Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 10

Austrapolithecus

where did they live? what did they look like? what they dicovered of invented? when did they live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luseta (talk • contribs) 00:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

See Australopithecus. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If only we had a giant encyclopedia with articles on virtually every topic totally for free that we could look things up in... --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here)

But it's sometimes hard to look things up when you spell them wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Russia/Georgia conflict

I'm having a little trouble understanding this, despite having read a number of articles on the subject (both news articles and Wikipedia articles). From what I gather (and simply put), South Ossetia and Abkhazia wanted to separate from Georgia, because they are not ethnically Georgian. Georgia attacked them. Then Russia attacked Georgia for attacking them. Now, many other countries are angry with Russia for flexing its military muscle. Have I got all this right, and if so, why are they angry with Russia when it seems that Georgia was the original aggressor? (Not to imply that it's okay for Russia to go around bombing other countries that did something wrong first - two wrongs don't make a right - but why do they seem to be getting the majority of the blame?) Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Just to make it clear: I'm not trying to start a debate with the "why" part of the question, just asking for clarification since I don't quite understand what's going on. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture this analogy then. States that are integral part of the U.S., like lets say North Dakota and Vermont, decide to secede from the union. The governments there organize armed forces, and declare that the U.S. is no longer sovereign over them, and that they are independent. Now, picture the U.S. Army marches in to stop this from happening. Now, here's the kicker, Canada then invades the U.S., and begins to place a seige on cities like Chicago, New York, and begins to push in on Washington D.C. Now, replace the words "U.S." with "Georgia", replace "North Dakota" and "Vermont" with "South Ossetia" and "Abkhazia" and the word "Canada" with "Russia" and that is the essense of the conflict. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's more complicated than either, and it isn't about Georgia. It's about NATO. Imagine that it was the US economy that collapsed at the end of the Cold War, and a victorious USSR extended the Warsaw Pact to Cuba and Mexico, reassuring everyone that the US would "get used to it". I don't think they would. For some odd reason, Russia is not reconciled to the expansion of NATO either. The invasion of South Ossetia had basically the same motivation as the USSR had in provoking the Cuban missile crisis: That wasn't about Cuba, but a way to force NATO to pull its missiles in Turkey off the Soviet border. (Which they did, BTW.) All the stuff about "Russian citizens" in SO is BS; it's just the diplomatic excuse for Russia's challenge to NATO. Georgia may have instigated the actual battle, which gave the Russians the excuse they were looking for, but they were not the original aggressor. They insisted at independence that all territories of the Georgian SSR become part of independent Georgia, and SO and Abkhazia refused to go along. They rebelled, and in the case of Abkhazia engaged in genocide (excuse me, I think we use the more polite term "ethnic cleansing" now) to establish a population plurality—the Abkhaz were only 15% of the population, after all. There are hundreds of thousands of Mingrelian refugees from Abkhazia in Georgia. If the US had been smart, 5-10 years ago they would have tried to get Abkhazia to cede its eastern (non-Abkhaz) territories to Georgia in exchange for recognition, and Georgia to recognize their independence in exchange for a place to return many of the refugees. But bluster and bellowing is easier than actually solving anything. Anyone want to bet that the US won't try doing anything about Karabagh until that blows up too? kwami (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The international community considers South Ossetia part of Georgia, so Georgian troops are perfectly entitled to enter it (although, under the circumstances, it may have been unwise). Russian troops entering Georgia, and independent country, is an act of war. At worst Georgia violated an agreement they had with Russia, Russia on the other hand invaded a foreign state. The latter is the far more serious offence under international law. --Tango (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite true. Which I'm sure is why they issued Russian passports, to be able to claim they were protecting their "citizens" regardless of whose territory it was legally. I don't think they (Putin?) are particularly interested in international law, but it is interesting many in the Kremlin see this as harming Russia's long-term interests in having a secure border and territorial integrity.

Cherry, a lot of it is propaganda. The main difference from Kosovo is that there were many countries that supported doing something about Kosovo, there were serious concerns about gross Serbian human-rights violations (though people conveniently forget that the Kosovars were using rape of Serb civilians as a tool of war, even teaching Albanian boys that raping Serb girls was a patriotic duty), Serb leaders have been charged with war crimes at the Hague, that attempts at mediation went on for years after the NATO invasion of Kosovo before there was diplomatic recognition, and that one condition of independence was remarkably strong constitutional protection of minority (Serb) rights. None of this happened in SO: Ossetes complained of being second-class citizens in Georgia, not of systematic murder, and Russian charges of genocide by Georgians have proved empty. No other country supported Russia, and Russia made no attempt at reconciliation between the warring parties. Instead of protecting all citizens of SO, Ossetian and perhaps Russian troops engaged in ethnic "cleansing" of Georgians residents in the southeast. Based on this precedent, the US could issue American passports to Chechens, then annex Chechnya "to protect American citizens", and kick out ethnic Russian grandmothers in wheelchairs as "foreign occupiers"—which is why none of Russia's allies but Nicaragua have rallied to the cause. Not even Serbia has recognized SO! kwami (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Ethnic cleansing" is not a polite or politically acceptable or correct term. It's an abomination. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the words are perfectly acceptable; it's the act that's so nasty. YMMV. Matt Deres (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Which makes describing it in such a "polite" way so incongruous. We wouldn't describe the serial rape of 50 people as "exploring one's sexuality". Spades should be called spades. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I put it in scare quotes. I was being facetious. kwami (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

These days, the term "ethnic cleansing" is usually used ironically. It doesn't have positive connotations. --Tango (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Gets confusing but is "PC" self consciously used in a meta-critical way. Even then, sp*** could be misinterpreted given the right strength of magnifying glass, non? "Genocide" might invite a rush of blood to the head. Just saying, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I certainly was not having a go at you, kwami. I knew you were using it in an ironic sense. I was commenting on the general use of the term by those who do use it in a serious way as a euphemism. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Unusual, ribbony necktie thing

What is this kind of tie called? --Seans Potato Business 08:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Invalid URL.--SquareOuroboros (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"string tie" or "Colonel tie" seem to be the common names, at least in western/cowboy circles [1] [2] - not to be confused with a Bolo tie (also known as a Bootlace tie) or a skinny tie (as popular in the late 70s/early 80s). If you Google for those terms, you should see more info. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In the mid-20th century U.S., they were strongly associated with old fashioned Southern males (or the stereotype of an old-fashioned Southern male). AnonMoos (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Creative Commons question

Is it possible to license a lower quality version of an image/song/film under a CC license and maintain full copyright on higher quality versions?--SquareOuroboros (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of it is that if you have a photo, you are not copyrighting the specific instance of it (the print), but the creative content (the image in the photo). While there are some ways in which you could systematically modify such a photo that would make it a derivative work (and thus independently copyrightable from the original work), it seems to me that it would have to be a systematic modification that substantially modified the creative content of the work. (So taking a Polaroid and blowing it up to the size of a building might do that, because the idea of enlargement, though systematic and uncreative as a process itself, is fairly creative in its own right. Maybe.) If this is the case, and again this is just my speculation, I would say then that the answer to your question would probably to be "no". But I'm reasoning from an exclusively print-medium point of view; things get complicated with digital rights and copyrights, and questions of specific instances vs. creative content get pretty murky (due to the "thing itself" lacking any real physicality).

In more plain language, my reasoning above is "no", because a CC license does not cover a specific file, but the copyrightable content inside the file. Something as "uncreative" (from a legal point of view) as reducing quality is unlikely to generate a new copyright claim. Thus you'd still be applying the license to the same copyrightable content, no matter the size.

But honestly, I'm not sure. I don't think it is very clear cut. You might consider asking the CC folks about it since it's a good question. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you could make your own license that specifically says you're only allowed to reuse it under a certain resolution. Writing your own licenses is not something you should do without professional legal advice, though. --Tango (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is possible, and it's relatively commonly done. Copyright would cover the actual media file, not the idea behind it.--Pharos (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Not legal advice, but Dual-licensing is done in software all the time. You only get one "copyright" but you can distribute under as many licenses as you like. If I give my new software that I've written to Bob under the GPL and then sell it to Sally under a proprietary license, Bob now has the rights to give away my software for free and Sally doesn't. (She could get the GPL version from Bob, though.)

Again, I'm not a lawyer, so don't trust me (or any of us) too much. If this is critical you need to talk to a real lawyer. APL (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Collateral damage of fixing the financial system

What consequences will the actions - flooding the markets with liquidity - of many governments have? Hyperinflation? Another bubble? Mr.K. (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am no economist, but I have heard many economists on TV and radio talk of the doctrine on Unintended consequence being largely ignored in short-term financial decisions WRT the current financial problem. The example I have heard cited over and over again is the trend, over the last few years, for the Fed to keep interest rates artificially low, in an attempt to keep the economy from "slowing down". The problem is that low interest rates lead to less saving (because people get lower returns on their investment) and larger debt (because people get cheap credit). The prevalence of cheap credit is why there were so many people making so many bad loans; the idea was that the relatively high risk of these loans was mediated by their very low cost. This was coupled with the fact that companies were disencouraged from keeping enough capital on hand to cover the debts, since they got so little return on this capital, due of course to the low interest rates. It turns out that the likely result of this policy was merely "robbing Peter to pay Paul"; that is it didn't actually prevent the economy from "slowing down", it merely pushed a whole bunch of slow, little slowdowns into the future (read: NOW) until they collided into a single big crash. I have heard at least 3 stories as to what the liquidity will do: 1) Exactly what the government wants and no more (riiiiiiigggghhhttt) 2) It will do nothing, since the high level of risk aversion in the market won't be corrected by the influx of cash. Basically, banks are going to avoid making the risky investments into the housing and credit markets, and the extra cash is likely only to remove the threat of collapse without actually encouraging increased lending. In other words, the markets are a bit punch-drunk, and the scare caused by the current crisis is not correctable in the short term. 3) It will make the sitution WORSE, since any institution that receives government money, either as a purchase of bad assets or by selling the government stock, will give the markets the perception that THAT particular company is in "trouble" causing investors to run away, and thus reducing capital valuation, and exacerbating the problem. None of these opinions seems to be prevailing right now, from what I can tell. So the new law is likely to do either 1) Good things 2) Nothing or 3) Bad things. Take your pick. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer (excluding, of course, your last sentence). I suppose injecting capital will have the same effect that the low interest rate have had: just blow more air into the bubble. Mr.K. (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

President and VP boarding the same plane

Is there a rule that prohibits the President and VP of boarding the same plane?Mr.K. (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

According to this article in TIME, it's not a rule, but a decision by the president in the interests of security. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

countries with the least discrimateion? [discrimination]

countries with the most discrimateion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.58.229 (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure there are strict quantitative measurements for that, but you could start with Gini coefficient... AnonMoos (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

i mean things like raceism, ageism, sexism... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.66.48 (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Any answer would be probably plain speculation, but here it goes: Sweden for less sexism, Brazil for less racism, USA for less ageism. Mr.K. (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Further speculate, Australia for less teetotalism. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, Julia. Teetotals are often discriminated against in Australia. Steewi (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

USA for least ageism? Ask any 50-year-old looking for an entry-level job after getting laid off at a factory, or, for that matter, any American teenager. -- 76.190.138.251 (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem here is not that he is 50 years old, but that he has worked his whole life in a factory. Mr.K. (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Racism is a serious issue in Brazilian society. Their social conception of race is different from say the USA, but that just means racism takes a different form, not that it ceases to exist.--Pharos (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

They don´t only have a different concept of race, but they have blured racial borders (ie, lots of racial mixed citizens). That makes racial discrimination quite difficult. Mr.K. (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it gives one an almost unlimited supply of people subject to racial hatred. Anyone who is a shade darker or lighter than you can be discriminated against, unlike in parts of the U.S. where finding someone of a different race can be difficult at times. Whether this leads to more or less racism is a matter of debate. —D. Monack ^talk 06:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Racism is a hue problem in Brazil. --Shaggorama (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Singapore and Switzerland have very little racism. USA is the opposite. --218.186.12.11 (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Singapore has highly institutionalised racism. There are specific policies that deal with people on the basis of race. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Tell me more about the policies. --218.186.12.10 (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean ´huge problem´or really ´hue problem´? I still believe that it is difficult to institutionalize racism in Brazil, since they wouldn´t know where to start with. I suppose that social discrimination is huge and that darker citizen tend to belong to the lower classes due to historical reasons. However, this don´t mean that they are being discriminated based on race.Mr.K. (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

@Steewi, haha, perhaps this is teetotalism-ism as you say. ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Highest Stock Price

How do you found out which company has the highest stock price of the day? --Emyn ned (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The information can be found through many financial services websites where the financial indicators for all publicly traded companies are usually searchable. E-trade, for example, has a stock screener where you can search for companies based on your own preset criteria. Unfortunately for your direct question, the absolute price of an individual share of a company is meaningless. Since companies have different numbers of shares in open trading, the absolute value of one company as compared to another has no meaning at all. Other measures of a company's value are important, such as price-to-earnings ratio (or basically what the value of the stock is compared to the potential for the company's growth) or the market value as compared to real value (roughly the total number of stocks issued times the price of a stock is market value, this can be compared to the value of the company per the company's assets), or most perhaps importantly the gross trends in the stocks value. That one company trades at $200.00 per share and another trades at $5.00 a share means nothing with regards to the security of each company's stock as an investment. The information is easily sortable, just meaningless... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As of this typing, Berkshire Hathaway stock is trading at $ 108,886.79. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Can I buy, like, .0001 shares of that? Holy cow... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The link to the NYSE listing for BRKA, the preferred stock: [3] and BRKB, the common stock: [4] of Berkshire Hathaway, for those who care. Good find, NurseryRhyme. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, BRK-A shares are for "special" people. The unwashed are allowed to buy BRK-B, the "B" shares, which are trading today at fire-sale prices ($3652.01 as of this posting time). [5] (That's actually not such a bad deal.) Antandrus (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm? BRK-A is an openly traded NYSE stock; anyone can buy shares. BRK-B is special; it's essentially 1/30th of a BRK-A share. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If Palin's elected, what happens to her governorship?

If Palin gets elected Vice President, will she remain governor of Alaska? If not, what's the procedure for choosing a replacement governor(and is this the same or different in other states)? 137.151.174.128 (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's like most other states, the Lieutenant Governor of Alaska will succeed her. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's an article that covers most of this. In short, the Lieutenant Governor becomes Governor, and the Attorney General becomes Lt. Governor. It looks like the current Lt. Governor had been running for US House, but lost the primary. If he had won the primary and then the general election, along with a McCain/Palin victory, then the AG would have become governor. AlexiusHoratius 21:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If McCain is elected, there will be fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and sees boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria!! --Shaggorama (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

True. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Painting of George III

I am trying to find the title and the name of the author of a painting of George III of the United Kingdom. The painting shows the King on a white horse in a redcoat, inbetween two other men on horseback (one in black and the other in red). In the background are troops marching. I have an image of the painting to send if that helps.--Johnbull (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If [6] is the picture, it is The King and His Sons on Parade by Charles Tomkins. --Omidinist (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but it is not that painting.--Johnbull (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Then please post a link to the picture so we can see it... --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 17:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have the picture as a bitmap image, I have not uploaded it anywhere. I can send it to you.--Johnbull (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that good with artwork, but if you upload it to a free hosting service like Imageshack, you can post a link and a more knowledgeable sort can probably help you. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 01:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've not heard of that website before. Here's the link.--Johnbull (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't immediately recognize the picture, but that's George IV, not George III. Tevildo (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No. It definitely is George III. Here is George IV, and here is another painting of George III.--Johnbull (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks lilke it could be his son, the future George IV, in black to his father's right. Also, your filename says "hydeparkoctober1803fi8" which is a massive clue. Look at our George III of the United Kingdom article: "One of the best-attended royal events during this time was George's review of 27,000 volunteers in Hyde Park, London on 26 and 28 October 1803, during the height of the invasion scare." Surely what we have here is George and his son reviewing the troops in Hyde Park? I also found a picture from Britannica here, which shows George III in a similar uniform. It's at the start of the "American Revolution" part of their article here on the United Kingdom. But that's probably irrelevant. I'd look for confirmation that this is a painting depicting the Hyde Park reviews. Carcharoth (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

October 11

Why the Japanese Navy didn't occupy Hawaii in World War 2?

Why didn't the Imperial Japanese navy move into Hawaii and turn it into a Japanese military base after their aircrafts bombed the U.S. navy force in Pearl Habor? The Americans were going to build up the fleets again, so why the Japanese just bombed and then left? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

See Attack on Pearl Harbor#Possible third wave for some discussion on the Japanese decision not to follow-through after the second wave. ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer is that the attack was carried out by a naval task force. Invasion and occupation would have required a heavy troop presence. Emma Dashwood (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly; the attack consisted of submarines (with torpedoes) and airplanes (with bombs). There was no land force. The idea was to keep the US from immediately using those ships to go after them, because ships take a while to be built (or at least moved from one base to another). They also were prioritizing secrecy, to do the most damage possible. An invasion force would have had to been on normal ships, which would have been noticed a lot faster. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 17:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Maintaining and protecting a supply chain to feed and equip a large enough military force to occupy the islands and repel the inevitable U.S. attack would have strained the capabilities of the Japanese Navy. Edison (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The islands had vital dockyards, maintenance shops, and oil depots that the Japanese bombers didn't destroy. If the Japanese Navy had occupied Hawaii, they could steal some oil and equipments. There were many American casualities after the Attack of Pearl Habor and the American military on the islands were already weakened. So if the Japanese tried to land on Hawaii, they would have won a war. The army wouldn't go hungry because there were animals and foods on the islands. Isn't that right? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. I read a scholarly analysis of the question many years ago (don't remember the citation, sorry) which said it would have required vast numbers of tankers and cargo ships and a large military force to hold the islands. Capturing the the harbors and ports and major cities would have been easier than sustaining an occupation. There would have been partisans, supplied by U.S. subs, before the eventual U.S. landings. If the Japanese had conquered the Phillipines, they would have been even less able to defend the more strategically important islands closer to home, and their supply ships would have been hunted by U.S. subs. Edison (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese probably could have captured Hawaii if they'd really put their minds to it. But they didn't want to, and (despite attacking the US and declaring war against it) they weren't really looking for a general war against the US. They thought (very wrongly, to their cost) that the US was like China (which they'd be having their horrible fun with for a decade or so), fat and dumb and insular and consumed with its own internal problems, and that with its pacific fleet lost and the Philippines threatened the US would sue for peace and would withdraw. As the Isoroku Yamamoto article notes "Yamamoto hoped, but probably did not believe, if the Americans could be dealt such terrific blows early in the war, they might be willing to negotiate an end to the conflict". Yamamoto, who had been posted to Washington DC in the 1920s, had flown over the industrial vastness of the midwest and knew that the US, if woken to war, could outproduce and overwhelm Japan (cf his apocryphal "sleeping giant" quote" too). But seizing Hawaii wouldn't win Japan the war; a determined US could have waged it from Australia and New Guinea very well. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If the Japanese seized Hawaii, it would bring them more closer to the shores of United States. They would be at the doorstep of the U.S. Japan would have an advantage. The United States would have to go around the Pacific Ocean to wage wars against Japan from Australia or Alaska. It would be a very costly war for United States. 72.136.111.205 (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Military logistics. Occupying Hawaii would have lead to a vastly long and vulnerable supply line. The occupation of Hawaii is dealt with in Harry Turtledove's novels Days of Infamy and End of the Beginning. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 23:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese had occupied Indonesia so the supply line was vulnerable there. Indonesia and Hawaii are about the same distance away from Japan. I don't see any difference between occupying Hawaii and occupying Indonesia. In the novel, End of the Beginning, did the Japanese land on United States or were they defeated by the Americans at the end? Did the book mention about the atomic bomb? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean no disrespect but you seem completely blind to the basic point already made. Let me repeat it: the attack on Pearl Harbor was a naval operation. There were no forces present to invade and occupy the the Hawaii chain, which would have required a heavy troop concentration. It was certainly not beyond the capacity of the Japanese army to occupy the islands. However, look at their position in the middle of the Pacific. Supply and support would have entailed huge logistical problems, as has already been mentioned. Your point about Indonesia is without merit. This island group was invaded not from Japan but from preexisting bases established In French Indochina. With the occupation of the Philippines and the British base at Singapore the supply lines to Indonesia were secure. I hope this is clear. Emma Dashwood (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking for a quote allegedly by Bertrand Russell

One of my girlfriend's pupils recently brought a quote into her philosophy class she said was by Bertrand Russell. She didn't have a source for the quote, so I suspect it came from some (more or less reliable) collection of quotes on the web (and thus is not even necessarily by Russell). What's worse, the quote she brought was in German which makes it a bit difficult to find a source for it - I've looked on Wikiquote and googled around for the German version and for various differently phrased English translations, but came up empty. The German quote goes as follows:

Mit der Zeit berauben uns die Maschinen zweier Dinge, die sicherlich zum wesentlichen Bestandteil des Menschglücks gehören: der Spontaneität und der Abwechslung.

...which roughly translates to:

As time goes on, machines are increasingly removing two things from our grasp which are certainly essential for human happiness: spontaneity and variety.

Does this sound familiar to anyone? It would be great if someone could identify the Russell text it comes from (or alternatively, tell me with some certainty that it is not a quote by Russell). Thanks a lot, Ferkelparade π 12:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I found it through google. This page: [7] has the quote in rotation in the little quote generator in the center of the page. I don't read german, but the google search had this text:

kalenderblatt24.de - Kalenderblatt - [ Translate this page ]Mit der Zeit berauben uns die Menschen zweier Dinge, die sicherlich zum Besten des Menschenglücks gehören: Der Spontaneität und der Abwechslung. ...

www.kalenderlexikon.de/Blatt24/index.php?Typ=Kalenderblatt&MJD=54238 - 9k - Cached - Similar pages

When I entered it. When I loaded the page, however, the quote changed, and after some experimentation, it looks like the quote changes everytime the page is loaded. Its the best I could find, and I couldn't find the quote anywhere else. Hope this helps some... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a trick: when you are trying to Google a quote that might be dubious, don't use the whole quote. Just use the most important words that probably won't change from translation to translation or copy to copy (I've used this to find plagiarism in student essays, for example). So in this case I tried "spontaneity and variety" and "machines". Came up with a Google Books hit on the first try: "Meanwhile, machines deprive us of two things which are certainly important ingredients of human happiness, namely, spontaneity and variety." — Betrand Russell, "Machines and Emotions", in Sceptical Essays. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, that was fast - looks like my Google fu was weak today. Thanks a lot! -- Ferkelparade π 20:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Google Brilliance!--Wetman (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

law

Dear friends,

Is there any substantial difference between `terms' and `conditions' of a contract? Is it just a matter of custom to put them together, as in `the terms and conditions of this agreement'? What count as terms and what count as conditions? Please give examples. Thank you very much.

-Alan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memorylink2008 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That's just how lawyers say "I'm a lawyer and you're not". See legal doublet. --Sean 18:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Aren't "terms" definitions, like "When I say Party of the First Part, I mean...", whereas "conditions" are "When I say will sell the property, this is what will happen..." Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

We had a similar question recently on the Language desk. We discovered Legal doublet. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Oops, I see that info has already been supplied. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That's very polite, honourable and obedient of you, Jack  ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Why, thank you, Julia. But did you really expect any less from one such as I?  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Never, on no occasion, at no time do I, that's certain, for sure and doubtless, :) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have been reading too many of Joh Bjelke-Petersen's speeches, but I'm sure you wouldn't worry about that.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, the indelible one and only Jerryman..., er Joh. haha X)) Julia Rossi (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Causes of death in royal families in history

I'm currently working in my sandbox on a list of royal children who died as children, but some don't have causes of death, even when they died relatively late on, in their teens. Does anyone know where I could find out this sort of information?

• Dalai Lamas:
  • Lungtok Gyatso, 9th Dalai Lama (died 1815 aged 9)
  • Khedrup Gyatso, 11th Dalai Lama (died 1838 aged 17)
  • Trinley Gyatso, 12th Dalai Lama (died 1875 aged 18) - "died of a mysterious illness"
• Georgian Britain:
  • Prince Alfred of Great Britain (died 1783 aged 2)
  • Prince Octavius of Great Britain (died 1783 aged 4)
  • Princess Elizabeth Caroline of Wales (died 1759 aged 18)
  • Prince Frederick William of Wales (died 1765 aged 15)
• All these seem to be covered by this source, which still doesn't go into much more detail, so I suppose that's a dead end and maybe not much more needs to be said anyway.
• Others:
  • Madeleine of Valois (died 1537 aged 16) - "Very frail since birth, she was raised in the warm and temperate Loire Valley region of France, rather than at Paris, as her father feared that the cold would destroy her delicate health. By her sixteenth birthday, she had contracted tuberculosis. [...] Madeleine's health had deteriorated even further and she was very sick when the royal pair landed in Scotland. On July 7, 1537, a few short weeks later (and a month before her 17th birthday), Madeleine died in her husband's arms at Edinburgh, Scotland." - other sources seem to agree that it was the tuberculosis that she died from, but possibly this is still unclear.
  • Balthasar Charles, Prince of Asturias (died 1646 aged 16) - from the Spanish Wikipedia article: "Los médicos que le trataron le diagnosticaron viruela , en aquella época también se especuló con una enfermedad venérea como otra posible causa de su muerte aunque actualmente se piensa en una apendicitis como la enfermedad más probable que aquejó al príncipe. Doctors who treated him was diagnosed with smallpox, at that time also speculated with a venereal disease as another possible cause of his death but now we think of an appendicitis as the most likely disease afflicting the prince." (Google translation)
  • Princess Louisa Anne of Wales (died 1768 aged 19) - "Her health was delicate throughout her life. Princess Louisa died, at Carlton House, London, on 13 May 1768, unmarried, and without issue, at the age of 19."
  • Prince Oddone Eugenio Maria of Savoy (died 1866 aged 19) - From birth, Prince Oddone was marginalized due to the precarious state of his health. [...] The prince chose Genoa for his residence for its mild climate that benefited his ailing physical condition. [...] Oddone died at the age of 19 at the Royal Palace of Genoa shortly before dawn on 22 January 1866." - found some pictures of Oddone in this thread.
  • Princess Maria Luisa Immaculata of Bourbon-Two Sicilies (died 1874 aged 19)

I realise some of the causes of death may be vague (and I've added what I can find in the articles), but if anyone can help find sources for what is there and for the articles where the cause of death is not given, that would be great. Carcharoth (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Tuberculosis, q.v., had a high mortality rate prior to the application of antibiotics in the last century. It is still, in third world countries, Russia and China, one of the most deadly transmitted diseases. As it has rather diffuse symptoms, sufferers, even in developed countries, frequently die without it having been diagnosed prior to death. WP has a List of tuberculosis victims, but, of course, this proves nothing. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I can well see you might have problems with some diseases. One of my uncles did such a history for my family and my grandmother burnt it because of the number for which he had attributed gout as a cause of death. There's far worse things for relatives to burn or rewrite the records for. Dmcq (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I managed to expand Princess Elizabeth Caroline of Wales a bit.--Pharos (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In defense of poor women

In the countries Food for the Poor serve, why can't the women use their defenses on telling the men 'no' to their making moves on them?72.229.129.53 (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the question, could you rephrase it? What women are you talking about? What defences are you talking about? --Tango (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Guessing here, that men are taking food off women. Difference is women and men in not so poor countries have enforceable rights to make up for their lack of bulk when standover types make moves on them or their property. You can't so easily call the police in countries without those rights. And someone I forget where said that saying "No" to an enemy doesn't work because the enemy doesn't listen. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

In the countries Food for the Poor serve, the women should stand up for their rights to tell the men 'no'. But what part of 'no' do the men or the "enemy" not understand?72.229.129.53 (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What rights are you talking about? And I doubt, whatever it is, that it's a matter of people not understanding, it will be about them not caring. --Tango (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The rights I'm refering to is women's rights to practice sexual abstinence. That way they won't have to go through a harder struggle while they don't have any types of resources on raising one child or more children in poverty. I guess neither the men nor the "enemy" care or understand that type of thing.72.229.129.53 (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So you are talking about rape, not stealing food? Well then of course, the main reason is that a man who rapes a woman doesn't care what she thinks or wants to do. A rapist is a criminal that does not care about anyone but his own pleasure and certainly does not care about the law, or the rights of anybody else. It is not different in these countries from other countries, except maybe that the rape will result in pregnancy more often. To start, you could read our articles rape and motivation for rape. --Lgriot (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. In the countries Food for the Poor serve, affordable birth control isn't accessible to anyone, especially the women. Could that be an advantage to the more powerful in those countries?72.229.129.53 (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a disadvantage to the victim, I don't see how it makes any difference to the rapist. --Tango (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The countries served by Food for the Poor, from our article about the organisation, are in the Caribbean and Latin America. These are not war zones but they are mostly poor countries. Most have high birth rates. You seem to be asking why women in these countries have many children. The WP articles on birth control and population will give you leads to the debates about these topics. In Latin America many women are Catholics so they are strongly dissuaded from using birth control but it is important to remember that many women positively wish to have large families because their adult children will provide for them in old age. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, high infant mortality rates in poor countries means you need to have more children in order to increase the chance of some of them reaching adulthood. --Tango (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add a comment. In the books on rape I have read, particularly the landmark book by Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will, rape is not caused by sexual desire. Most rapists don't climax. It is a crime of violence. Therefore, women in suggestive clothing (so-called) cannot incite a rape. Also, the overwhelming majority of rapes are male on male rapes in prison. The inmate rapist is usually a straight male. It is violence. An excess of testerone may create sexual tension. There is a correlation between excess amounts and violence, I believe. 75Janice (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)75Janice

Is Food for the Poor part of that campaign which said 'food not condoms' which was rubbishing people trying to distribute condoms? Is this trying to extend that stupid 'just say no' business? Dmcq (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What types of questions are those, Dmcq? ItsmeJudith provided an accurate answer. But she forgot to include the women in the Caribbean. Are they Christians, therefore being strongly dissuaded from using birth control?72.229.129.53 (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In the Caribbean most people are Christians - of a variety of denominations. Some are Catholics, others Protestants. You may find more information by looking at our articles on the various Caribbean countries. We have all been working to understand your original question. I think you may also have been asking whether women are able to say "no" to sex in these countries. My answer to that is that it depends whether they are married or not. Sex before marriage is frowned on both in the Caribbean and Latin America, but marriage may be early. As in most cultures, it can be difficult for married women to refuse sex. In the Catholic countries young women have the option of becoming nuns, thus opting out of the whole breeding process. For economic reasons there are high levels of prostitution in many developing countries. Do you want to ask a more specific question? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that I had asked two very specific questions. They were not answered. Lots of catholics use birth control whatever the Pope says. Food for the Poor supports health services. Do they actively stop birth control being available? Dmcq (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I was addressing my reply to the original IP poster Dmcq. The poster did not state what her views are about Food for the Poor; let's not assume anything. She might not know the answers to your specific questions. I don't either but someone might. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

To those who've been working to understand my original question, Food for the Poor receives many requests from desperate families in Latin America and the Caribbean. Those families include mothers with multiple children. Many children are orphans, some who live with extended families (some who are also poor). Food for the Poor has been hounding me for money to help out. I don't know if they think I'm a celebrity, but I know I'm not. So I hope I've provided an accurate answer.72.229.129.53 (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that explains a bit. I certainly would like if there was some organization to help out with charity giving so one wasn't hounded after giving something. That way the charity wouldn't be given one's name. I'm sure a web based version could make end meet just on the ads though I haven't the foggiest how one could check up that they weren't cheating. Dmcq (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that in the US there is an organization called JustGive [8] which can ensure your donation is anonymous and you get a tax receipt at a cost of 3% from what I read. In the UK there is a similarly named organization but it doesn't provide this particular service - possibly because there is a law against charities giving money to charities. Dmcq (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Germany map, confused

http:/upwiki/wikipedia/en/c/c1/Nazi_Germany.png

I am having trouble knowing what the bottom orange portion is, under Austria. What was that land before the Germans took it? How did they?

96.226.229.124 (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Dave

I believe that's the Prealpine Operations Zone. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Although why that map doesn't also reflect Operational Zone Adriatic Coast as well, a comparable region of the same period, I don't know. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It can´t be the Prealpine Operations Zone, as this was located in South Tyrol / Northern Italy. These are areas of Carinthia and Styria which (both prior and after the 3rd Reich) were / are within the borders of todays Slovenia. These areas had been part of the Austro-Hungarian empire until 1918, when the Empire was disolved. Slovenia itself was partitioned between the Axis powers, the various parts being ascribed to Italy, Germany and Hungary. The Operational Zone Adriatic Coast, mentioned above, was a puppet construct to the West of these areas around Trieste and, de jure, not part of the Third Reich. The Prealpine Operations Zone would have been, again, to the West of that, around Bolzano. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed those parts of Slovenia occupied and later annexed by Germany after the collapse of Yugoslavia in 1941. Do be careful with that map, though. It gives the impression that both the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and the General Government were incorporated into Grossdeutschland. They were not. The Wikipedia pages are quite confused on this issue. Emma Dashwood (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Can the Wikipedia pages concerned be edited to show the facts correctly?--Wetman (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What else are you here for, my friend, but to edit Wikipedia pages? If you have a concern with a page, feel quite free to edit it! --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 21:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

October 12

Michigan online high schools

Are there any completely free online high schools that meet Michigan's requiremets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A quick google search turned up this: Michigan Virtual High School. I have no idea what the requirements or quality of this program are, but it may give you a start. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Titanic

I have a few questions about the titanic.

1. How could the ship have been considered to be "practically unsinkable" by shipbuilder magazine if the bulkheads didn't seal fully?

2. Why did the funnels buckle so easily, were they really only held up with cables?

3. Which company built the original fore Grand Staircase? Would it have been Harland and Wolff's fitting out section?

Thanks guys, Hadseys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.192.59 (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Did the engineers ever say the ship was unsinkable or was that just the marketing people? The ship was designed to stay afloat with 4 compartments flooded, the collision resulted in 5 compartments flooding, so it sank. Sounds to me like it performed within expected parameters. And did the funnels buckle easily? As I understand it, the boat was at a significant angle before they fell. Once it reached that angle sinking was probably inevitable so there was little point designing the funnels to survive it. I can't help you with the grand staircase, though, sorry! --Tango (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was any 2 compartments or the 4 front compartments, not any 4. And the reason why at least some people thought that was sufficient was simply that they did not imagine an accident that would open more compartments than that. The worst case (they thought) was a heavy impact between the ship and an obstacle or another ship. If the Titanic hit something head-on, it might bash in not one or two, but as many as three or four compartments at the front; if another ship smashed into the Titanic's side, it might breach as many as two compartments. Nobody considered that a light, glancing collision might open five or more compartments. It was worse than what was thought to be the worst case that could be "practically" expected. Now we know better. --Anonymous, 03:51 UTC, October 13, 2008.

So the mistake was in trying to avoid the iceberg? Had they just kept going they would have survived... oops... --Tango (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The main mistake was in proceeding into a known icefield at almost full speed at night. And if they had crashed into the thing head-on, people might have been killed in the collision. But, yes, if the damage was confined to the front of the ship as the designers expected, it is quite possible that it would not have sunk. --Anonymous, 11:40 UTC (Yeep! The time of the collision was 11:40 pm ship's time), October 13, 2008.

The funnels of passenger liners at the time were remarkably tall and were stronger at the bottom than at the top. They were designed to remain upright and not for the eventuality of the vessel moving from a horizontal to a vertical position. (We can notice in passing that one of Titanic's four funnels was a dummy, but it seems to have been less of a dummy than the master, Captain Smith.) Strawless (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

October 13

UK Citizenship

Section title added by User:Grsz11

Hello ,I want to know that how can a international worker obtain Nationality in UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.11.136 (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are the official rules. See also British nationality law. Tevildo (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What does a 0.5% lowering of interest mean?

The world over, interests have been lowered by 0.5% last week. How much money does that represent? Is that 0.5% of the world's assets? And how much would that be then? A rough guess is one quadrillion euro. So 0.5% would represent an effective injection of 5 trillion euro into the world economy? Note that I barely know what I am talking about. :) Amrad (talk) 06:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Bank base rate, interest rate - it should explain it a little more. The 0.5% drop is not an amount of money of itself, it is a change in the rate payable on borrowing. My (also limited) understanding is that the lowering of the base-rate will help spur back into action the housing-market (such a change will filter through to consumers by way of lower mortgage interest rates), but it will also help because it will make it cheaper for banks to lend money from central-banks (and other banks too?). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ordinary companies need constant lines of credit from banks to go about their usual business (examples: bridge financing and working capital management). In order to do this, banks require lines of credit from other banks in the money market. In times of high risk aversion, it becomes harder for anyone to borrow because banks are unwilling to lend (or only willing to lend at higher (unaffordable) spreads to the base rate - see credit spread) so lowering the base rate lowers the rate that banks borrow from each other and therefore lowers the rate at which banks lend to everyone else. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You missed a step: It lowers the rate central banks lend to banks which, hopefully, will lower the rate banks lend to each other. That last step usually works perfectly and we don't think about it, but in the present climate LIBOR seems almost completely disconnected from base rates. --Tango (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Modern use of pirate flag (Jolly Roger)

At summer I saw a ship with a big Jolly Roger pirate flag (and no national flag), at harbor of Turku, Finland. That was very propably a joke, because authorities did not react, but still some people said it is somehow illegal or "bad habit" and authorities should have reacted. My questions are: -Is jolly roger somehow illegal or "bad habit" in Finnish or other nations waters or international waters? How will authorities usually react? -What are you allowed to do if you encounter ship with a pirate flag at international waters? Is such ship under no legal protection? Can you attack such ship? 193.65.112.51 (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Our article that you link to describes various militaries using the flag, so it's clearly not absolutely illegal under any international law. There may be some restrictions on its use, but I don't know of any. If you are attacked at sea then you can defend yourself, but I doubt a pre-emptive strike on a ship just for flying the Jolly Roger would be tolerated. --Tango (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There are still real pirates on the high seas, but alas! nowadays they are too devious to announce themselves to other shipping in the traditional way. If the Jolly Roger is used correctly, in the course of piracy, then flying it should surely be encouraged and not made an offense in itself. On the other hand, if the flag is used incorrectly by non-pirates, then it must be at best irregular. Strawless (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If the Jolly Roger is used correctly, in the course of piracy .... Isn't expecting pirates to do anything according to the rules a bit of a contradiction in terms? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Algebraist 08:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. That makes no mention of flags, and I don't believe I'm understanding the essence of Strawless's point yet. If it was humour, it's lost on me, sorry. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Aren't ships supposed to fly a national flag? APL (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Alchemical Image Query?

Does anyone have a better copy of the image linked below, as well as a reference (Title/Artist/Publication)? Cheers.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/beyond.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheldon Bartleby (talk • contribs) 11:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Anyone" in that case would be Wikipedia itself, see Flammarion woodcut -- Ferkelparade π 12:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Does the term Neo-Hinduism have any consistant meaning?

I have heard the term Neo-Hinduism used to describe vastly different things, from things like the Ramakrishna Math and ISKCON (which is actually quite conservative) to new-agers who use a few Hindu terms like Karma and Chakra. Is there any recognised definition on this? Wikipedia has articles on

• Neo-Confucianism
• Neo Christian (a redirect)
• Neopaganism

Which makes me wonder should it be Neo-Hinduism, Neo Hinduism, or Neohinduism? I am thinking about writing a stub article but the fact that I can't find out what it means or even how to write it seems to be a bit of an obstacle! -- Q Chris (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that any form of Hinduism or Hindu-influenced religiosity which accepts individual non-Hindu converts is pretty much "neo-Hindu" by definition -- since in traditional Hinduism, such individual conversion of outsiders was basically impossible (the only way that people could usually enter into Hinduism was by whole groups slowly collectively assimilating, and being assigned a caste status, generally near the bottom of the hierarchy). AnonMoos (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

there is Hindu revivalism, which groups all "neo-Hindu" movements, but I don't think it is commonly called "Neo-Hinduism". --dab (��) 21:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

October 14

Building of the Parthenon

In the wikipedia article on the Parthenon, it says that the Old Parthenon was destroyed in 480 BC by the Persians, and that the Parthenon we know now was built in its place. However, the article says that the new Parthenon began being built in 490 BC, and was finished in 488 BC. Doesn't that mean that the New Parthenon was built before the Old Parthenon was destroyed? Or is it a mistake?72.65.101.51 (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I read it as saying that the Old Parthenon was begun circa 490-488 and (maybe) destroyed in 480. —Tamfang (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

To the right of the article, beneath the picture of the Parthenon at the top of the page, it says that the New Parthenon was built in 490-488 BC. Could this be just a numerical error by the author? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.101.51 (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the dates in the infobox. Deor (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Remedios Varo painting

Does anyone know who owns the Remedios Varo painting Bordando el manto terrestre (Embroidering the Earth's Mantle)? Is it currently on display anywhere? I believe it is part of a triptych, if that helps at all. Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 01:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

According to this site[9], the painting was in a private collection as of 1997. Artprice has nothing on it even being offered for sale since then. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks for the reply! Zagalejo^^^ 05:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hal Bevan Petman

Hello, I am looking for information on the British portrait artist Hal Bevan-Petman. I would welcome any input for my research. Some basic stuff is available on a website I started up recently but I require: Photos of the artist,and information on his wife Beryl. Of course, input on portraits around the world would be great! Please look up my website www.halbevanpetman. com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanokarim (talk • contribs) 01:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking for an image: Badge of the House of Windsor

Hi. I've seen the Badge referred to many times (apparently it uses the round tower at Windsor Castle as the main element), but I have not been able to find a visual of it online anywhere. Would anyone here know? [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 05:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

British finance rescue

The Briish government is reported to have borrowed £50 billion in order to rescue banks in current crisis.Who has lent them this money,and at what cost?Covkid87 (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)--Covkid87 (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Governments usually finance themselves through government bonds with low interest rate (say 4%). Mr.K. (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

To expand on that, bonds works like a bank, but in the exact opposite way. A bank is a single lender with multiple customers; with bonds you have a single customer getting its loans from multiple peoples. The government essentially offers promissory notes to anyone who wants to buy them, with the promise that when they mature, they will repay the note plus interest. Private companies can raise cash this way as well. The relative risk of a bond is related to how indebted the issuing organization is relative to its value. For a company, the value of bonds should always be below its real value (this is a gross oversimplification); that is, the company should not owe more than it itself is "worth". If it does, the creditors own the company, and the company goes "bankrupt" (again, an oversimlification). The thing about government bonds is the government is essential worth the entire GDP of the nation. Thus, they are usually very secure investment vehicles because they are perfectly safe; No one expects the government to default on its bond obligations.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Mr K and Jayron32.I have just been trying to understand CDS's. How mindblowingly complicated!Covkid87 (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)CovKid87

Small correction: no one expects the US government to default. Mr.K. (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that would apply to any member of the G7. No one seriously expects the U.K. to default on its bond obligations either. The same, of course, cannot be said for nations in the developing world. They can, and frequently do, go bankrupt. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there are certainly more safe governments than just the US. There are some major economies that aren't particularly risk-free, though - Russia, for example. I doubt they've fully regained the trust they lost in 1998. I believe you can get a good idea of how trustworthy investors think countries are based on credit default swaps, although where you get those numbers, I don't know. There are credit ratings, too, of course, but those are at a lower resolution - there's no way to compare the countries that are all rated AAA, or whatever. --Tango (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested in the credit ratings, see here, although bare in mind they may well have changed considerably in the last few weeks, so those could be out of date. --Tango (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Credit default swaps

Who was the first to issue them?

If they protected creditors against default, and they were traded at 60 trillion, how high are the credit contracts that they protected? 600 trillions? Mr.K. (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that $60 trillion figure is the size of the debt being protected (our article, credit default swap, talks about the total "notional amount" being of that magnitude, and I think in this context, that means the size of debt), the amount of money that actually changes hands because of these swaps will be far less (I've not idea how much it would be). --Tango (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, then, how high are the credit default swaps? Since it were traded over-the-counter, could it be that it's impossible to calculate how high they are? Mr.K. (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean what's the market value of all the contracts? I have no idea. There will be estimates out there somewhere, but remember the market value changes constantly as people re-evaluate the credit risks. I'm not sure there's anywhere you can find a real-time total since, as you say, it's all done over-the-counter. --Tango (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And why did people negotiated such huge amounts over-the-counter and not in an exchange? Mr.K. (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Because there is no exchange for CDSs. Like any financial instrument they started small and were just done on a case-by-case basis at first and no exchange was needed, they've now grown to the level where an exchange would be quite useful but it's not going to happen naturally. Creating an exchange requires someone to step up and do it - most likely as a result of new legislation introduced to tighten regulation of the finance sector to try and avoid another crisis like the one we have now. --Tango (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

World Population by Gender

Hello,
I would like to know what is the ratio of men to women on earth.
Couldn't find that information nowhere. The Good Samaritan (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the CIA World Factbook, it's estimated at about 101 men for every 100 women. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 17:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It varies with age, though - there are more men born than women, but women live longer. Young demographics are male-heavy, older demographics are female-heavy. --Tango (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

See also: Human sex ratio. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Economics

In general, most balance sheet entries are mathematically interdependent in some way. For instance, savings and interest on savings are related in that a certificate of deposit will usually have a better rate of interest the higher the deposit required, while income tax rates will match the amount of income. Where can I find a list of such mathematical relationships for all balance sheet entries? -- Taxa (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify your question. For example, the *mathematical* relationship between savings and the interest rate has nothing to do with the size of the deposit. There is an *empirical* relationship, but that is not deterministic. The relationship between income tax rates and income is *statutory*. Wikiant (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Think of curves that relate x to y. Think of x as something like household transfer payments and y as something like household taxes. Then ask what relationship does x have to y and draw the curve. -- Taxa (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

While those kind of things may be correlated, there isn't going to be a simple mathematical relationship between them. --Tango (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ranges and ratios are good enough. For instance, what is the ratio of imports to exports? Does it vary widely or is there a prescribed ratio? Same with taxes. While corporate tax has an absolute upper limit of 100 percent it has a practical upper limit of 36 percent based on the concept of the Laffer curve (video) that tax revenue would decrease. -- Taxa (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

They vary widely. Some countries have large trade deficits (ie. many more imports than exports, eg. the US), some countries have large trade surpluses (ie. many more exports than imports, eg. China) and other countries are at all points inbetween. You can come up with mathematical models to estimate these kind of things but if they're going to have widespread applicability there are going to be so many variables so as to make it impractical to use them without a super computer, and even then they won't be very accurate if something exceptional happens. --Tango (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The number of topics over which your question ranges is huge. I suggest you go look at the Statistical Abstract of the United States. You won't find the ratios you seek (which I guarantee you don't all exist in a single document). You will find the raw data to calculate many of the things you've mentioned. Wikiant (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

WW2: European collaboration with Third Reich Germany/Austria

Which European country had the highest per capita collaboration rate with the Nazis in WW2? - for example, in the form of voluntary SS divisions/legions, participation in persecution of Jews, etc. I have read about Latvia, Lithuania and the Netherlands (were these the worst three?) but would appreciate solid information in the form of per capita statistics & country comparisons if possible/available. Thank you in advance, --AlexSuricata (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Your chosen indices of collaboration are problematic. Many instances of both helping and / or persecuting Jews have not made it into the historical record for a variety of reasons and one would also face the issue of different levels of national willingness to confront their past after the war. A count of SS or Heer voluntary legions can be misleading because there was a certain amount of mixing of nationalities in these units not to mention the tendency of the Germans to exaggerate the units' size (brigade-sized units called divisions, etc.). Finally, you may wish to think laterally on this issue and not automatically unite Austria with Germany. Seen in that sense, "Austria" may be the answer to your query. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You could also consult on-line sources such as www.worldwar-2.net. This site lists the 1939 population and the casualties of selected nations are given, even when a nation fought for both the Axis and the Allies. This may give an idea of the per capita effort of these nations on behalf of the two warring groups. Of course, caution is always indicated when looking at casualty statistics as they always seem to be tabulated differently. As well, this source does not list Jugoslavija -- of which Croatia was originally a part and which was a reliable ally of the Germans. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

For Wiki articles, look at Resistance during World War II and Collaboration during World War II. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we may discuss if Austria -and other countries as well - have willingly collaborated. (Unsigned comment)

Should one count Italy? I think it is a bit unfair to the french, the dutch, austrains and all the others easily accused of collaboration, when Mussolini had long sold the italians out wholesale. I am not blaming all italians for Mussolini, but this resistenza reality/myth tends to hide some ugly facts of cozy Italian German relations until the war went bad.--Radh (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The distinction (until Autumn 1943) is that Italy had not been occupied by Germany and so was an active ally of the Germans rather than an occupied nation that had collaborators. Post Autumn 1943 is a different story. A civil war took place in northern Italy. There was an active resistance, but there was also a large number of Italian military and paramilitary units under the control of Mussolini's Saló Republic or the Germans (most of whom were fighting the Partisans). --W. B. Wilson (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have read that at the end of fighting in Berlin, the SS units defending Hitler were of foreign origin. The German SS could surrender and be POWs, but the foreign SS were fearful of being tried for treason, so they fought on. If you Google "Hitler’s Foreign Legion: Waffen SS" you find sites which have a breakdown of SS volunteers from 24 countries or regions, including a small British unit. Netherlands with 50,000 in the 23rd SS Div., 34th SS Div. get the nod for largest number. These sites seem to be blacklisted or spam filtered by Wikipedia for some reason. Edison (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

October 15

St Paul's Cathedral blueprint

Moved from Village Pump. Gwinva (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Where can I find a blueprint of St. Paul's Cathedral (the one in London, England)? Lucas Brown (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This [10] comes close, I guess.Leif edling (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Vincent Van Gogh quote

Moved from Village Pump. Gwinva (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I am an Italian wikipedia user, and I need help from English mothertongue I need to know the exactitude about this citation from Vincent Van Gogh:

"I always do what I can't do, to learn how it must be done."

I do not have found this in Wikiquote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.53.127 (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC) ]]

It is good English. (Of course he probably did not say it in English, so there is no exact English citation.) By the way, auxiliary verbs – like the have in I have found – are negated without do: thus I have not found. —Tamfang (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think he is asking what it means, since from the point of view of a non-English speaker it looks kind of nonsensical. I'm not sure how to explain it any more simply than it already is, though. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I try, fail, but learn how exactly not to do it.--Radh (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In April 1882, Vincent wrote to his brother Theo, "There are two ways of thinking about painting, how not to do it and how to do it; how to do it — with much drawing and little color; how not to do it — with much color and little drawing." Of course van Gogh, who was working still in watercolors, eventually turned to oils and did it the way not to do it.--Wetman (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Archeology: Mega

Is this discovery serious? Mega. It is weird that we have nothing in wikipedia (that I could find) about it, and they also mention on this web site, in various places, "Psychic Questing", so I am very dubious about their reliability on making a fair assessment of what they find. If any archeologo-phile here has heard about it and knows the real story (as described by many other or reliable sources), please let me know. Thanks in advance! --Lgriot (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have heard about this before, although the amount of Atlantis speculation on the web does make it difficult to find reliable information online. Googling for the names of the discoverers gave me this which reproduces a 2002 article from the Washington Post, so at least the discovery was reported on by the mainstream press. -- Ferkelparade π 08:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I've done a search on scholar.google.com, the results have not been too great...it seems they did discover something in 2001, but it also seems there has not yet been any serious research into the issue (or at least, there are no publications I could find). It might be a sunken city (although that sounds extremely improbable), it might be some freak geological process leading to regular-seeming pyramid-like structures, but in the absence of serious research (or even usable photos of the discoveries) all that is just unfounded speculation. -- Ferkelparade π 11:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the discovery is serious, but it has nothing whatever to do with Atlantis, other lost cities, or indeed anything man-made. The structures they're referring to are natural fractures in the bedrock. Check out Bimini Road. Matt Deres (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarifies it. When someone goes and takes pictures, we can make our own assessment, but in the meantime, I will assume it is natural. --Lgriot (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There are tons of pictures; check out a few of these. As with conspiracy theories, these fringe thinkers have their thinking backwards; they want there to be evidence for Atlantis, so anything that looks good is accepted and anything that doesn't is ignored. If we saw structures like these on land they would accept the rational explanation (there's no evidence of buildings or any artifacts and there's an obvious geologic explanation), but because it's underwater where Atlantis must be, the fact that there are no artifacts of any kind and a much simpler explanation at hand is carefully ignored. Matt Deres (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

reagan, ronald

what is ronald reagan's middle name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momojackin (talk • contribs) 05:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The answer, my friend, is lurking in Ronald Reagan. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 05:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

who is this guy?

i want to know who this is,the guy who went from bar operator to lawyer,supporter of Made In America,once shot a politician,chosen as speaker of the house on the first day of his session. pleas help me.thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.213.67 (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe this [11] is where you (or whoever asked you the question) got it. The answer is Henry Clay (as per the given link).Leif edling (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Origins of a phrase: "Like ships in the night"

While wondering the origins of a Finnish proverb Kuin laivat yössä at the local reference desk, I was informed it was a liteal translation from the English "Like ships in the night", taken from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's Tales of a Wayside Inn:

"Ships that pass in the night, and speak each other in passing, /

Only a signal shown and a distant voice in the darkness; /

So on the ocean of life we pass and speak one another, /

Only a look and a voice, then darkness again and a silence."

But although very good to know, that only actually answered a part of my question. What I'm still trying to find out is by who, when or where this prhrase was introduced to common language (or do you English-speakers even use it)? Any ideas? --Albval (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Poets are poets because they make stuff up, poesis in Hellenised Latin. Longfellow's image passed imnto cultural literacy: The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, 3rd ed. 2002, credits him: "Often said of people who meet for a brief but intense moment and then part, never to see each other again". The signal at night was with a lantern provided with a Fresnel lens.--Wetman (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the link above. Seems that I'm still a bit ignorant about the cultural literacy bit in general (although I now know probably all I need to know about lenses of short focal length): Is the question about who or where a certain quote is introduced into common use even possible to answer in this kind of case? I'm sure Longfellow himself didn't popularize the quote, if you understand what I mean. I guess what I'm also wondering here is whether the "usage history" of proverbs can be traced back or not... --Albval (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's an idiom, not a proverb. It is often possible to trace the origin of an idiom by looking at its first appearance in writing, and its later incidence, which is what the quoted work and other dictionaries of idioms have done in attributing it to Longfellow. Someone, somewhere, will have data about how long it took to be commonly used. And yes, it is a common English phrase. Gwinva (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's neither an idiom nor a proverb: it's a metaphor. During his lifetime Henry Wadsworth Longfellow was one of the most widely-read, widely-memorised and widely-quoted poets in the United States. I wonder how many editions Tales of a Wayside Inn sold out before World War I. Also in the volume: "Paul Revere's Ride".--Wetman (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't deny it's a metaphor; but it's now used idiomatically. (As our own article states: "Most idioms are a colloquial metaphors".) Gwinva (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for clearing things up for me. As you probably guessed, English is not my mother tongue and therefore selecting the used terms (proverb/idiom/metaphor) comes sometimes to downright guessing... --Albval (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

LAND RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO VOTE!

I would like to know why the gov't keeps trying to take more land from the Indians and why they CAN'T vote? Were they not here FIRST? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.71.77 (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the USA? Because Native Americans in the United States can vote. As for the "take more land bit", I'd need more information than what you've provided (a link to a news story of what you thinking of in particular would help). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you're talking about Canada, I imagine (given that your only other edit is to put a question on a photo of Stephen Harper). Weell, I don't know about Canada. This article, though, seems to indicate that legally they can vote, though I don't pretend to understand how this works in Canada. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Native Canadians can vote, just like any other citizen. It's true that they tend to vote in lower numbers than other groups, but this is not due to any legal restrictions. There were several pieces on the radio in the last few weeks where native leaders were encouraging them to turn out and vote. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the Canadian government trying to take their land, as the questioner says? And were the present population of native Canadians the first, or did they replace other earlier populations of different origin? Edison (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Aboriginal land claims are a highly contentious issue in Canada (and deserves a much better article than the one we have); for the sake of neutrality I'm not going to say much. Some native Canadians would certainly claim that governments (and others) in the past have taken land from them, and are obstructing their attempts to get it back. See also Ipperwash Crisis. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

They can vote but the new laws requiring photo ID makes it more difficult since (at least if they live on a reserve) many of them don't have driver's licenses or whatever other pieces of identification they might need. I was looking at the rules at the polling station yesterday, and they can vote if whoever is in charge of the band or reserve verifies that they actually live there, but maybe no one takes the time to get that verification. (When 40% of the rest of the country doesn't bother to vote, that shouldn't be surprising.) For land claims, see also Caledonia land dispute for another famous one. There are many other claims that don't make the news; I remember reading it would take a century to settle all the current claims, and that is only if no new ones are made. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The other thing of course is that given the FPTP system Canada uses and the fact that they are a relatively small and spreadout population, they probably have little chance of greatly influencing the outcome of the election. Is there any seat with more then say, 20% aboriginal population? Nil Einne (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. For one thing, the entire territory of Nunavut has a very high percentage of Inuit. Within the provinces, many of the northern areas of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, etc. have very high concentrations. According to our article on the politics of Saskatchewan, about 10% of that province's entire population is composed of "First Nations" peoples, but that's not evenly distributed. The white populations will be densely settled in the major cities (Saskatoon, Regina, etc. and the percentage of Indians will go up as you go more rural or northerly. Matt Deres (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nature of Opinions (I am not asking for an opinion about something)

Looking at the definition of opinion on Wikipedia seen here:

"An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something which it is either impossible to verify the truth of, or the truth of which is thought unimportant to the person. It is an assertion about something especially if that something lies in the future and its truth or falsity cannot be directly established e.g. induction. An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified. If it later becomes proven or verified, it is no longer an opinion, but a fact."

1. It makes me realize how much of life is opinionated and you will not pass through life with-out making an opinion. As we are naturely inclined to form judgements, beliefs, values, interpretations, etc. Since they will never be true nor false, why do we as humans try in life because whatever we feel in life is meaningul or beautiful or benevolent and many other things there is no standard rule of universality that gives our belief verification or meaning.

2.For instance, someone may say that abortion is wrong. Though it seems unethical, is there reallly a way to determine if abortion is right or wrong?

3.Another example I have is a "best category" so many organizatioins have competitions like (best picture,oscar competitions, beauty pageants,etcedera. But there is no "true way to evaluate these kinds of things. Also, many people feel that their name is the best name and there is no way to test that out although their name is special since the day they were born.

4. In a larger sense, there is like no true interpretation. For example say you read a book and you think it is well-written, refreshingly candor, and thought provoking; on the other hand- another person thinks it is horrible and tasteless.

I am saying is that there is no quantifiable method to anaylyze and I am wondering what people do when they realize these things in life? Is there truth to judgements, values,etc.? And in what way can we confirm this?

Once again I thank you for your time and I jsut want to know what the right approach would be. Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.45.41 (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You sound like you need to read some Philosophy I would recommend starting at http://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/ which is a 'squashed' philosophers resource (it condenses full text into much smaller, quicker to read segments without losing that much of the detail/points raised). There are no universal truths around good/bad. There are no truly universal morals or codes of ethics. Culture and society are all you have. Considering this doesn't mean that you cannot feel your values are worthwhile, or your ideas are true/correct. You are you own mind, what others say should not necessarily impact what you consider to be correct/incorrect. If you believe a painting is good that doesn't mean others must, but then how does another's opinion prove/disprove your thoughts? There may be a branch of thinking around what you mean, it sounds like it could be something to do with life/decisions being futile but not sure what it would be called. ny156uk (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Opinions can be based on better or worse reasoning, better or worse evidence. There are many reasons to "try at life" other than universality. There are lots of other reasons to value life.

2. Ethics is not the same thing as opinion. At some level though it reduces to a few core beliefs which are about shared history, empathy, religious beliefs, shared concepts (like "fairness"), and so forth. There are lots of ways to determine whether something is right or wrong according to a given ethical system. The choice of ethical system, though, is more arbitrary.

3. Awards are about the reification of opinions held by a select group. If you don't care about their opinions, then they mean nothing. If you do care about their opinions, then they mean something. Even things as apparently prestigious as the Nobel Prizes only mean something because people agree they do. (Many scientists think Nobel Prizes are highly overrated, for example.)

4. They are many true interpretations, but you are referring to a specific form of interpretation.

5. Just because something is quantifiable doesn't mean quantifying it gives the best answers; and the fact is that most people recognize that at some level fundamental differences in values mean that certain things are irreconcilable between disagreeing parties, ergo the notion that we "agree to disagree", i.e. we just acknowledge that we're not going to see eye-to-eye. I don't think it has any effect on quality of life in general. I don't think, in general, it even has an affect on how most people live their lives. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I still feel like so much is meaingless without a system to judge, so it all feels like nothing really matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.45.41 (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Mostly there is a system to judge, but the system is a kind of centre or reference point. In this way, the centre itself is a bias of conditioning and seeing one's position as superior, right or best (eg, see Eurocentrism). If you browse the article Post-structuralism in the section "Destabilised meaning" you find that a cultural centre or cultural reference point is such a system, but it only works if you align with it. Meaning can also be found by taking a critical position, questioning and comparing so that its agenda can be discovered. Philosophy, cultural studies and sociology would keep you busy. No need to give up when critiquing is so much fun. As the Postmodernists might say there are many "centres" and many histories – and I'd add in there, many valid "truths". In this exploration you might come to realise the centre is not such a social/cultural set of truths as a personal set of truths. And the outcome from that is to understand that context is important rather than accepting some vague authoritarian ruling on what is meaningful or important. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

PS this is such a beautiful question (imo) it opens up a panorama of thinking. You might also look at Ethics, Applied ethics and applied philosophy[12]... and the Philosophy of perception where the question is "Can we ever know another point of view in the way we know our own?"  :) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Poet Gilbert Maxwell

I am looking for a poem by Gilbert Maxwell. He was born in 1910, and did do some writing for Harpers Magazine. Specifically, I am looking for the entire poem which contains the lines:

                    There are trees that seem to die at the end
                    of autumn. There are also the evergreens.

This quote is found in the Daily Meditation book, Color of Light. I have used it for many years in my nonprofit organization. I am looking for the entire tet but have had no luck at all. 69.40.161.115 (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There are several of Maxwell's poems at http://harpers.org/subjects/GilbertMaxwell, but you have to subscribe to Harper's to see the pages. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

1920's Marriage Laws

I have been searching both Wikipedia and elsewhere, but I can't find anything on this subject. I'm a writer, and this research is fairly critical (although not time sensitive) to my work. What were the marriage and age of consent laws of the 1920's, specifically in Chicago and Massachusetts? Missouri would be nice too, if you know. Starlingswings (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Law libraries in the relevant jurisdictions might be able to help you out. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If the President and Vice -President are dead...

Who takes over as the president if both the president and vice-president are killed? Does anyone know? Starlingswings (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The speaker of the house. See United States presidential line of succession. --Tango (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Darn, Tango, you beat me to it. bibliomaniac15 21:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

More precisely, the speaker of the house takes over if eligible (as the current one would be). See the article for more on eligibility. Of course, we're talking about the case were the president and VP are killed at the same time, or close enough together that there isn't time for a new VP to be nominated and confirmed in between. If there is a new VP, obviously that person becomes president.

I assume we're talking about the US in all this. Presuambly there are other countries with a president and vice-president, and they will have their own rules! --Anonymous, 21:49 UTC, October 15, 2008.

Generally if someone doesn't think to say what country they're talking about it's safe to assume they're American. The fact that there is a US presidential election coming up reinforces that. --Tango (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

On the basis that only Americans would assume the world assumes they're American? Gwinva (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

How can they forget something that they never learned in the first place? -- kainaw™ 01:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. --Tango (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Either that, or they just forget the rest of the world exists... --Tango (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably on the basis that this is the English WP and USA is the only major English-speaking country I can think of that's ruled by a president and not a prime minister. APL (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

But that would mean attributing good sense rather than ignorant provincialism to Americans. Not at all in the agenda. - Nunh-huh 19:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

But would it not also mean attributing arrogant superiority complex towards all people who aren't Americans, simply on the basis that they aren't Americans? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't see why it would. - Nunh-huh 21:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because someone isn't American doesn't mean there isn't something else wrong with them. --Tango (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it good sense to rely on people knowing that the US is the only major English-speaking nation with a president? I think good sense would be to specifically state what you're talking about from the start. Also, both India and Zimbabwe use English a lot and have presidents, there may be others I've missed as well. --Tango (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ireland. Although it doesn't have a vice-president... 80.254.147.52 (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"Is it good sense to rely on people knowing that the US..." That's not the question at hand. The issue is that, given that the vast majority of the Internet's native English speakers come from either USA, Canada, Australia or UK, can we assume that a given question about an unnamed "president" is referring to the USA? I think we can make that assumption, by simple logic, No need to hijack the guy's question for ugly nationalism, whether intended as humor or not. (Also providing the correct answer for other nations like Zimbabwe is, of course, a bonus.)APL (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's a safe assumption for us to make and we've answered the OP's question based on it. We've now gone off-topic (no harm there, since the question is answered) and are discussing (somewhat in jest) whether it is appropriate for the OP to assume that we would assume he's talking about the US. It's not relevant to the OP's question, but it's an interesting point. --Tango (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It also works in reverse. If 2 Americans are talking about politics and government, and one of them refers to "the Queen", it'd be a pretty safe bet he's referring to the Queen of the UK (although if the other person asked which queen he was talking about, he'd probably answer "the Queen of England"). -- JackofOz (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Presidential "Candidate" or "President Elect" Succession

Are there any formal rules such as the United States presidential line of succession to deal with incapacity, death or resignation of the candidate of a major party or perhaps more importantly the President-elect either before or after being chosen by the Electoral College? -hydnjo talk 22:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and it's in our article on the succession. If the President-elect (which I believe means after the Electoral College's decision) dies prior to the inauguration, the Vice-President-elect is inaugurated as President and serves the term. If they died before the Electoral College's decision, then I guess the Electoral College would elect the vice-presidential candidate as president (no idea what they'd do about vice president). --Tango (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tango, I missed that part about the post-Electoral College situation which is clearly addressed in our succession article. I guess prior to the EC vote ("...unofficially the person chosen in the November popular election is called the President-elect even before the Electoral College meets") or even prior to the national vote things could get pretty dicey :( -hydnjo talk 22:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we discussed it on the ref desk a few weeks ago, if memory serves. You may wish to check the archives. --Tango (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

He's not the President elect until the electors have made him so. There are four separate situations to consider:

• [1] death of a presidential candidate before the popular elections
• [2] death of a presidential candidate after the popular election and before the electors have voted, and
• [3] death of the president elect, after the electors have voted, and before Congress has counted the electoral votes
• [4] death of the president elect, after Congress has counted the electoral votes, but before assuming office

For [1], the party simply chooses another candidate according to its rules. Both Democratic and Republican parties have rules to cover this contingency: basically the party's national committee chooses the candidate. In most instances they'd be expected to choose the VP candidate, and name a new VP candidate, but there's no requirement that that happen. [1] has never happened (though a VP candidate did die in 1912 before election, and a VP candidate resigned in 1972 after the nomination and before the election)

The only instance of [2] was the death of Horace Greeley in the 1872 election. He was the loser in the election, and several of his electors voted for him. The congressional joint meeting declined to count his votes, reasoning that a dead man can't be president. So I think we can state on the basis of precedent, a well as good sense, that death of a candidate frees his electors to vote for someone else. Theoretically, the electors of a dead candidate would be free to vote for whomever they please; in all likelihood, the candidate's party would select a new candidate (as in situation [1]) and ask that the electors vote for him, and in all likelihood the electors would do so.

In situation [3], there is some question, but as most people interpret the 12th Amendment, all elector's votes would have to count, even those for a dead candidate, in which instance it's the same as situation [4], and the 12th Amendment would govern: the VP elect would become president, and after assuming office, could appoint a VP under the 25th amendment.

If neither a president nor a vice president qualifies on January 20, then the 20th Amendment governs and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 would make the Speaker of the House, the president pro tempore of the Senate and the various cabinet members, in order, and if qualified, and if they accept, the president. Congress was authorized under the 20th Amendment to pass a law with reference to the death of any of the persons from whom the House might choose a president, or the Senate choose a vice president, but Congress has not done so. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nunh-huh for your comprehensive response and for addressing even those unlikely scenarios that I forgot about. -hydnjo talk 23:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting - and hopefully hypothetical - question. :) - Nunh-huh 23:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! :) hydnjo talk 23:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

October 16

Is China's political system robust enough to withstand the global financial crisis

Given that inflation and corruption are endemic in the PRC, how well can they withstand the current financial meltdown (assuming that it gets worse)? On another point, I'm only guessing here, but if a financial crisis, on the same scale as that in the US, were to (somehow) originate from the PRC I believe that it would have a pretty hard time dealing with the problem (compared to the US). Does that sound like a reasonable assertion?

I don't know anything about economics so feel free to take me task with my assumptions.ExitRight (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since China is largely a worldwide purchaser of government bonds of other countries (they are a creditor nation rather than a debtor nation), and most of the western world is issueing bonds faster than they can print the promissory notes to cover their respective governemnt obligations to "prop-up" the banking industry, China is likely to "make out like a bandit" in the current crisis. As long as the US and UK governments don't go bankrupt in the current crisis, China stands to make a pretty penny on the interest on these bonds. Plus there's always the threat they could "call in the debt" which puts them in a position of considerable power, politically speaking, over the politics and policies of those governments. Scared yet? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately for the debtor nations you can't "call in" a bond. It's a promise to pay at a certain time in the future. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the closest they can get to calling in the debt is to not roll it over when it matures. Usually when a bond matures you just use the proceeds to buy another bond, if they choose not to do that and to stop buying new bonds entirely then the governments borrowing from China would have to pay more interest on their debt in order to attract other lenders (I'm sure they would still be able to find lenders, it would just be more expensive). --Tango (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that ExitRight is asking how the PRC government might fare if the current financial meltdown spreads to the PRC, rather than how the meltdown now mainly confined to Western countries will affect the PRC government. Of course, we can't know the answer to either question, since we can't predict the future. However, the PRC has a relatively fragile and undeveloped financial system, and it has had a real estate and stock bubble similar to the ones whose bursting is impacting the West. I think that there is a very good chance that the PRC will have its own financial crisis in the fairly near future. At the same time, its economy is somewhat dependent on exports to the West. Recession in the West, coupled with a drying up of credit within the PRC, would be likely to cause a rise in unemployment within the PRC. The PRC government has relied on steady economic advance to legitimize its rule, and an end to that economic advance could cause public dissatisfaction, already evident in many parts of the country, to increase, perhaps dramatically. Public unrest on a large enough scale could pose a serious threat to the Communist government. But we don't know whether unrest would reach that scale, and even if it did, the government might find an effective response. Marco polo (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't China as affected by the financial meltdown as the rest of us, given that the Hang Seng has been subject to the same falls as the Nikkei and other Asian stock markets? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to compare how much each country is affected, but China has definitely been affected. I believe they've already reduced growth forecasts. --Tango (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

UK Banking problem ... solution

What would have happened if Scotland had gone independent of the rest of UK. As a result of which Bank of Sotland and Royal Bank of Scotland would not have been advanced loans. But National Westminster Bank belongs to RBOS. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If Scotland had gone independent it would have its own central bank that could have lent them money. The Bank of England or UK Treasury might have lent money to the parts of their businesses in the UK, as well, or at least protected depositor's money. --Tango (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, it's impossible to know, as we'd only be speculating what the fiscal arrangements would be for an independent Scotland. We don't know what regulatory framework Scotland would have, and we don't know to what extent, and in what manner, the central banking and monetary policy structures of Scotland would be disentangled from those of the rump UK. An amicable split would involve a distribution of the community assets (and liabilities) of the UK, and inevitable asymetries between the resulting countries would mean the negotiators of the schism would trade one thing off against another. It's likely Scotland would seek to join the Euro; we can presume (but cannot be sure) that it would either inherit or immediately join EU, EEA, and the panoply of European and international institutions. Secondly, it seems countries are taking responsibility for protecting banks that operate in their own country regardless of the nominal HQ of that bank. So it would seem rump UK would be responsible for banks trading in its economy, Scotland for banks in its (so each country is responsible for the business RBOS or HBOS or XBOS does in its economy). Unless you have banks that attract business from one country while having little actual trading or presence there (like Landsbanki) it's probably mostly a wash. But thirdly, the economies of Scotland and the rest of the UK are so deeply intertwined that, even with a political disunion, neither country could afford the other getting into trouble, and it would be in both countries' interest to help out the other. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting question; rather like Iceland, Scotland has big banks for such a small nation: RBS, HBOS, and also Lloyds TSB which is headquartered in Glasgow although largely an English company. It is questionable whether an independent Scotland would have enough money to bail out its banks. Being optimistic, you can look at what happened in Ireland recently where the Irish government guaranteed deposits by some subsidiaries of foreign banks[13] so if Scottish banks failed the English government might well still have intervened to protect English depositors in NatWest, etc - or, as is happening with Iceland[14], the English government might have taken more aggressive moves against Scotland. Who knows?--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

President and Vice President nominees

When the nominees for USA President and Vice President are out there, all across the country campaigning, are they protected by the Secret Service? Do they hire their own bodyguards? Both? What is the situation? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

They're protected by the Secret Service for 120 days prior to the election. See here. --Tango (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The USSS certainly protects both Rep and both Dem candidates - but (as with Presidential protection) they're responsible for protecting the key individual - security of overall campaign events is the responsibility of local and state law enforcement and often private security. To what extent notable but very unlikely to succeed candidates like Nader and Barr are USSS protected, I don't know. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"Major" candidates aren't strictly defined, but ABC News notes that "the criteria normally include an announcement of candidacy, prominence, major party affiliation, fundraising and matching funds." Various sources note that Ralph Nader requested, but apparently did not receive, USSS protection in previous election cycles. Going back to past major third party candidates, I find that John B. Anderson apparently had a USSS code name (though I don't see specific note of a detail). It would seem that James Stockdale (Ross Perot's VP candidate in 1992) accepted USSS protection.

It's also worth noting that "120 days" is the minimum. Obama received a USSS detail in May 2007. — Lomn 21:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What determines the value of money and is there a safety for capitalist economies from the hoarding of wealth by the wealthy?

I have been researching what determines the value of money and havn't found a clear answer. Is it national gold stores, total demand for a nation's money or is it equal to the value of total material capital within a nation? The last idea I believe is correct because if all the material capital in a nation disappeared all the money in a nation would become useless and worthless. If you could enlighten me on this subject or direct me to where I could find an answer I would be eternally grateful and I also think the answer would be a useful addition to the wikipedia internet encyclopedia. I would also like to ask if there is some kind of safety net for national economies as most capitalist economies I believe with the knowledge I have are due to exhaust money supplies with the hoarding of wealth by the wealthy. This has not happened and so I suspect the production of more and more material wealth is sustaining the middle and working classes or nations are producing more and more liquid money sustaining the middle and working classes. If you could clear up this issue I would also be very grateful. 78.152.217.254 (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Does the article on fiat currency help?--droptone (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Roanoke colony

Why did it take the supply ship so long to return to the Roanoke colony from England? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.4.78.60 (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The article on the Roanoke Colony has quite a bit on that. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No one expects the Spanish ... er, well, the Spanish Armada. And the British were expecting it. Rmhermen (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Fire Alarm

Some friends and I are disputing:

Is pulling a fire alarm a Federal Offense? I live in the USA. I hope this doesn't fall under the "legal advice" umbrella. We were discussing it but couldn't find any authoritative sources either way.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.188.209 (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You might take a look at Federal crime and at the federal criminal code at [15]. Someone who maliciously disrupts the functioning of a federal facility in any way might encounter the displeasure of the law enforcement officials involved. No legal advice here. Edison (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule, no -- pulling a fire alarm is not a federal offense, and depending on locality, may not be a punishable offense at all. This article from the St Petersburg Times notes the city of Clearwater, Florida toughening its false alarm laws and compares the relevant laws of nearby counties and cities. Edison raises an interesting point, though -- causing a false alarm at a federal facility could be a federal offense (no idea whether or not it actually is). — Lomn 13:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the specific nature of an intentional disruption may not be explicitly banned, but that doesn't mean that the act of causing a deliberate act of disruption to a federal building will go unpunished, simply because someone didn't think to write a law against your own quirky way of being a pain in the ass... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What did John Wesley thought of the French Revolution?

He must have had an opinion on such an important subject?

Thanks

87.116.154.181 (talk) 04:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Methodists opposed it, per [16]. Edison (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Plato's and Aristotle's schools

I can't remember what their schools were called. I believe Plato's was Academia, or something with the word "academic" present, while Aristotle's was an "l" word, I think. Does anyone know to what I am referring? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.16.88.147 (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct, you mean Lyceum. PMajer (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

And the Platonic Academy. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Prediction in the Social Science

Are there any studies out there about the prediction's precision of social scientists? I am principally interested in economists, but other links are welcome. --Mr.K. (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

India Today

I remember that India Today had two articles: one about the stats of Indian couple and sex like for example which couple prefer to be at the top? man or woman? and another about kids acting like big people for example a little girl a manicure in a style that a woman would get. Where are those articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.206 (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sueing for Peace

What does it mean to "sue for peace"? I mean, it doesn't mean a nation actually files a lawsuit in a court or something. I'm just curious as to where this phrase comes from. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Sue for peace has some information. Tomdobb (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Subsidized Housing

Under what administrations was subsidized housing created and/or modified. What were the circumstances that may have affected these occurrences? While references are made as to years these things were done, I want to know what administrations, etc., were involved.