Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 August 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
< August 23 Humanities desk archive August 25 >
Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.

Adding pictures and other illustrations.[edit]

Assuming that all coyright issues have have been dealt with appropriately, how does one add various forms of illustrations to an article, e.g. photographs, charts, graphs, etc.. I have a number of original photographs and other non-copyrightes materials I woulsd like to add to an article. I have asked this question previously but somehow have missed any answere which may have already been provided. Thanks. Kirk L. Hurley 00:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

First, Special:Upload the file/s, perhaps to Wikimedia Commons if appropriate, then insert Help:Image markup into the articles. EdC 01:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Uploading images for a more detailed exposition. The easiest is to upload first to the Commons; then all Wikimedia projects can use the file. If the file you upload is named, for example, "Buckland.jpg", then you can put something like this:
[[Image:Buckland.jpg|300px|thumb|Buckland, an 18th century manor]]
in the source of the article. "300px" is the width in pixels the image will be displayed with. --LambiamTalk 02:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, I should note that the help desk is a better place to find people to answer these types of questions. --Bmk 03:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Also note it's a good idea to include your username in the file name to ensure no one will accidentally overwrite it by uploading an image with the same name. - Mgm|(talk) 10:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Musical piece title[edit]

I want to create an article on William Hurlstone's "Sonata in F" for bassoon and piano. What would the name of this artcle be?Amphion 00:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Nomenclature. Perhaps: Sonata in F for Bassoon and Piano (Hurlstone). EdC 01:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, don't stress too much about it - just get started. If you don't pick the perfectly correct name at first, it can always be moved later. --Bmk 03:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. I'll get right to it. Amphion 21:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

President of North Korea year 2006[edit]

--Killingspree 04:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)I can't find the president of the north korea. Please reply me now i need my project.

North Korea does not have President the way most countries have. Originally Kim Sung ILL was the President of North Korea, he died in 1994. After he died he was proclaimed eternal president. This means that even though Kim Sung ILL is dead he will always hold the title President of North Korea. After he died, his son Kim Jung Ill became the dictator and absolute leader. Kim Jung Ill's offical offices are Supreme Comander of the military and first secretary of the communist party. He does not however hold the office of president. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 04:53, August 24, 2006 (UTC).
All this is mentioned in our article North Korea. --LambiamTalk 05:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Kim Jong-il, not "Kim Jung Ill"
Kim Il-Sung, not "Kim Sung ILL".

Hitler and the Minister of Defense[edit]

As a ministry of defense is almost univeral why did Hitler disolve it in 1938? Why would he not want a ministry for his armed forces?

  • He took over the role of Reich Minister of War himself. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, Hitler tended to micromanage the military, and did so poorly, as well. This is fortunate, as his generals and admirals might have actually won the war, if left unmolested. StuRat 06:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hitler molested his generals? I do not know if I belive that, but if true than it is sick.

I assume you're joking, but, just in case, let me explain: "Molest " originally meant "bother" or "disturb", and still means that in French and other languages. Only recently, in English, has it taken on the meaning of having sex with a child. In fact, if you look at old movies, you will hear women saying "officer, this man is molesting me". ("He is ? Right now ? With all your clothes on ? That's quite some trick !"). You might also see a Frenchman walk up to you in the street and ask if he can molest you for a minute. Nine out of ten times, that just means "bother". :-) StuRat 08:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally Churchill also made himself Minister of Defence when he took the Prime Ministership in 1940. It makes sense really if your main task as leader is conducting a war. DJ Clayworth 14:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Strange. Now I feel grateful for Donald Rumsfeld --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 03:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A term for animals that turn into humans?[edit]

I was wondering if there was a general term for animals that turn into humans. Not in real life (evolution?) I mean, as a component of fairy tales. I’m not sure if this motif exists much in western folklore, but it seems fairly common in what little I know about eastern fairy tales – the Japanese myths of the Kitsune or the grateful crane, and the Chinese white snake. Anyway, I wanted to know a general term for this kind of character type, or perhaps something I can do to begin a bit more research on them. Thanks.

Shapeshifting is not exactly the term you're looking for (it's more general), but you might find the article interesting. David Sneek 07:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Anthropomorphic, perhaps?
Anthropomorphosis would be the word for the change. I don't think there's a word to describe the animals themselves. See anthropomorphism. --Shantavira 09:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Were is a general term used for humans who turn into animals, as in werewolf.-gadfium 09:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Lycanthropy and Therianthropy have some interesting information, including the word "cynanthropy" which was apparently used to mean dogs turning into people and vice-versa. JackofOz 10:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
According to Kafka, it's a metamorphosis. If I recall, there is the story of a bug that wakes up one morning to find out that all his family and neighbours have turned into humans. -- DLL .. T 19:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Were also turned into humans : mud (Genesis) ; dragon's teeth (Golden fleece) ; innumerable toads (became princes) ; beasts (Belle) ; mice (Cinderella) ; any more ? -- DLL .. T 19:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

International Phonetic Alphabet[edit]

Hello. I would be grateful if someone knowledgeable with IPA confirm for me whether [Kocci] is the correct IPA transcription of About this sound Kochi . Thanks in advance! -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK07:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The double /c/ looks wrong too me. Are there two plosives? Anyway, you would probably get a much better answer at the language reference desk. David Sneek 07:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sexual Molesters[edit]

Otis Felds is a sex offender but I could not find him or his story in your data base. However, I did find Bill Kamal's. Please advise.

This is an encyclopedia and not a sex offender database. There is an article about Bill Kamal because as a tv metereologist who was sentenced for child enticement he generated enough publicity to reach wikipedia's notability standards. Perhaps the other guy is less notable. David Sneek 07:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Most states have a sex offender database that you can search online. This has a list of the state databases. Nowimnthing 17:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Route 66[edit]

How many new numbers has route 66 actually been fractured into?

It is hard to answer. Should we only count roads that use exactly the same trajectory as (parts of) the original Route 66 (which has also shifted in time), or also Interstates that run close-by parallel to it? In any case, the article Route 66 has a lot of information. --LambiamTalk 10:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Coordinates for Four Corners[edit]

Anyone familiar with the only place in America that allows you to stand in 4 states at the time. Without rounding, can someone give me the exact coordinates of the point of intersection down to the hundredths decimal place. ______.______Degrees ________,______Degrees

N 36° 59.938 W 109° 02.710 - Google is your friend.
So is wikipedia. From Four Corners (United States): 36°59′56.31532″N 109°02′42.62019″W / 36.9989764778°N 109.0451722750°W / 36.9989764778; -109.0451722750. David Sneek 07:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
May I also be your friend? David gave you degrees, minutes and seconds and the anon gave you degrees and minutes, but you asked for only degrees (which indeed makes much more sense), so I'll translate the anon's values for you: 36,99897 N, 109,04517 W (using a decimal comma, as prescribed by the SI). But you wanted only to the hundredth decimal, so that would then be 36,999 N, 109,045 W. DirkvdM 08:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
That's thousandths. Hundredths would be 36.99 N and 109.05 W, wouldn't it? JackofOz 09:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Jack is your friend. David Sneek 09:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am. :--) JackofOz 10:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
On reflection, though, I've just realised the querent has asked for an impossibility. "Without rounding" means that accuracy must be sacrificed. The closest answer in hundredths is 37.00 N and 109.05 W, but if rounding is excluded, it would be 36.99 N and 109.04 W. My answer above has a bet each way. JackofOz 10:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess the Simpsons creators were intentionally trying to confuse us about the Springfield location when the family visited the Five Corners in Itchy & Scratchy Land Evilbu 15:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Damn, making a mistake is one thing. Doing so when correcting others is humiliating. And I can't believe I missed the 'without rounding' bit. I hope we can all still be friends, though. DirkvdM 08:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello all, thank you for taking the time to answer this question, however I am a little confused now as to what the correct answer should be with out rounding. If you could be so kind and clarify. Thanks

Goverment owned conveyance[edit]

Can you name the government-owned conveyance that would get you from Virginia to Nevada in the same day without running out of steam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlots (talkcontribs)

Baldwin Engine no.12, as I suspect you already know.--Shantavira 09:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Grapes of Wrath technical error[edit]

In the Grapes of Wrath, chapter 16, page 185, read "The 12-volt headlights threw a short blob of yellowish light on the pavement." The vehicle is previously described as a 1925 Dodge.

I believe this is an error; I do not believe a 12 volt system was available, maybe even not invented at the time of the book's 1930's setting. The 1955 Thunderbird, a car nearly 30 years newer, and a high performance luxury car, had a 6-volt system, in 1956 it was upgrades to the current standard of 12-volt.

Does anyone know if this 12-volt reference is an error?

It may have been an error, but as the book was published in 1939 it couldn't have been based on any later knowledge that Steinbeck might have had. JackofOz 09:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Note that the Joads were in a truck, which might have had an upgraded electrical supply over a car of that era. StuRat 10:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I had a 1953 Ford F-350, which originally came with a 6-volt system. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 04:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Maria Full of liquid explosives[edit]

After watching the movie, Maria Full of Grace

I was left wondering what to stop the terrorist swallowing explosive condoms and er, shit them out during the flight in the toilet and then mix them together to make an even bigger bomb on the plane.

This way, they would be able to even blow up the planes of "Nudist Airways" Airline. Of course they still need to find a means of starting the detonation. Ohanian 09:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Swallowing condoms filled with concentrated hydrogen peroxide, acetone and sulfuric acid? I don't know if that's healthy. Mixing explosives on board of a plane wasn't a very feasible plot to begin with (see [1]), and to add the timing of the human digestive system as an extra complication makes it even more difficult. Besides, the ingredients will get too warm in your body. David Sneek 10:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Not healthy at all. Those compounds you mentioned will not be contained by the material a condom is made of. - Mgm|(talk) 10:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • One could imagine depositing a fair amount of solid explosives in your rear, if my watching of prison films (i.e. Pappillon) is any indication. But I think the residue would still be observable chemically on your hands, clothes, etc. --Fastfission 15:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The person who asked has a point, I was wondering about that too. As I learnt from Mari full of Grace, that drugs can be seen with X-Rays, which is definitely not a part of the standard check in airports, and not done on pregnant women. The residue thing is not really an issue. I'm sure a motivated bomber has no problem with being completely naked while other people put the required material in their anus. Or another opening. Evilbu 15:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a movie a few years back in which a woman smuggled a radioactive substance, possibly plutonium out of a nuclear lab inside a lead container contained in her vagina, defeating radiation detectors. She could have just as easily smuggled chemicals in a corrosion resistant container onto a plane. Edison 18:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that's just a wonderful mental image. --Fastfission 03:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Kim Stanley Robinson story about meeting the ghost of James Joyce[edit]

Would anyone happen to know the title of this story, and what collection it's in138.188.100.224 10:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)?

I've tried googling, and checked the Wiki entry on Robinson, but there's no story content info there.

Have asked around, posted on my blog, and have rocked up here in hopes that perhaps someone rattling around the Wiki pages has read it.

Many thanks, Double Double U

-- 10:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Can anyone please tell me what this deadly organism is? Thanks.

It looks like a parasite, though I doubt anyone could tell, given that it has no scale and no descriptive information (like where it was found). It reminds me of a picture in a biology textbook of Trypanosoma. BenC7 12:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently is is one of the deadliest in mankind and has been written about as an epidemic in many books and portrayed in many films,

It looks like the virus from the movie Outbreak (film). Anchoress 12:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, lol. As per following the links from the movie page, it is Ebola. And BTW I didn't see the previous post (deadliest, written about, films etc) before posting my answer. I just watched the movie a couple of days ago and they examine the bug closely on a computer screen during the film, so it stuck in my mind. Anchoress 12:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Make sure you get it out before it kills you. DirkvdM 08:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

silencing humanity[edit]

sirs, i am womdering why the media has chosen to silence messages i am receiving from an angel in my dreams. i have dreams of an angel telling me to take messages to world leaders. i do. i call the u.n. i have sent letters to president bush. i always tell them something they will see in the news 2 weeks after i speak to them and i tell them the angel said it would be proof the messages are from God. pres. bush saw a ship list to one side and the hands taken off the ship safely. i told him this would happen in 2003 with a message from God. the day after the ship almost sank the secret service came to my house and asked how i knew it would happen. yet they do not do as God tells them to in their messages. iran, iraq, israel, jordan and other countries have all been given messages and proof of the messages over the past 25 years. they all silence my messages. none do as God tells them to in the messages they receive. i have posted them on my web page. i also post all of my dreams there now. many have happened in the forum. is my web page. thank you for your time. peace and blessings, kate

I don't mean to sound rude, but if you have access to divine prophecy, why ask volunteers on the wikipedia reference desk for information? Wouldn't the Angel be able to provide more reliable answers to your question? David Sneek 12:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just curious to know wether the Angel is a man or a woman?

Psychiatrists sometimes know a lot about human motivation, and might well be able to explain why the media act like this. DJ Clayworth 16:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I highly recommend you see a psychiatrist. If it is actually happening he/she can help you on your journey. If it is not, but you think it is, he/she will fix that for you. A terrific book, one of my favorites, is about this subject, written by a famous scientist named Carl Sagan. The book is The Demon Haunted World I highly recommend you read this also, it may give you more insight. As for your dreams, I can personally tell you that dreams do not "mean" anything at all. I have full control over my dreams—I am God in my dreams. I can control people, and objects around me. In my dreams, if I will it, it happens. What if I make my dream's plot be God telling me to kill the President of Andorra La Vella? Does that mean I should go do it?
Hallucinations, I am also very prone to them. Mainly auditory. People prone to hallucinations often perceive non-physical phenomena such as angels, visions or the voices of departed spirits, demons, God, or angels. It is very common, much more than you might think. People who receive hallucinations often believe them to be real, and act upon them, completely ignoring the learned people that diagnose them with schizophrenia, or tell them things are not real. They often create some kind of fantasy that gives an explanation to why the hallucinator is special. Often a "holy-than-thou" argument, or just non-believing what they hear is not existant. The aformentioned book discusses these in detail. A Beautiful Mind has an alike situation. I invite you to read part of one of my essays, here: User:Mac_Davis/Demons. I spent time formatting it and putting it up for you. Respond here or my talk page for any further discussion. — [Mac Davis] (talk)

A key to getting people to believe you would be posting dreams before the events predicted happen, to avoid selective recall, wherein you remember those dreams which seem to come true and forget those which do not. You might want to contact the Pope, as it might be the Virgin Mary sending you messages. A vision is much like a dream. See Our Lady of Fatima , and Bernadette Soubirous . If a God exists, why couldn't He or His messengers appear to you in a dream? But it would also be a good idea to consult a psychiatrist, to rule out delusions or hallucinations. Best wishes. Edison 18:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not post your dreams on your wiki Talk page? You'll have a written record for when they happen and we can see how accurate they were... And which places should we be avoiding for the rest of the year? Lemon martini 22:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha Ha Ha. Imagine an angel coming on you in a dream and telling you to give George Bush a message. Let's look at this logically.

  • Any angel capable to talking to you in a dream is also capable of talking to George Bush in his dream.
  • The idea that you can successfully pass on a message to George Bush is laughable.
  • If God wants to tell George Bush to do XXX and God can tell George Bush to do XXX himself. Obviously God must be limited in someways and have to use his underlings to talk to a nobody (like you) to pass on the message. How laughable.

Ohanian 22:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

--Bush does talk to angels, and the pope too...

Kate, as a Christian I can say that God is not talking to you in this way that you say. How do I know? A couple of ways. But a way that will make sense to you; God does things to ultimately draw people to himself and to glorify himself. These dreams do neither. These things are not of God, and I suggest that you see a Christian counsellor. He or she will tell you the same thing. There just has to be a point where common sense breaks through for you and you realize that these things aren't of God. I'm sure that if you have the mental capacity to sit down and create a website, sort things logically etc. etc., then you also have the ability to reason things through. Remember that even the devil masquerades as an angel. He will do anything to get people to believe him. Get back into the real world and start connecting with other people who are sound of mind and who love Jesus as well. BenC7 07:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  • thanx kate will check it out hotclaws**==( 14:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC))

Inventory Management[edit]

Alternatives approches of Inventory management? I am a bit confused about the approaches can some one point out the names and a brief explanation would be highly appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megabeast (talkcontribs)

And I'm a bit confused as to exactly what your question is. Have you read inventory management? What don't you understand? --Shantavira 13:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Also have a look at Supply chain management. --LambiamTalk 16:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Have you looked at FIFO and LIFO accounting? FIFO stands for First in, First out (in terms of which stock you provide a customer with); LIFO stands for Last in, First out. JIT is another method, where stocks are kept as low as possible, with the idea that it arrives "Just In Time" when it is needed (i.e., to reduce space needed for stock storage). A Production/Operations Management textbook would contain these and other examples. BenC7 07:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But what about the EOQ and MRP? what are they?

Did you look these up? Economic order quantity and Material requirements planning. BenC7 03:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Now thats perfact bro. Many thanks. Really appreciate it:).

Unified Feild & Vital Energy ( Chi )[edit]

Hello, I understand that the Unified Feild theory is originally related ti physics, but I see it being used in new age medicine (or Oriental). My question is: How is this theory related to the concept of Chi? Is it considered a state of connection with the ultimate truth (pantheism ), or is chanelling chi a means of reaching this state of consciousness? Hhnnrr 14:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Right now there is no Unified Field Theory, at least not one that is widely accepted by physicists - string theory may or may not fit the bill. It is the greatest open question in physics today. As for any connection to "chi", I don't think there will be any opinions on the physics side of things, and I don't know anything about the new age side.--bmk
These concepts derive from very different disciplines, so there is no proven connection, not yet anyway. You might want to check out the article on Chi.--Shantavira 15:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It is part of the teachings of His Holiness the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: The Discovery of the Unified Field. See also John Hagelin, and this interview with His Excellency. --LambiamTalk 16:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Never come close to associating metaphysics and real physics as the same, or even close. As far as real science, Chi does not exist, anything Ti does not exist, new age medicine does not work, and traditional oriental medicine does not work. Currently we do not even have a unified field theory, of which, would not relate to your spiritual or physical health.— [Mac Davis] (talk)
Let me weaken Mac Davis' statements a bit:
1) All new age and oriental medicine may work, slightly, due to the placebo effect.
2) Some particular medicines might contain a natural ingredient which is effective for some conditions, yet have not been studied by science. There isn't much incentive for pharmaceutical companies to study the effectiveness of natural ingredients, as they are unable to patent them and therefore unlikely to profit. I believe we should have government research grants provided to universities to do these type of studies, so, over time, we can identify the natural remedies which actually work and those which don't.
StuRat 20:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Ugh. I was going to mention a caveat, but decided not to because no body would notice. I'm mentioning it next time, on Wikipedia somebody notices everything. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
Let me weaken it some more. Some acupuncture points do have a direct effect on the human body in pain control, see Stephen Barrett's quote. But that doesn't really have anything to do with the metaphysical concept of Qi. Mac Davis, what was that quote again? Something about the fastest way of getting an answer being to mention a wrong answer? ColourBurst 22:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It is my belief that there is no connection between Chi and the Unified Field Theory ( I mean scientifically ) , my question is regarding those who do believe in Chi and those who have a metaphysical interpertation for the theory , how do they see the relation between the two ? Hhnnrr 18:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. However, to reiterate, there is no unified field theory right now. At least not in the sense of a "grand unified theory". --bmk

Two basic questions about Hezbollah activities:Hazbani river+ 12 july[edit]


without losing my politics of Lebanon question out of sight, I prepared another one :

1. How did the conflict in 2002 about Lebanon pumping water play out?? In 2002 Lebanon wanted to pump water from the Hazbani river, which feeds the Jordan. Israel threatened with military action, to which Hezbollah replied with threats of their own. [2] is a page on BBC. But it seems media coverage just stopped. There was no war in 2002 between Lebanon and Israel... but I can't find out whether or not Lebanon actually started pumping (and is still doing so at this point?).

2. Hezbollah seems to have stated some contradicting things since the start of the war. They claimed to have captured those two Israeli soldiers on Lebanese soil, put they have also said at one point that they had been planning a war for five months... So what are they saying now?

Thank you! Evilbu 16:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Re 2: I don't see a contradiction. --LambiamTalk 22:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The one says that Hezbollah planned the war for a certain date and the other that Israeli soldiers were on Lebanese soil on that date. The questioner is implying that this seems to be an unlikely coincidence, that Israelis just happened to be on Lebanese soil on the exact date Hezbollah planned to start a war. I would answer that the Hezbollah planning might be to start the war anywhere in a range of dates, and Israeli's may regularly patrol areas that Hezbollah claims to be part of Lebanon. StuRat 22:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The questioner is the same guy who puts "dummies" in his title, so don't overestimate my hidden agenda :). So I'll rephrase : is anything known about Hezbollah's current claims concerning the location of the Israeli soldiers when the incident started?(Mayb extra : question, is it considered Lebanon by Israel)Evilbu 23:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
About if Hezbollah entering Israeli territory or Israeli soldiers entering Lebanese territory, there is conflicting sources both between Lebanese and Israeli sources and between Lebanese themselves. I'll try to take a look at the Hezbollah site. You'll have my answer tomorrow or in a few hours. Anyway, Hezbollah has stated one of its reason is Israeli everyday violation of airspace and territorial water (in the south) not counting the Shebaa farm. As, for the fact that they were planning the war long before. It's right that they were preparing and training for such a conflict, but it's also clear that they never anticipated such a fierce reponse for Israel. CG 10:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


What is a Bithuvy (possibly spelt wrong)? I've seen it on TV, but it was only mentioned in passing. However, it appears to be some sort of nightly religious ceremony, done at home, in which a small quantity of water is sprinkled on family members, while a prayer is said in a foreign language (possibly Russian). I'm leaning towards think it's some sort of Orthodox ceremony, as the accent the prayer was spoken in sounded Russian, and it took place in front of an Orthodox-style icon, but searches have so far turned up blank, leading me to believe it may be a ceremony for a small denomination or sect. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 17:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the "th" sound doesn't really exist in Russian, so who knows what language it could be? -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 19:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I beth ith wath on the occathion of Theophany. See also the "Home Blessing" here. What you heard was probably Epiphany, essentially a synonym. --LambiamTalk 21:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This was a non-serious parody of religious ceremonies. I think the original questioner, being IN CHESTER knows perfectly well that this was just a joke featured on Look Around You. -- (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Kaplan & Montague[edit]

Hi!, does anyone know where can I find an easy explanation of the 'knower's paradox'? or can anyone explain it to me in an easy way? cause I haven't found much information when i googled it and what i found was an extremely complicated paper...thanx.--Cosmic girl 20:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

An explanation of what the paradox is, is given here: [3]. It is a dressed-up version of the old Liar's paradox. While the latter is usually resolved by declaring self-reference unlawful, it is supposed to be acceptable in knowledge and belief logics for agents, so it rears its taunting little head again. Logicians and semanticists are renowned for their ability to go into strange contortions to avoid pardoxes; the resulting papers are not always as perspicuous as we'd like. Here is my resolution. A is the agent, who states at time T: "I know that what I say now is not true." Let us assume, for simplicity, that A knows at time T that (s)he is A, and that "now" is T. Define the self-referential statement S by: S = "A knows at time T that S is not true at time T". A's utterance is then equivalent to: "A knows that S is true". It now follows that S is false, since it is not possible (because of the paradox) that A knew S to be false. A may have believed, but did not know, when uttering that statement, that it was false. Therefore A was, possibly unwittingly, speaking an untruth. --LambiamTalk 21:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

thank u!:D ... so basically what it says is that when I say I know apples are red and apples are indeed not red I'm lying even if i'm unaware of it? :s... I'll read the link, but I didn't quite understand your explanation :( ...but thank u anyway!:) --Cosmic girl 22:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I knew my explanation was not true anyway. --LambiamTalk 22:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't understand it either, but you can't be lying if you believe that what you're saying is true. You might be unwittingly telling an untruth, but that's not the same thing as lying. JackofOz 02:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
First a small simplification. Since S, by the form of its definition, is clearly not itself time-dependent, we can replace "S is not true at time T" by "S is not true". A crucial axiom of knowledge logics is that "A knows X" entails X. Justification: if X is false, A can perhaps believe it, but cannot know it. I shall proceed to demonstrate now that A was not speaking the truth. First, assume S is true. Then (by definition of S) A knows at time T that S is not true. Therefore (knowledge-logic axiom) S is not true. Contradiction. Ergo, the assumption was wrong: S is not true. But A said: "I know that S is true". As before, if A was speaking the truth, S would be true, quod non. Ergo, A was not speaking the truth. --LambiamTalk 04:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Right ooooon!!! I got it!! thank youª :) It's quite simple actually... I thought I was just too dumb :P. ( in the philosphical pappers they put it in such a hard way to understand!).--Cosmic girl 00:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

something else just came to mind... about the liar paradox... if 'this sentence is false' is paradoxical... I suppose it's the same way for 'this sentence is true' isn't it? :O --Cosmic girl 00:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not a paradox in the sense that it creates a contradiction, but it is an anomaly. Take a sentence A which is "The sentence B is true". Now ask the question: Is A true? Well, that depends on B. To determine whether A is true, we must determine whether B is true. The self-referential sentence S = "This sentence is true" is equivalent to S = "The sentence S is true". To determine whether S is true, we must determine whether S is true. If you try to do that, you're stuck in a loop. But you do not get a contradiction. The equation S = S has two solutions: S = true, and S = false. Both are consistent, and there is no ground for preferring one over the other. If you like this kind of stuff, I recommend the delightful books by Raymond Smullyan, such as The Lady or the Tiger?, Logic is a Many-Splendored Thing, and What is the Name of this Book?. --LambiamTalk 12:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

psychology question[edit]

not sure if a psychology question belongs here, but i heard somethign awhile ago that has really stuck with me. the person said something along the lines of, if a person is lying about something, and is accused of it, if they react with anger or hostility then they are definitely lying. i am a bit of a liar myself and one time i was caught in a lie and i started flipping out. then i remembered what i had heard before and i really wonder if its true. although it could just be a good way of "trolling" so to speak if someone gets angry when you call them a liar, by saying hey its a sign youre a lying than youre getting all mad about it. or possibility to trick them into admitting it if it were true. regardless i was wondering if anyone knew the source of thsi little psychology tidbit, and if it were true ~~

I would say pretty much everyone gets mad when accused of being a liar. Except for lawyers, politicians, and auto mechanics, since lying is considered to be a valuable job skill there. :-) StuRat 22:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

i guess it depends on the personality and on the lie also, cause if u got 'caught' u might as well laugh at it, and if u didn't lie, and where accused of it, you might even flip out more, because you find the situation unfair... i think that is relative... don't take what people say as truth ever, cause we human beings just like to say stuff confidently even if we have no idea what we are talking about... it's human nature. --Cosmic girl 22:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I would ever use "definitely" in relation to psychology. Certainly in this case it's a ridiculous overgeneralisation. Ziggurat 23:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't sound like something that would come from a textbook. A person may get angry if accurately accused of lying, because it is obvious that what the person did is wrong. They can then try to cover up or distract the accuser from the fact that they lied by getting agressive in some way or another. They feel insecure because they have been "exposed". Not all people will get angry, though. It can depend on a lot of factors, including how honest a person is willing to be with themselves or others. BenC7 07:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I once (and never again) bought American Express cheques and lost them. When I called them they had me on the phone for half an hour, putting me on hold again and again (and this was from Africa, so it must have cost them quite a bit). Their promise that the cheques would be replaced within two days (or something like that) didn't hold true. In stead they decided to send me cash in local currency at a reliable address I had to provide (being a traveller - yeah right), alledgedly beause they didn't trust the banks there. Anyway, later I heard from a former employee that they assume that someone who genuinely lost their cheques would get very upset about this and that therefore someone who doesn't get angry is lying. So that's the opposite of what you heard. I have a tendency to stay calm under all circumstances, so they thought me a liar. DirkvdM 09:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

see? that's what I said... people are different... god!!!... I'm pissed! :P .--Cosmic girl 00:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Pissed as in drunk or angry? If both, Im glad this is all virtual. DirkvdM 07:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Impact of the loss of Pluto's planetary status on Astrology[edit]

New York's main contract, light sweet crude for delivery in October, added 60 cents to close at $US72.36 a barrel.

This sharp acute rise in oil price is due to Pluto being stripped of it's planetary status. For years, economists had known that astrology had a major impact on the movement of money around the world. This sudden lose of an influence of planet on global astrology readings had resulted in a sharp upwards jerk in the global price of oil.

However, the definition of a planet approved after a heated debate among 2500 scientists from the International Astronomical Union (IAU) meeting in Prague drew a clear distinction between Pluto and the other eight planets.

"Those darn astronomers had kicked us in the groin!" said a prominent astrologer. "First they call us crackpots and now they throw a spanner into our forecasting machinery without even giving us a warning!"

"I had clients calling up in the middle of the night. " said another important astrology. "They demand the I give them refunds because all my readings and reports are all off track. It's a financial disaster! Our reputation is in tatters. Would anyone trust an astrologer ever again?"

A.What's your question? B.Wikipedia should not be edited under the effect of Mind-altering substances :) Lemon martini 22:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

From another point of view, Wikipedia should not be read without the effect of mind-altering substances. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it was a blow to all plutocrats. --LambiamTalk 22:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
You know, a similar thing happened to me. When the nuclear fusion community, without warning or consultation, declared that cold fusion doesn't work, my home cold fusion reactor stopped working, and I had no power for weeks! -- 23:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

JFK's Ich bein ein berliner line[edit]

Ok, I am tired of hearing that this "ich bein ein berliner" means I am a jelly doughnut. What does it really mean? What are the origins of this stupid urban myth? I think it is stupid to think the Leader of the US would have such poor translators that would cause him to say he is a pastry. So what does it really mean?

See Ich bin ein Berliner. Ziggurat 23:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
If he would have held this speech in Hamburg, would he then have said "I am a hamburger"? DirkvdM 09:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but if the speech was in Frankfurt, he would surely be calling himself a Hot Dog. Loomis 09:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The main point here is that he was going to get in trouble as long as he used "ein" in that sentence. C.f. "Ich bin ein Amerikaner". - Samsara (talkcontribs) 11:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

what he was trying to say was "I am a citizen of berlin" but he and his translators didn't know that at the time, a Berliner was the name of a poplar pastry, similar to a jelly doughnut. When he said Ein, that meant he was saying A, Ich Bein Berliner would have meant "i am of berlin" but the ein made it "I am a berliner" which then is further translated into "I am a jelly doughnut"

"Ich bein ein Berliner" means both "I am of Berlin" and "I am a jelly donut" (a Berliner is another name for a jelly doughnut), but no reasonable person would have confused the two. "ein" is an indefinite article; "Ich bein Berliner" means "I am from Berlin", which would obviously not have been correct.