Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 July 2

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 2

ASTER

How can I download ASTER GDEM? 128.12.77.34 (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You can read the download instructions from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Nimur (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

How sensitive is TV antenna to direction?

This is regarding the recent DTV conversion in the US. I receive my signal over-the-air with a bigass antenna up in the garage rafters.

I've got problems with some stations pixelating some of the time, "hiccuping" through a show with varying degrees of unwatchability. After some searching, found an old plastic protractor and a roadmap, located the tower farm, lined up the axis of the house from an overhead photograph, and am estimating that the antenna is about 20-22 degrees out-of-line to the tower farm.

SO: Is 22 degrees significant, or not? I'm hoping that Here There Be Engineers who can give factual answers, or at least high-quality speculation. Even though the antenna is indoors, it's still a major effort to access the thing, so if "Try it and see" is your best answer, please keep it to yourself :-). Hope that doesn't scare off anybody with serious advice...

Thanks, --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's quite significant. The signal quality will vary from its best pointing directly towards (or away from) the transmitter to its worst when pointing 90 degrees away. It probably is worth pointing the antenna in the right direction. My grandfather had some problems with his TV signal after they changed transmitters and I managed to dramatically improve it by looking up the location of the new transmitter and pointing the aerial in the right direction. --Tango (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

TIP: If you aren't sure exactly what direction to point it in, move it around until you find the worst signal, and then turn it 90 degrees. It is far easier to spot the worst signal than the best. --Tango (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Those "bigass" antennas tend to be a lot more directional than the two rods on top of the set, so the sensitivity can fall off quickly when your are just a little way out-of-line. Can you get hold of a compass to get the direction correct (in my experience, those roadmaps you get from the gas station are not that accurate)? Alternatively, the professional installers sometimes use a signal strength meter which they just hook up to the antenna while adjusting the direction. Lastly, things like airports and skyscrapers can do kinds of weird things to your TV signal. Astronaut (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Appreciating that it is an effort to access your antenna, it is possible to try using a borrowed antenna and cable in the open. That will establish the true direction beyond doubt; that may not be what you estimated from the map. The larger the antenna the sharper is its directivity, and the more likely that 22 degrees off-axis makes a significant difference. (This answer is a variation on "Try it and see".) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding directional rooftop antennas; they used to make motorized varieties with a little control box you kept inside the house. You could adjust the direction of the antenna using a little dial that looked like a compass, it would turn the antenna on your roof to face the correct direction. This was very useful for people who lived on the margins of TV areas; as they could turn the antenna to face different stations. They even had little stickers to mark the point on the controls where a station's antenna was located. My aunt had one when she lived in extreme northwest Connecticut; she was able to pick up not only the Hartford and Springfield Mass stations, but ones from NY City and Albany and Boston by finely tuning her antenna; and the motorized bit made it quite easy to do. This was back in the 1980's, but I imagine one could find similar set-ups for sale today. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, good morning, and thanks to all who replied while it was overnight in my time zone. Hmmm, I remember those motorized rotators (from my grandparent's house -- seems to be the common thread.) Y'all have given me the enthusiasm to tackle the task sooner rather than later.

For the record, part of the access problem is that, in its current position, some of the antenna's arms are "interlaced" through the various rafter beams. I'm pretty sure that once I get up there, I'm going to have to remove one or two of them, and replace them after the rotation. Should be an interesting task. --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Update, one day later: So, this afternoon I climbed into the attic and wrestled with the beast, the primary goal being not to break any of the arms off whilst jockeying it into a new position around the rafters. In the end, I think I was forced to "overcompensate", e.g. I'm now at 8-10° left of ideal rather than 20° right. The improvement is unbelievable, except for the ONE station that broadcasts from another location and is now farther off of axis than it was before.

Many thanks for all the advice; this issue is

Resolved

. --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

DTV issues

Prior to the DTV transition, I was able to get WABC and, occassionally WNET if I was lucky. However, since the DTV transition, both channels have disappeared despite numerous scans of my box and adjustments of antennas. I have repeated this with my living room television and my father's television; he lives one floor above me. Furthermore, as I live in Brooklyn, I can only get ten or twelve channels while my aunt in Staten Island claims she could get over twice as many channels; she has a rooftop antenna and I have an indoor antenna. Is this a problem with my antenna or my location or is there something wrong with the station? --Blue387 (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the rooftop antenna will DEFINATELY get you much better reception. Larger antennas are able to grab weaker signals than smaller ones; a four-foot rooftop antenna will be exponetially better than a little 12 inch settop antenna. Secondly, that's the way DTV works. Under analog signals, the signal strength drops off more-or-less directly with distance from the source; it just gets progressively worse and worse. With a digital signal, because of the way it is encoded, your TV essentially has to get the entire signal or its a garbled mess. Thus, DTV signals have a "reception cliff" of sorts; inside a certain radius from the tower, your signal will always be crystal clear and perfect. Outside of that radius, you get bupkis. That's the advantage and disadvantage of DTV; better reception for many, but NO reception for some others. That all being said, the distance from Staten Island to Brooklyn does not seem like enough to cause that big of a difference; I would say the effect is primarly caused by your inadequate antenna. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

But if my antenna was inadequate, why was I able to get WABC before the transition and not get it now? --Blue387 (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As Jayron32 points out - with a digital signal, it's all or nothing. Either you have 0's and 1's or you don't. With an analog signal, you never COMPLETELY lose the signal - it just gets weaker and noisier. So your signal quality on WABC must have been marginal - and now it's gone. The trade-off with digital is that if you DO get a just barely good enough signal, you'll get a 100% perfect picture. With analog, even if your reception is only a little less than perfect, you have poor picture quality. Sadly, the price you pay for that is that you can't pull in a really weak digital signal and live with the poorer quality. Arguably, this is a net loss to society - but getting back a whole lot of valuable radio bandwidth is a worthwhile thing - it'll get us better wireless internet and a bunch of other good things. But getting a larger, outdoor or (preferably) rooftop antenna will allow you to pull in more channels...I think that's your only hope at this point. SteveBaker (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Another issue, especially in built-up locations like Brooklyn, is that (ATSC) digital TV signals are much more affected by multipath interference than analog ones. A multipath artifact which would be barely detectable with an analog receiver can completely kill digital reception. -- 76.201.158.47 (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it's got a simple reason but...How come my digital-tv signal gets boxy, cuts out and gives basically a modern-day version of analogue interferance? Additionally differing signal-strengths show on my digi-box menu and I get better/worse reception depending on which I choose. Anybody? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The science desk is the better place to ask about the types of interference --203.129.49.222 (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

High speed gas

Inspired by the natural gas question above. In the context of domestic gas supply to homes in the UK, I have vague recollections of the term "high speed gas" and domestic appliances being converted to use it. What was the conversion from and to in modern terms? And what was special about the gas to make it "high speed" - did it travel down the pipes quicker? Astronaut (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"High speed gas" was just an advertising slogan, making the point that gas cookers were a lot quicker than electric ones (in those days). The whole of the UK was converted from coal gas to natural gas in the 1970s. See coal gas#Change over to natural gas--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Could this have been the conversion from "town gas" (made by heating coal) to "natural gas" (found under the North Sea)? I don't know why natural gas would be called "high speed", except that in programmes requiring mass public awareness it's common to pick a term which is technically nonsense but easy for people to remember (eg "broadband", "freeview", etc). 93.97.184.230 (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No - the advertising of the time was clear that they were indicating that a gas stove could heat saucepans faster than an electric one. SteveBaker (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly the key idea was that it was quick to stop heating. Didn't they have some milk bubbling up on a gas cooker and they turned it off and it settled down, then the same on an electric cooker and it boiled over. -- Q Chris (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Adverts lied quite a lot then,so they could say anything they wanted.Anyone remember Maltesers with the non-fattening centre ads?hotclaws 14:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Mac apps

What is the purpose of the "Time Machine" app on the Imac? How is it used? 128.12.77.75 (talk) 03:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

We have an article on that. Time Machine (Apple software) states:

"Time Machine is a backup utility developed by Apple. It is included with Mac OS X and was introduced with the 10.5 "Leopard" release of Mac OS X."

That article provides a good overview, and you can find official documentation directly from Apple or from the help feature in the program. Personally, I found Time Machine to be very confusing, and I prefer to manually archive my important data with subversion (software) or manually-created archive files. Nimur (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A bribe

Is it illegal to bribe an employee who isn't a public servant? In the USA, I mean.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peanut Butter Papers (talk • contribs) 04:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That really depends on the favor being sought, the parties involved and the state. For example, bribing the employee of a corporation might in some cases be construed as defrauding the corporation's shareholders. On the other hand, tipping a waiter not only in gratitude for good service, but in hopes of its repetition in the future, is expected and recognized by state and federal income tax codes. Tipping a casino dealer to give you good cards, however, would violate the gaming statutes in almost every state that permits gaming with cards. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In at least California and Nevada it's not only legal but expected to tip the dealer after winning a hand. PhGustaf (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in discharge of a public or legal duty. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If someone is not a public official and not carrying out some function of government, then the question would turn on the "legal duty" of this "other person". And it can get very tricky to judge those duties. When is someone acting, for example, in a fiduciary capacity, with the obligation to treat someone else's interests as jealously as his or her own? If a company bribes the administrator of a trust to buy their products or stock (and thus perhaps put his or her own interests before those of the trust's beneficiary), is that bribery a crime? What about bribing a corporate board of directors, who should be acting on behalf of all the corporation's shareholders? Or a doctor being bribed to prescribe a medicine that she or he might not have prescribed otherwise? Or a lawyer being bribed to settle a client's case when the client might have done better to fight on? (Or vice-versa?) —— Shakescene (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Offering a bribe to a public official is often a criminal act, but I wonder, is it a crime to offer a bribe to other people? For example, is bribing a corporate officer to win a business contract a crime for the person offering the bribe (or only for the person who accepts it, or neither)? Or is it, as some might say, just another cost of doing business? Dragons flight (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

While bribery, kickbacks and facilitating payments may not be technically illegal in some cases, many companies have formal business ethics. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Having taken a number of ethics courses in my company, I can assure you that bribes of various kinds between companies are often illegal, particularly when they serve to stifle competition in the marketplace. If any doubt, speak to an attorney. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That's misphrasing the quesiton. As has been pointed out above, a bribe is illegal, and a bribe is an incentive payment to influence a person in the exercise of his or her public duty in a way that is beyond what is allowed under that person's discretion.

The first question is "whether this payment amounts to a bribe". The next question, after concluding that it is not a bribe (if that be so), is whether the payment is illegal because of some other specific law.

For example, the seller of a financial product might make a side payment/commission to a financial advisor in order to increase the incentive for that advisor to advise his or her clients to put their money into this product. This is not a bribe: the financial advisor is not a public official and (without more) is not a fiduciary, and is just performing his or her private, contractual duties.

However, specific laws regulating financial markets may require that the financial advisor disclose the side payment/commission to the client. Then, if the payment is not disclosed to the client, it is illegal. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Cars - 2-door and 5-door

I don't drive.

Why are cars described as having "5 doors"? Two in the front, two in the back, and...? I was told one for the boot (UK English, the Americans call that something different, I think). If that's so, why is a car with no doors for the back seats referred to as "2-door"? Wouldn't it be 3-door? Or have I missed something vital? Vimescarrot (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Cars are described as 5- 4- 3- or 2-door because that is the number of hinged entranceways they have. An odd-number of doors means there is a part that opens at the back. The rear entranceway can be a door but is more often a top-hinged liftback or hatchback. These names are used interchangeably with 5-door annd 3-door. Americans call a car's boot an elephant's nose.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

See Trunk (automobile) for the etymology of trunk and boot. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Americans call the storage box at the back of the car the same word as other storage boxes (see Trunk (luggage)). The use of a term for footwear to describe a storage compartment seems more farfetched than using a term for a storage box for, well, a storage box! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible etymology is boot = boîte, French for box. 81.131.69.59 (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have always thought it silly, but a hatchback or estate car is refers to the rear opening as a "door", whereas a car with a normal boot doesn't. This is despite the fact that you would never normally enter or exit the car through a hatchback. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely a european thing - calling a car with four passenger doors and a hatchback a "5 door" is a little odd...but that's what people do. It's particularly confusing when you find cars like my wife's new "MINI Clubman" which has two proper/conventional passenger doors plus one suicide door on the right-hand side to make it easier to get into the back seats - and two hinged 'barn doors' at the back. You could arguably call this:

• "two door" - because the little "suicide-door" on the right side of the car is about 8" wide and is really just a slight extension of the main door on that side of the car.
• "three door" - because it really does have three passenger doors - even if one of them is tiny.
• "four door" - three passenger doors and a big opening at the back.
• "five door - three passenger doors plus two barn-doors at that back.

The "trunk lid" ("boot lid") of a "three-boxes" style of car isn't ever included into the door count - so there is (I suppose) some benefit and brevity of description to talk about 4-door and 5-door cars - in that by changing a single digit, you have explained that "this car doesn't have a boot/trunk lid but instead a hatchback". SteveBaker (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that saying 3 or 5 makes it instantly clear the car is a hatchback/estate and not a saloon car. If you say 2 or 4 I know it is a saloon. As a result it makes it clearer to say that thn 2 door hatchback or 4 door saloon. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, many older minivans were considered "3-door" minivans, as the entrance to the rear seating area only opened on one side of the van; this is despite the fact that the hatchback on the minivan would technically make it a "4-door" car, since one could access the passenger compartment that way. Contrast this with a "5-door" car, which has 4 standard doors and a hatchback... In that case, the hatchback "counts" but for minivans, it doesn't, perhaps not to confuse the customer, who if they heard they were getting a 4 door minivan, would expect 4 standard doors, and not 3 standard doors and a hatchback. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Replacing one type of confusion with another: I've never really understood the differences between basic types of car (hatchback, saloon etc). That's my problem though, not yours. Thanks. Vimescarrot (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget the 1-door style. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

True story: A friend once had a three-door Volvo 122 sedan. It seems there was a four-door that got in a wreck, a two-door that did too, and a guy who was real handy with a welding torch... PhGustaf (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful. A true "hybrid". Reminds me a little bit of the Johnny Cash song, "One Piece at a Time". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

We should probably add that cut-and-shut cars are generally illegal and very unsafe. Turning a 4-door and a 2-door into one 3-door is certainly an unusual form of cut-and-shut, but I expect the general principles still apply. --Tango (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Qualifications to start a career with the European Union

My question is about working for the European Union itself, or another international institution, not about immigration to Europe from somewhere else. I'd like to know what university degree subject(s) would be most useful, what sort of extra-curricular experience would help, if I should plan for postgrad study, and how/where I can learn more about working for the different institutions.

I don't expect the refdesk to plan my whole life for me, but other constructive comments are very welcome. I'm a British high school leaver with (office based) work experience, thinking of returning to study part-time (by distance learning) aged 27 with the University of London External System. I have good A-Level grades, obtained by part-time study after I started work (after leaving school in unfortunate circumstances with no exam passes). I hope to get a BA degree in 3-5 years, while working. I can speak French fairly well and have much more basic Dutch, German and Russian.

Suggestions also welcome about other international organisations, but (some part of) the EU would be my first choice. I have family connections to Belgium and I strongly support European integration. The general British attitude to the EU really depresses me, to be honest, and I'd like to be involved in trying to change it. The UK is not really that important to the United States, and splendid isolation only worked back when we had all the gunboats.

I realise I have wasted quite a bit of time already, but I don't want to abandon this plan for a safe but nondescript career at home in England unless my age makes it a spectacularly bad idea. My age has nothing to do with my abilities, so if I did that I know I'd regret it for the rest of my life. Thanks in advance for all replies! 86.154.106.137 (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You could look for a degree in any of the Social Science areas, with a focus on Political Science, or do a degree in International Studies. I would also add that given the nature of working at the EU it would be likely beneficial to speak another language. The Open University do distance-learning degrees that combine Political Science with a language, or (seeing as you state you are already reasonable in other languages) perhaps do something to get those skills 'professionalised'. I would suggest approaching local political groups and offer your services, either volunteering or (ideally for you) paid. Getting some experience in the industry through that sort of work can really help.

Oh and there's nothing about your age that prevents you doing this. It would make it harder to be the highest ranking EU official, but it shouldn't prevent you entering a career working in the political arena and helping to push forward the cause you believe in. 12:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk)

Jobs for the EU seem to be like government jobs anywhere. The only extra thing that I've noticed in EU jobs is languages - usually mother-tongue fluency in one offical language and "a satisfactory knowledge" of another official language (I think "satisfactory" is defined somewhere but I can't find it). Age shouldn't be a problem because there is a specific council directive about equality in employment which prohibits age discrimination. Astronaut (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're going about this backwards. Decide what you want to do, rather than who for. The EU employs lots of people in all kinds of roles. Some, like security staff or drivers, would need no degree at all. Economists would need specific degrees and so would statisticians. Generally speaking, it would seem likely that having strong language skills to back up some kind of specialist degree would give you the best chance. Good luck. --Dweller (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(response by OP) Sorry I wasn't clear, but what I'm looking at is the competitions for senior administrators (AD7 and up) shown in TammyMoet's link :-) I assume I'd need to pass that and get hired as a generalist before I have the option to specialise - no? 217.42.255.221 (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, no. That link says AD7 includes "Economist, Lawyer, Translator etc.". You can't specialise in any of those later in your career with just general experience, you need the right education from the start. --Tango (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

A word of caution here: it used to be the case that the EU only recruited those under-35. This might have changed since the mid-1990s when I was interested in working for them, though. This site will help: [1] --TammyMoet (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In the worst case I'd be 34 when I apply, so I'd squeak through even if this rule still exists. Hopefully it has been scrapped by now though! 217.42.255.221 (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A good start would be to learn one/possibly two Language's; would suggest Aribic/Dari - or possibly even Mandirin Chinese; there is a very limited amount of people working in the China enviroment. If you can speak your native tounge and possibly two others this would be a fantastic advantage. A word to the wise most eastern eurpoean countries would speak there native tounge and English as a matter of course - so what ever you do choose wisly. If a language course is not in the offering as you need to concentrate on what ever you decide; spare time could be best used with this [2]Chromagnum (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that languages are very important, but I would expect languages of member states would be best. Presumable the OP already has native English skills, it would be good to get the French up to a fluent level and maybe improve one of the others. He may have the minimum requirements already, but I expect better than minimum is beneficial. --Tango (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

WHO IS THIS GUY

Hello, Wikipedians I`am a practicing Jehavoah`s Witness, I wanted to ask you all If you have any idea about who is this guy, we learned about at Kingdom Hall. We were told His name, only that He was a German Soldier In The First World War. And that after the end of the war, He immigrated to the united states. Where He proselytized to Americans. Door To Door. Including to the father of an American solider killed in World War I. And that He convinced The Father to become a Jehovah`s Witness after He tried to close the door on them. By informing Him, He fought on the German side. And crying when He said, He might have killed His son. I really would like to know, who this guy might be. Not only because I`m a Jehaovah`s Witness. But because I`m an aspiring screenwriter as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.149.242 (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You'd probably have to speak to someone who told you the story directly; the story may be entirely true, but it does not sound like the sort of story one could research unless you know the exact source of the story. It is at once interesting and unremarkable, and I am not certain that the person whom the story is about has gained much notability beyond being the subject of the story. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The theme of reconciliation between former enemies is a good one. It has worked well in screenplays and will continue to do so provided the writer properly characterises both sides as people a viewer can identify with. Drama often comprises a catharsis that leads to a resolution, hopefully a triumphal one that does not depend on polarising viewers. Just my $0.10. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

An aspiring screenwriter might want to learn the conventional spelling of "Jehovah", among other things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So might a Jehovah's Witness; and some screenwriters don't spell it that way. :-) AlexTiefling (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I've seen that movie, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. But I'm fairly sure the term "Jehovah" was coined quite awhile after the Crusades had run their course. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Alex is referring to the scene near the end of the film where Indy has to spell the name of Jehovah by stepping on lettered tiles, which in the Latin text actually begins with an "I". Of course, Indy didn't know that until it was almost too late.--WaltCip (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Aha. Well, as I said, it's been awhile, and I only saw it once. And again, Jehovah or Iehovah, as far as I know, was a later invention. But I could be wrong. Maybe someone can answer that question? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The article Yahweh attempts to answer that question (pick your way through the overwritten history section and the answer is in there - complete with fact tag) Fouracross (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Another question, Baseball Bugs, is why you've twice used the adverb "awhile" instead of the expression "a while", which consists of the indefinite article followed by a noun. See this for an explanation of the difference. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've always written it as one word. The reasons are lost in the mysts of tyme. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The Jehovah's Witnesses didn't exist until 1931, when they split off from an earlier group. I don't know when they started doing the Fuller Brush thing, but the thirteen-year gap gives some pause. It's quite possible that this is a parable rather than a true story. Not that there's anything wrong with parables. PhGustaf (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Through a circuitous path, it does seem like "Jehovah" was first used in the general time frame of the Crusades. Of course, the users of that word are missing the whole point, which is that "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "YHWH" are not God's actual name, but rather are kind of a dismissive answer to Moses when he asked God what His name is. Basically it translates as "I am that I am", or "I am". In short, a non-answer. Names were considered of great symbolic significance, and if Moses knew God's name, then he would "have something" on God. Not surprisingly, God was a little smarter than Moses and didn't fall for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

In the BB tradition <g> a professor of comparative theology told me that a name in many societies is considered to have magical powers - if you give anyone your "real name" you place yourself under their power. If God gave his "real name" he would cease to be God is one reasoning. One should also note that "I am" in some languages has special significance (avoiding comment it being the sum of importance). BTW, the JW were earlier called Russellites. Collect (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That "begins with I" bit grated on me: it's not that 'J' was wrong, but that there shouldn't be a 'J' option (distinct from 'I') at all. —Tamfang (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)