Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 March 13

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities 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.

March 13

Is Microsoft a Monopoly?

hi there, I want to know on what basis did the U.S. Court of Appeal conclude that Microsoft was a monopoly? What was Microsoft's market share of Intel-compatible PC operating systems? Of all operating systems, including Apple computers? What evidence did the court cite in claiming that Microsoft changed above-competitive prices? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.139 (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Our article, Microsoft Windows says: "As of October 2009, Windows had approximately 91% of the market share of the client operating systems for usage on the Internet." I think "client operating systems for usage on the Internet" includes Macs, but not servers, mainframes and special purpose computers. I don't think there is a set market share that constitutes a monopoly in law, but rather you have a monopoly if you are able to use monopolistic practises (whether or not you actually do use them). --Tango (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to United States v. Microsoft? Because our article says that the Judge did find that Microsoft was a monopoly, and that they had unfairly used their market share to promote their other software (I think internet explorer was the chief issue). An appeal did significantly reduce the remedies, but didn't change the findings of fact (that is, the appeals court still held them to be a monopoly). If you're referring to a different case, then I don't know. Buddy431 (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be agreeing with the OP... the OP said "was a monopoly" not "wasn't". --Tango (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Does the OP mean "Is Microsoft a monopoly in fact?" or "Is Microsoft a monopoly under the law?" When it comes to economics, the law doesn't always coincide with reality. As far as the economic reality is concerned, it is unclear whether Microsoft is a monopoly (and many economists believe it is not). Market share isn't relevant -- what matters is market power. Given that Apple, Linux, and others exist as potential competitors, it is not possible for Microsoft to price monopolistically (in fact, Apple likely prices more like a monopoly than does Microsoft). Wikiant (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I see on re-reading the question that 76.64 mostly wants to know about the case itself. Here's the findings of fact from the case. I have not read it, so cannot answer your questions, but it looks like this contains the relevant information. Buddy431 (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The answer to the OP's 4th question would require thousands of words. Here is a partial answer to his first 3 questions, from the 1999 case cited above: "Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.
Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.
... Microsoft possesses a dominant, persistent, and increasing share of the worldwide market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. Every year for the last decade, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems has stood above ninety percent. For the last couple of years the figure has been at least ninety-five percent, and analysts project that the share will climb even higher over the next few years. Even if Apple's Mac OS were included in the relevant market, Microsoft's share would still stand well above eighty percent."
Here's 750 words of "evidence" -- if it's unforgivably too long, feel free to edit:
"... just as Microsoft's large market share creates incentives for ISVs to develop applications first and foremost for Windows, the small or non-existent market share of an aspiring competitor makes it prohibitively expensive for the aspirant to develop its PC operating system into an acceptable substitute for Windows. ... The cost to a would-be entrant of inducing ISVs to write applications for its operating system exceeds the cost that Microsoft itself has faced in inducing ISVs to write applications for its operating system products, for Microsoft never confronted a highly penetrated market dominated by a single competitor. ... The experiences of IBM and Apple, Microsoft's most significant operating system rivals in the mid- and late 1990s, confirm the strength of the applications barrier to entry. ....The inability of Apple to compete effectively with Windows provides another example of the applications barrier to entry in operation. Although Apple's Mac OS supports more than 12,000 applications, even an inventory of that magnitude is not sufficient to enable Apple to present a significant percentage of users with a viable substitute for Windows. ... The experience of the Linux operating system, ... similarly fails to refute the existence of an applications barrier to entry. ... That Microsoft's market share and the applications barrier to entry together endow the company with monopoly power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is directly evidenced by the sustained absence of realistic commercial alternatives to Microsoft's PC operating-system products. ....OEMs are the most important direct customers for operating systems for Intel- compatible PCs. .... Without significant exception, all OEMs pre-install Windows on the vast majority of PCs that they sell, and they uniformly are of a mind that there exists no commercially viable alternative to which they could switch in response to a substantial and sustained price increase or its equivalent by Microsoft. ... Microsoft did not consider the prices of other Intel-compatible PC operating systems when it set the price of Windows 98.... The license for one of Microsoft's operating system products prohibits the user from transferring the operating system to another machine, so there is no legal secondary market in Microsoft operating systems. This means that any consumer who buys a new Intel-compatible PC and wants Windows must buy a new copy of the operating system. ... while consumers might one day turn to network computers, or Linux, or a combination of middleware and some other operating system, as an alternative to Windows, the fact remains that they are not doing so today. Nor are consumers likely to do so in appreciable numbers any time in the next few years. Unless and until that day arrives, no significant percentage of consumers will be able to abandon Windows without incurring substantial costs. Microsoft can therefore set the price of Windows substantially higher than that which would be charged in a competitive market ... without losing so much business as to make the action unprofitable. ...Microsoft's actual pricing behavior is consistent with the proposition that the firm enjoys monopoly power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. The company's decision not to consider the prices of other vendors' Intel-compatible PC operating systems when setting the price of Windows 98, for example, is probative of monopoly power. ... Another indication of monopoly power is the fact that Microsoft raised the price that it charged OEMs for Windows 95, with trivial exceptions, to the same level as the price it charged for Windows 98 just prior to releasing the newer product. ...Finally, it is indicative of monopoly power that Microsoft felt that it had substantial discretion in setting the price of its Windows 98 upgrade product .... A Microsoft study from November 1997 reveals that the company could have charged $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98 — there is no reason to believe that the $49 price would have been unprofitable — but the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing price. Microsoft thus opted for the higher price. ... Given the size and stability of its market share, Microsoft stands to reap almost all of the future rewards if there are yet more consumers of Intel-compatible PC operating systems. ...Furthermore, Microsoft expends a significant portion of its monopoly power, which could otherwise be spent maximizing price, on imposing burdensome restrictions on its customers — and in inducing them to behave in ways — that augment and prolong that monopoly power. ...Microsoft's monopoly power is also evidenced by the fact that, over the course of several years, Microsoft took actions that could only have been advantageous if they operated to reinforce monopoly power. ...." 63.17.60.8 (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's perhaps worth remembering that being a monopoly isn't in itself illegal in the vast majority of jurisdictions. It's only when you abuse your monopoly in some way according to the laws of the country you're operating that you get into trouble. Even when a monopoly is broken up, it only happens because the monopoly was considered to be abusing their monopoly, not because the monopoly existed. BTW, in terms of Apple, remember the case was in 1998. Apple Inc launched the iMac which started their recovery but this was after they'd had a massive decline and so were still a very minor player at the time even in the US. For example [1] "Market share of personal computers in the USA during October to December: ... Apple Computer 4.5%." (they were 3.4% or 4.3% in the last quarter of 1997 [2]) Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it only me?

Usually, whenever I come across someone I know, I and the other person simultaneously say "How are you?". It's really embarrassing and weird. One person should say that while the other person is listening, but that just doesn't happen for me. I don't think something like this happens so often for other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.129.94 (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It happens very frequently for me. In the past, relative social rank would probably determine who spoke first, but we don't really have that kind of etiquette any more (I'm speaking for Britain and its colonies, I suppose, I don't know too much about etiquette elsewhere). --Tango (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I avoid simultaneous pleasantries by swearing at people I meet, instead. That method works in most places, but in New York City I run the risk of simultaneous unpleasantries. :-) StuRat (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Seinfeld once proposed getting around that by simply saying "Acknowledge" whenever you run into someone you know, especially in an office setting.←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A smile and nod achieves the same goal without requiring a major change in etiquette. --Tango (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The same similar thing happens to me when you are walking towards someone else going the opposite way in the street, and both you and the other person try and move the same way to try and get out of their way, it can be mega embarrassing! Chevymontecarlo. 09:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Another difficult situation is when you ask someone how they are and you end up getting a complete medical history. It ought to be compulsory to say "fine thanks" unless you've just been run over by a bus. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting one. I get that we're supposed to answer "Fine" or "Well", even if we're not remotely feeling fine or well (don't get me started about the answer "Good".) If I'm feeling unhappy or exhausted or stressed out, I give a 1 or 2 word honest answer that conveys my feelings, but I don't launch into a diatribe about it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There can be a degree of cultural or superstitional mismatch operating also. Some cultures and individuals fear that it may "tempt fate" to say they are fine (when they are) and prefer to give a less positive answer. I have in mind Jewish culture in the UK (with which my family had some links) - If asked how business was going, a (successful) Jewish businessman would at least in former times typically reply "so-so" or the like - but I'm sure this is evinced in other contexts as well. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have heard that the expectation to a "How are you" in France (in French) is an honest, full answer, and they're offended by our Western untruthful, pithy answer of "fine" --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How honest I am depends on the situation. If I'm going to a job interview and the interview asks how I am, I say "fine, thanks", or similar, regardless of the truth. In less formal situations, I tend to be more honest, but (as you say) concise. "A bit tired" or "I have a slight cold", that sort of thing (almost always with a diminutive in there somewhere - Brits like understatement!). I would usually follow it with "but I'll be fine" or similar. One doesn't want to come across as seeking sympathy. --Tango (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is very important. When you detect that this is about to happen then do not make eye contact with the person you are approaching. Move to the nearest side giving the approaching person an obvious non-collision route to take. This works very well for me on my campus where biking is the normal transportation mode. I have never been involved in a bike-bike collision. Obviously this approach does not scale well but as long as it is relatively unknown it should be okay to use. Timhoooey (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that what everyone does when they walk, anyway? At least in the UK, this is what I expect other pedestrians to be doing as soon as we ping each other's (metaphorical) radar. 86.178.167.166 (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No, making eye contact activates a tractor beam, especially when the people involved are riding bikes. Timhoooey (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that's the eye contact specifically, but rather the turning of the head. If you turn your head in a particular direction you are likely to inadvertently steer in that direction when on a bike. The effect exists when walking, but is greatly reduced. --Tango (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"Hey, how are you?"

"I'm good."

"I know you're good, but how are you?" DOR (HK) (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The expected answer to "How are you?" is "Fine, thanks," unless it's clear the questioner actually wants a factual answer. "How are you?" is supposed to be an ice-breaker, so if you say it at the say time, it's good for a laugh, which is also an ice-breaker. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"How are you?" ... "Can't complain - they won't let me" (best used at work) --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I try only to say to friends 'How are you?' if Im prepared to be told about the personal health/well being. Some times to elicit that particular response from friends & family, I say 'how are you feeling?'. Otherwise, I find 'how are things?' or 'how is it going?' to be better (being a more generalised from of enquiry).--79.76.137.66 (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How can there be a tie if you need 60 votes?

Firstly, excuse my ignorance of the American political system.

My understanding is that for a bill to be enacted it must be approved by at least 60 senators. As there are 100 senators, this means that quite a bit more than half the senate must approve of a bill for it to be enacted. I also understand that the Vice President can cast a vote if there is a tie. However, how can there be a 50-50 tie if you need 60% of the senate to approve anyway?--220.253.247.165 (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding is wrong. 60 votes are only needed for certain procedural votes, like imposing cloture to end a Filibuster in the Senate. Normal passage only requires a simple majority, so if 100 Senators vote, and the vote is 50-50, the Vice President of the US acting a president of the Senate, can cast the tiebreaking vote. Dick Cheney did this on occasion. If fewer Senators vote, the number for a majority decreases. Edison (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a lot of information about the evolution of the US filibuster. In general, a simple majority of the senate is all that is needed to do most things, but the rules allow for unlimited debate, so a small group of senators can just keep talking forever in order to stall a bill. Things have changed these days (for example, no one actually filibusters anymore, they just threaten it), and the 60% of senators needed to vote for cloture (to stop the filibuster) has become more important than the 50% needed to actually pass the bill. The modern party power dynamic in the US is probably responsible for this sudden change. Paul Stansifer 16:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

山楂酪

Does anybody know what 山楂酪 is? Its a Chinese fruity snack similar to fruit leather. What is it made from and anybody know anything else--172.191.130.40 (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like hawthorn fruit snack. 酪 here means it's like cheese-rubbery kinda of texture. I'm guessing it's a fruit roll-up. --Kvasir (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you (original poster) have a link or some document for context?--达伟 (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that 酪 in northern Mandarin traditionally meant a thick dessert soup. 奶酪, which is now used to translate "cheese", was one particular dairy variety. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hawthorn also comes in round pieces for a snack, and also sometimes in nectar (similar to juice, with the consistency of V8). ~AH1^(TCU) 17:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

King of Leon (in Spain, not the band)

In the article Kingdom of Leon it says that title King of Leon was the more superior title and that modern Kings of Spain are crowned Kings of Leon in public ceremonies. If this is true, how come in the full title of Isabella II of Spain, by the grace of God Queen (King) of Castille, León..., and the modern day full style of Juan Carlos I of Spain, His (Her) Catholic Majesty, the King of Spain, King of Castile, of León..., Leon always comes after Castile. Don't tell me the obvious about how Castile the center of power and Leon wasn't; I already know those reasons. Does anybody know?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Castile was originally a vassal state of Leon, so Leon would technically be superior even after Castile became a kingdom (though as you say, in practise this wasn't really true). I don't know why Leon comes after Castile now though. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Modern kings of Spain are not crowned at all. In fact, no King or Queen of Spain has been crowned as such. The last coronation ceremony performed in what is now Spain was the coronation of King John I of Castile. I have no idea what the Kingdom of Leon article is trying to say regarding "coronations". Surtsicna (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of copy/pasting Surtsicna's post to Talk:Kingdom of León.--Wetman (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the article could Use Somebody to add the information :-) 10draftsdeep (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

writer completing studies abroad

It's understood Willie Morris traveled by sea to get to the United Kingdom so he can complete his studies at Oxford University. After he graduated, he returned to the United States of America, also by sea. But what I'm trying to find out is which ocean liner did he travel aboard?24.90.204.234 (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can find out the exact date he sailed (or even the month), there are many ship passenger lists available at geneology websites; you can pinpoint possible ships and search for his name. Knowing the port of arrival or departure would be a big help as well (probably New York and Southhampton). Do you have a biography of him with any of these details? Best, WikiJedits (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried one passenger list from Southampton to New York. But that would cost me credits. I really need help in finding more information, please. Thank you.24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If you've got the date and just can't access the list because it's behind a paywall, you can try asking at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request in case someone there has a subscription to the site you need. If you're still looking for the date, perhaps you can try contacting Jack Bales - a librarian who has written a exhaustive biography of Morris. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibility of a Spanish default

Given this graphic, can someone please explain to me why there is more worry in the financial world concerning a default by Spain on its debt than there is for the UK? Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The - slightly flippant - answer is that financial analysts base their predictions on more than just those two numbers. I don't know the details, and no doubt someone who does will be along in a minute, but there's obviously something else about the Spanish economy which is pushing the wrong buttons at the moment. FiggyBee (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

there was a real "worry" about the idea of a default by Greece (I don't know why you mention Spain instead) but this was an orchestrated worry. I am not going to name names, but if you want more information you can leave an email address here in an altered form (so you don't get automatically spammed) and if you want I can give you more information. 82.113.121.167 (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of the crisis, although I understand Italy, Spain, and Portugal are considered a high risk after the Greeks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The current deficit isn't really important, it is the predicted future deficits that will (among other things) determine default risk. Also, the UK isn't in the Eurozone so can inflate its way out of debt, rather than default (and probably would if it needed to - inflation is less drastic than default. Default is an absolute, either you default or you don't and any default, however small, would destroy confidence. Inflation can take any value so you can inflate just a little bit and suffer only a little bit of reduced confidence). The other countries you mention all use the Euro, so they can't inflate it without the cooperation of the rest of the zone, which they won't get. --Tango (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As Tango mentions, it's based on a number of issues. A very significant one is that the UK is in charge of its own fiscal policy: it manages its own currency and sets its own base interest rates; it can manipulate these to its advantage, so that exchange rates, interest rates, inflation, taxes, government bond rates etc all play to its advantage. Spain can't do that; it is forced into a communal fiscal policy which will be managed to suit the concerns of the stronger economies within the zone, and will likely exacerbate Spain's problems. Gwinva (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It would appear then that the left-of-center policies of reconciliation seen in the unification of the European currency merge poorly with the left-of-center policies which favor government spending. Certainly the implementation of the euro has made trade with Europe much easier, but the (all too sadly common) predilection of the continental Europeans to avoid conflict rather than confront an issue may in fact doom it - they would be much better reigning in their own members, but it would never have happened. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Regimental Combat Team

What was the need for a tactical formation called "Regimental Combat Team" (RCT), while there were others existing like Battalion, Regiment, Brigade etc?. I was reading about the Pacific War and noticed that a RCT of one formation would be detached and sent with a different division to a different place. What size was it usually? (bigger than a battalion or smaller than it?). What rank would be the CO of a RCT normally be (in the US millitary).--Sodabottle (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Bigger than a regiment: see Regimental combat team Rmhermen (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The 442nd had a size of 3800 and it appears that Regimental Combat Team were usually commanded by a full colonel or sometimes a general. Rmhermen (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!--Sodabottle (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Kievan Rus and the Black sea

There's always been something I've been wondering about... When you look at maps of Kievan Rus (Here is a good example) you see that they have control of certain ports in the Crimea and the sea of Azov even though they're separated by about 150 miles of nomadic lands from the rest of Kievan Rus. How did they keep control over those ports?.The True Wiki (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The nomads (Pechenegs and whoever else) weren't very numerous, and being pastoral steppe-people didn't really have much need for a port. The Rus were descended from Vikings, so rivers and seas were very important to them. They controlled the rivers as early as the 9th century, when they began to attack Constantinople. And like the Vikings they knew the importance of a good trade route - the ports on the Black Sea opened them up to trade from Byzantium and the Caliphate (there were also land routes though). A hundred and fifty miles isn't that far anyway, especially if the only other inhabitants are nomads who won't always be around. The Rus controlled the area through military might, economics, and lack of interest from other people in the area, the usual reasons (same as Genoa in the fourteenth century, really). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That should be edited into the respective articles, no?--Wetman (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be added. It would save some confusion.The True Wiki (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Article Tmutorokan... AnonMoos (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do some do-rags have a cape?

A do-rag with a cape

A do-rag with a cape

In the United States there are many people who wear a do-rag featuring a cape. The other day I was wondering what influenced this particular style of head covering. There is a nice article about do-rags on Wikipedia, but it doesn't discuss the cape variation. Timhoooey (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sun protection for the back of the redneck, as well as to keep detritus from falling inside your shirt collar: both legit reasons to reverse your baseball cap.--Wetman (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

True, but there is a particular ethnic community that does not suffer from having red necks yet male members of this community seem to wear caped do-rags the most. I suspect that the reason for wearing them is more of a social one than a practical one. Timhoooey (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As for "suffer from" -- is there a (mistaken) insinuation here that darkskinned people are not suceptible to sunburn and don't require protection from UV radiation? -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, of course not. The parent comment gave a link to the redneck article, which talks about the derogatory slang term used to refer to poor white farmers. There are no poor white farmers that are also dark-skinned. Timhoooey (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

After reading my post again I guess it does seem like I made that insinuation. I offer my apologies to anyone I offended. My poor attempt at humor backfired. What I meant to convey is that in the United States I think the reason for wearing them is more social than practical (do-rags with capes seem to be worn more as a fashion statement here). That's not to say that they are not practical for anyone who needs to protect their neck from the sun. Timhoooey (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, is there a special name for the cap you see in all the French Foreign Legion films, ze one with ze flap in back? Kepi doesn't mention it. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The French Foreign Legion version is a Kepi Blanc, which is in the article but the flap isn't. Comme ça[3]? I don't think it has been used in recent times. An omission. I have seen some pre-1920 British military caps with them too. Alansplodge (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A head- and neck-shading cloth attached to military headgear has a very long history, and was the original purpose of the mantling seen in an Achievement of arms. Although mantlings became very large and extremely ornate after armour fell out of practical use and heraldry was largely reduced to a paper art, UK heraldry in the second half of the 20th Century saw some revival of a simpler and more realistic style by artists like Don Pottinger. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Could the "particular ethnic community" be Sikhs? In which case, the head covering is known as a patka. Monty Panesar is a famous patka wearer. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The classic cape/scarf kepi might be influenced or inspired by the Keffiyeh. Was the scarfed kepi ever standard gear, or was it an unofficial modification to the standard-issue Foreign Legion kepi? Nimur (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a cape to me, merely the end of the scarf sticking out of the knot. A larger scarf will result in a larger "cape". FiggyBee (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The cloth used to protect the back of the neck from the sun is called a havelock, mainly used with the kepi and named after Henry Havelock. I have seen this as part of a drive-on rag used by tracked vehicle crewmen (I preferred a net scarf that could also be used as a dust mask). ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Blasphemy

When someone attributes words to God, is this blasphemy? Look at this video, which has been broadcast on a TV channel in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Here is a translation made by me.

God speaks to the Macedonians:
A divine blessing for you, My Macedonians! For thousands of years I have been waiting for you to call Me away. I populated your mother – the Earth – with three races: the white one – Macedonoids, the yellow one – Mongoloids, and the black one – Negroids. All the others are mulattoes. I conceived the white race from you, the Macedonians, the descendants of Macedon, and with you it all began – to as far as the Sea of Japan. All white people are your brothers because they carry the Macedonian gene. For thousands of years I have been sending czars for you and I now send them to you again. You give them away to everyone and keep no one of them for yourselves. The czars who are here with Me and the Macedonians are as many as the stars in the sky and the grains of sand in the sea. Now the Macedonian time has come. It is an honour and a blessing to be a Macedonian, a descendant of Macedon and a son of the God of the Universe. Amen!

Please note that Bulgaria and Greece officially do not recognise the existence of a Macedonian nation and a Macedonian language. They insist that the nation was invented in 1945 (this comment has not been posted by me) and the language they speak is a Serbian-influenced dialect of Bulgarian. So, my question is: is that video blasphemy or mockery towards religion? --Магьосник (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Blasphemy is "irreverence toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs" (and it should add toward God). Putting in the mouth of God words he did not say could be considered blasphemy, so it would really depend on whether you believe the speaker or not. That's a question the reference desk won't be getting in to. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

An example would be the movie Oh, God! which many found entertaining and thought-provoking, but which some considered blasphemous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

the video rant aside, attributing words to God ("Thus saith the LORD") is the stock-in-trade of prophets.--Wetman (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

...and wether they are blasphemers or prophets depends on their success, as per "a religion is a cult with an army". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"...The Lord's our Shepherd / Says the Psalm / But just in case / We'd better get a bomb..." -- Tom Lehrer ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not blasphemy, it's heresy.
Sleigh (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What is, specifically? The words of the guy on Macedonian TV? I don't see where he's contradicting the Bible as such, which is what heresy is. But then, it's a little hard to figure out what he's getting at anyway. Maybe something's lost in the translation. Anyway, Clayworth's definition of blasphmey is basically taken straight from the dictionary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Heresy is actually divergence from established dogma, not disagreement with the bible. Only a part of the bible is significant for the dogmas of current Christian churches, and plenty of Christian dogmas have no foundation in the bible - see e.g. immaculate conception for a famous example, or immortality of the soul for a more widespread belief. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Immortality of the soul has no biblical basis??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The original biblical model is bodily resurrection. An independent immortal soul entered early Christian thought via Platonic philosophy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There is immortality of the soul whether it inhabits a resurrected body or not. "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." (John 11:25-26) seems pretty clear to me. Believers will live forever. --Tango (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

One clue is where Jesus, on the cross, said to one of his cross-mates, "Today you will be with me in paradise." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That passage could just as easily read "I say unto you today, you will..." as "I say unto you, today you...", since there is a lack of punctuation in the original Greek. Everything Jesus taught was in light of the Hebraic ideas of bodily resurrection. When he stated that someone "shall never die", he simply meant post-resurrection. There is a similar passage in Ps 115: "The dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any who go down into silence; But as for us, we will bless the Lord from this time forth and forever." He knew he couldn't praise God when he was dead, but knew that he could forever after resurrection. That's why Paul could say (in Heb 11) that "apart from us they [the dead] would not be made perfect". The concept of the immortality of the soul resulted from a Greek interpretation, not what the original writers believed. —Akrabbim^talk 19:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you think is lost in the translation? --Магьосник (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A little hard to tell, since I can't make any sense of it, although if you substitute "American" for "Macedonian", you could well be quoting Jerry Falwell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably not so good in translating such texts. After some googling I found a longer version of the same video. In the first part, a Macedonian man is complaining to God about the millenia-long suffering of his nation and about how the historical truth about the Macedonians has been hidden from the others (the others have been lied to about the historical facts). Then God replies to him with a text that is slightly different and more detailed than what I translated. It can be read in Macedonian here. Again, God speaks of the Macedonians' being the first population of the world, the predecessors of everyone else and the originators of everything. The video has been broadcast on the national television channel of the republic. Most of the comments below the video have been posted by Bulgarians and express that the Macedonians are to be pitied, that the video shows the Macedonians' inferiority complex, which is resulted by their having just a 60-year-old history. (By the way, that is the general idea about the Macedonians in Bulgaria, and the Macedonians themselves really claim that they are the oldest population (at least) of Europe and the Bulgarians originate from primitive peoples.) But there's also a comment in literal Macedonian, though written with the Latin alphabet. It has been posted by someone with the (nick)name Zarko Markovski and reads the following:

I am a Macedonian, but I renounce such acts of extremism. This is piteous to me too. I don't want you to associate Macedonia with this video.

--Магьосник (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean "denounce"? Renounce means you used to do it, but don't do it anymore. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's say it in that way: "I am a Macedonian too, but I disavow/dissociate myself from such acts of extremism. All this is tragical/piteous to me too. I wouldn't want you to associate Macedonia with this video." The line in Macedonian reads as follows: И јас сум Македонец, но се оградувам од вакви екстремизми. И мене сето ова ми е трагично. Не би сакал да ја асоцирате Македонија со оваа реклама. --Магьосник (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)