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.
I've added the exact original source above. I'd like to include a similar, but more detailed graph on the wiki for several articles and if there's enough info, write an article on the topic. Thanks for trying though.Smallman12q (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Her role was limited to a very minor battle between British and American forces, in the middle of nowhere. It's not clear that had the Americans taken over the small fort that was their objective, it would have changed anything in the bigger scheme of things. The only thing that could have changed the outcome of the War of 1812 was if, in Europe, Napoleon had managed to defeat or isolate England, making England incapable of defending its North American possessions. --Xuxl (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, her actions did influence Canadian views of the war. She became a symbol that boosted a Canadian sense of patriotism. That patriotism might not have influenced the outcome of the War in military terms... but it did influence how Canadians felt about the war... and subsequent relations between Canada, the US, and Great Britain. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, Laura Secord did not become a symbol until much later, when the war had been over for years (the article on her makes that clear). So, her actions were not used for patriotic purposes and had no effect on the further conduct of the War of 1812. --Xuxl (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend on whether Sandy Island (New Caledonia) was deliberately created as a fictitious place on a map, or done in good faith but in error. The people mentioned in the article don't know themselves how it came about, so we await the results of their research. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]05:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds a bit like the village of Quare that existed for more than a century on maps of Wiltshire, UK, when unable to identify a village the map maker, Christopher Saxton put 'quare', possibly 'query', meaning to come back and fix it. He never did and it appeared for 145 years before being discovered to be an abandoned North Burcombe. Richard Avery (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google Earth views are made from a complicated montage of different sources. For open sea they use wide, undetailed Blue Marble-type images. Where the map says there should be land, they splice in more detailed stuff, first from Landsat and then from more detailed commercial sources. The black blob looks like an artefact of this process - their workflow says there should be an island there, and so a more detailed (at least Landsat) image of that area should be used. But there isn't, so the system is stuck. I expect somewhere in a giant list of queries the system has generated for human attention is a task about this (one that'll surely get human attention now, given the publicity). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk15:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And indeed if one looks at the "island" with Google Earth, it renders a shoreline vector (from its defective shoreline database) that matches the black blob. So their map says there's an island, one the photo processor can't find. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk15:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks heaps, all. So does the black blob predate the idea of there being an island there, I wonder? Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC) (PS I'd like it if someone went there to discover indeed an island made of black jaggy pixels and illfitting collage-bits...)[reply]
Watchful eyes
In a very similar case to Sandy Island, above, we also have Argleton. A few months ago someone added a see-also there to the (non existent) Watchful Eyes, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Google does report some addresses with that location, but again it's not at all clear that it's in any way a "real" place. Is Watchful Eyes another only-exists-in-Google place? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk16:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the man on the right of the photo Ignacy Loga-Sowiński ?
"Ludwig Renn (left) and Sowinski in october 1954" says the Bundesarchiv caption
Hello Learned Ones ! "Mam opracować pewne zagadnienie" : I had prepared the question in polish , but never could get into their Reference Desk, so I ask you : Is the man on the right of the photo Ignacy Loga-Sowiński ? In 1954, he was (says the Polish article about him) a 40 years old "aparatchik". Thanks a lot beforehands for your answers ! T;y. Arapaima (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The more human-like an anthropomorphic rendition is, the more attractive it's likely to be. One example is that the early renderings of Bugs Bunny are considered "rat-like" and less attractive than the later renderings. And predatory birds and animals tend to be more attractive to us because they have binocular vision like we do, and don't look "beady-eyed" like their prey do. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lawyering in Texas
I wonder if any ref desk brainiacs can help me find out when Texas began requiring a law degree to practice law. I know that from early days in Texas, as in other states of the Union, it was originally the case that an aspiring lawyer could simply start working for and studying with an already accepted lawyer, and eventually learn enough to be admitted to practice in the courts of the state - no college degree or law degree required. My research so far via Google Books and other sources suggests that perhaps as late as the 1960's this was still posssible in Texas, but an exact answer seems to be locked away behind paywalls or in subscription journals. I'm not interested in other states, only in Texas - can anyone help with this question? Textorus (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't give you a date, but maybe this is some clue to help you chase it down. Legal self-help publisher Nolo.com was prosecuted in Texas for unlicenced practice of law - Nolo's own side of that is here. That committee's page is here and the applicable (current) law here. So if you can figure out when the Texas legislature passed that law, that at least gives you an upper bound. Looking at the law briefly, they don't seem to write it in a way saying "this law succeeds section X of law Y", which would have been a useful feature. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk21:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These cases don't really bear on my question - the statutes cited all apparently were last revised by the Legislature in 1987 - but by following some of the links, I ended up at the Texas Board of Law Examiners and this time discovered their online archive of past rulebooks for admission to the State Bar, dating all the way back to 1919. So I suppose I will eventually find the answer somewhere in one of those, unless anyone knows a specific date when legal apprenticeship was no longer an option in TX. Textorus (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update, for what it's worth: After paging thru the rulebooks, it seems that the rules changed on January 1, 1972, and only candidates who had already begun a legal apprenticeship before that date could be admitted to take the bar exam, except for certain hardship cases. Rulebooks after 1979 make no mention of such provisions, so that pretty much answers my question. Thanks for the lead. Textorus (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that nobody bothered to explore Africa until the 19th century? Egypt was one of the world's oldest and richest civilizations. Large parts (sometimes all) of North Africa was occupied by Assyria, Babylon, Rome, Greece, and the Abbasids. I think Arab traders frequently visited the Swahili coast. Yet somehow, there was never an adventurous king who got bored of life and decided to conquer the interior of Africa? --140.180.246.185 (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, Europeans became more ignorant about Africa, and the idea of 'darkest Africa' supplanted the classical idea 'Ex Africa semper aliquid novi' - 'there is always something new coming from Africa'. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the impassability of the Sahara Desert cannot be underestimated here. Navagation beyond the Canary Islands is very unfriendly to ships, there wasn't a good place to resupply, and overland routes were heavily guarded by the Subsaharan empires that grew rich by monopolizing the trade. There was certainly contact and awareness of those empires, but like other distant places (India, China), knowledge of them came third and fourth hand. Prior to the 16th century or so, there was also very little direct contact between Europe and China. Even into the 19th century, there was also the problem of disease; many African peoples had become resistant to native diseases (malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, etc.) that decimated any European expeditions into the interior. --Jayron3200:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
140.180.246.185 -- The Arabs knew of the Kenya-Tanzania coastal area as "Zanj" and it was prime slaving territory for harvesting unskilled hard-labor slaves to be sent to the Middle East; also, there was some sporadic influence from northwest Africa across the Sahara to the Sahel. However, it's unclear what motive ancient Romans or medieval Arabs would have had for mounting systematic long-range exploring efforts in Africa, when they had no expectation of finding anything there too much different from what existed in closer and more familiar regions. 15th-century Europeans had the highly-specific goal of finding a direct route (not controlled by Muslims) to India and the spice Islands, and they had ships built to stand North Atlantic waves and weather. So Europeans started sailing around Africa, but only the Cape region was at all promising for European settlement, and for most of the rest of the sub-Saharan coast there seemed to be little evidence of things to be found in the interior that would justify expensive or dangerous exploring efforts... AnonMoos (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Unlike Europe, Africa has a simple coastline, not allowing easy access by boat to any large area the way European coasts do. (For example, all of Britain is within 50 miles of the coast.) (2) Along the river banks in forested tropical areas, the vegetation is extremely dense, which discouraged explorers who did not necessarily realize that the forest floor was rather open away from banks where the sunlight penetrated allowing such thick growth. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on All of Britain is within 50 miles from the coast: This nominates Coton in the Elms as the precise British location that is most distant from the sea. It's either 75 miles or 45 miles from the sea, depending on your definition. This agrees with Coton, and says it's about 73 miles from the sea. These details are corroborated in our article Coton in the Elms#Distance from sea, which distinguishes between coast and tidal water. The distances there are given as 75 miles and 45 miles respectively. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]19:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I want to know difference between metropolitan and megapolitan cities. I heard abt this site. It has too much knowledge and always ready to help new users and students. Plz help me for this question. my contact no phone number redacted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.229.79.190 (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any 4 year campuses in the U.S. or Canada that don't--or are not allowed by specific state or province law to--have armed "campus police" officers? Is there any data or information available on years that these forces started forming, data on the last few states or universities to enact such forces? Thanks. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way10:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the Campus police article - it's got answers to many of the questions you ask. In particular:
"Campus Police in Canada do not carry firearms, but are generally given other law enforcement's tools of trade - namely handcuffs, body armor, batons and pepper spray.
Campus police do not exist in the Provinces of British Columbia and Québec. Instead, colleges and universities employ civilian security guards.
Campus police at public institutions in the state of Rhode Island are sworn police officers, but state law prohibits them from carrying firearms."
Itsmejudith -- why not? Many campuses are dispersed over several large areas and/or embedded inside cities. The range of problems that campus police deal with is often not too different from those that regular police deal with... AnonMoos (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that a college campus isn't a separate police jurisdiction, it falls under the police jurisdictions of the city, county, state, etc. So, one could rely on the regular police where an armed response is needed, and let the campus police focus on things the real cops would ignore, like the theft of iPhones, keeping in mind that arming campus police creates additional risks of it's own. StuRat (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's one approach, but the police associated with major universities in the U.S. often try to be a "full-service" police department for ordinary situations in their area of authority (though obviously the idea of a campus police SWAT team would be ridiculous). AnonMoos (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous or not, the article Campus police says Many departments operate some of the same units as municipal agencies such as detective units, special response teams (SWAT or SRT), canine units, bicycle patrol units, motorcycle patrol units, and community policing units. [bolding added] Duoduoduo (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"... a college campus isn't a separate police jurisdiction" isn't necessarily true. The difference in marijuana laws between the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan is well-known (See Hash Bash). Town and gown differences including college as sanctuary have long history. 75.41.109.190 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I bet they aren't legally outside regular police jurisdiction. More likely, the regular police are willing to turn a blind eye to certain crimes committed on campus, since they have enough work without taking that on, too. Incidentally, a more sinister motive for campus police seems to be so they can suppress crime statistics to make the campus seem safer than it really is. Unlike public police departments, which are required to report all crimes, private security firms can, and do, keep them secret when in their interest to do so. StuRat (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re to HiLo48: take the British railways, for example. In this dog's dinner of a set-up, the government runs a system whereby private train operating companies are given fixed-term contracts (known as franchises) to operate the vast majority of train services. But there are also one or two companies who are allowed to operate services along small sections of the rail network in direct competition with the main franchise holder. That is open access. Re to OsmanRF34: it's not a question of the "big guys" not allowing new kids to take part. The government gives the new companies the (limited) right to do so. --Viennese Waltz04:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the British privatized rail system, there was supposed to be a central infrastructure or track maintenance operator and various companies who would run trains on the tracks without being responsible for their upkeep. The track maintenance operator part of the system turned out to be a huge fiasco (see Railtrack), so I'm not sure this would encourage other countries to follow the British model... AnonMoos (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Viennese Waltz: it's not as if all companies were indeed independent just because the law says so. They are still open in a 'open' access market to all kind of trouble caused by big companies. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. In the UK (the only country I know about) there is nothing the big rail companies can do to stop small companies getting in on the action. Where there are limits placed on the ability of small companies to run train services, they are limits that have been placed by the government, not by the main train operator. The big companies are simply not able to "cause trouble" for new entrants to the market. --Viennese Waltz17:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there such a thing as open access at all in the United States? I thought all U.S. trackage was privately owned by rail companies, and there is no central infrastructure. Am I mistaken? → Michael JⓉⒸⓂ03:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit difficult to tell. There is Amtrak, of course, the primary (only?) provider of intercity passenger rail services in the US. According to our article, though, Amtrak does not own the track it runs services on: "Amtrak operates over all Class I railroads in the United States, as well as several regional railroads and short lines. Other sections are owned by terminal railroads jointly controlled by freight companies or by commuter rail agencies. Amtrak is able to do this because it has trackage rights, but it does not maintain those tracks or control train movements on those tracks." --Viennese Waltz14:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's because in the United States passenger rail has been a distinct second fiddle to to freight rail since the 1960s. Most railroads were eager to get out of the passenger business altogether, so in return for being allowed to dump their passenger-carrying obligations onto the federal government they have to let the government run passenger trains over their tracks. Not sure that there's anything very open about it otherwise. AnonMoos (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article 21 of the UNDHR
Article 21 of the Declaration of Human Rights says the following:
"Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."
How can this be reconciled with the existence of a minimum voting age in most jurisdictions? Are we not depriving children of a fundamental human rights? For the record, I don't support abolishing the voting age, but I'd like to know what legal explanation is given for not allowing children to exercise their human rights. Thanks! Leptictidium (mt) 15:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Children will, in a short time, be able to vote. SO they are part of "everyone". This is different from women, who will not magically become men at a later date, or people of ethnic minorities, who will magically become part of a different ethnic group. Children do magically turn into adults. So they do get to take part in their government. --Jayron3215:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, the UNDHR should have said "everyone has, or will have, the right..." The more accurate answer is that every society has more or less arbitrarily restricted political power to people it deems fit to rule. At this point in history, children are still considered their parents' property, and their role in politics is restricted to being used as rhetorical tools (Think of the children! Will someone please think of the children?) and propaganda (i.e. Israel's most inhuman army is killing babies!) --140.180.246.185 (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The dead cannot vote under normal circumstances, so I don't take your exception here. Adults with terminal diseases who expire before the next election lose their right to vote as well. --Jayron3217:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to when you said the justification for legally excluding children from voting is that it's not a permanent exclusion. However, in the case of children who we know won't make it to adulthood, it is a permanent ban on them ever voting. So, we need another justification. Quite simply, children lack certain rights, including the right to vote, but Article 21 doesn't make this clear. Perhaps you could argue that children be thought of as a subset of those not allowed to vote due to mental incompetence. However, some 17-year-olds are quite mentally competent, so that argument won't hold water, either. StuRat (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not what I said at all. I said that the justification that "they can vote when they grow up" is invalid. Only if no other justification can be found would one reach your conclusion. StuRat (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what about mentally handicapped people, who can also be denied the right to vote, and they don't magically turn into mentally healthy people either. And then there are convicted criminals who have lost voting rights. In short, these rights are just not absolute and are subject to (reasonable) conditions imposed by the state. - Lindert (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where are mentally handicapped denied the right to vote? This is not an uncontentious issue and pressure groups are successfully defending the right to vote of them. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In many places, but usually a court order is required to revoke someone's voting rights. According to this article 44 out of the 50 United States "contain constitutional laws and statutes that bar individuals with emotional or cognitive impairment from voting". Here is an overview per state. There are similar laws in many European countries, including the Netherlands where I live. - Lindert (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law (May 2012), states that "All democratic regimes, with the exception of Canada, Sweden, Ireland, Italy and Austria restrict voting based on mental capacity." - Lindert (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the (humorous) wisdom of Terry Pratchett: "Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote." and "He’d tried to introduce Ephebian democracy to Lancre, giving the vote to everyone, or at least everyone 'who be of good report and who be male and hath forty years and owneth a house worth more than three and a half goats a year,' because there’s no sense in being stupid about things and giving the vote to people who were poor or criminal or insane or female, who’d only use it irresponsibly."Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Locking them up in the first place could be seen as a violation of human rights. Imposing a monetary penalty for speeding could be seen as a violation of human rights. Requiring drivers to have even a minute's driving training could be seen as a violation of human rights. Requiring doctors and house builders and cooks to be trained could be seen as a violation of human rights. Requiring children to attend school could be seen as a violation of human rights. Banning recidivist trolls from Wikipedia could be seen as a prohibition of free speech and thus a violation of human rights. Where does it ever end? Lines getting drawn is a hallmark of civilization. The only issues are about which lines, and who draws them, and who's allowed to ignore them with impugnity. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]20:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article 29 says "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." In many circumstances, it is clear that imprisoning someone could be considered necessary for protecting the rights of others. I think it would be hard to argue that regulation of vehicles, doctors, etc. violates any widely-recognised human rights, and article 26 actually requires compulsory education. It is less obvious to me that withdrawing the vote from prisoners is justified. Many countries do allow all prisoners to vote, and in fact the European Court of Human Rights recently ruled that a blanket ban on prisoners voting violates the European Convention on Human Rights, which has similar wording to the UDHR on elections. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And why does it say "his" instead or his/her country? Seriously. Human rights are implemented by national laws, which have different perspectives on how to interpret the basis principles. 83.60.249.187 (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was drafted in 1948 and gender-neutral language didn't start to become a significant issue until the end of the 1960s (and wasn't taken seriously by many until well into the 1970s). AnonMoos (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. "He" is gender neutral, unless one counts inanimate as a gender. "She" is marked as feminine. This matter has been beaten to death and over again, so search the archives if you want references. μηδείς (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do I search for these references? Admittedly I'm not a native English speaker, but I've never seen anyone claim that "he" is gender neutral. I've seen people use "he" to refer to a generic person (in fact, I do it all the time), but always assumed that was because male is the default gender. (In French, for example, all pronouns and conjugations take the male form if the referent is a single male, a group of males, a group of both males and females, or of unknown gender. Yet nobody doubts that "il" is masculine, and "elle" is feminine.) --140.180.246.185 (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize, the original distinction in the Proto-Indo-European language was between animate and inanimate, who and what. The Hittite language, from the oldest branch of Indo-European, never developed a feminine gender. In the other branches, an -a (or -i) ending was generalized as a marker that certain animate nouns were feminine. There was never any masculine ending as such, which is why there is only one form for who/whose/whom. The Old English pronoun he has no masculine ending, for example; while the word she comes from the Old English pronoun heo with an appended feminine -o ending. The use of she is an exceptional marking of femininity, while the use of he simply implies animacy without comment on biological sex. In some languages like French, the animate/inanimate distinction in nouns has been lost, with only the feminine/non-feminine opposition remaining, so the issue is clouded. But the use of he for animate nouns of unspecified gender in English is a simple continuation of the historical condition. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I like linguistics, and that summary was really interesting. However, I can't help but feel that concluding "he" is gender neutral based on its history is an etymological fallacy. Language, unlike most other things, is strictly democratic: if 50% + 1 of English speakers think X means Y, then X means Y, and dictionary publishers will record X to mean Y. --140.180.246.185 (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to the point of French (and other Romance languages), even human gender pronouns don't work exactly like English. For example, possessive pronouns in French (sa, son) agree with the object, not the owner. Thus, while in English we would say "His dog" if a man owned it and "Her dog" if a woman did, in French you say "son chien" regardless of whether the owner is male or female. Also, French does have gender neutral third person subject pronoun "on", but it has no direct English translation, and can mean roughly "one" or "they" or even "we", depending on context.--Jayron3203:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis -- I don't feel like engaging in a whole general debate under this heading, but many feel that "exceptional marking of femininity" vs. a default unmarked assumption of maleness is the whole problem. P.S. The origin of the form "she" in Middle English is actually something of a mystery, and several contending linguistic papers have been devoted to just that topic. In Old English, eo was a monosyllabic "fracture" diphthong. Some have proposed a transfer of the sonority from the first element of "eo" to the second element of "eo", leading to a development something like [hēo] > [heō] > [hjō] > [çō] > [ʃō], giving middle English "scho"; however, such an origin of the "sh" sound is not attested in the development of any other word in the English language, and other scholars think that "she" doesn't come from "heo" at all... AnonMoos (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well then don't so debate. (I am fairly certain Lady Edith will accuse Lord Grantham regarding this in the next episode of Downton Abbey in any case.) The fact remains the use of he in parallel with who and opposed to what is a continuation of the animate versus inanimate contrast, not the "masculine", regardless of one's historical ignorance of that fact or ideological abhorrence of it. μηδείς (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Late proto-Indo-European / early Germanic / Old English had extremely few grammatical forms which could be called "animate" in any valid linguistic sense, so I have little idea what you think you're asserting. (The early proto-Indo-European — or perhaps proto-Indo-Hittite — situation you mentioned above is a rather hypothetical reconstruction without ascertainable relevance for the semantics of later languages.) The Old English interrogative pronoun distinguished masculine/feminine nominative hwa and accusative hwone vs. neuter nominative-accusative hwæt. Beyond that, it's mighty slim pickings for grammatical "animacy" in attested or solidly-reconstructed forms of languages ancestral to modern English. Many would prefer to call Old English hwa, hwone "epicene" anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is it! I tried a poetry course and I'd like to try some more, maybe economics, programming ? Now I'm looking for a list of massive open online courses. Not Coursera's or MIT's or Upenn's, just every mooc available now or in the coming months in the world. I might not find that list in Wikipedia : but do you have an idea if (or why) it's (not) already on the Internet ? Thank you! --82.227.17.30 (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you expecting something like the Quantum physics or Relativity theory? I have the impression (not corroborated by fact) that discoveries are running out. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OsmanRF34 -- Many physicists at the end of the 19th century thought that few basic principles or new fields of physics remained to be discovered, and that almost all future physics work would be concerned with the application of existing laws. They turned out to be completely wrong... AnonMoos (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "general belief". I don't know that there's anything which is "generally believed" by any majority set of the human population. There are people who believe some very strange things, and who's beliefs haven't been changed by any discoveries for some time. --Jayron3218:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may be thinking of the Martian meteorite Allan Hills 84001, the examination of which appeared to show extra-terrestrial life. Of this President Clinton said "If this discovery is confirmed, it will surely be one of the most stunning insights into our universe that science has ever uncovered"(ref). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk18:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I can very easily imagine a teacher wanting to expand his students' minds by getting them to research discoveries that altered established beliefs about human beings; and, moreover, getting them to not just come up with anything in the history of science but to focus on the 1990s. In fact, I'm having a hard time imagining an alternative context where this very specific question could have arisen. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]22:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
what are some of patents that are considered by legal experts to be quite broad, but which courts have uphold?
This question concerns legal theory, and is a call for specific references. In legal opinion, what are some examples of patents that are held to be particularly broad, by at least one expert in the field, but which courts have upheld? In terms of broadness, I am referring to the standard term of art in patent law. I am obviously not asking for any legal advice here, though I appreciate the subject may be somewhat specialized. I would also appreciate replies with specific, broad patents that have been disputed yet upheld..178.48.114.143 (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
bickering
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The question is answerable by anyone who is familiar with the subject that it figures in. I've moved the rest of the "is this a real question" discussion to small lettering.
Unhatted. This can be answered with straightforward references, and is a call for some. If you don't personally know of a single broad patent that courts uphold, you can say so. This does not suddenly mean that the questino is unanswerable, or should not be open to a reference from someone who does happen to know of one. For comparison, I don't know of any broad patents yet. I'm trying to find some. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added the words "in legal scholarship" and "generally" and "by at least one legal scholar" and am requesting references, and rewritten the question to make this clearer. Please do not revert again. This is not a request for anyone's opinion here, it is an extremely straightforward reference desk type of question. I appreciate that it may sound like speculation to someone who is not used to researching legal theory. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well (1) I am the mad hatter and I would not have hatted this, and (2) it's asking for legal opinions and history, not advice. I do indeed remember reading of overbroad patent decisions. Indeed, one can read the appendix to Michael Crichton's Next. μηδείς (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't fucking tell me to keep out of anything, Osman. And Crichton's appendix to Next (searchable here at Amazon) is a non-fiction essay with a whole list of useful references, much more helpful to the OP than your comments so far.
As the original inquiry, at least as it currently reads, asks specifically for references for what established experts consider "broad" and does not specifically call for speculation or editor-generated definitions, this seems to me an entirely appropriate and viable question for this desk. Whether the OP will get references which directly address the issue is another matter entirely, but there's no reason not to afford the request the opportunity to be addressed. Snow (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guys - I feel the current state of this question is daunting to anyone who might have some simple references. I would like to move the discussion portion of this question to the talk page, and then leave a neutral version of the question and the single answer that was provided so far. I will do this if this is no objection in the next few hours. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change reverted. Though I think consensus will continue to validate this as a perfectly acceptable thread and while I agree in principle that this question would look a lot cleaner with this discussion removed (and that the talk page is the better location for it in any event), it's not really appropriate to remove other users' comments from a discussion-based namespace without significantly more serious cause than exists here. Snow (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised no-one has mentioned the Wright brothers patent war; the patent there effectively covered fixed-wing aircraft and was upheld by various court cases. George B. Selden at one point was ruled by a court to hold a patent on "any automobile propelled by an engine powered by gasoline vapor", per our article, though this was overturned on appeal the following year. Both were upheld by US courts, and while I don't have access to the legal literature, I suspect searches focused on those two patents are likely to produce a rich stream of commentary. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much any valid Business method patent falls under this heading — things that most intellectual property experts think are too broad, but have upheld nonetheless. The entire category is considered overly broad by IP experts. Innovation and its Discontents has a number of specific examples of overly broad, upheld patents from over the years. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you could link to at least one of the references from that book? (One of the specific patents it mentions which have been upheld). Thanks :) --178.48.114.143 (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do hadith numerations differ and how to correlate two numerations? I'm reading an English translation of Bukhari (e.g.), but I want to know how some hadith sounds in Russian, but there is a very different numeration here. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know exactly how these different systems are related, but the website sunnah.com has a translation of Bukhari with multiple citation systems (see e.g. [1]), so you might be able to use that to find the corresponding hadith (I don't read Russian, so I can't check this). - Lindert (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say unambiguous support. Other countries are supporting Israel as well, like Germany, although Germany also supports the enemies of Israel, so its support is not unambiguous, but quite broad in the terms of weapons delivered. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How the aftermath plays out would be critical to determine where support would go. For example, if Iran retaliates by trying to close the Persian Gulf to oil tankers, you'd also find Europe and most of the world opposed to Iran on that. StuRat (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the US currently supports Israeli air strikes. The US still wants to wait to see if sanctions work, doesn't believe Israeli air strikes would push back Iran's nuclear program by much, and expects severe consequences from it, such as the US possibly being dragged into a war with Iran. StuRat (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat, you seem not to know what the Operation Pillar of Defense is all about. Iran has only an ancillary role here and the operation is already over. This is not about striking the nuclear program of Iran. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, didn't read it carefully. There being a current military operation involving Israeli air strikes against Gaza and a threatened one against Iran confused me. (Of course, you could have made it easier on me by mentioning Gaza, rather than make me read the article to understand the Q.) StuRat (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
what would be an example of a short, bog-standard typical patent document for a device that is now commonplace? (it can be expired, by now.)
I would like to read an example of a short, bog-standard typical patent for a specific physical device, that is now commonplace after a period of patent protection during which it was purely proprietary. I'd like to read this as kind of a basis for how the patent was formated and so forth. I guess a good example might be some kind of as-seen-on-TV product, since those are typically ones where the invention was clearly new and not really obvious beforehand. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the Scottish independence vote passes, would the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland change? United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, perhaps? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different case, the colonies were not part of the name. I don't believe they will separate, and if they do, I won't speculate about a possible new name. Intrakiu (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it won't change the name, as it would still encompass 2 of the 3 countries of GB. If Wales were to secede as well, however, it would be a different question. On the other hand, it did change name when the Republic of Ireland seceded, so UK of E, W, NI is perhaps not entirely unrealistic. --Soman (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer to the original question is that no one knows the answer to that question, as it hasn't even been officially discussed yet, much less decided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is not very difficult to see. Yes, indeed, the name clearly would need to change, just as "Great Britain and Ireland" became "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" in 1927. The expression "Great Britain" was first used by King James I soon after the Union of the Crowns of 1603 to signify the personal union between England (which already included Wales) and Scotland. It was specifically adopted by Act of parliament as the name of the new sovereign state created in 1707, uniting the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland into "Great Britain". As a geographical term, Great Britain means the whole British mainland. Without Scotland, we plainly could not go on using "Great Britain" as part of the name of the rump state. Frankly, I am not sure that it would be appropriate to use "United Kingdom", either. Moonraker (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm missing something (or someone is). You tell us the answer is not very difficult to see, but you don't give us your answer. You just confirm that something would have to change, but you don't say what to. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]23:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you can't use "Great Britain", the obvious solution is to list all 3: "The United Kingdom of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland". Unless you want to make up something entirely new, like "EngNireWalesland". :-) StuRat (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the geographical logic might be, many Scots do not like to call themselves "British" - seeing the term as an English imposition - so might not object if the present name were maintained. The "Great" in Great Britain has nothing to do with assertions of power but was a mediaeval term to differentiate the island from "Little Britain" or Brittany - so, following that logic, the name "Great Britain" could be retained in the same way that Sudan has not felt the need to rename itself "North Sudan" since part of its former territory became independent. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The logical thing would be The United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland, however I'm sure that would send the Welsh into an apoplexy. Wales was never a kingdom, which is why it doesn't have its own piece of the Union Flag or the Royal Standard. Perhaps something like The United Kingdom of England with Wales and Northern Ireland. But I don't intend to worry about something that might never happen. Alansplodge (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They've long pretended they're separate nations when it comes to the Commonwealth Games. (Imagine the uproar if the 6 former colonies that are now the unified nation of Australia all had separate teams at such events.) Why not go the whole hog and make England, Wales and Northern Ireland three separate Commonwealth realms? I understand an independent Scotland would have that status anyway. That way, the Queen would be gaining more than she's losing, and the whole question of what to call this odd assortment of polities could be avoided. She'd be separately Queen of England, Queen of Scotland, Queen of Wales and Queen of Northern Ireland. Simple. It works for the rest of us. History would no doubt refer to these nations as the British Balkans. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]19:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Northern Ireland and Wales are both rather dependant on the financial support of the rest of the UK (perhaps that should read England). Scotland argues that they would be financially viable without us, once oil and gas revenues and the hoped-for increased aid from the EU are factored-in. I wonder if the Scottish electorate are brave enough to put that to the test. Alansplodge (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
England, Scotland and Wales are all nations. We wouldn't need to use the term "Southern Great Britain", as we already have South Britain, but I'm sure "England and Wales" would have more support than "South Britain". The words "United Kingdom" were first used because two separate kingdoms were united, and the Kingdom of Ireland no longer exists, so with Scotland gone the present United Kingdom would become two separate countries, one called Scotland, the other containing only one kingdom. That is why from a logical point of view I don't think we would need the word "united", although through inertia it might perhaps survive. Moonraker (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it remains "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", that might be comparable to "the United States of America". My impression from United States#Etymology is that the "of America" means (or originally meant) "of the Western hemisphere continents". Just as the United States of America doesn't include all of America in that sense of the word, so also "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" would not include all of Great Britain. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does Maryland have a body known as the Maryland Supreme Court or a variant thereof? I note that 48 US states have some sort of "Supreme Court" at the top of their judiciaries, and New York has Supreme Courts on a lower level, but I can't find any evidence that there's any court named "Supreme" in Maryland. Google produces lots of results, but all of them (like our Maryland Supreme Court) discuss the Maryland Court of Appeals, which is the state's supreme court, despite not having "Supreme" in its name. Nyttend (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why, though. Is it because they are geographically near the US Supreme Court, so calling them both the same thing would be confusing ? To me, however, what they did is likely to cause more confusion. StuRat (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. To StuRat, the Maryland Court of Appeals was established in 1776 and the U.S. Supreme Court not until 1787/1789, so your conjecture can't explain the original name (though it might have contributed to why it was never changed). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like my original question is being misunderstood. I'm not asking anything about Maryland's court of last resort — I'm simply asking if there are any Maryland courts called "Supreme Court". Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, no. There is no court called "Maryland Supreme Court", though the equivalent state-level court to the U.S. Supreme Court is the Maryland Court of Appeals. State supreme court is an article which discusses the situation in all 50 states. Most, but not all, states have a highest-level court named "Supreme Court". Maryland is one that does not. --Jayron3203:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing particularly odd about their fashion sense. When Maryland's courts were established, British court dress often included red formal robes and U.S. courts often followed suit. (Early U.S. Supreme Court robes were predominantly red; see the portrait of William Cushing at right. Drab, boring, black robes were for the lower courts.) Over the last couple of centuries, many – but by no means all – courts have adjusted their fashions. Maryland has just stuck to tradition. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gold State Coach
Was there an official reason given as to why the Gold State Coach was absent in Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee procession down the mall for her service of thanksgiving? She's used it in the procession in her previous jubilees, I suppose because it offers some continuity with the Coronation procession. I have my suspicions it may have been absent for several reasons; its weight of 4 tons and its age combining to make it fragile; and that, as the coach is a notoriously rocky and uncomfortable ride, maybe the Queen wouldn't have wanted to use it? Just wondered if there was an official reason? Mrandrewnohome (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I remember in the BBC commentary the remark was made that the Gold State Coach was deemed inappropriate for use in this time of austerity. Can't give a source for it though. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More likely out of consideration for the Queen's advancing years; "Head coachman Colin Henderson, who in recent years had the duty of walking alongside the coach, was interviewed by the BBC and explained: 'The carriage is on leather braces and not only rocks backwards and forwards but also oscillates, so I don't think it can be a particularly comfortable or enjoyable ride.' Queen Victoria once even refused to get inside the ornate Gold State Coach. She complained about the uncomfortable ride, saying that it gave her 'distressing oscillations'".[2]Alansplodge (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Galileo's situation is complex. Galileo's troubles were as much political as religious, he had his own defenders even within the church heirarchy itself, i.e. Cardinal Caesar Baronius. Also, I know of no evidence that Galileo was an athiest. Our own article calls him a "pious Roman Catholic", and I know of no reason to suspect he wasn't. --Jayron3203:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There have surely always been atheists. Even some of the people who were nominally Christian or whatever, were unacknowledged atheists. There was more pressure to conform back then, but what people believed in their hearts was beyond the reach of authority, as it is now. I don't know what you mean by "church's counts had any power on atheists". -- Jack of Oz[Talk]23:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also Medieval Inquisition - which covered anyone who did not abide by church teachings, for whatever reason. The article says that "Among the possible punishments were prayer, pilgrimage, wearing a yellow cross for life, banishment, public recantation, or, occasionally, long-term imprisonment." Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think what would happen to such a person would depend a lot on the specific time and place, but such a person would at least have been shunned. Marco polo (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Magicknight94 -- I think there's been a phenomenon of "tavern skepticism" for a long time (even in the middle ages) -- hard-bitten characters in low drinking dives uttering often rather crudely skeptical and/or blasphemous sentiments. The tavern skeptics/blasphemers could certainly get in trouble in some cases, but they weren't generally what the Church considered to be the most serious threat. Usually the authorities took much more seriously those earnest thinkers or organization founders who were trying to develop alternative theological systems and religious movements. AnonMoos (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to determine a person's true beliefs aside from their behavior, and many people may go to church for reasons other than being Christian (social reasons, "go along to get along", forced to, etc.) There have undoubtedly been athiests at all times in history. --Jayron3203:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes people were accused of atheism, like Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II or Peter Abelard, although I don't think they were atheists in a modern sense (well...maybe Frederick). Sometimes people are recorded as questioning certain basic tenets; for example King Amalric I of Jerusalem, who apparently once doubted the Resurrection. By the way, not Christian Europe of course, but there was somewhat an atheistic streak in Islam, Ibn al-Rawandi for example. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC) (Oops, sorry, I see Sluzzelin already mentioned that...) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for a nice video series about developmental psychology. It is animated and rather creepy at times. It is also old in my eyes. Finally, I think it may have been produced by the psychology department at Stanford or involved Phillip Zimbardo in one way or another. On the other hand, I may be mixing up different video series. This was from my high school psychology class. Thanks Wikipedians! 97.93.199.163 (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the Stanford marshmallow experiment dealt with developmental psychology. It was done in 1972, and strangers promising to give sweets to small children, as a reward for certain behaviors, might seem a bit creepy. Were the videos related to that ? StuRat (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That experiment is funny. Alas, it is not what I am seeking. More information: It was a set of maybe 8 videos (again, animated) that each went through (I think) Erikson's stages of life. E.g., 1 video for infants, 1 video toddlers... 1 video for adolescents... 1 video for near-death elderly couples (which was the funniest). 97.93.199.163 (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a link between conservatism and religion?
Basically, I noticed that the United States seems to have conservative tendencies. Abortion, same-sex marriage and the like are hot issues. They also don't have free healthcare and education (to my knowledge at least). On the other hand, Europe seems tobe more liberal leaning; many European countries allow same-sex marriage, abortion is allowed in most countries, and in some countries, you can even keep a small amount of marijuana at home and the police won't arrest you, or at most will just fine you. Europeans also seem to have a high standard of living. And let's not even get started on Canada. What I noticed is that, in the United States, most people are religious, especially those living in the Bible Belt, while many people in Europe are atheists, agnostics, or people who don't go to church anymore (except maybe France). So basically, does religion play a major role in conservatism? I think there's an article about that, but it doesn't seem to elaborate on the reasons. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew00:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not an answer to your question, but France is actually one of the least religious countries in Europe and the world - about 50% are atheist or agnostic, by my understanding. Moreover, the US has free public education (up through the secondary level) and is theoretically going to have a convoluted form of universal (if not free) healthcare.
Now to your question: Religion (at least Christianity) is by nature a conservative institution, because it is based on dogma (aka "canon") rather than adaptation to the times. In many ways religious conservatism is linked to social conservatism, as the most literal readings of the Bible prohibit abortion (or even birth control, for that matter) and homosexuality, and prescribe Creationism as the answer to "how did we get here?" in opposition to Darwinian evolution.
However I would argue that religious conservatism is only a small part of why the United States tends to be more conservative than European countries. There is a significant economic aspect - the idea of the "welfare state" is stigmatized in the US, whereas in some countries it is seen as one of the most important social advances of the past century. There is also the glorification of the military culture that needs to be taken into account. And of course, correlation is not causation: generally those who are not educated tend to be more conservative and more religious, especially if they do not benefit directly from the government's social policies - they are more aptly "traditionalists" than conservatives, in that they don't support the older ways because they inherently work better, but because that's "just how it's always been". 24.92.74.238 (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My aunt is an Episcopal priest (ie a Christian), and as liberal as they come. She likes to say: "The 'Christian Right' is neither Christian nor right". Blueboar (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they certainly seem to reject many of the teachings of Jesus, like pacifism and caring for the poor, in favor of Old Testament values. As such, they don't seem entitled to claim to be "Christian", to me. StuRat (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Say a group were to come in that wanted to repeal same-sex marriage and abortion in Europe. Would these people now be liberal or conservative? If the status quo is liberal ideology, then is conserving it still liberal? There is a corollary contraposition in the preceding sentences. Additionally, you may want to look at separation of church and state for more information about your question. 97.93.199.163 (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that "putting things back they way they were in the good old days" would include locking up homosexuals in prison or mental institutions, right ? StuRat (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that's why I qualified my statement with "sometimes". If one were to argue that everything about today's world represents progress compared with yesterday's world, I would laugh in their face so long and hard I'd probably have a heart attack. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]19:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat apparently never noticed that the reactionary-conservative-liberal-radical rubric he was taught in high school is total and complete bullshit. --Trovatore (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OP means 'conservative' and 'liberal' in their political spectrum senses (i.e., right and left) and not in their most literal incarnations. 24.92.74.238 (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I don't think it works to generalize about the United States. I live in Massachusetts, which is quite liberal in the US sense of that word, is not very religious, and which has had gay marriage and universal healthcare for several years now. Marco polo (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the American drift in this direction is the stronger link between conservatism and ignorance. Hence religious schools have declined as the neo-Know Nothings have taken over the churches.
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121125/A_NEWS/211250301/-1/A_NEWS04
It's a national issue, according to Sean Kennedy, a visiting fellow at the Lexington Institute who produced a report on Catholic education that was released in July. Kennedy reported that 167 Catholic schools across the nation closed in the past year, that national Catholic school enrollment has shrunk in the past few decades from 5.2 million to 2 million
This is one of my pet peeves... Too often, when people use the word "Christian" in political terms, they are really referring to the various Evangelical or Fundamentalist denominations. These denominations do tend to attract political conservatives (and do take an outspokenly conservative political stance in their dogmas)... but the membership of the older "mainstream" Christian denominations (Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.) are far more mixed in their politics (with both conservatives, liberals, and moderates... in both clergy and laity).
Being religious has nothing to do with ones political stance... but one's political stance can influence the form that one's religiousness will take. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, the various Christian denominations tend to take a very liberal view of political issues such as spending on social benefits and immigration. The days of the Church of England being the Conservative Party at prayer departed decades ago - see Faith in the City; "An unnamed Conservative Cabinet Minister was reported as dismissing the report — before it was published — as 'pure Marxist theology' and another Conservative MP claimed the report proved that the Anglican Church was governed by a 'load of Communist clerics'". Alansplodge (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a bit of overgeneralisation going on here: there are some regions in the US that allow same-sex marriage (even if it isn't always treated equally to opposite-sex marriage due to federal laws) and where abortion is widely available. There are places in Europe where abortion is strictly limited, like Ireland, where it is only allowed in life-threatening circumstances (and might not even be available in practice then). Some European countries, like Poland if I recall correctly, do not have universal healthcare, and the majority of countries in Europe do not allow same-sex marriage. According to Importance of religion by country, more people say that religion is important in their daily life in several major European countries, including Greece, Italy, Portugal, Poland and Romania, than they do in the US. Also, I suspect that for many devoutly religious people with strong political views, their religious and political views would have developed in tandem, and it would be hard to argue that one is responsible for the other. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Philippines and plastic bag bans (yet again)
I'm very much aware that I've asked this question twice, but both times I asked them, results were inconclusive, usually because I did not choose the right words in asking the questions. Hopefully this time, I can finally get some good answers on the topic. My question is: Does the Philippines have a higher number of plastic bag bans than other Asian countries? (excluding Bangladesh) If so, what are the possible reasons why the Philippines does and other Asian countries don't? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew00:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well as I said in reply to your last question, per your own comments the Philippines does not have a greater level of plastic bag ban then Bangladesh, so your comment is apparently excluding Bangladesh even though this hasn't been stated for whatever reason. Nil Einne (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the question you are trying to ask is: Excluding nations that have a national level ban, which Asian country has the most number of purely local/provincial level laws banning or restricting plastic bags? Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK... my guess is that you will not get a good answer to your question here on Wikipedia. I doubt there are sources that compile statistics on local/provincial level plastic bag ordinances in a given country. The best you might get are guesses based on anecdotal evidence... ie someone saying: "well all the towns near where I live (in country X) have anti plastic bag ordinances... so country X is a contender." Blueboar (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I am so curious is because my city is one of the so-called "pioneers" in the boom of plastic bag bans in the Philippines; it was among the first cities to do so. I was wondering if a similar trend exists in other Asian countries. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew07:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Googling for lists so far I'm finding only very general lists of countries here and here and here. Plus the blog Plastic Bag Ban Report which has entries for China, India, Philippines, Thailand, United Arab Emirates and Vietnam so may have more specific info.
What's worrying about that interview is that he wants to have time to "do things". British monarchs are not supposed to do things, other than they are what they are told to do by people who have been elected to do things. Charles already faces opposition to him becoming monarch - it may never happen even if his mother dies first. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ghmyrtle, your last sentence is very contentious. Many people have their opinions on individual members of the Royal Family, but all that matters is the law, and the law says that Charles will succeed his mother as long as he doesn't die first or become a Roman Catholic or marry one. It would take an absolutely extraordinary and unprecedented circumstance for the parliament to change the law to exclude Charles from the succession. Not being as well-liked as William is most definitely not such a circumstance. There are these grumblings of his dabbling in matters some say he should not be dabbling in; but rest assured, they would never amount to such a circumstance either. He has desired the throne for far too long to seriously jeopardise it now. All the signs are that his desire is undiminished, hence his sense of frustration; there's no evidence he's contriving to make himself ineligible to accede. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]19:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those two cases are about people who came to the throne, and some time later ceased to be monarch, for whatever reason. They are not comparable to a legitimate heir being deemed ineligible to ever accede in the first place. There are existing laws that would make Charles ineligible, such as becoming or marrying a Catholic. But I'm not aware of any case where a law was passed to specifically exclude an otherwise legitimate heir from the line of succession. That's what I mean by "an absolutely extraordinary and unprecedented circumstance". -- Jack of Oz[Talk]20:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a very long time since the eldest child and heir apparent of the British throne has been passed over; William I, Count of Boulogne is the most obvious example I can think of; on the death of his older brother Eustace, he should have been next in line and heir apparent to his father Stephen as King of \ngland. Stephen passed him over in favor of the heir to the Empress Mathilda in order to bring an end to the long civil war that marked his reign, see Treaty of Wallingford. Edward of Westminster, Prince of Wales was also written out of legitimate succession when the House of York seized control of the monarchy during the War of the Roses, though he died less than a month after his father's final deposement. And, during the same war, there was the curious case of the Princes in the Tower. Since then, with the exceptions already noted with the removal of Catholics from the line of succession that resulted in the deposition of James II and the eventual inheritance of the House of Hanover, I can't think of any other clear English or British heirs apparent that were passed over. --Jayron3206:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And regarding Charles being written out of the succession: it would require extraordinary means to do so; under the Statute of Westminster 1931, changes to the succession require the positive votes of all 16 countries where the British monarch reigns. Doing so is fairly unlikely. --Jayron3206:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully aware that I was being mischievous. But, the antipathy towards Charles is fairly strong, and currently masked by the positive views people have for his mother and his son. If he did become king and make clear his own personal views on controversial policy matters - as he has done in the past - the realisation that no-one has ever voted for his family to have that role may become politically significant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure that Medeis didn't so much have a question as much as she wanted to point out Charles's remarkable public statement that, interpreted uncharitably, can be read as saying he wishes his mother would hurry up and die. Though I have no great affection for royalism, I might suggest that, in this sort of situation, it's better to try to find the charitable interpretation, however strained it might be. --Trovatore (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually what shocked me was the logical implication of his words. Two interesting facts from Tammy's first source, is that prophesying the monarch's death by witchcraft was a capital offense because it might scare him to death, and that a 19th-century law that expressing support for the overthrow of the monarchy (even peaceful usurpation or republicanism) is punishable by a one-way lifetime trip to Australia. The US has no law of treason in regard to the President as President. Oswald might have had treason charges brought against him if it were proven he was working for or to aid a foreign enemy. McKinley's assassin Csolgosz was electrocuted for first degree murder, and no other charge.
The open questions as I see them are, what are the actual laws still in effect? And does Charles have any sort of immunity? However unlikely a prosecution would be, if he were to write a tract urging her to step down in his favor he would seem subject to lifetime transportation according to the 1848 Felony Treason Act. μηδείς (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a sort of sidenote, it was brought up in the UK TV show QI (a fairly reputable source), that no form of capital punishment is used in the UK for any reason anymore (including treason). 80.254.147.164 (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't quite explain how old laws come off the books, IP 80. Are they just ignored? An American sees your Parliament as making it up as you go along, a practice we've recently adopted as well. μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And presumably that's why Medeis said "whatever the modern version of beheading". I'm pretty sure that Parliament abolished it wholesale. Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on how parliamentary sovereignty meshes with foreign treaties, since if I remember right, the EU membership treaty (whatever it is) prohibits signatories from permitting capital punishment. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fair amount of discussion on this at Parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom, Human Rights Act 1998 and Constitution of the United Kingdom. The current opinion generally seems to be that parliamentary sovereignty remains (although not everyone agrees), and per the Human Rights Act, the courts are forbidden from striking down laws (they can can reinterpret them but if you clearly spell out the death penalty I'm not sure how that is going to be reintepreted to mean you don't actually have to kill the person) for incompatibility instead issuing a Declaration of incompatibility and waiting/hoping parliament does something. However I think it's a fair to say that such a case will definitely make it to the European Court of Human Rights and it's not entirely clear to me what will happen when the European Court of Human Rights finds it a clear cut violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Theoretically, the UK is supposed to abide by decisions of the European Court of Human Rights but it's possible parliament and the Government will resist and there will be some sort of constitutional crisis. (Although realisticly, it's hard to imagine such a bill getting Royal Assent so if there is any sort of constitutional crisis, it would likely arise earlier. But then again, it's hard to imagine such a situation at all so... I wonder whether presuming the Charles remains the Prince of Wales, an argument could be made Prince's Consent is required.) Of course depending on the mood of the country, it's possible the UK will just go ahead and ignore the ECHR which I think has happened before at least for other countries, but never in the case of the death penalty. I would note in the case of Russia, it has been suggested expulsion from the Council of Europe is likely, in fact it's not even clear if they will wait for a European Court of Human Rights decision. (In the case of the UK, expulsion from the European Union and all related European community bodies also seems likely.) See [3], [4], Capital punishment in Russia and [5]. Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible for people or their parents and grandparents not to have cousins or siblings? (A family of only children)
Is it possible for people or their parents and grandparents not to have cousins or siblings? (A family of only children) I've heard of the one child rule in China but are they families that exist with a Lineage of only children? Are there any famous people or families like that? Neptunekh94 (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well... it depends on what you mean by "cousins"... it is certainly possible if you restrict the definition to first or second cousins (common grand parents or great-grand parents), but as you go back through the generations, it becomes highly unlikely that every generation of ancestors (both maternal and paternal) were single-child families. Sooner or later, there will be at least one ancestor that had a sibling who has living descendents. So you might not have any first cousins, but you probably do have at least one ninth cousin or tenth cousin out there... somewhere. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested in perusing the truly massive study at [6], which unfortunately is specific to the United States. Anyway, according to that, 10% of unmarried Americans have never had sex by age 44, which is the highest age for which this really enormous survey goes. Amongst married Americans, only a little over 2% in that age group have never had sex. Since almost 100% of Americans get married at some point in their lives, 2-3% seems like a reasonable percentage of middle-aged Americans who have never had sex (or at least would never admit it, even in an anonymous survey). Someguy1221 (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it seems somewhat questionable. This source [7] for example says one in ten people 50 to 54 have never been married. (It also claims one in three never marry at all but I'm somewhat unclear how they determined that figure as it's supposed to come from census figures so I'm not going to quote it as reliable. Based on some other sources, I think they're actually talking about the percentage of adults who have not married yet, in which case the source is IMO using very poor wording.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the 2000 census data [8], 4.5% of people 60 and over have never been married. While some of these people may eventually marry, it's resonable to assume the percentage of people who never married is likely to be higher since some people will obviously die at a younger age when fewer of them are married (if we ignoring the complicating factor of marriage affecting death rates). Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even these 4.5% of never married over 1960 seems strange to me. What about all the homosexuals and incorrigible single womanizers? They amount to more than 4.5% of the population. The data doesn't pass my bull-shit detecting plausibility test. Linenld (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the figures particularly unbelievable even if we ignore the possibly those who don't marry are more likely to die at a younger age. Historically, plenty of gay people married people of the opposite sex due to social pressure and other reasons. (And I think your overestimating the number of 'incorrigible single womanizers'.) Remember since it was the 2000 census, we're talking about people born in 1940 or earlier. If you're going by current marriage trends, you're likely to be mislead since all the trends suggest marriage is getting less popular which may mean 40 years from now there will be a much higher percentage of people over 60 who never married, but obviously can't have an effect on those already over 60 who married sometime during their life. (In fact the first source I linked to strongly suggests we should expect the percentage of people over 60 who never married to have increased likely by a fair amount in recent figures.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Someguy's post says "according to that [9], 10% of unmarried Americans have never had sex by age 44, which is the highest age for which this really enormous survey goes. Amongst married Americans, only a little over 2% in that age group have never had sex." But as far as I can see that study only includes women. And I can't find those statistics in that (long) article -- what page are they on? I find it a little surprising that supposedly over 2% of married 44-year-old (female) Americans have never had sex. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page 71. I was also a teeny bit wrong, it was 1.6%, not "a little over 2%". To give the most accurate statement: According to the cited survey, 98.4% of married American women between the ages of 30 and 44 have had sex at least once in their lives. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's 1.6% of "all women", not "married women". There are columns for "all women" and columns for "never-married women"; there are no columns for "married women" per se. If you multiply out the percentages, that's 512,160 virgins among the never-married women 30-44, which makes 1.57% of the "all women" 30-44. --Trovatore (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're probably a non-null subset of people who got married today but have not had their wedding night yet. So technically they do exist. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We all know that reliabilism is under externalism. But my questions are, if knowledge is justified by an outside source then how is it going to relate to the person who would say that what he has is knowledge? and Would it not turn as another form of evidentialist claim if the external justification should relate to the person to assert that what he has is knowledge? Because it requires his/her cognitive skills so as to believe and recognize an external justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 13:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We all know that reliabilism is under externalism - Well, this little black duck doesn't know that, because he doesn't even know what either of those two things is. They have links but I don't have a week spare to read and absorb the concepts contained therein. But that aside, what would it mean for one -ism to be "under" another -ism? -- Jack of Oz[Talk]18:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's normal for externalists to claim that you don't need to know that you know x in order to know x. K(S, p) → K(S, K(S,p)) is false for many externalists (where K(z, y) means "Some person z knows some proposition y" and S is a person and p is a proposition). The K(S, p) speaks to the first- order knowledge of S, and the K(S, K(S , p)) speaks to the second-order knowledge of S.
That does not fully answer your question, I know, and I don't think I can because I don't know all the different externalist positions. One influential paper: Tyler Burge (1988), “Individualism and Self-Knowledge” in the Journal of Philosophy, 85, pp. 649–63. Burge says "Knowing one's thoughts no more requires separate investigation of the conditions that make the judgment possible than knowing what one perceives." His theory is that the mental event involved in K(S, K(S , p)) contains within it the mental event involved in K(S, p). And S need not recognize an external justification for K(S, p) in order for there to be K(S, K(S , p)) because the object of the mental event of K(S, K(S , p)), that is, the mental event of K(S, p), is already beheld by S. So take reliabilism. The reliability of the belief in p is the justification for K(S , p). The reliability of the belief in K(S , p) is the justification for K(S, K(S , p)), let's call that the second-order reliability in this case. The recognition that "the reliability of the belief in p is the justification for K(S, p)" is not the justification, but the second-order reliability itself is the justification. The second-order reliability is guaranteed by the first-order reliability, because the second-order knowledge content is merely the first-order knowledge which S does have as a mental event and which has its own reliability.
So really, he is calling out the line of thought you have advanced as a sort of category error: An epistemological theory says what it is for someone to know some proposition, including what it is for someone to have the relevant justification. You then turn around and say: "Well, for S to know p is for S to have that justification, so for S to know that S knows p is for S to know that S has that justification, ergo, externalism falls apart". Burge is turning around and saying: "No, it's externalism all the way down. For S to know p implies that S has that justification, but the knowledge itself is not merely that S has that justification. For S to know that S knows p is not for S to know the first-order justification, but is rather that S has the second-order justification."
Why did the Southern states ratify the 13th amendment?
I was watching Spielberg's Lincoln movie yesterday, and I was wondering why the Southern states decided to ratify the 13th amendment abolishing slavery? According to the wiki page, states like Virginia, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, all ratified it, almost immediately after the war!
Borisblue (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a somewhat long story. The basic version is that after Johnson took power (after Lincoln's assassination), he largely halted many of the efforts of Reconstruction and scaled them back to, "if you ratify the 13th amendment, you can join the Union again." (Which was how Lincoln thought Reconstruction should start, not end.) At that point it was an expedient move to get out from under martial law, and by that point it was clear to all that they couldn't just re-institute slavery (nor did they really need to). Read the Reconstruction article if you want to get a better sense of the whole history. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. 98 is partly correct. Virginia, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Arkansas were partly or completely under Union control by the end of 1864, and those states formed Unionist state governments amenable to the abolition of slavery. These states typically had two rival governments, one loyal to the Confederacy and another loyal to the Union. See, for example, Louisiana in the American Civil War and Restored Government of Virginia. It was the Unionist governments of these states, not the secessionist governments, that ratified the 13th amendment. For the other Southern states that ratified the amendment during the 1860s, Mr. 98's explanation is correct. Johnson made ratification an implicit condition for readmission to the Union. See this account. Marco polo (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody really knows, but it is an interesting question, given how much of a role fiction plays in the lives of human beings. There's at least one book that speculates on the topic, but I view this kind of neuro-cultural speculation with some suspicion, personally, because we still really are grasping around in the dark when we are trying to talk about even how the brain works, much less how the brain evolved. But it's at least an attempt at a learned explanation. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fiction is certainly an early human invention... In a world where there is a great big hungry lion hiding in the bushes outside the cave, it's nice to imagine a world where someone in the tribe might actually be brave enough to face the great big hungry lion and drive it away (psst... hey Ogg... hint, hint). Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that, like dreaming, they give us an opportunity to think about how we might handle that situation, and thus prepare for a similar situation, in case it does occur. As such, life threatening situations in fiction are more desirable, since preparing for those is most important. (I always do that: "Get down on the ground, you idiot, can't you see they're shooting at you ?") StuRat (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are several psychological purposes of fiction. Some of the major ones include the validation of one's philosophical or social values (IE the "crime epic" in which the protagonist goes from a typical blue collar life into a life of crime, gets the girl, the money and the power, and ends up "taking a tour of the meadowlands" or otherwise tortured and killed for his deviance from social norms EG Scarface, The Godfather, The Sopranos, etc), explication of social taboos (in which an antagonist violates some grave social taboo and suffers most horribly, IE Hamlet) exploration of an ideal society (what Bruce Sterling called "the magical widget factory tour" in which the workings of a utopia are carefully explained to the captive audience), and many other roles. Fiction can illustrate values, as in a Passion Play or Morality Play, fiction can guide us along a mythological journey, as in the classic "Path of the Hero" as explained by Campbell, Et Al. Fiction can serve to both validate and challenge our values. Stories are where we boil our values down to basic units and can examine, challenge and explore their implications. HominidMachinae (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As reading sources, I would strongly recommend the Novelist/Philosopher Ayn Rand's two works on fiction, The Romantic Manifesto, in which she writes various essays on aesthetics in general, and her The Art of Fiction which is a guide to writers that rests upon her aesthetic theories. Both books are great reads aimed at the layman and you don't have to agree with her politics or atheism to get a lot out of them. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Muslim meal times
My young daughter has a friend who is Muslim and, from what I can gather, the family originally came from Egypt. The parents seem like nice folks, though there's a sizable language barrier between us, hence my reason for asking here. One thing we've noticed is that the family seems to have (what seems to us) odd meal times. I'd like to learn more about this as the girls frequently visit either family's home, so it would be good to kind of know how everything is set up. I think it's pretty standard for people to eat a breakfast soon after rising, a lunch sometime around noon, and then a supper/dinner five to seven hours after that. Obviously there's a lot of variation, but I think that gives a rough average, yes? This family seems to eat their breakfast around noon, their midday meal sometime around two or three in the afternoon (or later) and then has supper very late, just before bed. At least, that's the impression I'm getting via the kids, who are not always the greatest informants! I've tried Googling about Muslim meal times, but everything I see is in regards to Ramadan and other fasting practices, which I don't think are at play here. Any help? Is this a standard Muslim meal schedule? An Egyptian thing? I'm quite aware it could just be an idiosyncrasy of the family, too. Matt Deres (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frommers has a little Egyptian mealtime info. This report talks about restaurants closing at 2 am being a controversial curtailment of their normal hours. Given the climate, I'd expect this is the effect of a siesta rather than theology (and the Frommers link says things are different during Ramadan). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk16:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's likely to be just an idiosyncrasy of the family. There are plenty of families of all religions and ethnicities who like to get up late, have a leisurely breakfast and so on. --Viennese Waltz18:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, so it does. Thanks for the link; I guess I was looking from the wrong direction, going from Muslim -> lunch instead of lunch -> Muslim. Thank you also to Finlay; I'll check those links as well. Matt Deres (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do either of the parents work an unusual shift ? This might explain the odd meal hours, if they are trying to have their meals together, despite the unusual shift. StuRat (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a Muslim peculiarity, it's a cultural one. Different Muslim (or Arab) countries have different work schedules. In Egypt, typically, many businesses and government offices work from early morning until mid-afternoon without a break. People come home around 3:00-5:00 pm, have their lunch, take a nap, and then get back to business early evening (7:00 pm or so). The final meal of the day is taken in the middle of the night, before they turn in to bed. Other countires of the region (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan...) will also have their evening meal late, but not quite so much - restaurants begin to get busy around 9:30 pm or so, and it's not rare to see a family with young children show up for a meal at 10:30 pm). Yet other places have adopted the western work week and meal times differ little from what would be in Europe. However, in northern Morocco, for example, where there's a strong Spanish influence, breakfast is late (9:30-10 am), lunch is around 3 pm, tea time is around 7:00 pm, and the evening meal is taken near midnight. Generally, one of the key factors is that most of these countries have a climate with a oppressively hot middle of the day, which pushes people to take a mid-day nap and spent more of their waking hours at night, when the temperatures are more pleasant.
To add more complication, Ramadan with its restrictions on eating during daylight hours, also produces what to us are strange meal times, especially around now when it falls in the middle of summer (it was not as discernible when Ramadan fell in mid-winter a decade ago). All of this based on extensive travel around the region and is OR, although I'm sure it can be verified. --Xuxl (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, well that pretty much exactly mirrors the kind of thing we've seen. Thanks for the explanation! I think the family's been in Canada for less than ten years, so their schedule could easily be a holdover from the old country. If you have a reliable source, you should think about putting that info into an article somewhere. Matt Deres (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here are my two cents: it depends on whether lunch or dinner is the main meal of the day. I too happen to come from a Muslim family, though a Bosnian one (and thus of Slavic origin), so I'm not sure if that is relevant. There might be some cultural similarities, though the same is true for Orthodox Christian Serbs and Roman Catholic Croats. In our culture, lunch is the main meal. Dinner is, in fact, a sort of a nighttime breakfast. The meal times of that family correspond almost perfectly to meal times in Bosnia. Surtsicna (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, 'most' is an overstatement. "The list includes eight out of 41 NSDAP regional leaders who held office between 1926 and 1945, seven out of 47 higher SS and police leaders, 53 out of 554 Army generals, 14 out of 98 Luftwaffe generals [and] 11 out of 53 admirals in the Kriegsmarine." However, it is true that many Germans took their own lives following the end of the war. Our article Mass suicides in 1945 Nazi Germany states that "[t]he reasons for these waves of suicides were numerous and include the effects of Nazi propaganda, the example of the suicide of Adolf Hitler, victims' attachment to the ideals of the Nazi party, and a reaction to the loss of the war and, consequently, the anticipated Allied occupation of Nazi Germany." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's a "Nazi member"? A Nazi party member? Answering your question, the alternative fate of falling into Russian hands or facing the death penalty was not very attractive either. I do not believe in a general feeling of guilt, given the reactions at the Nuremberg by some leaders or trying to bury the past by the general German and moving on. Philoknow (talk)
Who can claim, at least in the Western civilization, to be educated? Do you need a degree? Read the news regularly? Speak foreign languages? Recite poetry? Correctly spell without spell checker? Standard accent? Eat with your mouth shut and say please and thank you? Know the bible by heart or better be an atheist? Where's the valid canon? Linenld (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One criterion by which readers decide if a writer is "educated" is his ability to avoid using a different word than the one he intended, such as writing "cannon" when he means canon. In speech, someone might be regarded as "uneducated" (or perhaps an autodidact if he mispronounced a word, such as pronouncing "chaos" beginning with a "chay" sound rather than a hard "c" sound as I once did when as a child I had only read the word and never heard anyone say it. "Proper" grammar and spelling are an initial hurdle in presenting oneself as "educated." Eating habits and saying "Thank you" might be indicators of a "proper upbringing" more than of "education." I don't see Americans expecting an educated person to recite poetry and speak a foreign language. I found several descriptions which have been written of what makes a person "educated." Some were more like what makes a person relate to God and others well, but one which seems more mainstream is [10]. Edison (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"We expect a physicist to know that in the quark theory, the only elementary particles are quarks and leptons, but it is hardly necessary for a lawyer, doctor, or sociologist to have this information, and hence we would treat it as specialized knowledge." Justify the commas after "theory" and "information" and you will rise even further in my estimation. :) Tevildo (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was something I hadn't read. "In the quark theory" could be regarded as parenthetical and hence deserving of two commas. Or not, in which case it gets none. But not just the one, as written. I don't have a problem with the comma after "information", but it's not essential. I still think it's a bit of an overkill to say he "knows nothing" about punctuation. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]00:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opening this out as it might be relevant to the discussion. "Nothing" was admittedly excessive - Mohanan's punctuation isn't as dreadful as many pieces of text that one reads on the Internet, but he does not appear to have studied any formal rules of punctuation in great detail, choosing instead the "bung a comma in every now and then when it looks OK" approach. This reminded me, indirectly, of a very interesting programme on the radio a couple of weeks ago about E D Hirsch and cultural literacy. Mohanan takes the opposite position, in that his essay considers the goal of education to be the development of appropriate thinking techniques and methods for processing information - this is important, true, but it might be regarded as placing too little emphasis on the acquisition of actual _facts_. Although nobody today would regard the full-blown Gradgrindian approach as acceptable, I would still argue that knowledge of facts themselves in addition to methods of obtaining them is an important component of "educatedness". Tevildo (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well the examples listed are really couple different things: being educated (formal education), having good etiquette, and learned (bilingual, recite poetry, etc acquired by formal education and/or experience) . For Canada and US, the relevant articles would be Educational attainment in the United States & Education in Canada (or look at this under Educational attainment). One can "claim" to be educated at any level, however in my opinion the very bare minimum would be completing high school but it'll be a more reasonable claim if one complete some sort of post-secondary level of education (College Associate degree and up). Royor (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Linenld -- I don't think that either being an atheist or memorizing the Bible has much to do with it, but to be "educated" in a Western sense, you do have to know in a general way about certain Biblical episodes or incidents (the Sermon on the Mount, the Golden Calf, etc.), even if you don't believe in them. By the way, Muslims place greater emphasis on personal scripture memorization than either Christians or Jews do... AnonMoos (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There a lot of good points above; I would only like to stress how important the context is for answering this question. There are situations where only those people who have completed a doctorate would be called "educated". Likewise, there are instances where completing any formal education at all would be considered so. My opinion is that for the average person in urban North America, obtaining a post secondary degree would probably be a minimum requirement to have people refer to you as "an educated person." It's not that others are uneducated, it's just that there's a rising standard in what it means to have a formal education; with so many people having bachelor degrees, it would be difficult to be called "educated" without one.
Context comes into it further when you talk about what your degree is in. For some people, only individuals who have completed a course of study in something highfalutin like medicine or English literature would be considered "educated", while the folks that only got, say, a business degree would not. Matt Deres (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think perfect punctuation is required for a person to be considered "educated". In fact, few people other than professional editors (not all of whom are highly educated) manage perfect punctuation. This is OR based on my experience as a professional editor who has at times had to edit the punctuation of highly educated persons. Marco polo (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Mark Twain said: "I have never let my learning get in the way of my education." There are lots of forms of education... an auto mechanic may not have completed high school, but he can be quite educated on the topic of automobiles. Blueboar (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Educated is too broad a term to attack usefully. An elementary education is the ability to read, use a library, do arithmetic and write a paragraph in full sentences. A proper education is the ability to do algebra (including exponents), to write a report and a formal letter, to find yourself on a map and the way to your destination, to follow and participate in politics, to run a household, and to earn a living. A liberal education requires some knowledge of world and classical history, the scientific method, the arts, familiarity with logic, the use of a foreign language, the ability to write an essay and a lab report, and to have a good notion of the extent of your own ignorance. A doctorate requires mastery of a classical and fluency in a foreign language, authoritative expertise in some technical area, the ability to do independent research, to write a thesis, and to defend it and yourself in a dissertation. Approximately. See the trivium, the quadrivium, and paideia. μηδείς (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree with Medeis. My only quibble is that, even at the most exalted universities, a doctorate (except in the classics) today no longer requires mastery of a classical language. The other requirements still apply at the best universities. Marco polo (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here I was hoping if I didn't mention that the language standard has largely been abandoned it might catch back on, and you had to go and ruin it for me! μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the sciences, at least in the United States, the defense is typically a formality. Your adviser will generally not allow you to schedule a defense unless you're going to pass, and you're lucky if your other committee members even read your dissertation. I was actually asked whether I wanted to do a defense at all (I did — it's a lovely rite of passage but not much more than that). --Trovatore (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Educated" requires context. Those who excel in some areas, fall behind in other areas, oftentimes. Also, if I particularly value language skills, I am probably going to be impressed by someone who uses language well. If I am seeking to understand the mysteries of the universe I might consider a cosmologist the most educated person I have ever met. Thus my own personal preferences will determine who I consider educated and conversely uneducated. Bus stop (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Turning into a market maker (not in the stock market)
Is it by any mean illegal to take part in a market as a bigger player and buy all offered products at a specific price and only sell them back into the same market with a margin of profit? It would mean that you indeed are the market maker and decides for all (smaller) players that the prices have to go up. It would only work if you have considerable more means than others, or when other similar players are doing the same. As a concrete example, imagine that you buy all offered offices in a district, which normally trade for $500/sq ft, and try to re-sell for $600/sq ft. You do it systematically, and each time an office get offered by less than $600/sq ft you go there and buy it. Linenld (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that strategy would work. Nobody would want to buy in an area where such real estate manipulation occurs, so you would end up with property worth less than what you paid for it. Real estate agents would also figure out your strategy, and only sell to you for $599 per square foot. StuRat (talk) 04:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's called buying low and selling high which is called investment when the big guys do it and scalping when the little guys do it. It's neither monopoly which requires government force to make people buy from you and only you or price fixing which is competitors getting together and colluding to charge the same amount. In either of those cases there might be a temporary swing one way or the other, but so long as the government doesn't prevent it market forces will cause a correction. What it sounds like your big guy is trying to do is corner the market. Again, that's never been accomplished without government backing, as people catch on and react as StuRat indicated. Again, for a great read and the go-to resource on free market economics rationally explained go to George Reisman's http://www.capitalism.net/ and download his college textbook for free as a pdf on the left of the page. μηδείς (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
symbols of France, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, and Spain
Canada is known for its maple leaf, USA is known for its stars and strips and UK is known for its Union Jack. What about France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Germany and Spain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And then they go and use orange for their sporting colour, just to confuse us all. (As an Australian, I actually love it, because we do pretty much the same thing - a flag that's predominantly blue, with some white and red, but green and gold for sport.) HiLo48 (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of France's oldest national symbols is the Fleur-de-lis, though it is considered somewhat monarchical. There's Marianne, which is something like the "Uncle Sam" symbol is for the U.S., a personification of the nation; France's equivalent of the U.S. Bald Eagle is le coq gaulois. --Jayron3203:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In traditional European quasi-heraldic symbolism, the lion was the noblest animal, the eagle the noblest bird, and the oak the noblest tree. Thus many countries have eagle or lion emblems, and it doesn't surprise me that multiple nations have the oak as a symbol... AnonMoos (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certain buildings can symbolize a nation... the Eiffel Tower for France, the Leaning Tower of Pisa for Italy... A Windmill for the Netherlands... "Big Ben" for England (yes, I know... Big Ben is the bell, not the building. You know what I mean)... etc. Blueboar (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the short answer is - no, there isn't. They're just different ways of naming orchestral organizations. So while Edmonton's orchestra is called the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra, and Calgary's is named the Calgary Philharmonic Orchestra, the nomenclature doesn't point to any difference in the makeup of the orchestra, or the way they are governed, or their mandates in their respective communities. In some larger centres, where there may be several orchestras, you find both names being used - like the London Symphony and the London Philharmonic - or the Vienna Symphony and the Vienna Philharmonic. And some orchestras don't use either, like the Philadelphia Orchestra or the Cleveland Orchestra. However both names do carry the connotation of a full, well proportioned orchestra that includes winds and strings, as opposed to a Wind Orchestra or a Chamber Orchestra. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Separatists winning the Scottish Parliament elections.
Is the Scottish parliament election not a local election? When is the last time Scottish separatist parties won a 60% majority, or anything like that? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Scottish Parliament is not a local election; local government in Scotland is a different layer of government. The SNP has never won 60% in a Scottish Parliament election - all four are shown in Scottish parliament#Elections. I don't believe the SNP has ever enjoyed a majority of votes, Scottish seats at the Westminster parliament, Scottish seats in the European parliament, or Scottish local authorities. In the last general election the SNP polled 20% of the vote in Scotland. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk23:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Scottish Parliament was conceived as part of a system of regional government (English regional assemblies and the Welsh Assembly were created the same year) and has powers devolved from Westminster. It's a creation of Westminster, very like a local authority, and for now in theory it could be abolished quite quickly there, though there would be a political backlash which might well cause many more Scots to vote for independence. Moonraker (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that clears a lot up. Almost as if they had created three US state legislatures where before there had only been local and national government. I had thought the Scottish parliament was separate from and equal to the Westminster parliament. μηδείς (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, Scottish MPs still sit at Westminster. While they are there, they get to dabble in purely English domestic legislation, whereas the equivelent Scottish legislation has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, where English MPs don't get a say in it. As a majority of Scottish MPs are from the Labour Party, it annoys the hell out of Conservative MPs. The issue is called the West Lothian Question. Alansplodge (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When Tam Dalyell first coined the term "West Lothian question", though, he was talking about a different situation - obviously, since the Scottish Parliament didn't exist back then. He was talking specifically about Scottish local government and the fact that certain matters had been devolved to local authorities which meant that he as a Scottish MP had no control over them, although he could vote on similar matters affecting England. --Viennese Waltz03:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for the name of the fallacy that occurs when thinking about tolerance. It is summed up in this quote:
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society... then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them...”
― Karl R. Popper
It is indeed a type of equivocation, I'd call it context-dropping or definition by non-essentials. By tolerance in a political context we mean tolerance of opinion, not tolerance of force or physiological tolerance of drugs, etc. Popper is not committing the fallacy here, he's describing it. Those who'd replace the properly valued political tolerance of peaceful differences of opinion or taste or peaceful practices with "tolerance" as an absolute, as if we must "tolerate" those who initiate force against others, are destroying the very concept whose value they expect you to recognize emotionally, but whose nature they don't expect you to identify consciously. (That phenomenon of replacing thought with emotion is the essence of Orwell's Newspeak.) Ayn Rand called the fallacy involved the anti-concept. Popper's not arguing against tolerance, he's arguing that we have to know what we mean by words like it that have multiple and possibly contradictory senses in the context where we use them. μηδείς (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing thought with emotion is not the essence of Newspeak. The essence is that if a language is not capable of expressing a certain idea, say "freedom", then nobody can imagine the concept or try to bring about its existence. Newspeak only works if linguistic determinism is true, and very few linguists believe it is. --140.180.249.151 (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree that that phrase would need a lot of unpacking the way I put it, my point was that consciousness is reduced from functioning conceptually to functioning emotionally (e.g., the two minute hate); but the OP can read the sources and ask more questions if he has them. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tolerance is not an unalloyed good. The object of tolerance must be taken into consideration. In the absence of an articulated object, tolerance can be welcome or unwelcome. Bus stop (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Including Sephardi in this question is pointless. That term indicates the ancestry of descendants of Jews expelled from Spain in 1492. They've lived for five (!) centuries in other countries, so those who came to Israel - relatively few, after the Holocaust - are generally identified by their place of origin, e.g. the Netherlands and the Balkan countries, etc. Those Spain-expelled Jews who emigrated to North Africa in the late 15th C. largely intermarried with local Jewish populations, so culturally would be among the "Mizrachi" of the large post-WWII wave of immigration, along with those from the Arab countries of the Middle East. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an an essay on multiculturalism in Israel complete with references. If you search the web (e.g. Israel + Mizrachi + political) you'll find information from such a wide variety of sources that you'll have to decide which ones you consider reliable. At present, eight weeks away from national elections, parties are still forming: the Likud primaries were on Monday, a new party (Tnuah headed by Tzipi Livni) announced yesterday. I suggest that voters' choices reflect their positions on security (Iran, Hamas/Hezbollah), foreign relations (Arab countries, the West), the territories (settlers, Palestinians), and economics (free market vs. social welfare). Loyalties to a particular party or politician reflect what the individual voter feels s/he stands to gain on these issues. Religious fundamentalists are most likely vote as their spiritual leaders direct. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The OTHER Middle-Eastern Religions
How much is known about the other religions that are related to Abramism or to Mazdaism there were (or are) in the Middle-East? What kind of resources are there on them? 209.159.255.226 (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be a bit more specific please? Do you mean the offshoots of the Abrahamic religions such as Gnosticism or Bahai, or whether there are still some pre-Abrahamic religions still in the area? Are you interested in any in particular? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course 84.21... means Samaritanism. When you say "other" religions, I suppose you mean other than the big three: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Tammy Moet has mentioned Bahai. Of course each of the big three has offshoots that are different enough to possibly qualify as different religions, such as Samaritanism (from Judaism), Gnosticism including Manichaeism and Mandaeism (drawing from both Christianity and what you call Mazdaism), and Islam-influenced sects such as Druze and Yazdanism (including the Yazidi), or sects whose Islamic affiliation is debated, such as Ahmadiyya or the Alawi and Alevi. A number of these Islamic sects also draw from what you call Mazdaism, by which I think you mean the Zoroastrian tradition. Another Zoroastrian-derived sect that also showed Islamic influence was the Khurramites. Yet another Zoroastrian-derived sect was Zurvanism. The Zoroastrian connections of Mithraism are debated. Marco polo (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I probably should have been more specific. I am looking, particularly, for the *older* religions in the area, ones dating from before Islam or Christianity and possible even before the consolidation of Judaism. Samaritanism and the Yezidi I already knew about, but are otherwise the kind of groups I was thinking of. I was also thinking of the religion of the Kanem, and that of the Sabians, though I don't know how reliable the reports are of them. Also, by "Mazdaism" I didn't quite mean Zoroastrianism, but rather the kinds of religions that birthed it-- I have heard that before Zarathustra, the worship of Ahura Mazda was more polytheistic. Thanks. 209.159.255.226 (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seven Pillars of Wisdom has a passage near the beginning, musing on the very wide variety of religions that had sprung up and faded out in the region over the centuries, resulting in a culture that had been shaped by the interaction of a lot of different ideas. Like Native American languages, it could be that a lot of them are undocumented or only documented in obscure scholarly places. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ernest Hemingway and Ludwig Renn (Spanish Civil War, 1936-39)
Hello Learned Ones ! I'm finishing the french version of Ludwig Renn in WP fr , & I suddenly note that Hemingway (to my knowledge) didn't mention Renn, a chief of the International Brigades, while he gave wide descriptions of many others (André Marty especially seems to us quite juicy & accurate). A quick look in Carlos Baker doesn't carry more fruit. WP deutsch says in a note that Renn mentioned EH curtly in his book about the Spanish war , as "an american" . Was that cold eye reciprocal ? Thanks beforehand for your answers. T;y. Arapaima (talk) 11:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our article Isidor Straus (note the spelling) includes the following text:
"Isidor and Ida were last seen on deck arm in arm. Eyewitnesses described the scene as a "most remarkable exhibition of love and devotion."
As the last eyewitnesses saw them on deck, it would seem that the scene in bed must have been the film-makers' imagination. However, the comment in our article is currently unsourced, so you will need to research this further or decide for yourself on Wikipedia's reliability on this point. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who would know if they did? It's not likely that some frantic person would suddenly decide to peek into somebody's cabin, plus recognize the occupants. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Isidor_Strauss#Death_on_the_Titanic there is no reason to believe the 1997 film's version of the Titanic sinking (dying in bed), but there are accounts of the 1953 and 1958's versions (seen on deck arm in arm with his wife). Since his body was found floating on water, I doubt he perished in his cabin. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second reference desk question I've seen about Strauss being a "Civil War veteran". But according to the article, he attempted to enlist but was turned down, and instead made money trading traitor bonds. --jpgordon::==( o )16:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The direct quote, "most remarkable exhibition of love and devotion" appears to come not from an eyewitness but from a newspaper article. I found HER LOVE STOOD THE SUPREME TEST. (ARTICLE) in the The Kingston Daily Freeman, Volume 42, April 20 1912, Page 6 (but no doubt syndicated in many others); the text accompanies a portrait photograph of Ida. So the story about them is at least contemporary with the sinking, however it doesn't actually say if they stayed on deck or went to bed. I know which sounds the most likely. Alansplodge (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have since found Jay Henry Mowbray, Sinking of the Titanic: Eyewitness Accounts" 1912 which quotes an account from an American journalist and survivor called Helen Churchill Candee. She said; "I saw Mr and Mrs Isador Strausss on the deck of the Titanic as I was lowered into one of the lifeboats. Mrs Strauss refused to leave the ship unless her husband could accompany her. They were on the top deck and I heard her say that she would not leave her husband. She went down with him as she had lived and traveled with him...". A further account in the same book comes from Ida's maid, Miss Ellen Bird, although reported by "Sylvester Byrnes, general manager of R.H. Macy & Co.". Ellen's description seems to end when she is put in the lifeboat in Ida's place.[11]Alansplodge (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also found the account of the ship's barber, Charles Weikman, who fell into the sea as the Titanic finally sank. He says; ""The parting of the last two boats from the ship's side caused all those on board to rush to the rail. Here I found Mr. and Mrs. Isadore Straus, their arms enfolding one another. Mrs. Straus clambered out of a lifeboat when she learned that her husband would be unable able to accompany her to safety. She remarked that she would rather stay on board with her husband than leave the ship without him. They went down to their death in the sea locked in each other's arms."[12] There's another report about them sitting in deck chairs, which is quoted on several websites like this one, but I haven't been able to pin it down to any particular survivor. Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that the Strauses' devotion and love was played up (in comparison to that of other families; I do not doubt that their deaths occurred as described by surviving witnesses) for a reason not obvious to modern readers: the emphasis put upon the bravery and stoicism of "Anglo-Saxon" first-class victims, and the claims or implications by some prominent survivors and reporters that the non-"Anglo-Saxon" victims were all irrational screaming nutcases with no sense of decorum or decency. The Strauses were of course Jewish, and Jewish readers were keenly interested in the story of Ida Strauss, who was seen as embodying all those virtues attributed by the mainstream media only to "Anglo-Saxons". I put "Anglo-Saxon" in quotes because that's the term the newspapers used when describing victims of Northwest European Protestant stock. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
November 27
Keith Baines
I need some(or more)information about Keith Baines(English man) . It's said that he is a contemporary poet,whose poems once appeared in periodicals both in the United States and the United Kingdom,died in 1986.
Help really really needed!!!
Thank you , sincerely!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharpay90 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst reading the Copenhagen article, it was stated that because of the Øresund Bridge it was becoming part of a greater transnational metropolitan area with Malmo in Sweden, which sparked my curiosity about transnational metropolitan areas, only to find we have no article in general on the topic. After some work searching I finally found Transborder agglomeration, but this is just a listof such areas. Can I ask for ideas and insights on this topic. Thanks.--KTo288 (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Ideas and insights" is a bit vague - what precisely do you mean? One thought is that in many case these cities would have developed on opposite banks of a river, which only became an international (or inter-territorial) boundary at a later date. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's true of some. Others are cities near a border, which gradually merged with dormitory towns on the other side, while yet others are towns which have developed either side of an important border post. Warofdreamstalk14:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After reading some of the articles from those on the list, transport links seem to be important, it seems strange to think that because of the bridge Malmo is becoming a dormitary town for Copenhagan, the other thing seems to be financial incentives, where their is a financial benefit from moving goods or people from one side to the other.--KTo288 (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are also cases where some country had a populated region, some part of which later got acquired some other country (e.g. due to a war), leaving the region split across the two countries. I can't think of examples that I'd say are really metropolitan, though maybe there are some. East and West Berlin pre-unification could be sort of a partway example. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My question is, that scumbag was responsible for the deaths of thousands of disabled people. But he wore glasses, didn't it make him disabled too? Keeeith (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably few people around without any deficiency in some way, whether it be physical, emotional or cognitive, but there is obviously great divergence in how 'disabling' different deficiencies are. Not that I want to defend him, but there's nothing illogical in my mind about distinguishing between little and great disabilities. - Lindert (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The need for glasses was not considered disabling enough to make someone qualify as Life unworthy of life. By the Nazi logic, to be life unworthy of life you had to somehow be a burden or a threat (long or short term) to society. People with glasses, in and of themselves, constituted neither. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recorded speculations about the "origin of energy"?
I know this is not a science question, which is why I place it under "philosophy", or generally speaking, "humanities". Where does energy come from? Are there any recorded philosophical speculations about the origin of energy? For example, the qi in Qigong or the electrical energy that turns on your lightbulb. 140.254.227.120 (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aristotle in "Metaphysics" reasoned that the source of all movement would be some Primum movens or "prime mover," (God, for instance) acting not through pushing on something (which would cause a reaction) but by thought. The prime mover set things moving without being moved itself. Thomas Aquinas and Isaac Newton were in accord with this, if I recall my classics education from many years ago. Aristotle coined the word "energia" or "energy," but its modern use in science ins not the same as his. See Potentiality and actuality for an explanation. Edison (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially the same question as the origin of matter and the origin of the universe, on which people have been speculating for time immemorial. Carving it down to the origin of energy doesn't seem like a distinction with a difference to me. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how you define "science". As Marco polo states below, if you believe that ultimate causes can only be explained in metaphysical terms, then you are talking philosophy. 140.254.121.38 (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you read "Energy (disambiguation)#Science and philosophy" you'll notice that the word "energy" is used to describe quite different phenomena. The qi in Qigong and the electrical energy that powers a lightbulb are quite different kettles of fish. But lets say you mean energy in its physical sense. When you say "Where does energy come from?", do you mean the concept "energy" or actual energy itself? Gabbe (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a physicist, but I believe that physicists see the Big Bang as the ultimate origin of all energy in the universe. However, I don't think that scientists understand and agree on the causes of the Big Bang. (See also Cosmogony.) Some (scientists or otherwise) believe that ultimate causes can only be explained in metaphysical terms. Which brings us back to philosophy. Marco polo (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, because God is definitely the best explanation for a relatively well-understood, observable, and ongoing physical process that has nothing to do with the OP's question of where energy comes from. Please take your propaganda elsewhere. In reality, star formation conserves energy (to a very good approximation). There are physical processes in the universe that don't--the expansion of the universe creates dark energy, because dark energy density is constant with time while the universe expands. In the same vein, radiation energy goes down with time because its energy density decreases as the fourth power of the universe's size, while volume only increases as the third power. But you don't see Wavelength trying to prove that God created dark energy, for the reason that the almighty Creator doesn't seem to know about this component of the universe that dominates all matter by a ratio of 2.7 to 1, and all stellar mass by a ratio of 200 to 1. --140.180.249.151 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did God tell you personally that He doesn't know about dark matter and dark energy? The OP specifically asked for philosophical explanations, and Wavelength supplied one. Dbfirs22:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read his link? It talks about God creating stars. Creating stars does not create energy. The OP asked about the origin of energy. Even if Wavelength did provide a philosophical answer to the OP--which he didn't--philosophy is not a field in which anything and everything is accepted as valid. In particular, the argument from ignorance is widely regarded as fallacious, and every argument of the form "I don't why X happens; therefore God did it" is an argument of ignorance. --140.180.249.151 (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested in another "borderline science" theory that the whole universe has, and has always had, zero total energy. See the article: Zero-energy universe (including some of the deleted content for way-out ideas that have a philosophical slant). Dbfirs22:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Idiots guide to 2011 UK census release calendar
For reference, I'm the idiot.
I have been trying to understand the UK 2011 census data without, so far, fully understanding the terminology used by the ONS. So here is what I would like:
2011 population and area for Ely (ONS E04001630 12UC011)*
2011 population and area for Stretham (E04001643 12UC024)* NOTE: Not the ward Stretham & Thetford!
2011 population and area for Little Thetford (E04001647 12UC028)*
As far as I can ascertain, the 2011 parish level population statistics have not yet been released although there was a recent ONS release of Lower-Level-Output-Area population statistics, including wards. There is, on the other hand, parish level population data available for 2001 at Neighbourhood statistics.
My question is therefore: For 2011, is there a parish level population statistic available yet? Will one be produced? When?
No, you are not an idiot. The ONS website is extremely hard to navigate and understand. It may have made sense to the people who developed it, but not much thought was given to users' needs or expectations. Marco polo (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you get an answer from asking at Ghmyrtle's link? I have a weird workaround for you if not, but it's complicated. If you use the map here, you can zoom in on an area you want (for example, Ely), and select each individual census area (Ely seems to be composed of at least eight). Use the dropdown menu under "click an area to update table" to find out the LSOA code for that area (for example, one piece of Ely is called East Cambridgeshire 003F/E01033426). Then go download the excel table here (it's the one called "Output Areas (OAs) in the East", fifth from the top), and click on the LSOA sheet (tab at the bottom of the document) to get the number for that specific piece/code (in this case, 1,510 residents). Repeat and add up for other areas that make up Ely. Repeat for your other areas etc. There must be an easier way, but that's all I've got. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha. I like the response from Marco Polo; especially where I am told I'm not an idiot. He he. Not yet, Ghmyrtle, but I will ask the ONS customer service; thank you. It is however highly likely that the ONS has not yet produced a parish level population statistic, otherwise someone would have corrected us by now and told us where to find such a statistic. I had considered your work-around 184.147.123.169 but I discounted it on the basis that such a solution would be original research. Thank you all for your valuable input --Senra (talk)16:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does this name predate the 1900s? Or is it a later revival of a traditional Maori name? The oldest source I found on Google Books was a 1961 Maori dictionary of place names. How did European explorers and settlers in the 1800s transliterate it originally? Did they use different letters, hyphenate it, broke it up into different words, etc.? Is there any books from the 1800s, written by a European that speaks about this mountain. Or did they use another name for it, or never bother to visit it or write the name down. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The United States Supreme Court Overruling Itself Twice
Have there been any cases throughout history where the US SC overruled itself twice? I was discussing this issue with someone else, and discussed the possibility of the US SC re-legalizing abortion eventually in the hypothetical event of a repeal of Roe v. Wade. The person that I was talking to said that he never heard of a case where the US SC overruled itself on twice. My question is, has there ever been such a case/issue? Futurist110 (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone link me to any sources online that give the total amount of money spent on internet ads in the 2012 U.S. Presidential election?Rabuve (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
King John II of Portugal appointed him, on 10 October 1487, to head an expedition to sail around the southern tip of Africa in the hope of finding a trade route to India.
1) Marco Polo may have crossed the equator, because he describes islands in Indonesia that are "so far to the south that the North Star, little or much, is never to be seen!" and that he himself was "detained by the weather" for five month on such an island in the Kingdom of Samara (Sumatra) where "neither the Pole-star nor the stars of the Maestro were to be seen".
2) There is a story recorded by Herodotus claiming that the ancient Phoenicians sailed around southern Africa, and there may have been other accounts. And besides, the only alternative of there being a southern tip is if Africa extended to the South Pole, and then it had to be huge. Not impossible perhaps, but that might have seemed unlikely. - Lindert (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tips about Marco Polo and Herodotus. I was wondering whether there's documentary evidence of, say, Bartolomeu Dias' sponsors saying that the southern tip of Africa must exist, or telling him to find it "if it does exist". (As a practical matter they could view it as non-existent if the coast of West Africa veers toward the west as you go farther south.) Duoduoduo (talk)
I think it's really unlikely that we can figure out who was the first European to cross the Equator. My guess would be it was someone whose name is lost to history, not more than 300 years after there were Europeans. There have always been wanderers, and it's not really that hard to wander to. --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first European known to cross the equator would be Marco Polo, assuming he wasn’t fudging the facts (which would seem unlikely given the rather limited understanding even the most educated people had about the particulars of latitude and the like in the early 14th century). Regarding the Herodotus claim, it’s not entirely germane to this discussion, but similar claims were made by Plutarch about the Egyptians; I don’t think anyone takes those too seriously these days. Dias had enough trouble getting around Cape Bojador as it is, and it seems likely that had he been trying it with 14th-century technology (let alone ancient Egyptian or Phoenician tech) he would have died like many of the others who had tried before (remember that the Cape of Good Hope wasn’t even the hardest part of getting to the other side of Africa). Evanh2008(talk|contribs)21:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it might be germane to this discussion, because the second question was "did Europeans know for sure that there was a southern tip of Africa?". Answer - maybe, if they'd studied Herodotus. He was thought to be a reliable source at the time, so at least they would have thought that they knew for sure. Alansplodge (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the Egyptians did it, it was probably by following the Nile or the Red Sea, not by sailing into the Atlantic and south along the western coast. Also, a 14th century traveler would have certainly been aware that the farther south you go, the lower the North Star appears, until it disappears behind the horizon. --140.180.249.151 (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Duoduoduo -- for a lot of information on what 15th-century Europeans thought they might find in distant regions, see The Fourth Part of the World by Toby Lester (ISBN 978-1-4165-3531-7). -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
