The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
To the same extent that for-profit endeavors are affected. The economies of scale may be more difficult to measure because the objective of a philanthropic endeavor is not as clearly defined as is the objective of a for-profit endeavor (i.e., the profit itself). However, difficulty in measuring a phenomenon does not imply that the phenonenon does not exist. Wikiant (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Universalism in Sydney
Are there any churches or congregrations of any Christian Universalist denominations in Sydney, Australia? Are there any Unitarian Universalist churches or congregrations there? Are there any churches or congregrations that are Christian Universalist but not Unitarian Universalist there? Bowei Huang (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The WP article on Christian Universalism contains a link at the bottom, which indicates that this is a member of the CU Association. They are, however, in Victoria and not in NSW.
The WP article un Unitarian Universalism contains a link at the bottom which indicates that The Unitarian Church of South Australia Inc. is a member of the UU Association. They are, however, in SA and not in NSW. There is no website but an email address is given. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Legal restrictions on individual behavior in public and definitions of what's acceptable are likely to be based on "prevailing community standards." If you're unfamiliar with public attitudes in the United States on this and other matters, you can probably learn a great deal through web accessible journalistic and entertainment media and corresponding internet forums such as Yahoo!Answers. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a TV commercial running right now in the U.S. that says a lot. It shows a family that is vacationing in Spain and, because they don't have AT&T, didn't get a phone call warning them that the beach they were to visit is a nude beach. So they get there and the parents are horribly shocked that they're at a nude beach. The message is that if you don't have AT&T phone service, horrible things will happen to you, like you'll accidentally go to a nude beach with your kids. As for why American culture is so conservative about nudity, that's a very difficult question to answer. Most cultures have some sort of taboo regarding exposure of parts of the body. Some cover the penis but not the buttocks; others cover both and giggle at those that leave the buttocks uncovered. It's noteworthy that most Americans have no qualms about "consenting adults" being naked, but they think there's something horribly wrong with children seeing naked people, and by children here they mean anyone under 18. Many American parents would jump in front of a bus to keep their kids from seeing nudity. I don't think they've really thought about why this is any more than they think about other taboos, such as not urinating in public. Most Americans would be shocked to find that in some countries, there are topless women on advertisements. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The USA's attitude towards the human body exposed is a complete joke. This is a country that choked on the sight of a NIPPLE on television, cueing an orgy of lawsuits, legislation, fines, acts and other lunacy over something that any human can see by looking down. Exxolon (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To supply some perspective, I think Americans view the AT&T commercial as they do ones with football-playing bottles and shower gels that make you irresistible: the commercials are playful and taken seriously only by the dense and the agenda-ridden. Similarly, the "choking" of the pre-planned nipple incident was limited mainly to the FCC, the fearful network, the craven sponsors, leaders of easily upset bodies of believers, and the media -- the latter, lacking any other bright, shiny things, kept flogging the issue almost till a court threw out the FCC's fine against the network. — OtherDave (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When doing reserch I came across a date of 700's B.C.E. I know what the B.C. stands for, but what does the E. stand for? 15:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)15:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)15:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)15:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)~~ -- Tcthoma2
The BCE/CE notion seems to me pernicious, as this 'Common Era' is merely another name for the Christian era. As someone said on another subject, "You'll have the thing itself, but you won't have the name for it". Kenneth G. Wilson has commented on the same lines "If we do end by casting aside the A.D./B.C. convention, almost certainly some will argue that we ought to cast aside as well the conventional numbering system itself, given its Christian basis." Strawless (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Name of a Greek Citizen in Ancient Greek Society and his occupation
On a popular programme "Who wants to be a Millionaire" a question was asked on the occupation of this man 4 options - Sculptor, Actor, + 2 I have forgotten. The contestent did not answer the question and went home. This was a repeat edition ("classic"!) and the Questionmaster did not give the answer; the editing had removed it. I could find no mention of him in my Longmans Larrousse.
Can yo help?
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.68.81 (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this probably fits better here than in Language, but I'm not sure. In BG&E stanza 146, Nietzsche writes:
He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss,
the abyss will also gaze into thee.
Yet I've also seen a translation (actually, in Watchmen that reads as:
Battle not with monsters, lest you become a monster. And if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
which is similar but subtly different. In the first version, he warns us to be careful while doing something, while in the second he warns us against doing it. Does anyone here know the original German well enough to know which translation is closer to what he wrote/meant? Matt Deres (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The German is Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein. The first option is much more accurate than the second; it's pretty close to a literal translation (my German is not very good but the structure is pretty obvious), though it is rendered into antiquated English for some reason. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what seems to be going on, but since Sie is formal and du is familiar, wouldn't you be closer to the original meaning? It might just be a personal choice of the translator (I got the text from Gutenberg). Anyway, thanks for the clarification; kind of a shame though, the second is much more powerful sounding. Matt Deres (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You in modern English is both formal and familiar. If you want to distinguish between the two (as in very close translation), you go back to older forms of the language, in which thou was familiar and you formal. Algebraist00:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see; I wasn't aware of that last bit. I was considering things the other way as we now use words like thee and thou when we're trying to sound archaic and/or formal. Perhaps a fresh translation made today would make use of that shift and use you in that context to preserve the familiarity. Matt Deres (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thee, thou and thy are certainly archaic these days, but they aren't really formal. They are used to refer to God, for instance, with the intention of showing a familiarity with God. --Tango (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I don't think a modern translation would use the "thou" and whatnot. It's distracting and certainly not there in the original. Sie is formal but it doesn't mean thou. Du certainly doesn't mean thou—du is the familiar form, not the formal one. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the second is much more powerful sounding. I dunno, I prefer the first, even if it sounds a bit awkward. Plus I never thought of Nietzsche as being one to tell people what not to do. Rather, do what you will, but in some cases, take some care? Also, I like the notion that you must gaze long into the abyss for it to gaze back at you. A glance won't do it. Pfly (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bit that worries me about the translation of the first translation is that he says "And if thou gaze long...", where "And if thou gazest long...". If you use 'thou' as a pronoun, it usually sounds better if the verb agrees with it, by using the -(e)st verb inflection. However, it becomes a spiral when you consider that you perhaps should also include the 3rd person -(e)th ending. And what about plurals? Thus spiralling. Steewi (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"If thou gaze long" is grammatically correct. It's subjunctive - another feature, like the formal and familiar second persons, that is common in other languages but not well understood in English and is probably on the way to dying out completely. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Loking for information about the roles of a police officer, probation officer within the youth offending serice please.
Hi, I'am currently studying an Open University Course (Under Grad) on Youth Justice. I have looked but cannot
find the information that I require. Also new as of today, (Saturday30th August 2008). Would be great if some-one could help me out with this.
Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craftychef (talk • contribs) 22:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the Baptist articles in Wikipedia but when I went to find some info in the Christianity Portal and some other areas... I kept finding a blank area void of any refrences to Baptist... although the lists go from the Largest denomination to the smallest... the Baptist articles were no where to be seen?
I dont think the problem is in not having an article.. the problem is that the articles are not refrenced in the Portal.
Portal:Christianity doesn't generally contain specific articles on any given denomination. For the purpose of a portal, see Wikipedia:Portal. There are however many articles on the Baptist denomination. Wikiproject:Christianity is the place to go to voice your input about Baptist related articles as a whole, and there's always the specific articles' talk pages. You are also welcome to edit the articles, and you may join Wikiproject:Christianity if you would like too. There are many denomination-related wikiprojects and workgroups working through the wikiprojects. I'm kinda surprised there isn't a Baptist one yet (although there is an Anabaptist work group. Kristamaranatha (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Public domain MP3\OGG Japanese\Chinese\Greek music for download?
We're creating a website with three themes (ancient oriental cultures, ancient Greek cultures and ancient European monarchies), and we'd like to use some background music. I'd like to know if you guys know of any good sources to download suitable music. They should have an open license, like public domain, since the website is promotional and I wouldn't like to violate any licenses by commercial use.
Even if you don't know where to download any specific music, it would also be of great help if you could provide the name of particular instruments or genres of the time, since those kind of keywords usually help to track these down.
I am trying to remember the details of an incident which took place at a national political convention in the United States, most likely in 1984, 1988, or 1992. It could have been either the Democratic or Republican convention, but more likely the Republican convention.
The party was taking a roll call vote by states for either president or vice president, and the party was sufficiently unified that the expected candidate received all of the votes in the roll call. (So it probably wasn't the Democratic convention, because in each of those years the presidential candidate was not nominated unanimously, and our articles on the Democratic conventions for those years indicate that the vice presidential candidates in those years were nominated by acclamation rather than a state-by-state roll call.)
The unusual incident was that at first, the expected candidate did not receive one particular vote. The delegation chair from some state announced that the state was casting all except one of its votes for the expected candidate, and one vote for some unusual character. And by unusual, I mean someone whose name did not even sound like that of a regular person. It was a name like "Chickenman". After a moment of bewilderment, the delegation chair announced that there was a change to the state's votes, and the state was now casting all of its votes for the expected candidate. So the roll call vote went down in the records as being unanimous for the expected candidate.
My questions are: What convention did this take place at, and who was the unusual character voted for at first? (And, if anyone knows, why did the delegate do that?) --Metropolitan90(talk)04:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There have been attention-seeking persons who have managed to grab the mike and announce bogus votes for themselves, which were repudiated when the actual state delegation regained control of the microphone. I recall a well-known political humorist doing this at one convention, announcing that some delegation cast one vote for him and the rest for the real choice. Edison2 (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who do you think you are?
Seriously, man!... (Sorry, couldn't resist the title):) But really "who" are you? And for that matter, who the hell am I!? A collection of experiences? Memories, like on a computer, can be deleted (thru damage, viruses, etc.). A natural result of our culture? If that's the case, forget about being "individual". Why are you "you", and me "me"? Is it just a matter of semantics? The more similar our physiology, the more we'd know about each other. Even if we just met. We might even "be" the same thing (at least on some levels). That's one of the ways mind readers and psychological shysters in general can tell you a lot about yourself. What kind of psychic pseudo-well are we drawing from that gives us our sense of identity?
I conclude that nobody spoke Turkish in Anatolia. Turkish people originated in Turkistan which is east of the Caspian Sea. Even in a region that would be at the center of modern Turkey (e.g. Cappadocia or Cilicia) the people spoke Greek. Turkish speaking gained its momentum starting with the Seljuks after 1000-1100 CE.--71.118.38.240 (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one has mentioned the most obvious proximate cause, the Battle of Manzikert... If the early Arab caliphates had succeeded in conquering Anatolia, then that area might be Arabic-speaking today -- in which case, the intellectual history of the West might have been very different, since it's quite possible that a very significant fraction of Greek writings of the types that the Arabs weren't interested in (such as history, mythology, fiction, epics, poetry, etc.) would have been lost forever. AnonMoos (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard it said before that a Greek is merely a Christian Turk, and a Turk is merely a Muslim Greek. Refering to how totally the two populations merged following the Turkish immigrations, and how ethnically homogenous the two nations remain to this day. With this in mind, its important to note that the linguistic shift was not a result of ethnic cleansing; instead, it was simply a case of a Turkish-speaking élite replacing a (ineffectual and unpopular) Greek-speaking élite. Anyone who wanted to communicate with the new élite needed to know Turkish, and thus there was a huge impotus to learn the language, even if they did still speak Greek in their homes or in their churches. 82.36.179.20 (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ALGER HISS
Reading the reference to Alger Hiss and the information about his spouse, according to the reference he was born in 1904 and married one year before in 1903 or was this his wifes birthdate?
Last year of peace in recorded history? Was there really ever one?
Today, I heard a quote that I've heard a few other times; some historian had said there were only a couple hundred years of peace int he 6000 years of recorded history.
My question is, what was the quoted person's criteria? Did the person try to count days or months when there were no hostilities? I searched in the archives of the reference desk, and found that someone had guessed 1906-1910, though the U.S./Philippines War was then. And, the poster said it was probably just days and months that added together. I'm just wondering if said philosopher had any particular time in mind; I seem to reclall this philosopher said a less than round number, which implies counting to me. Somebody or his brother (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is safe to say that in the last 6,000 years there has always been some kind of hostility between one group of people and another. If you are talking about "nations" maybe not, but I'm not sure nations have been all that common over the last 6,000 years. In any case there's no way to know, since there is no recorded history for most people over the last 6,000 years. Even in the case of recorded history, a few centuries sounds like a lot. I'd be skeptical. First I'd want to know how the historian defined "peace" and "hostilities". Pfly (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the answer depends highly on your definitions. For example, do you require actual fighting, a declaration of war, or both? The two are often very separate. As far as I know, the US is not officially at war with anyone (the "war on terror" is just political posturing), yet it is certainly involved fighting. Conversely, North and South Korea are no longer actively fighting each other yes, as far as I know, they are still officially at war (they've signed an armistice, but no peace treaty). So, would those conflicts be included as "hostilities" or not? --Tango (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, in recorded history there isn't a year of universal peace. No doubt the expression 'last year of peace' has often been used (and in many languages, we can suppose) on a more local basis. The historian of a particular country might well be able to find hundreds of years of peace, if by peace we mean an absence of war. Xn4 (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be easy to find a year in which (say) no European powers were shooting at each other, or when no developed nations were waging declared war on one another. Would such a year be a year of peace? Maybe not; there are "peacekeeping missions" (of the UN, for instance) that involve exchanging fire with the locals; there are "tribal conflicts" in less-developed parts of the world; and then there are "insurrections" or "rebellions" and the "police actions" to put them down. These are all non-peace situations for the people living in them, even though they may not represent war between nations. --FOo (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Old Norse litterary/ historical reference for "Blokumannaland"
Hello!
For an article I am in the process of creating, I would need an exact reference of where (in which texts)the Old Norse term "Blokumannaland" referring (or at least presumed as referring) to regions inhabited by Wlachs/Romanians is attested. I think one of them is the "Heimskringla" but I'm not sure. I was told that it is attested also in at least one erected runic inscription, but the person could not remember which one. Can anyone help? Cristixav (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to this handy side-by-side translation, there's a reference in the first line of the 21st and final chapter of the Saga of Håkon Herdebreid, itself the penultimate story in Heimskringla. See 21. Olaf's miracle in favor of the Varings. Karenjc17:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blokumannaland cannot be identified with the land of Wallachians/Vlachs/Romanians. Eventually, it can be identified with the "land of the Kumans".
What are the world's earliest known silly songs?
Before offering possibilities, let me explain what I have in mind:
It can be in any language. It can be a children's song or a more general folk song
It has to be a song (with a known melody and lyrics); no traditional nursery rhymes, riddles or poems unless they are inextricably and historically tied to a specific melody.
The words must be overtly absurd, childish or nonsensical, as opposed to ironic, clever, literary.
In English, one of the earliest we have music for is Sumer is icumen in. In Western music, we don't have many melodies written down before the early middle ages. I couldn't tell you about other world music. Steewi (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Open Flag
Hello. How has the open flag (horizontal stripes from top to bottom: red, white with the word "OPEN" in the centre, blue) become popular and originated? It looks similar to the flag of the Netherlands. Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are these popular outside of the States? Probably just some sign company with a good marketing idea to prey on the subliminal patriotism that is implied with the color scheme. Dismas|(talk)05:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see them quite often here in Vermont as well as other places around the country. It's a common item and like I said, probably just a good choice of colors that implies a patriotic store owner. Dismas|(talk)06:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
September 1
Death rate
I vaguely remember reading on the Internet that 50% of girls died before a certain age in the 17th century. Can anyone find the source or other webpage that provides similar data? The original source was about the human population. --99.237.101.48 (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try Infant mortality, the death-rate for girls (and boys) under the age of 5 was much much higher in the past than it is now - infact this is often counted as one of the main-causes of the low life-expectency average (the large number of low-age deaths affecting the average - when in real terms if you survived to adulthood you'd likely also survive to 'old age'). Can't get to other sites but a search for 'historic infant mortality rates' or something similar in Google would probably get you statistical information. Obviosuly the country you're interested in in particularly will be useful to include in any searches if you want country specific information. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The American concept of rags to riches. Does it still apply?
Let’s say we have two hypothetical case studies as follows. Assuming no special luck or talent (e.g. winning the lottery, turning out to be a bestselling author, etc.), is it realistically possible for either of these Americans to reach a point where that person is earning < over $100,000/year before retirement? What is the fastest, most secure path to reach this point?
Case No. 1: A high school freshman going to a poor public high school with a family that lives bellow the poverty line and gets by on food stamps and payday loans.
Case No. 2: A 30 year old immigrant bus driver with no high school diploma and a limited English vocabulary.
I don't think this is a good way to get at the question of whether the "rags to riches" concept applies today (if it ever really did). "Rags to riches" is a trope that when applied politically is usually a justification for giving no special assistance to the poor, since they have "opportunity." But everyone with half a brain knows that the rich have far more "opportunity", and always have. To know whether the question "still applied" you'd want to know whether the number of people whose incomes as children that were below the poverty line who then made it to "riches" (however defined) was significant (or had changed over time). Individual case studies (or anecdotes) shed no more light on this issue than, say, the case of Michael Jordan does for the likelihood that a child might become a star basketball player. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but let’s disregard the political baggage included in that term okay. :) I’m interested in the concept, whatever it’s called. And indeed statistics such as that would be very helpful. I’m also interested in how it could best be accomplished though, so not anecdotes precisely, but rather what the most effective course for escaping poverty is today. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the "effective course" would depend on a million other variables you have not defined either. We don't know if these people are smart, dumb, motivated, diseased, whatever. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I assume you mean >$100,000.) I don't have statistics to back this up, but I would say the high school freshman has a greater chance of achieving success in America.
the freshman (most likely) speaks English, America's language, and the international language of business
the freshman is more likely to receive a high school diploma than the bus driver
There are two questions: "Is it realistically possible…", to which the obvious answer is Yes. The second asks "What is the fastest, most secure path to reach this point?", which is what I replied to. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It will be steady, but rarely will a bus driver earn over $100,000 per year. Is it the tour bus driver for an international best-selling rock band? For a drug cartel? For a human trafficking ring? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. It’s a dead end job. How could such a person progress to a position where they could make upper middle class wages though? Is it possible today? --S.dedalus (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that if we assume that they are otherwise equal in health, motivation, intelligence, etc that their chances are pretty much equal. If we go more towards generalities or averages of the two groups, then we come to differences in such elements. For instance, I suspect 30-year old immigrants tend to be a bit more motivated than average American teenagers. On the other hand, it seems likely that the bus driver will be much busier than the teenager, who may have more free time to develop his entrepreneurial plan. Newfangled inventions don't count as exceptions, do they? — Ƶ§œš¹[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]06:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless the inventions are particularly brilliant. :) It strikes me that “inventor” isn’t exactly the safest road to financial security however. After walking around Nordstrom a couple days a ago it strikes me that “fashion designer” might be a rather lucrative career path. lol. That wouldn’t be a very safe career either though. --S.dedalus (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In essence you appear to be look for statistics on Social mobility. Trying to find answers to 2 very specific cases is worthless - across the entire nation there will be real-life examples that meet your criteria for case 1 - case 2 is probably too specific to make that generalisation though. Social-mobility is a well studied area so i'm sure you'll find plenty of reports by using that in search terms. Don't have chance to scout around for firm stats but i'm sure a bit of googling should get you somewhere. May repost later if get time to look myself. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question is poorly formed. "Riches" in the US is based on capital, not wages. A person making >$100,000/yr. is often not rich: this person can easily have a negative net worth. It is still the case that most new millionares (those who start with nothing and now have a net worth of > $1,000,000) are immigrants who start a small labor-intensive business such as a resturant. this is "rags to riches" with a vengance. Most Americans do not think of these people as "Rich" during the early years, but many of them move into expensive homes, and many of them raise highly-motivated children who do very well in High School and at University. I know a bunch of these kids and I have met their hard-working parents, The children will end up "rich" in the sense you use, and some of them started with nothing (Vietnamese boat children) as little kids, but their actual start is based on the parent's hard work and enterprise. -Arch dude (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. I’m not sure we can really call that “rags to riches” though in a classical sense since it would essentially be a two generation process. On the other hand I’m sure there are many cases where a poor immigrant family starts a business which then becomes more popular than expected and they end up as CEOs. That seems to include quite a bit of luck though. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ways I've seen it often portrayed fall into two areas for me: 1) Lottery - person wins a lottery and suddenly has $50 million to play with. Properly invested and managed, this would leave you with a good income for life. However, the usual end result of lottery winners is mismanaged funds, so it's not as realistic as it sounds. 2) Hard work and a lot of luck. This is where the person has the hot idea that is successfully marketed and becomes more than a lasting fad. The good idea is the start, followed by protecting the idea, marketing it and having the luck that it takes hold in the public consciousness. This has happened before (no examples come to mind, unfortunately - perhaps Microsoft and Apple?), but it is rare. Most of the people who have the good ideas can't get them started from their initial situation of poverty and/or uneducation. More luck is needed to stop them getting conned by big business, and more again for the product to be publicly successful, and further more luck for the success to be continued for more than a short duration. Steewi (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are lots of ordinary professions where you can earn about $100,00/year or more: economist, investment banker, surgeon, anaesthesiologist, etc. My first thought was that the best/only real way to get out of the above cases would be some combination of education, thriftiness, and very hard work (lots of scholarship applications and such). Is this not possible? I get the sense that most rich people do not become rich through any “get rich fast” plan. It usually seems to involve years of work and carful positioning. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What can people tell me about Venetian spies - especially in the 16th century? What form did the secret intelligence system take? Were there ranks among the spies? Who controlled them? Are there any famous spies? Any information at all would be appreciated, thanks.
Giacomo Casanova is fairly famous, and he did a bit of spying for the Council of Ten, as described here. Earlier, of course, he himself had been locked away as a result of information supplied by another spy. From reading his Histoire de ma vie, one gets the impression that, in the eighteenth century at least, spies were everywhere in the city. Deor (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The EU flag is also the flag of the non-related Council of Europe, of which Georgia is a member. However, members of such organisations usually don't use their flags next to their own one on a regular basis. Do you mean that the president of Georgia always uses the EU flag, or are you referring to a particular picture? In that case, it is likely that the photo was taken at a meeting with the EU or the Council of Europe. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this too. I take it as a sign that he wants his country to join the European Union. Whether this happens or not is a different question, but I guess nobody can really stop him from using the European flag. — Kpalion(talk)21:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure if the EU asked him to stop, he would. It doesn't do any harm, the EU is being quite supportive of Georgia at the moment. If the EU weren't supporting Georgia, then it would be rather misleading for him to make political statements while standing in front of an EU flag, but that's not the case. --Tango (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a photo in this morning's paper of a large demonstration in the streets of Tblisi, the protesters were carrying large Georgian and EU flags. It seems to be a common thing, perhaps they are trying to emphasize their Europeanness? Corvus cornixtalk18:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me (citation needed...) that Georgia is feeling attacked by two of the three superpowers (literally in the case of one of them) and, seeing some sympathy from the EU, wishes to show some level of Europeanness as much as they can. The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a quote from Ayn Rand I found quite interesting:
In free competition, no one could corner the market on a needed product.
I did a google search on that quote and found a 1962 essay by Nathaniel Branden, which defends this thesis: "In the whole history of capitalism, no one has been able to establish a coercive monopoly by means of competition on a free market. There is only one way to forbid entry into a given field of production: by law. Every single coercive monopoly that exists or ever has existed—in the United States, in Europe or anywhere else in the world—was created and made possible only by an act of government: by special franchises, licenses, subsidies, by legislative actions which granted special privileges (not obtainable on a free market) to a man or a group of men, and forbade all others to enter that particular field."
Has there been any more intellectual discussion about this? Ayn Rand is a pretty serious philosopher, so I bet people have researched this argument. It's also 50 years out of date now--is there any further comment on this argument? 24.207.131.200 (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First... Thanks for asking a valid question. Most people would just ask "Tell me about monopolies?"
The argument you bring up is not commonplace. It is the basis of arguments against software patents. Patents create monopolies by making it possible for one and only one company to provide a product. It is understandable when the item being patented requires many years of work and/or a lot of money to develop, but makes no sense in software. All it does is create monopolies on simple programming designs. -- kainaw™22:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Software patents are no more or less similar to monopolies than all patents, which are explicitly a special form of limited monopoly. It doesn't really get at the question of whether a totally free market would give rise to monopolies or not. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the argument is commonplace among libertarian-oriented economists. It tends to bear out as well. After interviewing many such economists, I've become convinced that there is merit to the argument that monopolies-as-creation-of-the-state are far more numerous than monopolies-as-resultants-of-the-market. Wikiant (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find the software argument curious. When that happens, I tend to substitute another word (in this case "shoes") for the one that seems odd ("software"). And, lo and behold, in fact a monopoly on a specific software product would quickly be replaced by another software product, if the price was unreasonable. Just as no one could monopolize shoes, so too, with software. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may be different in countries across the world, I can't think of any state-sanctioned monopoly that wouldn't be a monopoly without the state regulating the market, i.e. natural monopoly, in my country, the Netherlands. State regulation or ownership of such monopolies may be beneficial, see the "Regulation" section of the natural monopoly article. User:Krator (tc) 07:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The natural monopoly argument does not hold in the long run. (For the non-economists: The natural monopoly argument says that some products, because of the large fixed costs associated with their production, can be produced at a low cost per unit only when so many units are produced that entire market supply must come from a single firm.) For example, in the US, railroads were considered natural monopolies because of the huge cost of laying miles of track (ignoring for the moment the US government's contribution to railroad monopolies via regulation). But, that monopoly existed only until invention of the automobile and then the airplane. That is, on the rare occassion when cross-firm competition is not possible, cross-industry competition achieves the same effect. In the end, the monopoly cannot survive as a monopoly. Wikiant (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiant, I am familiar with that criticism of the natural monopoly argument and I agree with it too. Yet, it does apply here, I believe. To use your example, would a monopoly in the rail travel market fit Branden's statement above? (Namely, that "Every single coercive monopoly that exists or ever has existed—in the United States, in Europe or anywhere else in the world—was created and made possible only by an act of government") Sure, the monopoly wouldn't last forever as you correctly point out, but it wouldn't be there only by act of government, debunking most of Branden's statement and the validity of the libertarian side of the debate. Because, regulating a market that's bound to be in the hands of a monopoly anyway is a good thing, as the regulation section in the natural monopoly article points out. Regulation may of course do bad things too, but that's a matter of writing the right laws, not of an inherent flaw. User:Krator (tc) 14:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the surviving crinoline staircases in London? I am aware of the one in No 1 Greek Street (the House of St Barnabas) but I believe there are others.
What is thought to be the earliest use of this style of staircase balustrade and when did this style fall into disuse?
If they were, as I believe, used in the C18, why are they so called when the crinoline was not invented until the C19?
I would be grateful for any related information.
Sorry, one more census query. It's just for curiotsity's sake. Though, it might tie in to my other query (which, BTW, I foudn the people - somehow "alternate spelling" doesn't factor turning a z into an s.)
How did the census takers count people on stagecoach routes? This actually could account for a good percentage of the missed, though I know they had assigned routes. And, supposing a census taker in, say, 1850 was assigned to travel a wagon train route looking for peopole; how did the counter figure the person's domicile? Just where they happened to be standing? (Oh, I'd be so tempted to stand in the Four Corner States with a foot half in each if that's true :-) Somebody or his brother (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the modern UK census, I believe you get put on the form for wherever you spend the night on that particular day (or, probably where are you at a particular time during the night, just in case people move around). I expect the old US censuses were similar. --Tango (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, as I say, it's not done by individual, it's done by place. The inn where you spend the night would have the form and would write you down on it. (I don't know if there were inns frequently enough to stay in one every night - if you sleep under the stars, you may well be missed.) --Tango (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was the first Anarchist Exclusion Act ever repealed? Can you still be barred entry to the United States nowadays for "disbeliev[ing] in or... oppos[ing] all organized government, or [being] a member of or affiliated with any organization entertaining or teaching such disbelief in or opposition to all organized government"? --superioridad(discusión)02:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IANAL, but of course the ACLU would have a field day. John Turner lost his case (where he said that the law was unconstitutional) because the Supreme Court said the Constitution didn't apply to aliens. Since various judges have said since that it does actually apply to aliens (including, iirc, Judge Hens Green in the case of the Guantánamo Bay detainees), perhaps things have changed around a bit since then? But again, I'm not a lawyer. The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indian politics and US politics
I want to know some facts about general US public attitude towards Indian politics.
I am not an American, so I may be out of line. I do know a goodly number of educated Americans, or, given what I am about to add, would I be better to say "schooled" Americans? I think your averge U.S. (or Canadian) citizen barely knows that India exists on any level beyond the Taj Mahal and the Kohinoor diamond. If they know anything of the politics, it would likely be limited to Ghandi and/or Indira Ghandi.This average person would not recognize the names of the political parties and is unlikely to know what Hindutva is. Even if you were to explain the concept of Hindu nationalism, I doubt one in a hundred would either understand or care. I say this in some personal embarrassment because I had to click on Hindutva myself to find out what it was about. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your average citizen also probably doesn't know how to spell Gandhi. --Anon, with a non-violent smile, 08:50 UTC, September 2, 2008.
I have a college degree. Two of them, in fact, and working on a third. And I would have to echo Bielle's points. Most college educated Americans when asked about India would probably think of the tech support that they got the last time they had computer issues. India just isn't that much of a concern to most Americans to know that much about it. I'm sorry if this bothers you but that's the way it is. Dismas|(talk)06:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are greatly overestimating what the average college educated American knows about national politics of various nations. I had no idea what Jamaat-e-Islami was before clicking on that link and I doubt anyone that I know would either. I would probably have a hard time finding any American who could name even one political party of a foreign nation. We may be able to tell you the forms of government that are used in various nations such as England, Germany, Russia, Cuba, and China but as far as political parties go, we'd be hard pressed to come up with the names of any of them. And just because we discuss Iran, that doesn't mean that we know about the politics of the country. Dismas|(talk)08:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, keep in mind that Americans don't view India as any sort of current or potential threat, as they do with China, Russia, and most of the Mid-East, and that the influence of events in India on the lives of average Americans is, to be honest, pretty minimal, with the singular possible exception of outsourcing. AlexiusHoratius08:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is the issue how a particular event within a particular country will affect average American's lives. For example I can say what is happening in Chechnya has nothing to do with average Americans' lives, but they are concerned with Chechnya, but not with Kashmir. I will rather more or less agree with Alexius's first argument that "Americans don't view India as any sort of current or potential threat, as they do with China, Russia, and most of the Mid-East". Another fact is probably media. The American media, especially local American media outlets like The New York Times, Los Angeles Times etc give more emphasis on the internal issues of countries like Venezuela. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who says that the average American has any idea what's going on in Chechnya? Or Kashmir? I read the news on a nearly daily basis and listen to it while driving to and from work on NPR. Neither of those places have caught my eye/ear in months if not more than a year. I'm curious, what country are you in? Dismas|(talk)10:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not American, I'm British, but I consider myself pretty well educated and I follow the news quite closely, and I know next to nothing about Indian politics, and don't know what Hindutva is without looking it up. I can tell you a little about Indian economics, but that's about it. India gets mentioned as an emerging economy, but other that it doesn't play a major role on the world stage. I know what's happening in Pakistani politics, because that's all over the news lately, I know what's happening with Russia because that's in the news all the time too. I don't know much about Chinese politics beyond the human rights abuses that get on the news, since as far as I know there isn't all that much Chinese politics, it's a one party state. I know what Chechnya and Kashmir are, but haven't heard anything about them recently. The media generally reports on things they expect their audience to be interested in (that's what sells newspapers), and I don't think anything particularly interesting to the rest of the world is happening in India at the moment. --Tango (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kashmir is in the news at present, as is the massive flooding, but Indian natural disasters don't get as much UK airtime as American ones for some reason. I am also British, and the last event I remember in Indian politics per se is Sonia Gandhi declining the primeministership four years ago. btw, China has plenty of politics, it just takes place within the Party. Algebraist11:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Americans have long been very anti-communist (with almost religious ferocity), which explains the interest in Chavez (I'm not sure he strictly qualifies as communist, but he's close enough to interest Americans). Are Americans particularly interested in Falun Gong? The British aren't, from what I've seen. Palestine is of interest because the US played such a major part in founding Israel. I don't think there are any particular reasons for Americans to be interested in the other 3 things you mention. --Tango (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Massive flooding during monsoon season isn't anything new. I understand that these floods are worse than usual, but are they as much worse than usual as Gustav is (or was potentially) worse than a usual hurricane season? Also, remember people are often more interested in things than are happening to people they can relate to - the US is much more like the UK than India is. --Tango (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what the average college educated American knows about India: Gandhi, caste system, don't eat cows, lots of gods, sitar, Mother Teresa, poverty, curry, Bollywood. Here's what the average college educated American knows about Indian politics: _____. —KevinMyers12:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My question is what is the reason behind the overall attitude which is answered by Tango above. Some typical American views are Muslims are violent, Putin is a dictator and Iran is a terrorist country. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Te term is stereotype - just as you stereotype the views of 'americans' so will others stereotype the views of other groups. Across the whole of American there will be people who believe all manner of different thigns on each of the points you mention. There will be pro-muslim, anti-muslim and indifferent to muslim, there will be putin-fans, putin haters and people who are indifferent to him. Etc. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe American views should be stereotyped because American worldview vastly differs from the view of the rest of the world (let aside some EU states) and also differs from reality. No one can deny average Americans view Muslims as inherently violent. As Kevin Myers suggested the American view above, American view towards India is horribly wrong after you read the articles Economy of India, Indian Armed Forces, India and weapons of mass destruction, Integrated Guided Missile Development Program etc. By GDP (PPP), India ranks 4th in the world and Indian Air Force is the fourth largest air force which is stronger than Royal Air Force. India is also considered to be a Potential superpower. See Potential_superpowers#India. Americans believe Vladimir Putin is a repressive dictator despite the fact more than 80% of Russian population supports him [1]. See Putin#Support. The Criticism of Vladimir Putin primarily comes from a handful of individuals, see Putin#Criticism, it mention he has widespread support in Russia. Americans carefully ignore the view of Russian population and emphasize the view of certain anti-Putin political activists. Americans still view the rest of the world as they viewed it 50 years back. For this reason, I believe general American view should be stereotyped because their worldview is certainly wrong view and unrelated to the real world. The term "American viewpoint" should also be used in a derogatory sense to denote wrong and fringe political viewpoints. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "I believe American views should be stereotyped because American worldview vastly differs from the view of the rest of the world". They may on average differ from the rest of the world, but the rest of the world isn't unanimous in their views either. Anyway, because Americans' views are different that means they should be stereotyped? Most of your generalizations about Americans aren't just stereotypes, they're wrong. Americans are divided on Putin. Most don't have any opinion on him at all. Also, being popular doesn't immunize one from the charge of being a dictator. The historical examples of popular dictators are numerous. Where is your evidence that Americans' views on the world are 50 years old? Your whole argument is a tautology: Because of the stereotypical American, Americans deserve to be stereotyped. There's no excuse for stereotyping anyone. It's just intellectual laziness. —D. Monacktalk19:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As other posters have noted, the fact that many Americans don't know anything about India seems to distress you. It's not a deliberate choice on their part. India is (to most Americans) far away and seems a very alien culture.
I was born in Canada but grew up in the United States. To put your questions about India in perspective, my guess would be that not one American voter in five could name the two largest political parties in Canada; not two in five could name the prime minister; at least half, if asked the title of the leader of Canada, would say "president." I don't think one American in 20 could name all the provinces; except for Americans living in the upper midwest, for the most part the average American couldn't find Saskatchewan on an unlabeled map of the prairie provinces. Most Americans, I think, would simply not believe you if you said America's trade with Canada (imports and exports) is nearly 50% larger than America's trade with China.
If this is the case for Canada, with whom the U.S. shares a border of nearly 9,000 kilometers, a nation where nearly 80% of the people speak English as a first language, and a nation millions of Americans can drive to, why be surprised at the U.S. view of India? — OtherDave (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking from Norway, another country where the US Democratic party would beat the US republicans by a huge margin if the population, main news channels etc were asked, I'd assume that, if people knew much about Indian politics, any nationalists would come out bad. That would mean support for Congress (not least because Gandhi remains an iconic figure) and skepticism towards any Hindu nationalist organization (which I assume Hindutva to be; I didn't look it up). But this country may not be typical; confrontation and nationalism is viewed, in a way, as something remote and perhaps uncivilized in this country which has been lucky to get away from most conflicts over the last centuries (save a relatively peaceful yet of course troublesome Nazi occupation). Yet it is my impression (having only been to the US once and that was several years ago) that a similar mechanism could be at work for the US. You might have to subtract some skepticism of Muslim organization (which would make any anti-Muslim org come out better) though. Jørgen (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The US is strongly skeptical of all nationalisms and fundamentalisms other than its own, which it embraces largely uncritically. (Sigh...) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an American I can tell you that Americans don't know much about events outside our country. After all, we just nominated a vice presidential candidate of one of the two major parties a person who didn't have a passport before last year. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the advantage of bartering stuff vs. selling and buying? It seems to me that always when you have some sort of currency the process will work more efficiently. Mr.K.(talk)17:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currency makes all transactions possible. Every item and service may be given a price and the currency seamlessly allows the transactions of items and services among the people. In strict bartering, transactions become difficult. What if I want some cheese, but I'm a website designer. The cheese guy doesn't want a website. But, he wants some gasoline. I talk to a gasoline guy, but he doesn't want a website. However, he says that he is interested in a new computer. I talk to a computer guy and he says he'll give me a computer for a website. So, I make his website, get the computer, and go to the gas guy. By that time, he already got a new computer. So, I'm stuck with a computer I don't want and I still don't have any cheese. Bartering sucks. -- kainaw™17:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the barter deals put together to get around the fact that Communist economies had limited "hard" currency reserves were almost as baroque... AnonMoos (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One advantage of bartering is that the parties involved often find ways to conceal the value of the transaction from the tax authorities. A housepainter might barter his services for dental work; neither the dentist nor the painter claims the value of the work done as income. (I'm not saying this is legal, only that it's possible.) — OtherDave (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you have currency, using it is pretty much always the best option. Bartering is handy when you don't have currency. This can happen due to you living in a society without currency (the past, say), or due to a lack of whatever is used as currency (caused by hyperinflation, say). --Tango (talk) 04:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think from, a writing perspective, the 'but' emphasizes both the similarity of the /sol/ sound in both words and the difference in meaning; it helps to point out that 'solder' is not in fact 'soulder'. Even though I've heard the song I can't remember the name of it or the artist but I don't remember it being religious at all. If it were then it would be understandable to think of it as a reference to that metaphor being used in a lot of religious traditions, so they'd be essentially saying they're not zealots. But I think it's really more of the literary reason. - Lambajan17:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good fight Kainaw, but this seems like a funny place for it. Most poetry is just asking to be understood and if we all had to go directly to the source for any kind of explanation whenever there was a part of it we don't get, it surely wouldn'tve lasted as an art form. This is hardly the sort of question that's prone to big arguments and long diatribes. Moreover, there's a pretty standard analytical tradition for breaking down poetry and getting to the meaning and reasoning behind parts of it. That said, I can see how a discussion board elsewhere on the net would be a more appropriate place where Mr.K. would find more and better answers, but there's plenty of other offending questions by plenty of repeat offenders far more worthy of your policing. - Lambajan03:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is the question: "Why do they say 'but'?" It isn't asking "What is the meaning of the word 'but' in this phrase?" It is asking for the motive of the lyric's author, not the meaning of the lyrics. If it had been worded in such a way that it was trying to understand the meaning of the lyrics, then I wouldn't have responded as such. -- kainaw™13:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'I have soul' usually refers to 'a general feeling for music' and has nothing to do with any religion. This makes sense, as it is in a song. The religious idea would use the indefinite article 'a', as in 'I have a soul'.--ChokinBako (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Human Rights - Workplace thru the Decades
Working on a presentation-for a basic and simple elective study assigment at work. I am looking for a timeline to include a few key or important facts/issues/Rights/Acts pertaining to Human Rights in the workplace for each decade; 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000. I have alot of information that I have read thru, just having a hard time pulling one from each decade, since they aren't listed out by date's etc. Please let me know if you have suggestions on where I might look, or if there is a cronological document listing Human Rights. This is for the US.
Any other tools,video clips etc. would be great, but not sure if any exist.
My suggestion would be to choose a few of the issues you've identified, research them, and look for outstanding incidents in a given time period. In other words, build your own timeline. Since you talk about rights in the workplace, you might research strikes, unions, organizing efforts. I found a list of strikes by googling the word "strike," for example. From that I found a link to the in Flint, Michigan, in 1937-37. Earlier than your dates, but then, you didn't want me doing your research for you. — OtherDave (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alcoholic drinks
Why are some alcoholic drinks generally drunk with ice and some without? Cider and whisky are generally drunk with ice. Cognac, vodka and champagne very seldom. Beer and wine pretty much never. Sake, to the extent that I know of, absolutely never - it is supposed to be drunk hot. It has no apparent correlation with either the potency of the drink nor its ingredients. Is it simply a a matter of hysterical raisins? JIP | Talk19:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not! I just like to write "hysterical raisins" instead of "historical reasons". I asked the question because of genuine interest in how different alcoholic drinks are drunk. And yes, in many places in Finland at least, cider is served with ice. JIP | Talk06:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In some instances, the inclusion of ice is to make the drink more palatable versus drinking the alcohol neat. This then moved over into the popular lager front with chilled drinks like Fosters Ice et al on draught and in bottles. Some people, like me, are errant snobs who believe that if you have to chill a drink to make it sell - it didn't taste very nice to begin with. Another possible reason is that the ice, whilst watering the drink down, also makes it last longer - giving the impression that you are 'getting more for you money'. Nanonic (talk) 08:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many bars in the UK serve cider with ice. I suspect that they do this because ice is cheaper than cider, so they can get away with giving short measure by appealing to the sort of people who think they are being cool by drinking an agricultural workers' drink in a "sophisticated, metropolitan" way. Some bars will also try to give you a head on cider, which is just daft. I am now in the position of explaining to barmen who were not even born when I started drinking how to do their jobs properly. DuncanHill (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I've only seen ice added to those vile bottled ciders (like Magners and Bulmers) for which 'served over ice' is an integral part of the brand image. Of course, in this case there's no question of short measure. I've drunk a lot of draught cider in my time, and no-one's ever tried to put ice in it. Algebraist11:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly yes, it does happen, rather a lot round here. As for Bulmers being served with ice, this is quite a new phenomenon, as I recall it started in the 90's with an advertising campaign. Cider was a "low-income" drink (part of its agricultural heritage, for a long time it attracted lower duty than beer, as it was traditionally drunk by agricultural workers who were paid significantly less than industrial workers who drank beer). By marketing it to people with a higher disposable income, higher prices can be charged, and nowadays in a city like Brighton there is no price differential between cider and bitter. DuncanHill (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Finland, cider is not considered a "low-income" drink. It costs the same as beer (in some places, even more - but only very slightly more). It is considered a ladies' drink. Most men drink beer, and most women drink cider. However, there are much more women who drink beer than there are men who drink cider. JIP | Talk17:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Draught cider and cider that comes in small bottle is the same price, if not more expensive, than beer in the UK too. You can, however, get really cheap cider in 2 litre bottles (the best known is White Lightning. That kind of cider is commonly associated with a certain variety of the homeless, since it's often the cheapest source of alcohol. --Tango (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Serving draught cider with ice, unless you use an oversize glass, would be illegal since it's a short measure. I've only ever seen it done with bottled cider, it's quite common then. --Tango (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ice in cider is very common in Ireland. I think following on from the success from Guinness in the UK, Bulmers/Magners Irish cider decided to go with a very Irish advertising campaign, including the use of ice in draft cider, and us Brits seem to love everything Irish so the custom has started to stick, but I doubt anyone who is drinking cider from the West Country would even consider ice in their cloudy pint. - Phydaux (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got a couple questions about the sister Rose of Sharon Rivers. Where did that name come from ? I found Rose of Sharon on Wiki but nothing with Rivers on it.Also why didnt the film allude to the Roman charity dipicted at the end of the book ? To me that was a shocking yet beautiful ending.Did i just answer my second queston ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.211.5 (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen in the article The Grapes of Wrath, Rose's husband's name was Connie Rivers, so her surname in the novel simply came from her husband; she would have been Rose of Sharon Joad before marriage. If the question is about her being named Rose of Sharon, I think you'd have to ask either Ma Joad or Steinbeck, neither of whom is likely to be available at this time.
Regarding the second question - our article about the film notes that the plot in the second half of the film strayed considerably from that of the novel, and specifcally mentions that "the novel's original ending was far too controversial to be included in the film," which is probably understandable for a movie released in 1940. --LarryMac | Talk19:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
September 3
VPs in the USA
Are there any historical precedents in the US where a VP has been picked by the presidential candidate of a major party, and then dropped and another person chosen to stand instead? Thanks for any info, Alex --AlexSuricata (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, I have been trying to research Communist history, namely in Czechoslovakia. Is there a Wikipedia article about the people who went abroad and were stripped of their citizenship while they weren't in Czechoslovakia? Also, are there any good online links? I'd like to know how they managed to get their citizenship back, get a passport from another country, etc. Vltava 68(talk, contribs)10:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i am looking for a high quality image of the bust of soranus, greek gyneacologist.
or indeed for the original or a copy of it?
i have a client wishing a charcoal drawing of this and my research so far has only thrown up small poor quality copies.
thank you.
89.159.144.169 (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know a woman who will be giving birth in a few months, at which time I look to send a card of congratulations. I've got a problem, though: I don't know her husband's name, so I'm not sure how I'll address the letter. She's Mrs X-Y, although she normally goes by Mrs X only. Is he likely to be Mr X, or Mr Y, or is it really impossible to know without asking one of them? 63.172.28.202 (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather lucky. I work with people from all over the world. So, I can cheat and ask, "How do you spell your last name?" Even if it is something like "Wong", I can reply, "Oh, you spell it the normal way. That's easy to remember." -- kainaw™13:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If she's Mrs. X-Y, I would guess that he's probably Mr. Y, but there's no way to say for sure. Could you ask somebody who's closer to Mrs. X-Y, and might know the answer? (BTW, my wife did not change her name when we married, and we often get cards with incorrect names. I'm sure that they will appreciate the kind thoughts even if you make a mistake.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least here in the U.S., such announcements (of graduations, marriages, births) are often seen as solicitations for gifts. Therefore, polite people may choose to send them only to their closest family and friends, to avoid the appearance of "gift-grubbing". Mr./Ms. 63.172.28.202 might be outside this close circle. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll have to ask someone, there are so many possibilities. She could use a double barrelled name because she's combined her maiden name and her husband's name, or her parents may have combined their names (or some earlier generation), or her husband's parents (or higher generation) could have combined their names, and she's taken her husband's name. (There may even be other possibilities, but I think those are the most likely.) You could just avoid surnames entirely, either by using first names (if you are familiar enough with them), or no names at all, "To the proud parents of XYZ, congratulations and best wishs, [your name here]". It's difficult to know how offended they will be if you use the wrong names. I doubt many people would be offended at being asked, though, just be appropriately apologetic about it (or ask someone else that's likely to know). --Tango (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably have to end up asking: as far as I know, I don't know anyone but her who knows him, and I'm planning on sending this card in the mail, so the postal worker likely will want more than their first names :-) 63.172.28.202 (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The child is probably unnamed at this point, though, so then the original poster might again need to know which surname to use. Personally, I'd just ask. It's going to be a hell of a lot less embarrassing than getting the name wrong, and if you don't know him that well, it's by no means impolite to ask. There's no reason to expect that you would offend them by asking. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Different Amounts for Different Charges?
In the US, or if you want to be specific, Connecticut, how much illegal substances (marijuana) do you have to have on your person to be convicted of a minor charge? How much for a major charge? Same question for controlled substances like oxycodone? --Anilmanohar (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Legal advice is like, "how should I plead in court", not "what exactly does the law say on this specific issue." The former needs expert advice. The latter is just about looking up a statute. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amazonian tribe
Which Amazonian tribe does this practise where it is like a celebration where the men hold a turtle and have to hold it from the ladies and the ladies pinch them, bite them or whatever they do to the men in order to get the turtle? This is in Brazil and I saw this thing on t.v. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.121 (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Preclassical statuary depictions of masturbation
I and some others am trying to bring the Masturbation article to GA status. Among the uncited statements is this one:
“
A clay figurine of the 4th millennium BC from a temple site on the island of Malta, depicts a woman masturbating. However, in the ancient world depictions of male masturbation are far more common.
”
I'm no expert in archaeology, and I'm having trouble finding reliable sources for the former statement. If this figurine exists, it should be referenced somewhere. Can anyone throw me a clue?
My friend and I were talking about credit cards and he said that paying your credit card statement on time, every time, can actually be a bad thing because you won't make credit card companies any money, therefore it would essentially lower one's credit score. I sort of see the sense in it, but I don't really believe it, because they make money through the merchants, right?... [Disclaimer: I'm not seeking legal/financial advice] -- MacAddct 1984(talk • contribs)17:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly have a very hard time believing paying your credit card statement on time, every time, could have any sort of harmful effect whatsoever. JIP | Talk17:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your credit score goes down if you are late (by even a single day) when paying your bill. All you need to do is ask for your credit report. There is a section that lists every time you've been late paying a bill (and the creditor reports it). There is no section listing how often you pay on time. -- kainaw™17:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pay your bill on time if possible. Not only is letting balances build up one of the worst financial mistakes to make, but paying on time (and in full) enhances your credit score. As long as the credit card / phone bill /etc is in your name you are building your credit worthiness. That is what institutions will look at when deciding to lend you money (or the rate at which they will!) in the future. Also, Credit Rating Agencies are separate from credit card companies. And you are correct, credit cards charge merchants a percentage fee per transaction and also on the interest rates charged customers on outstanding balances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwebster99 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should certainly pay at least the minimum on time every time, otherwise you will do serious harm to your credit score. I guess the question you're asking is if you should pay the balance in full every time. I think you should, the cost of the interest (which is usually very high on credit cards - if it's a 0% card, it's another matter entirely) far outweighs the fact that the credit card company won't like you much (they still make money though, the shops you use your credit card in do give the credit card company a percentage). Credit card companies certainly aren't fans of people that are good with money, but I think it's rare for them to actually do anything to penalise you. --Tango (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The minimum you should do is pay the minimum of your credit card payment on time, every time. Even the slightest deviation will harm your credit card statement. I have had a credit card for almost five years and have managed to do this every time. The more you pay of your credit card payment, the better. The credit card companies certainly want you to use your credit card very much - but they also except you to pay up every time. Failing to pay up is far worse than spending too little. And also, beware of these new-fangled "instant loan" companies that offer to get rid of credit card debt fast. They often have interest rates much higher than the credit card companies do. JIP | Talk19:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one possibility: it is possible in my experience, at least in the US, to have no credit score at all if you've never been lent money. This can be problematic if one day you want to use your credit score for something. If you pay off your credit card every month, perhaps this counts as never having being lent money? Marnanel (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having no, or a short, credit history can indeed be a problem. I think having a credit card would help in that respect as long as you use it, regardless of whether you ever actually borrow on it. You are being lent money for the month or so it takes you to pay it back and paying it back in full every time shows you are able to be responsible with your spending, which will help your credit score. Having the card and never buying anything on it may not count as having a long credit history (it could also hurt your score because you have more available credit - banks don't like to lend money to people that already have lots of available credit since they could easily end up with more debt than they can pay off, even if they don't have any debt now). --Tango (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of too much of a good thing, the Federal Reserve consumer credit estimate for June 2008 says that American consumers have $986 billion in outstanding revolving credit, and $1.618 trillion in non-revolving credit (e.g., auto loans, education loans, boat loans). That's $2.586 trillion. — OtherDave (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is nearly $8500 per person (which includes children who hopefully have no debt, and plenty of people will have mortgages on top of that). --Tango (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the replies, and thank you for that link Coneslayer, that seems to cover what I was talking about. I guess I fall into the "not that profitable for lenders, but got potential"-category. I just never understood the concept of spending money that you don't have... -- MacAddct 1984(talk • contribs)22:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spending money you don't have can be a good decision in some cases (buying a house is tricky otherwise, as is going through university, in other cases it may be a good decision now, but only because you made bad decisions earlier). Borrowing on a credit card is never a good decision - if you're that strapped for cash, find a good unsecured personal loan, you can get much better interest rates. (Of course, if you can get an interest free credit card, and trust yourself not to forget (or be unable) to pay it off at the end of the year, or however long it's free for, then go for it!) --Tango (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Borrowing on a credit card can be a very good thing if you are looking for insurance on the things you purchase and the transaction that takes place, especially if you are not 100% sure of the person you are paying. Using a credit card on the internet means that it is the creditors' money that is stolen if something goes wrong and not yours. Also, if you pay your credit card immediately, you don't build up any interest. Never say never. ;) - Phydaux (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's my imprecise use of language at fault - by "borrowing", I mean for longer than one statement period (shorter than that is still technically borrowing, but that's not your reason for using a credit card). Purchasing things on a credit card has significant advantages, but you should always pay it off in full before they start charging interest. --Tango (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an American living abroad all of my adult life, I was unhappy (but not surprised) to find out I had no credit rating at all. It was suggested that I take out a credit card and make only the minimum payment for three months, and then pay the full debt. That would establish top-quality credit. Of course, carrying any credit card debt at all is incredibly stupid for most people, as the interest rate is at least 3 and sometimes 10 times what you make keeping the money on deposit. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
September 4
Hockey Moms
Question for US people: Sarah Palin is just speaking on my TV at the moment. She seems to be going on a bit about "Hockey Moms" and there's a joke too and proud Hockey Moms in the audience with banners, etc. I'm not American: are these "Hockey Moms" just simply women whose children play hockey, or is there some deeper meaning/identity there? (there's no article on them) Thanks for info, Alex --AlexSuricata (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Soccer Mom is a similar creature, but soccer fields tend to be more accessible than ice rinks, because they are cheaper to maintain, for a start. And Soccer Moms have occasions when they are likely warm. A Hockey Mom is always cold. A Hockey Mom is not just one whose children play ice hockey, but one who drives them to practices and games, watches them play, talks hockey with other moms, is part of a car pool that takes several children to "away" games . . . What you may not know is that much of ice hockey happens before school, so it isn't unusual for a Hockey Mom to be picking up kids at 6:00 a.m. and then taking them from the rink home for showers and then to school. It is a big commitment of time and there is a lot of driving involved, especially if you live outside a city and thus have little or no public transportation. Hockey equipment takes up a lot of space and tends to be heavy (helmets, pads, ice skates, sticks) so Hockey Moms are also porters, as well as laundry managers. And these kids start really young, often when they are in kindergarten (ages 4 and 5) so there are a lot of years involved, too. There are also Hockey Dads especially as the children (usually boys) get older. This is terminology more recognizable in Canada than in the lower 48, but hockey is big in Alaska. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that for the most part it's an extension of soccer mom. Both these terms tend to imply all-American, non-elite, family-first, unpretentious people. (There's a whiff of sexism, in that "soccer dad" is rarer by far.) I have the totally unfounded impression that "hockey mom" implies more blue in the collar, in the U.S., than "soccer mom" does. Far fewer Americans (children or adults) play hockey, as a percentage of the population, than Canadians do. And see, very tangentially, Michael Melski's play Hockey Mom, Hockey Dad, set in northern Nova Scotia. — OtherDave (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that it is the Alaskan equivalent of soccer mom. Soccer mom is the more recognizable term, but changing the sport to Hockey would be understandable to most people in context. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggset looking at something like List of biases and trying to find the best match. I suspect that people would consider these a bias as it seems it would be caused by 'information' influencing the way something is perceived (i.e. marketing, peer pressure, etc.) 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, explain this: My younger brother used to have a toy telephone that, when you pressed different buttons, made different sounds. One of the buttons had a picture of an ambulance, which, when pressed, made a voice say "Emergency! Emergency!", which makes perfect sense. My Dad, however, was terribly confused by this button because he was convinced it was saying "Liverpool! Liverpool". After being told what it really said he was, eventually, able to hear it correctly. Similarly, after being told what he heard, other people (myself included) were able to make it sound like that too (I'd liken it to making a Multistable perception image switch between the two possibilities at will). Is this a known phenomenon? --Tango (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of mondegreens too, but that really only applies to a song lyric, line from a poem, or book or movie title etc. In a general context, I'd say it's just a mishearing. People with hearing issues, and their families and friends, would be well aware of this phenomenon, although the auditory interpretation of "Emergency" as "Liverpool" seems an extreme case. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mondegreens seem to be cases where the two words/phrases sound very similar. That doesn't apply here. This wasn't caused by bad hearing, since all of us could make ourselves hear it as "Liverpool" with concious effort (and I don't think it was just suggestion, it took quite a bit of effort and there was a real "oh, wow! So it does!" moment when you did it, just like with optical illusions). It was said in a kind of sing-song voice, which may make the words sound a little more alike. --Tango (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has been some studies on the mis-perception of words. The McGurk effect is one example. Your example is probably most similar to Diana Deutsch's "Phantom Words" (an example is at [4] From that page: "two words, or a single word that is composed of two syllables ... are repeated over and over again. ... the first sound is coming from the loudspeaker on the left, the second sound is coming from the loudspeaker on the right; and vice versa. ... The words coming from the different spatial locations are offset from each other in time. As a result, listeners are given a palette of sounds from which to choose, and so can create in their minds many different combinations of sounds. After continuous exposure to these repeating words, listeners begin to 'hear' words and phrases that are not really there.") -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cognitive psychologists at one time called this the "Gilbert and Sullivan Effect," as in the observation that if you know what the singers are jabbering in a patter song, you can then recognize the words, but without advance knowledge it may seem like gibberish. Edison (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That toy must have a very, very poor speaker. Phonetically, the only sound shared by the two words is /ɚ/. Otherwise, they have a different syllable count, and the last two vowels of emergency, /ɛ/ and /i/, are so different from the /u/ in Liverpool in terms of articulation. The human brain is "wired" to try and make sense of any string of sounds as language, so I guess this case is more like straining your brain to make sense poor-quality audio, like when people in a stadium misunderstand a PA system with horrible acoustics.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The different syllable count might be accounted for by the fact that it was in a sing-song voice. The fact that the words are made up of completely different sounds is harder to explain away! I wonder if they still have the toy, it might be interesting to do some studies. It seems it isn't a known phenomenon (I thought maybe there was some kind of duality between certain sounds and actually "li" and "em" are in some weird way connected, but apparently not [I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't heard the toy!]). --Tango (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in Vowel#Articulation, especially the diagram of the articulation of vowels. Vowels that are located closer on the diagram are similar (if they share the same quality of roundedness). In fact, the first vowel sound in those two words (emergency, Liverpool) is sometime realized as the same vowel sound [ɪ]. Other sounds like [v] and [m] in English are not mistaken for each other except, unfortunately, in toys with poorly-crafted sound systems.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this is related to the need for people to guess what a speaker is saying when their articulation isn't clear. People with hearing issues would be particularly prone to this. For example, I occasionally watch NCIS, and whenever Pauley Perrette says anything, I have the greatest difficulty in deciphering just what she said (I do have a hearing loss, though). She has that kind of "rapid-fire squeaky nasal little-kid voice" that's becoming so prevalent among a certain demographic (girls, mainly). That makes it hard for a lot of people to know what they're saying even in ideal listening environments, but when background music is added to the mix (and NCIS has background music playing for virtually 100% of the program), it really does come down to guesswork. (If that reads like a bit like a rant, it wasn't meant to be). -- JackofOz (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for unbiased website to compare US presidential candidate's positions
As the subject says, I'm looking for an unbiased website to compare the US presidential candidate's positions on the issues. Any suggestions? I'm looking for the sort of thing that could be given to both (open-minded, uncommitted) Liberals and Conservatives as an antidote to the spin, something that is clear and straightforward and not with a particular axe to grind. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The political compass is a wonderful website that shows the 'position' of the main candidates (though we now know who these are) on the scale. You can take the test and find where you fall too. It's pretty interesting and it'll show you wish you align to more closely based on your responses. It takes about 15 mins to complete though and asks some pretty tough questions! Anyhoo I expect they will update to have a comparison for the election itself once things get underway. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I got a score of 132, apparently putting me in the lower end of the category "Gifted (2.3% of test takers)". I'd just like to know how reliable people think online IQ tests are, and to what extent that score can be considered accurate (it was a relatively short test with questions answered in a 'true or false' format). Would this possibly be better? The thing is, that many people on a forum that also took the test generally received high scores as well, and we can't all be that smart... can we?--Lost in kyoto (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The true "IQ test" is "are you willing to pay $10 for an IQ score from some web page?" If you truly want to know your IQ, look up your local MENSA group. They take IQ tests seriously and will happily give you a real one. -- kainaw™13:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't pay any money. It emails you a score without a fee, whereas you only pay to see an 'in-depth profile', which I never considered going for as I felt it would be a waste of money.--Lost in kyoto (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the ton of SPAM you will also get, now that they have your email address for their 'free' service. They have to make money somehow, mate.--ChokinBako (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it is a 'throwaway account'. Hotmail does not provide that service. They only have regular accounts. Actual 'throwaway accounts' are email accounts that expire, typically after 15 minutes. I seriously doubt you have got 5GB of SPAM in your hotmail account in 15 minutes. That would be a world record.--ChokinBako (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Throwaway accounts are accounts that can be "thrown away" after use - that is, they are used for a specific purpose then forgotten about. To say it is "full of spam" does not imply that it has 5GB of spam in it, just that it has a lot of spam in it. If you have any further difficulties understanding the English language, I suggest you try the Language desk. DuncanHill (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Duncan, I was referring to the term 'throwaway' account as generally used on websites that advertise this service. The '5GB' I was referring to was the 5GB that hotmail gives (unless that has changed). I do realise that 'full of' something can also mean 'having a lot of XXX in it', but it does typically mean 'having far more than I would like to bother with/can handle, etc.' Try the language desk yourself, mate. We have lots of fun and games there.--ChokinBako (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Saucer of milk for table 5!" Meow, lads. :-) Getting back on topic. The questions are, a) Are these tests reliable? I have taken numerous web-based IQ tests since they first appeared on the Internets and they have all agreed a score to within about 5 points. So we can conclude that either they are accurate or they are all equally flawed (they could have motivation to inflate scores so people would pay for the trophy certificates they offer, but it is odd that they all, being quite different , agree). b) Can we all be that smart? Yes you could be. There could be a bit of selection bias at work. People likely to try the test probably have an inkling that they are going to do well. If we were to offer a gruelling fitness test to people, my guess is that we would get those people who already knew they were fit as participants rather than your average couch potato. Fribbler (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What percentage of British people would know the difference between Slovakia and Slovenia?
What would you estimate? I'd say it'd be fairly low. If ignorance is widespread enough to allow for things like the grocer's apostrophe to be in common use, then I doubt that many people would know the difference between these two based on their similar-sounding names and relative proximity in location.--Lost in kyoto (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick check and I found no studies on this. Please keep in mind that this is a Reference Desk, not a What is your opinion on something I just thought about Desk. If you want to have a discussion, use one of the many (MANY) online discussion forums. -- kainaw™13:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the majority of educated British who have some sort of reason to know would know the difference. After all, there was never such a country as 'Czechoslovenia' and we have just spent a decade fighting two wars in the Balkans. People who don't know don't care, just like most Brits don't need to know the difference between Japan and China. --ChokinBako (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find that very hard to believe. Not knowing the difference between Slovakia and Slovenia, maybe, but most people know the difference between Japan and China! --Cameron*14:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Slovenia is the only EU member from the former Yugslavia and seems the most progressive, although Croatia seems to be catching up as well. It's only further southeast that the major wars in the Balkans were fought.--Lost in kyoto (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Croatia is next door. Bosnia is next to that, then Serbia. Not very far away, and Slovakia Slovenia (whoops! I made the very mistake we speak of!) was in the news during that time, anyway. So was little Macedonia and all the rest. I don't see the relevance of your answer to mine, though. It sounds more like a complaint against your mum.--ChokinBako (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, a separatist region called South Ossetia - I can just imagine parts of US states declaring independence and their citizens all getting Russian passports! Now, that would be worth watching American news channels for! --Tango (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What counts as knowing the difference? Just knowing that they are two different countries? I would expect most people know that - if it has a different name, it's a different country (Myanmar and Burma aside!). Actually knowing anything about either country is probably more rare. --Tango (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are Hungary, Finland and Estonia anomalous in Europe as well as Romania?
The former three have Finno-Ugric languages, which are not part of the Indo-European language family. This in itself is anomalous for Europe, but even more strange is the fact that these languages are found in Northern Europe and then in a small pocket in Central Europe, with areas of Slavic and Germanic tongues seperating them. Also, why is Romanian a Latin language when it is largely surrounded by Slavic ones? How can these enclaves be explained? Also why are the people of a nation considered to be representatives of their language families? There are Germanic people, Latin people and Slavic people, but this doesn't seem to be a worthy categorisation of people, just as white people and black people are in my opinion crude and outdated Americanisms which would be better replaced with European people and African people (Sub-Saharan).--Lost in kyoto (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finland and Estonia are right next to Russia, which has literally hundreds of Fenno-Ugric languages in the area near to these countries. Romania is not very far from Italy. Hungary may seem isolated, but then that may explain why its language is so different from other Fenno-Ugric languages.--ChokinBako (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simple answer: People move. For more information, see History of Europe. As for describing people by the language group they speak - it is merely a characterization of the person, not a judgement. For example, saying that a guy is wearing brown shoes is a characterization used to identify him. It is not (necessarily) a judgement about him. -- kainaw™13:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Finnic languages in the general Baltic area have more or less remained in place as far back as we can trace with any certainty. However, Hungarian was imported from hundreds of miles to the east in the Hungarian migrations of ca. 900 A.D. Also, there are some enigmas about the survival of Rumanian -- the main area of Rumanian was presumably generally north of the Jireček Line, yet it's far from clear where in general Balkans region a substantial Romance-speaking society could have been hiding out during the 7th-century A.D. and for several turbulent centuries thereafter -- when the Slavs had overrun the western Balkans as far south as the Peloponnese, while the eastern Balkans were initially split between Byzantines and Avars, and then suffered several further waves of invasions from Bulgars and Magyars (Hungarians)... We have a whole article on Origin_of_the_Romanians...AnonMoos (talk)
Spies?
I remember hearing this story, possibly on the radio, about some Americans that by some strange turns of events ended up spying for the Japanese in WW2, but I can't find anything more about it now.
Here's what I remember of the story. A couple of American men go to Mexico where they end up with money troubles and have to sell their car, but then they're stopped when trying to come back to the US because the border guards want to either see their car or have some record of its sale/destruction. This causes them to be stuck in Mexico, but at some point they hop a boat to Japan shortly before Japan's involvement in WW2. Now in Japan and citizens of the enemy, they are convinced by the Japanese to go back to the US and spy. When the guys reach the US shore they turn themselves in, but are still tried for spying anyways.
Several German-American spies invaded the US via submarine in WW2 as part of Operation Pastorius and were captured when some of them turned the others in. They were tried and most were executed after appeals to the Supreme Court in Ex parte Quirin. Herbert Haupt had the adventure you speak of, and got executed by the US government. He made their way from the U.S to Japan to Germany, was trained with the others as a saboteur and sent to the US via U-boat. Edison (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the cultural, financial and military importance of France and England for the last 400 years or so, it startles me that there are so few reknowned French and English composers and (as far as I am aware) almost no operas written in those languages. Is there a historical/cultural explanation for the domination of music by Italy, Russia and the Germanic nations? Thanks 90.192.223.228 (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay that touched on what he termed (iirc) "The German Composer Disease". That might not be quite it, but it's close. Basically, the question becomes, "Why is it that, a few notable exceptions aside, every well-known piece of "classical" music was composed by a German speaker between the years 1700 and 1900?" There will be short term explanations that deal with funding, etc. but it still seems odd, and he didn't come up with any kind of compelling answer that I can recall. In a way, I suppose the question makes as much sense as asking why German speakers between 1700 and 1900 produced very few hard rock performers. Matt Deres (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look, but I must have a dozen of his books kicking around. If I can't find it reasonably quickly, I'll drop you a line at your talk page. Matt Deres (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we're talking about operas written between 1700 and 1900, I wouldn't regard the enormous mass of operas written by Italian composers as "a few notable exceptions". (By the way, questioner, the 2nd syllable of "renowned" is pronounced like "now" - not like "know" - and is spelled accordingly. I wouldn't normally nitpick, but this is becoming an increasingly common error, so others may benefit from this comment.) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nor would I, but I don't know of any classification system where opera and classical/romantic music are combined in such a way. Everyone knows opera is the one with the big lady wearing steel lingerie and classical music is one with the shaggy-haired conductor waving a baton. ;-). Matt Deres (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Harold C. Schonberg’s answer (which should be taken with a grain of salt) to the question of why so few British composers emerged until the twentyish century “British School” of composition arose, is that Handel literally chilled British innovation in composition for hundreds of years by giving the English a sever obsession with choral music, particularly sacred choral music.
Schools of composition move in cycles. Someone somewhere will come up with something pretty neat and everyone will rush to try the new style. The French and British have had some extremely famous composers, mostly in the 19th and 20th centuries. They are perhaps not as familiar to you because there is currently a strange obsession with playing the very old music ad nauseam.
For French composers there are the composers named by Wetman above. Add to that Olivier Messiaen, Edgard Varèse, Francis Poulenc, Darius Milhaud, Arthur Honegger, Finally, of very special note, there is Nadia Boulanger who is known as perhaps the greatest and most famous composition teacher of all time; a woman who guided the development of American music itself and taught nearly all the greatest American composers for half a decade. (See List of French composers for many more names).
This page has a link to an alleged list of books that Palin wanted to ban, but even on the original page with the link, there's a great deal of skepticism as to whether the list is accurate or not. It is true that Palin tried to get the head librarian at the Wasilla libary fired for "not giving full support to the mayor": [5]. Corvus cornixtalk18:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list is not accurate at all. Please don't get confused by it and spread misinformation—it makes everyone look bad.
It's not clear that Palin ever gave the librarian a list of books—from the articles it sounds like she just sounded out the idea of getting some books removed. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the coverage so far indicates no list was produced, but you might be interested in the American Library Association's list of 100 most frequently challenged books from 1990-2000, which is probably quite representative of the sorts of books people don't want others to read: [6]. I was going to go see if "Daddy's Roommate" was available at the Wasilla public library, but their server is down. :) --Sean14:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{wild speculation) I would imagine that it is because the police are not allowed to make a profit from these types of crimes, also by crushing the car they are providing a deterrent to further crime whilst also removing what can be a dangerous vehicle from the streets (positing that uninsured and untaxed cars may be damaged/unsafe). They are allowed to liquidate the assets of someone to recover the value of any fine or damages assessed by a court via intermediaries but only in certain cases. They have no objection to selling cars from other crimes or even recovered stolen goods (in fact they have their own auction website for this at http://www.bumblebeeauctions.co.uk ). Nanonic (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably they don't have their own crushing facility but use a commercial one. That suggests that someone is profiting from crime. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What we have here is a fundamental structural flaw. It's just so unfair that anyone can profit from crime, except the perpetrator. Without the perpetrator, all the others would be out of a job, or at least have a severely reduced income. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, getting back to the tedious business of answering the question, I read in Hansard for 8 Nov 2005 a reply from Alistair Darling, the then Transport Secretary, who said "and the police now have the power to crush or sell cars that are not claimed or insured within two weeks." I guess crushing sounds more compelling in HMG's advertising. From a 19 Jul 2005 debate in the house, this time on the subject of annoying moto bikes, it is suggested that "there is a view locally that if they have been used illegally, they should not only be confiscated but crushed and taken out of the market so that the young people who are buying them might begin to focus on just how serious offence they may have committed". The Select Committee on Public Accounts Twenty-Eighth Report mentions DVLA crushing operations in 2002/3, commented that "The Agency conceded that, in the main, it is the very oldest vehicles that are wheel-clamped which go unreclaimed by the keeper, and which ultimately have to be crushed at the Agency's expense", and one can see why the powers that be may well think it a good thing to get old bangers out of the market entirely rather than, to be cynical, being sold at auction for £50 to exactly the sort of person who would then go out and drive it uninsured again. --Tagishsimon(talk)22:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen and heard of Police auction where the police sell recovered items that haven't been 'claimed'. In my local area you can go along to these 'auctions' and buy yourself a bicycle for (sometimes) bargain prices. I would be surprised if similar things didn't occur for motorised vehicles too. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the US such auctions are necesitated by the shear number of vehicles of all sort which are impounded, however, nowa days inthe town where I live the task of auctioning has been tunred of to an online auction house that psecializes in practically fraud since you can not touch or feel and returns are not allowed sorry. In other words if you can't touch or feel then forget it. The local governments then dispose of property periodically that does not sell even though the administrations are in need of cash. However the real reason cars are crushed in the UK is because cars are thought of there as living agents fully capable of causign there owner, whomever it might be. to engadge in crime. These cars are bad card and must be estroyed in order to rid the UK of such agents of the Devil. Trust me, I know I am right on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.2.227 (talk) 10:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's sometimes argued in FAC discussions that CliffsNotes and similiar guides are not "reliable sources". I can understand why Cliffsnotes would be considered unscholarly or anti-itellectual, but are they really unreliable? Can anyone give a specific example of something included in a CliffsNotes guide that is incorrect, or even just misleading? Zagalejo^^^18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are plenty of factual errors in CliffsNotes, however, that alone would not make them not WP:RS. Rather, and this is my HO, the summary nature of these notes is what limits them as a source. An encyclopedia should contain all acceptable viewpoints, not just the ones that will get you through the midterms! --Regents Park (count the magpies) 20:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I agree if you're saying that CliffsNotes & similar are more prone to factual errors than the average academic journal. I'd say the opposite, if anything, and I'll make that case more fully here if anyone really wants me to. Like the original poster, I tend to resist the thinking that books like that are not WP:RS. Sometimes when you are trying to source the basics about a topic, doing so from a book designed to discuss the basics is using the best source. AndyJones (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that they are more prone to factual errors. Rather that factual errors are not the point. The summary nature of cliffnotes and the fact that they are not necessarily assembled by established scholars in the field, makes them less than reliable for anything other than main ideas. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 21:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well (a) we're a general-purpose encylopedia: the main ideas is what we do; and (b) although I don't have any CliffsNotes here, I've a number of York Notes, Cambridge Notes and Brodie's Notes and at a quick glance it seems to me they're all written by University lecturers. AndyJones (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that it has nothing to do with errors. It has to do with the fact that CliffNotes is not the original source (unless one is writing an article *about* CliffNotes). Wikiant (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are looking for just any secondary source about a literary work, then CliffsNotes are a reliable source. But if you are trying to write a featured article about a literary work, then I would consider CliffsNotes to be a mediocre source and not worthy of use as a source in a featured article. Any literary work which has CliffsNotes of it probably has been the subject of scholarly commentary which is worthy of being cited in an encyclopedia, whereas CliffsNotes are commentary on the work aimed at high school students who either had difficulty understanding the work or didn't even read it. --Metropolitan90(talk)17:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hamlet plot query
Plea for help for any Shakespeare experts... during the later stages of 'Hamlet', Hamlet is banished to England by Claudius. His ship is attacked by pirates, and Hamlet alone is captured. But why do Rosencrantz and Guildenstern continue on the ship to England? Their objective, given to them by Claudius, was to escort Hamlet to England and pass on the letter demanding Hamlet's execution to English authorities, etc. However, since their escorting duty has gone so badly wrong, surely the bumbling and timid pair, R&G, should return to Denmark for advice and further orders from Claudius. They have no need to go to England, and would probably have avoided their deaths in a 'real' situation simply by returning home. I have done research online and from books, and there is no answer. So why DO R&G bother to continue to England? Or have I missed something? 87.114.133.121 (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the OP is under the impression that a private ship was hired for the sole purpose of taking Hamlet to England. This is extremely unlikely as three passengers, even with an entourage, would make a poor payload for the captain and/or the owners. ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the OP's impression I don't think there's anything in the text of the play which makes it demonstrably wrong. Kings command naval vessels, and can commandeer merchant vessels. Besides, OP's question is still a valid one if you phrase it as "why do they bother to visit the English King?" I could suggest a number of answers to that, of course. AndyJones (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that Hamlet is a work of fiction. There wasn't any prince; there wasn't any ship; there weren't any pirates; Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern didn't go anywhere because they were not in fact real people. Shakespeare has all kinds of inconsistencies and loose ends that he fails to tie up. In any case, in Act IV Claudius has R & G take Hamlet out of the country purportedly to protect him from the consequences of killing Polonius, though mostly because Hamlet is "loved of the distracted multitude." Claudius's letter to the king of England was sealed; R & G's orders were to deliver the letter. Hamlet found it, read it, and replaced it with his own version requesting England
...That, on the view and knowing of these contents,
Oh, don't be such a spoilsport :-) Of course it's fictional; it's our job, as fans, to to explain inconsistencies, not just complain about them or push them aside. That's what real fan fiction should be, not just stuff for people who only want to write about sex.
Now, you could pull a "The reference desk is not for speculation" and that would be fine; it does call for a bit of speculation here, because Shakespeare doesn't tell us, since they're not consequential tot he plot. However, since inquiring minds want to know, I would suggest that Claudius may well have sent them because they were known for bungling things, anyway; sort of like Laurel and Hardy. I mean, as a tyrant, you're not going to send your most trusted people there. You're going to send red shirted ensigns, which Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were the first of. (Star Trek reference - surprised there's not a page for that.) If Claudius did call them "trusted," then perhaps it is in a satirical way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DTF955 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but was it really a work of fiction? The Oxfordians among us would argue differently. Various parts of Hamlet, such as the encounter with Fortinbras's army and Hamlet's brush with buccaneers, do not appear in any of the play's sources, to the puzzlement of numerous literary critics. These might be explained by reference to actual events in the known life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Just as Hamlet's review of Fortinbras's troops leads directly to an ocean voyage overtaken by pirates, de Vere's meeting with the German duke Jan Casimir (who was leading troops towards Paris) was followed by a Channel crossing intercepted by pirates. He had met Jan Casimir on his way back from Italy (his known travels in that country are all exactly mirrored in references in the plays; Shakespeare is not known to have ever left England). In April 1576, de Vere boarded a ship in order to cross the Channel back to England. The ship was attacked by pirates, his luggage was ransacked, and he was stripped naked. They were allowed to continue on their way to England, however. But he had another experience with pirates. In 1585, he sent a boatload of apparel, money, wine and venison back to England from the Lowlands. The ship was intercepted by Spanish pirates off Dunkirk and was looted. The pirates discovered a letter to de Vere from Lord Burghley appointing him commander of the horse. De Vere transformed this 2nd experience into something useful: Hamlet contains not only an encounter with pirates but also an analogous plot twist involving suborned letters at sea. (I've quoted liberally from Mark Anderson: Shakespeare by Another Name.) If one sees these plays as an ongoing coded autobiography of de Vere as much as pure fictional entertainment, many of the loose ends and unsourced references make sense. Then, you don't have to worry too much about the apparent illogicality of R&G continuing on to England. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
September 5
Vaudeville hat
Does anybody know the actual name of the distinctive round, flat-topped hat worn by vaudeville performers?
Also, would anybody happen to know of any reputable dealers of said style of hat? Not this costume stuff, real legitimate hat. Thank you!! Kenjibeast (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I think of vaudeville and hats, the Susquehanna Hat Company comes to mind. This was an (Abbott and Costello routine,[7] Youtube link]] wherein many straw boaters get destroyed one after another. A fist punches so nicely through the top of one. Edison (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is something I remember reading (at some point in my life, not recently) but I can't find it anywhere now. There is, or was, or was being considered, a rule/law to the effect of "Two people from the same State may not be elected President of the United States in successive terms." So (for example) Gov. Rick Perry of Texas legally couldn't be elected President in 2008 because he's from the same state as George W. Bush.
It isn't in President_of_the_United_States#Qualification.2C_disqualification_and_common_practice, so it's clear to me that the aforesaid rule/law is not the case, at least not now. As I (incorrectly) recall, it was in the U.S. Constitution; but I'm wrong about that. The closest I find in the Constitution is part of the 12th Amendment which requires electors to vote separately for President and VP, at least one of which "shall not be an inhabitant of the same state as themselves."
It's a confusion between candidates and electors. See this article from Snopes.com. Article II requires that at least one of the persons chosen by a state's electors "shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves." In other words, if McCain and Palin were from the same state, under the constitution no more than half of any state's electors (not voters, mind you) could choose them. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your explanation is correct. If McCain and Palin were from the same state (say, Arizona), then electors from Arizona only (not "any state") would be able to vote for only one or the other. This is really only an issue if you're looking at either a close election or a state with a high electoral vote. Were McCain and Palin both from Arizona, the Republicans would be sacrificing 5 EVs (10/2) for the pair, or 10 for Palin if they were willing to risk a Dem VP. Were they both from Alaska, it'd be a 1-2 EV drop, which might be entirely acceptable -- if you can win by even 5, who cares if you give up 1 or 2. If they were both from California, having to split those 55 votes would likely be too high a price to pay. This precise scenario is why Dick Cheney is currently a resident of Wyoming -- splitting Texas' ~35 EVs in 2000 was a ludicrously high price and would have cost the Republicans the election. — Lomn14:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I misstated. Article II says "The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves." You could in theory run two candidates from Alaska (assuming you could find a second person with the outstanding qualifications of having been a small-town mayor and a moose hunter) and throw away the whole state's electoral vote.
If Alaska is out of moose-hunting mayors, perhaps they have some "community organizers"—apparently that qualifies one for high office these days. ;-) —KevinMyers16:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Had there actually been a rule in the Constitution that "Two people from the same State may not be elected President of the United States in successive terms", the first person to suffer from that rule would have been the "Father of the Constitution" himself! Early in American history New Englanders were concerned about the dominance of the Virginia Dynasty, and in the Hartford Convention proposed such a rule. This was perhaps the rule (though never adopted) that the original questioner was thinking of. —KevinMyers15:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly intrigued by the wording of the amendment: "... one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves". Is "the same ... with" a recognised construction? Normally, it would be "the same ... as", wouldn't it? Or is there some subtle legalistic gobbledygookesque nuance I'm not seeing? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem strange, but remember the amendment was written over 100 years ago, so the language might have changed slightly. The use of "with" does make some sense, you live in a state with another person. It's probably correct English, just uncommon these days. --Tango (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's mostly the change in the language, Jack; the twelfth amendment was ratified in 1804, so that's 200 years. And if you want some linguistic fun, try parsing the second amendment. The founders were a comma-happy bunch. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to ask only about sex so both 1.) premarital sex without pregnancy, 2.) premarital sex with pregnancy but no birth prior to marriage, 3.) premarital sex with pregnancy and birth prior to marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.2.227 (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you again, but your second one gets me—is there no birth before marriage because the mother had an abortion, or because the couple got married before the baby was born? Or would you like to know both cases, in which case there would be four cases:
Premarital sex without pregnancy,
Premarital sex with pregnancy and birth prior to marriage
Premarital sex with pregnancy, followed by marriage, then childbirth
Premarital sex with pregnancy, followed by an abortion,
This question doesn't appear to be well answered. I once saw a page that listed the different religions and who considered what a sin. Your answer:
Islam considers all premarital sex to be sinful.
Christianity almost always does.
Judaism does not explicitly prohibit it, but generally hints that it's bad. explicitly prohibits it (Deuteronomy 22:21.
Dharmic religions tend to be neutral on the issue.
Animistic religions of course are too widespread to pin down.
It's generally important to note the fact that marriage exists in every society, and religion often works to enforce morals. Thus, any religion, even if not specifically prohibiting it, has normally discouraged it in the past. Does this answer your question? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't answer how it's treated. In the Baha'i Faith sex out of wedlock is forbidden, as is abortion as a form of birth control, but, other related parts of the particular circumstances aside, those actions are normally viewed as being between the individuals and God. Coreligionists close enough to them would probably offer support as friends and others (including the administration) would most likely stay out of it. I cannot speak for the other religions but I would guess that it largely depends on what the particular group of the religion is like and what the prevailing culture is like. - Lambajan19:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought maybe other people would weigh in with how this is treated. I looked and found a pretty good list of how it's viewed, and it even breaks down different Christian denominations, but I couldn't find anything about treatment for Islam from the link but we have a page here. Most of the others don't have full blown jurisprudence, so I figure the treatment probably involves some rites or counseling or something, or maybe expulsion, but the write-ups make that seem unlikely. - Lambajan15:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When in Indonesia, he went to a school taught in the Indonesian language. That does not mean that he could understand the language. Even if he did learn it at that time, he doesn't necessarily know it now. Also, nearly all U.S. colleges require an introductory level of foreign language (usually French or Spanish). Students do not become fluent at that level. That is what was required of his education. I do not know what he learned beyond it. -- kainaw™12:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Queen Victoria's funeral cortège: Edward and Wilhelm?
Caption for this image is: "Detail from the photograph above of Queen Victoria's Funeral Cortège. King Edward VII is clearly seen in the centre immediately behind the coffin, with the German Kaiser to his right."
I'm not up on my turn of the century royalty. It seems to be indicating that Edward is dead center of the image (in dark dress) with Wilhelm to the left of him (also in dark). Or are they the fellows behind those fellows (with "Wilhelm" dressed lighter tan the others)? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edward's the rather dumpy one with a dead bird on his hat, Kaiser Bill (rather skinny) is to his right (our left), with his left hand resting on his sword, and another dead bird on his titfer, and excessively large lapels. DuncanHill (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify (in case anyone is still confused), your first interpretation was the right one, both in dark dress, Edward's left hand is obscured by the head of the gun-carriage attendant, and you can make out the Kaiser's over-groomed moustache. DuncanHill (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So in this photo File:FuneralVictoriaDetail3.jpg, the red arrow points to Edward, and the blue arrow to the Kaiser. Any idea who the slightly more dumpy guy is that the yellow arrow points to, or the exceedingly dumpy one shown by the green arrow? - Nunh-huh15:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oscar_II_of_Sweden was probably there, and i just get the general feeling that he's the guy by the green arrow. It kind of looks like him, comparing to the picture in his article. Complete guess on my part though, so don't trust it in any way..../Coffeeshivers (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but I think the protocol of 1901 would have some trouble in arranging Victoria's two surviving sons and an assortment of emperors and kings in the correct order in the wake of the coffin. Somewhere near the front will be the Duke of Connaught. Kaiser Bill, although only a grandson, seems to have got up to the front because he was also an emperor. Strawless (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See At Her Majesty's Pleasure - "Where a person convicted of murder or any other offence the sentence for which is fixed by law as life imprisonment appears to the court to have been aged under 18 at the time the offence was committed, the court shall (notwithstanding anything in this or any other Act) sentence him to be detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure". This is not to be construed as legal advice, rather as an educated layman's comment. DuncanHill (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the time, they almost certainly would have been men. "City watch" would be an accurate description, I don't know if it was ever used as a name. --Tango (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I keep reading stories about soldiers in Britain being disrespected/turned away for services? This is a compilation of various news articles [9]. More info [10]. Basically, a solider was turned away from a hotel in Britain because he was a solider. I believe that most people in America would gladly give their rooms to any solider in need, but airlines and hotels turn them away in Britain. If this ever happened in America (other than the Airlines charging soldiers for extra bags) there would be hell to pay.
Why is this? Is this because Britain never had a Vietnam, where the public blamed the soldiers instead of the war, something the US has since learned from? I realize this doesn't represent Britain as a whole, but I keep hearing these stories...--mboverload@03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
in recent months the hotel had “experienced some rather serious incidents” resulting from personnel from a local barracks staying at the hotel, and said staff had been requested to act with caution when taking future bookings from members of the armed forces.. Corvus cornixtalk04:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!", But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot..., not a new phenomenon. [11]DuncanHill (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the BBC's People's War project, the Rev. Paul Wilkinson recalled VJ Day: "We went to Brecon, a big barracks town. I remember with some amusement seeing lines of soldiers all lying on the pavement all paralytically drunk!" Strawless (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonstop US war
How long has the US been in constant war with different countries all together? I have heard 30 years and ive heard 50 years, not sure whats right. Any link would be appreciated. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.33.31 (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're in an official state of war with anyone at the moment. Do you mean just being involved in some kind of conflict? --Tango (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What it's called and what it officially is are two different things. If you're looking for the official, war-has-been-declared sort of war, we are not currently in any wars, but we were from like 2002 to 2007. Before that, we weren't in any official wars since... what, the Persian Gulf War? If you're talking unofficially we-have-soldiers-in-other-countries-fighting-a-lot, sure, we've probably had that sort of thing since around 2002. Not constantly for 30 or 50 years, though. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 13:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "Iraq War" only refers to when the coalition was fighting Saddam's forces, we won that war, now it's just combating insurgency. --Tango (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OP is asking the total duration of all of America's wars. If so, United States casualties of war lists the wars and the years in which they were fought. By my count (rounding up to the nearest year), I get 9 for the Revolutionary War, 4 for the War of 1812, 3 for the Mexican-American War, 5 for the not-so-Civil War, 1 for the Spanish-American, 2 for WWI, 5 for WWII, 4 for the Korean War (although you might consider this just a "police action" or alternately much more, since there was never a formal treaty ending it), who knows how many for the Vietnam War, 2 for the Gulf War, and ? for the Iraq War. Even without counting the hard-to-determine Vietnam and Iraq Wars and various minor conflicts, that's 31 years already. So 30-50 is a reasonable guess. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted astutely above, what really constitutes "war" is a matter interpretation and of much debate. Gore Vidal (who, it must be said, isn't the Avatar of NPOV) writes "since VJ Day we have been engaged in what historian Charles A. Beard called 'perpetual war for perpetual peace'" in his book of that name, and gives a table (sourced from Federation of American Scientists) listing all the US "wars" since that time; this list seems to cover that entire era. FAS takes a particularly broad definition of "war" in this list, even including stuff like Operation Garden Plot and Operation Steel Box. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk19:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The census and statistics only mention the very vague term whites; there is no detailed breakdown. According to a document of the Czech Foreign Ministry, there are 240 Czechs in China, including Hong Kong, but I only want the number in Hong Kong. Vltava 68(talk, contribs)20:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nathaniel Woodard painting
Hi! Due to problems with German copyright laws I am looking for the painter of this picture. Who can help?
This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.
This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page. --~~~~
Politician’s position on the issues
I stumbled across a very informative site, which I have been looking for, for a very long time. It lists the political positions of every candidate on every issue. The site is at On The Issues.
The coverage is so detailed in fact that I needed to create a decision table to reveal conditions, combinations and positions which have not been addressed.
My question is whether or not any political position decision tables exist elsewhere on the Internet or not?
I doubt positions of that level of (unnecessary) detail exist. (You could sum up Palin's view in a sentence, why use 12 cells to convey the same information? "She believes in abortion only when continuing the pregnancy would be a threat to the mother's life" is a lot clearer than your table). Such a table would obscure nuance more than it would enlighten it, IMO. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not about Palin... its about seeing which cells are not yet complete. If you visit the site On The Issues you will see that in the case of any politician there are a mired of issues on which they hold positions - far too many to get into your own head for analysis at one time, unless you are the politician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.2.227 (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You hear all of the time about these relics that are said to belong to Jesus or some other Christian muckety-muck, but when you examine them, it turns out that it really is just a black linen duvet or something. But some of them surely must be authentic (authentic in the sense that they really are what they're presented as, not authentic as in "can do magic"). I mean, it wouldn't be so hard just to go to the grave-site of St. Oswald-who-ate-to-many-poppies and just pick up his jawbone or whatever. So my question is this: what's the most valuable or most prized relic where scholars are somewhat certain of its authenticity (I'm just talking Christian relics now, if we allowed for any religion, I would suppose the Black Stone in the Kaaba in Mecca would probably win). 83.250.202.36 (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest it is genuine and plenty of evidence to suggest it isn't. Sure, people have picked holes in every test which has shown it to be a fake, but they haven't done any conclusive tests to show otherwise (at least, not that I know of). --Tango (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above question has me thinking about relics. I think most major religions respect the dignity of the dead, and to dig up someone's remains is considered a despicable act. I would expect that to desecrate the grave of a saint/martyr might be considered even worse (to the religious authorities) than to do so to a random person's grave. Yet religious bodies have relics in their possession, so implicitly, they condone grave robbery.
I understand that most relics are (supposedly) hundreds of years old, so religious bodies presently don't have newly acquired relics that need to be "justified". That leaves me with these questions:
In the past, how did religious authorities, such as the Catholic Church, justify the acquisition of relics that are pieces of people's bodies (or other items removed from their grave)?
How do current religious authorities justify the keeping of relics that are pieces of people's bodies (or other items removed from their grave)?
I assume money (i.e. revenue from tourist/pilgrim donations) has something to do with it.
If I donated a saint/martyr's body part, which the authorities believed to be authentic, to a religious body, what actions would/should the authorities take?
e.g. accept it / deny it / investigate me for criminal charges / …
Is it possible to replicate the technicolor "effect" using say, video recorded via iphone? If so, what programs would I look into? What processes? Etc...
A long time ago a read a book about a Chinese revolutionary, but I can't remember his name.
Everything I remember about him:
-It was a man
-He had a "golden tongue" (meaning, he was "eloquent")
-When taken prisoner, he used his persuasive powers to convince his (communist?) captor to let him go. The captor, who was a soldier, hung himself, moved to tearful suicide by the revolutionary's speech.
-The revolutionary was captured many more times, but always convinced his guards to let him go, so amazing were his oratorical skills.
128.239.177.28 (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)JustCurious[reply]
.gif){kind=link}
