Science	Mathematics	Computing/IT	Humanities
Language	Entertainment	Miscellaneous	Archives

How to ask a question

Search first. It's quicker, because you can find the answer in our online encyclopedia instead of waiting for a volunteer to respond. Search Wikipedia using the searchbox. A web search could help too. Common questions about Wikipedia itself, such as how to cite Wikipedia and who owns Wikipedia, are answered in Wikipedia:FAQ.

Sign your question. Type ~~~~ at its end.
Be specific. Explain your question in detail if necessary, addressing exactly what you'd like answered. For information that changes from country to country (or from state to state), such as legal, fiscal or institutional matters, please specify the jurisdiction you're interested in.
Include both a title and a question. The title (top box) should specify the topic of your question. The complete details should be in the bottom box.

Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please don't post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers.

Be patient. Questions are answered by other users, and a user who can answer may not be reading the page immediately. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to seven days.

Do not include your e-mail address. Questions aren't normally answered by e-mail. Be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites; making your e-mail address public here may make it very public throughout the Internet.
Edit your question for more discussion. Click the [edit] link on right side of its header line. Please do not start multiple sections about the same topic.
Archived questions If you cannot find your question on the reference desks, please see the Archives.
Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk.
Do not request medical or legal advice.
Ask a doctor or lawyer instead.

After reading the above, you may
ask a new question by clicking here.
Your question will be added at the bottom of the page.

How to answer a question

Be thorough. Please provide as much of the answer as you are able to.
Be concise, not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated.

Link to articles which may have further information relevant to the question.
Be polite to users, especially ones new to Wikipedia. A little fun is fine, but don't be rude.
The reference desk is not a soapbox. Please avoid debating about politics, religion, or other sensitive issues.

December 30

Avignon papacy - 46 Years

I see in the Popes in Avignon that there was a 2 year gap between the first Pope and the next Pope. What was the reason for this? Then I notice that there are 4 Popes next in line until Pope Urban V. It looks like coincidently then there are 46 years that ran continuously to Pope Urban V. This then being the years 1316 to 1362. Now coincidently I add up their numbers and it ALSO is "46" (22 + 12 + 6 + 6). Is there NOT a reference someplace in the New Testament something to do with a Temple being of "46" or of "46 years" old or something to do with the number "46". Was NOT Pope Urban V the first pope that tried to move the papacy back to Rome? I notice also in this article that it refers to the Avignon papacy being from about 1309 to 1377. It seems like I have seen it as 1378 instead and in history books as the Avignon papacy being of "70 years". Is this not correct being of "70 years" for the Avignon papacy? I have also seen this reference of 70 years in some websites to Avignon history records. Also I notice that Pope Gregory XI is to 1378 and the transfer was to have taken place in 1378. This then would make it close to this reference of "70 years" being then from about 1309 (or 1307) to about 1378. It was Pope Gregory XI that made the transfer to Rome, however I understand shortly after he died. I understand the Pope that ACTUALLY finalized this of an "official" transfer back to Rome from Avignon was Pope Urban VI. --Doug 00:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Doug! Anyway, turning to your question on the Avignon Popes, following the death of Clement V in 1314 the cardinals were so divided politically that they could not agree on a successor, making the ensuing vacancy, known in the church as a Sede vacante, one of the longest in the history of the Papacy. It wasn't until 1316, under the influence of King Philip V, that John XXII finally emerged as the second of the Avignon Popes. On your next point, I have no information on the significance of the figure 46, though I imagine this is pure coincidence. Urban V did indeed attempt a move back to Rome, but abandoned this under pressure from the influential block of French cardinals. There seems to be some confusion in Wikipedia articles on the subject, but my understanding is that Gregory XI moved the seat of papal power back to Rome in January 1377, under the influence of Catherine of Sienna. There may also be some confusion over dating with the emerging Western Schism, and the creation by the French cardinals in 1378 of the anti-pope, Clement VII, who took up residence in Avignon, in opposition with the Italian, Urban VI, whose seat of power was in Rome. I hope this helps. Clio the Muse 01:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that helped a lot. Thanks! I also noticed some confusion here as to about "70 years" for the term of the Avignon papacy. I have even researched this is several history books at local libraries and have found many say something to the effect of around or "about 70 years" for the term of the Avignon papacy. With your information and this history book information, this then would be the dates somewhere around the start of the Avignon papacy being from about 1307 (to 1309) to your date of January 1377; a period of "about 70 years". There were then SEVEN (7) Avignon popes. Since Avignon Pope Clement V started his papacy in 1305, this of "about 70 years" then is probably a rounding of approximately the term of the Avignon papacy. This would be pretty close since the "transition" period for the start of the ACTUAL Avignon "papal court" would have been about October 1307 to March 1309. Then from around 1308 (+/- 1 year) to January 1377 is just under the "70 years" as is recorded in many history books and encyclopedias. I just happen to have noticed this "COINCIDENCE" of the 46 years from the actual reign of a CONTINUOUS "papal court" of from 1316 to that of the start of an attempt by Urban V in the year 1362 to move to papacy back to Rome. Also this "COINCIDENCE" just happens to be these Avignon Pope numbers added up (John XXII + Benedict XII + Clement VI + Innocent VI) being then XLVI ("46", I think in Roman numerals). --Doug 14:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question on the Buddha's first sermon

The Dialogues of the Buddha are recorded as the suttas, correct? I have wondered if the Buddha's first sermon where he declared the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path to his previous teachers, was that sermon also recorded as a sutta in tha Pali Canon? If so, I would be greatly delighted to find out which sutta it was recorded as. Thanks in advance AmateurThinker 03:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, this is held to be the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta ("the sutta of the first turning of the wheel of the Dharma"), which is at Samyutta-Nikaya V.420. In Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation it starts on page 1843. There are suttas that describe events before this one, but they are included as stories within later suttas.--Shantavira 10:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this?

I have always thought that this particular statue is of Confucius, but I am not entirely too sure as some of my peers think it is Lao-zi. Does anyone know for sure who it is or if it is even an historical figure. Thanks! — Arjun 05:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also don't assume it is Confucius because of the file name...since I took it :). — Arjun 06:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, his exaggerated features and caricatured grotesque appearance identify him as a Taoist sage, perhaps one of the Eight Immortals, such as Iron-crutch Li with his staff and medicine gourd (?). --Wetman 11:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! — Arjun 14:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, don't you think the pic would look better if it was cleaned first ? A brush and a few minutes would be all it would take. But, maybe you don't have sufficient access to it for cleaning. StuRat 14:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...do you have any tips as I have tried before and the dust seems to not budge. The statue is very old. — Arjun 21:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a rather dilute solution of hand dishwashing detergent and an old toothbrush ? I'd be particularly gentle near painted areas, like the eyes, but the rest looks like it could withstand a vigorous brushing. Brush in the same direction as the grooves for best results. StuRat 01:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law: accidental overhearing of confession

If, say, I overhear a confession of a crime told by a a person to a priest or a lawyer, accidentally, can I testify to it in court? If I go to a police, do they have 'sufficient evidence' to do a search or what not? What is the legal status of accidental evidence discovery (if I'm not a policeman)? My husband and I are arguing over this because I saw this as part of an email disclaimer "Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any attorney-client, physician-patient or other privilege." and I don't think it's legally true (in a sense that if any incriminating evidence is received in such a way, it can be used legally despite the disclaimer), but my husband disagrees. Settle our dispute please :) With facts, I mean :)--Knyazhna 06:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; some may not recognize any privileges related to confessional statements to priests to start with. Unless the law (or established precedent) explicitly extends the privileged status to accidental overhearers, it is quite plausible that your status as an overhearer of a privileged communication would be judged to be the same as when the communication had not been privileged – after all, the rationale for making certain communication privileged does not apply. But the test is in the pudding: only in an actual court case would you find out. I agree that these email disclaimers almost certainly have no legal standing. Perhaps they are there for due diligence reasons. --Lambiam ^Talk 06:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore it depends on the severity of the crime; For example, Paul Bernardo & Karla Homolka, Serial Killer and Rapist Team; Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka -- the Ken and Barbie of Mayhem and Murder. They lured, sadistically raped and tortured young women, then murdered them. http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/bernardo/index_1.html --Jones2 09:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes in the US the issue of whether the confessor (let's call him "Edeward") had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is introduced. If Edward said in the confessional booth of the Church or in his lawyer's office that he killed someone, and a policeman standing outside heard it, he has a better chance of getting it excluded than if he said it in a bar and a policeman at the next bar stool overheard it. Edison 16:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Town twinning

I don't understand the artlicle Town twinning. What does it mean? For example it states:The city of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada was one of the first cities ever to enter into an international twinning arrangement when, in 1944, it twinned with the Ukrainian city of Odessa, which at the time was part of the Soviet Union. This was based on aiding the allied port city during World War II.? --Delma1 10:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems perfectly clear to me. Please indicate what it is you don't understand, and perhaps people can help. --ColinFine 12:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The arrangement is one to one with local councils. Sometimes local councilors will visit the sister city and learn about local arrangements that work, in the hopes of transference. Sometimes schools get involved too. It is not a mutual defence pact, as between states. DDB 13:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what actually happens, take in the above example? --Delma1 13:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See DDB's answer above. As far as I am aware, it is a purely civil arrangement, i.e. there is no contractual obligation to do anything at all. It all depends on people in the town taking some initiative and organising at least a few exchange visits. In the end, it's all down to the people involved to come up with ideas. Sometimes very little happens. I must confess I have no idea which cities my home city is twinned with.--Shantavira 14:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think twinning is often used to promote tourism. I remember reading an article about the people of an american town complaining that lots of them had visited their british twin but few had come from britain to visit them. meltBanana 15:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In other words they have same planning & development? --Delma1 09:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No to your last question. Have a look at the site map of the Sister Cities International site. There are pages and pdf articles that should answer almost all of your questions. --Seejyb 14:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's more of a sort of social/cultural/friendship exchange. Where I live, we have sister cities (a.k.a. twin towns) in China and Japan. My home city is promoted as a holiday destination in its sister cities - they are promoted here as good places to do business in Asia. Our city's botanical gardens include a traditional Japanese garden, and a traditional Chinese garden is under construction - both of these built with the financial and technical support of people in our sister cities. Those cities have hosted art exhibitions by artists from my home city. And so on. Grutness...wha? 07:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also often a good excuse to have a few trips somewhere at taxpayer expense for a committee while these things are being arranged - but I'm just a cynic sometimes. Robovski 01:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reserve requirement of Canadian Banks

In article: Reserve requirement it states: As of 2006 the required reserve ratio in the United States was 10% on transaction deposits (component of money supply "M1"), and zero on time deposits and all other deposits.. My question lies here: What is the Reserve requirement of Canadian Banks? Please provide references if possible. Thnx. --Judged 11:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The table in the Reserve requirement article says that the Bank of Canada (which is Canada's central bank) does not have a required reserve ratio. I imagine that this means it operates a more flexible voluntary reserve policy, similar to the Bank of England. There might be more information at the Bank of Canada's web site. Gandalf61 16:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open market operation

In article Open market operation: it states: The process does not literally require the immediate printing of new currency. A central bank account for a member bank can simply be increased electronically. However this will increase the central bank's requirement to print currency when the member bank demands banknotes, in exchange for a decrease in its electronic balance. Does the Canadian Government have an account with the big 5 banks in Canada, and are there references to that effect? --Judged 11:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, to be clear, only the italic lightface portion of the question above is a quote from Open market operation. The italic bold portion is the questioner's question. Now, the article on open market operations refers to operations by central banks, not by governments. So, whether or not the Canadian government has accounts at commercial banks is not relevant to open market operations that might be conducted by Canada's central bank, the Bank of Canada, which is not one of the "big five" commercial banks. The Bank of Canada would conduct open market operations, as described by the article, not through accounts it held at commercial banks but through accounts held by the commercial banks at the Bank of Canada.

In fact, both kinds of accounts seem to exist. This document from the Bank of Canada refers to settlement accounts held at the Bank of Canada by "about a dozen financial institutions". Part II, Section 17. (2) of Canada's Financial Administration Act empowers the Receiver General for Canada to establish accounts at financial institutions for the conduct of government business. Marco polo 02:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval currency

What currency did they use during middle ages.. i relaize this might varied a bit from region to region, but was it a typical thing with system much like this :

Gold coins - most worth silver coins bronze coins - least worth ?

or was it typical with just gold coins ?

how did the money system work ? did they have names on different coins, like today we have forexample in england POUNDS, PENCE etc.

how much was a gold coin worth? (if goldcoins was indeed used much)

How much was a bread worth compared to how much was a sword/weapon and various armour worth ? how many breads would u get for 1 gold ?

I'm just trying to figure out APPROXIMATELY how the system worked and the worth of items compared to the coins value. just getting an idea...

Say a baron or a lord sold his land. how much money(or gold?) would he likely sell it for ? ofc, the size of his land would be vital in deciding that, and the quality of it and what was in it as well. it would be nice to get an idea of how it worked.

how much was normal daily/weekly/monthly salary for various jobs/works ?

Thank you, Krikkert7 12:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Krikkert[reply]

Currency is anything that can be accepted for trade. Vikings would use trinkets as well as bolts of cloth or animals or land. Traders existed by taking things from one town to the next. Barrels of pickled fish are currency.

A viking raiding party might introduce themselves to a local king. They would bring cloth and food and accept manufactured goods as gifts. Literaly, trade.

Coins, stamped with a king's likeness are currency, but mainly for wealthy and state transactions, not for local life. Peasants had little need for coins. Peasant clothing was restricted. If a peasant stole the clothing of a wealthy person, anyone could see. It's interesting that trade, currency and accounting grew hand in hand with the printing press. DDB 12:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions are rather too broad. Just like today, the cost of land, armour, work, or bread would all vary depending on many factors. Even the term Middle Ages covers several hundred years during which these factors would all change considerably. Have you read our article on the history of money? Also see the History section in the currency article.--Shantavira 13:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One comment, money was in the from of coins then, with their value being exactly due to the value of the constituent precious metals. Paper money, and our current coins, have a value based only on faith in the financial system of the country which prints them, which is quite different. The only faith required at the time was that the coins were actually coined of the metals claimed and were of the size claimed. StuRat 14:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salaries for jobs were quite rare. Most people would work for their relatives, or possibly be an indentured servant. In both cases the only salary was likely to be room and board and training in the field. This was a subsistence economy for most of the people, there was no excess wealth to save. StuRat 14:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This varied substantially over the course of the Middle Ages. During the early Middle Ages, it is true that currency, in the form of coins, was rare and mainly used by feudal nobles and church hierarchy. However, as the Middle Ages progressed, the use of money increased. This was partly due to the growth of cities and urban markets. Serfs could and did sell their surplus produce in urban markets for cash (coins). Also, after the Black Death, there was a severe labor shortage, and even serfs were able to demand compensation (sometimes in coin) for their labor. Successful serfs could even save money (in the form of coins) and buy their freedom and/or a piece of land of their own.

Gold coinage was almost unknown in Europe until the modern era. Most coins were silver, and silver was the basis for most currencies. The pound sterling carries this name because it was originally a unit of account referring to a pound of sterling silver. The basic unit of English currency was the silver penny, 240 of which made up a Tower pound. Marco polo 02:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since coins were based on their weight in silver, would you make a purchase by just plopping your coins on a scale? If so, how would they account for debased coins? -- Mwalcoff 05:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coins were recognizable, as they are today, by the images and text stamped on the coins. The silver content of coins was generally known, as a new coinage could be melted down and assayed. Debased coins would be discounted accordingly. Marco polo 14:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Producing short-weight coins was a very serious matter, which remained a capital offence into the 19th century; various means were used to make it obvious if coins had been debased, e.g. design elements on the edge of the design which would make it clear that metal had been trimmed from the coin; later they were able to mill the edges of coins, or even inscribe writing into the edge - the reason many British £1 coins today have "DECUS ET TUTAMEN" ("An ornament and a safeguard") on their edge is because that was used on coins in the 17th century. In earlier days, the name of the moneyer who produced the coin was inscribed on the coin, so the king knew exactly who to blame if a coin was produced with insufficient weight or fineness of metal -- in 1124 Henry I summoned all 150 moneyers to his court at Winchester, and 94 of them were convicted of producing short-weight coins and had their right hand and one testicle cut off, which presumably encouraged the others to maintain their quality control! -- Arwel (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kings were not just charged with protecting the coinage, they could also themselves be responsible for its debasement! A classic example of this is James III of Scotland, who attempted to spend his way out of financial difficulty by a particularly unscrupulous form of deficit financing, the so-called 'black coinage', one of the reasons for his growing unpopularity. On the question of wage rates in medieval England there is quite a lot of detailed information. In the period before the Black Death in the mid-1340s skilled labourers could expect to earn around 3d a day. With the severe shortage of labour caused by the plague, coupled with increasing demand, a steady process of wage inflation set in, causing Edward III to introduce the Ordinance of Labourers in 1349, reinforced by parliament's Statute of Labourers in 1351. Both had limited effect. We also know that the Peasants Revolt in 1381 was caused by unacceptably high levels of taxation, coupled by more rigorous attempts by the government of Richard II to enforce the earlier wage statutes . Clio the Muse 05:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "Goodbye, Mr. Chips"

I am reading "Goodbye, Mr. Chips", and I am confusing. Mr. Chips wrote:"This was the kind of fight in which the Germans busied themselves." Students thought it's very funny. I don't get it. Germans made themselves busy in World War 1. What's so funny? Could somebody kindly solve my puzzle?

One more question. Mr. Chips told a boy,"You're growing up into a very cross sort of world. Maybe it will have got over some of its crossness by the time you're ready for it. Let's hope so at any rate....." I don't understand the meaning of "a very cross sort of world". Any advice would be very much appreciated.61.60.242.186 13:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Jenny[reply]

Don't know what was funny about the first one - it might be to do with the context which isn't quoted. But "cross" means angry. He just means there's a lot of anger in the world. --Nicknack009 13:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The joke is saying that the Germans declared war just to "keep busy", as if they were bored and had to find something to do. StuRat 13:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the passage. The joke is not in the actual phrasing. It is the fact that he managed to find something in a 2000 year old latin text, Julius Caesar' Commentaries on the Gallic Wars, that was relevant then, during a world war I german air-raid. "Genus hoc erat pugnae, quo se Germani exercuerant" meltBanana 15:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Context is everything - This bit reads - "And once, on a night of full moonlight, the air-raid warning was given while Chips was taking his lower-fourth in Latin. .... Is there anyone who will volunteer to construe?' Maynard, chubby, dauntless, clever, and impudent, said: 'I will, sir.' 'Very good. Turn to page forty and begin at the bottom line.' The explosions still continued deafeningly; the whole building shook as if it were being lifted off its foundations. Maynard found the page, which was some way ahead, and began shrilly: 'Genus hoc erat pugnae - this was the kind of fight - quo se Germani exercuerant - in which the Germans busied themselves - Oh, sir, that's good - that's really very funny indeed, sir - one of your very best - Laughing began, and Chips added: 'Well - umph - you can see - now - that these dead languages - umph - can come to life again - sometimes - eh? Eh?'" - I.e. they busied themselves fighting then - and they were busing themselves fighting now. Jooler 16:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of the headline from Our Dumb Century between the World Wars: "Peace-torn Germany Struggles With No War in Sight" --Maxamegalon2000 00:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. StuRat 15:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The book is one of my favorites. I also loved Delderfield's 'To Serve Them All My Days.' The joke meanings have already been posted. However, to say that the Germans busied themselves with war is to say that a relatively routine task, which people all do, was, for Germans, fighting others. It was an insult. It was also apt for the moment.

For the world to be cross, the world would be upset, in a fighting mood. This is another apt description of WW1. The hope given that it would not always be so. cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodbye_Mr_Chips DDB 01:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. You are all so helpful and lovely.61.60.242.186 15:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Jenny[reply]

Oh, Oh, question again. Before Mr. Chips died, the boy Linford visited him then left. Mr. Chips thought: An old leg-pull, to make new boys think that his name was really Chips...... Why he thought so? His name was always really Chips, isn't it? 61.60.242.186 17:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Jenny[reply]

I believe that was his nickname, not his real name. StuRat 18:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I found his real name is Chipping. Thank you.61.60.242.186 23:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Jenny[reply]

Shoes on or off ?

In the US, it is generally considered socially unacceptable to take ones shoes or boots off when visiting a guest's home, while in Japan, it is expected that you would take your footwear off in the same circumstances. (Personally, I think the Japanese have this one right, why should we have hot, sweaty, disease-prone feet while also tracking in everything we stepped on outside ?) My question is, where do other cultures around the world stand on this custom ? Is shoes-on the norm or shoes-off ? StuRat 14:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Norway, the norm is shoes-off if the setting is informal. --NorwegianBlue^talk 15:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know some people here in the US who do that too (including myself). Still, it's rare. I remeber one of the homes where they did that was German, though I can't say if it's only them who do that. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 15:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain it depends on the inhabitants of the house. You take your cue by whether there's a pile of shoes by the door and whether your host has any shoes on. Sometimes I'll ask 'Is this a shoes-off house?' or 'Should I take my shoes off?' if I feel it is unclear (eg, I'm visiting and they're wearing slippers, or their shoes are particularly dirty so I'm not sure if they'd normally take them off). It's rarely considered rude to take your shoes off on entering a carpeted house, although it could look like 'settling in' when they're only expecting a brief visit! It might be considered rude to retain your shoes, so it's worth paying attention. I would expect to retain my shoes in a house that didn't have fitted carpets. On top of this, I suspect there is a class dimension (isn't there always?). Interesting that removing your shoes in your host's house is considered rude in the US. Skittle 15:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This code of conduct, which is now widespread in Britain, is a relatively recent thing. 30 or 40 years ago very few people would have considered taking shoes off to save a host's carpet or paquet flooring. Jooler 16:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it's at all related to the rise in central heating? Skittle 16:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In german-speaking regions of Europe it is shoes-off too. Aetherfukz 16:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't agree that it's "socially unacceptable" to take your shoes off while visiting a guest's home in the US. In houses that I visit, I take my shoes off, especially if there is wall-to-wall carpeting. If anything, I think it's rude to leave your shoes on as that would be sullying their floors. This is of course all null if I see that the house's inhabitants are all wearing shoes while indoors. I have noticed that while I lived in Texas and Louisiana, more people tended to leave their shoes on while indoors than they do here in Minnesota. --Chickenflicker---♣ 18:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all Islamic countries and South and East Asian countries that I know off the norm is that you do not wear your outdoor shoes inside a private residence. Our article Etiquette in Asia mentions some countries, some under the heading "Shoes", some in the per-country treatment, but not systematically. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take my shoes off whenever my feet are starting to get uncomfortable. In restaurants, in cars, in libraries. I try to be discreet, though I don't think there's anything to be ashamed of. It doesn't do any good to suffer in silence. Of course, you can only get away with this if your feet are relatively odourless. Vranak

In the Czech Republic, it is also often customary to remove one's shoes when entering a house. And as said before, it's not that uncommon in the U.S. When I visit my parents' house, I take my shoes off on the mat next to the door, lest I mess up the kitchen floor. This may be more common in the northern parts of the country, where for much of the year footwear is covered in mud and gunk. -- Mwalcoff 00:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, I've not heard of anyone taking off their shoes when entering a house. I don't do it, and I don't know anyone who does. I've never been expected to take my shoes off, either. Perhaps climate has something to do with it? Taking off shoes on a hot day releases a terrible smell. Pesapluvo 03:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a common bit of circular reasoning: "people should leave their shoes on because people's feet stink". The problem with that statement is that their feet only stink because they keep their shoes on, allowing heat and humidity to build up to become a breeding ground for bacteria. StuRat 03:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had to take my shoes off whenever I entered my Bulgarian ex-girlfriend's house. They flipped out the few times I forgot and wore them in, so it must be a strong custom in Bulgaria. —Keenan Pepper 17:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here in New Zealand, in general one wouldn't take one's shoes off when entering a house - except when that house is part of a Maori marae. There it is a mark of respect, more akin to removing shoes on entering some holy sites. Grutness...wha? 07:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Southeast Texas, US) I'm not sure it's rude to take off your shoes when entering someone's house, I think it would just be a bit weird. I've certainly never seen it. Except one time, I was at a friend of mine's house, and his dad told me to take my shoes off when I came inside. They had some Japanese ancestry, though, which might have had something to do with it. Black Carrot 17:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOl @ Pesapluvo. I agree that it's quite uncommon in Australia, but I have a handful of friends who have a shoes-off requirement in their homes. One friend has a ready supply of guest slippers in various sizes, designs and colours, to cater for all tastes. JackofOz 23:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, circular reasoning it may be, but if I was required to take my shoes off every time I entered a house, especially in summer, I would be taken to the International War Crimes Tribunal for using weapons of mass destruction. It's good to see that the things known as thongs in Australia (i.e. flip-flops not g-strings) are now acceptable on semi-formal occasions here. Grant65 | Talk 00:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Hawaii, it is considered the norm to take off one's shoes before entering a house.

Sha'biyat question

Looking through the articles on the sha'biyat of Libya, I see a link for Al Jfara that actually links to Al 'Aziziyah. Lots of articles link to Al 'Aziziyah, but the only one that links to Al Jfara is the Libya page itself. Has the sha'biyah been renamed? Whatever it is, the articles are contradictory and should be harmonised. Nyttend 16:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what exactly was diefenbaker's achievement?

diefenbaker canada's 13th prime minister is famous for his bill of rights. what are his other achievements?

Have you checked John Diefenbaker? Also please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~). -- Aetherfukz 17:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually becoming PM despite not being from Ontario or Quebec or of Anglo-French background was a big one out West - the "Two Solitudes" myth Ontario and Quebec writers harp on (about everyone in Canada being indisputably, undeniably either English or French) has never sat well out here, where a huge percentage of the population is either Central/Eastern European or First Nations. There's also the Avro Arrow controversy. --Charlene 23:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Booty Song Lyrics

I just came back from the Carribean. There I heard a song that was entirely comprised of the word booty and some descriptor: Big Booty Small Booty Your Mama's Booty Can someone please tell me the name and artist of the song? I know this question was asked before but I cannot find the answer. Can anyone please help?

Booty man - Tim Wilson? Also please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~) -- Aetherfukz 17:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

psychology

explain about allport trait versus type theory

Gordon W. Allport contains a brief explanation; there's a fuller explanation here. - Nunh-huh 18:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Somerset Maugham short story about a man and an elephant

Many years ago I read a short story that I am reasonably certain was written by S. Maugham. It was about a British officer serving in India who ends up shooting an elephant essentilly to avoid looking foolish in front of the local villagers.

I am working my way through Volume I of a collection but have yet to find it. I was hoping to find it to use at weekly discussion group I attend.

ken

Could that be George Orwell, Shooting an Elephant? --Lambiam ^Talk 19:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 100% sure Lambiam is right. It's a powerful and unforgettable story, and you've described it well. Antandrus (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is indeed by George Orwell, though as you probably know by now, it is set in Burma, where Eric Blair served as a policeman, rather than an army officer. It is also a matter of debate if it should be considered a short story or an essay based upon a real experience. In truth, it is probably a bit of both, though the short story was not really Orwell's genre. Clio the Muse 23:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I could finish Keep the Aspidistra Flying in a single sitting, which I believe is the definition of a short story. Vranak 05:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impressed as I am by your achievment, Vranak, I do not believe the speed of your reading can really serve as a proper bench mark in such matters. I admit there is sometimes a fine line between the short story, the novella and the novel; but at some 150 pages plus in the Penguin edition, Keep the Aspdistra Flying has every right to be considered as a novel, and is so included amongst Orwell's other works in this field, from Burmese Days to Nineteen Eighty-Four. Incidentally, I read all of Orwell's novels in a single sitting (not on the same day!), but this had no effect on my estimation of their classification. Clio the Muse 05:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hanging Saddam's dog - truth or WP vandalism?

Just found this paragraph added to the Blondi article:

Blondi is also the name of the dog of Saddam Hussein Shortly after the execution of the dictator Saddam Hussein, his dog Blondi followed the same fate to the gallows. Contrary to Saddam, Blondi’s execution was broadcast live in full length. Some minor complications arose, which dragged out the death struggle to unbearable lengths. Animal activist group PETA has filed a formal complaint to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry.

and a link to this site with a supposed picture of the dog's execution. Truth or trolling? --Kurt Shaped Box 20:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly trolling. Dogs are not particularly liked in the arabic world[1] and if this does have anything to do with Saddam it is probably a symbolic hanging of stray who is no better then Saddam. Also the islamic-faschism ignores the fact that Saddam seemed to take Stalin as his role model rather than Hitler. And another also, why would PETA complain? one dead dog too late to save it is not like it is trying to stop an industry. meltBanana 21:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the original picture with an apparent date code from '92. They seem to be as barbaric in Washington as in Baghdad. meltBanana 21:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute vandalism. First of all, although Saddam did not appear to follow many of the tenets of Islam (yeah, understatement of the decade), he likely wouldn't keep a dog. Most Muslim scholars hold that dogs, like swine, are considered unclean. Blondi was Hitler's dog, not Saddam's. Also, where was he going to keep a dog, and who kept the dog alive? Saddam couldn't even keep his own sons alive. --Charlene 23:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find a good archive of videos/pictures of American soldiers violating human rights in Iraq?

I need videos/pictures of Iraqi men/women/children being raped, civilians being shot at, etc. I've already seen all the Abu Ghraib pictures on wikimedia commons, so don't direct me there. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to find much worse than some footage from a chopper which spots Iraqi combantants, not actively engaged in fighting. After a little conversation with his comrades, the pilot guns them down with a vulcan cannon. Well... he guns one down. Another takes out a rag and waves it -- presumably meaning 'peace'. I believe the words, 'waste 'em' are spoken, so the pilot guns him down too.

I don't think you'll find any rape or clear-cut murder though. Vranak 04:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If im thinking about the same video, I cant remember any part in that video with a rag being waved, but its been a while since ive seen it (It was an Apache Gunship by the way.), but I do remember one of the gross violations was the fact that they opened fire on someone they knew to be wounded and no longer combat-effective (if he was even a soldier), they flat out say "He's wounded," before opening fire a second time. There a section in an article with a link to the video here. Cyraan 18:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CNN seems to catalog anything that might oppose US interests .. have you looked there? If you want something that you know wasn't fabricated, you might need to search Fox, imho. DDB 01:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I need videos/pictures of Iraqi men/women/children being raped, civilians being shot at, etc." And what if none exist? Will you just look harder? Loomis 08:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean none exist? I've already said, I've seen pictures of Abu Ghraib and whatnot, I was asking for more. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 10:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Abu Ghraib pics don't show "videos/pictures of Iraqi men/women/children being raped, civilians being shot at, etc.", they show men being humiliated. If by "civilian" you mean "civilians not engaged in fighting", there have been a small number of those, as in just about any war, but I doubt if there is any film or pics of the actual events. StuRat 17:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Loomis was pointing out that there is indeed a dearth of picture of what you are looking for, and that the reason may be that it was simply not occurring frequently enough to be photographed in the quantity that suits your purpose. Sites such as [2] (NB the real Robert Fisk is NOT associated with this site) collect pictures, but what the pictures represent is guesswork. A web search for "pictures american atrocities iraq" yields extremely few pictures that seem convincing. --Seejyb 20:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God being Jesus's father

Was God, Jesus's father? Heegoop, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Assuming you're not looking for a yes/no answer, take a look at the articles on Genealogy of Jesus and on Son of God. ---Sluzzelin 01:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Jesus did claim to be the 'son of God' -- or at least that's what Nietzsche claimed, likely in On the Genealogy of Morals. Vranak 02:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Jesus is the son of God, then isn't the reverse true? (God being the father of Jesus) --The Dark Side 03:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is true... or so I've been led to believe. Vranak 04:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever say an Our Father, aren't you saying he is your father as well? Many people (have been led to) believe we are all children of God. --Lambiam ^Talk 07:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if everyone's father is God, then doesn't that sort of diminish the whole notion of 'fatherhood' into a bland, meaningless, totally banal phrase? Vranak 17:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone's father is God. Not everyone is a Christian. The prayer is for people who pray to God. BenC7 11:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip K Dick loved this form of areligious argument. One of his, from VALIS, is the question "Can god build a bridge across a ravine that he made too wide to build a bridge across?"

The thing about language is that there are meanings to words that ascribe meaning to thought, so that the thought becomes meaningless, or a joke. Words are shades of constructs, and Escher had fun with such shades of constructions.

"God the father" has a different meaning to "Bill is the father." My interpretation of the question has many layers. "Is religion silly" "Is religion worthy" "dooes god exist" etc etc.

I believe religion is silly and worthy. 124.189.220.83 01:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC) that last was mine DDB 01:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, great. Answer to original question: Yes. BenC7 11:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. Clio the Muse 14:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can't, of course, answer the original question, but can state which religions and sects believe Jesus to be the son of God (I think that's pretty much all sects of Christianity, with very few non-Christians believing this). Of course, the definition of "son" is rather vague, do they literally believe God provided a sperm which inseminated Mary ? You might also want to read Jonathan Livingston Seagull, where the speculation seems to be that anyone with unusual insight will either be called the son of God or the Devil. StuRat 17:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you are of one of the denominations which believes the Trinity, things get more complicated, as God is both the Father and the Son, as well as the Holy Spirit; in effect, Jesus is also his own Father! La ï ka 19:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The romans also consider their god to be father. The second part of the name Jupiter means father in latin.172.159.156.28 18:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 31

Anyone else go like Saddam?

A lot of dictators die of old age (in or out of power) or by assassination, Saddam's case strikes me as kind of unique. I know there have been many international tribunals before but has there been anything like Saddam's case or anything else unique? - Pyro19 02:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which unique aspect you're referring to, but the Nuremberg Trials and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East saw international court trials resulting in the execution of former World War II leaders. See also Category:Executed_presidents, though most of the people named on that list were executed after being tried in kangaroo courts or without any process at all. ---Sluzzelin 02:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam was tried and excuted by his own people. That doesn't happen to every dictator. - Pyro19 02:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that not entirely everyone who lived under Saddams' rule – 'his people' – wanted him hanged, or even tried for that matter. So, 'his people' didn't try and execute him. Some of them did. Vranak 04:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point was simply that the court was Iraqi and the Iraqis ended his life. Besides, you're never going to get 100% on anything, something like 75% is good enough. - Pyro19 08:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam got 100% of the popular vote in his last election! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that "his people" killed him is not about popular vote, it is about civic institutions. --24.147.86.187 14:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is all true. But let's not forget -- without US involvement, Saddam would probably not have been hanged the other day. Vranak 17:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Benito Mussolini and Nicolae Ceauşescu. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about Ceauşescu. Interesting. - Pyro19 08:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you might also take into account the case of Maximilian of Mexico, if you extend the definition of 'dictators' to include those in the royal category. However, this might be a little unfair to Maximilian who, though his rule had minority support, was not the stuff of which dictators are made. On a point of information Mussolini should really be placed in the category of assassinated leaders, rather than those whose death followed from some legal process, arbitrary or otherwise. In the Romanian context, the trial and execution of the wartime prime minister, Ion Antonescu, was much more formalised than Ceauşescu's rushed affair. In the minor category the case of Vidkun Quisling has some passing importance. I expect there are many other examples, both large and small. Clio the Muse 00:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some commentators have also suggested Zulfikar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan as a precedent, though his guilt has been questioned. Newyorkbrad 00:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could also add the Hungarian Prime Minister Imre Nagy, executed by the Soviets after they crushed the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, though that is rather a case of the good guy being executed by the bad guys. You could also look back through history as well for many examples. The history of the Roman Empire might be a fertile ground for such "executions of previous leaders" - in fact, not so long ago, the rule when conquering a territory was to execute/kill the previous leader, for obvious reasons. Carcharoth 02:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The final resting place of executed/dead dictators is an interesting topic as well. From reading the above articles, and others, I learnt the following:

Mussolini: "Mussolini's body was eventually taken down and later buried in an unmarked grave in a Milan cemetery until the 1950s, when his body was moved back to Predappio. It was stolen briefly in the late 1950s by neo-fascists, then again returned to Predappio. Here he was buried in a crypt (the only posthumous honor granted to Mussolini; his tomb is flanked by marble fasces and a large idealized marble bust of himself sits above the tomb.)"
Ceauşescu: "Officially, the Ceauşescu couple do not have a tomb; their corpses lie in Ghencea cemetery under the assumed names of two generals who had died at around the same time. According to Jurnalul Naţional,[5] requests were made by their daughter and supporters of their political views to move them to mausoleums or churches built for the purpose of housing their remains, but such requests were denied by the Romanian state."
Hitler: "To avoid any possibility of creating a potential shrine, the remains of Hitler and Braun were repeatedly moved, then secretly buried by SMERSH at their new headquarters in Magdeburg. In April 1970, when the facility was about to be turned over to the East German government, the remains were reportedly exhumed, thoroughly cremated, and the ashes finally dumped unceremoniously into the Elbe."
Maximilian: "Maximilian's body was embalmed and displayed in Mexico before being buried in the Imperial Crypt in Vienna, Austria, early the following year."
Bhutto: "His remains were taken to Larkana, where he was buried in a public ceremony near his family home." (not related to all this, but I also discovered Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq who died in a plane crash)
Saddam: "Hussein was buried at his birthplace of Al-Awja in Tikrit, Iraq."

See also: Category:Executed_royalty. The quintessential examples being Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI of France and Charles I of England. Carcharoth 02:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How could I forget Nicholas II of Russia!

Nicholas II of Russia: "The bodies of Nicholas and his family, after being soaked in acid and burned, were long believed to have been disposed of down a mineshaft at a site called the Four Brothers. Initially, this was true — they had indeed been disposed of there on the night of July 17. The following morning — when rumors spread in Yekaterinburg regarding the disposal site — Yurovsky removed the bodies and concealed them elsewhere. When the vehicle carrying the bodies broke down on the way to the next chosen site, Yurovsky made new arrangements, and buried most of the bodies in a sealed and concealed pit on Koptyaki Road, a cart track (now abandoned) 12 miles north of Yekaterinburg. Their remains were later found in 1991 and reburied by the Russian government following a state funeral. [...] A ceremony of Christian Burial was held in 1998, and the bodies were laid to rest with State honors in a special chapel in the Peter and Paul Fortress in St. Petersburg."

That is rather a long period between death and reburial. 73 years. Anyone know of a longer period between death and exhumation and reburial? Carcharoth 03:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes-the Princes in the Tower, who disappeared in 1483, never to be seen alive again. In 1674, during the reign of Charles II, two skeleton's were discovered and assumed to be those of the missing royal children, though on no compelling evidence, it has to be said. Neverthless, they were duly buried as Edward V and Richard, duke of York, a re-interment that really does exceed the mere 73 years of the Romanovs! Clio the Muse 03:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

191 years! Wow. I found one of 101 year here. Wonder if we have Pierre de Brazza? Carcharoth 03:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that the Romanovs were identified by comparing mitochondrial DNA from Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe, only, I believe, for the Tsaritsa Alexandra. On this issue you might want to refer to an article by P. Gill et al, published in Nature Genetics 6, pp 130-5, February 1994. Clio the Muse 01:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Clio. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humans and Monkeys?

Is it scientifically possible for a male human to get a female monkey pregnant? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.134.73.15 (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Anything is possible. But if you mean through sexual intercourse with no aids, then I'm afraid the answer is no. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Dark Side (talk • contribs) 03:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

By definition, individuals of two different species cannot interbreed. A hybrid is produced when individuals of different species mate; the page qualifies this according to levels of taxonomy. Apparently there are hybrids that are nonviable or sterile; consult those pages for clarification. -- Deborahjay 06:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But not human-monkey hybrids. StuRat 14:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ability to produce a sexually viable offspring through sexual reproduction is one way to define a species, but there are others. There are different species that do not usually reproduce but that are closely enough related that they can produce sexually viable offspring. For example, domestic dogs and wolves (both subspecies of 'canis lupus') and coyotes ('canis latrans'), can and do interbreed. However, to produce offspring, individuals must be from very closely related species, generally within the same genus. Since humans are the only species in their genus ('Homo'), it is unlikely that they could produce living offspring even with their closest relatives, the chimpanzees. Monkeys are much more distantly related to people than are the other apes, so it would be impossible for humans and monkeys to produce offspring. The reason is that their genes are too dissimilar. In sexual reproduction, the genes in the sperm and in the egg have to be similar enough to match up when they combine to form a zygote. If the genes are not similar enough, they will not be able to form a zygote that can grow into a fetus and be born. Marco polo 15:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humans and monkeys are pretty distantly related, so it's a clear case: no. OTOH, humans and chimps: who knows? There is a lack of experimental data, so it's anyone's guess. Oh, and the species definition is often interpreted to mean whether they normally interbreed. If two populations don't normally interbreed, this doesn't mean they couldn't interbreed if they tried really hard. Chl 21:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern humans and Neanderthals, on the other hand, may very well have been able to interbreed. StuRat 00:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, perhaps see Humanzee? Chickenflicker---♣ 00:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly related, see Serge Voronoff for experiments involving grafting monkey testicles onto human males. Carcharoth 03:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't that article mention such bizarre experiments ? StuRat 16:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? It does. 1st paragraph, last sentence: "In 1920, Voronoff, made headlines in France by grafting monkey testicles onto human males." Admittedly, Wikipedia's editors may be misleading people here, as what I read elsewhere said that he actually chopped up monkey testicles and stuck the chopped up tissue inside human testicles, thinking that this would act as some elixir of life or something. Let me see if I can find that article again. [......] Well, what do you know, there is a cocktail named after the process: The Monkey's Gland [3] - and "in 1920, Dr. Serge Voronoff began implanting slivers of freshly-vivisected monkey testicle into the scrota of elderly Frenchmen. Voronoff, who had studied the physiology of Middle-Eastern eunuchs, was convinced that testosterone was the key to a long and healthy life, and promoted his xenotransplantion procedure as a $5,000 fountain of youth.", plus this article is very comprehensive. I think I'll go and expand our Serge Voronoff article. Carcharoth 16:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, looks like I missed that. I see you've done an extensive rewrite. So what happened ? I would expect the transplanted material to be rejected, die, and rot, causing a massive infection. StuRat 18:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite not really started yet. I'm just picking at the edges. I've found three or four good sources, which I've temporarily put in as external links. Follow those to find out more. From what I remember, the inserted tissue was sliced thin enough for interstitial fluid to penetrate the inserted slivers of monkey testicle, and eventually the new and old tissue fuses together. Definitely not one to try at home! :-) Carcharoth 02:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, it would take real balls for any doctor to try such an experiment today. StuRat 16:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back on topic, it looks like the versatile Serge Voronoff did try to get female monkeys pregnant with human foetuses. From one of those links already quoted above [4]: "...he also attempted an odd experiment, transplanting a woman's ovary in Nora, a female monkey. He then inseminated Nora with human sperm .... with no result. Inspired by this odd experiment, the French writer Félicien Champsaur wrote the novel Nora, la guenon devenue femme (Nora, the Monkey Turned Woman)--one of the unexpected results of Voronoff's notoriety." Well, who would have believed it? :-) I'd like to see a copy of that book, just to make it a bit more believable! Carcharoth 02:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Dr. Voronoff was a Dr.Moreau wanna be. StuRat 21:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting information on U.S. currency

The article United States Note says:

United States Notes (like the later Federal Reserve Notes) were fiat currency, in that they were never redeemable explicitly for any precious metal. However, while the United States was on the gold standard, it was possible to redeem them for gold indirectly by exchanging them for a currency of a different obligation, for example a Gold Certificate. Whoever accepted the exchange was left with the less-trusted fiat currency. At the time United States Notes were issued, this was a serious concern, as the government sought to strike a balance between coin shortages and fiat currency.

The article Federal Reserve Note says:

Before 1971, the notes were "backed" by gold—i.e., the law provided that holders of Federal Reserve notes could exchange them on demand for a fixed amount of gold (though from 1934–1971 only foreign holders of the notes could exchange the notes on demand).

So which is right? Were Federal Reserve Notes redeemable for gold before 1934? Were United States Notes? -- Mwalcoff 05:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt matter because people used money to buy food, not exchange for Gold. --Judged 10:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible as the word of God

Why do we hear fundamentalist Christians refer to the Bible as the perfect word of God? From my reading of it, it does not claim to be the word of God. It is written in the third person with quotes from God. So theoretically, while the Bible may reveal God's intentions as presented to His prophets, it is not, per se, the revelation itself. And since the Bible is written by human beings, doesn't that lead to the possibility of mistakes by those human chroniclers, even if divinely inspried? -- Mwalcoff 05:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at Criticism of the Bible. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 08:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Biblical literalism and Biblical inerrancy. If Christians are willing to believe any part of Christianity that requires true belief (a God who tells us what (not) to do, a man who is also God), why shouldn't they go the whole way? Or conversely, if any of it can be doubted, why not all? --Lambiam ^Talk 09:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because they were told so. Worst of all, this answer is most likely right! The whole chain must have started a long, long time ago. I suppose people kept being told to just trust the bible and the messages of god it contained, and stop making questions about it, so the idea of infallibility could easily arise from that, passing on and getting stronger in each new generation. — Kieff 09:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But just to make sure, they made the pope infallible too. --Shantavira 11:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a former evangelical Christian, I can tell you that fundamentalists believe that the Bible was "inspired" by God - the individual writers who wrote the books were influenced by God to write exactly what he wanted them to write. The text I most remember being used to justify this belief was 2 Timothy 3:16, which in the King James transation says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness", which depends on the assumption that the word "scripture" means "the books in the Bible" and not "all writings". The American Standard Version renders the same passage as "Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness", which isn't quite the same thing. --Nicknack009 11:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the current Bible to be infallible, not only do the original authors need to be infallible, but so do those who selected which writings to accept as part of the Bible, those who did translations, the printers, etc. The very fact that there are translations with different meanings proves that not all translations are "divinely inspired". Genesis appears to have been written from several similar documents (one version of which was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls), which each had a slightly different account (promoting the self-interests of the authors), so that pretty much disproves the authors of those documents all being "divinely inspired". If they all disagree, then, at most one can be the "perfect word of God". StuRat 14:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the authors need to be infallible? Something can be right without being written by a perfect person. But in any case, different people have different ideas of the concept of biblical inerrancy and biblical inspiration. But what kind of mistakes? Would a person stand before God and say, "I didn't believe what the Bible said because it someone said that Moses didn't eat or drink for 40 days, which is medically impossible?" The person had better make sure that a) they are absolutely certain that it is, in fact, a mistake (difficult to prove in the case of past events), and b) supposing that it were a mistake, that it means that everything else that the Bible says must therefore also be wrong. But that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. BenC7 11:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever asked by Christian proselytizers "which "translation" of the Bible have you read?" I answer them quite frankly. I don't rely on translations, I've read it in the orignal Hebrew of course. That's when they walk away. Loomis 08:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even then there is the question of which of the original writings you've read (E document ? J document ? P document ?). Also, many of the books of the Bible were written in other languages, like Greek, Latin, and Aramaic. StuRat 16:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why they would. It makes no difference. BenC7 11:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the beginning was the the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Clio the Muse 14:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I find really funny is how some preachers rave that their bible is the correct bible (most of the time they are talking about the King James bible) and that the others have somehow been manipulated or some crap like that (King-James-Only Movement). Flamarande 15:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Word was God. Clio the Muse 15:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Flamarande's comment: rather like the (lavishly illustrated hardback copy of) the Bhagavad Gita I got given in the street many years ago called 'The Bhagavad Gita As It Is', with a preface explaining that all previous English versions had been translations, but this was the work As It Is! --ColinFine 00:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolves of the Pennsylvania Assembly on the Stamp Act

I was asked to write a paper by my teacher on the different Acts. He has given us topics to write the paper on and I've got most of the paper done. One of the topics he has given is

September 21, 1765 -- Resolves of the Pennsylvania Assembly on the Stamp Act

I'm not quite sure what this means. It would be nice if you could help with some clarification and some resources on where I can find this information for this topic. Your help would be greatly appreciated!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.224.245.74 (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

There's some basic information about what a stamp act is in the Wikipedia article Stamp Act - this includes something a bit more specific on the 1765 act. The text of the Pennsylvania Assembly's Resolves is at The Avalon Project. Hope this gives you something to start with. --Zeborah 08:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You miht also have a look at :taxation without representation. - Nunh-huh 08:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you read the text of the ten Pennsylvania Resolves, think of ideas and phrases that you also find in the Declaration of Independence.--Wetman 06:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Objectivists support prison rehabilitation?

Does Objectivism support a stance of prison rehabilitation over punishment, or is the very act of rehab and equipping of new skills etc seen as promoting altruism and the needs of the weak (in this case, convicts) over rational self-interest?

Harwoof 09:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what an Objectivist would say, but one can easily find ways to say that rehab is not really altruism at all—it is not really done for the benefit of the criminal, but for the benefit of society (though it no doubt fails at that). The goal of prison rehab is to adjust the rational self-interest of the convict, so that it is in their rational self-interest to get a non-criminal occupation rather than a criminal one. In that sense it is a perfectly utilitarian method, not a humanitarian one at all. --24.147.86.187 14:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. On the other hand, if my tax money (forcibly taken from me) is used to fund it, that's a problem. Instead, I might voluntarily contribute to a charity involved with rehab (for example, to satisfy a selfish need to feel good about myself, or in the belief that it will ultimately lead to reduced prison costs). And of course, if someone else is paying for it, that's great. —Keenan Pepper 16:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"for the benefit of society" "if my tax money (forcibly taken from me) is used to fund it, that's a problem" You live in a society, yes? So how is it a problem if your tax money is taken to improve the society you live in, and reduce your chances of being a victim of crime? Simply taking the two points here, I fail to see the problem in your taxes being used to improve your life. 86.139.237.132 21:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivists have no problem with thinking that the state should provide military defense, police, and basic infrastructure. I'm just saying that you could argue, if you wanted to, that prison rehabilitation could just as easily be considered a utilitarian function of police as could punishment (they both cost money. In fact, rehabilitation should cost less, in the long run, than long-term incarceration).

I should be honest here and say that I find objectivism to be a pretty bunk philosophy for just these reasons: it pretends to be based on "cold logic" and pure utilitarianism, etc., but it is incredibly easy to come up with mutually incompatible positions using just "cold logic" and I've never seen an objectivist who would really acknowledge that many of their "rational conclusions" come more from more mundane emotional values than it does their "cold logic". The prison question is a good example of that — it's perfectly conceivable to view either one as being the more utilitarian of the options, in the end I imagine that one's pre-held emotional views towards punishment and criminals is going to determine the point of view that one finds to be most reflective of "cold logic". --24.147.86.187 16:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rome travel guide

I'm travelling to Rome for the first time. Can anyone suggest a good travel book? I'm interested in historical places and museums as well as walks. And I want to be able to find places to eat in each area. I've seen couple of books but they usually list restaurants separately so I guess it would be difficult to find them. Thanks Mahanchian 15:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been quite happy with the Lonely Planet guide every time I was in Rome - their shopping and eating recommendations were generally spot-on (LP has a Rome city guide and a large Italy guide whose Rome part is obviosuly written by different authors than the city guide since their recommendatiosn differ quite a bit - I'd recommend getting both, but then I have a reputation for hoarding books by the dozen :P ). As for a cultural/historicla guide, the one by Filippo Coarelli is pretty much the standard work (I am not sure if it's available in English, but the original is in Italian and there's been a German translation ever since it was first published, I'd be surprised if there was no English edition available). Oh, and a sidenote: not exactly a guidebook, but a highly recommmended book before heading to Rome is "The Ancient City" by Peter Connolly - makes navigating the ruins of ancient Rome much more interesting. -- Ferkelparade π 15:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Coarelli's guide is indeed available in English, see ISBN 978-0520069618 -- Ferkelparade π 15:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally recommend The Rough Guide to Rome, which I used in my own perambulations around the city. There is also the larger Rough Guide to Italy, which has quite an extensive section on Rome. The Rough Guides cover much the same ground, more or less in the same format, as the Lonely Planet, though in my estimation anyway they tend to be much more matter of fact in their appraisals. Enjoy Rome: it's a wonderful experience! Clio the Muse 02:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Michelin Green Guide to Rome is unbeatable.--Wetman 06:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All roads may lead to Rome but I would not recommend going there. It's vast and has practically no trees. Vranak 06:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When going abroad I always take the Rough Guide and the Blue Guide. The Rough Guides are good general guides (much, much better than Lonely Planet in my opinion), and are written in a very readable, amusing, irreverant and cynical style, while the Blue Guides are more scholarly and detailed guides for lovers of art, architecture, museums etc (they can be a bit dry, but they're still brilliant at what they do). The Blue Guides to cities are organised into walks around the architectural landmarks (I've spent days using them to see pretty much every church and other historic building in a number of European cities), although the brand new Rome edition has changed format and only has a few walks, sadly - you're better off getting the previous edition if you like to see everything. -- Necrothesp 11:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colour-madness

While having a siesta today I encountered a strange question regarding colours. Do all the human beings see the same colour or they see different ones. As they are inculcated to identify certain colours by cetain names since they start using words to express feelings, how can one be sure that the 'blue'(certainly,I'm not referring to porns here) you are seeing is the same blue that I see or the 'green' you see is same as the 'green' I see. Cannot we be seeing different colours but out of the inculcation since infancy pronouncing it with the same word? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aumtatva (talk • contribs) 16:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

At present, the answer to your question is now known. We know a lot about the mechanics of colour vision; we can tell whether two people are using the term 'blue' consistently; and the consistency of colour categories across different languages shows that people in different cultures divide up the colour spectrum in roughly the same way. But we don't know much about the mental processing of colour beyond the retina. So we don't know whether one person's perception of 'blue' is the same as another person's - indeed, we don't even have an objective way of detecting or measuring that perception. Our article on colour says "The exact nature of color perception ...and indeed the status of color as a feature of the perceived world or rather as a feature of our perception of the world, is a matter of complex and continuing philosophical dispute (see qualia)". Gandalf61 16:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard the one about the man who claimed to be colorblind, was "cured" by a charlatan, and immediately began naming the colors of objects? An astute audience member pointed out that, if he had really been colorblind, he would not have been able to associate the color sensations with their names. —Keenan Pepper 16:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is dramatised in Act II Scene 1 of Shakespeare's Henry VI, Part 2. AndyJones 13:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: Most humans see color the same, but many do not.

More detail: Psychovisual processing is a very interesting and somewhat complicated field. Much of the pioneering work in this space was performed in the early 20th century, and you might want to start your studies by understanding the CIE 1931 color space and tristimulus values. Most humans see color very similarly. This has been established through exhaustive testing, and has been of great importance to the television and film industry (who are responsible for making devices/substances that reproduce color in a way natural or pleasing to humans). However, many conditions cause various types of color blindness that prevent some people from perceiving some characteristics of color. Color blindness is very common, affecting approximately 1 in 13 men, and 1 in 200 women.

Also interesting: human psychovisual processing dramatically simplifies the information contained by the light actually entering the eye to a "flattened" color space: many different combinations of light will be perceived as the same color by humans. This is a result of humans using only three different types of cones in our retina, each with a specific color-matching function. (Our eyes evolved not to provide us with the most accurate vision, but the vision that would best help us run away from things that would eat us and toward things we could eat). There are several theoretical modifications one could make to the human eye that would improve our color processing, allowing us to see "new colors" or perceive differences between colors that other humans could not see. (But since humans have designed their environment for 3-cone eyes, such a change could be terribly confusing. Imagine looking at a page in a book in which the background color appeared only to you as a blotchy, dirty mess and the inks were an oily swirl of multiple colors.)

dpotter 19:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you pick up any elementary psychology textbook and turn to the chapter on perceptions, you'll find that some people, for example, see numbers as having colors or something like that. It'll explain it better than I, but basically in some people the senses are intertwined and I wouldn't be surprised if one of them hears a musical note when they see a color. Xiner (talk, email) 02:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you're referring to, Xiner, is synaesthesia. As to whether everyone sees the same colour, it simply is not known and is a common problem mentioned in the philosophy of visual perception. There is simply no way of knowing whether what one person sees is the same as what another person sees, but the question is so tangled in philosophy that it's difficult even to formulate the question, let alone answer it. basically, the question is usually given thus: A light of a specific wavelength will appear blue to all people with normal colour vision. But how do we know that what one person perceives as "blue" would not be perceived by another person as "red" if the second person could perceive that colour through the first person's neural connections? And the answer is simply that we don't know, but what we do know about the visual process makes it very unlikely. We know, for example, that the same wavelengths affect the same type of retinal cells in the same way, which would seem to indicate that - at least at the level of neural impulses entering the optic nerve - the sensation of a light is identical to different viewers. Beyond that point, it becomes a little harder to tell, though there is no reason for suspecting that this is not the case throughout the visual system, and occam's razor suggests that - unless we have evidence to the contrary - it makes sense for us to assume this is the case. Grutness...wha? 07:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is closely related to the philosophical debate on the existence of qualia. One can take the Wittgensteinian position that the question is the result of a "language game" and has no intrinsic meaning. And even if it has a meaning, it would seem that the answer is unknowable. But perhaps an experiment could tell us something. There is a famous experiment in which the subjects wore "reversing spectacles" for extended periods, turning everything upside down. After sufficient time had elapsed, they experienced the world as normal again: what was up, even while being flipped by the apparatus they were wearing, was subjectively experienced as up. When the experiment was terminated and the spectacles were taken off, they now saw everything upside down and had to adjust again. So in the proposed experiment subject would wear colour-reversing glasses until they are fully adjusted (or it has been decided that no further progress towards adjustment is being made). If then things they see appear subjectively to them as they remember them from before (also for things they did not see at all during the adjustment phase), then I feel we can safely conclude that colour notions form a wired-in system for labelling perceptions, and that the brain at some point of visual processing translates a representation of the physical colour from the stimulation of S- M- and L-cones into an essentially symbolic one. In that case it is reasonable to conclude that the experience is the same for everyone. Should the appearance of the world remain unfamiliar to our subjects, then the colours are more or less perceived as is, and indeed the question is unanswerable.

While colours are a favourite example for this kind of musings, one can ask the same question for all things subjective: Do some people experience the same pain 1000× more intense than I do? Do they live more slowly, where one second for me lasts a century for them? Do they live backwards in time? Do some people experience left and right reversed? Or colours like I hear sounds, while to them sounds are like tastes, and tastes like colours? And so on... --Lambiam ^Talk 12:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cor Blok

I'm trying to find collections of paintings by Cor Blok. Reproductions or prints would be good, as would any info as to where if anywhere such art is exhibited. Thanks.87.102.22.137 19:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some online images here. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct UK magazine - nothing here and little elsewhere

In the interests of completeness I was going to add info to the Now page about a now defunct British news magazine called "Now!". From my recollection I believe that it ran from the mid 80s through to about 1992, but due to its name, and the number of rival publications of a similar name, finding info about it has proved impossible. Can anyone help? Jooler 22:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a current UK magazine with that name (without the exclamation mark): [5]. Are you sure it's not the same one ? StuRat 23:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm positive it's not the same one. That is a gossip magazine. This was a News magazine along the lines of Time or Newsweek, but it was a British publication. My older brother used to get it, but the circulation wasn't high enough so it eventually folded.

Definitely not the same one - if memory serves this one was founded by James Goldsmith and was never seen without its exclamation mark. It was rather earlier than Jooler remembers, I think, more like the early 1980s. It gave rise to such parodies as the "Not! The Nine O'Clock News" annual. -- Arwel (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I had that now you mention it! Jooler 00:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsmith's mag started in 1979 [6], and folded within 2 years. --HJMG 09:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

Majority Shi'a Muslims

Which Muslim countries that has Shi'a Muslims as majorities, like Iran and Iraq? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.152.193 (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In addition to the countries you have identified, Shias make up the majority of the population in Bahrain, Azerbaijan and Lebanon. Overall, Shias make up some 15% of the Muslim population worldwide, so are likely to be found in varying degrees in all other countries as a minority. Clio the Muse 03:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One clarification on Lebanon, while 60% of the Muslim population is Shia, only 60% of the total population is Muslim, meaning only about 36% of the total population is Shia, so it's not a Shia-majority country. See Lebanon#Demographics_2. StuRat 15:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be interesting to know of other non-majority Musilm countries where Shia form the majority of the Muslim community. Like Armenia, maybe? Any others?--Pharos 00:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Shia population features a table with percentages. ---Sluzzelin 04:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the article Demographics of Islam has some colour-coded maps. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pathans in Bangladesh?

When I was reading the article "Pathans", I saw the facts that which countries has the most Pathans, and I saw that 545,000 live in Bangladesh. Which part of Bangladesh do these Pathans live? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.152.193 (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Do you mean Pashtun "Pashtuns (also Pushtuns, Pakhtuns, Pukhtuns; Pashto: پښتون Paṣtun, Persian: پختون Paxtun, Urdu: پشتون Pashtūn), or Pathans (Urdu: پٹھان, Hindi: पठान Paṭhān) and or ethnic Afghans[13] are an ethno-linguistic group primarily in the North West Frontier Province"? because that page gives no quotes on bangladeshi population as far as I can see?

Zoroastrianism

I have two questions to ask you about Zoroastrianism:

1. Do Zoroastrians believe that one can only go to heaven by being a Zoroastrian, or that one cannot go to heaven without being a Zoroastrian?

2. Do Zoroastrians believe that all people go to either heaven or hell after they die?

The Anonymous One 05:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page on Zoroastrianism will give some general indications on these questions. The ultimate goal, I believe, is one of universal salvation. Clio the Muse 05:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Russia care about the independance of Transnistria?

I previously read something about Russia setting up a front organization to support the idea of Transnistrian independence, and the article makes some brief allusions to Russia disputing the Moldovan/Ukranian agreement on Transnistrian customs clearance. What I don't get is why Russia cares about the issue in the first place. Can someone comment on why the Russian govt. cares about this? —Dgies^t c 06:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be largely a question of solidarity and influence. There are a higher proportion of ethnic Russians and Ukranians in Transnistria than elsewhere in Moldova. Clio the Muse 06:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider similar situations in other countries that are regional powers. Why does the United States care about who is leader of Cuba? Why does Australia care about the situation in the Solomon Islands? Why would the E.U. be concerned about Kosovo? Why are Japan and China concerned abut North Korea? These three points may give some indication:

Russia is on moderately friendly terms with the relatively stable governments of Moldova and Ukraine. The formal independence of Transnistria will not only create a new - and by all accounts less stable - country in this region, but also (given Transnistria's border disputes with both Moldova and Ukraine) possibly de-stabilise these other two countries. There is also no guarantee whatsoever that Transnistrial leadership would be on friendly terms with Moscow.
Transnistria declared itself independent unilaterally from the Soviet Union, despite not being a fully-fledged Soviet Republic. If its independence is supported, it will give added impetus for calls for independence of other former Soviet areas below the republic level - such as Chechnya, Ossetia, et al.
As Clio points out, there are Ethnic Russians in Transnistria, and almost certainly also a reasonable number of ethnic Transnistrians and Moldovans in Russia, too.

Grutness...wha? 07:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are all reasons why Russia would, should, or could oppose Transnistrian independence, but the point is that they unofficially support it. For further background information, see Transnistrian referendum, 2006 and the references therein. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best, and most disturbing parallel, is that of France and Rwanda, and what might be referred to as language politics. Clio the Muse 15:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?Evilbu 19:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Evilbu, I almost missed your question, tucked away in here! I was referring to the build up of interest blocks, usually of a client-patron nature, based upon language and other cultural and political interests. In the French case it became a particular form of neocolonialism, for which the term Françafrique was coined. As far as Rwanda was concerned, it meant the support, military and otherwise, that Mitterand extended to Habyarimana, his friend and ally. This entailed a blindness to the reality of local ethic tensions, which ultimately had terrible consequences. Clio the Muse 03:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Russians see it as a way to "take back" part of Moldova. That is, the larger Russian and Ukrainian population percentages in Transnistria will eventually bring it back under Russian influence, which wouldn't happen if that population was diluted amongst the larger population of Moldova, which is mostly ethnic Moldavian. StuRat 15:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's weird, Russia seems to support Transnistria (which is in fact an independent state) but does not recognise it. Armenia obviously supports Nagorno Karabach's independence from Azerbaijan and they don't recognise it either. Evilbu 19:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International diplomacy can be a very weird game! The Russian and Armenian examples are by no means unique. Think of America and Taiwan. Clio the Muse 23:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a state in the international system to recognize a state outside of that system carries significant diplomatic costs, more so than just supporting such a government informally. Consider the diplomatic cost to Turkey of recognizing Northern Cyprus.--Pharos 18:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery of Saddam's WMDs

I know, it's me again. I'm only fed up once again by a recent editorial in my local newspaper telling me that since no WMD's were found after the fall of Saddam, they never existed.

We all know they existed. We all know they were used. So what became of them?

I'm really asking because we all know that Iran is working on nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. Yes, you may have called me paranoid had that Iranian midget of a President had not said so himself!

In any case, the saddest thing that happened a couple of days ago was that a human being was killed. Yes, he had to be killed, but his execution is no cause for celebration. A life was ended. No Israelis danced in the streets. Not like the Palestinians who danced in the streets on 9/11.

Incredibly, as I heard of the execution, I almost felt like crying.

But all that aside, where are the WMDs? In particular, the chemical weapons? They were used. They killed hundreds of thousands. And now apparently they never existed.

I just hope that the planned destruction of Iran's obvious WMD program hasn't been spoilt by the fact that the "Mystery of Saddam's WMD's" hasn't turned up anything yet. Loomis 09:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You kind of rambled a bit there... Is it fair to summarize your question as "What was the ultimate disposition of Saddam's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs?" —Dgies^t c 09:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction has a whole bunch of theories about WMDs in Iraq. But what do the experts think ? Well, David Kay, who resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group in January 2004, said he did not believe Iraq possessed large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons [7]. And in January 2005 the final report of ths ISG said it had "not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003". I'll go with the experts on this one - I don't think the WMD stockpiles existed. Gandalf61 10:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this well-referenced article. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mystery regarding Iraq's WMD. They had them and they used them. At the end of the gulf war (first) we know they hid them. We know the UN found some. We believe some to have been distributed, with Syria putting their hands up as suspects.

The specific poisons Colin Powel; referred to in his famous address to the UN have not been found and may never have existed, but might also.

I don't think Israel is the sole target of terrorists. Those most likely to be killed from terrorist activity are Arabs, and one assumes Arabs are in the most danger from WMD. DDB 14:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, DDB. Well said. Clio the Muse 14:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little bit of everything:

Fewer chemical weapons were produced than was thought. This was partly Saddam's fault, for trying to create the illusion he had a massive WMD program (early on) to intimidate his enemies.

No nuclear weapons were ever developed (although they tried early on).

I'm not as certain about bio weapons, perhaps a tiny amount were produced, but not enough to be usable.

Many chemicals weapons were used up against the Iranians and Kurds.

A few may have gone to his neighbors (Syria and/or Iran), like planes he sent to Iran, which seems bizarre to me. Did he ever expect those countries (his enemies) to give them back at some point ? He must have been thinking he would do anything he could to hurt the US, with supplying weapons to US enemies being seen in that way.

Others were destroyed, per the UN mandate, but without documentation. This seems like very odd behavior, to deprive himself of weapons and yet not get credit for having destroyed them. Saddam's reasoning seemed to be:

A) He didn't want to risk being caught with them, as that could mean his downfall, so had them destroyed.

B) He didn't want his enemies to know he had destroyed them, as he would then lose his intimidation tool. He thought he could satisfy the UN and US by saying he destroyed them, yet still intimidate his neighbors by failing to prove he destroyed them. This was a major miscalculation on his part. Some destroyed shell fragments bearing chemical traces have been found, but most are probably buried in a forgotten location in the desert somewhere, and my not be found for years, if ever. StuRat 15:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I think Stu Rat's last point here is the most important mentioned. While the U.S. has found a few random chemical shells (probably just misplaced and abandoned ones) and a few pieces from Iraq's nuclear program, most evidence seems to show that, like the Allies after WWI, he just dumped them somewhere out of the way. Rmhermen 15:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the former UN inspector Scott Ritter said that something like 90% of Iraq's weapons had been verifiably destroyed. While Iraq was obstructive over the remaining 10%, many of those were biological weapons of a type that degrades over time and would no longer be useable except as fertiliser. Iraq was known to be virtually disarmed by the time the invasion started. North Korea, also part of Bush's "Axis of Evil", has WMD and has not been threatened with military action. I don't think it's any surprise that Iran is determined not to stop their nuclear programme. Ahmedinejad may be a nutter, but he's rational enough to know that America is less likely to attack him if he can defend himself. --Nicknack009 15:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say, Nicknack, that would add to your wise words? President Ahmedinejad is as calculating as most, and a far better poker player than the intellectually challenged George Bush. If only our politicians understood a little more of the history, culture, politics and religion of the Middle East, we may have avoided the terrible errors of Bush and Blair's war of 'liberation'. Clio the Muse 16:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the rambling everyone! Blame it on a combination of a little too much New Year's "cheer" (!) and a little too much doom and gloom in other parts of the world. I know the old WINASB (Wikipedia Is Not A SoapBox) Mantra, and I commit myself to it, despite the odd ramble.

But I guess Dgies was best in summing up my question, rhetorical as it may seem by 2007, it's still a mystery to me. No I wasn't asking about nuclear weapons, as the only nuclear program we ever had any evidence of was "illegally" destroyed by Israel in 1981. And I wasn't referring to biological weapons either, as those were never Saddam's WMD of choice anyway, and we have no evidence of him ever using those either. I'm only referring to what the world knows Saddam had and used, those being the chemical weapons sarin, tabun and VX. Now David Kay can scream at the top of his lungs that he didn't believe Saddam had stockpiles of these chemicals in 2003. Fair enough. Perhaps he didn't. But he did have them when he used them in 1988 in Halabja. We know that. What we don't know is what ever happened to them. Did they get used up in attacks such as Halabja? Doubtful, but I suppose possible. Otherwise what happened to them? Were they dumped into the Tigris?

I think DDB and Stu's answers are the most honest and really the best we'll ever have. He had them, he used them, he hid some, he may have distributed some to Syria, the UN went in to look for them, they kept getting the runaround and eventually got tossed out for good, in December '02 the UN demanded an explanation for how they were disposed of, and Saddam replied with several tens of thousands of pages of BS. The US then goes in and cannot find a trace. Not one canister. I'm in almost complete agreement with DDB, except for where s/he says that "there is no mystery". No mystery!? Seems to me like the biggest mystery since JFK's assassination! But I suppose it's all moot now.

As the trite proverb goes, hindsight is 20/20, but back in the winter of '02/'03, even the French and the Germans couldn't convince themselves that Saddam didn't possess these chemical weapons. I hope we don't go back revising history to say that it was their position then that he didn't have them. Even the French and the Germans couldn't figure out what was going on, and presumed he had them, but just disagreed that invasion was appropriate. Or at least not yet.

In any case, another trite proverb is that history repeats itself. What happens now if despite all the evidence and all the posturing, either Kim Jong-il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad decides to pull another Saddam? "Nuclear capabilities? What nuclear capabilities? Oh you silly paranoid American cowboys! We were just kidding around with all that talk about nuclear capabilities! Gotcha! Just please don't embarass yourselves again by supporting another silly paranoid President who believes in such nonsense!"

(And I promise to shut up about the whole thing from now on!) Loomis 15:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You completely ignore one aspect, namely that according to the UN inspectors something like 90% of Iraq's weapons had been verifiably destroyed, most of which were chemical weapons, as related above by Nicknack009. From 1991 to 1998, UNSCOM sent 500 teams to Iraq staffed by nearly 3,500 inspectors. These teams examined some 3,400 sites, including 900 formerly secret military installations, and destroyed billions of dollars worth of weapons and equipment. UNSCOM had regular access to Iraqi factories and laboratories, used video cameras to monitor Iraqi industrial and military sites 24 hours a day, placed chemical sampling devices around Iraqi labs, monitored the movement of Iraq's industrial equipment, pored over Iraqi documents, and questioned many Iraqi scientists and technicians. After defecting in 1995, General Kamel told his UN and CIA interrogators that "Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them" after the war. Why is it so difficult to accept the possibility that there just weren't any WMD left, except perhaps a few overlooked piles of rusting and non-viable biological weapons? --Lambiam ^Talk 18:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that possesion of 'WMD' was the pretext for invasion of Iraq. That's why certain politicians were so adamamant that Iraq still had significant weapons of this kind - despite the UN inspectors saying that most had been destroyed. (Notably one British scientist who said that Iraq didn't have any left David Kelly was found dead in a ditch and war began anyway). 'WMD' was an excuse for an action illegal under international law. 87.102.14.212 18:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that's being completely ignored is my question. No matter how hard I try, my question is met with nothing but cynicism. Dgies had my question right straight from the start. "What was the ultimate disposition of Saddam's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs?". The only answer I get are: "He never had them, stupid! You were just duped by the "intellectually challenged" George W. Bush!" No I wasn't. We were ALL "duped", in one form or another by Saddam's final, most "intellectually challenged" failed ruse.

Once again, nobody's answered my question. I asked about what happened to Saddam's chemical weapons, and in response I'm told that he "got rid of them". But that wasn't my question. My question wasn't whether or not he "got rid of them", he obviously managed somehow o "get rid of them". What I'm curious about is how. What happenned to them?

Lambiam tells me that 90% of his weapons were "verifiably" destroyed. Great! Now we're onto something! But who exactly "verified" that they were destroyed? And if they "verified" that they were destroyed, I'm still dying to find out the details. JUST HOW WERE THEY DESTROYED?

I know I've repeated it far too many times, but the one thing that pisses me of more than any other is what I'd call "intellectual dishonesty".

I fully admit it, I was duped. Saddam, apparently, pushed his luck and "cried wolf" one time to many. I recognize that I believed the WMDs were there, as every rational bone in my body made the only logical assumption, and that was that when dealing with a guy who's lied 100 times, his credibility is spent. I expected to find huge stockpiles, but I was wrong. Saddam had apparently made the biggest miscalculations of his life, and ultimately he hung for it.

But unlike many others, when played for a fool, I admit it. Yet so many others just don't have the character to do likewise. Today, one of the first days of 2007, rather than have the strength of character and the intellectual honesty to admit they were duped as well about the whole thing, instead their intellectual cowardice forces then to backtrack and pretend that they "were onto GWB all along". Despite being intellectually challenged, George W. Bush managed to fool a good part of the world into backing him up in his oh so diabolical plans.

Well here's the cold truth folks: I hate to resort to hyperlinks to back up my point, so I'll summarize them, yet provide the hyperlink in any case just to prove that I'm not pulling this out of thin air. Bush didn't fool us. Here are a few opinion polls conducted in the key period between September of 2002 and March of 2003; that period between when Bush's initial speech to the UN about the perceived Iraq threat in September '02, and the ultimate invasion in March '03. Here's sampling as to the public opinion at the time concerning the specific question as to whether the respondent "believed Saddam was in possession of WMD's

Britain's ICM Research, conducted between January 17-19, 2003. "Do you yourself believe that Saddam Hussein has developed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons of mass production?" Yes: 75%. No: 10%. Don't know: 15%. [8]

Investor's Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor, September 3-8, 2002 (even before GWB's "speech full of lies" to the UN). "Do you believe that Saddam Hussein is an IMMEDIATE THREAT to the US or not?" Yes: 60%. No: 33%. Unsure: 7%.

ABC News Poll, September 12-14, 2002 (also before the UN speech). "If Iraq agrees to admit the weapons inspectors, but then interferes or does not cooperate with them, in that case would you favour or oppose having US forces take military action against Iraq?" Favour: 81%. Oppose: 17%. No Opinion: 2%.

Well, I have literaly dozens of pages of these polls, each and every one of them saying ultimately the same thing: The vast majority of the public, in the US and the UK at least, took it pretty much as a given that Saddam had WMDs. Anyone interested can simply click on the following link: [9]. Much if not all of the debate was not at all about "whether" they existed, but rather, "how best to deal with it".

Look, nobody trusted the guy, and the general consensus at the time seems to have been as clear as possible that Saddam was a serious threat to his neighbours and the free world. If you believe the war was wrong, you have every right to that. If you believe other actions should have been taken instead, you have every right to that opinion as well. But if you're trying to claim to me that you knew all along that the WMD's never exited at all, and you choose to jump onto the "Bush is a retard" bandwagon, in a cowardly effort to cover up the fact that you were duped just like the rest of us, I have no interest in such flagrant intellectual dishonesty. Loomis 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think we may never know, at least in the near future. If they were destroyed in country, there may be a paper trail -- or not. There may be witnesses and participants, and careful environmental testing can find residues and breakdown products to verify that destruction occurred -- a lot of the time. Did he give any of them away? Don't know -- it's possible, but my feeling (pure speculation) is no, since he was no friend among his neighbors. He definitely had the weapons at one point, gassing thousands of Iranians and Kurds, but now the weapons are not there, and they went somewhere. All I can say Loomis is that it is disturbing to me too. Antandrus (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The destruction was verified by UNSCOM inspectors (as I wrote). Read that article. I feel sorry for you falling for government propaganda, but if you had cared to examine the issues deeper (wasn't it clear at least that there was a controversy between the UN inspectors and the US?), you could have known that it was propaganda. Never trust any government, and in particular not if they say: trust us. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam, I did check out the article you referenced. I read through it, until afterwards realizing that I was reading an article published by the self proclaimed "Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA". And you feel sorry for me falling for propaganda! Is an article by the "Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA" the very best there is out there? If so I thank you, as you've done a far better job than I ever could in proving my own point. I just hope nobody out there starts to suspect that "Lambiam" isn't anything more than a straw-man sockpuppet created by Loomis himself! :) Loomis 09:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the point is that I'm supposed to have helped you prove. The article I linked to, insofar as it is not clearly stating an opinion, is fully supported by verifiable references. The author, Larry Everest, is a well-respected writer, whose articles have appeared in the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Jose Mercury News, the Oakland Tribune, the Baltimore Sun, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, New York Newsday, Z Magazine, and other publications. Because he writes for the Revolutionary Worker newspaper does not mean it is not true what he writes. I linked to that publication not to "prove" anything, but only because it answered the question you had posed, and I supposed you were looking for an answer. It may indeed be possible that the United States have reached a point where communist publications are left as "the very best there is out there" if you want to hear the truth. By the way, when I last wrote "Read that article", I meant our own article UNSCOM. The 90% estimate was given by Scott Ritter himself as a lower bound. But then of course, he was represented as having been bought by Iraqi money, after having been accused by Iraq of being an American spy. A constant web is being spun of propoganda and counterpropaganda, full of disinformation. In the end, you have to discern for yourself who and what you are going to believe, but the convenient truth is not always the best. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, once you put it that way, perhaps we don't disagree as much as would appear (except of course for the part about looking to "Revolutionary Communists" as any credible source of "truth" (or Правда/Pravda) as the Soviets referred to it). Indeed, Saddam created for himself and the world one hell of a mess of confusion and disinformation. The UN and the weapons inspectors themselves couldn't make head or tails of what was going on. Not that I'm any big fan of the UN, but just to show what was going through their minds, they passed UNSC 1441 unanimously, which, even in its mildest interpretation, was at the very least their expression that they were sick and tired of Saddam's games, and demanded that he quit with those games, and give them some real answers. Were they too just playing a game of propaganda, knowing full well that Iraq was disarmed? The only "truth" of the matter during that time is that no one really knew what was going on. All we had was the word of a brutal dictator who time and again thumbed his nose at the international community. On the other hand, somewhere between two thirds and three quarters of the British and American people, in public opinion polls I referenced above, many of which were taken before Bush even began to speak publicly about the Iraq issue (with all the alleged "propaganda and lies"), apparently believed that Saddam did indeed have WMDs. I was one of those. Perhaps you were too. Perhaps not. I just wish more people would have the courage to come out and say that to the best of their abilities, given the information available at the time, that's what they believed as well, rather than to so disingenuously backtrack, claiming that they new the truth all along, and that it was all the fault of GWB, that big bad idiot-savante, who while barely being able to tie his own shoes, nonetheless had possessed the genius to convince Congress, and a few powerful allies to go to war. Loomis 15:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question was what happened tot the WMD, the answer is most of them were destroyed long before the war started. Some were verified destroyed by the UN. Some just 'dissapeared' but still haven't been found. What is the confusion exactly.?87.102.4.89 16:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC) As to how they were destroyed - burnt, pored into pits, reacted with some chemical to reder them inactive perhaps?87.102.4.89 16:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a dead Russian soldier doing in Chimay, Belgium?

See http://www.flickr.com/photos/40915186@N00/339643546/

how come he ended up there?

I really can't say with any precision. However, many thousands of captive Russian soldiers, unprotected by international conventions, were employed by the Nazis as slave labour. It may be one of those. Clio the Muse 14:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you take this picture yourself? There seem to be at least two of them so it's not just one freak-case. How are we so sure they are from the First World War? There isn't any date, the text just says "ici repose un ancien combattant russe". (here lies a Russian veteran)

The hammer and sickle suggests it is from the Second World War rather than the First. I think there may have been some Imperial combat units in France during the Great War, though I doubt either the Soviets or the Allies would have subsequently decorated their graves with Communist symbols. Clio the Muse 23:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Clio is right on this one. You shouldn't be seeing a hammer and sickle on a Great War burial, unless someone put it there later. If it's a WWII burial, I'm going to speculate that there were probably numerous cases of the Allies coming upon bodies of Russians who died working as slave labourers -- that was a common fate for Russian POWs. On the other hand, though, look at this [10] which has a mention of Russians used as forced labourers in WWI. Antandrus (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austria, 1860s

A certain Simon Freiherr von Winterstein, buried in Vienna (probably in the Zentralfriedhof), had been a member or otherwise associated with the:

Abgeordnetenhauses des Reichsrathes (1861 - 1869)
Herrenhaus des Reichsrathes (1869)

What are these? -- Thanks, Deborahjay 13:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Austrian Parliament, prior to the enactment of the current constitution in 1920, I believe. The 'Herrenhaus' was the House of Lords, and the 'Abgeordnetenhauses' was the lower house. Reading that tells me he was first an MP and then a Lord. Natgoo 14:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Imperial Austrian assembly was divided, on the English model, between Lords and Commons. For Herr Winterstein to move from one to the other suggests that he succeeded to the family title from his father in or around 1869. Clio the Muse 14:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The compound noun Abgeordnetenhaus literally means "House of Deputies". The ending -es is the genitive ending, meaning "of", for example as in Mitglied des Abgeordnetenhauses: "Member of the House of Deputies". Likewise Reichsrathes is the genitive of Reichsrath (which literally means "Imperial Council", in an older spelling). The transformation of the Empire of Austria into the dual-monarchy Austria-Hungary took place right in this period, in 1867, but also after that, the Reichsrat only concerned the Austrian part; Hungary had its own government and parliament. --Lambiam ^Talk 18:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above squares with my initial assessment (based on basic German and almost total ignorance of the history), and provides ample support for expanding upon the sketchy material I have. And may I note, dear RD staffers: even if I'd chosen the most likely topical Talk page to post this query, how likely is it I'd have gotten such speedy and comprehensive answers there, compared with yours here? -- with thanks, and kudos, Deborahjay 23:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gift Card Fad

I mostly manage the 2000's fads page, and i think based on all the hype surrounding gift cards and their rise in popularity they are most likely a fad, but i have no idea when they were first released or whether they are a 2000's only fad? (also, would more further questions on fads go under the misc page?)--Technofreak90 14:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We had a recent question on gift cards. They aren't new at all, although they do seem to have become more of a "rip-off" recently, with short expiration dates, exclusions on usage, reduced value before their expiration date, and no discount on the purchase price. However, that discussion was on gift certificates, good for one retailer only. The more general temporary prepaid credit cards are newer, if that's what you mean by "gift cards". StuRat 15:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California specifically forbids expiration dates on gift cards. Even if you have one with an expiration date, if you use it in California past that date, it is valid. However, on the news recently, there was a report that the state of Texas considers "unused gift cards" as abandoned property, and therefore property of the state. No indication in the report as to how long you can hold onto a card before it's considered abandoned. The article also said that the state of Nevada is considering similar legislation. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as far as the original question, there were paper "gift certificates" for years, with specific amounts printed or written on them. I can't say when gift cards came about, but they're just a computerized version of gift certificates, though sometimes you can recharge them (add more money to them). User:Zoe|(talk) 21:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic enclaves in the U.S.

Does anyone know of books that discuss and describe the various ethnic enclaves in the U.S. of today? Their culture, history, things like that. Jack Daw 14:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a list of such places. Perhaps some list some sources. See List of ethnic enclaves in North American cities. Rmhermen 15:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paris employment statistics

Does anyone know any (or where I might get some) comparative employment statistics for the Paris suburbs for 2005 to 2006? My coursework kind of falls apart without such...

Thanks!

Farosdaughter 15:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

INSEE is a good source of stats for France - and they may have what you want, if you order and pay. See also these 2001 employment figures for the Arrondissements of Paris. Good luck! -HJMG 10:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance humanism and New Testament hard copies

In literature, Dante Alighieri (1265–1321) and Francesco Petrarch (1304–1374) are often considered the Fathers of the Renaissance. These figures as well as others like Poggio Bracciolini scoured the monastic libraries across Europe for lost ancient texts, especially classical Middle Ages Latin works (also ancient Greek works). However I can NOT find any reference to these well known figures (or others of similar notoriety) that they ACTUALLY "found" anything of the New Testament. Also in their writings I can NOT find where they even mention that they had physically in their hands an ACTUAL hard copy of anything of the Middle Ages from before the Fourteenth Century that they even read of books or Codexes of the New Testament. Where is there references that any of these 3 (or similar Renaissance humanism figures) actually had primary sources of the New Testament that were verified from them (saying something to the effect "it appeared" to them to be "hundreds of years old" as a physical hard copy, that they had in their hands they were reading from, of a hand written copy done by a copyist of the Middle Ages of BEFORE the year 1300)? Not speaking of any of the 39 books of the Old Testament texts, just any of the 27 books of the New Testament. --Doug 16:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Doug. I feel sure that your knowledge of Petrarch and Dante is considerably better than my own, but I'm finding it a little difficult to pinpoint a specific question here. However, I do not believe that either of these great authors was working from original texts, but simply interpreting what was part of the common knowledge of western Christendom. Clio the Muse 17:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, Why are you so insistent that they MUST have had original copies? And why do you keep shouting at us? I doubt if I am the only one who finds all your CAPITALS and emphasis distracts me when I'm trying to read you. I don't know the answer to your question, but the parsimonious answer, in the absence of any direct evidence, is that they didn't mention having originals because they didn't have them. Also, I wonder whether they would have found the age and authenticity of the physical document as important as we do today? --ColinFine 17:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for answering. I will restrict my use of capitals. I was just using them to show emphases, however I'll hold back on this usage. Also perhaps I should have made my question more clear. What I meant to say was that I am looking for where either Petrarch or Dante (or any others like them) say in any of their "works" or letters that they actually read any actual hard copies of the New Testament. I can not find any evidence of this. Now I also should have made clear (my fault) what I am looking for is not of an "Original" (of say from the first few centuries), however any hard copy done by a copyist off any of these supposed 'Originals' copied perhaps in the years say between 1000 - 1300. The Idea being NOT (sorry) of an 'Original' but of one done by a copyist off these supposed 'Originals' of any of the 27 books of the New Testament. I do NOT (sorry again) believe that it was a part of the common knowledge of western Christendom. Need an actual reference from one of these Renaissance people (a famous well known person of high reputation like Dante, Boccaccio, Petrarch, Da Vinci) that says they themselves actually had in their little paws some actual Copies off these "supposed" 'Originals' of any of these books of the New Testament. Perhaps I may sound a little skeptical, however let me make my viewpoint much more clear. I am VERY (really really I'm sorry) skeptical!! In other words, I do not believe you will ever find in any of their letters or works where they say they had a hard copy that they believed to be "several hundred years old" or some wording to this effect from THEM. Taking your word is not good enough. In other words, looking for a reference from them (a famous Renaissance person) that they had such NT books in their little o' paws. Now that should show up in at least some of their "works" or letters. Petrarch wrote over 500 letters alone, not counting the several hundred letters to all kinds of people (many high ranking like Popes and Kings) these others wrote to. However there is no evidence they even read from the New Testament (Latin or Greek), let alone collected any of these Codexes. None collected any of these ancient hard copy Codexes or manuscripts that were copies off the supposed Originals(or even read them). Why not??? There is no records or references of this at all. --Doug 22:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite get where you're coming from. I suggested that if they didn't say they had any, then perhaps they didn't, and I think you're saying the same thing but with more emphasis (Sorry). What's the big deal?

I can't work out whether you're actually trying to prove they didn't have ancient copies, or that they did but conspired not to say so. What's wrong with my suggestion that they didn't have ancient copies and didn't regard this as an important issue? Or do you have some evidence to the contrary? --ColinFine 00:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying there was any conspiracy. Some of these Renaissance people I named were in different time periods (i.e. Petrarch and Da Vinci) so there could not be a conspiracy. The big deal is that there is no proof whats-so-ever that any of these Renaissance people ever had physically in there hands any of the pages (i.e. any of the Originals of say 100 A.D. - 900 A.D. or hand written copies by copyist of about 1000 A.D. - 1300 A.D.) of the New Testament. If these people (i.e Petrarch and Poggio Bracciolini) collected the classics of ancient Latin (and some Greek) texts then why didn't any of these Renaissance people collect any pages or books or manuscripts or Codexes (Middle Ages 1000 A.D. - 1300 A.D. hard copy thereof) since it would be quite valuable. They collected much other Latin classics, however NONE of the New Testament. There is absolutely no proof (references of their letters or their "works") of any of these Renaissance people collected any of these. Perhaps there was none? If no Renaissance people collected (or even read) any Middle Ages (i.e. 1000 - 1300) copies, then how do we know there is any? In fact I say there was no such Codexes of the New Testament for them to put in their little o' paws. That's why there is no records they collected any. If anyone knows of any references from any famous Renaissance person saying they collected or even read from any New Testament 'Originals' or even any copies (i.e. 1000 - 1300), please show me that reference. Must be something of their "works" or of one of their letters. Actual documentation of Renaissance references. --Doug 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I have to say that I completely agree with Colin on this issue: I do not think the antiquity of documents would be an issue of any fundamental importance to any Renaissance author, who may indeed have prized more recent hand-written copies, still enormously expensive for the time. To be honest, and please forgive me for being so direct, you give me the impression of being on some kind of crusade or personal quest, and I am not really sure that the Reference Desk is the place to be making these points at such length. Clio the Muse 01:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Codex Vaticanus (written in the 4th century) "has been housed in the Vatican Library (founded by Pope Nicholas V in 1448) for as long as it has been known, appearing in its earliest catalog of 1475 and in the 1481 catalogue." Wareh 02:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the question correctly, Doug seems to be asking why, if the Renaissance Humanists were collectors of old Latin and Greek texts, they didn't collect old Biblical texts as well as Classical ones. My understanding of the answer is, the Renaissance was a time where neglected Classical Greek and Latin texts, i.e. texts that hadn't been extensively copied in the Middle Ages, and were thus not well known, were actively sought out and disseminated. It wasn't like collecting first editions. If you found a copy of the works of, say, Tacitus, you'd be discovering a work which had been virtually unknown and unread for centuries. The books of the New Testament, on the other hand, would have been among the most copied, disseminated and read texts in existence. Finding an old copy wouldn't mean gaining any new knowledge, so wouldn't have been a priority for the humanists. --Nicknack009 03:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the answers above. Fully understand them, especially that of Nicknack. Elaborating on Nicnack's answer, the question is (where I didn't made clear in the original question): how does one know that in fact the books of the New Testament were amoung the most copied IF there is no Renaissance Humanists saying in any of their works or letters that they actually read from such books of the New Testament, copied in Latin (I assume). Looking for documented proof (i.e. personal letter, diary, poem, book or "work" by a Renaissance Humanist) that says they themselves have actually read from the New Testament. Looking for something from the Renaissance Humanists that shows proof the New Testament was widely disseminated and read texts in existence. I am not talking of books of the Old Testament, however of the New Testament. On that of the Codex Vaticanus: agree totally with the quotation found by Wareh. However those dates do NOT show an indication of the New Testament in existence before the Fourteenth Century (my original question). It only shows an indication of the New Testament existence after the Fifteenth Century. The earliest date (per quotation) is 1475. The part of "(written in the 4th century)" is not part of the quotation and is just something someone injected to make it appear older than it really is. Looking for actual reference documentation that the New Testament existed before the Fourteenth Century. I have researched this question for over 2 years through several history books and many encyclopedias and can not find such documentation from a quote (for example) of a Renaissance Humanist giving an indication that they themselves had in hand physically an actual copy of the New Testament. Where is there such? --Doug 09:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a Renaissance Humanist who can be unequivocally said to have read the New Testament, there's always Erasmus, who not only read it, but published a critical edition of the Greek and a new Latin translation in the early 16th century. For evidence of knowledge of the Latin Vulgate in pre-14th century Europe, see my answers to one of your other questions further down the page. --Nicknack009 21:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Test your knowledge

Many of the lists listed at Lists of basic topics have gaps in them. If you are knowledgeable in a wide variety of subjects, or well versed in a single subject, please come and help. Simply browse one or more of the lists and fill in any holes that pop out at you. Some of the lists are "complete", but I bet you could find "fundamental" topics missing from those too. The Transhumanist 16:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

the difference (if any) between genocide and crimes against humanity

I tried looking up both definations of "Genocide" and "crimes against humanity", they were basically the same. When Sadam was recently hung they said it was for "crimes against humanity". That made me wonder why they used that term as opposed "Genocide". Any help you could give me would be appreciated. Thanks SusanMissprin 16:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are, in all essential respects, the same thing. However, genocide, strictly speaking, refers to crimes agianst a specific race. Saddam's alleged crimes were, to be correct, sectarian rather than racial, insofar as they were directed against religious and ethnic communities, rather than races as such. Clio the Muse 17:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CORRECTION, they are not "in all essential respects, the same thing".

Genocide is the killing of a 'race', compare patricide, matricide, fungicide etc.

Obviously genocide is a crime against humanity if it is committed against a human race.

But a 'crime against humanity' can include other things such as mass torture, slavery, mass rape etc. So genocide is just one example of a crime against humanity.87.102.14.212 18:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is another dimension, the UN is legally bound to intervene in genocide, so they simply redefine any genocide as "crimes against humanity", so they can just ignore it. StuRat 18:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, every genocity is, by definition, a crime against humanity. But not every crime against humanity has to be a genocide. Same as An apple is a fruit, but not every fruit has to be an apple :D Aetherfukz 18:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide is a legal term that refers to the harm or desctruction of a specific group of people. They can be grouped together by race, gender, social status, political or religious beliefs, etc, and the methods to bring about their destruction can range from forced relocation (Armenian_Genocide) to the disruption of the family structure (Lost Boys of Sudan) to concentration camps (Auschwitz concentration camp). Crimes against humanity refer to crimes that transcend the concept that crimes are the concern of countries and its people and are instead crimes that all of humanity should be offended by and condemn. Labeling certain crimes "crimes against humanity" justifies the creation of International Criminal Tribunals (ICTR) and certaintly allows genocide to be punished. But they are not the same thing. One can commit a crime against humanity, such as torturing innocent citizens, without acting to destroy a certain group.

And, to clarify, acting to destroy a religious or ethnic community would STILL be considered genocide. As a reference: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Themodestmouse 18:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty obvious that the notions of "Genocide" and "Crimes Against Humanity", though obviously related, are quite separate and distinct. I'd put it best by placing the crime of "Genocide" as but one of several "Crimes Against Humanity". In other words, "Genocide" is a subset within the larger notion of "Crimes Against Humanity". I agree, more or less, with most of what Themodestmouse said, with one large exception. Though it can very much qualify as a Crime Against Humanity, I don't see how "forced relocation" can qualify as falling within the "Genocide" subset. The suffix "cide" is from the latin verb "to kill". The reason why the Armenian Genocide qualifies as a bona fide "Genocide" is due to the fact that it involved the mass killing of countless Armenians. Saddam could very well have been charged with "Genocide" just for his mass killings of Kurds, if not for a variety of other possibilities. In fact, Saddam wasn't charged with every possible crime he committed during hs reign, as a trial like that would involve thousands, if not millions of separate charges, and would no doubt last an eternity. So instead what the prosecutors did was the must "open and shut" charge available to them, which was, in their opinion apparently, a certain massacre of (I believe) some 140 individuals. After all, you can only hang a guy once. Loomis 22:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holland and the Netherlands?

Is Holland the same as the Netherlands or are they two different countries?

If you had bothered yourself to read the article (Holland) you would have found it out without any help. Flamarande 18:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC) PS: Sign your statements!!![reply]

Please don't bite the newbies. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In short : they are not the same! Holland refers to parts of the Netherlands. Holland is not a country, the Netherlands is a country. The inhabitants of the Netherlands speak Dutch, but they call it "Nederlands" in Dutch.Evilbu 19:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is traditional, although not technically correct, in English speaking countries to refer to the Netherlands as Holland. StuRat 20:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only in English-speaking countries, it's quite common internationally. 惑乱分からん 21:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flemings often refer to their northern Dutch neighbours as "Hollanders" even though they know it's not correct. But as far as I know, lots of Dutch people who are not a "Hollander" don't like to be called that way.

Oh, the whole country used to be the shortlived Kingdom of Holland, so for a brief moment, Holland was the entire country.Evilbu 22:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB "Holland" is a contraction of the Anglo term for The Netherlands, "Hollow Land". This is on account of the dykes. Vranak 22:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I heard the Netherlands were rather dyke-friendly, but the name Holland, afaik, is derived from Old/Middle Dutch "holt-land" wood-land, (derived from the same word as English "holt" and German "holz". 惑乱分からん 00:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's technically not the same, but in everyday use it's close enough. It's about similar to saying British people are from England which happens far too much in The Netherlands. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, 'Holland' officially covers 27 of the 28 'cantons' (administrative regions) of The Netherlands. Vranak 16:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YRI. According to our article Holland, the area is divided between two provinces of the Netherlands: North Holland (Noord-Holland) and South Holland (Zuid-Holland), while the article Netherlands tells us that the Netherlands is divided into twelve administrative regions, called provinces. --Lambiam ^Talk 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a packet of speculaas in my pantry. The writing on the packet is in 4 languages. The Dutch bit refers to the country of manufacture as "Holland". The word "Netherlands", or anything like it, appears nowhere on the packet. JackofOz 23:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly they were made in Holland rather than any other part of the Netherlands? I'm sure I've seen 'Made in Wales' on things, so similar things happen. Skittle 15:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wales is a country.172.159.156.28 18:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage of population going to war (like in Germany)

Hello,

I heard that about 150,000 soldiers from the USA are now in the Middle East. That's quite a lot, about 0.05% of the entire population. But I would like to know how much it really is. So for instance :

1. How many people (percentage or absolute number) from Germany were actually enlisted in the army during the World Wars and were at least required to leave home for that. 2. How many of them actually left the homeland?

I know that my question is not that easy to answer, (especially because the population drops during a war, so that can have deceptive effects on percentages). I'm just curious, it seems to be unmanageable to have Germans in Belgium, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Russia, Greece, Lithuania, Norway, Finland,....... Same question for Japan and USA.

If you have some sort of URL that is of relevance, I would be very happy as well.

Thank you very much,Evilbu 19:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is mobilisation - but our article doesn't give details of percentages. However the article for Recruitment to the British Army during World War I says - By the end of World War I almost 1 in 4 of the total male population of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland had joined, over five million men. I don't think it was nearly as high in Britain for WWII but may have been in Germany. 22:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would there be a smaller percentage in WW2 ? That was the war which could have meant the end of the UK (and the world as we know it), had it been lost, after all. StuRat 03:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWII had less of those idiotic trench charges. In WWI that's where the Brits and the Commonwealth suffered the majority of unneeded casualties. Think to La Somme and General Douglas Haig --The Dark Side 03:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To correct you Evilbu, 150 000 is only 0.0005% of the population of the US of A. 0.05% of 300 million is 15 million. But don't worry, it's only two zeroes. --The Dark Side 03:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Side's arithmetic is wrong and Evilbu's was correct. "But don't worry, it's only two zeroes." --Anon, Jan. 2, 07:12 (UTC).

One small observation, Dark Side, your estimation of Douglas Haig is no longer widely held, redolent, as it is, of the old-fashioned Oh, What a Lovely War viewpoint. War is a bloody business, especially when two evenly matched opponents confront one another, and you cannot defeat a powerful enemy without suffering terrible casualties. If you want Second World War examples you need to travel to all points east, to places like Stalingrad and Kursk. Clio the Muse 03:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed,. Recent scholarship suggests that Haig was hardly a thoughtless butcher, and that the casualties, while horrific and tragic, were perhaps not as avoidable as was once thought. Indeed, if you look to some (very) recent works by Hew Strachan, Jay Winter, Gary Sheffield and John Bourne, you will find that the "cutting edge" (as it were) of scholarship on this topic suggests that, once the trenches were established, astronomical casualties were quite possibly unavoidable - and indeed, only a handful of commanders on either side were able to conduct operations without significant casualties (Plumer comes to mind, but there are others). Sheffield and Bourne in particular paint a rather different picture of Haig that runs rather contrary to the received wisdom. Carom 06:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, most of the casualties could have been avoided, not by the generals, but by the politicians, by ending the war early. The old logic, that the costs of war would be less than the gains (for the victor, at least), clearly no longer applied in the era of trench warfare. Any territorial gains were not justified by the huge cost. Therefore, they should have agreed to an armistice, on approximately equal terms, as soon as this became apparent. StuRat 16:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To get back to the initial question, Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on this subject, which is not exactly mobilization, but something known more precisely as the military participation ratio. You (Evilbu) will probably find the figures you want by doing a google search using that term. —Kevin 06:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it was I that missed the two zeroes. However, as for Haig, I don't think he purposely sent excessive men to their deaths because he was "callous and indifferent to the plight of the soldiers.” Rather, I think he just made some mistakes and refused to correct them until many lives were needlessly lost. I do recognize that people must die in war, but they shouldn't be lost through incompetence by superior officers. For the record I speak only of his participation during the battle of the Somme. --The Dark Side 20:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy: has it ever been of any practical concrete use?

By practical use I mean has it ever done anything concrete that you can actually touch, or made any money? (Ignoring the money made by people teaching it or selling boks about it etc). And I don't want to hear about the Philosopy Of Science - the science came first, then the philiosophy fitted itself around it rather than the other way around. 62.253.53.96 20:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think philosophy probably came first. As for your question though, I'm not sure. Sorry. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rather think philosophy and sophistry mean roughly the same thing... 'doing wisdom': making money from 'doing' wisdom. See also the first quote on my user page: Vranak 21:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that philosophy has ever done anything concrete or made money, though neither of those is its goal. On the other hand, I do think that philosophy has made possible doing concrete things and making money. I once heard someone refer to philosophy as "mental hygiene". Philosophy provides tools that allow people to avoid mental traps or errors in thinking that can result in concrete things that fail to work, or efforts to make money that don't pan out. One of the most useful branches of philosophy is logic, which helps people to avoid fallacies, or faulty thinking. Beyond this, philosophy, or at least logic, have clear applications to the practice of law, which certainly has concrete results and makes money for its practitioners. Marco polo 22:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And a mental trap or error in thinking that results in concrete things that fail to work -- this would be a Bad Thing presumably. Vranak 22:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we call natural science now once was the province of philosophy. Before it came to be a separate field, keeping a new breed of scientists busy, the notion of the scientific method had to be developed, which was done by... ?, guess... Right on! Philosophers! Very good. Likewise, logic, now usually considered an area of mathematics, grew out of...? When the answers to the hard questions in a sub-field of philosophy have reached consensus, it is spun off. What is left as being considered philosophy are the hard questions that haven't (yet) been answered. So while philosophy has not been, and never will be, of any "practical concrete use", as by definition the questions it addresses are unsolved, it has pioneered the approaches that have, ultimately, made computers possible. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have two brothers, both are philosophers. When I put this question to them, one said, "that is a good question, I must think about that." The other thought the question meaningless, and went about his work. I asked my second brother about the question, and he said "Can't you see I'm busy?" "But it's a question. Surely you don't ignore questions. What kind of a philosopher are you?" "I'm not ignoring the question." He told me. "I am answering it." DDB 23:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats very funny. --Judged 10:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let us be clear about one thing at least: sophistry and philosophy do not mean the same thing, roughly or otherwise. Indeed, western philosophy, as we understand it today, might be said to have emerged in opposition to sophistry and other forms of insincere thought. Has philosophy ever had any practical use or concrete application? Is thought of any use? These are both huge questions which cannot be weighed by scales of utility. However, I will say that all aspects of human development, both good and bad, are inconceivable without the development in modes of thought, whether this be logic, epistemology, aesthetics or metaphysics. Just imagine, moreover, a world without ethics, without notions of good and bad conduct. Take away all of these things and ask if it is possible to conceive in any meaningful sense what it is to be human, what it is to exist, in other words, beyond the level of mere instinct. Has it ever done any good? I'm reminded of A Christmas Carol, and with every apology to Charles Dickens I will take some of his words slightly out of context: And, therefore...though it has never put a scrap of gold or silver in my pocket, I believe that it has done me good, and will do me good; and I say, God bless it! Clio the Muse 00:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice answer. I remember a loose definition of philosophy, I believe by Bertrand Russell (though I do not remember in which essay or book I encountered it, and I may be misquoting): "Philosophy is an unusually persistent attempt to think clearly." More or less. Looked at that way, it is of value immeasurable on any scale. Antandrus (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's also not forget that philosophy has many ties to ideology, which has done a lot of "practical" things in the world, good and bad. Your life is more governed by some dead fellow's philosophy of freedom, of governance, etc., than you probably realize. --Fastfission 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much of what I would say has already been said (especially regarding the historically inaccurate claim that science came first and philosophy of science came after it.) In addition to the above suggestions I have a few. Contemporary philosophy of science interacts with statistics. A causal search algorithm, known as TETRAD, was developed by philosophers at Carnegie-Mellon University. Similarly the uses of information criteria, like the akaike information criterion, have been explicated by philosophers (notably, Elliot Sober). There are currently two living members of the United States National Academy of Sciences who are philosophers, Brian Skyrms and Patrick Suppes (Willard Van Orman Quine was also one, but he is no longer alive.) In fact, Suppes was awarded the national medal of science. Of course, to be in the NAS, they must have made contributions to science. Work in contemporary logic is used substantially in computer science especially artificial intellegence. Work in decision theory is being applied to actual decision making, largely now by people in business schools. Most hospitals hire at least one person specializing in bioethics in order to inform their decisions. I know that contemporary usage, especially amongst "scientifically minded" people, treats "philosophy" as synonymous with "baseless speculation", but it is only the result baseless speculation by close minded people. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can bacteria think?

Is thought defined loosely enough that it can be claimed that bacteria, through to their internal chemical reactions, can think?

83.94.245.53 20:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No; they are quite litterally "mindless eating machines". :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the definitions found at thought, no not really. However they can respond to their environment but it is anthropomorphizing to call that thinking. —Dgies^t c 20:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In his Gödel, Escher, Bach, Doug Hofstadter presents some conversations with an ant hill, aptly named Aunt Hillary. The idea is that while individual ants are mindless machines, the society formed by the collectivity of ants – who, as we know, exchange signals with each other and can be considered to be the elements of a vast information-processing system – might possess intelligence, just like intelligence is an emergent property of the collectivity of mindless neurons forming the human brain. While an entertaining thought, the observed level of intelligence of ant societies – inasmuch as we can interpret it – is not very high. Like ants, bacteria display some social behaviour; they exchange signals and adapt their behaviour accordingly. Again, the collective intelligence displayed does not appear to rise to the level of what is commonly considered "thought". In my opinion this is more a matter of degree than of principle. Other people disagree and see an essential qualitative difference. Ultimately the issue is indeed one of definition. The problem is that when the concept of "thought" was formed, no-one considered the possibility that one day we might ask whether some non-human information processing system was capable of thought, so by default you should add "displayed by humans" to any definition given by someone who did not explicitly consider the possibility. Fish can swim; can submarines swim? If you define "to swim" like my dictionary does as: "to move in water by movements of the limbs, fins, tail, etc.", then is the screw of a sub covered by the "etc."? Not in the usual use of the verb "to swim". The same could have happened to "to fly"; the meaning could have been: ""to move in air by movements of the wings." Then we would have to concede that kites and airplanes can't fly. As it is, whatever some philosophers say, people appear to be quite happy to use "thought" for the computations leading to the behaviour of animals and computers alike. If the result of the information processing capabilities of a society of mindless elements becomes sufficiently complex, so that we can no longer grasp it as the combined result of very simple signalling and switching, then I'm sure we will likewise call it "thought". See also Turing test and Chinese room. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bacteria can be said to 'think' when they can exhibit a personality, exercising choice, not mere programmed activity. Recent research into spiders show that they have personality, some are aggressive, some are timid, some are lazy. Bacteria has only ever been observed acting as all other bacteria would. Human cells are not thinking creatures, but the collective that makes a person is. Individual ants have personality. Do trees make choices? I don't think so .. DDB 23:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ever met an Ent? Vranak

So we seem to have concluded that an individual bacterium certainly does not think, and it seems unlikely that a colony of bacterioa would exhibit any emergent behaviour that could be classified as thought. On the other hand, spiders probably do think. What about multi-cellular organisms that lack a brain or central nervous system - such as jellyfish - can they think ? Gandalf61 10:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe some form of central nervous system is required to think, so if jellies don't have one, I don't think they can think. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we therefore conclude that jellyfish do not think that you can think? Vranak 23:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bacteria cannot think since it has no brainuser:ynj

Gee, that's a good answer! (Slaps forehead) That I did not think of that! --Lambiam ^Talk 18:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dioceses

How many Catholic dioceses are there in the world? --Lazar Taxon 21:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here in my town, I think there are 250+ (estimate, I only know for sure of about 20, from a relatively small portion of the city). | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood - there's only about 200 in the whole US. --Lazar Taxon 21:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought parishes. Then in that case, my town only has one. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is! I knew it had to be on Wikipedia. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I counted correctly, that makes 488 dioceses. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably a few more too; the number is more likely closer to 500. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that that list claims to be very incomplete: The article diocese gives "As of 2003, there are approximately 569 Roman Catholic archdioceses and 2014 dioceses." Rmhermen 02:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you counted the titular sees, it might even be higher. AnonMoos 05:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long have accountants been known as accountants?

In Europe in the 1700s, say, were there accountants who, like now, kept offices where merchants etc came to manage their accounts? If so, were they called accountants? - if not, what? - bookkeepers? Ta - Adambrowne666 22:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Adam. Accountancy as an activity is probably as old as civilization itself, and I know of at least one literary reference to 'incorrect accounts' in The Clouds, a play by Aristophanes, written in the fifth centuary B.C. In the English speaking world I think those practicing accountancy were most commonly referred to as book-keepers, or perhaps clerks, comptrollers or auditors. I think the Scots were the first to give formal legal recognition to the profession of chartered accountant as such in 1854, an example followed in England some thirty years later. Clio the Muse 01:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

perfect! - thanks for yet another helpful answer, Clio. Adambrowne666 01:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary's first citation in this sense: "1539 Househ. Ord. in Thynne's Animadv. (1865) 33 And the said Books shall be examined with the Accomptants and particular Clerkes for the perfecting of the same." Wareh 02:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wareh; so it looks like 'accountant' came from 'accomptant'? Adambrowne666 21:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it came into English from French accomptant (the late Latin verb accomptare is derived from the prefix ad- + computare, to calculate). The p would never have been pronounced in English. Wareh 22:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

employment with US Park Systems

How does one apply for employment with the United States Park Systems? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karen Hawkins (talk • contribs) 01:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Try the top few links here. Wareh 02:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try here. - Patricknoddy 8:25am, January 2, 2007 (EST)

John Smith

In the U.S., if John Smith, M.D. names his son John Smith, Jr., does he need to change his name to John Smith, Sr. to the government and the American Medical Association?

If his child hates the name and changed his name to Tom Smith, does his father need to change his name back? -- Toytoy 02:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Sr." is only used by third parties in contexts where disambiguation is necessary. In the US, however, personal preference rules, so there are bound to be exceptions. --Wetman 03:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Sr." is generally not a legal part of a person's name. Nor is the "Jr." in any case that I can think of. If someone was really anal and they wanted the Sr. on their name, they would probably use "John Smith Sr., M.D." Though this might lead some people to think that the son is also a doctor. Dismas|^(talk) 05:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Caesar

Hi there

I wonder if you could help my daughter who is 9 years old.

She was set a 100 question test from school for the Xmas period and we have managed to answer every question with 1 exception:

What unusual pet did the Roman, Julius Caesar, have?

Your help would be greatly appreciated

Many thanks

Elise

After searching Google for "pet of julius caesar", I found this. Apparently, Caesar liked gigantic pets. --Bowlhover 09:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. "The first giraffe exhibited was in Rome in 46 B.C. by Julius Caesar. It was thought to have a camel for a mother and a leopard of a father. The ancient Romans called it a "camel-leopard". (From this, its scientific name - camelopardalis)." The second exhibition of a giraffe to the Italians was by Lorenzo d'Medici, in a conscious echo of Caesar's exhibition. - Nunh-huh 20:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

music,piano playing glossary.

i was not able to find the above subject,as i did with violin & ballet.please help!thanks!

you want a glossary of terms relating to piano playing? --194.176.105.40 09:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if so, and you don't need one that's too comprehensive, this should help: Piano Glossary --194.176.105.40 09:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Wycliffe English translation of New Testament

From John Wycliff comes the first translation of the New Testament off Latin into any language about 1382. The whole was revised by Wycliffe's younger contemporary John Purvey in 1388. The "Early Version" of the "Wycliffe Bible", hand-printed about 1382, can be found online here. About how long would it have taken Wycliffe and Purvey to have translated only the New Testament, which was hand-printed?

Probably a year or two. - Patricknoddy 8:26am, January 2, 2007 (EST)

That is almost impossible to estimate; all we can do is give somewhat plausible bounds. The New Testament contains roughly 200,000 words in translation. Just to write it down, hand-copying an existing text, might take about 200,000 seconds for a quick writer, or 7 days each of 8 hours continual labour – after which the copyist would have carpal tunnel syndrome :(. So it cannot have been faster than that. One order of magnitude more, say 3 months, would seem just feasible if no research of any kind is needed (for example to further the consistency of translation) and the translator does not particularly care whether the translation is clunky – Wycliffe's translation was a literal almost word-by-word translation of the Latin text, with little consideration for the differences between Latin and English grammar. But 4 to 6 months is more plausible as a lower bound. One could easily spend a year or two on the task, though, constantly and steadily working, without idling. What I don't know is to what extent he made use of extant partial translations, and whether this was all done single-handedly. Also, it is unlikely that Wycliffe did nothing else during the months or years he was working on the translation; he did possibly not devote more than half his time on the project, and then we get to 4 calendar years, say, or more. How long it took Purvey to produce his revision would mainly depend on how thorough and extensive the revision was, which I don't know. Assuming it was fairly thorough, though, it would have required a similar amount of time as a de novo translation. However, we know the revision was ready by 1388, and the article on John Purvey states: "He was probably in the midst of this undertaking when Wycliffe died in 1384." This would have started while he was at Lutterworth, which was since 1382. This suggests that, had his labour not been interrupted, it might have taken him a calendar time of about 4 years, which in actual life became more like 6 years. --Lambiam ^Talk 13:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding answers on this time. Lambiam: Appreciate the analysis. This helps me a lot..... --Doug 14:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam: Is there a particular reason (could be a good reason, I just don't know) why this list is not run in reverse chronological order? It would seem to be easier IF the most current subjects were at the top first, then the ones that have been answered and old history and about to fall off the list, as the last on the list. This way then one would not have to go to the bottom of the list each time and go through the entire list to see the most current ones. Perhaps there is a way I can set up my browser to make it do this. Can you give me some help or an answer on this? Thanks again --Doug 16:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about how to use Wikipedia are best asked at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Some keyboards have [Home] and [End] keys, which may transmit something like ESC [ 1 ~ and ESC [ 4 ~, and which some browsers (for example Mozilla Firefox and Internet Explorer) understand as "take me to the beginning or end of the <active area>". Otherwise keeping [Page Down] pressed may bring you there quickly. I don't know what keyboard, OS, and browser you use, and are in general as clueless about using computers as the next 68-year old person, so I may be unable to help you further here. Fortunately we also have Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing, staffed with knowledgeable volunteers who are eager to help. --Lambiam ^Talk 18:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middle English Bible translations

Looking under Middle English Bible translations it shows John Wycliff produced the first complete English language Bible in the late 1300s with the New Testament completed about 1380 (perhaps 1382). To translate the complete Bible how long would it have taken him (with associates)? Also I do NOT see any New Testament translations into any language before the Fourteenth Century (being Wyclif's Bible). Where is there a record or documentation of the Vulgate Latin translations of the New Testament hand copied (a.k.a. hand-printed) by a Copyist with a known name before the Fourteenth Century? Looking for good documented evidence that the New Testament (not the Old Testament) was in wide spread circulation in Europe before the Fourteenth Century in any language (i.e. the Vulgate Latin, English, Italian, French, Greek). Have looked under the following Wikipedia titles with no luck: Bible, Renaissance, Italian Renaissance, Holy Roman Empire, Papal States, Holy See, Avignon Papacy, Early Christian church, Christianity, History of theology, Christian theology, Christianity in the British isles 410-1066, History of the Church of England, and World Council of Churches. Where is there such documented records that the New Testament itself (or in combination with the Old Testament as a complete Bible) was in wide spread circulation in Europe (or elsewhere) before the Fourteenth Century? --Doug 14:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try Bible translations although it seems that you have already arrived at your own opinion and are seeking only to support it. Rmhermen 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have studied this much and came to this conclusion since I can not find good evidence that the New Testament was actually in wide spread circulation in Europe before the Fourteenth Century. I can not find that it ever was in circulation at all before the Fourteenth Century. That's why I am asking a large audience that in hopes maybe someone out of these thousands should be able to show me of this supposed evidence this to be true. Its not in any of these Wikipedia articles. If you know, please show me. I would really appreciate it. Maybe others can also show me. Should be several places for excellent evidence of this. Could you show me a few? I'm asking for help. Thanks! --Doug 15:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The suppression of the New Testament wouldn't surprise me, as many of it's teachings were at odds with those of the Catholic Church of the time. For example, the New Testament emphasized that everyone should have a personal relationship with God, while the Church claimed that only the Pope and saints had a personal relationship with God. The Church was also far more into "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" than they were into "turn the other cheek". StuRat 16:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right another conspiracy, well perhaps it has more to do with the fact that the overwhelming majority of the ppl (perhaps 99%) during the Middle Ages was simply iliterate and that the bible was written in Latin. Doug asked for "good evidence that the New Testament was actually in wide spread circulation in Europe before the Fourteenth Century". I have found the Book of Kells which has the 4 gospels of the New Testament. Written around 800 AD. Flamarande 18:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book printing in Europe become possible only when paper became relatively easily available, around 1400. It took till around 1450 before so-called block-books, woodcut books with both text and images, appeared, at about the same time as Gutenberg's invention of moveable type. Before that, a copy of the New Testament would typically be a lavishly illustrated manuscript, painstakingly calligraphed by monks on fine vellum. In terms of current value, such a book might easily be worth more than $100,000, more than most people could scrape together in a lifetime. You bet they were not in "widespread circulation", at least not how I would understand and use that term. And, as pointed out by Flamarande, the overwhelming majority of people could not read and did not understand the language this was written in. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copies of the Bible in Latin would have been in every monastery and major church even if every parish church or minor shrine/chapel didn't.have one. Recopying was a major effort of monks and wasn't confined to Biblical texts - some classical texts exist only because of monastic copying. Latin copies were so common, unknown priests could go mark up their copies in local dialects as shown in the interlineal glosses mentioned, for instance, in Old English Bible translations. Rmhermen 20:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin Vulgate Bible was translated by Jerome in the 5th century. Accordinging to this section of the article, it was copied so much that variants arose and attempts were made to re-standardise it in the 6th, 8th 9th, 11th, 12th and 13th centuries by named individuals, which should give you some avenues for research. --Nicknack009 21:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the Carolingian Renaissance may also be of interest. Apparently in the 8th century there were plenty of Bibles, but not enough priests capable of reading them. --Nicknack009 21:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the many answers. I have read them over and I am going to read them again to make sure I got all the information from all these great Wikipedia articles.
Nicknack: know you left multiple answers, got them all. Thanks. --Doug 00:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capital crimes in Iraq before 2003 and in China today

What was the 114 capital crimes in Iraq under Saddam? What are capital crimes in the People's Repucblic of China today? --Vess 16:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq under Saddam didn't have the rule of law. If they decided to kill someone, they usually wouldn't bother with a trial. The majority of those killed by Saddam died because they were Kurds or Shia, not because they committed any crime. StuRat 16:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless 'being born' were one of the 114 capital crimes, which would be crazy. Vranak 16:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Being born' as kurds, an important distinction... @_@ 惑乱分からん 18:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is so reasurring to see that things in Iraq haven't changed much then. Ppl still keep on being killed despite the new "rule of Law" and according to some are dying more these days.

Well, I guess they are being killed unlawfully... Must be soothing for the victims to ponder... 惑乱分からん 19:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, really sothing. Whereas formely they were killed by the will of Sadam - "lawfully", today they are being killed unlawfully by their neighbours. That small detail really makes all the diffrence for the widows and orphans. Flamarande 19:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the capital crimes in China, I looked around and found out that around 68 types of crime recieve capital punishment there. Couldn't find a specific list of these crimes. Best I found was this [11]. Read point: "2.3 The number of capital crimes". Flamarande 19:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capital punishment in China mentions a couple (but only more unusual ones - like killing a panda) Rmhermen 19:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of unanimity in juries

Hello all - I'm curious about the origin of two norms for juries (at least in the U.S.). When did it originate that juries had to reach a unanimous decision, rather than a simple majority (or anything else)? Have they always been this way? Was another way considered? Also, juries deliberate by discussing the case with each other, rather than each deliberating privately. Is there a story behind this norm as well? I have read jury and jury trial, but to no avail. Thanks in advance! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of a jury of peers already occurs in early Germanic law; see for example Salic law. I don't know any details of Saxon law, but since it was issued by Charlemagne, it was at least partially based on Salic law, and quite likely to have involved juries. I do not know if unanimity was already required for a guilty verdict in the early Germanic days, but it seems a possibility. With the Conquest another wave of "Salicism" entered Anglo-Saxon law. However, by that time the jury system was no longer commonly operational in England, until reinstated by Henry II of England. Again, I don't know whether unanimity was required, but this seems like a good starting point to look at. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kevin. This is an interesting problem you have set, and as with all such matters there is no simple answer. To begin with, practices have varied quite widely throughout the English-speaking world, and while a unanimous verdict in jury trials was long established in English common law, in Scotland, which draws on a different set of legal traditions, majority verdicts were accepted, even in in capital crimes. The practice in England was changed in 1967 to allow a majority verdict, where at least ten of the jurors are in agreement. As far as I am aware the United States adopted most of the precedents set by the common law of England, including unanimous verdict in jury trails, though this has also been subject to change and amendment. On your second point, juries were selected as arbiters of fact, and as justice had not only to be done, but to be seen to be done, this would inevitably entail that decisions be reached in open discussion. There is also the requirement of speedy justice. Just imagine how much longer trials would take if each of the twelve jurors were allowed to weigh the evidence in isolation! There was a time when jurors were not allowed to leave their room-even for sleep-until such time as they reached a verdict. On this you might be intrested in the example set in early colonial Virginia: When a case was given to the jury, it was locked up without food or water until it reached a verdict. A juryman could not leave his fellows until a verdict was reached, which, as one writer noted, made prolonged disagreement practically unknown. ( Quotation in J. W. Glichrist, South Carolina Trial Lawyer's Bulletin, Winter, 1989). Now, that's the way to do it! Clio the Muse 00:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ciphers and Codes

In Cryptography ("study of secrets") I would like to know what below each would be called, a Cipher or Code?
1. When a set of words uses identically the same vowels and has the same number of letters total, i.e.:
"The Da Vinci Code" -vs- "I’m a movie critic"
Each of these both use only the vowels a, e, i, and o. They both have 14 letters.

2. These words start and end using the same letter.
"Universal Studios" -vs- "unilateral studies"

I don't think either of these would be considered a cipher or code. These terms are used for secret methods to hide messages, but in such a way that people who know those secret methods can reconstruct the original message from the coded form. Your Da Vinci Code examples leaves too many possibilities, like "I love pineapple", "You will eat meat", "Submarines come", etc. Same for number 2. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can just about see these methods being used to select code words, which are then shared with everyone who needs to know them. However, this would make a more easily broken code than just selecting words than sound innocent ("The bananas are in the bowl"), and, given the possible solutions (as per Lambian), wouldn't be a lot of help to someone you want to know the code who has forgotten. If I said to you "Cabbages are green", using your second method, do I mean "Catch a goblin", "Creep away, gambling", "Catherine ate goose"...? Skittle 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points. Let me see if I could refine further on "the Code" and answer these very good points. First, these two would be entirely two different examples, not to be mixed into each other. Now for Example 1 more refined: Lets now say that from "The Da Vinci Code" there are a finite number of word possibilities to selsect from so that it is not infinite. This finite group then being a set of preselected words (known only to both parties involved as a set of "keys) so that it turns out there can only be a possible few word group set that it could then be (i.e. 6 or less sets). One of these sets then making perfect sense between the two and the hidden message intended. This then I believe would make it more plausable.
Example 2 would also be only a few possible set of words to be able to select from make it also more plausable.
I understand your points and will think more about this. Otherwise then with these refinments would this then be a Code or a "cipher"? Thanks again......... --Doug 00:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Given, as I understand it, a cipher is when you swap symbols for letters, if anything it would be a code.~~ That was roughly, according to my old books. But our article suggests that anything following an algorithm is a cipher, anything simply replacing the words is a code. So I suppose you're sort of setting up a cipher, although with the exchange of codebooks/lists it's also pretty much a flexible code. More than anything, it sounds to me like a word-puzzle that you would create for the fun of solving it more than its use. But I still don't see why you would do this, rather than just have the words/phrases mean set words/phrases, given you're already having to exchange lists of words. Your way still sounds like there could be potential ambiguity for the chosen translator, and it would take much longer for the coder and decoder while lowering the security of the code. Perhaps if your 'list' of possible words was very short, and the list of possible codewords was very long, then I can see it being useful (flexibility of plaintext meaning it could look less suspicious), but only once or twice. More than that and it's easily cracked with the short list of codewords. Skittle 01:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional ideas. Lets say I came across an acient manuscript (i.e. from the Middle Ages) and it used for example the word "Tarsus", which turned out to mean Taras, this then probably would be closer to the term "Code" (replacement of one word for another) than that of a cipher (anything following an algorithm). Now lets say this ancient manuscript was not intended to be for a particular person but for posterity instead. Now the way that one would know then that in this medieval manuscript it meant, by the usage of "the Code", the town of Taras and not actually Tarsus (city) is that there is also a reference to a Straight Street. In Tarsus (city) in Turkey there is no well known Straight Street, however in Taras there is. It is called the Appian Way. Now setting religion aside for the moment, this might be an example then of the usage of a Code (not a cipher), correct? --Doug 14:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound like a code to me, it sounds like a typo :-) But seriously, I don't see anything in that quote to suggest the street was a well-known street that was straight rather than 'the street called Straight'. Do you have real reason to believe that there was no street in Tarsus that was called 'Straight' (as a name) at the time? Onto this method of communicating: why would you use such a method of communicating with posterity rather than just writing what you meant? Or using a clearer code? If the aim is to disseminate the knowledge, what is gained by writing false things in the hope that people will work out what you mean? It doesn't really feel like a code, because you are not decoding the word 'Tarsus' and finding it to mean 'Taras', rather you are solving the geography puzzle to find a location. But what does my gut count on this? Skittle 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical name meanings as codes

Does anyone know of an instance where Biblical name meanings were used as a type of a code?
Perhaps this may have been used in the Middle Ages or in the Renaissance period. Today something
like this would not be used, since it is not very sophiticated compared to computer software.
However in a time period where few people could read or write (i.e. Renaissance) it could be useful.
This way then the recipient would already have the "keys" to deciper the coded message.
This being that, of course, this was prearranged ahead of time as the method used.
Then if the message got intercepted, it would look like a jumbled set of words that didn't make much sense.--Doug 21:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babylonian Captivity

Petrarch coined the phrase "Babylonian Captivity" as a reference to the moving of the papacy to Avignon. This expression can be found this way in usage in Wikipedia articles of Pope Clement V (the first Avignon pope), Avignon Papacy, and in Avignon. This I found by typing in "Babylonian Captivity Petrarch" in the search box. In these articles then it appears to be the same thing as "Captivity of Avignon", being a reference by Petrarch of the city's corruption. Under the article Avignon Papacy, in the Contents of "Schism: The War of the Eight Saints" under Criticism it says: The period has been called the "Babylonian captivity" of the popes, a term coined by Petrarch[1], an Italian who lamented the absence of the papacy from his native land. This nickname is polemical, in that it refers to the claim by critics that the prosperity of the church at this time was accompanied by a profound compromise of the Papacy's spiritual integrity, especially in the alleged subordination of the powers of the Church to the ambitions of the French kings. Coincidentally, the "captivity" of the popes at Avignon lasted around the same duration as the exile of the Jews in Babylon, making the analogy all the more convenient and rhetorically potent. For this reason, the Avignon papacy has been and is often today depicted as being totally dependent on the French kings, and sometimes as even being treacherous to its spiritual role and its heritage in Rome. Was this time period then somewhere around 70 years and when did this take place? The Jews in Babylon? Would this be correct usage then of term "Captivity of Avignon" since it is a reference to the temporary move ("captivity") to Avignon of the papacy? Wouldn't this then be similar to "Captivity of Babylon", being then the "Babylonian Captivity"? Don't 'Avignon' and 'Babylon' sound similar? --Doug 21:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you have read Babylonian captivity or Avignon papacy. Beyond the information in those articles, can you state more clearly what information you want? If the last question is your main question, I would say that "Avignon" and "Babylon" do not sound similar, although they rhyme in some languages. Marco polo 02:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The neutral term to use, one should emphasize, is "the Avignon papacy". --Wetman 06:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jews in Babylon reference is to the destruction of the first Temple in Jerusalem in 586 BCE and the subsequent forced migration of the bulk of the Jewish people to Babylon. In 516 BCE, (ie 70 years later) an edict by Cyrus allowed Jews to return to their homeland under the leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah, leading to the construction of the second Temple which was to stand until destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. --Dweller 09:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You all have answered my questions very good. This is basically what I was looking for. Now I understand that of the Jewish people and Babylon in the time of Cyrus. Now I can see the relationship meaning of the "70 years" connected to both. In the case of Babylon this time then being 586 BCE to 516 BCE ("70 years"). In the case of Avignon this is 1308 to 1378. Didn't Cyrus also make what is called the Cyrus Cylinder concerning this? It has the first set of Human Rights, written down on this clay cyclinder relating to this edict allowing the Jews to return to their homeland. Do I have this correct? Did this cylinder then have 40 lines of writing on it relating to this of allowing the Jews to return to their homeland?
I believe my main question would be more along the lines of would the term "Captivity of Babylon" be the same as (from Petrarch's viewpoint, whom coined it) "Babylonian Captivity"? They then would be the same to me, is that correct?--Doug 10:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Petrarch didn't write in English, he would have called it neither the "Babylonian Captivity" nor the "Captivity of Babylon". Please see your talk page for a question about your user page, which is along a similar point. --Dweller 15:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of "the Babylonian Captivity" was generally understood, well before Petrarch's time, to refer to the forced exile of Judah to Babylon. (Italian: Cattività babilonese; Latin: Captivitas Babylonica.) Given the right context you could just use "the Captivity", and people would still have understood you, just like "the Nativity" was the nativity of Christ. You can also say "the Captivity in Babylon" or "the Captivity of Babylon"; they all mean the same thing, just like "the American Senate" and "the Senate of the United States" mean the same thing. Petrarch chose this as a catchy metaphor for the "exile" of the papacy to Avignon. To distinguish this from the original Jewish exile, this became "the Babylonian Captivity of Avignon". People tired of repeating this long phrase shorten(ed) it to "the Captivity of Avignon". That's all. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop background

I'm looking for an image to set as my desktop background. One idea I had was beautiful Latin American cities at night. Does anyone have, or can anyone find, any such images? I know Google Images is my friend, but I haven't had much luck with it. Thanks, anon.

Try www.flickr.com or www.photobucket.com and search for the sort of image you require. To get to larger-versions of the image (in Flickr) click the photo you like and if the user has uploaded a larger version, you will be able to click 'see all sizes'. I often find my desktop backgrounds on there. ny156uk 23:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you search, type the name of a city you find beautiful, surrounded by quotation marks if the city's name has more than one word (e.g. "San Cristobal"), and type the word "night". You should get images of that city at night. You can do a search for each city you find beautiful. Marco polo 02:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hairstyle

if your hair is gelled and spiked are the sides usually cut short(for guiys

Humanities sort of means history and literature. You'd do better putting this question on the Miscelaneous RD, but this also probably isn't as good a place to find out as, say, a google image search for "gelled hair" or something. I think yes, but I don't really know. Sashafklein 06:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Local politics

This is a political question. Our town council is made up of mostly business men from rich families. They were heard talking in private about how some of the best land near downtown was owned by poor people and because most of it was very old and unpainted that they might be able to get it cheap by having code enforcement step up inspections, prosecutions and confiscations. After this suceeded they began to find other ways to keep poor people away from town. Since many poor people road bicycles or walked and carried backpacks they got some kids to go into stores, stuff their back packs full of goodies and then run out the door. After awhile the council was able to get merchants, including food stores, to require anyone with a backpack to leave it at the door. The backpacks would then be stolen while its owner was shopping in the store. Needless to say this stopped anyone with a backpack (mostly poor people and kids) from coming in their stores. My question is whether such stores can be required by a higher political authority (county, state or federal) to require local stores with such a policy to provide lockers that can be locked and the key kept by the user like some bus stations, swimming pools and schools have? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.6.152 (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I would think so, sure. However, the loss of business is likely to cause the businesses to reverse their decision in time. Also, if this "secret conversation" was made public, I would expect most of the council to be recalled or voted out at the next election. StuRat 04:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately they were heard by people under them so it amounts to gossip as far as anyone else is concerned. The irony here is that since there is a lot of shoplifting from kids and transients the businesses that engage in this practice do so with the belief that they are exercising an effective form of loss prevention rather than loosing legitimate customers. People who have backpacks are being discriminated against for this reason as evidenced by the fact that the stores never check the record of whether the backpacker has ever stolen anything from them but instead just treat all backpackers as if they are thieves. 71.100.6.152 07:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vestries in England around 1800

Is there any reference or list of the names of Vestries listed from England around 1800? My great-great-great grandfather was either a Vestry in England or his name was actually Vestry Kee. In search of my genealogy I have decided to check the avenue that he may have been a Vestry and not named that. Is there any such resource to check?

Thank You Margaret Dawkins ^^^^ Oklahoma City, OK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.137.1.43 (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A vestry is not a single person, but a committee - a church council, if you will. I am not aware that "Vestry" was a particularly common given name, but it seems a more likely alternative. Carom 05:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A member of a vestry is a vestryman. Only knowing the town or city would make your search a possibility.--Wetman 06:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret, what he may have been is a vestry clerk. You might try contacting the Church of England directly [12], though, to be prefectly honest with you, I think this is probably not going to be that productive, unless you can give them some more specific information on possible locations. For names the main source of information in England is the Family Records Centre [13] Good luck! Clio the Muse 06:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anal-Retentive

I was curious, so I read the article, which says that the current usage of Anal-retentive derives from a psychological term developed by Freud to explain childhood development. Personally, the idea of a stage of development in which the child is preoccupied with his his/her anus, as well as with the mouth and phallus, sounds a bit far-fetched -- not to mention Freud's idea that delays in this progression can somehow deeply affect the person's development and behavior. Has this theory been ratified by modern psychology? By empirical evidence? Is it still generally believed in? I don't really know whether this is a science or humanities question, so feel free to relocate it as you see fit. Thanks, Sashafklein 06:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common use of this term by pseudo-intellectuals suggests what they mean by it is "full of crap." 71.100.6.152 07:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've encountered that as a "clever" non-scatological euphemism. The term is sometimes used in a casual reference to a person exhibiting signs of obsessive-compulsive disorder. -- Deborahjay 10:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots can be learned by studying Freud's jargon. Behavioural Science is a science, and the Janus pairing of Anal Retentive/Anal Explosive is an apt description which identifies behaviours and suggests interpretations.

Oral fixations are understandable for a child. The first breath after birth allows oxygen to gather in the bloodstream in sufficient quantity that it is probably the first time the infant is 'awake' too. Feeding is an oral experience that lights up lots of sensations, smell, taste, touch. Infants are quick to put things in their mouths.

It is an observable fact that some adults, under stress, copy behaviours of infants. Fetal positions. Thumb sucking and so on. If the behaviours are socially constructed, or innate behaviours giveing security in times of stress has been debated and studied. The expression applied being 'regression.'

The Janus pairing of Retentive/Explosive gives a description that can be applied to observed behaviours. Such descriptions tend to be holistic and beggar analysis (pun intended).

The developmental stage of anal discovery, where the infant goes beyond oral, and discovers voluntary control of their bowels is observable too.

I'm no qualified psychologist, however You might enjoy exploring the expression "Collective Unconscious"DDB 11:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israel in American Politics

I was just struck by how completely the Bush administration, as well as most of the other recent ones (I'm youngish, so my political memory doesn't extend very long), has been in support of Israel. I will make no judgements on either side of the Israeli-Palestine issue, but it does seem to be much more two-sided than America's absolute support of Israel might lead an outsider to believe. Considering that the support of Palestinians, and through them much of the Islamic Middle East, is really crucial to the security of our future, it seems strange to me that we so unconditionally (within reasonable limits) support the other side. I understand this is partly because we felt we were in the same boat after 9/11, but we supported them before that too. I understand that Jews are probably a bigger voting block in America than Arabs, and that they also generally have more money to give to various political parties. I can see that our general revulsion of "terrorism" makes the Palestinians enemies to start with with some Americans, but then again, the Israelis are guilty of countless acts of terrorism--early on very similar to the stuff Al Quaeda and Hamas does. I just don't see how the group of, in my opinion, fairly minor factors can add up to produce such a powerfully pro-Israeli country. Even most "liberals" are strongly pro-Israel, and, most alarmingly, in my opinion, there seems to have never been much of a public debate in America about who is in the right in that corner of the world. It seems we've sort of transferred our general, oversimplified "they're terrorists; kill them and punish their families--no questions asked" policy to this terribly nuanced situation in Israel and Palestine. I can't see this being just a belief of Bush's, because he has no morals. And I think, in purely political terms, this goes strongly against our national interest. Humanitarian-ly, as well, it seems that Americans have a blind spot for every tank that rolls into Ramalla. There's rarely a discussion of the morality and political right of this, even on generally fair news show like The News Hour. Anybody have any ideas for why else this might be the case? Sashafklein 06:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The politicans reflect American popular opinion. The last poll I saw showed support for Israel somewhere around 60% and support for the Palestinian Authority around 30 percent. I forget the exact numbers. I guess Americans just simply have an easier time understanding Israel's point of view. Most nations are more sympathetic to the Palestinian point of view. It's just how it is.

The Bush administration supports a two-state solution, like most of the world, the Israelis, and most Palestinians. In fact, the administration seems to follow others on this issue. The Quartet decided to ban Hamas until the 3 conditions were accepted and Canada was the first to follow through.

I see plenty of debate in the mainstream media, especially in newsprint but also on TV. Some are more sympathetic with one side or the other but it's all there.

BTW, for someone lobbying for nuance your "Bush has no morals" spiel really hurts your case. It's difficult to take you seriously. - Pyro19 08:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Governments in general have no morality. To stay in power requires realpolitik, called realism by some. Morality only comes into play when an affectation of it furthers the purposes sought. The Prince is required reading here. US politicians who maintain a balanced position won't survive very long. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the public opinion thing, but that argument, I think, puts a bit too much of the blame, it there is to be any, on the general populace rather than on the government. Don't you think that that 60 or so % support is largely an effect of the government's prolongued stance? I suppose this could be a chicken-and-egg type scenario. I happen to be not old enough to remember, if it was ever clear, which came first.

And criticism taken, Pyro, although disagreed with. I was neither exactly making a case nor touting my own lack of bias. The issue is nuanced; you're being too generous to expect the same of my opinions. Sashafklein 08:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need polling data that goes way back. I doubt that would be easy to find out.

Also, just to add to Lambiam's point, America's close relationship to Israel was born out of realpolitik. Up until 1967, both nations had practically no relationship to speak of. Only after Israel quickly defeated the Soviet Union's Arab allies in the six day war was there recognition of Israel's usefulness as an ally. Since then though, it has grown beyond that. The exact tempo in the relationship depends on the President himself, for example, Bush sr. was more skeptical about Israel than his son is. Bush sr. also happened to be more realpolitik than his son as well. - Pyro19 09:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "recognition of Israel's usefulness" had a lot to do with the outburst of sympathy for Israel among the Jewish-American constituency, who thought that Israel had been attacked without provocation and had narrowly escaped annihilation. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complex web of issues. Here's a few additional answers... I'm surprised none of the respondents has yet pointed out that Israel is a rare example of a Middle Eastern democracy and thus a natural US ally. It's also strategically very important, as its location is pretty much a gateway between continents (see its depiction in various Mappa Mundi for how medieval people saw it thematically) making it important to the USA to have a measure of influence or even control. Since 9/11, the USA has seen itself as a target for Islamic fundamentalism and this will have further bolstered support. --Dweller 10:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Palestinians were smart enough to engage in peaceful resistance, in the mode of Ghandi or Martin Luther King, instead of terrorism, I believe they would have garnered US support and would be in a far better position than they are now. However, in the current climate, it's impossible for most Americans to support Palestine when so many Palestinians support terrorist organizations, like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad. Also note the strategic importance of Israel is a result of their willingness to break all the rules, like when they bombed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq, thus ending Saddam's nuclear program. The US may again need Israel to act against Iran's nuclear program. StuRat 12:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political ignorance of the situation doesn't help. Interesting article by Brian Walden on the BBC website - [14] Jooler 16:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Descendents of British prostitutes

I’ve heard a story about a British preacher who gathered up a whole bunch of London prostitutes to start a new life in America and for awhile had established a settlement near Jacksonville or St. Augustine, Florida. But then some of the women grew tired of the settlement and departed for the Tampa, Florida area where they settled again in their old ways and where now their descendents are the main players in the illicit sex trade. Is this true and are their any records or history to back this up? 71.100.6.152 09:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to believe. This implies that prostitution is based on genetics, rather than economical plight. (Of course, poverty often is passed on to new generations, as well...) 惑乱分からん 12:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would only prove it was genetics if the daughters weren't raised by their mothers. If they were, it might be a simple case of emulating the behavior of their mothers, which is widely known to occur. StuRat 12:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific testing of Codex Vaticanus

Why isn't there good scientific testing of the Codex Vaticanus for determining its authenticity of dating? Or for that matter any other Codex, like Codex Sinaiticus, that is used as a basis that the New Testament text is some 2000 years old. What if scientific testing (i.e. radio carbon dating, Mass spectrometry), being mathematical and unbiased, proved these to be false and just another in the long line of Archaeological forgery? There are today less intrusive testing methods, like Mass spectrometry, that could prove this without destroying much material in the process. Since there is so much money (and other things) involved, then isn't there a very good chance of Archaeological forgery to gain the upper hand? Otherwise the "dating" of Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus is just some people's opinion; especially those that will greatly benefit personally (i.e. financially, power, prestige, social status, etc). What if this testing proved the Codex Vaticanus to be of a time period around the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Century? I think this is quite possible, especially since it was not discovered until a library was established at the Vatican. According to the Wikipedia article, then it was then put into their first catalogs of 1475 and 1481. So where did it come from? The article even says it is pure speculation of its dating: Its place of origin and the history of the manuscript is uncertain. It doesn't seem logical to me to be floating around in various people's hands for over a 1000 years, then conveniently shows up in the Vatican Library (just when they could use something of 'authority' to gain some power). They had no idea of its "Dating" and were just guessing at it. Of course, the older it "appears" then the more value ("power") it has.--Doug 11:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Vatican did not have a catalogued library before the 15th century, it did possess a collection of manuscripts. As you can read in the article on the Vatican Library, Pope Nicholas V established the library in the Vatican in 1448 by combining some 350 Greek, Latin and Hebrew codices inherited from his predecessors with his own collection and extensive acquisitions, among them manuscripts from the imperial library of Constantinople. In the 15th century prospective forgerers simply did not have the knowledge to produce a forged 4th century manuscript that would stand up for a second against present expertise in philology, ancient handwriting, and so on. And what would have been the point? The various extant Greek codices are in good agreement with the Septuagint and each other, so do you think they are all later forgeries? --Lambiam ^Talk 12:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is "just guessing," and the standard view of the date comes from the community of scholars, not from an interested party like the Vatican Library itself. Such scholars are careful to state that their conclusions are "uncertain," but these uncertainties are not as great as you assume, as much is known within a relatively narrow range (better than could be achieved by any presently available "scientific testing") and beyond any reasonable doubt. I don't think uninformed speculations or the WP Ref. Desk can substitute for a Ph.D. in paleography or papyrology, which would acquaint one with the basic knowledge and skills needed to make any credible criticism of well-accepted scholarly conclusions. Those with knowledge of these fields are not retailing "just some people's opinion" and are scholars who have not done anything to deserve your slur ("especially those that will greatly benefit personally"). Likewise, nothing about the state of papyrological studies or the evidence of the oldest witnesses to the text of the New Testament lends support to these conspiracy theories. Wareh 15:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an online popular introduction to get you started (with some further bibliography): Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts. Wareh 15:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's assuming it came from the imperial library of Constantinople. I tend to think it came from Avignon when that library was moved to Rome around 1400 +/- 20 years. What if instead it was written up in the Fourteenth Century in Greek as a method to hide from the powers to be in Avignon (not designed intentionally a fake manuscript, as you are saying in the second part of your argument). Totally agree with you that Pope Nicholas V established the library in the Vatican in 1448 by combining some 350 Greek, Latin and Hebrew codices inherited from his predecessors with his own collection and extensive acquisitions. His predecessors being the Popes in Avignon. I tend to think that it is an Archaeological forgery from the viewpoint that perhaps the Vatican would rather authenticate it themselves to be able to keep its value up; therefore "power" over the people. It has nothing to do with 15th century prospective forgerers of any forger person, but more of a political move on the part of the Vatican. So to settle the argument: Why isn't there good scientific testing of the Codex Vaticanus for determining its authenticity of dating? Otherwise we are still back to the fact "the dating" has been established by the powers that be since they (Vatican) are establishing where it came from. Scientific testing is mathematical and unbaised, where perhaps the Vatican could be biased (don't you think). --Doug 15:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit too much "what if". What if the popes are actually robots operated by the Illuminati, assisted by scientific knowledge provided by Greys, while Wikipedia was set up by them as a tool to deceive those who are about to find out the truth? If it was a forgery, that would have been discovered by now. As I wrote, prospective forgerers simply did not have the knowledge to produce a forged 4th century manuscript that would stand up for a second against present expertise. Also, several early codices, for example the Codex Alexandrinus, the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, and the Codex Bezae, do not come from the Vatican collection. Others, like the Codex Amiatinus, ended up in the Vatican only centuries later. By the way, it may interest you that there is a 4th century translation of the Bible into the Gothic language; see Codex Argenteus. --Lambiam ^Talk 17:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good points, especially of the additional Codexes. However these are based on the field of paleography. Perhaps I just view the Vatican as having a motive for establishing the date as being from the first few centuries. If anything this would possibly be a remark against the Vatican. However I am sure they have had such remarks like this before (probably even worse). Let me say I really do appreciate the information and the websites you noted. It so happens that I am in communication with the Vatican Library, the British Library, the British Museum, and Chester Beatty Library. So I didn't just make these comments off the spur of the moment without thinking first. I didn' just come up with "what if's", but have been working on this problem for some 2 years now. Let me point out in this website that towards the bottom it says in reference to Codex Sinaiticus: In 1933 it was sold to the British Museum in London for a mere 100,000 pounds. That was a very large sum of money in the Great Depression. Now as far as I can see in the field of paleography one still has to establish some reference points to establish this "dating" of these manuscripts. In all my communications with these many large Libraries and Museums, so far nobody has been able to show me how they reference these manuscripts to some well known standard. Then how was this standard verified as to its date? Perhaps you have much better knowledge on this? Bottomline what is needed is a standard to reference the dating. Show me this standard that I have not been able to find. I really do appreciate your answers. I think this is a great argument, don't you think? --Doug 17:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you've glanced at the article I linked, but please read it with more care. You may disagree with the balanced presentation of established facts there, but the rest of us, faced with believing either that Peter van Minnen is misinformed or corrupt, or that your views are totally uninformed conspiracy theory, have a very easy choice indeed. Also, you are totally mistaken about the Vatican's involvement, for the simple reason that virtually all of the important work in this field has been done by scholars from outside the Vatican.

If you are sincere (which I find difficult to believe) in your desire to learn more about the standards by which scholars know about these things, you will need access to a good research library and can begin with the bibliographies here and here. Obviously, you will eventually need to learn Greek.

This is not a great argument, and I am exasperated by your deaf pursuit of fantasy & refusal to see that you are trying to build on no foundation at all. I will try to restrain myself from continuing my fruitless efforts to obtrude upon you a respect for people who have bothered to learn about ancient languages and documents. The only further question from you I can imagine relishing the chance to answer is "I am in location X, and have some time and money/no money on my hands. What is the best way to acquire a basic reading knowledge of ancient Greek (or some other branch of historical or linguistic science)?" Wareh 18:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do great "Ideas" come from?

Why is it that some people are very inspired (i.e. Da Vince, Einstein, Edison), while most of the world seems mostly uninspired? A formal education does not seem a basis to get these "inspirations". Many very famous successful people did not have a formal education. Likewise many with Degrees now-a-days have trouble with what I call the "basics" (i.e. using common sense to solve simple problems). Having a 4 year College Degree today doesn't mean all that much. Those with a High School education and those with a College Degree both basically start many jobs at "entry level". The one that can use common sense to come up with great "ideas" then seems to get ahead faster (which could just as easily be the High School "Grad"). So is there some sort of "Universal Source" out there someplace that has a stock pile of Ideas. How does one "connect" to this "Universal Source" of Ideas?
It's certainly not via cyberspace (however maybe it helps). Would I need some sort of super Cable Modem or can I just "dial up" Ideas? --Doug 11:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creativity involves being able to combine different areas of expertise into a solution. The typical start of an invention is noticing something that doesn't work well. Next you need to come up with a solution, which may involve various technical fields of expertise, but not always. One of the simplest recent inventions was a paint filter, used to separate out clumps from paint powder. The old system used a horizontal filter, which would clogs with clumps of paint powder in short order. The invention was to put the filter at an angle so the clumps would roll off and the rest would continue to go through the filter. This didn't require much technical expertise. The final step is to figure out how to market an idea. In some cases it's best to patent it then sell it to a company, in others you may try to produce and sell the product yourself. Here is an observation I've made, which you're welcome to use to improve the product:

The window shade mechanism doesn't work very well. They often go flying up when you try to pull them down. A version with a switch that only allows it to come down in one position and only go up in the other position might sell well. See if you can design a mechanism to do that. StuRat 12:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of common sense and informal education being better than all the university degrees in the world is one with great tradition. In reality common-sense has failing just like formalised education, not least because definining what is common-sense is particularly difficult. What makes someone an inventor or entrepreneur? Based on the rapid advancements made in the past 150 years...access to technology, education (though what level i'm not entirely sure), access to financial backing, a culture that promotes innovation would be a few. For all the great ideas in the world without access to the requirements to make it happen (or access to people who can) your creation is worthless. I would be weary of expecting too much of common-sense and too little of formal education. The innovators of history worked remarkably harder on inventions than many think: The light-bulb, the tv, the steam engine, the electronic chip. These things weren't developed at random they came about through use of formal (and i'm sure informal) knowledge. The Eureka moment, as they say, is really quite rare. ny156uk 17:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An excellently put point — much of the idea of "genius" is mythmaking, often perpetuated by the people who are themselves called the geniuses (Edison, it can be said, was a genius at self-promotion). The common stereotype of Edison as a lone worker who would hit upon brilliant ideas through sheer thought and elbow-grease alone is nonsense; he established a major research laboratory staffed with excellent scientists, devoted a huge amount of his time to maintaining a library of technical inventions which he might improve upon or combine in unique ways, and spent a lot of his time building upon ideas of others that seemed promising but not quite implemented yet. His genius with the light bulb was not the bulb itself but the creation of an electrification infrastructure — a social-governmental-economic innovation more than a technical one. One of the very difficult things in studying "creativity" and "genius" is that we wrap these terms up in a lot of mythmaking and moralizing; it is very hard to get at the base of it in practical terms, and why so many studies of it are shallow.

Einstein, by the way, fits into the above as well. He did not work in a totally isolated world, he was working on problems which were important in physics in his day, he drew heavily on the work of others. Many of the key theoretical "thought problems" he is so famous for (such as how to coordinate clocks using electrical signals) were actually important technical issues at the time he worked in the Swiss patent office (clock coordination was a major early 20th century technical difficulty). This is not to disparage Einstein's intelligence, for he was truly intelligent, but helps to re-frame the question a bit away from "how do these ideas come out of nowhere?", which is in almost all cases the product of a myth. The relation between an innovator, their context, and their work is a very complicated one. --140.247.242.85 18:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GOWDA

pls tell me , if i 'll search our gowda community in north india , which caste this 'll be and what title (surname ) should be ??pls reply for both the question i.e. caste and surnames.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.195.14 (talk • contribs)

We have an article Gowda, but it is all about this name in Karnataka. Are you asking about people from Gowda communities who migrated from Karnataka to Northern India? --Lambiam ^Talk 16:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Streetcar Suburbs

It appears that in discussion of early 20th century U.S. suburbs developed primairly around streetcar lines they are most frequently called streetcar suburbs vs. the less frequently used term trolley suburb. Are there specific differences in these two terms or are they completely interchangeable?Shc100 17:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect they are interchangeable, and that usage may be based on geography. In the midwestern part of the United States, where I live, I think "streetcar" was more common, particularly in Saint Louis. I believe "trolley" was in greater usage on the west coast, but I am not certain. Carom 17:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do inanimate objects 'know' they are being watched?

The scientists suggested I should ask this question over here instead, so: I am not mad, really. If I take two identical cups of boiling water, and sit and look at one of them for a few minutes it gets colder faster. I also tried this with identical plants, watching one and not the other, and the one I watched grew much fastr. Why would this happen?172.159.156.28 18:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is Confirmation bias. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

post modern sublime

I want to know about post-modern sublime ( Kant), what is it , who wrote about it, and where i can find examples of it in literature and the media?

thank you

81.155.134.69 18:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Measuring the TEMPERATURES in middle-ages

I understand that the first 'version' of the THERMOMETER came around 1500-1600.

During the middle-ages, about 1000-1400, -and before that for that matter-, what did they use to measure temperatures then ? Did they have any methods of figuring how cold it was on a cold winter-day or how warm on a hot summer-day?? Did they have any way of telling "today it is 'THIS' cold/warm, and yesterday it was 'THAT' cold/warm" ?

You hardly saw an medieval-person say "Today it is -10 minus degrees" or "Three days ago, it was 30 degrees in the shade"

So you guys have any idea ?

Krikkert7 19:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Krikkert[reply]