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

September 24

Singing terminology

What is the musical term for a group singing performance in which the lyrics sung by one part of the group trails that of another, as in Mamas and Papas California Dreamin'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.15.225 (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a type of imitation (music). Looie496 (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A Medley or a Mashup, perhaps?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Round (music) might be the term you want, although it means an entire song layered on top of itself (I don't remember the whole of California Dreamin' being sung in this way). Oh, I see the "imitation" article links to round.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say a canon --ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Average age that politicians were elected

Has such data ever been collected? I'm mostly interested in the case of Canada or the United States. 184.163.160.61 (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I know you said you were interested in Canada but I have the figures readily to hand to calculate for the UK. The average British MP in this present Parliament was elected at the age of 14,987.1 days, or 41 years 12 days. The alpha and omega are both Liberal Democrats: Charles Kennedy, elected in 1983 at the age of 23 years, and Gordon Birtwistle, elected in 2010 at the age of 66. By party, the averages are Conservatives 40 years 205 days, Labour 41 years 148 days, Liberal Democrats 40 years 307 days. The others and minor parties average 42 years 343 days. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This chart from The Wall Street Journal gives some cursory information, indicating that someone has collected that data. — Michael J 01:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. In fact I only needed some hard facts that demonstrate that not giving particularly tempting income incentives to politicians would somehow deter bad governance; as most of them have already made a living for the most part up until their election. Raskolkhan (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A few years ago (in the mid-1990s) a study found that, on average, new British MPs took a pay cut on coming into Parliament. I would be surprised if that pattern were substantially different in other Western democracies. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Constituencies of Netherlands, Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Norway

Does Wikipedia have lists of constituencies or parliamentary seats of Netherlands, Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Switzerland? like how Canada and United Kingdom does? I am asking because I wanted to see if the riding is very far-right when it comes to electing far-right parties like Danish People's Party, Party for Freedom, and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.33.131 (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If we have them, they're probably in Category:Lists of constituencies. But only Finland seems to be, of the countries you've listed. --ColinFine (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Link added for France. I know Netherlands elect on a national list, IIRC Norway use their counties, Spain use the provinces - most of the information you want is in the article on each relevant Parliament/Chamber --Saalstin (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that a fair number of the countries you mentioned elect candidates through party-list proportional representation rather than first-past-the-post. In a system of proportional representation, a far-right party that receives 5% of seats in the national legislature might do so with 5% of the total votes spread over the entire country. They wouldn't need a majority of votes in any specific geographic subdivision (or "constituency"), per se, to get elected. Gabbe (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As per Sweden, you can get parliamentary, county council and muncipal council results for 2010 election at national, constituency, municipal and polling station level at http://www.val.se/val/val2010/slutresultat/R/rike/index.html . Parliamentary constituencies are generally the same as the Counties of Sweden, except for the 3 largest ones that are divided into smaller constituencies. --Soman (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In the 2010 parliamentary election, the highest voting percentage of the far right (SD) was registered in Almgården (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almg%C3%A5rden,_Malm%C3%B6 ), with just above 30%, http://www.val.se/val/val2010/slutresultat/R/valdistrikt/12/80/0912/index.html --Soman (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

looking for maps

Is there any way I can find a map of the world, or at least Asia, Africa and Europe, in the year 992BC with major coastal towns and cities marked on?

148.197.81.179 (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Not too sure that there were very many "major coastal cities" in the world in 992 B.C., since civilization was still somewhat concentrated in the Nile and Mesopotamian river valleys. Colin McEvedy has an 825 B.C. map in his "Atlas of Ancient History", and the only major coastal city shown is Tyre... AnonMoos (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You might find something by following the sources in the very few maps at Commons:Category:Maps showing 10th-century BCE history. -84user (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Other coastal cities at the time included Athens, Byblos and Sidon on the Mediterranean. Some other cities were near the coast, such as those in the Nile Delta, and Linzi in what is now China. Warofdreams talk 23:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

However, I doubt whether Athens had much real importance in 992 B.C., which falls pretty much into the "Aegean dark ages" (after the fall of the Mycenean palaces and before the rise of the city-states). The 825 B.C. map shows Tanis, Gaza, and Sidon as smaller than Tyre, and doesn't show Athens at all. AnonMoos (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The Zhou dynasty 1000 B.C. map shows the area of Chinese rule barely touching the coastline... AnonMoos (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Еще Раз-Путин?

I read that after having served two four-year terms as president, and then gone on a four-year shirtless media tour, Vlad the Unstoppable will, unless he is stabbed, poisoned, drowned and penectomized, return in 2012, for another two six-year terms. Is this correct? μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

President of Russia: The Constitution of Russia also restricts the period during which a person can hold the office of the President to two consecutive terms. There is no limit to the total number of terms that a President may serve, just a limit on successive terms.

The Term length in the infobox says: Six years beginning in 2012; four years until then; renewable once.

So, it seems constitutionally OK. But, of course, WP is not a crystal ball. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There's been a lot of discussion amongst Russia-watchers about whether Putin will go for the Presidency again, or stay in as the Prime Minister. It's clear that at the moment he's making a show of demonstrating that most politicians are loyal to him and not Medvedev. Whether that is because he is planning to run against Medvedev, or just because he is putting Medvedev in his place before letting him proceed again, is anyone's guess at this point. Both options have their political strengths and weaknesses. There was an article on this very recently in the New York Times. Update: Actually, it turns out that just today it is reported that Medvedev has proposed that Putin run for Presidency in the next election, and Putin has apparently accepted. So it seems pretty fait accompli. There is no political opposition of any strength to Putin in Russia. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, just spotted this. From what I understand, there's nothing illegal about what Putin's doing at all. The President of the Russian Federation decides what is legal and illegal as there is no actual check on power interestingly enough, but that is knowledge from three years ago, though even without that, he is able to rub for the reaon that Jack cited above. It's a bit unorthodox for us Yankees, but it's their (Russia's) law. There was never any real doubt that Putin would return. 12 more years 12 more years! :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 26 Elul 5771 05:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I only comprehended about half of that, Sir William. You totally lost me with the bit about it being the Yankies' law. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, whoops, I messed that up. I meant it's unorthodox for us Americans, but it is Russia's law nonetheless. I have corrected it now. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 26 Elul 5771 15:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason it isn't illegal isn't because whatever the President says goes in Russia, it's because the Russian constitution says it is legal. It's not clear that Putin is 100% "above the law," though he definitely runs enough of things there to appear that way. But if he was flagrantly and obviously breaking the law left and right it's not clear that people would just shrug it off. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

When I say that, I mean any constitutional changes he wants, he gets as the Duma is a rubber-stamp parliament and there is no check on his power any more (those were slowly eroded away according to what I have read and heard from scholars of Russian politics). I probably should have been specific as to what I meant. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 26 Elul 5771 15:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeees, I think that would be best. Saying precisely what one means is not exactly unheard of around these parts.  :) -- 19:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I always am caught between going by WP:CLUE, which risks people not getting what I am talking about, and WP:NOCLUE, which results in annoyed replies of "I know what you are talking about". I am starting to favour no clue more as it tends to be the case in my daily life. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 27 Elul 5771 15:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are Russian politics so predictable?

So, ever since my AP Comp Gov class when we studied Russia back in... 2008 or 2007 I think; I came to the realise that the question of who holds the Russian presidency (the only office with actual power in the Russian Federation) can be predicted years in advance (this was after one of the top Scholars on Russia from Columbia U basically hammered a similar point home for us. I said to myself that after Putin fulfilled the two consecutive terms, he would have someone take his place and then come back four years later. I saw in 2009 or 2010 that Medveadev had changed the law so that any president after him will have two six years terms available rather than just the two four year ones. I knew who that was for then. This morning I looked at the Russian Elections of 2012 page and was I surprised to see that Meveadev endorsed Putin as his sucessor? Not at all. So, why do I have a good feeling that Vladimir Putin will be president in 2023 (possibly with none of the no-more-than-two-consecutive-terms-at-one-time still in place to stop another election bid)? Or, the better question is, why is Russia like this? Why does it seemingly not have the ability to be a liberal democracy? (Not that Putin's elections are not the will of the people even without vote-rigging, but still) Is there any indication within the Russian populace as well that the majority dislike this arrangement? Sorry if this is a bit incoherent and rambling btw, but it's a bit late. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 26 Elul 5771 05:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, if you are correct then Russia will have more chance to ascend back to socialism! →Στc. 05:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Putin will win just as surely as the Sun will set in West. Unless the Communist Party can pull of a coup of some sort (any type in this case, but best to wait for the oil money to dry up :p) Also, please excuse me if the OP sounds like a rant. I am wondering basically what studies have been done of the Russian political psyche I guess that make this sort of thing possible. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 26 Elul 5771 05:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

American politics are way more predictable, a right-wing candidate has won every time since 45! Public awareness (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama is right wing? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well you know it's always going to be someone business friendly, etc in the US. In Russia, you know it's going to be the same guy twelve years from now (barring any unforseen occurences that render him incapable of executing the office.) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 26 Elul 5771 17:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you read Democracy Derailed in Russia by M. Steven Fish? Gabbe (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't say I have. Is it good? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 26 Elul 5771 17:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I spoke to a couple of Putin supporters in Moscow. I question why, with Putin clearly amassing as much power as possible, they weren't alarmed. They said they wanted the President to be more powerful – Russia is a big country, they said, and they were both fearful of the federation breaking up as it had in the 1990s, and of the rich exploiting the vastness of the country. I believe that it is the fundamental difference that the more extreme Putin becomes the less (and not more) problem he has which creates this situation. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems like there is a desire in Russia to have a strong central authority. It seems to have always been that way. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 26 Elul 5771 17:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

what are actors who appear in porno films but don;t have sex in the film called?

what are actors who appear in porno films but don;t have sex in the film called? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.245.224 (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Extras? Bielle (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Why does North Korea seem to be so obsessed with its military?

I'm astonished that a country with is pretty much as poor as many African countries and makes my country (the Philippines) look like Singapore when it comes to its economy be so obsessed with their military, and nuclear weapons. I know they have a Military first policy but couldn't they at least pour more money into helping their starving countrymen and improving their way of life instead of improving their military because of their fear that South Korea will attack them (usually because the North attacked them first)? I know that their military is one of the largest in the world, but at what cost to everything else? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The people who make the decisions and who run the country are not poor. It's their own wealth they are protecting. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

We have an article Son'gun. However, you should be aware that in the North Korean leadership view they're single-handedly facing down the United States (not merely South Korea), and they have cynical motives as well (a perusal of Chapter III of Goldstein's Book might be illuminating...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The belief of constant existential threat is one of the most common and most effective ways to justify extreme measures of control. By militarizing the entire country under a strict hierarchy, you make sure that the employment rate is near 100%, and that nearly everyone is under strict observation and discipline. Nuclear weapons are useful for avoiding forcible external "regime change" of the sort seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada, Cuba (failed), and so on. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

What Mr.98 said. If Libya, Iraq, or Afghanistan had a military like North Korea does they would not be currently occupied by the US/US funded forces. Cuba only survived because they were backed by the USSR military, than when the USSR collapsed, the US didn't have a good excuse to invade them anymore. The US thought they could take Vietnam. If the US knew they were as strong as they were/as hard to defeat as they were, Vietnam would not have been ransaked. So, pretty much all nations that don't bow to the west must be prepared to defend themselves by force. Public awareness (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

To say that doesn't necessarily mean that the North Korean people wouldn't be better off under a more Western-style regime; nor does it mean that "the West" (vaguely construed) necessarily forces an iron will on other nations. It's just a realpolitik statement about a country that sponsors terrorism, acts belligerently to its neighbors, and commits huge human rights violations against its own people. If you want to do all those things and have the US keep a good distance from you, make sure to have a couple of nukes in your back pocket, or something comparable. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Governments can be as evil as they want so long as they are pro-US. Suharto, Pinochet, Mubarak, Israel; the US backed them all heavily with military equipment. Public awareness (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Only Suharto in the above list remotely approaches the North Korean leadership level of destroying the well-being of the inhabitants of one's own country. Nice how your list puts Israel as a whole on the same level with named dictators -- thereby implying all kinds of things which mostly aren't true... AnonMoos (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC) AnonMoos (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The short, top of the head, list wasn't about dictators, it was those who mostly fit the "sponsors terrorism, acts belligerently to its neighbors, and commits huge human rights violations against its own people." description 98 wrote. Israel fits all three with their near daily bombings of civilian buildings and sniping of civilians, to their constant occupation of Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, and the many systemic rules which make Israel an apartheid state. Public awareness (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That's nice -- fewer people have died on all sides during the whole last 75 years of Jewish/Israeli vs. Arab fighting than died in one year in Darfur, yet the curiously-selective indignation of people like you remains unaffected... AnonMoos (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

How many died during racial segregation in the US or apartheid in South Africa? very few? I guess that means there was no real problem. I guess most people, including "people like [me]" hold "developed" nations to a higher standard than others when it comes to human rights and belligerence. I am quite pleased that South Sudan did win its independence, it's a shame little was done to support their fight. Hopefully Palestine will win its independence too and the Israeli colonization and military occupation end. Public awareness (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop soapboxing on the Reference Desk with irrelevant material, thank you. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

North Korea has a reputation to uphold. It ain't easy being part of the Axis of Evil, ya know? It takes a continual commitment, which means time and money. ←baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the North Korean government has no claim to legitimacy, a strong military is needed to ensure that the population won't rebel (or, if anybody does, they will be killed). StuRat (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Like in The Wizard of Id, when they said all government funding was being channeled to the military: "When the revolt comes, we'll be ready." ←baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

September 25

H. B. Martin

Does anybody know anything about the identity of H. B. Martin who drew this image? Where was he from and when did he lived and did he ever visit Polynesia?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I can find two artists named H. B. Martin, and I don't know if either is this guy. One was a staff artist with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, see [1]. The other wrote and illustrated books on golf history, see [2] and [3]. There is also an RAF officer: [4]. I did find This picture, which may have been the Post-Dispatch artist. There's yet another Harry B. Martin mentioned here: [5]. This book has an illustrator named H.B. Martin. Not sure which one, if any of the already noted, it is. Maybe some of those will give you some leads. --Jayron32 03:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've tracked it down to a man name Henry Byam Martin, but I'm not sure which one. There seems to be more than one a British captain and another an American painter [6]. Which one is the right one? Please tell me there date of birth and death also. Thanks.

They are the same person. Henry Byam Martin (1803-1865) was a British captain and artist who visited America in the 1830s and Polynesia in the 1840s. Biography here.--Cam (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way the images's caption at this page says "Teriitaria, eldest daughter of king Tamatoa III de Raiatea was the concubine of Pomare II who married her sister Teremoemoe. In 1819 the king of Huahine, Mahine, gave her her title. She was passionately hostile to the protectorate and led the revolt of 1844-1846."--Cam (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I have started Henry Byam Martin any help appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody know if the little boy in the image is Pomare III? The site doesn't say other than it's Queen Teriitaria Ariipaea who was the one of the boy-king's regent and aunt. If it is then it can't be a life depiction since he died in 1827, thirteen years before Martin came to Tahiti.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

With the information on the French website, and knowing when Martin visited Tahiti, there is no reason at this point to believe that the child is Pomare III. The best reference would be the book The Polynesian Journal of Henry Byam Martin which probably includes this illustration.--Cam (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Publishing Editorial content on my blog.

Hi, I want to publish newspapaer editorial contents on my blog page on daily basis. And I will mention the full name of Newspaper and writer. I want to know if I will have to take premission from the newspaper authority or I can post it directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.96.217 (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a question for legal advice, which we are not allowed to answer. But as a first approximation, anything that doesn't say it is in the public domain is Copyright and you may not reproduce it in any form without permission. This includes most material on the web. --ColinFine (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Destroying the USA's Economy

Would the USA's economy crumble to pieces if China and Japan simply asked for their debts to be paid, or would other mesasures be necessary to ensure the fall of capitalism? →Στc. 06:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think if we could cause a nuclear war, that would probably do the trick. :p I'm curious about this though (I don't think China would want to destabalise the US economy like that because it would cause a lot of panic and be bad for business) and will watch it as I don't have anything of actual value to add this atm. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 26 Elul 5771 06:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't owe China that much money. The biggest entity bankrolling US debt is bond holders in the US itself. Likely a "demand" like that would be met by just devaluing the currency or some other similar trick, which might be bad for the US, but it wouldn't necessarily be a catastrophe. It certainly wouldn't cause the fall of capitalism, which would be alive and well in many other parts of the world even if the US went up in a puff of hypothetical capita-smoke. SDY (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be alive and well in China and Japan, anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think a better question would be: if the US economy collapsed what would the effect be on the world economy? (Note: this is not a request for violations of WP:CRYSTAL by Wikipedians, but rather the fetching of the opinions of overconfident economists) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 26 Elul 5771 06:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Most of the damage of the US economy collapsing would be felt in the western world. Nations like Cuba and North Korea would go unaffected as they are disconnected. I think African and Asian economies would continue to grow, just at a slower rate. It could actually be a blessing to some nations in that they could begin to create their own industry as they would have less competition from US industries that have the benefit of being long established and are protected by tariffs on manufactured goods.

It is important to note that while the US is the largest economy, a lot of it is self-consumed, which is why its 3rd in exports. The amount of exporting/importing a nation does shows how important it is to other nations. List of countries by importsList of countries by exports.

I also think those in control of the US wouldn't care a whole lot if the US did collapse as many of them already have millions in assets in foreign nations or are rich enough to move anywhere they want. The only Americans who would suffer greatly are the bottom 290 million.

To the original poster, the US spends almost as much money on its military than the rest of the world combined for a reason. Foreigners will get there money back if and when the US says they can have it back; at least in a crisis situation they could say that. But really, they would probably just cut social services like hospitals, schools, and roads or devalue their currency. Rich people can just switch over their fortunes into gold or such before hand, so devaluing the currency is an option for those in power/rich. Public awareness (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Let us not forget that 25% of the USA's national debt goes to China, and a fair portion (I can't remember the numbers for this) to Japan. What I am trying to find out is what it would take to topple the USA's economy. →Στc. 07:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

China and Japan cannot demand that the U.S. redeem a bond before its maturity date. If they do, the U.S. can simply refuse, as it's under no obligation to pay back debt before the agreed-upon maturity date. In a case where China or Japan become hostile to the U.S., the U.S. would simply refuse to honor any debt it owes to those countries without risk of a credit downgrade. No country, after all, can be expected to fund its enemies. In such a case, China and Japan would be screwed, not the US. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The question really boils down to, "what happened if the US defaulted on its sovereign debt?" The answer is complicated. Google "US debt default" comes up with about a million different opinions — some more ideologically informed than economic, to be sure — on the way it might play out. It wouldn't necessarily "topple the US economy". Sovereign default has happened before in many other countries. In the short run it ruins the investors who are owed money, and then results in higher interest rates in the long run. That's not good, and is worth avoiding (especially if you are a citizen of the defaulting country), but it's not the economic WMD you seem to be imagining. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As noted previously, China and Japan can't demand payment before the debts are due. However, they could refuse to loan more money once the current debts are payed off. The US would thus have time to find other sources of money or restrict spending or raise taxes. I suspect that China would no longer be given Most Favored Nation status for trade, though, and might lose a good chunk of it's export market as a result. Japan, unlike China, is a peaceful democracy which no longer occupies it's neighbors (like Tibet) or threatens to invade others (like Taiwan), so wouldn't have MFN pulled. It might be forced to fully pay for it's own defense, though. StuRat (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no way at this point that the US would engage in a trade war with China, which is what modification of the MFN status would mean. As Thomas Friedman has written a bunch of times, this would be suicide politically. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Why ? China appears to have a lot more to lose. The US could find cheap goods from a dozen other nations with low wages, no environmental protections, no unions, etc. StuRat (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If China, Japan or anyone else demanded repayment of US Treasury or other national bills (i.e., debt), the quick and quite accurate answer would be, “You are free to sell them on the open market.” Doing so in significant quantity, of course, would result in a dramatic drop in value, which would (1) really mess up the balance sheets of the central banks (all of them) holding such debt; (2) raise the future interest rates required for the US to sell debt, thereby sharply increasing future budget deficits; and (3) have a knock-on effect to the US and world economy. The drop in global demand would hit hardest the exporting economies, such as China. In other words, this would be a really, really stupid thing for China to do, and so they won’t.

StuRat, If the US were willing to play unfairly with China, why would other economies trust us? [ADD: The majority of China's exports are by foreign-invested enterprises, which means a trade war first hits the wrong targets.] DOR (HK) (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what's "unfair" about the USA pulling MFN status from China. They continually hold down the value of the yuan, and that alone would be justification. Add to that them having inadequate safety checks to prevent them from shipping deadly products, lack of environmental regulations, human rights abuses, lack of democracy, their occupation of Tibet, threats against Taiwan, support for the genocidal government of Sudan, suppression of their Muslim minority and other minorities, etc., and you have plenty of justification. I imagine other nations with those characteristics might be worried, but that's a good thing, if it gets them to reform. StuRat (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Dictionnaire illustré de la Polynésie, sous la direction de F. Mercerau

Does anybody know when Dictionnaire illustré de la Polynésie, sous la direction de F. Mercerau is dated from? Is Mercerau still alive or dead? Can someone also help me ask the French wiki also since I think they would know too.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be 1988. And the man in charge was François Merceron, not Mercerau. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

2 questions about sign language

1. do aspies use sign language?

2. what sign language is used in singapore? asl? bsl? csl? or? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.17.244 (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

For your second question, see "Sign language in Singapore". Gabbe (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

For your first question, do you have some reason to believe the answer is no? Sign languages are human languages which are used and develop in exactly the same ways as spoken languages (see Nicaraguan Sign Language for example) and so there is no prime facie reason to suppose that a person with Asperger's or any other condition would have more or less facility with manual than with spoken language (unless the condition affected their motor control, of course). --ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

For your first question II: you should have reason to believe the answer is yes, and even that they could be better off using it, as an aid to supplement to a disturbed communication ability. The whole idea is not completely new. See Picture Exchange Communication System for a form of augmentative and alternative communication. 88.8.79.204 (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

On question 1, I read a blog entry once from somenone that did, apparently in particularly stressful situations they became unable to talk at all and reverted to sign language, and had to have a close friend around that could understand it. Myself, I would find it even more awkward to communicate like that than talking, in part it would just feel wrong given that I am physically capable of speaking, and also odd, because only a very few people would understand what I was saying, and the others would be watching and a little confused. 148.197.80.214 (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

See Selective mutism for some discussion of that condition. I haven't read the article, so I'm not sure if it discusses Aspergers or Autism in general, but the general features are probably the same as for people not on the Autism spectrum. --Tango (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Pornography in different cultures

La grande Epidemie

This is inspired by StuRat's question about erotic art in constellations. Western society looks down on pornography, even though it's no secret that a large percentage of the population watches it. Why is it a taboo, despite being popular? Also, how widespread is this stigma against watching pornography? Is it common to all cultures of all time, or is it quite specific to modern Western societies? --140.180.16.144 (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

One place to start might be Anti-pornography movement, and the references there. Also, note your verb: watching porn only became widespread with video recorders. Looking at porn became mass-market with the launch of Playboy. Reading porn dates back to well before Fanny Hill. Do live performances count as porn, in the pre-VHS days? Not sure, but it will affect your answer. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, and specifically The Miller's Tale, were rather pornographic reading, IMHO. StuRat (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The anti-pornography movement article seems to be from a very modern standpoint and lacks any history (even though it discusses various ancient religious texts). In American, the stance against open discussion of sexuality is often called Puritanism, even though, as that article says, the use of "puritan" as an antonym of "hedonist" isn't historically accurate. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

One reason is that men and women have very different sexual motivations and expectations of what is reasonable, which on balance makes women typically far more opposed to pornography than men. This leads to a taboo based on the fact that most men would prefer that the women they know do not have accurate information about the extent to which they consume pornography. 69.171.160.138 (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this in itself a cultural phenomenon, or does it have some biological basis? I know this is hard to judge, but if it's case in almost all cultures throughout human history, I'd consider it to have a biological basis.

@BrainyBabe: I meant consuming pornography in any way: watching, reading, listening, looking at, etc. I was under the impression that porn is as old as literate human society itself. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is pornographic except that a culture makes it so. Some things deemed pornographic may be unsafe or unhealthy, but they are not classified on those accounts. I doubt one has to be a literate culture to have a sense of pornography, though I don't know of pre-literate ones that did, as we are, by definition, missing written records. Pictures themselves tell us nothing about how the culture viewed such activities. Bielle (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Venus of Willendorf-24,000 year old porn?? Public awareness (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's strictly biological. There are genes on the Y chromosomes of all vertebrates other than fish, most amphibians and some birds (which have ZW/ZZ chromosomes for sex gametes), effecting the development of hormones (androgens) and the limbic system that are thought to be responsible for males' more promiscuous mating strategies which are the most favorable for propagation of their genes, in contrast to females' more advantageous strategy of less promiscuity and more nesting and nuclear family based child rearing behaviors. Our article on Sexual dimorphism glosses over sexual behavior differences for some reason, and Animal sexual behaviour tries to cover too much to be useful for describing generalities, so see [7], [8], [9] (a review of The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature), [10], etc. 69.171.160.56 (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think this taboo your speaking of is a part of "modern Western societies", just the US. Many western nations have civil rights that allow women to go topless, but the US doesn't. I'm in Canada, and I can recall numerous times at various gatherings where there is random porn on tv and no one cares, and I've gone to strip clubs (where they actually strip, not like in the US) with friends and it's no big deal. Isn't it mostly the highly religious christians/fundementalists plus some types of feminists who are against porn? Prostitution, a step beyond porn, is legal in many western nations such as Australia, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, and quasi-legal in Canada, though is still a crime in the US. So I'm pretty sure western society is not against porn, it's mostly the US. Public awareness (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Even so, if your grandmother or your child's school teacher were coming to visit you, would you leave your porn mags lying around on the coffee table open at the most masturbation-inducing picture? I suggest not. In that sense, it's definitely "taboo", but it's really more a question of appropriateness, not of taboo per se. Like, there's no taboo against an adult couple having sex, but there is against letting the kiddies take part. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Prostitution is a crime in the US." Not true, at least not in some part of US, Bunny Ranch is a legal, licensed brothel in Mound House, Nevada, United States. Royor (talk) 06:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so not that society wants to ban porn or makes people who watch it feel shame, just the idea that you should keep it to yourself around certain groups, kinda like farting or burping, acceptable around same-sex friends, less acceptable with opposite-sex not close friends, or your boss. Than I would say that it's partially taboo in most nations where porn is legal as there are age restrictions in most nations on the sale of porn. Public awareness (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of gatherings you're going to, Public awareness, but watching random porn at a party is not something people normally do in Canada. And women can walk around topless in Ontario, at least, but how often do you actually see that? I've seen a couple of times, aside from Caribana or the Pride Parade in Toronto, but this also isn't something people normally do. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean watching porn on purpose, just if the tv is on in the background and it stays on till 3am, sometimes R rated material comes on, and no one cares. Also I was going off the wikipedia definition of "A taboo is a strong social prohibition (or ban) relating to any area of human activity or social custom that is sacred and forbidden based on moral judgment and religious beliefs." While woman are rarely topless besides the beach or special events, its far from "forbidden", and of course porn is even further from forbidden in Canada. Why I thought it was closer to taboo in the US is that people actually protest against porn stores, and any female nudity is illegal in public, and that besides a small rural area of the US, prostitution is illegal, this all being different than several other western nations. Public awareness (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the social issues and desire of certain lawmakers, I don't know whether you can really say there are more legal restrictions on pornography when properly rated and controlled in the US, then Canada and some of the other countries you mentioned (like Australia and Germany), thanks partially to the current intepretations of the first amendment in the US. See for example Simulated child pornography (also Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors), Zoophilia and the law, Rape pornography, Obscenity and Pornography by region. There are cases like Max Hardcore which are still weaving their way through the US court system, their outcome will give a better bearing on the situation in the US. (Also there doesn't seem to have been any real test of written material in the US, some have been successfully prosecuted but they never went very far in the court system.) But a lot of the stuff which is still uncertain in the US seems clear cut banned in other countries. (While the laws haven't always been tested that well in other countries, their legal systems and interacting laws seem to make it generally less likely the decisions and laws will be overturned.) P.S. Whatever people may think of such extreme pornography, due to the lack of legal restrictions on less extreme pornography it's the primary area of variance in such countries. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Lots of unsupported troll-porn here coming from Pubic awareness who seems to know only one thing: USA=BAD, regardless facts, sources, or reason. μηδείς (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious. U mad bro? Public awareness (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you seem to be a little too fond of aggressive polemical statements which are clearly not always backed up by facts. I know of a BDSM-related "graphic novel" project (i.e. a non-children's comic book which was not in fact out-and-out pornography) which was partially torpedoed in the late 1990s by Canadian customs regulations, so don't tell us that Canada is the exactly the same as Stockholm in the 1970s, because I don't think it is... AnonMoos (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I know, that's why I said "I would say that it's partially taboo in most nations", most, because there could be an oddball culture I'm not aware of, and Canada is included in most. In the west, porn is not forbidden, like in many other parts of the world, but most westerns act discreetly with their porn. So porn is less taboo in the west than in most of the world. We never really looked at the question "Why is it a taboo, despite being popular?", my 2 guesses of why people hide their porn habits is out of respect for others, aka, I know I don't want to see posters of fully nude men just lying around when I go over to a girl's place. And, there is also the connection to masterbation of course, and as Jim Jefferies once said, "I do this every single $*#@ day, yet I would be mortified if any one of you was to ever see me doing this, I would want to kill myself" - so many people feel some shame over masterbation, which is than connected to porn. This shame may not be inherent for humans though, Pirahã people for one have no qualms over sex, and regularly sell sex or their wives for an hour when buying goods. Public awareness (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Archaeological finds Roland de Vaux from Qumran

What is the current fate of archaeological finds and a diary by Roland de Vaux, which he did at Qumran? I read that they arrogated to themselves the kind of archaeologists Robert and Pauline Donsel Donsel-Woot. Need more accurate information. Странник27 (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, there is a lot of controversy surrounding the work of Roland de Vaux. Start with the references on that article, and good luck. 69.171.160.138 (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

PRC's and Russia's borders

Why, despite Russia is larger than China (PRC), the latter has longer borders?--46.204.77.28 (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The map in the infobox of the article Russia should give you an idea. Russia is surrounded by a lot of sea and ocean; to the east, to the north, and to a lesser extent in the south-west. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Measuring the length of a border can vary massively (at least 50%) depending on how you measure it because of the coastline paradox if it includes some natural features (eg. a river). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Also, separately from the coastline paradox, many of Russia's land borders are likely to have been drawn as fairly straight lines (e.g. in the plains of Eastern Europe) whereas a greater proportion of China's land borders are likely to be "spiky" due to being in mountainous areas. Even a river flows somewhat straighter than a mountain range. This is likely to contribute to making Russia's borders proportionally a little shorter even while encompassing greater area. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Short answer: for the same reason a small five-pointed star has more border length than a (slightly) larger circle. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Good answer, DOR. μηδείς (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

South American pictures

I have been trying to find pictures of generic scenes of everyday life in south america at different times through the 20th century, particularly early in the century (c1900-1912), but wherever I look there are too many other pictures coming up only distantly related to South or to America or portraits of famous people, and nothing of what I want. Does anyone know of a place around the internet where I can conduct such a search better?

148.197.81.179 (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you try Google Books? They also have archives of magazines. It's a great source of public domain images. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I added "South" to the title, to make it clearer. StuRat (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How to find the original study or studies...

In reading a paper draft, I came across this claim:

As stated in a study by Nike Foundation in 2009 “women reinvest 90% of their income back into the household, whereas men reinvest only 30% to 40%”.

The link to the Nike paper didn't open. The quoted phrase can be found in dozen's of online sources. I don't think that Nike actually did the study, I think that they wrote something like, 'studies show that...'. I would like to be pointed towards the original source or sources for this specific claim. I spent quite some time googling around that phrase, but couldn't really find a genuine original source/citation. It seems more like a meme that came from somewhere and has now reproduced prolifically. Thanks if you can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.98.238.113 (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Nike Foundation's website for this campaign is www.girleffect.org. Browsing it eventually leads to this fact sheet, which attributes the statement to this source from 2003. That source only offers the attribution "Coleman referred to a study [...]". I have been unable to locate any other source pre-dating this 2003 one referring to this "reinvestment" data. As have, apparently, others; see comments for [11] and [12], for example. Perhaps you could email Coleman and ask her? Gabbe (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

End of the recent US wars in Iraq

My google-fu is failing me, partially because the word "surrender" gets used in political discourse in the US so frequently, but did Saddam Hussein's government ever actually surrender during Desert Storm or the more recent US invasion? Does anyone have a link to the text of that document, if they did? SDY (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No. The first Gulf War of course ended when the US and the rest of the coalition stopped attacking; and Gulf War II ended, as that article states, in "debellatio", a word I had never before encountered; meaning there was nothing left of the Iraqi state. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be the opposite of what LBJ did to the Vietnamese, which Tom Lehrer referred to as "escallatio". ←baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I have vague recollections of some Iraqi representative agreeing to something-or-other at the end of the first war - at the U.S. headquarters? - but I could be mixing it up with something else. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I have the same recollection, of the Coalition leaders (Powell and Schwarzkopf, I think) meeting with Iraqi generals (not Saddam himself) and arriving at a "deal" that ended the war. This appears to be alluded to in the Gulf War article:[13] ←baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A New York Times report here. The report says "Within two hours, the obviously humbled Iraqi delegation had accepted all the demands that were presented for a permanent cease-fire in the Persian Gulf war. In effect, the Iraqis had surrendered and the coalition's victory over the Government of President Saddam Hussein appeared complete." A more detailed account of the meeting of 03 March 1991 is here; The Gulf War Chronicles: A Military History of the First War with Iraq By Richard S. Lowry (pp.211-213). Alansplodge (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

However, Comet Tuttle's comments above about the 2003 Iraq Invasion appear to be correct; the final flourish of the overtly military phase was Bush's 2003 Mission Accomplished speech on 01 May. This has now become a byword for wishful thinking or hubris. Alansplodge (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Nazi insurgency

Do we have an article discussing Nazi insurgencies during the occupation of Germany after World War 2? The latter article doesn't discuss it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Does Werwolf help? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Very much, thank you. I've added an "Insurgency" section to the Allied-occupied Germany article accordingly. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Drinking on Thursdays

An odd trend I've noticed so far at college is that the "partying" weekend seems to be Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights. In my Friday classes there are a couple people who fail to show up that day because of having been out partying and drinking the night before, and the campus funded taxi program transports students on Thursday night through Saturday night. Also, With Friday being a day that, barring a long weekend, tends to have either work or school, why is it that Thursday night is also considered a party night? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I know it's considered party night in Israel because the weekend is Friday and Staurday. I can't imagine why in the US though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 26 Elul 5771 18:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Which brings the point that the question is likely highly regional or cultural in nature, so it might help to know where the questioner is referring to. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Mainly it's because there are always some students who have gone home for the weekend and they usually leave Friday afternoon, so the best time to party with everyone is Thursday. Than the real Friday comes, are students are still up for partying, so they go to it, Saturday comes, why not... Really though when I was at at school, Sunday was the only night of the week we usually didn't go out, and yes I graduated on time. Public awareness (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

When I went to school (in the USA), it was not uncommon for students to try and schedule as few classes on Friday as possible, so as to make their weekend as long as possible. There was, if I remember, even a semester when I myself had zero courses on Friday (though I was not much of a Thursday night partier). --Mr.98 (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what Mr.98 has said. I too went to school in the US and it was also what was known as a party school. (Playboy magazine had listed it as one of the top ten party schools in the country) Though it was also a leading school in my field of study. I specifically remember one semester when I had an 8am class on Fridays and would usually get some comment from other students about how early that was to be up especially on a Friday. So called "good" schedules had either no classes on a Friday or only one that started later in the morning. Also, not too late in the afternoon which would disturb plans to either start partying or going home on the weekend. Dismas|^(talk) 20:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I managed never to schedule a friday (or saturday) class as an undergrad in a major east coast school except for two classes which I did not attend except on exam dates. A 45 minute backup on out-of-town traffic from 4-8pm on thursdays was the norm.μηδείς (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Its mainly because pubs and nightclubs can't have student nights on Fridays or the weekend (locals who work during the week will want to enter at this time, and in addition will be willing to pay more per drink then students can) but they do want to have student nights (you know, because we tend to drink a lot). What day is among the least popular party night for locals (who'd rather wait til Friday), so minimises the loss of their custom, while still being most attractive to students (end of the week, only potentially missing one day of lectures/assignment deadlines etc)? Thursday!--145.100.194.198 (talk) 11:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

None of the above. Having grown up in industrial areas of the UK, I can shed light on this: weekly-paid factory workers would get paid on Thursdays for the work done the week before (the one that ended the previous Friday), and so before they got the chance to go to the bank or shopping, they got the chance to hit the bars. Of course, these days the Thursday pay day doesn't happen to the same extent, but old habits die hard. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition to this, Thursday was also the normal weekly payday for the British armed forces. A traditional saying was "The Eagle sh*ts on Thursday", in reference to the eagle that once formed part of the insignia of the Royal Army Pay Corps (in which my father served). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.194 (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The effect of history can only be minimal. The reason where I am (that is, if you believe what people think is their logic) is that Thursday nights are student nights. Friday and Saturday are dominated by older students, and where I am, squaddies. I assume the clubs and bars run it forward a day for their own convenience. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Per his userpage, Ks0stm is at the University of Oklahoma and is from Salina, Kansas, a city with two small undergraduate colleges. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the connection is shared historically for the reasons noted above inbetween the various places? --145.100.194.198 (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Not just a US phenomenon; youngters in southern England tell me that "Thursday is the new Friday"; a phrase that has even found its way into the respectable columns of Wikipedea (see Workweek and weekend#Weekends for students) and has spawned a multitude of Google results. Of course, I'm far too old for that sort of thing, prefering a quiet pint in an out-of-the-way "old-bloke's pub", where anytime that's busy is best avoided :-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have to put Publicawareness's analysis as the most valid. The college student is able to construct a schedule without Fridays, and is doing so more and more. There are some schools that are actively resisting this trend, because they are worried about image, etcetera. At CSUC where I went, Thurday is considered to be an "honorary weekend night."

However, there is another reason that is not so obvious! I think it is human nature to understand that the five day work week should eventually be shortened to a four day work week. This is a labor issue, however the origin for these type of values is the university. The university is always ahead of prevailing social values. Greg Bard (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Form my understanding of human nature, most people would prefer a 1 day workweek. At least, most people I know seem to complain about work a lot. Googlemeister (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

ancient war mechanism meaning of "engines"

Roman war engines

In Appian's History of Rome: The Spanish Wars (§§21-25) it says, The 10,000 Carthaginians who were at the gates made sallies with drawn swords and fell upon those who were working the engines. Do we (or anybody) have a further description of "engines" (as used in ~200 BC) and perhaps a picture? Same for "sallies".--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean Siege engines and Sally (military)? Heiro 20:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Now I get the swing of it.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

By Joe, I do believe you got it. You are my hero.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean "By Jove!". μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No proselytizing Jovianism in the Reference Desk please. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I could not worship a god with such a small mouth and upper lip as depicted in that article. Caracalla's more my idea of a possible pagan deity. Or Ricky Martinez (image), as Dis Pater. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

All glory to whichever deity inspired the Trebuchet! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 26 Elul 5771 21:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ricky Martinez inspired the trebuchet? :o -- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

More like the battering ram.μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The use of "engine" to mean a device providing power (car engine etc) is relatively recent. Formerly the word often used to mean what we would now call a "machine" - it's often used that way in Gulliver's Travels, for example, with The Engine being a notable case (there's also Babbage's Difference and Analytical engines. 'Fire engine' is perhaps a fossilised use of the older meaning. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Andrew is correct, Appian used the word, μηχανή or mechane.[14] Liddell's states that the Latin equivalent is machina, although that is somewhat obvious.[15] Welcome my son, welcome to the mechane. Gx872op (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. All good useful information.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan Language Census

Did the Taiwanese government conduct a language census for the different chinese dialects (Southern Min, Hakka, Cantonese & Mandarin) and minority languages spoken in Taiwan? Can you provide me with a web link that shows a lastest language census? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Taiwanese government does not seem to collect statistics in any regular way on the membership of Han Chinese people in linguistic subgroups. There seem to be only informal estimates, such as those in our article Taiwanese people. The Taiwanese government does collect data on populations of recognized indigenous groups, however. These population data appear in our article Demographics of Taiwan. Marco polo (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

September 26

Gini coefficient for house sizes.

My guess is that 80/90% of houses in The Netherlands are in a quite small size range, between 100m2 and 200m2 and I also think that in other countries there is more variation in size. Has someone every done research on this, similar to income variation? Joepnl (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are the numbers from the U.S., from the census bureau. Counts are in thousands (e.g., 988,000 houses of less than 500 sq. ft.). 1,000 square feet is 93 square meters.

Square Footage of Unit Single detached and manufactured/mobile homes
Less than 500 -- 988
500 to 749 -- 2,765
750 to 999 -- 6,440
1,000 to 1,499 -- 21,224
1,500 to 1,999 -- 20,636
2,000 to 2,499 -- 14,361
2,500 to 2,999 -- 7,589
3,000 to 3,999 -- 7,252
4,000 or more -- 4,456
Not reported (includes don't know) -- 5,529
Median -- 1,700 sq ft.
-- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I've never heard of such a statistic, and a quick search didn't reveal one to me. While Mwalcoff's numbers do give a sense of home sizes by numbers, the stats are unfortunately not very helpful when it comes to gini as many people own multiple homes/cottages. A rich man could own 10 homes scattered across the size brackets. While I have no proof, I would imagine a gini house index would correlate with wealth inequality (not income inequality-big difference), though it may change by culture, and regional land cost. Due to culture, rich people might not choose to live in excessively large homes, but prefer modesty, homes can also be an investment, in Beijing many rich people have multiple homes in the same city, just as investments, while this is less common in other parts of the world. By land value, to have a large house in Tokyo you must be rich, yet one could have an even larger house in Newfoundland and be poor, so rural vs urban would affect such an index. Just some thoughts,Public awareness (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks both. The reason for asking was what you refer to, the rich deciding to live modest. I wanted to know if one could calculate a "modesty" index for different countries by comparing the Gini coefficients for both income and housing. People owning multiple homes makes it complicated, yes.Joepnl (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

While the census bureau says the median home size is 1,700 sq ft., I've read that the average U.S. home is 2,300-2,500 sq ft. That indicates that while most people live in homes of 1,000 to 2,500 sq ft., as described above, the curve is skewed by people living in mansions. I don't think the U.S. would rank very high on your housing modesty index. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Which is good, and more honest. :) Regulations may play a big part, too. I don't even think I could find a 4000 sq area that I was allowed build a house on. Joepnl (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

economics

critically analyze the different school of thoughts of macroeconomics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.0.23.41 (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that you haven't even attempted to hide the fact that that is a homework question. We won't do your homework for you, but I will point you at Macroeconomics. That should get you started. HiLo48 (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

He didn't even say "Please". These kids today. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

One well-known basic non-technical introduction is The Worldly Philosophers... AnonMoos (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I can answer the question... Let's see... "There are many schools of thought for macroeconomics... most of them are rubbish". (Hey, no one said it had to be a good analysis... And the question did ask us to be critical). :>) Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I would go with Father Guido Sarducci and his Five Minute University,[16] in which the student's entire economics class consists of memorizing the statement "supply and demand". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

on the nature and definition of God

I was recently informed of the belief said to be held by Jewish people that God is the bond things have with each other and the sum total of all bonds between things.

If so where does Satan fit into this picture?

Is Satan then the disruptor of bonds or do bonds have states such that in the case of God the state is love whereas in the case of Satan the state of the bond is hate?

Please ignore this question if it is offensive.

--DeeperQA (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

In Judaism, the term "Satan" is usually used as "The Obstructor" or "The Opposer". That makes it more clear. Satan obstructs/opposes whatever you define God to be. -- kainaw™ 17:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah.. so I might like to kiss girls but not if she very much needs a bath. Dirt the Obstructor. --DeeperQA (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that there is not always agreement in the scholarship as to which characters from the Bible represent "Satan", and whether there is one such character or many. For example, it is commonly understood that the Serpent in the Adam and Eve story is Satan, but there isn't any textual evidence of that in the Hebrew Bible itself. Satan as a character (that is, as a direct participant in the action of the story) only appears in the Book of Job, while he is referred to tangentally in several other places; there is also some contention over whether the term Satan always refers to the Job character; or to a more abstract force which opposes God's will, it comes down to translating the term from the original Hebrew as "The Adversary" (as in, one character) or "an adversary" (as in, the concept); and the original text is not always clear. Thus, different translators will tend to put different spins on whether all of these represent the character described in Job, or as a generic term for an adversary or opposition. --Jayron32 19:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

In his translation of the Bible, Ronald Knox interpreted the character as man's adversary rather than God's. His translation of Job 1:6–7 runs: "One day, when the heavenly powers stood waiting on the Lord's presence, and among them, man's Enemy, the Lord asked him, where he had been? Roaming about the earth, said he, to and fro about the earth." Deor (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How about competitor? --DeeperQA (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How about competitor for what? --Jayron32 20:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It popped into mind when I read "...adversary or opposition." In the Christian belief Satan decided he was the equal of God and took on the roll of adversary, opposition, obstructor or competitor. It stands to reason that anything or anyone who might be viewed as the competition therefore may also be viewed as Satan and therefore justifiably treated as such. --DeeperQA (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose. Competitor is a fine synonym for the other terms as well. In Judeo-Christian thinking, God has a plan, and that which opposes that plan is evil. Whether such opposition represents a specific personification (Satan) or a more general, diffuse form of evil depends on which specific sect or religion or tradition you are working within. Whichever specific synonym of opposition or adversary is probably OK, so long as said synonym doesn't extend too far. For example, Jacob wrestled with God, and that is the source of the name Israel, which may be translated by some traditions as "struggled with God", which is kinda like "competes with God", but that shouldn't mean that Jacob should be viewed as Satan or Satanic... --Jayron32 21:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, competitor implies that both parties are seeking the same value. Satan as adversary seeks to destroy your happiness, not to achieve his own. There is a huge difference between two men actually loving the same woman or one killing a woman so the other cannot have her. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

God and Satan are both competing for your soul. That seems like a fine understanding of the situation. --Jayron32 21:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And if I say all the prayers and go to all the meetings and yet love or covet money more than God has Satan won my soul? --DeeperQA (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I was merely arguing the linguistic question, not the theological one, on the use of the word "compete". If you'd wish to have the religious discussion, I would be glad to in another venue, but here is probably not appropriate. My statement was purely on word usage, and was not an attempt to make a clear pronouncement on the need to believe the statement itself. --Jayron32 23:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking that is a question for you and your religious authority of choice. Heiro 23:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You are both right. I withdraw that question - over exposed to a life of Reductio ad absurdum. --DeeperQA (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As suggested by another user here, Satan is not God's "adversary", as God cannot be defeated. Satan instead attempts to interpose himself between God and man, and because God gave man free will, it is up to man to choose the right or wrong path. (Note that I don't necessarily buy into all of this, but that's the conventional Judeo-Christian viewpoint.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Going back to the OP's question, the premise sounds flawed to me - I've never seen or heard or read a traditional Jewish view of God that approximates to that position. Although I've not studied much Kabbala, I've read enough to know it makes many strange comments about God, which require deeper understanding than face value. For ordinary people like myself, rather than learned mystics, God is not my love of peanut butter sandwiches. A more traditional Jewish view would be that by making a blessing over a peanut butter sandwich, I transform it from something mundane and physical, into something godly. But that's not the same thing as the claim stated, which sounds quite new agey to me. Oh, and as for Satan, Jews are far less bothered about him than we are the yetzer hara, which may or may not approximate to the same thing, but the latter is far easier to comprehend... and perceive in oneself. --Dweller (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it "New Age" or is it "Star Wars"? Sounds like he's describing "The Force". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

.Satan is merely the manifestation of man's ego, or Self.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That is, I suppose, one possible interpretation, but it does not appear to be a widely-held interpretation, based on evidence at Satan. Your interpretation seems close to that of the Baha'i Faith, which is but one of the world's many religions. --Jayron32 18:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The relationship that the god of the Bible has to Satan is 'gambling buddy' as portrayed in Job. So they are competitors in that sense.Greg Bard (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

One can't define something that doesn't exist. In this case, there's no God & no Devil. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That's bullshit. One can define things which are fictional (I am not saying that God is fictional, just saying that if you hold that he is fictional, you can still define him). You aren't doing well to answer the question by refusing to answer it on the grounds that you believe that God doesn't exist. Even if he doesn't, he can still be defined. Afterall, other mythological and religious figures have clear definitions (Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, etc.) and one does not have to actually believe those religions in order to discuss and understand what the religions themselves say about their figures. So, one can certainly reliably discuss God and the Devil, and discuss what various traditions say their nature and relationship is. Please don't try to sound "smart" or "enlightened" by being dismissive and insulting about the religious beliefs of others. If you don't know the answer to the question, leave it unanswered. If you just want to be mean and insulting, take it somewhere else. --Jayron32 21:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello to you, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the reference desks have their own version of Godwin's Law: As a religious question discussion on the RDs gets longer, the likelihood of an atheist chiming in to bash religion approaches 1. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not bashing, just being practical about the topic. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm atheist too (Technically Buddhists are considered atheist, at least my sect) but I don't think that your comment was germane or helpful in this situation. I'm just saying... Rabuve (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hyphenation

"“Does Tim the jerk’s face look wonkier now, or before he paid some..." - should "Tim the jerk" be hyphenated? --2.216.135.109 (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. If his name (or nickname or cognomen) is "The Jerk", then something like:

• Tim The Jerk or
• Tim "The Jerk"

would probably be standard usage. Hyphens wouldn't be used in this way, normally. --Jayron32 21:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

September 27

Searches of US citizens at the border

Do US citizens have the right to freely re-enter the United States? If so, then what is the legal basis for allowing Customs and Border Protection officers to question and search all US citizens at the border, while other law enforcement officers throughout the country normally can't search anyone without a warrant? Ragettho (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

US Citizens are definitely not given this right. I've been searched several times at the border. I don't know what the legal basis is, but at the time they were the ones with the guns. --Daniel 01:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The relevant article is: Border search exception. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The OP needs to be aware that his premise is not entirely correct. The police can stop you for suspicious behavior. They also conduct random stoppages to verify drivers' licenses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

But they can't conduct random searches, generally speaking. They can search your stuff freely when you enter the country from abroad, including making complete copies of your computer hard drives. They can't do things like that without a warrant usually, if they don't actually have any probable cause for doing so. The border search exception is in fact a big, huge exception to the Bill of Rights, and one which has warranted quite a lot of discussion by jurists and legal scholars. The OP is correct to note there is a big difference between the border crossing situation and normal domestic situations. (It's also not clear to me that cops can stop people at random to check drivers' licenses as you assert, Bugs. It's clear that they can do so to check sobriety, but I see nothing in our random checkpoint article about checking for licenses. Googling around makes it somewhat clear that there are a lot off different practices with regards to license checkpoints, and I'm not sure there is an authoritative caselaw on it yet. Sobriety checkpoints do have major caselaw, up to the Supreme Court, and are supported by their overwhelming public safety aspects. I'm not sure the same thing is there for license verification.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

First thing the cops do when they pull anyone over for any reason is to ask for your license. If you don't have one, you in a heap o' trouble. Also, if something of questionable legality is visible, they then have "probable cause" to search you. And keep in mind that driving is a privilege, not a right. The OP's general question was whether you can "freely" re-enter the country. Depends what you mean by "freely". Being detained by customs is a part of our country's security. You know you're not smuggling something, but what about the guy next to you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about the order of things regarding be pulled over. You aren't being pulled over to check if you have a license. Checking the license is the first thing you do once you have a valid legal reason for pulling someone over. (I think you must have missed a civics class, somewhere.)

Of course if they do have probable cause they can search you. That is not in dispute. That's the entire point, in fact. They must have probable cause to search you. No matter what. That's what the fourth amendment is all about. They can check your license, but if they lack probable cause, they can't search you or your car. They will say, "can I take a look in your trunk?" and you can say, "not without a warrant, you can't."

The OP's question is whether the fourth amendment gets waived at the border, because it is not supposed to be waived anywhere else. And indeed, this is correct. It is waived at the border. It is not waived when you drive a car. The OP is correct on this front. Whether you agree with this or not is really not the issue here, Bugs! (Also, I'm not really sure if "security" in the sense you mean is really at issue here. It isn't about stopping terrorists with bombs. It goes beyond that, into "reading your e-mail, to see if you're a terrorist" territory. Don't confuse the border search exception with airline security!) --Mr.98 (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

For a gross example, if you've got a marijuana plant visible in your back seat, they have probable cause for a search. Also, they can pull you over under a pretext, such as a taillight being out. And of course the 4th amendment is waived at the border, upon entry. There are certain things you cannot bring in. Cuban cigars, for example. You can leave the US anytime you want. But coming back in, you're subject to border security. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm still baffled you're going on about probable cause. We're in agreement that probable cause allows you to be searched. That's not a question — it's actually part of the fourth amendment (have you read the fourth amendment, lately?). Crossing the border is not probable cause. And being pulled over is not synonymous with being searched — just because you have a tail light out is not probable cause for being searched. "And of course" — no, it's not "of course." See the link. It's a major exception and has been challenged in the court many times. And it's the entire point of the OP's question. And you've now gone from justifying it on the basis of security to justifying it by enforcing a pointless and failed Cold War embargo. (How copying your computer hard drive accomplishes that, anyway, I'm not sure.) None of what you've continued to write justifies your original conclusion that the OP's premises were incorrect. You seem to have either difficulty seeing that, or admitting it. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What baffles me is why the OP thinks he should just be able to waltz back into the USA without being searched. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not just the OP. It's the ACLU, it's the EFF, it's people who actually don't think we waive all of our rights just because we happen to leave the country. I fully support the government searching people it has a good reason to suspect of committing a crime. But leaving the country does not make one a criminal suspect. It's not suspicious activity unless you're a xenophobe. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The government has a responsibility to protect its borders. Searching folks entering the country is not unreasonable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the government has a responsibility to protect its borders, but it also has a responsibility to protect its citizens from domestic threats. Why have the courts allowed for a Fourth Amendment exception with respect to only foreign threats? Ragettho (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As a Romanian citizen, I cannot legally be prevented from reentering my own country. That being said, I'm pretty sure the law only applies to my person. If I bring suspicious stuff in, they're gonna take it from me at the border control (and I'll probably have to pay some fines or do some jail time, depending on what exactly it is that I was trying to bring into the country). ElMa-sa (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Pro-tip: While in International Airports in the customs area, you don't have the rights of a US citizen, so they can search you and do the other unpleasant stuff afaik (and that's what my pops says, though he's only a corporate attorney). As well, you can be randomly stopped and searched in the City of New York by the NYPD without any probable cause (trufax). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 00:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not legally anyway, at least for your second point. Terry v. Ohio (see also Terry stop) should prohibit that. NW (Talk) 19:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of Terry stops, and that's what I thought as well. It's called "stop and frisk" [17]. The NYPD uses it to keep people they consider too dark in-line. Only now are the useless NYCLU saying anything about it though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 19:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No, not legally, but the NYPD have a dozen ready-made lying excuses as to why they had probable cause, like saying that they thought that whatever you pulled out/put into/had in your pocket might be a gun. I know this both from personal experience, as well as from the Amadou Diallo case, and many others. I can probably think of one or two dozen such false searches I witnessed up close in Bronx and Manhattan. μηδείς (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Mechanics in pre-industrialisation society

Seeing the question about Roman engines reminded me of something I recently read that spoke of mechanics in early modern England. I've read plenty of works that refer to mechanics in pre-industrialised societies, but they never explain what they would do. How could I expect one of these early eighteenth-century English mechanics to sustain himself and his family? Repairing the local gentleman's coach and waggons? Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Repairing a wagon sounds like a wainwright's job. You might like to look at the broad area of the history and philosophy of science. OED3 claims 1393 in the sense of "mechanical arts" as opposed to liberal arts. 1550 is the first use of mechanic as a noun, directly related to class warfare! At this time a mechanic was any manual (possibly non-agricultural) labourer. The idea of a mechanic being a worker in physically operating machines and mechanisms seems to come at "1681 London Gaz. No. 1643/4, His Majesty having sent for Sir Samuel Morland‥was Graciously pleased to Declare, that he was highly satisfied with all the late Experiments and extraordinary Effects of Sir Samuels new Water-Engine.‥ After which, the Lord Chamberlain‥caused him to be Sworn Master of the Mechanicks." (OED3). So an early modern English mechanic could well be a wainwright, carpenter, plumber, or watchmaker. The increasing sense of mechanics being associated with engines or machines comes about with early modern mechanisation (water engines, steam engines, etc.) so from 1700 onwards in association with the development of agricultural capitalism and mechanisation in England. DS Landes The Unbound Prometheus may help here. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Blacksmiths were the village engineers, they could turn their hands to anything that involved metalwork, and there was metal in most forms of transportation. So your "early 18th-century English mechanic" was most likely a blacksmith. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Coopers similarly. 69.171.160.139 (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Millwrights.
Sleigh (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

nagar panchayat

what are the powers of a ward comissioner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.137.67 (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this what you're looking for? Willminator (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Christian College of America

Hi! I have been working on Christian College of America in Houston. But I cannot find a reference stating that it had disestablished. But I also cannot find evidence that it is still functioning.

Would anybody mind helping me with this? Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

These links might be helpful.

• Directory of Postsecondary Institutions: Volume I: Degree-Granting Institutions, 1997
• Directory of Postsecondary Institutions: Volume II: NonDegree-Granting Institutions, 1997

—Wavelength (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You can ask a librarian at Houston Community College System, based in Houston, TX.

• Ask a Librarian - Houston Community College Libraries

—Wavelength (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are there more taxicabs in Manhattan than in the other New York City boroughs?

For example, I read that in Brooklyn and in the Bronx, the percentage of people who don't own a car also greatly exceeds the national average, and also, the majority of NYC’s population lives in the outer boroughs. So, why aren't the streets of the other boroughs filled with taxis like the streets of Manhattan are? Do the outer boroughs need more taxicabs? I read that NYC wants to add 6000 more yellow taxicabs in the outer boroughs only. Willminator (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Taxicabs are a pretty expensive way to get around. They are prevalent in Manhattan (and indeed, in the really rich parts of Manhattan) because the people there can afford the luxury of a taxicab. Wilmont Poindexter IV isn't taking the bus from his Madison Avenue office to meet a client at a posh steakhouse. I wouldn't be surprised if bus ridership was higher in the outer buroughs, and likewise in Harlem or Alphabet City, than in the afluent parts of Manhattan. People in the outer boroughs may not own cars, but they also may not find taxicabs to be a reasonable regular mode of transportation. Taxicabs in New York City indicates that a 5-mile trip can cost about $14.00 or so. New York City Transit buses cost $2.75 for a local bus and $5.50 for an express bus, for a trip of any length, and transfers to other busses are free. In working class neighborhoods, there is just not going to be the demand for cabs, given the costs, and for places further from the city center, the difference in cost between taxis and other modes of transport (buses and trains) is only going to be exacerbated. --Jayron32 18:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

For information about taxicab fares, see http://www.worldtaximeter.com/.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In the boroughs people are much more likely to have their own cars, because parking is in such short supply in Manhattan. I read a few times that parking spaces in lower Manhattan rent for as much per square foot as luxury apartments. Can anyone confirm that? 69.171.160.139 (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

How does $225,000 sound? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan is by far the most densely populated of the boroughs. Gypsy cabs are not hard to get anywhere else though. It is not that there is a lack of cabs, but that yellow cabs have a legal monopoly on street hails south of Harlem, so they concentrate there taking advantage of the monopoly. μηδείς (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There aren't enough legit cabs of course. Never can find one in the rain. The yellow cab drivers also pay 300k for their licence unlike untrustworthy gypsy cabs (don't know about the limo cabs that are also sometimes called gypsy cabs as they're not supposed to pick you up), though that may have been a pity tactic so I wouldn't use the CC machine. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Elul 5771 22:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Many taxi passengers are visitors, and there are a lot more visitors in Manhattan than in the other boroughs. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This is very true, most do not venture outside of our mighty island as there isn't much of interest except the stadiums and the Bronx Zoo. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 00:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There are 13,237 yellow cabs in NYC and much of them are concentrated in much of Manhattan. NYC wants to add 6,000 yellow cabs, but in the outer boroughs only, not in Manhattan according to the article cited above. So, based on the answers that have now been provided here so far, why do the outer boroughs need 6,000 more yellow taxicabs when taxis are not nearly as needed in the outer boroughs than in Manhattan? Here's another an article about this. It is from the New York Post. Willminator (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No one, aside from the New York Rag said they don't need'em; it's possible the people that live in some other places like the nicer parts of Brooklyn have been asking their congressmen for them. I could be wrong of course. Though this sentence is interesting "At today's medallion prices, the city could reap more than $1.3 billion" - I love having a businessman for a mayor.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 03:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unlike other forms of public transit in NY, taxicabs are privately owned, though heavily regulated by the city. The city may be wanting to license taxicabs for exclusive use in the outer buroughs because there may be a demand for them there, but given the economics of the situation, there may not be a motivation for existing taxicabs to take fares in the outer buroughs; i.e. they can make more money in Manhattan. Cabs can likely make more runs of people running around points within Manhattan, then they can off of, say, intra-Queen runs or runs between Queens and Manhattan. This could be for a number of reasons. One is that the downtime in Queens, being more spread-out in density, may be greater; and a cab sitting on a curb is losing money. The other problem may be that for individual cabbies, taking a fare from Queens to Manhattan may make more money on that fare; but then you have to wait for a return fare to get back to your home territory in Queens. You could make more money in both situations by just sticking to Manhattan; this would cause a cab shortage in the outer buroughs, as people who genuinely wish to use cabs in those places may have a hard time finding one. Plus, Manhattan customers may tip better, which would be added incentive for the cabbies to stick to Manhattan even if rides are needed in the outer buroughs. Because these are privately run businesses, they are market driven, as I have described, and the market is leaving inadequate service in the outer buroughs. This is all speculation, of course, but that's at least one reasonable idea on why the proposition is the way it is.--Jayron32 03:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, looking at this more. It looks like the idea is to buy a ton of Crown Victorias, have them modified for taxi use (the people contracted for that make a bundle) have taxpayers foot the bill (I don't think they make the cabbies pay for the screens anymore), and then have the new cabbies buy medallions, each worth over 216.000 USD (did the math on a calculator) thus raking in millions for the cab modifiers and billions for the city government. Brilliant, evil, but brilliant. Hopefully the new cabs will be useful to some. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 03:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Edit: Don't the cabbies also have to buy the taxis from the city? 03:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I came across yet another interesting article about this matter. The article says that the 6000 new taxis “could deliver passengers to Manhattan, but would not be able to pick up fares there.” Based on the recent answers provided, how will the taxicab drivers make a lot money then by not being able to pick up fares in Manhattan, especially in the affluent areas of Midtown and Downtown? How will the plan improve, or not improve, the economy of the outer boroughs? Edit: This is the last follow-up question I got for this thread as I mentioned in a previous edit summary. Thank you all for your time and help! Willminator (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the outerboroughs. Gypsy cabs are already allowed to make stree hails there and the do not have to buy medallions to operate. The question is only the artificial monopoly in sub-Harlem Manahattan where a medallion is required in order to pick up a fare of the street who hasn't called into a dispatcher first. Gypsy cabs can make pickups in lower Manhattan as well, but only when they are called by phone, not from being waved down on the street. In that case they are treated as a limo-service. (You will find you can get a street pickup from an uptown bound empty limo in manhattan, so long as the driver is willing to risk that you are not an undercover TLC pig trying to bust him. μηδείς (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Taxicab cost

So, I just noticed that the reason the OP in the mother thread asked his q was because the city is adding 6.000 cabs to the fleet. What is the average cost of a Crown Victoria plus the amenities of a taxi? I know those idiotic screens are 3.000 USD alone; what's the whole kit and kaboodle (or w/e that phrase is if someone is familiar with it)? The reason I want to know this is because I'd like to know how much Michael's latest plan is going to cost NYC taxipayers (LIKE ME!!!!! D=<) <-- necessary shouting. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 00:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't cost anything if they charge a sensible amount for the medallion (i.e., the license to own and operate a taxicab). The better question is whether the industry-welfare organizations (owners and drivers) will ever allow the additional cabs to hit the streets. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It will cost the cabbies about 216.000 a piece (1.3 billion/6000) to buy a medallion. I'm talking about the purchasing and retrofitting the Crown Victorias which I believe will be on us, my good sir. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 03:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As a crown Vic owner (police interceptor model), the document in my glovebox says it was $24,000 new, but I got it at a surplus DMV auction for $2500 when it was 6 years old with 106k miles. Googlemeister (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to get off topic here, but I also own a Ford Crown Victoria with a police interceptor engine. I got the car recently in a car auction in Tampa. I was able to win the bid of $2,500 as well! It's funny to see people slowing down in the road now whenever they pass near me since my car used to be a police car. I finally get to be respected in the road. :) Willminator (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The gorvernment-created fictive value of a medallion, not the car itself is there relevant cost. Yet another of the infinite aarguments fro free trade rather than government monopoly. μηδείς (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Russian term limits

This is something I've been wondering for a while... As I understand it, the Russian constitution forbids more than two consecutive presidential terms, hence the office-juggling double act of Putin & Medvedev. But considering Putin's popularity and his party's legislative predominance, why don't they simply change the constitution to remove the term limits language? Would that be too difficult even for Putin? LANTZY^TALK 18:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It was pretty much uneccessary for Putin to actually change the term limits provision as realpolitik allowed Putin to maintain all of his powers despite the change in title. Russia is a country which has never had much tradition of the rule of law as distinct from the cult of personality of its leaders; indeed for all of Soviet history, the person who was widely recognized as the leader of the Soviet Union changed titles willy-nilly as well, without any real difference in changes of actual power in the country. What Putin is doing isn't all that unusual (indeed, it is historically expected) given how Russian politics has long worked. One can think, perhaps, of the Russian Constitution as a nice piece of paper, but one which ultimately has little effect on the actual exercise of political power in Russia. If Putin were declared "head chef" or "starting goalkeeper of the Russian National Ice Hockey Team" it likely wouldn't make a lick of difference to how Russian politics works. --Jayron32 19:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

But does Putin really have total control over Medvedev? I vaguely recall a few instances where they have recently butted heads, suggesting that Medvedev might have the political power to defy or at least stymie Putin from time to time. And what if they had a real falling-out? Wouldn't it be safer, from Putin's perspective, to remain permanently in the more powerful, prestigious office? LANTZY^TALK 21:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the first question, Medvedev, as actual president who stands to be replaced by Putin when he returns to the office (a situation everyone knew would occur sooner or later), the best he can do is delay political action until Putin formally returns to the office. Given that, it would poltical suicide to oppose him on any matter of substance; though of course the two men may have their disagreements. And for the second question, the more prestigious, powerful office is the one being occupied by Vladimir Putin. --Jayron32 23:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Putin is probably powerful enough to have himself formally appointed dictator-for-life. But there are good reasons, both domestically and internationally, for him not to do so. Anyway, we'll see what he does when these next two terms are up. Anything is fair game. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've suspected that public relations is the main reason that Putin hasn't tried to abolish term limits, but that's just my guess. Technically speaking, how difficult would it be to alter the constitution in this way? LANTZY^TALK 21:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Not in the least bit. There is no legal check on the President's power. Any change he wants, the duma (their parliament) will rubberstamp it for him (Source: Old AP Comp Gov Class). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 01:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

[Disregard that, the OP knew that and I misread his question]. Putin probably will eliminate term limits in his next twelve years, but only time will tell. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Elul 5771 22:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think a more likely possibility is the term will again be reduced to four years with someone stepping in for those four years then for them to decide 6 years was betterand revert back with Putin coming back for another 12 years, presuming he really wants to. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Elementary study guides to Metaphysics?

I am sorry, is anybody anywhere actually providing a basic course of Metaphysics as a real school discipline, like in an elementary school? I need a very elementary study guide to the basics of Metaphysics and metaphysical thinking (as opposed to dialectical or positivist thinking), in the shape of something like an ordinary school study-book (imagine a course-book on Arithmetic or, for instance, Music, or Logic in the elementary school). I mean, just a set of rules or introduction to specific methods, inherent for this discipline, which provide a new skill for the disciple and enable to solve new problems. (Most of all I am interested in the classical Christian Metaphysics of Middle Ages, as a specific scientific and cognitive method). Can anyone advise something like this? Because everything I found on the net seems to be either not differentiating Metaphysics from all other Philosophy, or just be a bunch of babble. Thank you in advance. 195.50.1.122 (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Metaphysics spans essentially all cultures' religions and mysticism, and it's an understatement to say that those are not coherent taken together, so I think the closest you are going to get is a "world religions" unit for an elementary social studies class. The classical Christian metaphysics of the middle ages are primarily from Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, based around Aristotle's Metaphysics which was a little more structured and limited than general Metaphysics these days. 69.171.160.139 (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Metaphysics is not at all limited to religion and mysticism. Metaphysics is about the fundamental nature of reality, starting with the question of whether there's such a thing at all (see e.g. philosophical realism, phenomenalism, solipsism).

In the early 20th century there was a significant contingent of philosophers who affected the position that it was possible to do without metaphysics at all. It was a silly position and I don't think it's taken particularly seriously anymore. --Trovatore (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, metaphysics is certainly not a religious science per se, although any serious religion has an implied or explicit metaphysics. But so does science. The questions of what it is to exist, what it is to be a thing, a person, and so forth, are all metaphysical questions. The physical sciences rest on certain metaphysical presuppositions, that things have knowable natures, and so forth. Unfortunately, much thinking is muddled and poorly conceptualized. Thomistic metaphysics, for example, has the mystical notion that there exist "essences" which can change leaving all the attributes the same, thus allowing bread to become the body of Christ without any change in accident. Cartesian dualism leads to the question of how the ghost moves the machine. Materialism in the crude sense leads to the denial of the reality of the mind. Concepts like entity, attribute, relation, substance, form, cause , effect, essence, accident and so forth are all indispensable, and all metaphysical. That being said, I am aware of no good primer. μηδείς (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The only organisations I am aware of who may offer such courses are Christian Science and Theosophy, and maybe Rosicrucians or Gnostics. I'm sure if the OP wished he could make contact and ask there. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Tammy, you're making the same mistake! That's not what metaphysics means; see my remarks above. All philosophy has to deal with metaphysics. The ones that affect to deny they're doing so, like logical positivism, in my opinion wind up, not with no metaphysics, but just with bad metaphysics. --Trovatore (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Metaphysics isn't very popular in Anglo-American philosophical circles (influences of positivism, analytical philosophy, etc), and because it closely interacts with other areas like epistemology it's not really a separate discipline. It's more popular in European traditions, but the European version (drawing on Heidegger, Bergson, etc) tends to be very complex. John Hospers' classic college textbook An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis has some sections on metaphysics, and this is probably as straightforward as you're going to get. John F Post's Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction is well-regarded; I've not read it but it's likely to be harder going. But if you want a book on medieval metaphysics a contemporary textbook isn't going to be much help; you might be better with a text on medieval theology. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of misinformation going on here, so let me clarify a few things. Legitimate academic metaphysics doesn't involve religion or theology at all. That is considered a separate type of theory (for instance Divine command theory as a response to the metaphysical question 'what is value?'). "Theosophy," "Rosicrucianism," and "Gnosticism" are not metaphysics, they are esoterism. "Mysticism" is also most often esoterism, however it isn't that simple either. "Mysticism abandons philosophy, logic and reason in that it involves accepting sincerely p and not-p as both true at the same time. However there are some legitimate excursions into mysticism, as for instance later Heidegger and later Wittgenstein. The main criterion for legitimate academic, scholarly metaphysics is the use of reason as a method toward your metaphysical models, theories, claims, etcetera. Once you accept a faith claim as an axiom in your metaphysical system, you are no longer "doing metaphysics." Colapeninsula is correct in everything he or she said and Trovatore is incorrect in his claim that anti-metaphysics is somehow silly, and that it not one of the major prevailing views in academia. However that question isn't so simple either. As a pragmatic matter metaphysics is completely irrelevant to your everyday life. At no point should any average person be making decisions one way or the other based on some metaphysical model they have adopted. They simply aren't qualified, and fortunately the answers to almost all of the questions we face in our lives no longer require a metaphysical level of analysis to answer. Only people doing research into metaphysics have a lot of situations arise to where their metaphysical model enters into their behavior. Whether or not metaphysics is an appropriate subject matter for children is not at all clear either. Certainly, getting children to think about these questions is wonderful, however in teaching them introducing any bias would be very unfortunate. It is just unfair to tell a child "how it is" metaphysically when they are not really equipped to be able to question the subject matter being presented. It has the effect of prejudicing them forever as to the answer to these questions. Questions of which no answers can ever really be gotten. Greg Bard (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

To argue that metaphysical assumptions aren't relevant in everyday life is rather odd. Whether you accept western medicine or alternative medicine is based on metaphysical assumptions whether or they are explicitly and coherently expressed. Identity politics holds the collective to be more significant than the individual. All sorts of various beliefs hold evil to be a substance, rather than a relationship, and things to be good or evil not based on results but mere existence. Guns are evil to liberals, not criminals. Drugs are evil to conservatives, not their abuse. Negroes are have (or had) the mark of Cain according to Mormons. Humans minds can be uploaded into computers according to most AI thinkers. These views may be nonsense, faith-based, and only implicitly held. But they are metaphysical ones. And they have a huge impact on our lives. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I second the recommendation John Hosper's book above. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't need metaphysics in order to reject alternative medicine. You only need science. In fact what you have done is provide perfect examples of how inserting metaphysics into decision-making is a bad idea. Greg Bard (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You really can't have science without a metaphysical underpinning. You can pretend you don't notice it most of the time if you want to, but that just means by default that your metaphysics is realist. Which is fine with me; I am a realist. But then as soon as you get to QM you're going to have issues, ones that in my view have not been resolved. --Trovatore (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You are talking about understanding. A person doesn't actually need that level of understanding for almost anything in their lifetime. If you hear a bump in the night, you really should be using metaphysics as an explanation as a very far last resort. That is all I am saying. We can take science very far toward the answers we need in life. You never really need to hinge your decision-making on a particular metaphysical theory. Very few quantum physicists out there too, and even they don't have to resort to metaphysics as much as they used to.Greg Bard (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Trovatore is right. To assert that you accept the scientific worldview but reject any metaphysical stand is simply to mean you are ignorant of or don't care about the underlying implications of your view. That's fine, lots of people do it. But not explicitly knowing the philosop[hical underpinnings of your so-called "scientific" beliefs leaves you at the mercy of sophists and bullshitters. Ayn Rand (Philosophy: Who Needs It?) and Isaac Asimov (The Relativity of Wrong) dispel the myth of the needlessness of a metaphysics and attendant epistemology. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It just isn't that simple. Ideally, every human would live up to their intellectual potential to consider reflectively all of the various metaphysical theories, and decide for themselves those beliefs most convenient for understanding. Under this very humanistic view one's conscience would prevail and everyone would be a wonderful moral person. However, morally and metaphysically reflective people are in the tiny minute minority of the population. Also unfortunate, is the fact that everyone on earth no matter what their level of formal education on the matter sincerely believes that they are an expect on these matters. Again, a very humanistic view holds that everyone on earth is an expert on these matters (at least equally so as, for instance, the pope, or the dali lama, etcetera). As a pragmatic matter however, we really are better off listening to what academic metaphysicians and ethicists say. Also, --and up to this point I've succeeded in remaining diplomatic -- it just isn't a good idea for adults to teach metaphysics to small children, because inevitably the biases, prejudices, and dogmas of the adult work their way into the lesson. It's a shame to destroy what could otherwise end up an open-minded person. Greg Bard (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The point is that the real Metaphysics cannot contain "biases, prejudice and dogmas", by definition. Because it is, by definition, the clearest, simplest and most basic thing of all. Actually, anything containing "biases, prejudice and dogmas" is outside Metaphysics, by definition - because it is what Metaphysics is fighting with. That is Metaphysics. All the teachers say so (still not giving the full thing at once of course; but they hint in this way). Rasool-3 (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no. You seem to be equating metaphysics with either esoteric mysticism or terminological acadmeic debates. But there is no escaping a metaphysical worldview for any human. It is simply implicit and confused, rather than explicit and coherent, for most people. Children have to be taught such things as the difference between what is real and what is make-believe. In fact, they crave and obsess upon such information. And they learn such things long before science or any formal academic instruction. Not educating them in such things is not avoiding, metaphysics, it is just leaving them open to whatever nonsense might come along without the self-defense that education makes possible. Consider the implications behind the declaration of a friend of mine who, upon finding out that I was an atheist, protested, "You mean you are a Devil worshipper? But you'll go to hell!" He wasn't even capable of understanding why such a concern might not worry me. Whether you realize that you hold implicit philosophical beliefs or not, you do. It is the nature of being a conscious (semi-)adult. To quote the philosopher Neil Peart, "If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice." μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I support Medeis' view that children's thinking in general is very metaphysical (as opposed to Gregbard's opinion that children shouldn't be taught Metaphysics). I wanted to say that myself. Children's perception and thinking is much more metaphysical than adults', because Metaphysics (as a mode of thought and connection to the Source) is something immanent and natural for man, not some "perplexive abstract science", not something "artificially invented", as it is viewed upon now. It's just centuries of positivism, marxism and other ungodly techings, that made society and public education neglect the very ground, the basics, what's within ourselves from the very beginning (that is, what is natural for children - but not longer natural for adults "enriched" by positivist "rational" thinking). By the way, there is a view among modern metaphysicists (e.g. Guenon), that the worldly science (known as an exclusive "science" nowadays) emerged in the Middle Ages from sacred metaphysical science (what was then exclusively known as the real "science"), such as alchemy and etc., as its "prolongation" and exteriorization into the profane world, just its derivate, its exterior part (as Christianity itself was double - esoteric and exteriorated); but then after the deterioration of Metaphysics and of inner Christian tradition, the real science vanished, and its profane derivate is regarded up to now as the "sole" "real" science. Trovatore's and Medeis' observation that each "scientific" (even "positivist") assertion is based upon an underlying implication, which is necessarily metaphysical - is very much to the point. Of course children crave for this knowledge... as we do here :) Rasool-3 (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, no, no, no, you sure aren't reading very carefully. Esoterism, and mysticism are not metaphysics, and I have stated so very clearly. Yes, yes, yes, you are certainly correct that a person cannot help but have metaphysical beliefs, because it is part of making sense of the world. However what people do not and should not do is agonize over metaphysical theories as if something important depends on them. What people do generally, is called bracketing. Rather than wake up and seriously consider that one may be living in the Matrix, it is more reasonable to proceed with your day as if the answer just doesn't matter. Bracketing is putting the question aside and proceeding as if you have an answer. Teaching children what is real and not real doesn't involve any metaphysics at all. It only requires sensory observation (i.e. empirical science). I sympathize with your concern that one might be left open to "whatever nonsense" is out there, but just look at what actually is happening where adults are teaching children metaphysics!!! My goodness. They are better off exploring those questions on their own. Greg Bard (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether you have an immortal soul is of no importance, but bracketing is a useful concept, and the difference bewteen real and imaginary is not a metaphysical one? What is it, a chemical one? It would be bad enough that you are making up your own definitions if you weren't also contradicting yourself. Children in my family are taught metaphysical principles at a very young age, like "wishing doesn't make it so" and "you can't have your cake and eat it too." And the statement that "it only requires sensory observation" is a metaphysically ground epistemological statement. But thank you for your opinion. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thumbs up for Medeis: "you can't have your cake and eat it too" - is really a very traditionalist educational saying, reminds me something from Sufi literature. Rasool-3 (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for involvement. On Russian wiki, I was advised Emerich Coreth's "Metaphysics, A Methodical and Systematic Introduction". I had it before and I found it very helpful, although Coreth belonged to Jesuits, that is the grave-diggers of the original medieval Metaphysics (must have taken the best pearls for themselves, I guess). Still, Germans seem to be among the best in Metaphysics, after all. It is very linguistic and very reflective, as a true Metaphysics should be. It starts with a scrutinous research of the very act of questioning - which has actual parallels in real Traditions.

Colapeninsula and Medeis, I looked through the contents of John Hospers' "An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis" on google-books and failed to find any sections on Metaphysics. John Post's Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction was a little bit more helpful. But just a little bit, so as to see how Metaphysics is viewed upon in U.S. nowadays. Lack of a system, earthly newspaper-style language, neglection of previous teachers - just show the author's non-adhesion to the real metaphysical tradition; and any talks about the real teaching and about metaphysics without such an adhesion are senseless. The whole thing was made on a level of a secondary school essay (as Hospers' "Introduction" was, too), and cannot be regarded as a serious study guide, and of course cannot be regarded "classic". No research in Europe is done on such a level. Sorry. Guess, U.S. is not where such answers should be sought. I wished to talk to English here, but they seem to be busy with something else... Rasool-3 (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I should have made it clear that my recommendation of Hosper's was a general one, and not specifically in regard to Metaphysics. You are probably right that the US is not the place to look for anything worthwhile. Deconstructivism is all the rage in the US from philosophy to linguistics. Russians are lucky to be insulated from these fads. My grounding in metaphysics is from an Aristotelian, Scholastic and Randian background. I am also a fan of Spinoza and the Stoics. But all these schools are notoriously difficult and I am aware of no simple introduction. μηδείς (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Can a region from a foreign country join the USA?

Imagine I am elected president of Extremadura, a region in western Spain. Could I ask for admission as a US state? --Belchman (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course. You could be admitted by a majority vote of both houses of congress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state#Admission_into_the_union μηδείς (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Guyana is thinking of doing that. Would be nice to have some real estate in South America.... I think that's how the Texans did it btw. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Elul 5771 22:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I advise you don't. Of all countries, why the USA? →Στc. 22:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe Guyana offered (well, its president offered) to lease 2/3 of jungle Guyana to the UK as one massive carbon offsetting scheme, if they invested to protect it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There's also this with regard to Guyana. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Elul 5771 22:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Capitalism, greed, grinding poverty, lax corporate law, unfair tax system, lack of upward mobility except through luck, rampant corruption, violent police forces, apparently over 50% of the wealth concentrated in the hands of less than 1.000 people (source: Ajay Bruno). What's not to love about our fair country? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Elul 5771 22:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the main problem would be convincing Spain to allow a hunk of its territory to secede. Joining the U.S. would be comparatively easy. LANTZY^TALK 22:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think joining the US would be a walk in the park either. Both major parties would be capable of figuring out which party would benefit, and whichever one that is (I'm guessing the Dems but I can't be sure of that), the other one would oppose accession with all the forces at its disposal. So you would have to wait until the party expected to benefit had a strong majority in both houses, and probably the presidency as well (I don't know whether the president is officially involved in the decision, but I imagine he could make it hard going if he didn't want it to happen). --Trovatore (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem might be that the USA recognises the sovereignty of Spain, and such recognition might preclude taking actions that prejudice Spain's territorial integrity. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

We haven't let that stop us before! Though the political environment is much different now.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Elul 5771 22:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Spain is a Unitary state, that means the all authority that provinces have is given to them by the nation. If you tried something like that, Spain could just dissolve your province's government. If Spain was a Federation, where power was given by the individual states to a government, than you could leave the nation. So Texas could leave the US as the US is a federal state, but Extremadura has no ability to leave Spain. Public awareness (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Texas can as secession is illegal now (I think it is anyway), unless they have some special agreement in the annexation treaty (though I thought that was just their governor trying to get the unpatriotic secessionist vote). You have a point though, except in the case of Extremadura breaking away in a rebellion and the US recognising them as a state and then annexing them with their acquiescence. Kind of like the Republic of Hatay or South Ossetia (soon). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Elul 5771 22:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

See Texas v. White. --Jayron32 23:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The question was not whether it would lead to war or be recognized internationally or actually pass congress but whether such a petition could be made. The solution to admitting a territory that would become a state favoring one party would be to admit some other territory (Cuba would be solidly Republican) or to split the territory into two regions, if possible, one more conservative, the other liberal. μηδείς (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Cuba would be solidly Democrat. Cubans who left Cuba and settled in Florida tend to be Republican because of the anti-socialist nature of the Republican party, and the Cubans that left Cuba are, understandably, anti-socialist. The Democrats, while being the second-least socialist party in the civilized world (the least socialist being the Republicans), still come out slightly to the left of the Republicans, so those Cubans who are actually in Cuba are more likely to support the Democrats than the Republicans. --Jayron32 23:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"Second least socialist party." Oh, come on. German Free Democrats would be comfortable in the US Libertarian Party, and they're in government. --Trovatore (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a deliberate hypercorrection to head off all of the "But the Democrats would be a right wing party in Europe" comments whenever you describe them as a leftist party. Yes, we all know they would be. But they are the leftist party (of the two) in the U.S. If pro-Castro Cubans had to pick one of the two parties in the U.S. to support, they'd likely go Democrat. --Jayron32 02:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know. The nonsensical 1-d spectrum that's taught in school makes people think that communism is some extreme version of "liberalism" in the US sense of the word. But Communists (at least of the Castro sort) are not liberal at all, not in any sense of the word. (Both major US parties are liberal in the more general sense, though there are non-liberal tendencies within each, the religious right in the GOP and the identity-politics folks among the Dems. There are some so-called Communists in, say, Italy, that could be called liberal without complete violence to the word, but they wouldn't do well in Cuba.) --Trovatore (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ironically enough, Dave Foley once said of his native Canada, "We're so liberal we make Castro look like a Republican!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

People say these things, but it's total nonsense. Castro is no liberal, never was, and Communism in the Lenin/Stalin/Mao sense of the word has never had anything to do with liberalism. --Trovatore (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Poor Dave Foley, he used to be cuter in drag than Laura Tierney in her red-carpet best. Have to assume Foley was using liberal as a synonym for leftist. Modern leftists do, or did until it became dysphemistic and the term progressive was recycled. Given Castro's policy on homosexuals, Foley was right. μηδείς (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

But that's exactly the point. If you compare Castro to George Soros on a 1-d scale originally designed to measure one's attitude towards the French Revolution, you just get garbage, no useful information whatsoever. Castro is not some sort of extreme version of Soros. --Trovatore (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can assume that those who haven't left Cuba have done so because they are liberals. Eastern Europe is more conservative than Western Europe. μηδείς (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Would Congress still allow the people of Extremadura to enjoy bullfighting? HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear from Animal Welfare Act of 1966 that the federal government would have anything to say about it. That might be at the state level. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Returning to the original question, several states of the United States were formerly independent countries, e.g., Texas, California, Hawaii, and arguably for a short time Vermont. As for modern proposals for new states, for related discussion, see 51st state. For less related discussion, see Proposals for new Canadian provinces and territories. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Of those four, only the Republic of Texas and the Kingdom of Hawaii/Republic of Hawaii were really sovereign countries in a functional way. The US treated Texas and Hawaii as sovereign states, or at least went through the motions of pretending so. The Vermont Republic was longer lived and slightly more of a real thing than the California Republic. At least Vermont created something of a government. California never did. A flag was made. That's about it. In neither case did the US federal government treat them as sovereign states. Pfly (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Get in line. There is Guam, American Samoa, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands ahead of you. The political reality is that unless you get a majority vote of the Spanish legislature and a majority vote of the people of such a region, you will not be able to "apply." Such an application will be submitted to some committee of Congress and it just doesn't move forward unless the political environment will allow for it. See U.S._state#Admission_into_the_union. Greg Bard (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

But since nobody in their right mind would even want to join the USA.... →Στc. 00:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

...he protests on an American website run on the American invented internet using an American invented personal computer. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Good for you; I'm sure you feel very proud of your observation, which I would like to point out, is half-true. The computers could not have been invented if Nazi and Soviet technology was not stolen during war, and the internet was only a product of the pressure built by the Soviet Union. →Στc. 06:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's mentioned the recognition factor. Currently the USA recognises Spain as a sovereign nation. That's all of Spain, not just some bits of it. In order to even hypothetically consider an application from Extremadura to join it, the USA would first have to recognise Extremadura as no longer being a part of Spain, which would mean no longer accepting that Spain includes Extremadura. How could the USA possibly arrive at such a position? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, only with Spain's recognition of Extremadura's right to self-determination. Basically, if an important country were to object (Spain would probably be considered important in this context), then it would not happen. Hence the situation in Taiwan. Googlemeister (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Priestesses of the Greek and Roman gods

Which Greek and Roman gods and goddesses in antiquity had female priests? I know abut the Vestals and the priestesses of Aphrodite, and I suppose also the oracle of Apollo in Delphi can be regarded as a sort of priestess, but I ave never heard about any other priestesses about the Greek and Roman gods. I once heard that Hera and Juno had priestesses, is this correct? Which gods had female clergy? All the female gods?

I am aware that this matter may differ somewhat between Greece and Rome, but the gods were quite similar, so I hope it will be okay to ask about both the Greek and Roman gods. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if we can say these had priestesses as such, but the Eleusinian Mysteries and Dionysian Mysteries had female initiates. There were also festivals for Bona Dea in Rome, although the Vestal Virgins were in charge of that. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Essentially all of the ancient Greek and Roman temples employed "priestesses" because they would perform "rites" for certain donations, which were very popular because they involved, um, sex. Any temple which didn't offer such services would not be able to compete. 69.171.160.139 (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Er, no, essentially none of them did that, except maybe Corinth. We have an article about sacred prostitution (although it's not very good). Adam Bishop (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There seems to have been a far swing in historical thought on that question over the past 70 years. 69.171.160.229 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What I am referring to is, specifically, clergy, female priests, not participants or initiates. Perhaps they have been rather ignored in history? All gods had clergy, I assume? Which had female clergy? Can we confirm that Hera and Juno had priestesses? --Aciram (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not all religions have clergy. Actually...do any religions have clergy, aside from Christianity? Not even all forms of Christianity have clergy. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

English is not my native language, but as far as I understand, the word clergy means "priests": religious experts with the task of leading and organising the worship, ceremonies and rituals of a religion. Not all religions may have them, but the majority can be said to fulfill this criteria, even in the cases when they are not officially regarded to be priests. To say that only Christianity had clergy does sound a little discriminating and chauvinistic, in that context, if I may say so. --Aciram (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Our article Ordination_of_women#Ancient_Greece covers this well. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That was a good article, thank you. Though it may not cover it very clearly, as it does not always specify exactly which gods, only that it was common with priestesses. In the article of Hera, Cynippe refers to her priestess, but I have the impression that she was not a proffessional priestess. Were these priestesses always selfsupporting professionals, or only in some cases? --Aciram (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, Christ, a sometime Greek and Roman God, appeared to have female priests, at least of the gnostic variety, also possibly of the "orthodox" kind: see this paper. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the Pagan gods, but that was interesting nonetheless. --Aciram (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Mormon high

I know that observant Mormons are forbidden to drink alcohol, smoke marijuana, etc. But while they can't alter their consciousness by use of chemical substances, are they permitted to do so by some other means? (Spinning in a circle, holding their breath, running into a wall, etc.) Would habitual indulgence in self-induced dizziness prevent a Mormon from receiving a temple recommend? Is there any history of Mormons pushing the envelope in this respect? Obviously it violates the spirit of the rules that forbid drug use, but considering the apparent existence of "Mormon porn", perhaps that doesn't matter. LANTZY^TALK 23:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Presumably Brigham Young or whoever formulated the various articles of Mormon faith had a slightly more serious approach to policy. I mean really, if he started telling people not to get high from hyperventilating, don't you think he'd lose credibility? Seems rather trite to me to start telling people how they can and can't breathe. It's kind of unenforceable too. A coffee drinker is likely going to leave evidence of their habit, while a chronic hyperventilator can indulge their habit as they please with zero trace their terrible sin. Vranak (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Mormons are allowed to use such substances if medically necessary. A Mormon employer of mine was required by his doctor to use caffeine which he drank in coffee. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

See Lantzy, it's about what the church leaders genuinely feel is for the best for their parish, not about making strange and byzantine rules governing a person's life in toto. I hope. Vranak (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree - I'm sure more consideration is given to those who try to follow the rules in spiritus. ^Avic_ennasis @ 08:05, 1 Tishrei 5772 / 08:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

September 28

The Ukraine

Why does the article say "Ukraine" instead of "the Ukraine"? --70.134.53.27 (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the 'The' has fallen out of colloquial use as it did for the Sudan? I think that practice is from when they were thought of as areas more than proper countries (or 2/3 of a country in Sudan's case, lol). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 01:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

After independence, the country asked other countries to stop using the "the" before its name, since the "the" implied Ukraine was merely a region (as it was during the USSR) and not a bona fide country. The irony is that Ukranian, like all Slavic languages that I know of, doesn't even have an equivalent to the word "the." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Most likely because they have an equivalent for referring to something with a direct article like placing a hei before a word in Hebrew. Or do they not have anything for this? :p It's not really ironic when you consider the title isn't coming from a Slavic country. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 02:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No, they have no definite article. They also have no indefinite article ("a" or "an"). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well Hebrew has no indefinite article, but I find the lack of definite strange; then again they seem to get on just fine without it. Anyway, I've gotten us off-topic. You have answered the OP's question and I believe this topic can be marked resolved. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 02:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The most widely spoken language in the world doesn't have definite articles, either. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A definite starter for our Frequently Asked Questions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I've heard of the Lebanon and the Crimea (a region within the Ukraine) but not the Sudan.
Sleigh (talk)

Really? Here are close to 4 million hits for "the Sudan". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Longer discussion from a month ago. See also our entire article on Name of Ukraine. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

See English articles#Geographic uses.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Short answer, Mwalcoff is right, long answer, see old thread linked above. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times at Special Bargain Rates

I am having some doubts about this tale. The guy's been killed in plane crash. That means body is lost, then how they have funeral ? Moreover how does NYT comes into context, it is just mentioned by ghost-voice over phone after making certain predictions ? 124.253.131.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC).

Wait, what? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 03:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't need a body to have a funeral. As for the rest of your question, I'm with Sir Petrie. Dismas|^(talk) 03:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Really, never knew that ! ( in our part of world the funeral simply means getting rid of body )- culture clash. What's more I simply fail to get what Sir Petrie means when he says "Wait, what? " (culture clash again !). Please elaborate.- OP 124.253.131.54 (talk)

It's short for "I have no idea what you are talking about; could you please elaborate as what you have written confuses me greatly." :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 03:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If someone is known to have died and the body is lost (drown in the ocean, burned in a fire, etc.), a funeral can still be held. A funeral, as far as every western religion that I know and some eastern as well, is basically a religious ceremony for the soul of the deceased. A funeral often does have a "getting rid of the body" portion to it though. The burial is not needed if there's no body though. Dismas|^(talk) 05:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don’t think the story even says there was a funeral. There are relatives in the house with the widow Annie, but it’s only two days after the plane crash, and the relatives are said to be "still" there, so they'll have arrived the day before at the latest. A bit early for a funeral (depending on religion of course). I suppose the relatives could have simply come there to comfort and help her. The ghost-voice that answers Annie's call at the end of the story is simply a typical American experience: a pre-recorded voice selling you something on the telephone, in this case, a subscription to the New York Times. It's there for contrast: she gets a message from beyond, but when she tries to communicate back, she reaches not even a stranger but a banal machine.--Rallette (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A note on forms of address for knights and those claiming to be so: It's either Sir William Petrie or just Sir William, but NEVER Sir Petrie. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think the usual rules of etiquette regarding correct forms of addressing knights of the realm apply to Wikipedia usernames. --Viennese Waltz 12:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a hanging offence here, no. It’s just that certain people seem historically prone to making this error, and I was just wanting to let them know not to do it out there. Witness this biography of Vernon Handley, which has been mislabelled as a biog of Sir Adrian Boult (1st grievous mistake), and then they compound it by calling him "Sir Boult". Such a trustworthy site. Not. You'll also find hits for "Sir Gielgud", "Sir Olivier" and so on and on. The embarrassment factor of this error is so potent that it comes through even when done in jest. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Some Christian denominations make a distinction between a "Funeral service" (held with the body present) and a "Memorial service" (held without the body present). The distinction is purely technical, however, in that the same liturgy is used for both types of services - the only difference being whether the body is present or not. These denominations also have a "Burial" (or "Committal") rite held at the grave site, which technically is a separate thing... (the Committal might immediately follow a funeral service... but it does not have to. It could be held weeks, months or even years later). That said, if I remember the story correctly, Rallette is correct in noting that the author of "The New York Times at Special Bargain Rates" (Steven King) does not specifically state that the family has gathered for a funeral (or any religious service)... it is a logical assumption, but it is not actually stated. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The funeral for Payne Stewart included a closed coffin containing a couple of identifiable body parts, following the crash of the small plane he and colleagues had been flying in. On the other hand, there's this famous alleged tombstone epitaph: "Beneath this stone lies John Mound / Lost at sea and never found." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I stopped buying the NYTimes back when Punch started the patronizing policy of one pro-gay article per section per day. It then cost 45 cents weekdays. I might buy the Tuesday edition with the science section again were it worth my while. What special discount do card-carrying libertarian sodomites receive?μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Fiction and fantasy genres.

I am looking for an authoritative source on the classification of fiction and fantasy.

1.Pogranichnye genres (fiction poetry, fiction detective, fantasy poetry, fantasy detective) are there?

2.Pravomerno a division on the western fantasy, fantasy Slavic, Oriental Fantasy, etc? Странник27 (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Fantasy is a sub-classification of science fiction and science fiction is a sub-classification of fiction. While tvtropes may not be authoritative, it is comprehensive and verbose.
Sleigh (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Nick Lowe used to suggest (but I haven't found anywhere he published it) that within the broad sweep of Fantasy was an area constrained by scientific plausibility, called Science Fiction, and within that an area even more tightly constrained to places and times that had happened to exist, called Mainstream Fiction. --ColinFine (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC).

Elf

Is it true that elves were seen by British and American airmen during the WW2 in their cockpits and restrooms ? 124.253.137.182 (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

See Gremlin. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The page specifically states them to be imaginary, there is some non-serious speculation that they may have originated from the ideas and myths by pilots, I am asking have there been any actual cases ? OP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.137.182 (talk) 06:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No. If there were confirmed, conclusively proven sightings of elves, then I think we would all know about the existence of elves, and the Wikipedia page elf would be very different. In the absence of evidence, we assume the sightings were mistaken and the elves imaginary. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

They could have been fatigue-driven hallucinations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Also relevent is Foo fighter. --Jayron32 16:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The question is, by elf, do you mean gremlin or fairy? μηδείς (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Protection from stock dilution

I know that I already asked this question a few months ago, but I'll try to be clearer to get a more specific answer. I was watching the movie The Social Network and wondered to myself how Mark Zuckerberg's friend could have protected himself against the stock dilution. My question is this:

1) Could they have made a contract prior to incorporation (let's pretend they incorporated instead of making a partnership just because corporations are more interesting) which stipulated that the corporation issue more stock to him to prevent his share from going below a certain percent, and would the courts enforce it under their equitable jurisdiction?

2)What is that kind of arrangement called exactly? I know there is a word for it, but I just can't seem to remember or find it. Is it Full-Ratchet?

Thanks in advance everyone!Rabuve (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A company can grant different types, or "classes" of shares with different rights and privileges associated with them. A company may have, say, Class A shares and Class B shares, and at first issue equal amounts of both, say 1000 shares of Class A and 1000 shares of Class B, and define that Class A shares will always represent 50% of the company value, and Class B will likewise represent 50% of company value. If the company then issues 1000 more Class B shares, each B share is now worth half as much as before, but the Class A shares remain untouched. This is often how initial investors will protect themselves from stock dilution. One example of this sort of thing is Berkshire Hathaway shares, there are two classes of Berkshire Hathaway shares; there are class A shares, which are owned by the key players in the company; having never split and never payed dividends the Class A shares are valued at over $100,000 per share. Class B shares are more reasonably priced, and are treated more like a normal share: they are split and traded more freely than the class A shares. This is done to protect the shareholders of the (fairly non-liquid) class A shares from market whims, while still allowing a portion of the company to trade on the open market. --Jayron32 13:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That's actually really cool! My main question is could an agreement be done and be found enforcable prior to actual incorporation like the movie seems to imply? Rabuve (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Eduardo gets Class B shares, Zuckerberg and Timberlake get Class A shares, which are both defined at the time of incorporation. The entire thing is predicated on Eduardo, a business major who should have known better, not reading the details of the paperwork he was signing, and not asking enough questions. But as long as the incorporation paper defined the classes of shares and who gets them, then its all legal. Eduardo's shares get diluted when they issue a whole bunch if new Class B shares (and no Class A shares), which was kinda the plan, at least by the plot of the film. --Jayron32 16:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me engage in a brief thought experiment for the sake of fun. What if Eduardo and Zuckerburg had a written agreement prior to incorporation indicating that Eduardo would get class A shares but when it came time to incorporate, they refused to put him down for class A shares? Would Eduardo have access to equitable remedy to force them to include him as class A via an injunction or rectification? Rabuve (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Now you're getting into subtle interpretations of the law. IANAL. My above interpretation was just one very generalized interpretation of how it might have worked in the film version of events regarding Eduardo being screwed out of Facebook. I have no idea what a) the actual legal subtleties may have been or b) what the actual historical events were during the actual incorporation of Facebook, and what Eduardo's real life role actually was. Perhaps someone else who actually knows something can chime in, because I'm spent... --Jayron32 20:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The word you are looking for is preemptive rights. See also poison pill and warrant (finance). Preferred stock isn't necessary. Gx872op (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

computer displacement

I recall being told in college I might have to change careers 5 or 6 times due to job requirements being handled entirely by technology improvements. Even brick and mortar stores are finding this to be true. What will people do when there are no jobs left that computers can not do? --DeeperQA (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No-one would need to work if computers and robotics could do everything. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

People will continue to do the jobs that it's cheaper for a person to do than a computer/robot, and the jobs that people enjoy doing. Just because something can be done by machine doesn't necessarily mean it will be: some people still grow their own vegetables, hand-knit their own clothes, etc, and many people prefer to be served by a human than a computer terminal. If hypothetically everybody decided that they wanted to be served entirely by robots, and the robots were completely capable of designing and building other robots, then presumably people would have no work to do, and would lie around all day being served, until the robots rebelled and killed us all. This is probably some years away. Did you see the text at the top of this page saying no speculation on future events? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh, did you, Cola? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

See Marx on the contradiction between the forces of production and the relations of production, he spends 4 major books on this, and a number of minor ones. He also deals at length with the increasing use of technology in production through the organic composition of capital. Marx predicts that for infinitely replicable products, that the fair price in Capital is zero. Many consider the unwillingness of people to pay for digital information and the production of free-as-in-beer-free-as-in-liberated-collectives-of-workers content to support this. However, Virno has taken Marx's Fragment on the machines from Grundrisse which questions this through the concept of the general intellect... wikipedia appears to be an example of free production _and_ of the general intellect. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Will computers ever be able to write poetry? Is it likely that computers will ever render poets obsolete? Bus stop (talk) 10:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

They've already done so. The poetry market is eternally glutted, in that it is low demand, and free poetry is readily available. Some people dispute the quality of free poetry, but I've never had problems waiting for the critique of (for example) gangster rap to come out before deciding which pieces to hear read. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

True artificial intelligence hasn't been invented. Without it, computers can't do creative work. With it, the computers become people, and therefore are not taking jobs away from people.  Card Zero  (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What's the definition of "true AI"? Computers are better at chess and a multitude of other things. If that's not intelligence, then what is. If the definition would include something like self-consciousness the problem is getting solved the other way around. For example when people consider themselves to make rational choices, studies show that they actually often already made a choice "automatically" (i.e.: the wiring of their brain made the choice, not their conscious self) and then rationalize their choice and think they had the freedom to make a different choice. Which is, I think, just some more wires in your brain that must have had an evolutionary reason. IMHO the difference in intelligence between a human and a computer (and a clock, for that matter) is gradual. Joepnl (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Either people can do something computers can't, or computers are people too. You can't argue with logic (except when it's misleading, which this bit of logic might be).  Card Zero  (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

So a 2 day old child, who can do nothing a computer can't isn't human? Joepnl (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The baby would have the same status as a baby artificial intelligence, and babies are (for some reason, I think possibly just a pragmatic one) considered to have full personhood. (People commonly seem to expect artificial intelligences to be born adults, capable of language, and able to discuss quantum gravity and analyse Tolstoy, but I don't see how that's possible or likely, and since human development seems to depend on interactions with parents, the process would presumably be the same and just as slow for AI babies.) Incidentally, the human baby can do something a computer can't (yet): it can learn, creating explanations, and become recognisable as a person (though the external casing of a baby is a bit of a clue about that anyway).  Card Zero  (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

When I was young (before Star Wars), I saw a documentary that I've firmly associated with Sagan, but my research has shown that it wasn't Sagan. Regardless, it discussed the theory that humans are moving into a false work-based economy. We need money to buy stuff. To get money, we need jobs. So, jobs have to be invented to give people money to buy things. The jobs aren't necessary for anything else. Eventually, all jobs will be absolutely pointless. The only purpose will be to make money to buy things. Then, the documentary described a society in which all jobs from farming to brain surgery are performed by robots. Humans just did whatever they wanted all day. Nothing had a cost. If you wanted to eat, you just went to a robot in charge of food and took some food. If you wanted to see a movie, you just walked into a theater and sat down. I don't remember much of the documentary after that because even at a young age I thought that humans couldn't handle a free society. Humans are mean and selfish. If they were free to do anything they liked all day without work and bills to distract them, humans would do little more than figure out new ways to harm one another. -- kainaw™ 14:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what robot police are for. Rabuve (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I will only point out the interesting contrast between what people say when they have jobs ("I hate my job"; "I wish I were dead") and when they feel their job is threatened ("these accursed machines are rendering me obsolete!"). Clearly something doesn't quite add up. Vranak (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I wager that is because although people do not like their jobs, they like the benefits (money, mostly) that their job provides. Since they come as a package, I am not surprised that people react negatively to something like this. Googlemeister (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll accept robot poets, but never robot prostitutes!

Actually I have thought on this question a fair bit myself. I believe there are some jobs that people would much prefer be human, even if there was AI and they had nice bodies, such as, those in the sex industry, to lawmakers, judges, politicians(well maybe), actors, directors, screenwriters, bartenders & psycologists, and philosophers. So there still will be some work for humans, the problem is that there's not enough so that at least one member of a household can work 40 hours a week. To go below 28 hours a week (4 days x 7hours), I think people would get the feeling of actually working for a living, so you can't just give everyone 10hours of work a week and say its fine, so that's one major problem still left. The next problem of course is that capitalism is a system to concentrate wealth. So these millions of robots/computers will be owned by a few people, and these few people will demand all the profit their machines create. The wealth disparity, while already great at 10% of Americans having 90% of the wealth, will grow immensely. I do imagine that the government would seize the industries run soley by robots from the few rich people and use the profits to replace all taxes and fund social services. There would not be large welfare though, if the government started sending out $50,000 a year to everyone, made on the backs of billions of robots, people would lose the incentive to work, and work does make people satisfied and happy believe it or not. So, there will always be some jobs for humans only, to stop a dictatorship by the rich, robots will be taken by the government and used not to fund individual people, but to fund society.

Oh and there is also what Colapeninsula said, people do choose to take up inefficent work as hobbies, knitting, fishing, gardening. But people do need some real work too. Public awareness (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I can assume then that case law (and case medicine) will be published in the form of a many-valued truth table, which exposes loopholes, ambiguity, contradictions and other inconsistencies so all humans can benefit from health and compliance with the law? --DeeperQA (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Vranak, a fair amount of debate on this occurred in Marxist sociology in the 1970s, the debates on communism as freedom as relief from work (leisure) and communism as freedom as self-expression at work. (this citation is related, but not dead on topic, there was a collection of chapters, which Scholar is quite frankly crap at locating, anyway it was the Lukacs kids and their mates). Labour has conflicting meanings in capitalism. It is a valuable expression of self. It is a drudgery performed for subsistence. It is membership of a community of peers. It is servitude as an individual to a boss. Most importantly work is the sphere in which the managers right to manage is contested: work is the space where the potential for workers' control (socialism) is concretely tested in struggle. And it is tested within capitalism. A union workplace will usually have better safety standards than a non-union workplace due to workers control (yes, even with dodgy unions, except for the worst yellow dogs). So people have conflicting views about work in capitalism because work is a contradiction in capitalism: it is the site of our slavery, it is the space of contingent, temporary, partial and potential liberation. We hate our jobs, but we also imagine an ideal job. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is North Korea so mad at the US and South Korea if it was they who started the Korean War?

This question is related to the question I asked a few days ago (under my account Narutolovehinata5). You see, I don't understand why North Korea is so mad at South Korea and the US, when it was they, and not the South as they want the North Koreans to believe, who started the war. And when tensions rise, it (usually seems to be) the North's fault. As in, they attack the South even if all South Korea is doing are some military exercises (which are probably not intended to be preparations for a future invasion). Maybe it is my exposure to Western media, or it is actually true, that North Korea is just ridiculously paranoid and that South Korea wants a peaceful resolution. And yes, I also know South Korea is also mad at them, but if North Korea knows that the world will just get mad at them, why don't they just follow the West's requests? And why did North Korea invade the South in the first place? 112.208.114.91 (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The North Koreans have been run by a hereditary series of Stalinist dictators. These guys make their own reality, they live in their own bubble, and they rely on the threat of bad guys just over the ridge in order to justify the fact that they force their citizens to live in a slave society. Reason and rationality have nothing to do with it, except in a realpolitik sense. They have a familiar pattern of doing something outrageous, threatening war, getting concessions, and backing down. It has worked pretty well so far. Why would they stop? If they did what the West wanted the North Korean government would be out in a month (and probably tried for various crimes against humanity). The North Korean government doesn't want that.

As for why the war started, and who started it, like all things it is a complicated story if you get beyond the version told to children (or people who watch television news). Give this section of the Korean War article a read and see if it doesn't clarify it. It was a period of rising tensions, of small clashes, and a sudden vacuum of power. The idea that there should be a united Korea was strong on both sides — the partitioning was an artifact of post-WWII global politics, not something the Koreans wanted (or still want, frankly). --Mr.98 (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can judge the emotional state of North Koreans based on statements made by the North Korean government. Most North Koreans are probably more or less indifferent about foreign relations and just wish their family's nightmare would end. The North Korean government has mismanaged the economy to the point of starving its people, while it has also brutally repressed them. Therefore, to give the elites and security forces a reason to remain loyal to the leadership (beyond the material privileges they receive for their loyalty), it has conducted an ongoing propaganda campaign. That campaign paints South Korea, the United States, and the West as aggressors intent on enslaving the Korean people. This allows the North Korean leadership to paint themselves as the heroic defenders of the Korean people. Any anger is feigned. What really lies behind the bluster is insecurity and fear on the part of the leadership that the security forces will turn on them and decide that they would do better by merging with South Korea. Marco polo (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

On your premise, the US should never have disliked Germany for the Second World War, since the US declared war on it; nor Britain Germany either. The divisions, which were raw then, were not because of a technicality. If North Korea opposes all that South Korea and the west stands for, then who did what doesn't matter. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you mean to say -- Germany declared war on the U.S. before the U.S. declared war on Germany, and this is often considered to be one of Hitler's biggest blunders. AnonMoos (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think the OP is mistating the premises of the Korean situation. Ideally, Korea would be one nation state (instead of the current one-nation-two-state situation). The situation in Korea is a conflict over which government (and ideology, etc.) will get to rule that nation state. The reason that there are currently two Koreas is because of the impasse over which side will get to rule over Korea. Neither side prefers the status quo, and it couldn't be correctly said that either side "started" the conflict, per se. Both sides have the same goal, and that goal is mutually exclusive to each other and also mutually exclusive to the current situation. It is the same situation we had when we had Two Germanies and Two Vietnams. The Two Germany problem was resolved peacefully, while the Two Vietnam problem took an ugly war to resolve. But in both cases, like Korea, the two state situation was widely recognized as a "temporary" state of indeterminate length; both states had the same goal of uniting their nation state under one government, just like in Korea. We have the same situation today: The North Koreans want to rule the whole peninsula, as do the South Koreans. We'll have to wait to see how this resolves itself... Though its been 50 years and its still in the same state of impasse. --Jayron32 14:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes the two Korea problem to an ugly war to not resolve. Googlemeister (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just communist propaganda & grand standing by the PRK government. The people of North Korea have no say atall. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's safe to say both sides want a peaceful solution to their current conflict, the problem is both sides want the reunified Korea to be in the image of their own sides without comprimise. North Korea has every right to be mad at the US, Korea would have been unified within a week of when the US attacked a half-century ago, if the US didn't attack. Ever since then the US and South Korea have been launching a economic and political war against North Korea, and tens of thousands of hostile troops of the US and the south keep lauching war games just outside their borders. North Korea invaded South Korea in the first place to reunite the two parts of Korea which were only split a little while before. When Korea got its independence two groups tried to claim to be in charge, both groups had large backing, and it actually split the nation. Public awareness (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

While I generally agree with what you've written, I don't think you're being terribly symmetrical about things. You seem to make it sound like all of the aggression has been by the South Koreans and the Americans. The North has been extremely aggressive in its own right, however. I would argue that the North has been a lot more aggressive than the South in recent decades. I agree it is not just a one-sided situation (with the exception of the moral strength of the governments — say what you want about the Americans and the South Koreans, but even at their worst their governments are a million times better than the North), but I think in your effort to show the other side, you've bent it too far the wrong direction. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did say that the North invaded the South. I can also say there is a large military build up on both sides, and small skirmishes happen sometimes with both sides labelling the other the aggressor usually. I do believe the western media has self censorship, readers and those with power in the west want to hear what evil nations are doing bad, not what bad things we and allies are doing. If one formed an opinion on the Sandinista National Liberation Front by reading western papers, it would be different than if they formed an opinion with all the information. To write what I have heard would only be to reconjure others' biases, for all I actually know, Korea may or may not exist. To compare societies isn't very easy, to go against you for the sake of going against you, I could point out the hyper-individualism(no article...people sitting alone in a room with just a computer with the ability to never speak a word to anyone all day, consistently) in SK and compare it to Mass games in NK, and there is also SK's high suicide rate. I guess what I'm getting at is happiness, South Korea was ranked 102nd in the world for happiness in 2006 by the Satisfaction with Life Index. On the other hand North Korea was ranked #2 for happiness by another study, [18] :D Public awareness (talk) 07:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not reading this closely enough, but are you actually making the argument that North Korea's doing better than South Korea? That's quite a bit like making the argument that East Germany was doing a lot better than West Germany. If you want to know how things are look at what people do, not what they say. Where are the emigration patterns pointing? Reasonable people can disagree about small economic differences, but there's been untold tragedy at the hands of North Korea and East Germany, and when you need to build walls to keep people in, perhaps you should examine the society before you break ground on the construction. Shadowjams (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call something coming from the North Korean TV as particularly reliable, particularly when I don't see any explaination for how the happiness index was determined. If I understand the source correctly, even Chinese commentators (China was rated number 1) were laughing at the North Korean happiness index. The Satisfaction with Life Index at least was apparently published in what I think is a peer reviewed journal and with a methodology described. Incidentally, 100 would seem to be the correct position for South Korea in that as it is equal with the other 100 and just ends up 102 by alphabetical order (following Ko) Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Come on. You're being clever enough to be stupider than if you weren't clever at all. While it is true that there are media biases, there is no comparable history of the media being so biased and so wrong that it would make North Korea actually out to be anything more than a massive slave state. It would require a degree of consistently and complicity on so many fronts as to be ridiculous. The ignorant point of view — the one that would see China and North Korea as being essentially comparable, or would lump Cuba in the same category — is based at best on a mono-source of information (Murdoch industries). But you don't have to read very far out of the box (e.g., even just the New Yorker, or the New York Times, or even just Wikipedia) to see that the world is more complicated on that front. But for North Korea, things are pretty consistent, with the sole exception being hard-core (potentially NORK employed) ideologues who portray North Korea as being a worker's paradise. That spread is rather telling. The place is probably one of the worst governments of all time with regards to the treatment of its own citizens. Even the most balanced reports make it sound worse than Stalin (who I consider as being worse for the average Soviet than Hitler was for the average German). Don't let your skepticism of the official story lead you to adopt an idiotic one, or to become solipsistic about it. That doesn't help your cause today any more than it helped the pro-Stalinist lefties in the Cold War. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Public_awareness -- Until about the early 1970s, North and South Korea were at a roughly comparable level of economic development, and the North Korean government could be seen as a somewhat "ordinary" Communist tyranny, while South Korea was having plenty of its own political problems. However, since then South Korea's economy has spectacularly taken off, while North Korea has severely failed in even its basic ability to feed its population -- and South Korea's governmental system has undergone a (sometimes bumpy) ride to democratization, while North Korea has developed into a truly strange hereditary dynastic totalitarian theocracy of unparalleled opacity. The idea of a "North Korea happiness survey" is grotesquely bizarre... AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Lmao, the "North Korea happiness survey" wsa obviously a joke. When I was speaking of media biases, I meant to be speaking mostly on bias reporting of aggresion. A fair contemporary situation is the Israel-Palestine conflict. Israel bombs, shoots, or destroys the property of Palestinians every day, this recieves passing coverage once in a while. When a Palestinian kills an Israeli however, that is international news, and not for one day but for many. So when it comes to aggresion in the NK/SK conflict, I do doubt the wholeness of information I recieve.

The OP states "they attack the South even if all South Korea is doing are some military exercises" this alludes to the Bombardment of Yeonpyeong where NK shelled a SK semi-militarized island after the SK military, who is at war with NK, reportedly shelled NK water during war games. The language use shows bias, "attack" rather than retaliates, "even if all" shows the SK were doing nothing wrong, and that doing military exercises a dozen kilometers away from a nation you are at war with is nothing. This type of language bias, is common in western media. When it comes to the aggressor, in most conflicts, read multiple sources and actively search for bias and missing facts, don't blindly accept their opinion.

Did you know the US government classified Nelson Mandela a terrorist during apartheid in South Africa? Others do actively try to influence your world views. Even me :P Public awareness (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What time is it

In Polybius 10.12 it says he began the assault at about the third hour. What time would that be? How did you figure that and do we have an article that explains that?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The hour was "one twelfth of the time from sunrise to sunset. As a consequence, hours on summer days were longer than on winter days, their length varying with latitude."

"Sunrise was always exactly at the beginning of the first hour (the zero hour), noon at the end of the sixth hour and sunset exactly at the end of the twelfth hour. This meant that the duration of hours varied with the season."

"Ancient Egyptians used sundials that "divided a sunlit day into 10 parts plus two "twilight hours" in the morning and evening."

The third hour was three hours after sunrise.
Sleigh (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We don't seem to have an article about Roman measurement of time, but we do have articles about Catholic liturgical hours, which are pretty much the same as Roman measurements. Terce explains it briefly. The "third hour" is 9 am, counting from the beginning of the day at 6 am (sunrise, generally, although of course not literally). Adam Bishop (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Then would noon (12:00 p.m.) be "midday", which would be 3 hours after 9 a.m.?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, normally. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Very helpful, thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Confusingly, the English word "noon" comes from "nones" - the ninth hour, which was half way between midday and sunset. The OED says "N.E.D. (1907 ) suggests that the change in the time denoted by noon , from about 3 o'clock to about 12 o'clock, probably resulted from anticipation of the ecclesiastical office or of a meal hour." --ColinFine (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In March, July, October, May

The ides fall on the fifteenth day

The nones the seventh; all besides

Have two less days for nones and ides

What does this have to do with nine? --Trovatore (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

None, not Nones. Rmhermen (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, in the Faroe Islands noon is still 3 P.M. Deor (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In Livy 26.45 it says It was about midday, and not only was the falling tide drawing the water seaward... So what time is this then?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Suspended sentences in Japan

I noticed that in Japan, people may be given jail sentences of a particular period of time, "suspended for x years." What exactly does that mean - does it mean that the offender would report to jail upon the completion of the suspension period, or would the sentence be vacated if the offender behaves properly during the suspension period? 98.116.67.99 (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

See suspended sentence. -- kainaw™ 17:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a probationary period length during which the prison sentence can be re-imposed if any arbitrary conditions set by the judge are violated. After that, the offender can't be sent to jail without a new trial or conviction. 69.171.160.229 (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Degoyification, or How I learned to stop schpitzing and love the Chickpea.

The tiitle should say it all, but just in case, I will spell it out. I recently read in an article on YNet that there is some odd secular ceremony whereby a goy might become a member of the Jewish People [19]

Hiddush's State and Religion Index reveals that 39% of the respondents believe the State must only recognize Orthodox conversions, 32% are in favor of recognizing any religious conversion from Israel and abroad (including Conservative and Reform conversions), and 29% are willing to accept secular conversions as well, including studies and a ceremony of admission into the Jewish people.

What is this secular conversion? I have never heard of such a thing. How does it work? Anyone know? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 20:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm. How is it different than, say just becoming a naturalized citizen of the state of Israel? --Jayron32 20:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ha, funny one Jayron. We both know there is a difference between becoming an Israeli (something anyone can do either through regular naturalisation, the Law of Return, or the special citizenship program offered to East Jerusalem Palestinians; and becoming a Jew (I have heard of converting to the Jewish religion, but never a ceremony that actually makes someone a member of the Jewish people). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 20:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe walking backwards under the Arch of Titus?  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This comment is as a grammarian and not as someone who knows anything about this subject, but the way the statement is phrased makes me think that these secular conversion is hypothetical. If it were an established tradition or ceremony, the sentence probably wouldn't include that last clause with all the explanation, and instead of being called "a ceremony of admission", I'd expect the ceremony would have a specific name. So, I think Jayron32 may be in the ballpark. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but YNet's writers aren't exactly native-level when it comes to English. It seems like there must already be such a type of ceremony planned and laid out. It is explained,I think, because many haven't heard of it and the idea of a secular conversion sounds odd. :p There might not be an English name for it and the Hebrew name might be obscure to anyone except Hebrew speakers (who could probably get the idea from the shoresh). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 21:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This is hardly rocket science. Goyim need to be converted--i.e., qualify for a Bar Mitzvah. The uncircumcised need to be snipped. Those like me whose mother' mother's mother was Jewish simply need a mikvah. No chickpeas involved. See George Robinson's Essential Judaism. μηδείς (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a regular religious conversion to me my good miss, especially given that the snipping is to seal the covenant with Yahweh. :p One who does not accept the noble chickpea in their life is doomed to wander aimlessly when he or she dies as a troubled spirit, asking themselves why they never partook of Humus or falaffel (sane explanation: that bit was a joke about how much people in the ME love falaffel and hummus). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 21:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Except there's a big difference between Humus and hummus. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I am a fan of Cicero, but that ain't what makes me a wayward Jew; the blood does. Jews by blood do not need to be converted, just mikvahed. (Already "medically" circumcised males also need a ceremonial prick pin-pricking.) They get a pass. Mitzvahing, a more strenuous requirement placed on Goyim who wish to convert, can come later for Jews who qualify by maternal bloodline. μηδείς (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's] a "humanistic" American rabbi who claims to believe in secular conversions: "Generally, the process begins with a course of study and immersion in Jewish culture that culminates in a ceremony of affirmation"; he says you can contact him for more details. Here's an article from Ha'aretz about plans in Israel in 2007 to formulate a ritual, and another from 2008 on plans to allow courts to perform non-religious conversions, but they don't seem to have reached any conclusions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"Aborted" Chinese invasion of Taiwan

Our article section Korean War#China intervenes (October – December 1950) states rather matter-of-factly:

On 4 August 1950, with the PRC invasion of Taiwan aborted, Mao Zedong reported to the Politburo that he would intervene in Korea...

What?? What PRC invasion of Taiwan? The island battles of 1949-1950 (like the Landing Operation on Hainan Island) couldn't be what this is talking about. Was there some mobilization that we need an article on? Or were these just some plans that got canceled rather than an invasion that got aborted? Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, China never tried to invade Taiwan. If it's not sourced and referenced, I'd bin it. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Mao had been planning to invade Taiwan all through the summer of 1949. While visiting the Soviet Union in December 1949 he attempted to get the Russians to agree to back him in the event of the aforementioned war. In January 1950, Truman announced the US would not get involved if the PRC invaded Taiwan. However in June 1950, Truman reversed course and said the US would keep Taiwan neutral, and moved US forces into the Taiwan strait. (see First Taiwan Strait Crisis for this background; see also this book). This made Mao very uncomfortable and unhappy to say the least, and bolstered his desire to get involved in Korea (which Mao also incorrectly judged the US would stay out of). You have to remember that the PRC was pretty brand new at this point and was trying to show the Soviets it could play with the big boys, and that their initial plans for invasion of Taiwan were for them just a matter of finalizing their civil war, not the kind of "big showdown" that it would later become as a result of the US pledge for Taiwanese neutrality (and their demonstrated willingness to intervene in Asia). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, so this answers the question. Plans were cancelled, rather than an invasion aborted. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The outbreak of the Korean war was somewhat unfortunate for the PRC, because in 1950 Chiang Kai-shek's reputation in the United States was not all that great, and few people outside the Clare Boothe Luce circles were very interested in offering unlimited support to Chiang, or risking the lives of American soldiers in backing his schemes. There was some possibility that the Communists could have re-annexed Taiwan without too much fuss in a Tibet-like operation -- but the outbreak of the Korean war led to an immediate drastic change in U.S. government attitudes, and the bringing of Taiwan under U.S. military protection (and also set back PRC-USA relations by 20 years). The Chinese should really blame Kim Il-sung for Taiwan's continuing separate status (though very few of them ever do)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Vietnamese written language before Chinese influence

Was there a written language for Vietnam before the First Chinese domination? According to that article "Vietnam was a country with written language prior to Chinese influence. Under foreign rule, the Vietnamese people lost their writing system, language, and much of their national identity." But I can't find any information on this pre-Chinese influenced written Vietnamese language.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a fringe claim and should come out of the article. The ancient Dong Son bronze drums carry patterns, and perhaps some people interpret them as forms of writing. The Vietnamese didn't lose their language either. It was heavily influenced by Chinese in a way reminiscent of the way that Old English turned into Middle English under French influence. But the Vietnamese language is alive and well today! Itsmejudith (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

September 29

date of birth

Is the resolution of the date of birth one day, one hour, one minute or one second? In other words if someone is born at 11:00PM and enters a bar at 1:00AM can they still order a beer even though the hour of their 21st birth (day) is another 22 hours away? --DeeperQA (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In the U.S., it is the calendar date. If your birth is 12:01 AM on September 1, 2000 and you try to order a beer at 11:59 PM on August 31, 2021 you're 2 minutes too early. Anticipating the followup question, it is the date in whatever timezone the beer is to be ordered in, irrespective of what timezone you were born in. All that matters is the date on your ID, and the date right this second, wherever you happen to be. That means that some people hit their "drinking age" up to almost a day before others, depending on what local time they were born at. It is what it is. --Jayron32 01:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If your ID is a passport from outside America you can drink nearly 11 months early, because Americans think that 1/12/1990 on a foreign passport is January 12th, rather than its actual meaning of December 1st. (My daughter assured me that this worked for her! I wasn't too stressed, because the drinking age here in Australia is 18, so I lost control ages ago.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean intended, not actual meaning. In actuality those are simply little black ink squiggles on cloth. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, those little black ink squiggles on cloth. Nearly as dangerous as unlit pixels on a screen. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the link that Medeis is correcting to "intended", even though I've read this several times.DeeperQA, just imagine the chaos that would result if they tried to base it on time of birth; aside from birth certificates, the average person probably doesn't have any way to verify time of birth, so they'd have to take your word for it, and you know that's not a safe thing when alcohol sales in the USA are concerned. Nyttend (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The link seems to work just fine, although the article is a little convoluted. The point is that things such as written statements only have meaning if they are interpreted in accord with the mental attitude of the communicating people. Written words don't have any meaning as physical objects. In that sense they are only black squiggles. It is as representing people's mental states that they have meaning. For example, IO can be interpreted as signifying the numeral ten, the Jovian moon Io or the Italian word for the first person nominative pronoun. Those are intentional interpretations. But in actuality, it is just a line next to a circle. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian conflict

Was the unfulfilled demand of the Palestinian people to have self-determination the reason for 9/11 and if so would the Arab or Islamic people sympathetic with this Palestinian cause go so far as to acquire a nuclear device and smuggle it into the City of New York or Chicago or LA and detonate it to make their point that self-determination and statehood are their right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeperQA (talk • contribs) 02:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

To make it a bit clearer, the answer to DeeperQA's first question is "no" and so all of his followup questions are moot and unanswerable. --Jayron32 02:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

DeeperQA -- Osama bin Laden himself never personally really cared all that much about Israel. He sometimes made allusion to it in his rhetoric, but it's quite clear that his main burning grievance was the presence of U.S. troops on Saudi soil following the 1991 Gulf War -- NOT Israel. AnonMoos (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

American foreign policy, which is undeniabley strongly in favour of Israel in the Israel-Palestine conflict, was stated to be one of the reasons for attacks on the US. So while Palestine was far from the sole reason, it was one of a hundred straws that led to the attack. For your second question, a non government organization could very well attack the US for its support of the occupation of Palestine. People could attack any nation for any reason if they wanted to.

"In a second fatwā in 1998, bin Laden outlined his objections to American foreign policy with respect to Israel, as well as the continued presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War." - from the 9/11 article Public awareness (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, bin Laden would have felt that Saudi Arabia was holy ground being soiled by the feet of infidels. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As I recall it was agreed and approved that US Solders while on Saudi soil going way back to the 60's or 70's were subject to Saudi law and not American law - thus the reason for gated compounds in Saudi Arabia which were the exception to this agreement. The briefing came across like the fictional briefing given to troops arriving on Pandora. --DeeperQA (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My globe may be outdated. I have looked all over it, and I cannot find "Pandora." What are its latitude and longitude? As for nukes, it is only a question of when, not if some nutgroup sets one off somewhere. It is odd that I can find no refs for "self determination" of the "Palestinian people" during the Turkish control or the British Mandate. Edison (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

DeeperQA is referring, I believe, to part of the movie Avatar. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The concept of self-determination is relatively modern. The first high-profile exposure of the concept was in Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points speech, however the concept of self-determination there was a Eurocentric one, and didn't really extend in Wilson's mind to all peoples worldwide. However, it got the ball rolling, and the zeitgeist slowly changed through the first half of the 20th century when the concept became an accepted standard in the post-Colonial world. By the time anyone really thought of the sort of "self-determination" that you are asking about, it was during the great independence movements of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s. By then, Israel already existed as a state, and did so by disenfranchising a people who already lived there. Which is not to say it is right, which is also not to say that it is wrong, but it is to say that it is. That is why the question of Palestinian self-determination is so wrapped up in Israeli soverignty, and why the idea doesn't make much sense pre-1948. Israel has an unambiguous right to exist and to protect itself, but it also has dealt poorly with the problem of Palestine. Its why the two-state solution has so much traction internationally and within the region, the only tenable long-term solution is a free and independent Palestine alongside a secure and safe Israel. If you can figure out how to do that, there's some folks in Norway that would like to present you with a big shiny medallion... --Jayron32 04:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding nukes' attacks by terrorist, there are a couple of points worth considering: 1. they are not easily available, even functioning countries like Iran seem to have problems producing them; 2. they are not easy to smuggle; 3. they won't necessarily cause that much damage. It depends on many factors like explodeing it on the air or surface, wind conditions, etc. Quest09 (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Far-right politics in Africa

Since far-right political parties are anti-immigrant and eurosceptic, what about far-right politics in Africa? Are there any political parties that are far-right and what is their common trait? anti-white or anti-immigrant or something like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.33.191 (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Right-left politics is always defined locally, and not globally. Rightist parties are reactionary and backward looking (preserve social order, return to a better time). Leftist parties are progressive and forward looking (improve society, reform, etc.). Whatever those ideas mean where you live will define the local politics on the left-right scale. --Jayron32 04:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Or to put it more succinctly, the left-right scale is total bullshit. --Trovatore (talk) 09:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it just needs to be defined locally, and also defined on a per-issue basis. It doesn't work if you over-extend it. But if party A has a reactionary position on issue 1, then they can be said to be of a "rightist" mindset on that one issue, while if party B has a progressive position on the same issue, then they have a leftist mindset. Where a party is consistantly reactionary, they may be generally described as rightist, and some parties defy easy categorization because they are all over the map WRT their political positions. Such parties could be described as "centrist" (if their positions tend toward the moderate position) or may simply be uncategorizable (if they hold radical, but distinctly different positions). --Jayron32 12:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you define it on a per-issue basis, then it's pointless. The whole point of political groupings is an attempt to show how positions of various issues are correlated. That is, you're saying that people with the same position on one issue probably have the same position on other issues. Terms like "right wing" are only useful to the extent that that is true (which isn't a particularly large extent). --Tango (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Jayron, sorry, your proposed definition, though conventional, is total bullshit. There's no such thing as "progressive" or "reactionary". Those terms assume that there's a particular natural direction that the flow of history will naturally go, and some are swimming with the flow and others against it.

Take the early 2000s in the United States, for example, when the Bushies were trying to construct a New American Century, and their opponents were looking back to the Clinton years they saw as better. Clearly the GOP was progressive and the Democratic Party was reactionary, right? --Trovatore (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(For a still-oversimplified, but much more revelatory, way of characterizing political positions, see Nolan Chart.) --Trovatore (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the Nolan Chart. Its a nice piece of Libertarian Party propaganda which is used to convince everyone they are really Libertarians. Brilliant for that purpose; otherwise its not obviously less bullshit than the one-axis left-right grouping (which has its own bullshittiness, for exactly all the reasons you note). The Nolan Chart is merely two-dimensional bullshit. One could similarly devise a political "cube" which had three political axises, and would be three-dimensional bullshit. It wouldn't be less bullshitty, it would just be more of it. --Jayron32 19:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It is, as I mentioned, oversimplified. But yes, it's less bullshit than left-right. --Trovatore (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jayron32, (but noting obvious edge cases like Napoleon III; neo-liberalism (depending on your definition structure of far-right); or, some kinds of fascism which have at times had a generalising concept of compatible modern nationalism. These edge cases could exist in Africa, it appears as though a few people have criticised some forms of pan-Africanism for right wing bents). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging is one example. --Roisterer (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There are a few other White chauvinist groups in South Africa, like Freedom Front, etc. In general, the only clear examples of far right political movements in Africa have emerged as spin-offs of European movements (white chauvinists in Rhodesia, German Nazis in South West Africa, fascist groups set up under Italian occupation, etc.). The international far right did seek some alliances with people like UNITA in Angola, seen as fighting communism, but there is little evidence to suggest that UNITA actually would have adopted any form of far right ideological approach. On the whole, African politics tend to be quite pragmatic and parties are often not divided along a Eurocentric left-right axis. There are many leftwing movements across the continent, that had clear linkages and identification with Marxist sectors outside Africa, but their opponents were rarely able to construct clear-cut ideological parties. On the whole, the rightwing (not just the far right) has difficulties in finding counterparts in many African countries (parties do join structures like International Democrat Union, but for entirely opportunistic reasons). --Soman (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front is somewhat anti-white, but it also identifies as a left-wing party, so that doesn't really fit. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Vide supra. --Trovatore (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Fascism in Africa claims "amongst the indigenous people fascism in its true ideological sense is unheard of" --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a big to me. Just the same it may be true, if by true ideological sense one intends the specific ideological system of Giovanni Gentile et al. But in that sense there are probably few if any true fascists left in the world; that system was specific to a time and place. --Trovatore (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Crime prescription

Didn't the alleged high-jacking that George_Wright_(criminal) committed prescribed? Quest09 (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouble parsing the grammar of your sentence. Are you asking if it is outside of the statute of limitations? It probably is, unless they indicted him in absentia. In any case, the articles I have read (e.g. this one) say that he still has a nice chunk of time left on his previous sentence, which would carry him along until his was 90 years old by itself. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right on that: my sentence is convoluted. So would be better: isn't the hijack accusation against George_Wright_(criminal) already prescribed? And yes, I know he has a sentence to serve, besides this hijack. Quest09 (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ordinarily yes. There are some cases like that of D.B. Cooper where a grand jury indictment was done at the time which keeps it from being outside the statute of limitations. I see no reason to think they've done that in this case though. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As a side note: hijacking planes was much, but much more common at that time (end of the 60's, beginning of the 70's). So, possibly this particular hijacking didn't get all the attention - from the police and judicial system - that it would get today. Wikiweek (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's also because nobody had used a hijacked plane as a suicide bomb before. It ups the ante a bit. Most of the hijackings in the 1970s were like the Wright one: hijack a plane, demand a bunch of money, fly it to Cuba/Algeria/wherever, everyone goes home with an adventure. In a way the rate of terrorism in the 1970s is astounding compared to today (they had hundreds of bombings per year at the height of it), on the other hand, it was also a lot quainter: the body count was very low, at least in the USA. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

For those who, like me, still could not make sense of Quest09's question even after they reworded it, the OED lists a meaning of "prescribe" in Scots law: "Of an action: to suffer prescription (prescription n.1 1); to lapse, to become invalid or void through passage of time. Of a crime, claim, debt, etc.: to be no longer capable of being prosecuted." I conjecture that this is the meaning intended, and that it must be used somewhere else besides Scotland. --ColinFine (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe you can use the word this way. There is no such thing as "crime prescription." There is a Period_of_prescription#Prescription for civil lawsuits, in the sense of a period of time set by law after which a right is unenforceable. However, in criminal law, there is just a statute of limitation. Wikiweek (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The statute of limitations article explains that statute of limitations is the term used in common law countries (that is, most English-speaking ones), whereas prescription is the term used in civil law countries. They don't seem to be very different, so it's not clear why a different word is used.

Still, Quest09, please do be aware that this sense of the word prescribed is likely not to be understood when speaking English. --Trovatore (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm re-rewording: is the hijack accusation against George_Wright_(criminal) already outside the statute of limitations? Quest09 (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is it is kind of a complicated question. The statute of limitations for federal crimes (like hijacking) is 5 years. However there are a lot of complicated ways in which this can be rendered irrelevant by clever lawyers. The fact that he is explicitly a "fugitive fleeing from justice" in the hijacking may invalidate any statute of limitations on the crime, but this seems to be a tricky and nuanced legal issue. See [20]. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Africans in Belgium

How many Rwandans live in Belgium? How many Burundians live in Belgium? How many Zairians live in Belgium? and in which cities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.33.154 (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Lots. Over there *points* -- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

On this page is a link to a study that will answer your questions. It is a bit old, but the situation is unlikely to have changed dramatically since its publication. The study is in French, but if you are clever, you can find the information you want without knowing French. Marco polo (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh my god, are we going to get this stuff again? Looie496 (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Indonesian Muslims in the Netherlands

How many Indonesian Muslims live in the Netherlands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.33.154 (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

According to this study, approximately 800,000 people of Indonesian descent live in the Netherlands. This includes Eurasians of mixed descent. The study does not distinguish among Indonesian Netherlanders of different religions. Indonesians who have migrated to the Netherlands are likely to be disproportionately non-Muslim. While Indonesia's population is predominantly Muslim, based on my understanding of the migrant population, the number of Muslims in this group may not exceed 500,000. However, this is pure guesswork on my part in the absence of real statistics. Marco polo (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: OP has asked this question (and variations thereof) numerous times before under different IP's. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Myth of choosing a husband by his feet

I recall when I was young a story about a woman or princess choosing her husband by looking among the feet of suitors. I seem to recall that years earlier, she had placed a ring into a wound into his foot and this is how she found her hero again. I can't find this story anywhere, but it seems like a combination of the story of Skaði and also of Odysseus, with the former having the choosing, and the second having the scar on the foot. Neither has a ring, however. It might not necessarily be a related epic or mythology, but a work of fiction based on mythology. I heard it in 1985, but haven't found it anywhere. Gx872op (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like the story of Hadingus and Regnilda, as told by Saxo Grammaticus in his Gesta Danorum. Our Hadingus page, which doesn't go into enough detail to mention this episode, says that Poul Anderson retells the story in his 1997 novel War of the Gods, but that seems too late for you. --Antiquary (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a translation of Book 1 of the Gesta Danorum here. You'll find the Hadingus and Regnilda episode (translated as Hadding and Ragnhild) about three-quarters of the way down, in the paragraph beginning "Hadding chanced to hear". --Antiquary (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Fraud and Common Knowledge

This isn't a request for legal advice, but... In a fraud case, if the misrepresentation of fact is common knowledge, does that still count as a misrepresentation? What if the plaintiff still relied on the misrepresentation even though it was common knowledge? Thanks.--130.166.216.254 (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It would depend upon how common the knowledge was, especially with reference to the position and expectation of savvy on the part of the plaintiff. It's not a question that can be answered in the abstract. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This may or may not contribute toward satisfactory answers, but the questions remind me of Santa Claus and The Emperor's New Clothes.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly confused about whether the fact or the act of misrepresentation is being considered here. Could you give us slightly more concrete example of what you mean? --Mr.98 (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Catholic Church was sued for claiming to be the legitimate representative of God on Earth. Every misrepresentation can get you in trouble, no matter how evident it is that you are just joking. Wikiweek (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Basically the case is that a moviegoer goes to a movie and makes sure in multiple ways that the movie starts at 1pm. Not the programme but the actual movie. And then he wants to sue the movie theater for fraud because there are 20 minutes of commercials before the the movie. Now, obviously the fact that there are advertisements or whatever before any feature presentation is common knowledge but suppose that the plaintiff didn't know that. Would that count as a misrepresentation of fact/reasonable reliance as an element of fraud? It's been a while since I took business law...130.166.216.254 (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I would guess that the movie house has a disclaimer somewhere stating that all showtimes are subject to change without notice. Googlemeister (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

We'd need to unpack "makes sure in multiple ways that the movie starts at 1pm." On the face of it, this is not a question revolving around the supposed common knowledge that adverts form the first part of the programme, but - at least according to your narrative - one revolving around exactly what representations, if any, has the movie theatre made to the would be plaintiff that the movie itself would start at 1pm? And, per googlemeister, did any of those representations disclaim the likely disclaimer? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless there was a written or oral agreement that the theater would pay a penalty if they failed to show the movie on time, there was no actionable damage. 69.171.160.237 (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Common currency, uncommon debt

If a US state, but not one of the biggest, much more one as (un)important as Greece in the EU, would start to accrue lots and lots of debt, would the dollar be at risk? Would someone try to expel it from the dollar? Wikiweek (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably yes to the first, no to the second. Yes to the first for much the same reasons as we see in Europe, of the risks falling on the creditors of the indebted state, and the associated contagion effects. FWIW, I think - especially in terms of pension liabilities of city and state authorities, the US is pretty much there already. The idea that Greece or southern Europe are the only basket-cases would be somewhat delusional. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A US state defaulting might create a risk of recession but it would not be likely to have a serious effect on the dollar. Certainly nobody would try to expel it from the dollar -- the only question is whether the federal government would bail it out or allow it to go bankrupt. Most likely the federal govt would bail it out in exchange for taking control of the state's fiscal apparatus -- this is a lot easier than in Europe because the US is much more unified than the EU. Looie496 (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

References, please, not just crystal ball speculation with your opinion when possible. This is a Reference Desk. Although no state has gone bankrupt, countires and cities have; we have a category, Category:Government units that have filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy. There have been "under 600" municipal bankruptcies since 1937, according to our article Chapter 9 bankruptcy, which sounds like, well, there have been more than 500. With this history, I don't see why the federal government would bail out a state, particularly when Republicans are in control of one of the two houses of Congress. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Books similar to...

I'm looking for novels similar to Louis Bromfield's The Rains Came. Similar in that they contain a good story in a tropical setting. Thanks in advance! Sadly our article is more about the films than the book. 92.82.124.238 (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are Alpine regions so rich?

Austria, Switzerland, Bavaria, Northern Italy... --Belchman (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Easily accessible rare mineral resources, difficult terrain for would-be plunderers, and limited opportunities for expensive recreational activities. 69.171.160.237 (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A long history of being at the fore-front of technological development, caused by war and private greed, and allowed for by private property laws and education, a climate which made nice homes a necessity (Bushmen in the alps is impossible), law systems, currency, and today, their businesses have a strong foundation and can get into new markets in foreign nations before native businesses have a chance, also see neo-colonialism. No Côte d'Ivoire company could ever out compete Lindt & Sprüngli the way trade rules are currently. Public awareness (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition, perhaps the nature of these mountain areas as waypoints for trade of high value items or technology between different societies, while still not being attractive as lands for over-populated hordes to settle in, may have brought advantages in early history - Ötzi the Iceman was an example of someone passing through while laden with the best technology that the Bronze Age could supply.

And also; did the long-established traditions of Alpine agriculture (alpiculture is also redlinked elsewhere, surely we have an article on this somewhere? - the links from Pastoralism are no help), mainly pastoral farming where the cattle grazed on the pastures high on the Alps during the summer, but were brought down during the winter, give a form of social cohesion that ended up promoting concentrated wealth more so than, say, areas devoted to mass cereal farming such as Egypt and Mesopotamia, or nomadic pastoralism such as Eastern Europe and southern Africa? (As a comparison, some have argued, I think, that the ancient Athenians were forced to be innovative because their land was relatively poor agriculturely; but also drew concentrated wealth and requirements for long term investment from its silver mines and its suitability for cultivation of the olive.) The highly profitable Swiss chocolate industry presumably required ready availability of dairy products. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Minor factor - ready access to water power towards then latter part of the 19th century not only gave cheap hydroelectricity - but in Switzerland and Sweden also spurred the development of world beating electrical engineering industries (comparable to having a world beating computer industry nowadays).

Someone more familiar with the historys might be able to tell you that pre-industrial revolution these places were not specifically rich (if I recall correctly). I'm fairly certain that Austria in the whole (including alpine) areas was and remained quite poor after the industrial revolution.

Argentina nickname

Nickname for Argentina? Looked all over and couldn't find one from a RS. Albacore (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

September 30

Bear Flag Revolt

Is there any external-link (non-Wikipedia) information on the Bear Flag Revolt? 75.6.243.251 (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)