::::I agree, those are almost certainly mistakes (and probably just with the label printing - the tills probably get it right). They wouldn't get away with it if if they did that intentionally - someone would notice (probably when they saw their receipt saying "Today, you've saved -£0.51!") and the bad publicity would be enormous. They would end up having to refund people, with all the administration costs that go along with that. It just wouldn't be a good plan (and the people that come up with the deals in supermarkets are very good at their jobs, so they would know it wasn't a good plan). --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 23:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
::::I agree, those are almost certainly mistakes (and probably just with the label printing - the tills probably get it right). They wouldn't get away with it if if they did that intentionally - someone would notice (probably when they saw their receipt saying "Today, you've saved -£0.51!") and the bad publicity would be enormous. They would end up having to refund people, with all the administration costs that go along with that. It just wouldn't be a good plan (and the people that come up with the deals in supermarkets are very good at their jobs, so they would know it wasn't a good plan). --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 23:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::No, not a mistake. I've frequently seen small bottles of drink more expensive than the larger bottles of drink next to them, particularly in inner-city convenience stores. The reason is that if you're grabbing a drink to go with your lunch, the small size is more convenient to carry around and a more appropriate size for one serving (you could, of course, buy the larger bottle and throw it away when you've had enough, but there's a psychological barrier to this "wastefulness"). [[User:FiggyBee|FiggyBee]] ([[User talk:FiggyBee|talk]]) 01:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::No, not a mistake. I've frequently seen small bottles of drink more expensive than the larger bottles of drink next to them, particularly in inner-city convenience stores. The reason is that if you're an office worker grabbing a drink to go with your lunch (ie most of their customers), the small size is more convenient to carry around and a more appropriate size for one serving (you could, of course, buy the larger bottle and throw it away when you've had enough, but there's a psychological barrier to this "wastefulness"). [[User:FiggyBee|FiggyBee]] ([[User talk:FiggyBee|talk]]) 01:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
:[[Veblen good]] [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 22:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
:[[Veblen good]] [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 22:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Revision as of 01:41, 4 July 2012
Welcome to the humanities section of the Wikipedia reference desk.
The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
How did the Ernestine duchies and other German states administered tiny territorial enclaves in other people's territory that are not part of the main territory?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you were an Imperial Knight, your little landed estate (possibly discontinuous) could be considered just as independent as any duchy or electorate within the empire, so the whole thing was quite convoluted and fragmentary in many areas... AnonMoos (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The tiny districts often formed an Amt with an Amtmann doing the routine adminstration tasks. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NEWSPAPERS
WHICH NEWSPAPER IS ASSOCIATED WITH SWAMI VIVEKANANDA?Arkshanar01 (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
IT IS MY HOME WORK AND I THIINK ANSWER SHOULD BE ANANDA PATRIKA.
PLEASE VERIFY IT.[reply]
I googled swami vivekananda "newspaper" and got many results. Do you mean during his lifetime, or today? (Our article Swami Vivekananda is silent on the matter.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"swami vivekananda" newspaper would be better —Tamfang (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean Anandabazar Patrika? I'm not sure of a connection except that Vivekananda was from a Bengali family in Calcutta, and Anandabazar Patrika is a Bengali newspaper in Calcutta... Adam Bishop (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone recommend good beginner's books on logic? There are so many of them, I don't know what to pick. Please keep in mind that I know next to nothing about the subject. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That may depend on what you're looking to follow on from the logic. The basics of logic are used in electrical engineering, computer science, artificial intelligence, mathematics, linguistics, law, and philosophy. They all (kinda) start at the same place, but it's common for different textbooks aimed at different audiences to emphasise what's appropriate for that curriculum. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am leaning toward AI and computer science in general. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious answer is to work it out logically. If you don't have enough skills with the use of logic, I'd suggest consulting a good book on the subject. :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 01:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Wouldn't that be a Catch-10110? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find it funny. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10110 is 22 expressed in binary. As regards Jack's comment, it reminds me of W.C. Fields' comment to a guy who suffered from insomnia: "I know a good cure for that. Get plenty of sleep!" ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was I don't find it funny that people crack jokes when someone is looking for a solid useful advice. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then there should be no jokes on the Ref Desks at all? Because most people who ask questions here are after "solid, useful advice". You've been around for about 7 years and you're an administrator, so you know how these pages work. It's always been considered OK to crack jokes, but there are conditions and limitations that need to be observed. Occasional fun in any workplace or gathering of humans is an important safety valve, as long as it doesn't overshadow the purpose of the gathering. Your question was no more or less important than the zillions of other questions we get here, and it is not immune from this. But I suppose naked queens are entitled to make an issue of whatever they like. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 22:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMO you're overreacting a bit. Your question is neither pressing nor about a subject too serious for joking (like the child sex abuse question below). I usually wait until someone has provided an answer, but just couldn't resist the quip. If I've offended, I apologize. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Naked queens" is a play on the OP's name and their expressed liking for contributing while unclothed. On the best humour scale that I know (mine), I would give that only a C minus. It could have earned a C if it had been in small font and made more sense. The quip about Catch earns a good B+ because it is appropriately in small font, it implies both literary and mathematical references and it is formed as a question not directed to the OP. However it is unhelpful to disparage this OP's question as somehow less pressing than another question when they have come to us for help. DriveByWire (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't disparaging the OP. I meant pressing in the sense of "needing an answer immediately". Clarityfiend (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has already got completely out of hand. Now the supposedly 12-year-old DriveByWire is high-handedly giving scores to various jokes, pontificating on what should and should not be in small font, and even ruining one quip by explaining it (even though it didn't need any explanation). Clumsy-footed as it is, it's still entering into the spirit of the jokey culture that has always been acceptable here (certainly for the 8 years I've been a regular). To close with support for Borq Queen's position that jokes are inappropriate therefore lacks credibility. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 22:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Again, it depends on where you want to go. I would not recommend Kelley's book, necessarily. this is a nice beginning with a good overview. If you take a beginning logic class in a philosophy department in the US, you're likely to be assigned either this or this (both can be found in older editions for cheap). A more rigorous introduction to symbolic logic is here, though this one's tougher to work through on one's own. If you think that the serious study of logic is not a joking matter (as you seem to above), then you'll want to avoid this (though of course, Lewis Carrol was himself a serious logician). Llamabr (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A real classic, and still very readable, is Raymond Smullyan's First Order Logic. And it is available quite cheap even new. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
French cities with Dutch population
So far, I know that Dunkerque is a french city with Dutch population. Which other French cities that has a Dutch name because of its Dutch/Flemish speaking population or due to the fact they are next to the Belgian border? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.32.196 (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In Picardy, there are some areas of Flemish-speakers, but whether they consider themselves to be "Dutch" is another question.... AnonMoos (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, we do not inherit nationality or language genetically from ancestors 500 years ago, and there isn't a 1:1 relationship between language and nationality now (let alone historically), so national labels can provoke more questions than answers. Put a child in a "French" schoolroom and they will surely be Francophone; let them grow up in a German area and they may well become culturally German; and so on. "Dunkerque" may have dutch etymology but it's been part of France for long enough that an ever-larger propotion of locals act like, and consider themselves, French thanks to the homogenising effect within most modern countries. If you want to see other local demonyms with a "dutch" origin (although many of them may have acquired their name before the modern Dutch language blossomed on Europe's linguistic tree) then just look at the map. As well as the -kerque, look for placenames ending in -ghem, which has the same root as the German -heim. Alternatively, there are demonyms like Bergues. If you draw a line east from Boulogne, most would be north of that line. bobrayner (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
June 29
Is there actually an unreleased movie called "45 Minutes from Denver"?
I just read this from an SAT practice test[1] that says it has "a budget of over 150 million" and "four hours and forty-five minutes" long. When I googled it I can't find any reports, so I am curious if such movie exists. ps: is it very common for SAT to have essays about made-up things?
--113.105.70.226 (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It could be totally invented. The point of that part of the test is reading and comprehension. The closest thing I can think of is the Cohan play and song, "45 Minutes from Broadway". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't exist. A movie with that large a budget would attract some media attention. Also, a "student filmmaker" doesn't get handed that much dough. It's not even close to being the "longest feature film". Clarityfiend (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it totally made up or there is some similar things in reality(for example, similar styled movie with similar cost and length)?--113.105.70.226 (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtful these days. Audiences don't like to sit that long, and the theaters want to show films as often as possible to make $$$. James Cameron would probably have no trouble getting financing, maybe a few others with great track records, but that's about it. There have been earlier ambitious directors, for example Abel Gance, who made Napoléon (1927 film) (the Released versions section lists wildly varying times ranging up to over nine hours). You might enjoy perusing List of longest films by running time. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some films are suicide-inducingly lengthy, and seem to go far longer than their chronological length would appear to indicate. I nominate The Great Gatsby (1974 film) and Heaven's Gate in this category. There are others you want never to end, but they end all too quickly. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 08:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be surprised if many texts used for comprehension on many exams, including the SATs, are made up. (Or, if they do base themselves on previously published texts, they edit them. The reasons for this, is, obviously, to get a text that fits the needs of the test. In this circumstance the text has to have a certain length, and it needs to include an ambiguous metaphor (the Titanic) etc. Another advantage of making it all up, is that you don't advantage/disadvantage any of the students based on what they already know. Some students might be able to understand the questions more quickly, if they already knew about the film, or, on the other hand, they might be responding to the questions due to what they knew of the film already, without reference to the text itself, which is the point of that exercise. V85 (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the biggest points, which I haven't seen addressed, is that the writers of the SAT questions (or other tests) would potentially run into lawsuits if they used descriptions of real films, books, people, etc. Dismas|(talk) 01:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Several movies have been made at Georgetown which lies45 minutes from Denver.DriveByWire (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
French cuisine of France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Monaco
What are the main dishes of France, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg and Monaco like appetizers, main courses for lunch, breakfast, dinner, and desserts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.121 (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of the US Airways Flight 1549 Official Support Vehicle. But I didn't know about the Official Chase Vehicle. I saw some videos of it on YouTube. What brand of car is the US Airways Flight 1549 Official Chase Vehicle? Are there any pictures of it? And why is it called a "chase vehicle"?24.90.195.33 (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an article about it, along with a picture and an explanation. "Official" is apparently a bit tongue in cheek. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't say what brand of car the chase vehicle is. Anyone know?24.90.195.33 (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I wonder about how much of the damage of child sexual abuse is inherent in the act and how much of it is because we tell the child it should fuck him up. Do you think civilisations where it was normal were just traumatized on a global level or it just didn't effect them as much because they found it normal?Bastard Soap (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on our current definitions, plenty. marriage at age 13, say, was common in plenty of cultures. --Tango (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In England the age of consent was 10 until 1875. I have, in my family tree, an ancestress who had her first child aged 13 and was married at 12. Spain has the lowest age of consent at 13. We have, of course, an article on all this. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know it was acceptable in ancient Greece for a professor to sleep with his young students Bastard Soap (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Rind et al. for a highly controversial (and possibly flawed) study on the question of how damaging child sexual abuse is. I think sexual abuse is always damaging, but the cultural reaction plays a role too--in some places victim blaming is quite common. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I once had the same idea. The ancients were certainly more laid back about this stuff. I think I also read somewhere that things like being mugged and stuff don't seem quite as bad if you live somewhere where it's the norm and know plenty of people who had it happen to themselves, but I don't remember the technical term for this. So, social stuff certainly does play a role. Уга-уга12 (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've certainly had the impression from reading about adults who were sexually abused as children that part of the damage is due to the taboos around sex (and, in many cases, threats by the abuser) that prevent the victim from talking about it. It isn't at all obvious to me why sexual abuse should be inherently more harmful than other kinds of physical abuse. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are able to refer you to the Wikipedia article on Child abuse that considers its psychological and physical effects. The desk should not be invited to speculate about civilisations where child abuse might not have had these effects, nor join in a discussion about ancient Greek pederasty. In any case you used unnecessary profanity and mistook "effect" to mean "affect". DriveByWire (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on the OP's spelling is just as irrelevant as the other matters you say we should not be talking about here. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 23:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd add that while I can accept that the word "fuck" on its own is seen as profane by some people under any circumstances (not to me), the expression "fuck him up" should not be so regarded. We all know that the meaning of that expression has nothing to do with the sex act. It's just our amazing English language at work. Now, back to the real issue... Part of the care of victims of sexual abuse is to convince them that it wasn't their fault and that they can overcome the mistreatment. Anything that tells the victim that they have been seriously and permanently damaged by it is actually quite unhelpful. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in modern society, the type of people likely to sexually "abuse" their children are likely to abuse them in other ways as well. It becomes hard to separate correlation from causation. Sex with infants obviously causes no mental damage. For older minors, an element of coercion is often involved, and just having one's body controlled by a dominating authority figure may cause more psychological harm than the sexual act itself.
For what it's worth, I find the court testimony of Warren Jeffs' victims very interesting. One woman said "He stole my innocence. I didn't know it was inappropriate, the things that he did to me." Most of the testimony focuses on how Jeffs used coercion, not on the actual sexual acts he performed. Some of the victims did claim to resist: "He started to undress me and undress himself. I was crying and I was, like, 'Please. I don`t want you to. It doesn`t feel right. Please stop.'" See a CNN transcript about Jeffs here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1108/08/ddhln.01.html --140.180.5.169 (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find that statement "Sex with infants obviously causes no mental damage." without a reliable source irresponsible. DriveByWire (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you disputing what nearly every human on the planet knows: namely, that infants have only a very dim understanding of the world and no long-term memory of events? I concede it's possible that infants are instinctively protective of their genital areas, because they're important for the transmission of his/her genes. However, anyone who has changed a diaper, or watched one getting changed, knows that this is not the case. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While most people don't have memories from before they were around 3 years old, you still learn a lot before then and have plenty of understanding. I can certainly believe that abuse in early childhood could have long lasting psychological effects. --Tango (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Infant" usually means younger than 12 months, not 3 years. Do you have any sources for your claim that sexual interaction at this stage "could have long lasting psychological effects"? Actually, do you have any sources saying that, even at the moment, the infant doesn't enjoy (i.e. is temporarily harmed by) sexual interaction? I consider both to be very extraordinary and implausible claims, and although I could be wrong, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
My bad, I see that you said "I can certainly believe", not that you do believe it. Still, I consider it an extraordinary claim. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked User:Itsmejudith for making unfounded accusations and notified the ArbCom. Please do not continue discussing these accusations.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is there a reason that we are allowing this pro-paedophile trolling to continue? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF. The only person who seems to be pro- or anti- anything in this thread is you; everyone else is mostly objective. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that post as a perfect demonstration of the impact of the taboo. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally we would compare minors who have sex with adults in cultures where it is taboo and where it's not, to see if they are messed up in both cultures, or only when it's a taboo. However, this is complicated by the fact that there are many other factors which tend to vary in cultures where this is OK. For example, in Pakistani tribal regions, girls may be married off to an adult male at 12 or so, but, in addition to this, they have no choice in who they marry, must wear a veil, are taken out of school, have little protection from the law, are often isolated from their families and virtually enslaved by the new family, and live in a war zone to boot. So, if they are messed up, it might well be for these other reasons. StuRat (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there is also physical damage which can be caused by early intercourse and pregnancy, like obstetric fistula, as documented in the movie A Walk to Beautiful. StuRat (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure and the physical damage to infants hardly bears thinking of. I'm in the UK and if I fail to denounce this prima facie paedophile to the authorities I am myself guilty of a serious criminal offence. The IP geolocates to Princeton University and I am, we are all, duty bound to email them. International police protocols apply, Itsmejudith (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I abhor paedophilia. I see no evidence of any here. If we cannot discuss such issues, our society really is fucked up. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know you do Hi Lo and I believe you're a teacher and I'm sure you assume good faith. It's OK to discuss principles but this one is blatant. This is the reasonable face that paedophilia puts across. Sad but true. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a "reasonable face", how can you possibly distinguish such a face from any other reasonable person based on 2 comments alone? --140.180.5.169 (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as someone starts talking about sex with infants doing no harm because they can't remember, you know you are dealing with the pro-paedophile lobby. The lobbyists also claim that it is social norms and not the ugly deeds that cause the problems. If you don't know better, may I suggest you educate yourself, and stop giving room to the trolls? You could start here and follow the references. The initial question was possibly a search for information, but the discussion since has been largely uninformed opinion. (There are a number of exceptions, of course. They are obvious because they contain references.) Bielle (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your double standards are astounding. My post contained a reference: namely, a court document describing the testimony of an actual pedophile's victims. I consider that very relevant to the OP's question, especially because nobody has offered anything more scientifically rigorous. By your own standards, my post was not uninformed opinion but a valuable response, correct? --140.180.5.169 (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ Itsmejudith: If your "prima facie paedophile" is a reference to the OP, you really should withdraw that, take 20 steps back, count to about 1,000 and take about 100 deep breaths. That is a massive and unwarranted over-reaction. Nowhere was the OP advocating pedophilia or anything remotely like that. They just want to talk about the issues. If we can't discuss pedophilia in an effort to better understand its effects, but condemn anyone who ever starts a discussion about it, we'd be no better than the lynch mob. We're above that. Further, what connection is there between you and this discussion, other than the one you yourself created by voluntarily choosing to enter into it? Your fears of prosecution for merely being part of this discussion and not denouncing the supposed pedophile are completely unfounded, but even if they had some basis, you yourself created the link, nobody else. Time for a rethink, methinks. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 23:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems she was referring to 140.180.5.169, not the OP. - Lindert (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is far from obvious, going on the indenting. In fact, on reflection it's not obvious just who Judith is referring to, which makes her allegations of "prima facie pedophilia" all the more inappopriate. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 00:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jack. Per Bielle this is clear cut. This is exactly what pro paedophilia apologia looks like. I do believe in genuine discussion about issues. This is not that. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may. You have no call to make accusations of "prime facie paedophilia" without very strong evidence, which you simply don't have here, no matter how you read it. It's one thing to suspect what motives may really lie behind a question or a statement, but you simply don't translate that into an outright accusation of wrongdoing. Not here. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 00:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jack . There is too much at stake. Someone proposes that the rape of a baby is unproblematic.Not looking good. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Raping a baby is not good. Discussing it does no harm. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the expert consensus. One of many reasons why we don't feed trolls. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody has to discuss it - psychologists, law makers, police, etc. Why not us? HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Judith, please point to where anybody said that "raping a baby is unproblematic". The editor in question has concluded from whatever they've read that there is no evidence that an infant suffers mental damage from being sexually interfered with. You may conclude quite the opposite, or link studies that show there is indeed permanent mental damage. Without actual references to actual studies, we're all just shooting the breeze here. Just because he says he cannot find any evidence of permanent mental damage to a baby who's treated in that abominable way, does NOT mean he's advocating they be treated in that way, or that he personally practises this - because that's what pedophilia means. You've made that leap and you have no right to. It would be like accusing me of harbouring and protecting murderers just because I say I support the abolition of the death penalty. The editor has confined his comments to mental damage. He's made no statement denying the extreme offence to social and cultural norms or the breach of our laws that these sorts of activities entail. Your rush to judgment reminds me of those tragic cases where a loving father was vilified and prosecuted because of some squiggle their daughter drew that reminded some busybody of something vaguely penile, and they added 2 and 2 and made 40,000,000. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 01:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, JackofOz. It might be true that some people in the pro-pedophilia lobby make the same claims I did. Unfortunately, I cannot control who agrees with me, and frankly I don't care. Asserting that every claim made by the "pro-pedophilia lobby" must necessarily be false is not only intellectually dishonest and illogical, it allows the "lobby" to truthfully claim that their opponents are being dishonest and illogical, and giving the lobby ammunition is probably not what Judith was aiming to do.
By analogy to some of the outrageous arguments made above, if I claim that Stalinism is effective in preventing social unrest and industrializing the country, I must be a mass murderer with an agenda to install a brutal dictator in every country. It might be that Stalin and his ilk made similar claims; in fact, I'd be surprised if he didn't. That doesn't mean the claim is false, or that those who claim it's true must be Stalinists, or that Stalinism has more positives than negatives. It simply means that this particular aspect of Stalinism (or pedophilia) is not negative. If you refuse to acknowledge this, I would seriously question your intellectual integrity. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I question the integrity of anyone who would propose something is "not negative" if the probable consequences and costs have not been weighed in the argument. I know of no argument that proposes anything positive about child sexual abuse or paedophilia except as presented by those who are actively trying to normalize adult-child sex. If you have access to such evidence, please cite it. If not, then statements like "Sex with infants obviously causes no mental damage." are extremely worrying. Bielle (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to engage in an intellectual discussion, please respond to my post above, where I offer my argument. Also note that I said "not negative", not "positive". You're free to call me a crackpot, or to question the soundness of my reasoning. You are not free, per WP:AGF and reasonable doubt, to make accusations of criminal behavior. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After reading your Age of consent link, Bielle, I am further outraged. You claimed:
"As soon as someone starts talking about sex with infants doing no harm because they can't remember, you know you are dealing with the pro-paedophile lobby. The lobbyists also claim that it is social norms and not the ugly deeds that cause the problems. If you don't know better, may I suggest you educate yourself, and stop giving room to the trolls? You could start here and follow the references."
I read that section, and I'm calling your bluff. It doesn't contain a single word relating to sex with infants, whether the infants can remember, or the impact of social norms. It also contains 15 references, almost all of which I can't access. Out of the references I can access, one is about the pedophilia community, one is about the International LGBT Association's condemnation of pedophilia, one is about men-boy sex at a particular Revere house, and the last is about social interactions amongst pedophiles. Am I going to track down all 15 references and read them to fish for your claim? No, because you implied that your link supports your conclusions and your accusations, which it doesn't. If you had any integrity at all, you would either apologize for being misleading or admit that you were intentionally trying to deceive. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this righteous indignation were not sad, it might be frightening. I've done enough feeding for one night. Bielle (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very disappointing response, Bielle. Since when did the Ref desk become a kangaroo court? At least try to make some decent response, not just dismiss it out of hand and fall back on the judgment you've already made. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 06:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This entire thread should have been closed before it got started. This is not what wikipedia is for. Also not the helpdesk. Noone is being helped here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second that. Allowing the thread to continue was a guarantee that somebody would get blocked and drama created. It was never likely that such a thread would generate more light than heat. We shouldn't have to censor stuff like this, but put a certain kind of question on the reference desk and the interactions of other editors will run like clockwork... bobrayner (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the closing of this thread. No matter how high emotions run on the subject, it is an important area of academic inquiry. There have been a number of children subjected to recovered memory therapy who now are said to be subject to false memory syndrome, and it is said that by being deluded into thinking that they were sexually molested, that they suffer long-term psychological harm akin to - in some versions of the story, even equivalent to - that arising from actual rape. Which would mean that whatever appalling physical indignities are done to the child, that the child can heal, and it's really the part about having to talk about it, or having people know about it, or being psychoanalyzed about it, or how their parents react to it, or something ... is really where the damage occurs. (some sources deny there's such a thing as false recovered memory syndrome [2]) That might seem absurd, but let's bear in mind that little kids endure various types of probing for medical purposes that can range from a rectal thermometer to genital reconstructive surgery for birth defects, and people assume that they don't have any psychological aftereffects! So there's every reason to look into this part of the intellectual map and put something there for our users besides a fanciful drawing and "Here There Be Monsters". And I am inclined to assume good faith and assume that the original poster asked a question honestly and legitimately. That said, alas, I don't really know enough about psychology to give a good answer about where the harm really occurs, or what it comprises; the OP's question doesn't suggest that he is disputing that there is harm, the question is only, how does it happen? I'd like to see this question run through again and get helpful answers. Wnt (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
June 30
universe
it seems from reading sections on the UNIVERSE.....that WE ..are not the center of it -- 12:14, 30 June 2012 101.170.255.230
Speak for yourself HiLo48 (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to the science fiction novel "Star of the Unborn" by Franz Werfel, future science will supposedly someday determine that Earth has a special status as the "Infinitely Mobile Central Point of All Conceivable Orbits" (that info has been banned from the Modern geocentrism article, though I was never given any substantive meaningful explanation as to why...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably removed because it's just a fictional concept from a relatively obscure novel. --Tango (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "information" about the universe. It is merely information about what Franz Werfel wrote about the universe, and he's merely one of vast numbers of people who've done so. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 21:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are about us not being the centre of the solar system, rather than not being the centre of the universe. Try Physical cosmology. We are, however, the centre of our observable universe (by definition). --Tango (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UK's name in 1920?
What was the United Kingdom's complete formal name in 1920?
The article is not clear and precise about it. Roger (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'd like to suggest that a small section containing a "timeline" of the country's names and describing which bits of territory were added or removed with each change, be added to the United Kingdom article. Roger (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In 2000, with the support of President Chirac, the term of the President of the Fifth Republic was shortened from seven years to five years, a change accepted by a referendum. Because of this, cohabitation will almost certainly be much more rare. Unless French voters exercise "ticket splitting", cohabitation should not occur unless a President feels compelled to call for Assembly elections mid-term, a prospect which cannot be ruled out. It can also occur if the President dies during his term.
Each province has exactly 100 voters. They all vote and none of them split his/her vote. If anyone votes for Party A's presidential candidate, he/she votes for Party A's congress member candidate as well.
Province #1
Province #2
Province #3
TOTAL
Party A
51
51
0
102
Party B
49
49
100
198
Party A gets two seats in the congress. The Premiere goes to the Party A.
However, Party B won the Presidential election.
Cohabitation seems to be unavoidable.
Is there an academic jargon for this extreme and very unlikely situation? -- Toytoy (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with the term "cohabitation"? Or do I misunderstand the question? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is it unavoidable? It is simply possible. If people voted differently, it wouldn't happen. The situation you describe is just a case of cohabitation. --Tango ([[User talk:Tango|talk]15:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, cohabitation is caused by split-voting or two different elections held years apart (e.g., before 2000, France). I want to show that without these two factors, cohabitation may still occur. -- Toytoy (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you call a Family Grave Plot Stone Marker that is a giant stone monument to mark a family grave plot. Within the grave plot itself would be individual headstones, possible marked "father", "mother", "daughter", "son" or their individual named small headstone giving date born and death date.--Doug Coldwelltalk 19:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Family grave monument" works for me, or "family tombstone". Note that there are two varieties, though, one where individual names are inscribed on the monument itself, and the other, like you describe, where each family member gets an individual stone. StuRat (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Government of New Zealand as of 22 August 2011 the answer would be not yet. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question on the author J. S. N. Sewell, author of the books Gray's School Days, Black and White, Adventure on Wheels, Rules of the Road, Second Innings, The Straight Left. Can any user please tell me what the initials J. S. N. in his name stand for? Thank you Simonschaim (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page speculates that he was 'John Swindale N. Sewell', that name matching a birth certificate produced in 1904 in Stockport, and a death registration in Basingstoke in 1988. - Cucumber Mike (talk)
Thank you Cucmber Mike. However this page is just speculation. I require something more definite. Simonschaim (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which would explain his consistency in keeping the specifics of his name hidden. ;) Snow (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for audio files of very foreign languages
I wish to give my students a taste of how different languages can be, so I'm looking for some kind of audio files repository. I can go and do a manual search for examples, but this will take a very long time. I also tried to search wiki commons, but did not manage to come up with a search criteria that will yield only audio files. TIA! Zarnivop (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
God bless you. Alternatively, in case you believe God does not exist, I bless you. This is excellent! Zarnivop (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You bless the OP, but how can we know that you exit? OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly foreign languages but the British Library website has a big language section on the very varied Accents/dialects of the UK with audio ( http://www.bl.uk/learning/langlit/sounds/index.html) though you need a plug-in to make it work. Google are involved in a site that is looking to save/document endangered languages (http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/) and that has a very very wide variety of languages on there but not all have audio. ny156uk (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What did they do with a frozen body in Michigan's winter
This is a genealogy question: My great grandfather, John Caldwell, died in Big Rapids, Michigan, on 24 Dec 1874 (or 24 Dec 1872). He was very poor at the time of his death. He was an American Civil War veteran. He was attended to by a doctor at the time of his death since they knew he died of streptococcus. Michigan State records show he died in Mecosta County (Big Rapids area), but do not give a cemetery. His residence, where his wife was at the time of his death, was Hillsdale, Michigan. At the time he had his illness he was visiting his sons in Missaukee County, Michigan. They took him to Big Rapids for medical attention. Michigan at that time would have been in the depths of winter and the ground was frozen. How would they do a burial at that time? How would they handle the dead body at that time? The cost to send him back to Hillsdale would have been prohibitive as the family members did not have that kind of money. Looked for him in the large cemetery in the Big Rapids area - however he is NOT there. So since he appears NOT to be in Big Rapids and Hillsdale NOR Caldwell Cemetery in Missaukee County, what suggestions do you have where I might look and how I might do that search? I have been looking for years to no avail.--Doug Coldwelltalk 13:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Someone's got him in a family tree, in ancestry.com, but no indication of burial arrangements. 1805-1872, right? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Right you are Bugs!--Doug Coldwelltalk 20:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In areas were the ground was frozen, burials were often left to spring. If he was poor, then it likely that at best, he would have had a simple wooden headboard or if he was that poor, he might have had an unmarked paupers grave. You would need to find out if there are written records of interments still in existence. These day you should be able to find out by email -but beware, the person on the other end may not be bothered enough to actually search and just post back a short – no record found – simple because they didn't even look. Here is a bit about winter burial. [3]--Aspro (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't safe to assume that the ground was frozen, and even if it was, the frozen zone in that part of Michigan would typically only go a few inches deep, so it could easily be broken through with a pickaxe. Looie496 (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried digging through frozen clay with a pick (I expect Michigan is a bit chillier than the southeast of England in the winter), and "easily" isn't the first adjective that springs to mind ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even nowadays in the north, bodies are typically stored in a freezer during the winter, and then buried when the ground has thawed and all ice and snow are gone, a factor Looie may have forgotten about. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Looie. The frost line in that general area is 3 to 4 feet. Check a local building code for the depth of support columns that must start below the frost line. Generally there is about three feet of earth put on top of a casket itself about 18" thick. Bielle (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any possibility he was cremated ? StuRat (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't think of that! THEN the cost of transportation would be minimal. Did they do cremation in 1874?--Doug Coldwelltalk 20:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cremation says that the first cremation in the USA was in 1876. --ColinFine (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cremation is more of a recent trend in the U.S. Pre-dug graves were also a method cemeteries used.[4] Just guess how many townfolk weren't going to make it till spring and dig some holes ahead of time. Rmhermen (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of things missed here. It is possible to dig a grave in winter using a pickaxe and shovel but it takes a lot of work and graves tend to be shallow, about 1 m (3 ft 3 in). To make it easier you can melt the surface with a fire first. A slightly easier way is to combine the pick and shovel with a jackhammer, which could have been used to dig your great grandfather's grave as it was invented in 1848. Of course today all you do is get the backhoe. And Bugs, I'm not sure where you mean by north but we don't leave them until spring. Even before we got a backhoe in Ulukhaktok graves were dug in the middle of winter if they were needed. Also pre-dug graves were/are frowned upon because everybody knew the story of the one community that dug a certain number graves in the summer and had the exact number of deaths, higher than normal of course, during the winter. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The northern USA, especially in small town cemeteries, where they would have to deal with a couple of feet of snow as well as frozen earth. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[5] shows the average daily highs and lows for each month for Big Rapids, MI. For December it is 32 and 18. The frost line does not plunge to maximum depth as soon as winter starts. The "frost line" represents extreme conditions, like prolonged below zero weather with minimal snow accumulation. Once the crust is broken, the digging is about the same as any month. I have found this to be true at construction sites in areas of similar climate to Michigan. (Maybe it was colder or warmer back then. The weather bureau archives can be searched at [6]) Edison (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Degas' At the Milliner's and The Forsyte Saga
Ok, got an obscure one for you guys. In the 2003 conclusion to Masterpiece Theatre's adaptation of John Galswothy's The Foryste Saga, this picture, supposedly by Edgar Degas, is featured prominently in the narrative. It certainly seems consistent with his style and is similar in content to a series of his works (see: 1, 2, 34, 5, 6, 7) several of which are titled At the Milliner's, or similarly -- indeed it seems that, after nudes and dancers, women trying on or making hats was Degas third most prodigious thematic genre of work. However, I have never been able to unearth any indication that this painting is in fact a Degas and it seems more likely that it was commissioned to replicate his style while also making the subject appear similar to the character of Fleur in The Forsyte Saga, since in the narrative there is supposed to be a similarity (interestingly, in the novels, the painting is a Goya). However, after finding no definitive answer after the odd intermittent bit of research over the years, and on the slim chance that it is simply a lesser known work, I put it to the reference desk - genuine article or decent homage? Snow (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The last link you gave, number 7 , shares nearly identical items with the Forsyte painting. A blue hat lying on the table and a yellowish hat propped on a stand ornated with a green scarf. (See File:Edgar Germain Hilaire Degas 011.jpg). The angle and position of these objects is the same too, while other objects from the original painting are cut off or beyond the frame. This makes me think it was commissioned, as suggested by yourself. Going through Degas' millinery series, you don't see this kind of detailed repetitiveness at all. ---Sluzzelintalk 21:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the painting's current host, the Art Institute of Chicago, writes "X-ray examination revealed that this figure originally represented a customer, but in his rethinking of the subject, Degas withheld the information necessary to determine her identity." [7] The painting from the Forsyte Saga does seem to depict a customer (while the original shows an employee). Coincidence? ---Sluzzelintalk 22:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very interesting observation. The third image cited in my original post also boats some similarities, with regard to the posture of the woman who is the subject (though the angle of perspective is quite different) - I should have mentioned to begin with that the painting is identified in the narrative as Girl at the Milliner's and is supposed to be a copy, not an original.(rather crucial info to leave out, apologies); I have never previously found a specific historical record to the title. This does indeed seem to imply she's a customer, an idea further reinforced by the relationship with Fleur, who, just a few scenes before the painting is introduced in an art auction, is shown out shopping with her father Soames Forsyte, who beats out another eager bidder to posses it -- without delving too deeply into the narrative and character, it's safe to assume Soames took the girl to be a customer. All of that said, it's interesting that you should mention that angle, since the story is, on the whole, preoccupied with the concept of wealth, and is an exploration of a upper-class and property-minded family being forced slowly into the modern era and coming to terms with being past the zenith of their status. Although there is very little poverty explored for contrast, one of its central themes is very assuredly the exploration of the effects of money and privilege upon one's perspective. Then there's this discussion on yet another Milliner's paitning (Youtube). Wealth was certainly a sort of un-focused-upon subject of much of Degas work; much of it was commissioned portraits of the elite, and even a lot of his non-commissioned work comes from observations of this world. But as he grew older he also began to focus heavily upon workers - aside from the Milliner's there are launders, ballerina's (who were not exactly at the top of the social or economic ladders at this time unless they were one of a few elite masters) and even women who are hinted at as prostitutes. There's also this, from our own article: "His interest in portraiture led Degas to study carefully the ways in which a person's social stature or form of employment may be revealed by their physiognomy, posture, dress, and other attributes." In any event, whether there's though-out intention here, I hesitate to say, but it all makes for intriguing coincidence even if not, though I suppose some overlap is inevitable, given the themes of the story and prevalence of art within it. Snow (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sun goddess/moon god?
Other than Shinto, what mythologies have a sun goddess and a moon god rather than the other way around? --108.225.117.142 (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From Proto-Indo-European_religion#Pantheon "The Sun and Moon are often seen as the twin children of various deities, but in fact the sun and moon were deified several times and are often found in competing forms within the same language. The usual scheme is that one of these celestial deities is male and the other female, though the exact gender of the Sun or Moon tend to vary among subsequent Indo-European mythologies." So, in some Aryan derived religions, it is the case.--nids(♂) 23:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the older Germanic languages, the word for "sun" usually had feminine grammatical gender, and the word for "moon" masculine (as in modern German today), but I don't know that solar or lunar deities were prominent in Germanic paganism... AnonMoos (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How did Ur became an inland city? Has the sea-level lowered and glacial ice increased since Sumerian time? Or has the coastline silted up that much?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The coastline has silted up that much. In Sumerian times the Tigris and Euphrates reached the sea separately. Looie496 (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an article which treats of this? μηδείς (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I learned it in an ancient history class, sometime back in ancient history. But googling, the definitive source is: Gary A. Cooke (1987). "Reconstruction of the holocene coastline of Mesopotamia". Geoarchaeology. 2: 15–28. That's not easily accessible online, but you can find a map drawn from it in this paper, as Figure 2. Looie496 (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This topic came up a few months ago, [8]. That the Tigris and Euphrates once entered the Persian Gulf separately is mentioned in passing on the Tigris page, but not the Euphrates page as far as I can see. It seems like a bit more could be said about it on both pages, as well as on Persian Gulf and perhaps Shatt al-Arab. Wonder if I can find access to that Geoarchaeology article, hmm.. Pfly (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, well that article may be quite hard to find, for me anyway. I did find a bit of information in this book, pp 290-291: The Babylonians. It points out that two opposed processes have been effecting the area--delta forming silt deposition and tectonic subsidence, which together have resulted in a complex patchwork of landforms. Pfly (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
a specific paradox
Dear Wikipedians-
I am trying to recall a factoid I found on Wikipedia within the last year- the formal name of the paradox describing "you don't know what you don't know."
I have searched the Wikipedia "List of Paradoxes" entry (and many others) trying to find this formal name.
I wouldn't be looking too closely into this, as you may discover things you really wish you didn't know, such as that soup is made from old people's bath water. It must be true; I read it somewhere on the internet. On the other hand, something like this treatise promises to be jam-packed with fascinating stuff, but whether it answers your question, I'll leave for you to discover. Chapter 7 may be of particular relevance. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 02:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledge about knowledge is called metaknowledge. One case where this is important is betting on game shows like Jeopardy, where you should alter your wager to reflect your probability of correctly answering a question in that category. StuRat (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further research, I am almost certain the OP is referring to what is commonly known as Meno's paradox, also known as the "paradox of inquiry", which originates in Plato's Socratic dialogues. Wikipedia doesn't have much info on it, but you can read a paper about it here. Also quoted in that paper is the related Confucian quote "You know what you know and you don't know what you don't know. That is knowledge.", similar to the saying sometimes (spuriously) attributed to Plato, "A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something." Evanh2008(talk|contribs) 04:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the thing that sounds a bit Rumsfeldian but predated him somewhat. All knowledge can be divided into 4 categories: (a) the things you know you know, (b) the things you know you don't know, (c) the things you don't know you know, and (d) the things you don't know you don't know. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 06:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that for all of the flack Rumsfeld got for his weird digression, unknown unknowns was a very common and very useful term long before he used it. It's too bad it is now irreversibly associated with him in particular (who I, like many, dislike for his role in the Iraq War, among other things), and seen as an example of obfuscation, when it's really a quite eloquent expression of real-world epistemological problems. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the List of Governors of Guernsey article, Francis Weston is listed as Governor from 1533 to 1541. But the link goes to an article which says that that Francis Weston was executed in 1536. The article about Francis Weston says that he was the son of Richard Weston (treasurer), who was a Governor of Guernsey. There has to be an error somewhere in this pair, but I don't know if the List of Governors is incorrect, or the death of Francis Weston is incorrect. And why was Richard Weston only Governor until 1522, when he didn't die until 1541? Should Francis just be removed from the list, and Richard's term of office be changed to end in 1541? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This site is a wiki, so not a reliable source, but maybe offers a clue to what happened. It says that on 3 November 1539 Sir Richard Long was "granted reversion of Governorship of Guernsey, whereupon he appears to have taken up office from the aged Weston" (ie Richard Weston, Francis being dead by then. Richard had been appointed Governor on 22 May 1509, according to the same site). So Long was lined up to be Governor after Weston, but started doing the job anyway. Could you have two people doing the job at the same time, both with the title? Well, this site claims to be based on the History of Parliament, "a biographical dictionary of Members of the House of Commons", so may lead to a reliable source. It also confirms Richard's 1509 succession to the governorship, but goes on to say that in 1533 the newly knighted Francis, son of Richard, was invested as Governor along with his father by a new grant. So it appears father and son may have held the post simultaneously, at least until Francis gets executed in May 1336; Richard may have continued as governor alone (or possibly with his dead son still officially listed in the job); he perhaps gets another "co-governor" in 1539 in the person of Long, who actually does the work; and then the Weston connection ends with Richard's death in 1541. Complicated. Karenjc 08:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is more information here, which appears to be a reliable source, and the tudorplace site is based on this source. It confirms that father and son were together invested with the governorship in 1533.
This source confirms that the governorship reverted from Richard Weston to Long on 7 August 1541.-- Ehrenkater (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all of this. I'm going to list Richard and Francis as co-governors until Francis's death, then Richard as sole governor till his death, unless somebody objects. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recorded texts are just as likely to be highly stylised as portraiture. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An IP turned up on 28th May 2010 and added these statements, along with edits to Nordic race and some others. User:124.104.179.196. May have been a returning user because they knew how to tweak an internal link to point to a section rather than a whole article. Uncited. No reason not to remove. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Patterns cut into paper for authentication purposes
The top of the Mediterranean_pass is cut in a special pattern to authenticate the document. This made me recall a story where the characters tear a dollar bill in half and each party keeps a half in order to authenticate themselves during the next meeting. This technique is basically a primitive MAC. Is there a name for this technique? When was the first recorded usage of this technique?A8875 (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a form of indenture - the description of the process has since passed into general use to mean a specific kind of legal document. The earliest surviving indentured documents, per that article, are c. 1400, but it was probably in use for a couple of centuries before that. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indenture says the earliest surviving examples are 13th century, i.e. 1200's. --ColinFine (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the prompt and precise answer, Andrew. A8875 (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Just a comment that the technique is a development of the split Tally stick, in use for a thousand years in England (and probably much longer world-wide), but this is a less precise answer! Dbfirs 14:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Has Florida become a Southern enclave of “the North” since it hasn’t been part of “the South” for a long time?
I was told on a previous question that “Florida is not the ‘New South’ because it's not ‘the South’ and that it hasn't been for a long time.” I live in Florida and I know from experience that a lot Floridians don’t consider their state to be part of “the South” even though it geographically is, and a lot of Floridians don’t like to be called Southerners even though they geographically live in the southern region of the U.S. So, would that mean that Florida has become a Southern enclave of the North, in other words, a part of “the North” that is geographically in “the South?” Also, since when exactly did Florida stop being part of "the South" and since when did many Floridians stop identifying themselves as “Southerners?” Willminator (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone could find scientific polls to respond to the question of whether Floridians consider themselves "southerners," with whatever that entails. Another area of research is population demographics: if , say, an increasing percentage of the population there came from Cuba or other Hispanic countries, or from the Atlantic states such as New York and New Jersey, rather than being descendants of Floridians, an argument could be made that they were "transplants" and not "native southerners." Edison (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From a cultural point of view I think your right. The Dixi was something of a political line anyhow.--Aspro (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may be more accurate to say that parts of Florida are Northern or "coastal" in their social and political attitudes. Rural & small town Florida is a lot more like small-town Dixie than like a New England town. Orlando, Daytona, and the Redneck Riviera have much more in common with other Southern tourist towns like Hilton Head and New Orleans than they do with the immigrant/emigrant-heavy Miami area. It's Miami (and to a lesser extent, Tampa) that are out of place for the South. The rest of Florida fits the broad Dixie standard. --M@rēino 19:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is a better way to put it M@rēino. My views are coloured by the number of retired folk who have moved down there and the industry that’s grown up to soak-up their pensions. Get out of those places and I'll agree, you're either meet the real southerners or become a 'gators next meal or both. Also, real southerners don't seem to need climate control. Hey, some of them don't even seem to know how to sweat. I'm exaggerating of course but... the new influx do appear to be taking over. --Aspro (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Our Deep South page claims (without citing a source) that northern Florida—Florida Panhandle, First Coast, and North Central Florida—"retain cultural characteristics of the Deep South". Settlement of this part of Florida goes back to early colonial times. The cotton belt extends into northern Florida and the region boomed along with the rest of the Deep South in the early 19th century. The rest of Florida was not settled in a significant way until much later, and through a different process (of course central and southern Florida were not vacant—there's a long and complicated Native American history there). Our History of Florida page says (also unsourced) that in 1900 "most Floridians lived within 50 miles of the Georgia border", and that the state's population was only about 500,000. There's been a massive demographic change since then, obviously. So, on the question of when exactly did Florida stop being part of "the South" and since when did many Floridians stop identifying themselves as “Southerners?”, I'd say sometime in the early 20th century, when central and south Florida boomed, while also pointing out that parts of Florida are still "part of the South". I always assumed the settlement of central and south Florida had to do with air conditioning and large swamp draining projects, but reading about it now it appears more complicated.
A quote from The Shaping of America, volume 3, by Donald W. Meinig: "Aside from the spread of the Cotton Belt onto the prairies around Tallahassee, Florida was more a subtropical colony of the North than an extension of the traditional South, but the need for labor in the citrus groves and vegetable fields, warehouses, docks, and fancy resorts attracted large numbers of Blacks, and Northern managers readily adapted to Southern social mores. Cuban refugees and businessmen, long a major presence in Key West, were moving north to Tampa. By 1900 the state had just over half a million people and the boom was still rather deflated from the national depression and a severe citrus freeze, but more and more Northern sojourners swelled the winter population." Meinig also points out that religious denominations that had antagonistically split during the pre-Civil War era, like the Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians, did not reunite after the war. Instead "southern religion became entwined with the Lost Cause" and an important part of the New South. Florida's religious demographics are not like those of the rest of the Deep South. This book, [10], points out that Florida has only seven counties that fit the religious character of the Deep South, and all are in northern Florida. Pfly (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The transition of Florida from "mostly Southern" to "mostly Northern" likely started with the Florida land boom of the 1920s and completed soon after the Cuban Revolution, possibly extended to the construction of the Kennedy Space Center. So, we're in the 1920's - 1960's range. StuRat (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finding a dead person
A friend of mine has disappeared off the map and I suspect he has died. Is there anyway I could check this at a local office? He lived in the local area and I very much imagine he died locally too. What's the proceedure for finding out about death registration? Do I just pop down the register office and check their records?146.90.23.194 (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
:The OP's location is England in the United Kingdom --Aspro (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you specified which England, otherwise we might all have assumed you meant England, Arkansas, or that tiny village in Nordstrand, Germany that everyone's always talking about. :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 20:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Thanks! But who exactly are you that call themselves we? As for the group that calls itself 'everyone', I've hear of them too but can't recall ever meeting any. --Aspro (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the same thing, so am part of that we, apparently. μηδείς (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be taught (and maybe still to day) that a noun without qualification refers to the original, first, fiat, etc. So, I mentioned 'England' not to place it in the UK but to save people from considering the processes in Scotland – so that the 'we' did not get confused. Note to self – must try harder to be clearer when the we might be marauding around :-)--Aspro (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't that you weren't clear. England by itself would have done just fine, and stating it's in the UK was simply an unnecessary redundant tautologous over-specification that you didn't really need to write and "we" didn't really need to read to know that the England you were talking about was the one in the UK and not any of the other ones. :) What the processes in Scotland have to do with any of this is a bit of a mystery to me, I must say, but I like a good mystery. :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 20:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]
I presume the event would have happened relatively recently, within the last year. If this is the case, the General Records Office says "For recent events registered within the last 6 months (for marriages this period is extended to 18 months), applications for certificates should be made to the Register Office in the district where the birth, death or marriage took place." You might like to start with visiting the General Records Office website and applying for a possible death certificate. You'd have to give your friend's full name, age, place of registration of death, and quarter of registration of death. So if your friend died in April 2011, you'd tell them to search in the records for the 2nd quarter of 2011. There is no way to get this information without getting the certificate and paying out the money, I'm afraid. However, if the local Register Office or the GRO tell you they have no such information, then you can possibly infer that your friend is still alive. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One method that is often overlooked and works for people who haven't died as well, is to go through your address book and phone anyone and everyone that also knew him/her. Odds are, that unless you where mutual hermits, someone in your circle of your mutuals friends will also be close to the centre of the Six degrees of separation and will thus be able to bring you up to date. Second: Persist. If a land-line number has a different owner -ask if any neighbours know. Don't be put off by 'donknow.' Use the techniques of investigative journalism and point out that as this missing person has just inherited zillions of pounds, so the person leading you to him/her is in line for a hansom reward – blah -blah-blah. Its quicker to do this from home, than going though the 'formal' processes. By-the-way. Why are you so keen to contact him -does he owe money or something?--Aspro (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That last question is none of our business, Aspro. The OP calls him a "friend", which is all the reason you'd ever need to contact anyone. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 22:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Lets deconstruct it to more neutral terms. By considering an individual’s life style, habits etc., one can laterally think of other avenues of enquiry. If someone is sporty or even just very keen on playing Golf (which can be very exhausting without a trolly), then they might well have friends that the OP doesn’t know about. Remember: Birds-of-a-fether-flock together. Therefore, look for something of a common interest. Some people (believe it or not) feel very awkward -if they have fallen on bad times- to remake contact with someone they may already in deep debt to. The reason for contacting someone can also aid the search. If it is to invite an old comrade to a company or military reunion, then pension funds etc., are often willing to pass on letters to the people on their files if you ask them. Therefore an answer to my last question would provide valuable clues as to the possibilities of other lines of enquiry. Prejudgement, is a barrier to clear cognition.--Aspro (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can be. Although I agree it can sometimes shed light on the pathway to the answer, I have a general dislike of people in our position asking questioners why they're asking their questions. (I particularly despise when someone here says "Who cares?", or "Why does it matter?" - obviously the OP cares enough to ask their question, and it certainly matters to them if nobody else. Now, yours wasn't like that, I'm just having a mini-rant here.) If it's done at all, it must be sensitive, respectful, and not getting anywhere near the area of invading their privacy or putting them in uncomfortable positions. I guess I'd have preferred your question to be more like "Can you tell us more about why you're so keen to contact your friend?", and leave it at that. That leaves the OP with the freedom to provide as much or as little further information as they like, and doesn't push them into a corner where their choices are limited to: (a) divulging information they had not planned to, (b) evading the question, (c) telling you it's none of your business, (d) silence. Now, it may be that the OP would be perfectly happy to tell us it's about money owed to them, but in that case there's every chance they'd have already said that was what's behind their quest (and I now see from below that the reason has nothing to do with money). Even if they weren't originally intending to say why, but had no problem doing so if it helped them track down their friend, I still think it's their call to volunteer that information from a general question like the one I suggested, rather than having to deal with a very specific question like the one you asked. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 21:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most obvious things to do would be to google his name and see if anything turns up, like an obituary or something. In the USA, at least, a lot of newspapers and funeral homes are posting archival obits, at least for the last decade or so. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recently I found an old friend of mine whom I had lost any trace of during the last 25 years. I googled his name and I found his name and address on a list of donors to a church. Omidinist (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If free things like Facebook and Google fail, a private investigator may be able to assist. They can do a few checks very quickly and easily, and it might not cost much more than dealing with government bureaucracy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, he was a friend from way back, that I bumped into in more recent years and found out he lived near me. We met up a few times and he seemed extremely depressed; suicidal. I did my best to talk to him about things but I'm no doctor and my life was going in a very different direction at the time, so we ended up not communicating again. He's no longer resident at the address where I knew him, we have no mutual friends, he wasn't the kind of person to be on Facebook or anything, he drifted in and out of work, I don't know his family, and I honestly suspect that he killed himself, but I was wondering if there was an easy way to find out? This was back in 2008.146.66.46.89 (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may do well to research the local newspaper archives, as a suicide (at least in the UK) has to be referred to a coroner and inquests tend to be reported in the local newspaper. You'll probably be unlucky in looking at the coroner's papers as they're embargoed for 75 years. Free access to the BNA Newspaper Archives should be available through your local library or archive service. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd check [11], which is a cemetery record for the UK. If you are not sure he's dead, also check the telephone book, maybe you are wrong about his death. 79.148.233.179 (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Book on Islam
I'm looking for recommendations for a book (or books) on Islam: its history, teachings/beliefs, and its effects on the attitudes and conduct of Muslims. I don't want a Sam Harris or Robert Spencer type book where Islam is evil incarnate, nor something that's pushing a pro-religion agenda. Preferably the book would help give some insight into contemporary politics. Thanks! 65.92.7.168 (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is what you're looking for, but I found A History of the Modern Middle East by Cleveland and Bunton to be very thorough. It discusses the origin of Islam and its divisions, and as its name implies, it's mainly focused on 20th century Middle Eastern history. If you want to understand two historically (and to some extent currently) influential ideologies in Islam--pan-Arabic Nasserism and Islamic fundamentalism--this book has quite a lot on that. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the shortest, though the most informative, book on Islam as it has been in the past and as it is today. It gives everything in just 128 pages, with no bias at all. --Omidinist (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found No God but God by Reza Aslan very good. --ColinFine (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again auctions, why the chanting in the US and the formal "10, 20, 30, no one? Sold for 30" elsewhere
The question about Tobacco auctions, asking about the chant just got moved to the archives, but it still leaves one question: why do auctioneers in the US have this chant where their, for instance, European counterparts don't? European auctioneers act as notaries: "I see this person bids 40, but I cannot rule out the option that one of you will want to bid higher. Anyone?". US auctioneers act as if they are the owner with a certain psychological disorder: "40 now, gimme 45, gimme 45, only 40 now.." etc. The actual question: do prices get higher when the auctioneer makes such a show of it? And if so, why don't European auctioneers do that? Do all auctioneers in the US this chanting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joepnl (talk • contribs) 23:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I previously linked to Breeding Sheep Sale, Abergavenny, Monmouthshire, South Wales, showing that we have a similar, but marginally less stilted chant on this side of the Atlantic. I suspect that we've been doing this rather longer. I'll look for a reference. Alansplodge (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found this video of a British antiques auctioneer who uses a much more restrained style, but still with a certain cadence to it - Gildings Antiques & Collectors Sale. As for Europeans (that funny lot on the other side of the Channel), I have no idea what they do. Alansplodge (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few vocations where fast speaking is a plus, anyone remember the Micro Machines guy? Competitive debate is another one of those activities. But I suspect the auctioneer cadence has more to do with tradition. As an amateur guess, it is somewhat nerve racking to hear anew and it's hard to fall asleep too... making people nervous and out of their comfort zone might push them into bids or create a sense of urgency that does help push up the price. Continental auctions are the same but more subdued, but the pressure is there too. Shadowjams (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Compare the "Hey batter, batter!" tradition at baseball games (not sure what it's called, not really heckling)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My family often went to country auctions in the US. The highly practiced chant gets the item sold, and builds a level of excitement in some bidders which likely leads them to pay more than they initially intended, to "win" the auction. The easygoing, laconic manner of sale used at auctions of fine antiques would not build the same level of excitement in the audience. The auctioneer may literally be knocking down many hundreds of lots in a few hours, just like a tobacco auctioneer. Lots of them, such as boxes of random books or little glass knick-nacks, may go for a minimum bid, such as one dollar. Meanwhile, many bidders are waiting for some highly desirable items which are why they came at all. People would leave if the process was not fast-moving. They would be bored if it was quiet, slow paced and soothing as described, "I (yawn) see that someone has bid 40. Perhaps (yawn) some other person here might wish to bid 45?" (yawn, the sound of people leaving). The auctioneer, for all his fast chanting, is watching to see if a lot is going high or if there is little interest, and will knock it down and move on to the next lot. He and the crowd love a bidding war, where two people want something and cost is no object. Edison (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. Not sure why, but I've been looking at auctions for hours now. Mmm. Anyway, here's the song for this question. Joepnl (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upon a Helm with a Wreath Argent and Sable On Water Barry wavy Sable Argent and Sable an Owl affronty wings displayed and inverted Or supporting thereby two closed Books erect Gules.
Escutcheon
Sable an ankh between four Roundels in saltire each issuing Argent.
That's a description of Sir Terry Pratchett's coat of arms. Please refer to Heraldry. It's basically a set of instructions that produces this picture [12]. A8875 (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My question wasn't clear. It would take me months to decipher this and relate it to the picture. Is there someone here with a short cut, who can read "heraldese" and translate. Thanks, Bielle (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Crest: "On a helm with a black & silver wreath, on horizontally-oriented wavy water with colors black, silver, and black, there's a golden owl facing the front with its wings pointed down, and the wings support two closed upright red books."
Shield: "Black, an ankh between 4 disks in the shape of an X (a saltire), the disks are silver"
The shortcut is that most words describe a color or orientation. Argent is silver (or white), Sable is black, Barry means horizontal, Or is gold, Gules is red, inverted means pointed down, erect means upright, affronty means facing the front, etc. The rest are likely specialized heraldric terms that describe something mundane, like an X, or a disk. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ankh is also silver/white. (Any color word affects everything mentioned since the last such word.) —Tamfang (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, 140.180.5.169. That is very helpful. Bielle (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, "heraldese" is actually known as blazoning... AnonMoos (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What a wonderful word. I shall have to remember that. Thanks. Bielle (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, they even have their own jargon word for their own jargon. Do these people breathe "air" and eat "food" like the rest of us? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 05:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blazoning is no worse than any other jargon - for example "Creative ZEN devices don't export the USB mass storage interface (which would make them work like removable drives) but instead implement the Media Transfer Protocol" (picked at random from the Computing RD) or "What properties does a topological space X need to satisfy so that if f: X -> X is continuous on each set in a closed cover of X, f is continuous on X?" (from the Mathematics RD). It's just unfamiliar. Like all jargon, it facilitates clear communication about complex concepts. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't really as analogous as they may at first seem. All are examples of potentially insular language, but notice that "blazoning" is essentially defined by hold-overs of anachronistic terms; in most cases you could use more contemporary variants of the terminology and it would be just as clear (and indeed, a wider selection of people would understand more intuitively); in this regard, the jargon operates as more of a cypher than anything. The other two examples you supply are simply technical language which might not be familiar to everyone, but by and large, those who do understand it would use largely the same terminology and phrasing, since they are simply employing the most common terms to describe those concepts. Snow (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why you say that heraldic terminology is anachronistic; perhaps you mean it is archaic, which I would agree with. But the purpose of this is to maintain continuity and ensure that descriptions of coats of arms in historical records can still be understood. It is not done to be deliberately cryptic or obscure. You see the same use of archaic terminology and non-English words in legal jargon (e.g. tort), which has a similarly long history. And why do we eat beefburgers rather than cowburgers, and pork chops not pig chops ? There you have holdovers of archaic terminology which happen to be so familiar we do not notice them any more. "Jargon" and "technical language" are synonymous; there is no difference between them. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all that. My point is that scientists, for example, do not have a word that only they use, that means "scientific or technical jargon"; or cooks do not have a word that means "culinary jargon"; and so on. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 20:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Blazon" doesn't literally mean the jargon itself, but rather a formal description in the jargon. — I may as well mention that blazon in continental Germanic languages uses more ordinary vocabulary and syntax (no pun intended). —Tamfang (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear! I wonder if Sir Terry knows that. (facepalm) Bielle (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Length of Trans-Siberian railroad inside the arctice circle
What is the approximate length of Trans-Siberian railroad inside the Arctic Circle ?? No clue how to arrive at it. would appreciate any help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.244.183 (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trans-Siberian line in red (Baikal Amur Mainline in green)Map of the Arctic with the Arctic Circle in blue. Zero as far as I can see. ---Sluzzelintalk 02:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As any map shows, the Trans-Siberian Railway does not get anywhere close to the Arctic Circle. (It's entirely below 60 degrees northern latitude). The same goes for the Baikal-Amur Mainline. You may have been thinking of the so-called Transpolar Mainline (1297 km from Salekhard to Igarka) which was under construction ca. 1950, but was never completed. That one, as the article says was supposed to be 1,297 km long, but only part of it (probably less than half) is actually north of the Arctic Circle.
There are some operational railway in Siberia that are entirely (or at least mostly) above the Arctic Circle, such as the Obskaya–Bovanenkovo Line in the Yamal Peninsula (525 km), or the short Norilsk railway. -- Vmenkov (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of the Trans-Siberian railroad is inside the arctic cirlce. The circle is at 66 degrees, and the railroad barely goes north of 50. RudolfRed (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this is making unwarranted assumptions, 183, but I wonder if your question is born out of the common misconception that Siberia is "the Northern part of Russia", a frozen wasteland to which enemies of the state were exiled, when it is actually "the Eastern part of Russia" or "the central part of Russia". As Vmenkov's map shows, a lot of the railway, and most of the Siberian population, is considerably further south than Moscow. FiggyBee (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it's not only the Northern part of Russia, and while it may not entirely be a frozen wasteland, it's still pretty cold, it being to the north of Kazakhstan, Mongolia, and northeastern China. If you check the temperatures for Novosibirsk in the winter, you'll see how cold it is, compared to the similarly placed (latitude-wise) Moscow. 109.97.161.58 (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A key reason for Siberia's extreme temperatures (IIRC it has hot summers) is continentality. --Dweller (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're talking about southern Siberia. Northern Siberia does go quite far north above the Arctic Circle, and borders the Arctic Ocean, so is quite cold, on average, in winter, and cool even in summer (see Norilsk#Climate). However, few people live up there, and the Trans-Siberian railroad doesn't go up there, either. StuRat (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
US government
What would happen if a nuke or some other disaster destroyed Washington, DC? --146.7.96.200 (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As is states at the top of the page "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.". If you have more precise questions that can be answered with non opinion/guessing answers, such as "what happens if the US president dies?" than we will respond. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean there isn't one. --Tango (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- there is very extensive planning for something like that, but unfortunately almost all of the plans are secret. Looie496 (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the US History Channel's "Day After Disaster", where this specific scenario is discussed in full. --NellieBly (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically see the Continuity of Operations Plan — which is actually already in place and was activated on 9/11 (and never apparently deactivated — we are, over a decade later, still living in a State of Emergency, apparently). It describes elaborate (budget-busting) procedures by which agencies try to maintain control and continuity. The line of succession to the Presidency is pretty well outlined; it'd take quite a few people dead before a Constitutional crisis occurred (and for those rare events when pretty much everyone on the list is in the same place, there is usually a designated survivor). As for what would happen immediately afterwards, it would undoubtedly depend on assessing what the situation was. If it were war with another nation state, the results would likely be different than if it were thought to be caused by terrorists. Nuclear forensics (only a stub!) would no doubt be involved in figuring that sort of thing out. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A year or two ago there was essentially the same question: Something like, if the House, Senate, President and VP, and Supreme Court were all wiped out, what would happen? And the answer was generally the same: That there are contingency plans for handling the worst-case scenarios... certain details of which of course are secret, otherwise they wouldn't be very useful. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in that case it is still quite clear who is legally in charge, because you didn't say the Cabinet was also killed. In practice it is unclear whether rule of law holds in a situation where major political and legal institutions are destroyed, of course. That would apply for pre-cooked up scenarios as well. And a lot of this stuff is less secret than you'd imagine. It's mostly boring, not secret. The legal angles are pretty non-secret. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the issue that the succession has never been tested beyond Vice-President. Some concerns about the constitutionality of the succession have been expressed (see here). If people chose to challenge it at the time, it could cause significant problems (especially if there is no Supreme Court around to rule on it). When it comes down to it, though, all that matters is whether military leaders are willing to accept orders from the person. The legalities can be worried about later. --Tango (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What would happen? Some set designer wearing funny glasses would design a pit twice as deep, at the cost of several hundred billion dollars, call it a monument, and have it dug at taxpayer expense. μηδείς (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does buy more, pay more (identical good) always hold?
Is there something you can pay less for and get more (at least up to a point, as this can't go on forever). Not less per unit, this is commoner than dirt. That you literally hand over more money and get less stuff (that is for all practical purposes identical). Nor does this mean with different sellers. The same seller at the same time. While if you loosen the identicalness requirement a bit you could find many things like that (Olympic weightlifter A can lift several hundred kilos, instead of buying the $2,000 (todays dollars) nanotube-constructed 15" 1-millimeter thick, 7 gram, 2045 MacBook Hard Vacuum with brain plug he buys a $1.00 (MSRP) 15" 2.5kg 2045 MacBook Brick with brain plug (and identical (or even better) technical ability) (the future will be wild), then he's paying less to get more, at the very least he's getting more matter, right? Or immoral example but, a client who prefers drug addict prostitute A to anyone else on Earth, finding her the pinnacle of human beauty (are there any?) he could get more of what is sort of the same thing (hours of..) (and better quality too) and still pay less than anyone else (assuming any cheaper prostitutes cost more to travel to than he'd save). So that's not very interesting either. The best I can think of is maybe some remote culture where the shamen voodoo curses some of a potter's pots (maybe for overcharging an outsider:) and it'll stay till he sells the cursed objects for money to a knowing buyer (curse is eternal and transferable). The goods are essentially the same object (okay, so there's an extra 0.1% more ovalness here but let's say he's really consistent) but when the rare outsider who doesn't believe in curses passes by he might offer less for 10 pots than for 5 of them (the wrong 5) just to get them out of his shop. Or "ungoods" which are sold for negative money, in my city businesses have to sell their garbage to private companies for negative dollars, for example (free garbage removal is only for residences), but now they're providing a service. Oh great. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I bought two 500ml bottles of Coca-Cola in W H Smith a few weeks ago. They were on special offer, 2 for £1. The individual price was £1.20. I often get my lunch at Tesco and have their "meal deal" which is a sandwich, a drink and a chocolate bar for £2.50. I don't particularly want the chocolate bar, but the sandwich costs £2 and the drink costs £1.50, so I get the bar anyway and save £1. Such offers, while pretty stupid, are very common. --Tango (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since stores often have sales on only a certain size of an item, usually the most popular size, somewhere in the middle range, this product can actually be cheaper than the smaller size, which is not on sale. StuRat (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those look like mistakes, to me. However, the practice of putting one quantity/variety on sale and not the others seems widespread. I assume it's to trick people into buying the wrong item and paying full price. StuRat (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, those are almost certainly mistakes (and probably just with the label printing - the tills probably get it right). They wouldn't get away with it if if they did that intentionally - someone would notice (probably when they saw their receipt saying "Today, you've saved -£0.51!") and the bad publicity would be enormous. They would end up having to refund people, with all the administration costs that go along with that. It just wouldn't be a good plan (and the people that come up with the deals in supermarkets are very good at their jobs, so they would know it wasn't a good plan). --Tango (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, not a mistake. I've frequently seen small bottles of drink more expensive than the larger bottles of drink next to them, particularly in inner-city convenience stores. The reason is that if you're an office worker grabbing a drink to go with your lunch (ie most of their customers), the small size is more convenient to carry around and a more appropriate size for one serving (you could, of course, buy the larger bottle and throw it away when you've had enough, but there's a psychological barrier to this "wastefulness"). FiggyBee (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's something completely different - that's about demand and price, not quantity and price. --Tango (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh lord, I'd suggest the chapters on expanded production in Volume I but it would be a waste of time wouldn't it? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? --Tango (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea what it means? —Tamfang (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quasi-racist play on the word "renege" in connection with the 2012 presidential election would be my first guess, but I could be wrong. Evanh2008(talk|contribs) 00:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that exactly what the bumper sticker looked like and said, or is that your best approximation of it? Bus stop (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's the play on words? The only thing I can think of is "re-elect a nigger/negro", but that's a really tortured pun (and would be fully racist, not quasi-racist). Did you mean someone else? Aren't bumper stickers usually a little easier to understand? --Tango (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without having to even look it up, it was obviously a redneck-racist play on words. Apparently they'd rather have a white Mormon than a black Christian. So be it. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are the "flags" trying to say, nonverbally? Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the flags communicate a message similar to "the south will rise again" and "things was better back when all dem northerners wasn't tryin' to make us let black folks have rights and such". I'm usually more charitable when it comes to nonsense like that, but this particular example is just straight-up dumb. I have yet to determine whether the "renege" is supposed to rhyme with the first syllable of "nigger" or "negro", but it's definitely one or the other. Evanh2008(talk|contribs) 00:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
/rɪˈnɪg/ is a common (perhaps the usual; it's not a word one hears in conversation very often) pronunciation of the word where I originally come from (North Midland dialect), but I'm not sure exactly what the geographical distribution might be. Deor (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Explain the relevance of the Mormon reference, please. μηδείς (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Obviously, the majority of those opposed to (re-)electing a black man will most likely be voting for Romney in November. It's not terribly relevant to the conversation, other than the fact that a lot of traditional conservative Christians (a largely Republican voting block) don't see Mormonism as a form of Christianity and would not normally cast a vote for anyone they see as a non-Christian. Evanh2008(talk|contribs) 00:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IN 2012 
