM 18:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, where there is good evidence, there is no need for belief. JackofOz 22:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence to support that claim? :) DirkvdM 07:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hold this truth to be self-evident. JackofOz 23:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YES

Yes, and I believe they live amongst us...Downunda 04:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature forms an appropriate continuation of that sentence. :) DirkvdM 14:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, my cover's blown! Zargon, call a cab, quick! Tony Fox (arf!) 16:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MAYBE/DON'T KNOW

I think it's possible, but the hard evidence is lacking. What I think is much more likely is that a race of non-human sentient beings has co-inhabited Earth for a very long time, and their appearances are often misinterpreted as being from beyond Earth. Just don't ask me to prove it. JackofOz 02:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My fence is that it's difficult to arrive at a direct answer. There can be life elsewhere, but I don't think they have visited Earth. But the chance is always there. --Proficient 06:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "my fence"? JackofOz 06:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably that he's "on the fence" about it.

Oh. I see. JackofOz 22:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Occam's razor I believe it's likely that there's other life in the universe, whether they have visited earth, I don't know. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how Occam's razor applies. If there was some sort of unexplained evidence of alien life, you could claim Occam's razor tends towards their existance, but since we have zero indisputable evidence at present, Occam's razor seems to imply that that means there's nothing else out there. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 14:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proteins form in space. Some life-forms may have formed. And some of that may have 'fallen down' on Earth somewhere in the last 5 billion years (and probably died in the process). Not 'little green men' of course. More like 'little green slime' or something. Maybe they even managed to form a symbiosis with us in the form of snot. :) DirkvdM 14:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, If I were an alien visiting Earth, Id take the piss out of the Rare Earth notion by singing "twiddley dee, twiddley dum, look out baby 'cause here I come". DirkvdM 14:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes they did then fixed our minds so we can't remember it-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 20:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Name of a garment

I am wondering if this particular garment has a name: it's a type of women's trousers, often calf-length, usually but not exclusively black, generally floppy or perhaps elastic in texture, and extremely wide, almost resembling hakama. I see them mostly on young women. Does anyone know what they're called? Bhumiya (said/done) 02:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culottes? MeltBanana 13:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess (well, my wife guesses) you're referring to gaucho pants. Note that this link redirects to "gaucho", and provides no pictures of said pants. But a google image search seems to match your description. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gauchos... Thank you! That's what I was trying to remember when I saw this thread. Don't know if it's what the poster is thinking of, but it's what I thought of when I read it (just couldn't remember the name). Anchoress 15:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's precisely what I was thinking of. Thanks. Bhumiya (said/done) 03:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of humans that have ever lived

I recently read this phrase in an interesting article in "Discover":

"Something like one fifth of all the people who have ever lived are alive today."

Is this true, that we are currently around 20% of all humans that have ever existed?? (I found it surprizing, though credible, but don´t know how to calculate the total number of homo sapiens that have existed). Thanks for any info. ==Joel==

The same question was asked a couple of days ago; see #Number of Humans Since the Beginning. --Lambiam ^Talk 03:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you consider humans, since they evolved from the past and it might be ambiguous as to what the 20% is referring to. --Proficient 06:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slanted and wrong info on Judith Reisman

I have received many legitimate complaints about the false statements and bias in Wikepedia about both me and my research.

Since basic research would have corrected some of your factual distortions this suggests that bias is an inherent problem Wikipedia has with my study findings.

Kindly correct the falsehoods and try to locate a more objective editor.

Judith A Reisman, PhD, President The Institute for Media Education

If there are any specific factual inaccuracies in the article, please point them out on its discussion page. We are always trying to improve our articles, but it is hard to act on a non-specific allegation of "distortions". --Lambiam ^Talk 03:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Dr. Reisman. Would you care to enumerate these falsehoods, if not here then on the relevant discussion page? From your comment, it is difficult to know precisely what you would like to see corrected. Incidentally, the article doesn't have a single editor, nor does any editor wield special power over its content. Like every Wikipedia article, it is collaboratively written and edited and content must be sourced. If you'd like, you could become an editor. If someone has been sending you complaints, that person might wish to become an editor himself and correct the problems. Bhumiya (said/done) 03:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped a link to the above diff on the Judith A. Reisman discussion page so editors there have a heads-up. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract universal currency

Virtually every standard of measurement has been incorporated into a global standard, e.g. the SI system. Why has no one contrived a standardized "measure of cost", in whose terms every currency/commodity could be measured? I'm not speaking of a world currency, merely an abstract point system. For instance, "today the US Dollar stands at fifteen credits, the Euro at twenty-six, the Yen..." and so on. If any currency can be converted into any other currency, it seems to follow that a standard "moneygram" (or perhaps "kilobuck"), abstracted from actual fluctuating commodities such as gold, could be worked out in some way. Has this ever been attempted? Or has my ignorance of finance caused me to miss something obviously wrong with the idea? Bhumiya (said/done) 03:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this already existed. Wasn't the unit called a Big Mac? --Lambiam ^Talk 15:47, 03:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say there are a number of complications that would make such a unit of little value:

1) Rather than being one exchange rate between any pair of currencies, there are many, one you might get when trading large volumes via a bank, and another when doing an exchange at a retail shop, for example. In extreme cases, where the currency is held artificially low, for example, the official exchange rate can be far different than the black market rate.

2) The exchange rates aren't necessarily compatible with each other. In a fictional example, if a twazzle is worth 2 fpibits, and a fpibit is worth 3 smorfs, one might conclude that a twazzle is worth 6 smorfs, but it isn't necessarily true. Since there are costs to doing the exchanges, the actual twazzle/smorf exchange rate may not be quite the same.

3) Costs of things relative to other things change over time, so, while you can buy 10 computers for the price of a car, now, it would have been just the reverse a few decades ago.

4) Inflation would change the value of your universal currency, too, just as it does normal currencies.

5) You would get the odd situation where 1 unit of universal currency would buy a different number of loaves of bread, depending on the which currency it was converted into, and where the loaves were purchased.

So, a universal currency wouldn't really be all that universal, and would just complicate things further. Note, however, that the US dollar is a de facto universal currency, with many countries using US dollars directly, and many others pegging their currency to the dollar. The remainder tend to define their currency in terms of the US dollar, as well. StuRat 04:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gold can be used to compare the price of bread today with the price of bread 2000 years ago. I challenge you to do this comparison with any other form of currency. Ohanian 05:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. This has given me some ideas, but it seems like StuRat is far more knowledgeable than me, so I don't expect to refute him. The first point, for me, is the most serious, and I don't know how it could be settled except by extensive and continuous research and adjustment, which would be pointless since this is supposed to be a clever little convenience, not a massive ongoing project. However, I'm not so sure about the second point. The cost of exchange is just another factor, capable of being statistically determined and then calculated into the rate. The abstract currency would exist independently of all actual banking, so such matters would be independent and could be objectively assessed. If it cost X-percent to transfer Y-currency into Z-currency, that would simply be another determinant of the value of Y in the abstract currency. As for point three, I agree, but I don't see why it would pose a problem. I'm not proposing that every commodity be assigned an absolute value, merely that each currency be assigned a value corresponding to its relative purchasing power within its "homeland", foreign currencies being treated for this purpose as commodities. The cost of a given commodity in any other currency could then be determined by multiplying its price in its native currency with that currency's value in the abstract currency and then dividing it by the abstract currency-value of the target currency (deep breath). As for point four, I don't see why inflation would change an abstract currency, which is based on ratios and may be adjusted. Inflation in a real-world currency would simply devalue that currency in terms of the abstract currency, no? But intuitively, to me, it still seems like it ought to be possible, at least in theory. I suppose as long as governments exist, so will economic discontinuities, and these seem to be at the root of the dilemma. It would simply require too much calculation and analysis to be worth it. I suppose this is why I'm not likely to end up in economics. And it would seem my original question is answered: why hasn't this been done? Bhumiya (said/done) 06:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Big Mac approach: Ron Neil, "A Matter of Economics – Calculating Exchange Rates". The actual rates (as of now, those of March 25): The Economist, "FXBigMac - World economics based on the hamburger standard". --Lambiam ^Talk 07:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something like the abstract unit of exchange that you describe already exists. It is called the Special Drawing Right. Here is the IMF factsheet on the SDR and a table of conversion rates for most currencies. Marco polo 14:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The French equivalent to the LETS system, les Sel, has a monetary unit tending to be universal : a hour of work must be worth the same everywhere. Does it work ? -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other unit of currency used for price comparison over long periods of time is the hour of physical labor: how many hours of work does it take for someone to be able to buy a loaf of bread? --Serie 20:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For comparing living costs in different countries the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, United Nations have a system called "Purchasing Power Parity" (PPP) to assess the variation. If you want to work out each country (therefore national currency)'s score compare the figure in dollars for a given country on these two lists List of countries by GDP (PPP) and List of countries by GDP (nominal). Where the former is higher than the latter, then, on current exchange rates, an American living there for a month will find it cheaper than back home, and vice-versa. Jameswilson 23:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then it looks like something somewhat along the lines of an abstract currency exist, though perhaps it confuses the situation to try to think of it as a currency. Thanks for all the responses. Bhumiya (said/done) 03:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a 'beer rule' I believe, proposed in wargaming in the early eighties. Rentwa 05:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

when it rains it pours

On a Morton salt box is a picture of a girl with a box of salt with the caption "When it rains it pours". The box that she is carrying has the same picture of herself with the sae caption and of course on that box would be the same caption and picture etc. There is a name for such an occurance or situation. I would greatly appreciate if anyone coul inform me of that word. Thanks.

Recursion? Skittle 11:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A saying or perhaps one of the disambiguations thereof? --Proficient 06:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Droste effect.-gadfium 06:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never understood that saying, why would you pour salt on the ground when it rains ? I only pour salt on the ground when there is ice to melt. StuRat 06:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a saying? My interpretation is this little narrative: When it rains, the girl puts up an umbrella. That leaves her only one free arm to carry the box. As the oversize box is too large for her to hold in one hand, she then puts it under her arm, which is only possible if she tips the box -- with the unintended effect that the salt pours out. When it stops raining, she'll fold the umbrella, put it under her arm, and carry the (now lighter) box again with two hands. Here is a bonus poem for those in love with the Morton salt girl. --Lambiam ^Talk 07:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with that interpretation is that you can turn one of their salt canisters upside down, and it still won't pour out (unless you pull the spout out first). You'd think that would be a selling point, rather than suggesting that their salt leaks out if you tilt the container. StuRat 09:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it just meant that the salt would still pour freely even when it was a bit damp. But it is also an allusion to the saying "It never rains but it pours," meaning that not one but several disasters will arrive at the same time. --Shantavira 07:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, at least according Morton's own web site. "The company developed a salt that would be free-running even in damp weather." --LarryMac 13:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baroque architecture

Hi - this might be a naive question - but can anyone tell me how an educated French person would have described Baroque architecture? Did they use the term 'Baroque', or has it arisen since then? Also, if anyone can point me to a glossary of Baroque architectural terms, I'd be grateful. Thanks Adambrowne666 08:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word "baroque" was originally used in a disparaging sense by late-19th-century art critics, in a time when rich ornamentation was not en vogue. You don't specify from what period your educated French person is, but if it is over a century ago, then it is not clear they would have had a term for it that would have been understood by others as referring to a particular architectural style. See also our articles Baroque, Baroque architecture, and French Baroque. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer, thanks, Lambiam - I was thinking of a person in the late 1600s, if that makes any difference, though it seems clear from your answer that they might not have had a term for it at all - so, is the notion of there being 'schools' of architecture and art etc, like Baroque, Classical, Neoclassical, a recent one? Adambrowne666 12:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our article claims that it is not the original term but says that it was rehabilitated from its derogatory use in the late 19th-century (1888) so maybe it was orginally used earlier than Lambian suggests. Anyone know how early it was in use? Rmhermen 14:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although used earlier, it was not used as a designation of a specific style. It was used in its ordinary dictionary meaning of adorned, bizarre, convoluted, extravagant, florid, frilly, frou-frou, gaudy, grotesque, ornate, ostentatious, overdecorated, rich, rococo, showy, sumptuous. If the austere art critics, in talking about these buildings, had criticized them for being "grotesque", then perhaps now we would be talking about "the Grotesque period", "neo-Grotesque", and so on. --Lambiam ^Talk 17:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry 'Harry' Miller

Does anyone (probably Australians would know this more than anyone else)know any information about Henry 'Harry' Miller?He was a promoter at Sydney Stadium and he commited suicide.There is currently an article in Wikipedia about Harry M Miller but he is not the same person.Any help would be greatly appreciated.Serenacw 10:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't he the one who wrote "The topic of cancer". Ohanian 11:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the American writer Henry Miller, and it's "Tropic of Cancer", not "The topic of cancer". I've heard of the Australian boxing promoter Harry Miller. He was very well known for his collection of outlandish ties. That's about the extent of my knowledge of him. I hadn't heard he suicided. JackofOz 12:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Henry Miller also wrote an entire book on the topic of capricorns. I still don't have the slightest idea why he was so obsessed with those born between December 22 and January 19. :-) (Also, Jack, I had no idea that suicide was a verb as well as a noun, but I checked the dictionary, and you're right! I suicide, you suicide, s/he suicides, we suicide, they suicide. Bizzare, but true! I learned a new thing today. Thanks!) Loomis 21:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Just don't try this at home. :--) JackofOz 23:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intertextuality

I have an asignment on intertextuality. My theme is war. Can you help me. I've got some information already I just need some more.

Thank you! --144.138.77.107 12:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See War --Mnem e son 15:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and intertextuality. StuRat 17:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law of Pakistan

"Can somebody help me in finding free E Resources about the Law of Pakistan?" <-- This question was asked at Wikiversity. So far I found Media laws of Pakistan.
--JWSchmidt 12:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consult Category:Pakistani law. --Lambiam ^Talk 17:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of Human Rights

Hello

My name is Joseph Jarvis U.S. Citizen, was seriously injured in an auto accident in Mexico, on September the third 2002, The driver was convicted for causing the accident, we sued the company who the driver worked for at the time of the accident, after four years of fighting in court, the judges all the way to the Federal Court of Appeals have absolved the Companies, from there civil Liabilities, Including the Insurance Company.

The reasoning that the first Instance Judge gave for dismissing the company from their legal liability was that Joseph Emmanuel Jarvis did not prove his legal status in the country at the time of the accident. Basing his decision on that fact declaring that Joseph Does no have any Civil Rights.

The First Court of Appeals, based their decision on the assumption that Joseph did not prove his exact losses for the Injuries he received. Which is totally untrue. Due to the fact that Mr. Jarvis did in fact prove all of his losses, with business contracts, medical expenses, bank accounts, and IRS records.

The Federal Court of Appeals, based their decision on the assumption that Joseph did not prove that the company was at fault. Which is also totally untrue. Due the fact that Mr. Jarvis did prove the company was acting negligently for illegally transporting Toxic materials without permits and in vehicles totally inadequate for transporting semi-liquid materials, and was in fact Sanctioned by the Secretary of Transportation and Communications, and the Environmental Protection Agency, which was totally ignored by all three courts.

Now for my question:

The companies we have been fighting are very corrupted, they have played many games with the courts, Including illegally demanding Mr. Jarvis and his wife penalty for many different things including soliciting the Immigration Department to deport Mr. Jarvis, however unsuccessfully.

My civil rights have been violated.

How do I find out if my case qualifies, for the International Tribune?

I have over 20,000 pages of evidence against the company which the authorities here in Mexico have profusely ignored to favor the Company who ran me over with their illegal truck, it is completely obvious that they have been paid off to the point where I have no where to turn in this country for Justice.

Sincerely

Joseph Emmanuel Jarvis

[e-mail removed - see rules at top]

phone [number removed, see above]

Address [address removed, see above]

You should contact a Lawyer. Any advice you get from this desk on your situation will be worth exactly how much you're paying for it - nothing. --Mnem e son 15:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I´m not looking for advise I need to know what are the requirments to have my case heard by the International Tribune

And for that, you should really contact a lawyer, particularly since you'll need to flesh out a lot of your terminology -- I find far more references to newspapers than legal courts when searching "international tribune", and I'm not aware of any sort of international court for personal tort suits. — Lomn | Talk 17:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Swinson

What is Jo Swinson MP's exact position on the monarchy? I think she's said that she doesn't favour its abolition, but favours much-reduced powers. Is that even possible? Her Majesty has very little power as it is. Would Jo have her be like a hereditary British Idol with her face on everything? Because, as a Lib Dem supporter and a liberal monarchist, I think that would actually be pretty nifty. 12.76.68.183 15:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The queen has enormous power, not to mention wealth. It's a common misconception that the monarch has a largely ceremonial role, possibly encouraged by monarchist sympathisers who can quote any number of facts to support this position. Guards regiments exist specifically for the defense of the monarch, for instance.

If you want to know her specific views on reform of the monarchy (assuming she has actually stated any) a google search like '" jo swinson" queen' or '"jo swinson" monarch bbc' might give you some answers. Most MPs have ~~there~~ their (edit:I shall tendering my resignation shortly) own websites, and an email enquiry (especially if it seemed to attribute some view to her, which she or an aide may confirm or deny depending on what it was) may be enlightening. Rentwa 06:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is he black?

The U.S., probably more so than other nations, is obsessed with race. That's understandable, given our history of slavery. We classify people by race for so many reasons, some of which are with the best intentions, such as insuring fair hiring, diversity and promotion. So how would the pro golfer Vijay Singh be classified? He was born in Fiji and is of Indian descent. His skin is very dark, almost black. He is much darker than millions of African-Americans, yet his features appear Caucasian, not "Negroid" (to use a term from years ago). Would he be considered black in America simply because of his skin color? Beth

Yes.

12.76.67.63 18:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually most questionnaires include a category called "Asian/Pacific islander." Durova 18:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This depends heavily on the classification. If you show someone who doesn't follow golf a picture and say "is this man black?", then the answer is probably "yes" -- but that's a horrible example of a loaded question. If you take a standard "list your race here" government form and ask Singh to fill it out himself, the answer is "no". Also, I doubt strongly that the US is significantly more obsessed with race than the rest of the world at large. (added after edit conflict) — Lomn | Talk 18:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the United States is fairly uncaring about race compared to some of the countries I've been to. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

Based on his pic: [10] I would say he looks black, yes. However, if I knew his name and ethnic background, I would conclude that he isn't black, but only appears to be black. StuRat 18:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess perception of race will vary from individual to individual. I saw his picture and instantly recognized him as South Asian, which to me is different from black. I think that the cultural construction of race is changing in the United States. It used to be that everyone was classified as either "white" or "black," or maybe "white," "white ethnic," or "black," with the middle category lumping together Italians and Mexicans. It may still be like that in less metropolitan parts of the United States. But I think that in much of the United States, there is a growing awareness of people who do not fit the white-black dichotomy. Even the word "black" is not so meaningful any more when there are important distinctions among, say, Haitians, Anglophone West Indians, African Americans, and African immigrants. Marco polo 19:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's awfully ignorant to lump Europeans in the same category as Amerindians. --Nelson Ricardo 23:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about Italians vs. Mexicans, many Mexicans are primarily of Spanish descent, so do look somewhat similar to Italians. StuRat 05:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say he's black at all. To me, a "black person", for lack of a better term, is a person who's ancestry (or perhaps some part thereof) can be traced back to the indiginous peoples of sub-Saharan Africa. These people were once considered to be "Negroes", which, despite the pejorative connotations it seems to have mysteriously accumulated, simply refers to the Spanish and Portuguese term for the colour black. In fact the stigma concerning the use of the term "Negro", ironically, seems to be stronger among non-blacks than blacks. For example, The United Negro College Fund doesn't seem to have ever felt the need to change its name. Same goes for the term "Coloured". The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, a group dedicated to the goal of increased equality for blacks in the US, has likewise apparently seen no need to change its name.

The bizzare aspect of it all is the fact that "black people", as I've defined them above, even those who have absolutely no "non-black" ancestry, are actually not the darkest skinned of people. Many ethnic groups in India, certain Pacific Islanders like Singh, as well as Australian Aborigines can actually have skin much more resembling the colour "black". Yet they are not considered, racially speaking, as "black". In fact most "black" Americans are quite a bit lighter skinned than these other people, mostly due to some inevitable caucasian ancestry. For example, Bill Cosby is "black", yet he's far lighter skinned than Singh. "Black" features are more than simple than skin colour, but include a variety of facial features.

As perhaps the most bizarre example I can think of, once I remember coming across an extremely pale skinned, white haired, pink eyed albino man. He hadn't the slightest bit of pigment in his skin; pale as a ghost. Yet because of certain features, such as tight curled hair, a broad nose and distinctive lips, he was clearly of "black" ancestry. Loomis 23:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain Vijay Singh's Indian ancestry (ie not African) would make him brown not black. Actual skin colour doesnt matter. Jameswilson 23:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think he would be considered Black by most Americans. Those who hadn't been exposed to South Asians or Pacific Islanders might lump him into a larger category but anyone who had could tell that he is not of African ancestry. In the United States, while "Black" can be a very wide-ranging term, it is usually restricted to people with features which resemble those of African ancestry, skin color only being only component of that. --Fastfission 18:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request to reach individua user <Jossi> re Chief Arthur Two Crows flute

Hello,

I found an article about a 1987 native american flute created by Chief Arthur Two Crows and listened to a sound clip on the same page of that flute played by ?< Jossi >. I would really like to speak to him because I have just found 2 flutes by the same maker ( made in 1988) languishing in a store cupboard. There is a small problem with the birch bark spacers on the flutes.

I'd like to ask him if he has had to replace the one on his flute and if so who did it. I think these might be grandfather tunings. If that is the case most modern flute makers cannot do this for me. He is the only other flute owner (for this maker) for whom I have been able to find reference.

I can't find any other reference for the maker other than this one. Aslo would love to know what the written designation, U.N.A.i on the flute, beside the written name, stands for, I am hoping Jossi will be able to help me out with this.

Would you please give me contact info for ? user: Jossi I odn't seem to be abble to figure out your system I am new to computers.

I can be reached at [email removed]

You can contact Jossi at User talk:Jossi. — Lomn | Talk 19:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditions in Wuerttemberg, Germany in the period 1700-1740

I know that this area was badly hurt during the war of Spanish Succession 1701- 1713. I would think that conditions would improve significantly after the treaty. My ancestors left there in 1736 along with many other German people. What economic conditions woulg force so many to leave in a period of relative peace? You may email direct to <Email addy gratefully recieved by mail order viagra companies>if you chose. Martin Essick

There was in fact a series of wars in western and southern Germany during the early 18th century. You mention the War of the Spanish Succession. But the War of the Polish Succession brought fighting to western and southern Germany from 1733–1738, the period when your ancestors left. At the outbreak (1740) of the later War of the Austrian Succession, my own maternal ancestors fled the nearby Palatinate region to avoid conscription. These wars ravaged western and southern Germany, not only because young men were forced into duty as cannon fodder, but also because armies tended to raid local farms to supplement their rations (and to subject farmers' daughters to other appetites). In addition, western and southern Germany was divided into scores of petty states. The Duchy of Württemberg was one of the larger of these. Each of these states imposed a grinding and economically depressing tax burden on its peasants and townspeople to support its armies and the conspicuous consumption of its aristocracy. Also, during this period, the region's population was growing. If they survived the risk of death in wars waged purely to advance the claims of rulers, young people faced the prospect of paying heavy taxes and trying to eke a meager living from farms that had been divided into tiny portions among the previous generation's sons. Instead, many young men sold their small inheritance to pay for the cost of marrying and migrating to colonial America to start over in a land that offered better chances. Marco polo 13:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silver service etiquette

Silver Service (waiting) says that the guest to the host's left is served first, whilst this website says it's the guest at the right (under 'serving etiquette') - which is it? [11] --Username132 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but since our article is a barely literate stub, and since the guest to the host's right is likely to be somebody important, I would be much more inclined to trust that website.--Shantavira 11:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity

Would it be safe to say that the US is the most Diverse country in the world?

It would depend on the criteria, but I'd say probably not. There was a discussion about this a couple of months ago, and it was determined that there are many countries that are, for instance, much more culturally/racially diverse than the US. Anchoress 21:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such as?

Like I said, the conversation was a couple of months ago. Perhaps someone else remembers better than I. I am not in the mood to go look stuff up again. Off the top of my head I'd say probably Malaysia, maybe some of the Southern and Eastern African countries with large white and South Asian populations South Africa, Kenya, Uganda for instance. Depending on what is meant by diversity, which hasn't been clarified yet. The UK, Canada and Australia could give the US a run for its money on total number of different countries/cultures represented, but there are lots of countries with more languages spoken, more distinct cultures (although not necessarily as widely diverse as some Western countries). India and China both have lots of different langugages, some African and South American countries have dozens of distinct cultures.

BTW could you please sign your posts? Anchoress 21:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Anchoress' points about UK/Canada (and maybe Australia) being exceptionally diverse. I would point out that China is not especially ethnically diverse (and most of the language variation is down to different dialects of the same language) Bwithh 21:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC) .[reply]

From Identification of the varieties of Chinese:

...Internal diversity in Chinese, with respect to grammar, vocabulary, and syntax, is comparable to the Romance languages, and greater than the North Germanic languages and East Slavic languages...

In other words, you can't claim they're more similar than the examples given in the article. The only reason most people claim they're "more similar" is because China has a standardised written language system. (All of this, of course, is ignoring the ethnic diversity in the country - how they're treated is another story, but that's not the issue at hand.) ColourBurst 15:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that by "diverse" you mean "ethnically diverse". Even then, it depends on what you mean by "ethnically diverse". If you're simply asking for the country that is made up of the largest number of ethnic communities, the US would probably be at least on par with all the others mentioned. But if you're talking about actual ethnic diversity (i.e. the degree to which foreign cultures and values are embraced by both government policy and society at large), Canada would clearly be a more "diverse" society. It may be trite, but the US is known as a "melting pot", meaning that wherever you come from, you're expected to "melt into" (and contribute somewhat to) American culture. Canada, on the other hand has a "multiculturalism" policy written into its constitution. Less assimilation is expected of newly arrived immigrants. On the contrary, to a certain extent, these newly arrived ethnic groups are encouraged to maintain their cultural identity and values. Note though, that I'm not necessarily saying that this is a good thing. Many Canadians, myself included, think the whole "multiculturalism" policy is not the best idea. Too much deference to certain "cultures" (which I will leave unnamed) can at the very least provide for a very weak national identity (one that Canada clearly suffers from), and at the very worst, in my opinion at least, can lead to a rather perverse level of tolerance for the rather illiberal values that certain ethnic groups inevitably import into Canada. Loomis 22:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase melting pot was never meant to apply to "non-whites" when it was first conceived (as non-whites were never meant to be U.S. citizens). Even modern sociologists tend to reject the term, not to mention that "melting into the culture" means conformity and non-individuality. ColourBurst 15:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India is indeed very diverse culturally, religiously, linguistically and geographically. But note that many of the countries mentioned so far are big ones. If you'd take Europe as a whole it would probably be more diverse than any of those big ones (except maybe India). DirkvdM 07:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an economic index which is sometimes used for expressing cultural diversity, known as the Ethnolinguistic Fractionalization Index, and also an Ethnolinguistic and Religious Fractionalization Index. There are a lot of questionable assumptions which go into them, but as economic models I believe they're the most popular way to quantify "diversity", for better or worse, though there are many ways to define diverse (I think the EFI would treat a country with two large but different groups as being more diverse than a country with many small and different groups). The US ranks pretty high on these, but not as high as places like Brazil.[12][13] --Fastfission 18:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry source: "theorbo"

There is, I think, this couplet in English or American literature: "Non veniente occurite morbo / With which moral I drop my theorbo." Who wrote that? Sounds like Browning to me; but I haven't found it there. Grateful for help. --4.245.203.1 21:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND. Anchoress 21:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical Argument: God

I am working on an argument for my philosophy class (My position is just the existence of evil type). It's purpose is to disprove the existence of the Judaeo-Christian God without having to cite the theory of evolution or specific biblical fallacy, since both would potentially require me to have a vast amount of evidence in the form of text, or to batter away at my opposition with long winded hypothetical situations attempting to demonstrate natural selection and evolution, etc...

Here is what I have so far. The list immediately below is a set of characterists which I will/have presumedly forced them to accept and the ensuing argument from me. Please pose any and all defenses.

God is omnibenevolent. God is omnipotent. God is omnipresent. God is omniscient. Humans have free will.

If God is omniscient, then he knows what we will do. If God knows what we will do, he knows our destiny. If God set our lives in motion, he is responsible for causing that destiny. If we do evil things, God is responsible for them since he had the foreknowledge of the events and still caused us.

(If I point a gun at your head which I know is loaded and pull the trigger, I, not the bullet, am the cause of your death.)

This is NOT intended to create a debate here. I will NOT rebut any defenses presented here. If you find the above offensive, flame my user talk page.

After re-reading this, It sounds a lot like homework. It isn't, I'm just preparing for the in class discussion that we will be having.

-Razma Dreizehn

Well, here's the (joking) argument presented by The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, you can decide if it would really work for you or not.

If you can get them to concede that God requires prayer and faith from His followers, then point out that faith cannot exist if something is proved to be true, therefore if God is proved to be real then he is not in fact the god, for he exists with the support of faith. (This is all in the form of a little dialogue, but that's basically it.)

Sure, it was a joke in the book, but it's all up to you on whether or not it would work. -KingPenguin 23:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have some evidentialist theist's in the class though. -Razma Dreizehn

Read Metaphysics and browse what some of the great philosophers such as Descartes have had to say on the subject. Then to challenge yourself try Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian for the other side of the debate. Durova 00:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another topical page: Existence of God. Durova 00:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The best evidence to "disprove the existence of Judaeo-Christian God" is that HE only exists where and when Jews and Christians exists. ie. HE does not exists in China , Japan or Australia prior to the arrival of Jews or Christians. In fact, if Jews and Christians does not exists at all, it's hard to see how Judaeo-Christian God could exist.

The main idea being that God only exists when his followers exists. Ohanian 00:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that like saying a falling tree only makes a sound if someone hears it? -- Mwalcoff 02:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was basically what my quote was trying to get at, but may have required an extra step, i.e. proving he exists (despite foreknowledge that proving He exists is disproving his existence.) -KingPenguin 00:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should read "The Unbearable Lightness of Being." Near the end, Kundera uses the existence of shit and human shame over shitting to offer a pretty powerful disproof of god's existence. It's worth reading and really quite compelling. Sashafklein 03:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that your (Razma Dreizehn's) argument, as well as others put forward above, successful or not, only aim to disprove the possibility of a deity having the attributes commonly ascribed to the Judaeo-Christian God. A defense against extending such arguments to the existence of the godhead by itself is that God by His very Nature defies confinement by humanly comprehensible attribution. That might even be said to apply to the attribution of "existence" as ascribed to God. --Lambiam ^Talk 06:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An overview of various arguments is given in our article on Atheism. You may also want to read Problem of evil. --Lambiam ^Talk 06:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the argument to be scientific (what else might you want it to be?) then you approach it the wrong way around. It's the existence of God that needs proving. If no such proof can be given you win by default. DirkvdM 08:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster asked for help in disproving the existence of the Judaeo-Christian God. This is much much easier than disproving the existence of God. Ohanian 09:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One response to the original argument would be that God is not responsible for anything before anyone. Job is pretty much all about this question. If we accept that, though, there doesn't seem to be much possibility of any philosophical argument about Him. Anyway, Job is strong stuff compared for instance to the gormless whining about the beaks of Galapagian finches that I just read in the Watch Tower. Unfortunately, I doubt any of your opponents will have the backbone to stand up like Elihu and declare God, as the creator and keeper of the universe, to be simply as unimpeachable as He is unfathomable. His existence, then, would have to be assumed, which for Job came naturally when God spake to him directly from a whirlwind, sort of knocking the wind out of Job's rant against Him. (For the record, I am not a Christian.)--Rallette 12:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for your original argument, it only works if you make very specific assumptions about God, and when appealing to infinities you are often going to just run into definitional problems (see Irresistible force paradox as another example). For example, omnipotence and omniscience may not even be compatible (if you can do anything, could you not negate any knowledge about the future?), and omniprescence and omnipotence might not work either (if you are required, by definition, to be everywhere, could you choose not to be everywhere?). In the end these look more like logical sophistry than real theology or philosophy.

In my opinion the argument from evil works best when you talk about things completely outside of the human realm, things which would be presumably be quite easy for even a non-omnipotent God to render, if they were interventionist (that's a big if there). For example, when they were trying to look for victims of in the wreckage of 9/11, they were hampered by rain. Now, how hard would it have been for God to have made it so that it didn't rain right at that specific time? One would imagine this to be well within the powers of even a reasonably weak God. It makes me feel compelled to conclude that either 1. God doesn't care, 2. God doesn't intervene in the daily affairs of the world, or 3. God doesn't exist. Any of those taken individually presents a challenge to the traditional interpretation of the Judeo-Christian God. --Fastfission 18:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

Religious Icons

have a group of over 30 large religious icons and need to have them identified. Can anyone help? I have photos and could make them available.

Respectfully,

carole 67.102.17.26 00:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)carole[reply]

Can you post a link to the pictures? Rentwa 06:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawful Execution?

If a man is convicted of a crime, given the death penalty, exhausts all appeals and is scheduled for execution, but breaks out of prison only to be shot dead on the street 2 weeks later by someone who recognized him from the news story about his trial, can the shooter be convicted of murder?

We will also assume that the shooter in question did not have to kill the convict and could actually have reported him to the police in a timely fashion and held him until their arrival. -Razma Dreizehn

It would seem that the killer was not sanctioned although the killing was. Rentwa 06:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is: "yes". The same applies to mercy killings in which the "victim" is suffering immensely from a terminal disease, with death being imminent. Details may differ according to local laws, but basically, if the law does not have specific clauses excepting such cases, they will be crimes according to the general rules. --Lambiam ^Talk 06:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Although it may seem absurd, some countries who enforce capital punishment strive to use 'more humane' methods of execution than shooting and have laws reflecting this. More importantly, the state owns the monopoly on law-enforcement. No citizen has the right to arbitrarily take the law in his hands. Yes, I think this person can expect criminal prosecution, though I have no idea what the exact charges would be. ---Sluzzelin 06:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The charge would be murder, although there is a good chance of jury nullification in a case like this. StuRat 07:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a jury. I wonder if a judge would take these circumstances into account. As Sluzzelin pointed out, the state has (or should have) a monopoly on violence. I wonder if whether the killer knew about the comviction would even make a difference. Then again, in such an uncivilised country (where the death penalty still exists) one can never know. DirkvdM 07:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain that the charge would be murder. Since the deceased would be a death row prison inmate on the run from the law, it ought to be fairly easy to demonstrate a "reasonable man" argument that the shooter felt threatened by the convict's presence. Depending on the specific circumstances it might even be deemed justifiable homicide - perhaps if the shooter were a convenience store clerk who had survived three previous armed robberies, recognized the escaped prisoner in the store, and believed the escapee were reaching for a weapon. I suspect the law would view that more kindly than a shooter who shot the escapee in the back as the convict walked across a public street. Durova

It depends on the circumstances, obviously, but in any case the question of the victim's being previously sentenced to death would not, by itself, make any non-sanctioned killing the equivalent of the state-sanctioned killing. --Fastfission 18:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the local laws. Some places may have laws where it is legal. Apparently some places have laws where anyone can kill a "fleeing felon", including some U.S. states. Rmhermen 22:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is invalid in that it ignores jurisdiction. What is legal in one place may be illegal in another. So there is no one answer for the entire world.
Legally, the answer depends upon whether or not the jurisdiction recognizes the concept of outlawry. If it does, then the escapee has the same rights as a rabid dog - none. This is the idea behind "Wanted - Dead or Alive." If not, then the killer is subject to whatever criminal penalties would apply if he'd shot and killed anyone else. It would now depend on what, if anything, the local prosecutor decided to charge him with, and, as mentioned above, what a jury would be willing to buy. B00P 03:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity 2

As a follow-up to a question hereabove, which region the size of a small country (roughly 100.000 km²) would be the most diverse in the world? That can be in terms of culture or nature or both. DirkvdM 08:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating question. Does it have to be defined as a region (politically, culturally, geographically), or can it be any continuous piece of map of approximately this size?(not counting absurd examples of two separate regions connected by a thread of land that spans half the world)---Sluzzelin 08:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistically, Nepal is impressive with 102 languages (147,181 km²), Papua has 862 languages spread over 462,840 km². From a study by Daniel Nettle ---Sluzzelin 09:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Costa Rica is a remarkably diverse country climatically and biologically. Its area is a little over 50,000km². Batmanand | Talk 13:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The density of dots on Ethnologue's language map is a good indicator of linguistic diversity. By this measure, the most linguistically diverse regions are Papua (New Guinea), Melanesia, the Philippines, parts of Indonesia, parts of mainland Southeast Asia, the Himalayas, parts of East and West Africa, and the Mexican state of Oaxaca. However, in some of these regions (West Africa's forest belt, parts of East Africa, highland Papua (New Guinea), Oaxaca, Philippines, Melanesia), peoples speaking different languages may inhabit geographically similar territories and may have broad cultural similarities. I would argue that the regions of greatest cultural diversity combine geographic diversity with linguistic diversity. In these regions, peoples speaking different languages inhabit different local environments and often have different ways of life. The regions of greatest cultural and geographic diversity are parts of East Africa, the Himalayas, from northern Kashmir to Arunachal Pradesh, and highland Southeast Asia. In these regions, the valley floor is often densely populated by one ethnic group, while surrounding highlands are occupied by a diverse array of "hill peoples." Nepal is especially impressive in this regard. Laos is only slightly less so, with 82 languages in 230,000 km². Marco polo 15:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervez_Musharaff

12:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)202.61.40.69In your page on Pakistan's President Pervez Musharaff you have mentioned under his Family background that "General Musharraf's parents came from an educated middle class Kunjer family and both were college-educated".

Now the word Kunjer is a rude word in URDU as well as all the local languages in Pakistan, I am curious as to what was your source to this line on his family ?

A quick response would be much appreciated

Link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervez_Musharaff

Regards

Khawar Mehdi

(Email removed to protect from spam spider transformers from zordon)

That was vandalism. Thanks for reporting it. I have now fixed the article and I'm looking into the author who added it. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Steinbeck novella or screenplay of Lifeboat

Greetings. I understand that this may be outside of the scope of Wikipedia. I was wondering is anyone can help me to find a copy of the actual novella or screenplay that John Steinbeck wrote for Lifeboat, the Alfred Hitchcock movie. Thank you. Lynne L. Waldron. --72.240.124.54 12:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, it's an unpublished manuscript; you need access to a Steinbeck research center. For example, the Steinbeck Library in Salinas, CA almost certainly would have a copy. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video Needed - Cordell Hull addresses Congress on UN 1943

I am a producer working at KET the state owned PBS Network in Lexington, KY. I am trying to find the soucre for http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9f/Ohullco002v1.mov - a video clip of Cordell Hull to use in a broadcast program (not for sale or distribution beyond the statewide broadcast). I need to locate a source from which I can obtain a broadcast quaility copy. Any information would be helpful. Program airs Nov. 11. Editing date Nov. 3

Thanks,

Jim Piston

[Edit] The movie was apparently taken from this Britannica web page. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 13:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Language...

What Language should I learn if I was going to denmark? Also, can you suggest a good exchange student association/club in Raleigh, NC, that arranges exchange students to denmark?

Thank you all in advance, Mythicallava

The official language of Denmark and its commonly spoken language is Danish. If you are a secondary school student, you might try YFU, though I cannot speak for the quality of their programs. If you are a university student, the easiest way would be if your university had an exchange program with a Danish university. Failing that, some Danish universities may have exchange programs for independent foreign students. Wikipedia has a list of universities in Denmark. Marco polo 17:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Hermann Claussen

I was wondering if these Hermann Claussen's are the same person?

1.Hermann Claussen was the first to climb Tronador on 29 January 1934 in solitary after several attempts.

2.of the united states entered according to congress in the year 1868 by hermann claussen in the clerks office of the district court for the southern district of new york designed and engraved by hermann claussen

Probably not. If we assume that Claussen was at least 20 in 1868, then that would make him at least 86 by 1934. I find it unlikely that an 86 year old today—much less in 1934, hardly a time of great geriatric care—would be able to climb a mountain in solitary after several attempts. Even if you made him only 12 in 1868 (which seems ridiculous), he would be 78 by 1934—not exactly peak mountain climbing time for most people. --Fastfission 18:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which U.S. State has only one court on the state level?

It doesn't say that. It says it is the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, meaning it is a United States district court, a federal court. --Fastfission 19:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

President William McKinley

As a resident of Canton, Ohio, the hometown of McKinley, I will be visiting Buffalo, New York this fall. Where exactly in present-day Buffalo is the site of his assassination in 1901? Is there some marker or memorial? Can someone provide a photograph? Angela

Starting at William McKinley, you can read the section about his assassination, which occurred at the Pan-American Exposition. You will also find a link to the McKinley Monument. The Pan-Am Expo article has a picture showing the Temple of Music, outside of which the assassination took place. ~~I have not verified whether this building is still in existence~~, this page indicates that the buildings were not meant to be permanent "To this day, residents of the various neighborhoods developed after the Pan-American was finally cleared away still find traces of plaster when digging in their gardens." .... I do not know whether the Monument is anywhere close to where the Temple of Music stood. --LarryMac 20:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to a message here, it's in the median of Fordham Drive, near Lincoln Parkway, near Buffalo State University. -- Mwalcoff 22:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Temple of Music by the Tower of Light between the Fountain of Abundance and the Court of Lilies at the great Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo..... the folk who run this web site may be able to tell you if you drop them a line at the e-mail address on that page. They also show the fairgrounds with an overlay of the current streets on this page. It looks like most of the Temple of Music lies beneath Fordham street, east of Lincoln Parkway. Looking at the area with Google Earth, it seems to be completely residential with no evidence of any monument. - Nunh-huh 23:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of surname in Russia

In English you can nickname someone by just using their surname: so John Smith becomes informally known by his friends just as Smith rather than John, etc. Do Russians do the same thing with Russian surnames, e.g Ivan Kuznetsov is just informally known as Kuznetsov? Sum0 23:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From reading Russian novels, I was under the impression that friends would call "Ivan Fedorovich Kuznetsov" "Ivan Fedorovich", while intimates would call him Vanya. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's no more done in Russian than it is in English to refer to someone by their surname alone. In my part of the English-speaking world, referring to someone you know by their surname would not be regarded as a nickname. It would even be seen as disrespectful unless it was clearly done for humorous intent. Public figures are different. JackofOz 23:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, it's considered a sign of familiarity among "the boys" to refer to each other by their last names. Like on football teams, military units, etc. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are the different ways for numbering the succession of noble titles?

The situation is this: 2 wp. editors are planning to merge Henry Brooke, 8th Baron Cobham and Henry Brooke, 11th Baron Cobham. The two are the same person beyond doubt; however, the literature numbers them differently. The older literature appears to favor eight, while the newer favors eleven. The editors suspect that the difference may relate to when the title entered the Brooke family, but so far have been unable to confirm this hunch.

Any help would be much appreciated; apologies if this is not the right forum for the question.Jlittlet 23:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a barony by writ of summons, and so it's not all that peculiar that different enumerations exist, because such summonses were only later held to create hereditary baronies. So no one kept very close track; it wouldn't be unusual for someone now held to be a baron to have lived and died in ignorance of that fact. Perhaps it would be best to simply adopt the number used at Baron Cobham, while recognizing that they are artificial. - Nunh-huh 23:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (One explanation may be that people have added together the different creations of the barony in coming up with the figure 11.).[reply]

Thanks!Jlittlet 01:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

Is there anything funnier than hearing a 50+ year old white woman rapping?

Just listening to a recent Blonde live album where Debbie Harry is singing/rapping 'Rapture'. Man, it's like hearing your mum rapping or something. It's hilarious and cringeworthy at the same time.

She's 61 ! StuRat 00:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was just as cringe-inducing when she first started doing it. Vanilla Ice was nothing new in that respect. --Kurt Shaped Box 00:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A donkey eating figs is funnier. This can be classed under "ask a silly question…" MeltBanana 00:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I like Blondie and think that Debbie is a fine old MILF but rapping just doesn't work for a woman of that age. --84.65.57.64 01:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't "that age" when she recorded it, and I seem to recall it was one of the first "rap" songs to make in in the mainstream consciousness. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it hereditary for..

Is it hereditary which side of your body is longer (or bigger if you want to use that word)? --Rains

Both sides of your body are supposed to be the same size, unless you include slightly better developed muscles on the right side for the right-handed and the left side for the left handed. If so, I believe that handedness does have a genetic component. StuRat 02:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nay, i've heard that everyone has one leg that's longer, one arm that's longer, etc., meaning that whole side is usually longer-- is this inherited? Also I personally don't believe left-handedness is hereditary. I knew a left-handed girl whose parents and so on were all right handed.--Rains

Veil of Veronica

I was talking to my brother awhile ago, and he had brought up a history point to which I have yet been able to come across any more information:

He had said that in about 200AD (I can't remember the actual time frame, but it was before 500AD), jesus had been reborn as a woman named Veronica, and that due to the power the Christian church had been gaining, as well as their following the teachings of St. John against women, they burnt the town she lived in, and had it labeled as an accident.

Apparently, she had been able to perform many of the same miracles that Jesus had been known to have done, as proof of her being the second coming of the Christ.

So, the question: Could anybody here give me any more information on this topic, or at least point me in the right direction? --Slokunshialgo 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard this story, which doesn't mean it didn't happen, but this story has nothing to do with the Veil of Veronica. Veronica was supposedly a woman who wiped Jesus' face with her scarf as he was struggling with the cross along the Via Dolorosa, and the blood from his face left a stained image of his face on her veil. Thus the Veil of Veronica. Of course, it's probably worth noting that "Veronica" is probably a corruption of "vera icona", or true image. Or something like that. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention one thing, which is what had actually brought it up (And the name): The nazis, in their attemots to gather a single world museum, had come across the veil of this women, which had kept the shape of the woman's face, like that of Jesus apparently did (Haven't read that part of the bible). In addition to this, she was also claimed to have done the ressurection bit 3 days later. (One of the miracles that I went over in the first part) The nazis had used this secret of the church to help keep their power base, as the Pope did not want the secret getting out, which made it possible for the Pope to not tell the Germans to stop doing what they were doing. --Slokunshialgo 02:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that Slokunshialgo has posted here is total nonsense. Zoe had the right of it. B00P 03:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Life Church

Would it be against christen teaching and beliefs to become an ordained minister for the Universal Life Church?

@@ Line 1,234: / Line 1,234: @@
 Everything that Slokunshialgo has posted here is total nonsense. Zoe had the right of it. [[User:B00P|B00P]] 03:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
+== Universal Life Church ==
+Would it be against christen teaching and beliefs to become an ordained minister for the Universal Life Church?