Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reference desk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Inning (talk | contribs) at 15:36, 16 February 2011 (→Computer question-answering). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
skip to bottom
Select a section:
Shortcut
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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


Ready? Ask a new question!


How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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


February 10

Buried in prison after life imprisonment

I saw in a documentary film that lifers in the US don't leave prison after their death, being buried in the prison grounds. Is that true to every state? Is this up-to-date information? Quest09 (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many prisons maintain cemetaries to bury the bodies of people who die in prison and have no one to claim the body. See Fort Leavenworth Military Prison Cemetery for a notable example. Note, however, this has nothing to do with life sentences. That is, if you have a life sentance and die in prison, your kids can still claim your body and bury you wherever they want to. If you have a 90-day prison sentence, die in prison, and no one comes forward to claim your body, they bury you in the prison. I know of no US state which will force your corpse to be buried on the prison grounds just because you have a life sentence. It seems patently rediculous. --Jayron32 04:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never underestimate the potential ridiculousness of government action.
I don't know of any state that does that, either, but when the UK used to hang people, they would not release the remains to the families, but buried them at the prison in an unmarked grave. I guess it was supposed to be an extra punishment. So it's not out of the question that some US state copied this practice and extended it to lifers. I think you'd need to check all fifty states; I'm not volunteering. --Trovatore (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was actually part of the sentence imposed by the judge: "... and that you be buried in the precincts of the prison where you were last confined." That actually replaced the earlier version ("... and that your body be delivered up for dissection") and still earlier versions that we shan't dwell upon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems evident that relatives of lifers probably don't claim the body as often as relatives of prisoners with shorter sentences. If you spend the last 50 years of your life in prison is more than probable that you lost contact with your family. Wikiweek (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if you die in prison, even after just one day there, your sentence turns out to have been an unintended "life sentence". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen several stories about persons executed, cremated, and their ashes buried "in an undisclosed location". I always guessed this location was the toilet in their cell, but as it's undisclosed, who knows? Wnt (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine thats more to do with either respect for the dead or else nobody having asked where they were buried than any sort of 'cover up' like that. Definately not an element of the sentence though, I imagine it would be considered cruel or unusual punishment. Interesting question though 82.23.192.190 (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese citizenship

Hey, me again. I've read that once a Chinese citizen naturalises him/herself a citizen of any other country their Chinese citizenship is automatically revoked. But how does the Chinese government/whatever bureau processes citizenship know when a formerly Chinese national becomes naturalized a citizen of another coutnry? I can't really imagine Chinese officials coming together with American or other countries' officials to share information like this. Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tis true. See Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China article 9. It's in very plain language, and says exactly that. I don't know the technical aspects of how they determine if you have become a citizen of another country, but when you do so, you are no longer a citizen of the PRC. --Jayron32 03:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They wouldn't need to share constantly updated lists, they would merely have to investigate the individual circumstances should a matter concerning citizenship crop up. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For example, if a Chinese passport-holder applies to renew a Chinese passport while living overseas, the Chinese consulate or embassy would often ask for a letter from the local government authority showing that this person has not become a citizen of that country. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As to OP's disbelief that Chinese officials would "come together" with foreign officials to share such information - there is nothing secret about a person's nationality status between that person and the country or countries of which that person claims citizenship. Foreign governments are generally aware of the practice of asking for a certificate of non-citizenship and do co-operate in issuing the certificate (or not), as appropraite. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, this is not universally enforced. Many countries allow multiple citizenship, and if you become a citizen there, your old country will not usually be notified automatically. Unless you get into trouble otherwise, it will be a non-issue. If they take official notice, they may simply revoke your citizenship, or request that you decide on one (and prove it). In theory, this may be a prosecutable offense in some countries, but again, actual prosecution seems to be rare. I don't know how China treats the issue, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify which part of which post you are replying to? All the posts above related to "how China treats the issue", so I'm not sure what you are labelling as incorrect. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like Stephan Schulz, I think that citizenship statuses aren't typically broadcast to other nations. I know a family that holds both South Korean and United States citizenship, even though you aren't supposed to be a dual citizen in S. Korea after age 21 (see South_Korean_nationality_law#Dual_citizenship). They use their Korean passport when traveling to korea, and their U.S. passports when coming back the U.S, and neither country is apparently the wiser. Buddy431 (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The OP was asking about China, not Korea, and the Chinese government has a policy of requesting applicants for Chinese travel documents living overseas to supply proof of non-citizenship obtained from local authorities. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been hearing rumours that China may be reconsidering its 1950's repeal of dual citizenship. No idea on the authenticity of this news. ~AH1(TCU) 02:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Vietnamese adult film industry

This came up at an AfD for a BLP - the article in question was speedily deleted, through lack of sources, and as being a possible hoax/attack page, so no link. None is really needed though, as my question is on a broader topic: does Vietnam have an adult film industry? I'm sure that other parts of Southeast Asia may find a market for their products in Vietnam, but does it actually produce its own? I ask because it somehow seems incongruous to me, given the political structure and recent history of this country. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the number of countries with an adult film industry is vanishingly close to 100%. Well, maybe 99%, we'll give the Vatican City a pass on that one. That is, if they have video cameras and a cash economy, then a) someone is shooting porn videos and b) someone else is paying money to see those videos. That counts as an adult film industry as far as I can tell. Now, whether this counts as a notable adult film industry is an entirely different question, and you'd need reliable sources to support a Wikipedia article. --Jayron32 04:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes, perhaps I could have phrased the question better. Does Vietnam have a legal adult film industry though? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. See Pornography_by_region#Vietnam. --Jayron32 05:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kindle Buddhism Book Rec? More principles, less New Age garbage

I have recently been given a Kindle. In seizing this opportunity to read more widely, I'd like to revisit Buddhism - something I took a few classes on wake back when in college. However, browsing the Kindle eBooks I found an overabundance of New Age crap written for yuppies having mid-life crises and a paucity of actual intellectual/authentic treatments of the subject. I would be very grateful for some recommendations of Kindle eBooks that discuss meditation, the four noble truths and eight-fold path, key Buddhist sutras, or the history of Buddhism. I'm less interested in books claiming to help me apply Buddhist principles/teachings to my hectic Western lifestyle. So you might say I'm approaching this from an academic/hopeful practitioner angle. You have my thanks. The Masked Booby (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried any of the books listed at Buddhism#Bibliography? --Jayron32 05:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WW2: Russia vs. Japan: Ongoing?

I saw a Reuters article about the Kuril Islands, disputed between Russia and Japan, which said that because of these 56 inconsequential islands, with a population of 19,000, the two countries had never signed a "formal peace treaty" ending the Second World War. Is that true? Are "The Empire of Japan"/Japan and "The Soviet Union"/Russia still "at war," technically speaking? What are the practical consequences? Are "enemy aliens" held in internment camps per the Geneva Conventions? Are "enemy warships" prohibited from docking in the "belligerent" countries? Edison (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely true, there is no treaty. Some more reading at RFERL. Never mistake small for inconsequential (!). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 05:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many Japanese and Russian (Soviet Union) nationals are held in enemy internment camps, at present? (How brave it was of Russia to declare war on Japan after the US started dropping atomic bombs on them. Doubtless they feel the Kurils are only a just reward for this brave effort.) Edison (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, it is worth noting the significance of the 1905 Russo-Japanese War, not just in terms of the politics of the area, but in broader terms - as a cause of uprisings in Russia, and perhaps even arguably the beginning of the Imperialist rivalry that culminated in the First World War. Arguments over small windswept islands in faraway places can often be harbingers of bigger conflicts. They need not always be though, and I suspect that it is more pride than anything else that prevents a settlement in this case - that and years of Cold-war hostility which had little to do with the issues under contention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there no Jimmy Carter, Henry Kissinger, or Bill Clinton who could mediate peace and bring this 66 year "conflict" to a peaceful and equitable denouement? Must the "bloodshed" continue for yet more decades, like the British /Argentine "war" over the Falklands? Edison (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A response to Edison's earlier post: I think you misunderstand the situation entirely. The Soviet Union had (quite sensibly) seen no reason to get involved in a war on two fronts while the Japanese Military (who had recently learned that Soviet Forces could put up a fight, see Battles of Khalkhin Gol) were likewise avoiding conflict. The Soviet involvement against the Japanese was a requirement of treaties signed with the Western allies. I'm sure that Stalin saw an opportunity to exert influence in the area, but it wasn't some last-minute land-grab resulting from the collapse of Japanese military might. Had the atomic bombs, submarine blockade etc (the latter arguably much more significant) not been successful, I've no doubt that a two-pronged attack on Japan would have been welcomed by the Western allies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And there is a line of scholarship which argues that the Japanese surrendered just as much because of the threat of Soviet invasion as they did because of the atomic bombs. The bombs held out the possibility of really ultimate defeat; the Soviets held out the possibility of defeat plus a much more unpleasant subjugation. Anyway, the US had asked the Soviets to wage war on Japan after Germany was defeated at the Tehran Conference and Yalta Conference — this was before the US knew they would have an atomic bomb, and thought that a lengthy invasion would be necessary. By the Potsdam Conference, Truman was no longer so hot for the Soviets to participate. Stalin was by that point happy to help, since it would give him more clout in Asia if he had managed to invade half of Japan. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not at war at all. See Soviet–Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956 and its article one . See also other related artcles. Kuril Islands dispute, Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact, Soviet–Japanese War (1945), Invasion of the Kuril Islands, Evacuation of Karafuto and Kuriles, and Japanese prisoners of war in the Soviet Union. Oda Mari (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be pointed out that lack of a peace treaty does not mean ongoing hostilities. After all, there was no formal peace treaty following the end of World War II in Europe either. The status of the Kuril Islands is still disputed between Japan and Russia however, and the issue continues to sour diplomatic relations between the two coutnries from time to time. --Xuxl (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't unconditional surrender formally - de jure - end a war just as much as a peace treaty does? That is what happened at the end of WWII in Europe, isn't it? Pais (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Japan is the least of the Russians' worries, they're still at war with Berwick-on Tweed. Well, sort of. Well, apparently it's all a myth, but I don't have to believe that if I don't want to. --Antiquary (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Thank you, John Steinbeck. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Is this the "Batiment Banque Congolaise"?

Is File:Banque commerciale du Congo de Lubumbashi.JPG (Banque commerciale du Congo de Lubumbashi) also known as the "Batiment Banque Congolaise" - It sounds like it to me, but I just want to make sure.

Congo Express has its head office in the "Batiment Banque Congolaise"

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

attachment of soul in Christian theology

Hi,

I would like very detailed information on the manner in which souls are attached to bodies in Christian theology: Would it be possible to change this attachment (again, under mainstream Christian theology), so that, for example, my body and brain become attached to a different soul? Why or why not? Thank you. Note: even though this is theology (and that is why I am placing it in Humanities) I would like you to be as explicit as possible. 109.128.101.244 (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 336, holds that the soul is "created immediately by God" (i.e., at conception), that the soul is immortal, and that the soul will be reunited with the (original) body at the final Resurrection. I'm no theologian, but mainstream Roman Catholicism would not see it possible to attach a human body to a soul other than the one that body had been attached to at conception. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the Church does teach that souls are created at conception, that's a different concept than 'immediately' -- 'immediately' here is not a time word but means 'without mediation' ie 'without the intervention of natural processes'. So the body is created 'mediately' (through biological reproduction, but God is still the ultimate uncaused cause) but the soul 'immediately'. 165.91.188.159 (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are generally interested in mainstream Christianity's concept of The Soul, I suggest reading in full (several times) Aristotle's On The Soul. It is what mainstream Christians believe about the Soul, to the 't.' I would also like to point you at this article which examines what The Bible says about "soul" and "spirit." schyler (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[The website http://www.watchtower.org/ is obsolete, but Wayback Machine has archives of " 'Soul' and 'Spirit'—What Do These Terms Really Mean?" indexed at https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/appendix_07.htm. Today the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses is http://www.jw.org, and that appendix topic is at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102005156.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)][reply]
So does a human chimera have more then one soul? Googlemeister (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question. I'll have to ask someone. I don't know. schyler (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect chimerism doesn't happen often enough that the church has ever decided. Perhaps the souls merge into a single one at the same time the zygotes merge into a single organism. Pais (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
“The soul of every sort of flesh is its blood.” (Leviticus 17:14). So any flesh has a soul, and that is symbolized by its blood. Using Bible principles one can make a decision on the soul of a chimera (Hebrews 5:12). Additionally:

Have a great day! schyler (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, just as the Catechism of the Catholic Church gives one the view of the Roman Catholic Church, so The Watchtower gives the view of the Jehovah's Witnesses Governing Body. Specifically, the Jehovah's Witness view on blood (and the morality/theology associated with it) is not the view held by mainstream Christian denominations. See, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. So, if one is looking for a mainstream Christian view on the soul, an answer from The Watchtower talking about the importance of blood is not going to represent that. It does tell you what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. 86.164.25.178 (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Bailey The Soul and its Mechanism 1930, or The light of the Soul. Both very good books and addressing exactly what you have asked for —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Bailey isn't quite the best writer to tell you what is mainstream in Christianity. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Aquinas (after Aristotle), the soul is the substantial form of the body - a soul is the form of a living being, a human soul is the form of a human being. (In Aquinas' terminology animals and plants have non-rational, non-immortal 'sensitive' and 'nutritive' souls... but in the modern day 'soul' means specifically the human soul which is a 'rational soul'.) The soul is what solves the Ship of Theseus paradox essentially... so 'my body' is 'my body' because it's the body attached to 'my soul' (even though all the individual atoms and cells making it up may change, it's still 'my body' just as it was 10 years ago). So attaching 'my body' to a different soul is just not possible/meaningful... it would by definition not be 'my body'. 128.194.250.68 (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find the chimera article confusing. Would Abigail and Brittany Hensel be considered "a chimera"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally a chimera involves the mixing of embryonic stem cells at a very early stage, so that lumps of flesh with different genetics are mixed together to form a normal looking organism. But note that ordinary women are sometimes described as "chimeras", in the sense that X-inactivation occurs at a fairly early stage, with different X chromosomes active in different parts of the body. While every religion (indeed, every religious person) has the right to decide such issues as they wish, it seems logical to suppose that genetic pedigree wouldn't be that crucial to the matter. Another example: if the soul is in the blood, then different white cells have different genetic modifications (e.g. V(D)J recombination). Common sense tells us that what looks and acts like one human being should be one human being.
Now it is true that this conflicts with the doctrine of ensoulment at conception, but Aristotle's belief, if I recall correctly, was that ensoulment actually occurred at 40 days for female fetuses and 80 days for male fetuses. This odd detail resulted, I assume, because very early fetuses all look female. So I think that the early church assumed that fetuses received souls about at 40 days, about the time that they started kicking in the womb, or otherwise reacting to stimuli (remember, the ancients performed abortions and may have had the opportunity to examine the products). At this time, fusion of two fetuses into a chimera is completely impossible. I'm not entirely sure if a parasitic twin could still fuse after this point, in rare cases, but it would certainly be a separate, aberrant lump of flesh. Wnt (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Murdoch (media executive)

What is his middle name? It begins with R. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of guys get their father's first name as a middle name, so maybe it's Rupert. Pais (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed here and here. Pais (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of interest he also has another middle name starting with J as in James RubertRupert J Murdoch ? MilborneOne (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, according to ancestry.co.uk. No indication what the J stands for, though. Karenjc 19:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The full name is James Rupert Jacob Murdoch (not Rubert).Wikiweek (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if I knew what I would believe -- i.e. that I don't believe now -- if I were smarter...

If I knew what I would believe -- i.e. that I don't believe now -- if I were smarter... would that be reason enough to believe it? i.e. let's say I believe in absolute morality (that it isn't a relative thing). If I suddenly learned that, were I smarter, I would believe in relative morality. Would that knowledge be enough for me to start believing in what I would believe if I were smarter? Note that, since I'm not actually smarter, I wouldn't have the other reasons for the changed belief. In other words, I don't know why a smarter me would believe in relative morality - all I know is that he does. So, if that knowledge is certain, then should I treat it as my own?

A more concrete example: Let's say I don't believe a proof, I either think it's flawed or I can't follow it. If I somehow learned that if I were smarter, I would believe it (either I would realize that I had been mistaken in the flaw I thought I had spotted, or I would be able to follow it), then would that be enough for me to treat the proof as valid now? (despite my current objections?) 109.128.101.244 (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RD is not here for answering hypothetical questions about a potential "smarter you." Wikiweek (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent question. Assuming for a moment that a "smarter" you would be comparatively like a "smarter" someone else: we are all to varying extents standing on the shoulders of giants, and must take by faith things we do not know or understand which we believe others "smarter" than ourselves have come to know or understand in ways that we cannot.
As far as one's own direct experience of being "smarter," that was one of the things Huxley wondered about, too, in The Doors of Perception: what if we could, by ingesting certain substances, catch a glimpse into the mind of genius? (Amphetamines, for one, have been shown to temporarily improve performance on a variety of measures of cognitive functioning).
All that and other things being said, though, you should whenever possible not really believe anything that you cannot work out for yourself. WikiDao ☯ 20:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a "smarter" self would not always be "right". S/he might be "right" generally or more often than you, but there's still a lot of room to be wrong given how imperfectly informed even the "smartest" among us are. So you would have to consider probabilistically whether or not to believe a smarter you on any given point: it might be considered a good reason to believe something, but again it could still be wrong as far as you know unless you can independently work it out for yourself. WikiDao ☯ 20:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since many beliefs are based on emotions rather than logic, being a "smarter yourself" may not make any difference. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Argument from authority says "no", if a guarantee of being correct is important to you. Essentially your scenario is not much different from selecting another human being who you believe to be smarter than you, and automatically believing everything that person believes. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's smarter = more knowledgeable, smarter = quicker thinking, and smarter = wiser. They don't always go together. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our Argument from authority article actually says: "On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism." WikiDao ☯ 21:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating question. I think you will find the article doxastic logic of interest. It is all about reasoning about beliefs. Greg Bard (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also highly relevent read is Pascal's wager... --Jayron32 23:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NY Times 11 nov. 1918

I would like to read this (NYT 11/11/18) newspaper, but the images is to low quality. Is there a database for american newspapers like in some european countries where I can read it?--SelfQ (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is the New York Times's archive of this particular date's paper. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... According to the ads, in 1918 you could get a nice men's suit for around $30 ... adjusting for inflation, $30 in 1918 is equivalent to around $700 today... and which is about what a really nice men's suit costs today. Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ask on the Science Desk whether the ad is correct that the (sneer) German theory is wrong and that saliva is alkaline, so toothpaste doesn't have to be. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of ship casualties

I have read the article about the sinking of the AHS "Centaur" with great interest. I believe that my aunt may have been one of the casualties (she was a serving nurse in the region at that time). I was wondering if anyone knows the list of names of those who lost their lives on that tragic day or where I might find out. If I can source this information I am willing to post it with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffcarroll (talk • contribs) Moving from malformed helpdesk request SmartSE (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Googling ahc centaur casualty list eventually got me this Australian government list of casualties. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or there's this list from the Centaur Association website, with ages & home towns. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Centaur Association list (based on info from Milligan & Foley's Australian Hospital Ship Centaur... the prime published book on the subject) contains everybody believed to be onboard at the time of the attack, but does not distinguish between suvivors and casualties. However, as the only female survivor was Sister Ellen Savage, you should be able to work out if your relative was killed in the attack.
I've added the list as an external link to the article, but would advise against adding information about your relative to the article itself, as it may not meet the memorial section of the WP:What Wikipedia is not policy. -- saberwyn 02:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


February 11

Psychologist treating themselves

Can psychologists treat themselves? At least, perhaps some simple mental illnesses like phobias. Wikiweek (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they cannot. They lack objectivity in assessing their own conditions. --Jayron32 01:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can they? Yes. Should they? No, especially in the case of something that requires an impartial doctor as psychology. Whats that old saying, a physician that treats himself has a fool for a doctor and an idiot for a patient? Something like that. Livewireo (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can smash myself in the face repeatedly with a hammer. Treating "can" that broadly doesn't really work. --Jayron32 01:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly psychologists can treat themselves for phobias. One of the standard approaches, for example, uses gradually increasing levels of exposure to the feared object. There's no reason psychologists who know how it works couldn't treat themselves that way -- it would require extra willpower, but there's nothing impossible about that. Looie496 (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cartainly not! How do they diagnose the phobia in the first place, without knowing for certain if the phobia is not a symptom of some underlying condition which may or may not need different treatment? --Jayron32 01:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, concerning phobias in particular, there is currently a pretty widespread belief that they tend to be "hard-wired" to a large degree. In the modern world, for example, phobias for spiders and snakes are very common even though they are rarely dangerous, but phobias for guns are almost unheard of. So a psychologist might feel safe in presuming that his own personal phobia is simply an exaggerated fear with no special secret underlying cause, and can be treated by straightforwardly extinguishing the fear. That's how all the effective approaches work, anyway. Freudian-type approaches are not nearly as effective. Looie496 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of the things psychs talk about in relation to their patients/clients is their insight into their conditions. I'd have thought psychs would generally have an above-average insight about what's going on with themselves, due to their training and knowledge. But just because they have a greater capacity to identify their own condition, that's not to say that they're necessarily the best people to treat the condition. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? We're just going around in circles here (and I am the most guilty party here). What we need is a reliable source here. Psychologists, like all professions, have professional standards and codes of conduct, and presumably this is something which is likely to be covered. Lets all agree to recind what we have said, and withhold speculation in answering this question until someone can produce some definitive documents which can answer it one way or another. Because I am quite sure that I am talking entirely out of my ass here, and I suspect that others are as well. --Jayron32 02:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fictional example, in which a non-qualified but knowlegeable protagonist hypnotises himself into self-conducting a classic psychoanalytical session. Given certain premises, it is hard to fault the logic involved, but a real world (or Roundworld) instance seems unlikely. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a confusion here between psychologists (those who study psychology) and psychiatrists (doctors who treat psychological conditions). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some psychological techniques would certainly be capable of being self-administered. I know of one person that applied behavioral techniques to stop smoking (they weren't a clinical psychologist but did have some relevant coursework). It would seem to be that it depends largely on what you mean by treatment. Psychology is very different from any other field of medicine because there are multiple legitimate approaches. For instance, the only accepted treatment for a bacterial infection is antibiotics (or sulfa drugs, but still), but there are many theories and modalities of psychotherapy that can be used in isolation or in conjunction. Some, such as Psychoanalysis would require an outside input (analysis). On the other hand behavior_modification could arguably be self-administered if you had means at your disposal for reinforcement, as I mentioned above. In all cases it is a gross violation of medical ethics (and the law) to self-prescribe medication. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See http://www.psychologicalselfhelp.org/.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me there are lots of things psychologists can do to optimise their own mental health. They can build up a supportive network of friends and family, and try and communicate their emotional needs well. They can use relaxation techniques, take regular exercise, eat well, sleep well. They can read self-help books. Also, they can learn from their reading about psychology, from discussions with colleagues, and even get insights from their patients. They must not "self-medicate" with prescription-only medication, but I'm sure some psychologists find that caffeine and alcohol in moderation are harmless or mildly beneficial. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what the psychologist is trying to accomplish. There are basic techniques for modifying behavior that people can use on themselves. There are also ways to identify cognitive biases that may lead to anxiety and depression. However, long-term change at a deeper level than this would require another person, because the transference between the therapist and patient is what gives rise to the change. So if you want to stop eating sweets, you can start with behavior modification; but if the desire to eat sweets is at all deep-rooted in your psyche, it won't go away until you deal with the underlying cause of your behavior through a therapeutic relationship.
The expression "He who is his own doctor has a fool for a patient" exists for a reason. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best book on the Louvre

I visited the Louvre a few years ago and was unable to take a great many pictures of the works of art there. I thought that there would be abundant books to choose from (in Chapters) when I returned - but I have not come across any so far. Can you recommend any that are on a more general scale? It just so happens that my daughter is heading to Paris on a class trip next week and could even get one for me from the museum store if necessary. I am not interested in one area specifically - but a book that touches several aspects would be very appealing. Any recommendations would be very much appreciated.24.89.210.71 (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From your first sentence, it sounds like you are interested in the works of art there rather than the history of the palace. If so, you can get Louvre, the 300 Masterpieces from the museum shops, which is a pretty good, comprehensive introduction to the best known works in the museum. Have a look at this website for other choices. If you are interested in the history of the palace, you can also get a selection of books from the museum shops - see this selection. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GMT + ? - Eastern U.S.

I am supposed to be Skyping with a fellow from Australia, but he needs to know my kilo time. I'm not sure what it is. I live in the U.S. state of Ohio. For some reason, GMT + 4 comes to mind. Is this correct? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does Eastern Time Zone answer your question? --Jayron32 03:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, GMT refers to the the universal time from Greenwich. I need to know the offset time for the Eastern United states, plus or minus a number. For instance, my friend in Australia is GMT + 10. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As Jayron said, the second sentence of Eastern Time Zone contains your answer. GMT is, in this regard, identical to UTC, so you're currently at GMT – 5 (until you switch to daylight saving time next month).
What's "kilo time"? I've heard of heavy water, but heavy time ....?? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Googling took me to this page, which seems to say that Kilo Time is military jargon, also known as K time, and is equivalent to AEST, i.e. GMT + 10. Perhaps Ghost's correspondent is in the military. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have a page on everything - List of military time zones. It's apparently an American thing. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What a shame Quebec isn't in the Quebec time zone. Aaronite (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]
It's a NATO thing, just because WP uses USian examples for everything, doesn't mean everyting is USian.  :)
GMT= Time zone Zulu, then working Eastward from Alpha.
ALR (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being hopelessly over-educated, I always get simple arithmetic wrong. Hence I found this page very useful for scheduling across-the globe events. And I keep different virtual watches in my iPod Nano for all places I plan to visit... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, your friend is likely to be in GMT+10, while you are in GMT-5. That's a difference of 15 hours; so, when it is 8am Friday where you are in Ohio, it is 11pm Friday in Australia. You might need to adjust things for daylight savings time. Astronaut (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In eastern Australian states (and territory) other than Queensland, Daylight Saving is in force and so they are on GMT + 11, but in Queensland, where there is no Daylight Saving, it is currently GMT + 10. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page is very helpful. All you have to do is move your mouse. Oda Mari (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Metric time. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Err, what's the relevance of metric time? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the helpful answers above, Google is your friend. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

uncovenanted king

What is an "uncovenanted king"? What made James II an "uncovenanted king" (I read the article James II of England but I can't figure)? Could you help me please? Thank you--115.75.128.236 (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A covenant is a contract. In the context of governance, it is the (often implied) contract between the governed and their government; i.e. between a King and his people, whereby the rights and responsibilties of the king and the rights and responsibilities of the subjects are established. This is also the clear meaning of the term in the Bible, for example, the covenant which establishes the roles and relationships between God (as spiritual king) and, say, the Jewish nation as his earthly subjects. My guess is that, in this context, it refers to the fact that James II had lost the right to rule. It provides a sort of justification for the Glorious Revolution, i.e. James's actions as King established that he was unfit to rule because he had not held up his end of the eternal covenant between a King and his Subjects. Basically, he broke the "contract", which means that the people no longer had to keep up their end of the contract either, meaning they no longer had to accept him as king. I am speculating here, but based on what I know of the term covenant and what I know of what happened to James II, it makes sense. --Jayron32 04:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This actually refers to a specific covenant, I believe -- the so-called Solemn League and Covenant. Our article on the Covenanters covers the whole story. Looie496 (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looie is correct: the issue was that James and Charles before him had sworn allegiance to the Covenants (note plural: it was both the National and the Solemn League, not just the Solemn League) and later rejected them. One of the few things missing from the article on the Covenanters (I'm pleasantly surprised how good it is) is the idea of the "descending obligation of the Covenants" — they thought that the Covenants couldn't be un-sworn, even by generations such as James and Charles that were descended from the people who had sworn the Covenants decades later. If they'd believed that they could be removed by later generations, it would have been much less of an issue. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian Nations of Europe

Does anybody know the first 15 nations that first converted to Roman Catholicism? I'm not talking about modern days. I'm talking from the beginning of France to the conversion of Lithuania. See this image.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such a list probably depends on how you define both "nation" and "converted". Are we talking when the majority of the citizens of a nation became Roman Catholic, or are we talking when the first king converted to Catholicism? --Jayron32 04:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Armenia is credited with being the first christian nation in 301 when the king adopted the religion. The Edict of Thessalonica in 380 christianised the roman empire which would include many modern countries such as france, italy, spain, britain, etc. meltBanana 05:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And very importantly how do we count all the Duchies in the HRE? All independent? None of them? Some of them? --Lgriot (talk) 09:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you define Roman Catholicism...no one really converted to that, they just kind of became "Roman" Catholic after the Roman and Greek churches split, which happened gradually in the Middle Ages. When people were originally converting, there were Catholics, not yet distinguished as "Roman", and other kinds of Christians, some of whom were later condemned as heretics. The Germanic tribes tended to follow Arianism, for example. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can see part of the mural from St Pierre le Jeune on the church website (a smaller image [1]); there's about 10 countries of the 15 visible. I can't make out all of them but can see Aragon, Castile, Bulgaria, Poland, Oriens (possibly Diocese of the East), and Lithuania at the right. According to the info on Wikimedia[2] the far left, and first, is the Holy Roman Empire. Historically this is pretty suspect, and the artist/patron seems to have used the names of contemporary countries, not historically accurate ones. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Wilde story about Jesus

I remember reading a short story from a collection of Oscar Wilde's writing about a character who wanted to be crucified; he was the same as Jesus Christ (I seem to remember he performed miracles), but no one would crucify him. I can't seem to locate it now, though. Anyone recognize it? 129.3.151.117 (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's The Master from Poems in Prose. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human eye colour

I am curious about children and their inheritance of eye colour. Let me use my own family as an example. My father, who was Irish, had grey eyes, and my mother green. Her own mother (my maternal grandmother), who was of English, Welsh, Scots-Irish, and southern German ancestry, had brown eyes. Now, my siblings and myself all have a similar eye colour, that is a dark green mixed with brown. What is odd is that my dad's family all had light eyes, and my maternal grandfather had vivid blue eyes, which an aunt inherited. With all the blue and grey eyes in our genetic makeup, why is it then that neither I or my siblings have light eyes? By Mendel's Law, should not at least one of us have inherited the recessive gene for blue or grey eyes? I should add that two of my children (whose dad has blue eyes) happen to have blue eyes, while my other two (of a different father) possess exactly my colour.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article on eye color notes that color is determined by multiple genes. Even in a simple example, though, like the brown/blue one I heard in childhood (each parent carrying brown/blue eye color genes, bown dominant, blue recessive), the odds are that one child in four will have blue eyes. That doesn't mean every fourth child will; the pattern emerges over large populations. In smaller groups (like your children), you're less likely to see the average. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Visiting churches and cathedrals

Does anyone know of a good book that improves the quality of sightseeing when visiting churches and cathedrals? I don't mean any kind of academic treatise, just a book for sightseers illustrating the main architectural features, periods etc. Perhaps also (though this may be a separate book) the iconography that one sees in church carvings, paintings etc. The UK and Western Europe is my main interest in asking this question. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.148.149 (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a List of cathedrals. schyler (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't used any of them personally, but Amazon has a few well-reviewed ones for the UK here, here and here. --Viennese Waltz 15:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those all refer to churches, which would probably not include cathedrals. If you have specific cathedrals in mind to visit, then searching for their names in Amazon co uk may produce results. I expect there are many books about cathedrals in general. 92.28.251.167 (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I volunteered at the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine in NY. Many churches have commissioned guides that contain photos and text. Art books describe the religious art and architecture. I attended a very bad school system. When I was in juniour high, our French teacher spent weeks preparing us for a trip to the Cloisters, a specialized medieval art museum at the tip of Manhattan. We refused to get back on the bus to go home because we were enchanted by the place. A few years later, I attended with a Spanish class that had no prep. the kids were on the bus, chanting that they wanted to leave, in less than ten minutes. I don't know why they don't have those audio guides available in museums. Speaking of the Cloisters, access to a museum with a church collection should provide much information. The cathedral had tour guides, both commercial and volunteer. The tours varied depending on the interests of the guide. 75Janice (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)75Janice[reply]

The usual speedy and helpful response from the Wikipedians! Many thanks to you all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.148.149 (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I have found that the Michelin Green Guides have pretty good coverage of cathedrals and significant churches, especially in France. Marco polo (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those guides only give very brief details, which is not what I think the OP wants. 92.28.251.167 (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For a general concept that gives you an idea of what part is called what, and what you're looking at: David Macaulay, Cathedral: The Story of Its Construction 1981, can't be beat. It describes the building of a generic French cathedral in an imaginary French town. The meticulous line drawings are at least half of the story. Most cathedrals you'll visit have guidebooks: it helps to sit of the steps and thumb through, to get the story.--Wetman (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually tihnk Wikipedia's coverage of Cathedral and components linked from there is very helpful. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Spire is a novel about the building of a cathedral, which might be entertaining, although I've never read it. If the OP is going to travel from London to Edinburgh, then there is a whole series of ancient cathedrals on (or sometimes slight detours off) the main railway line between the two cities, for example Durham Cathedral. If interested, I could prepare a list. Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England goes into a lot of detail - well-done to whoever wrote it - and gives a bibliography of recommended books at the end. 92.28.251.167 (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As so often, I'm overwhelmed by the volume and quality of these suggestions. Many thanks to you all.
I have a lovely little book, The Beauty of English Churches by Lawrence E. Jones, first published 1978. It has sections for all the different parts of a church, explaining form and function, with examples from around the country. It's very well illustrated, and I would recommend it highly. DuncanHill (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How to Read a Church (Amazon) by Richard Taylor. See the comment about different versions though. Blakk and ekka 14:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial and State Establishments of Religion

I'm trying to gain greater understanding of the Establishment Clause in the US Constitution. Reading Supreme Court cases, reference is frequently made to the existence of colonial and state establishments of religion that existed and, since not federal, were not in conflict with the Establishment Clause. Such establishments would have been const'l until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. I've read that these establishments disappeared in the early 1800s. No source I've read explains what caused them to leave state constitutions. I would like to find out the reasons these estabishments were removed from state constitutions. Thank you.--75Janice (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)75Janice[reply]

Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution the Bill of Rights was taken to ONLY apply to actions of the Federal government, and did not apply to the states themselves. So, during the first 2/3rds of the 19th century, while "Congress could make no law..." state legislatures were free to do so. State_religion#United_States_of_America mentions several states such as Massachusetts and Connecticut that had official state churches. My guess is that the various state constitutions individually ended the practice before the 14th amendment for the same reason that the Bill of Rights was instituted in the first place; the States themselves saw a value in official seperation of Church and State and so amended their constitutions to include such provisions as well. --Jayron32 18:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are some useful-looking references on this page. Marco polo (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the concept of incorporation. Of course, Justice Thomas might not find the First Amendment sufficiently incorporated to apply the states. My hope is to find something that is beyond mere conjecture. The state establishments appear to be thriving at this point. Perhaps the const'n was a template and the const'ns were amended to conform to the federal one. I'm looking for an actual discussion to know the answer. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.66.191 (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...appear to be thriving"? Far as I know, none of the U.S. states have a "state religion". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thriving in the Federalist period. The Fourteenth Amendment, incorporating First Amendment rights, bars any outright establishment. Establishment Clause law has increasingly allowed more and more accomodation with religion. A majortiy of the Justices are now Roman Catholic. This is a murky area and very politicized. The antifederalist debates in the U.S. Constitutional ratification conventions reflect animosity towards the proposed constitution. States rights were more important than today. There was no precedent. Several colonies were not formed for religious freedom per se but, rather, freedom to discriminate against others as they were discriminated against in England. There was no litigation challenging any practice as a federal establishment until almost the Civil War. It sounds curious. Now it is one of hottest areas in American law and a very favored topic of law review authors.--75Janice (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)75Janice.[reply]

Are books published by the Soviet Government publishing houses such as Foreign Languages Publishing House and Progress Publishers copyrighted? --Gary123 (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. It depends on the date of publication and some other factors. The country and name of the publisher is irrelevant. See our article on copyright.--Shantavira|feed me 17:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the country and whether the publisher is an organ of government is certainly relevant to copyright. Rmhermen (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oy, it seems very complicated: Copyright_law_of_the_Soviet_Union#Transition_to_post-Soviet_legislation_in_Russia. The article in general does not make a distinction between state publishing houses and non-state houses, no doubt in part because in the USSR the distinction was not a terribly meaningful one. So I would lean towards thinking that the authorship claims do not have to do with the publisher. I see no reason to suspect that works of the Soviet state would not be today copyright protected. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Bonds Steroids Trial

I just read this article which mentions Greg Anderson's refusal to testify in the grand jury investigation/trial of Barry Bonds. (for those not familiar with the case, Anderson is alleged to sold Bonds a ton of steroids and Bonds is being charged with lying about it: Legal problems of Barry Bonds).

What I don't understand is why Anderson would refuse to testify knowing that he would be sent straight to jail for Contempt of Court. Couldn't Anderson have taken the stand and claimed the Fifth Amendment when asked about his activities? I guess there is some restriction on doing that in a Grand Jury, but he's planning on refusing to testify for the trial as well. Or couldn't he have just tried to tell plausible lies while on the stand? I mean, I guess he could have been charged with perjury if he was caught in more lies. But isn't it less certain that he'd be sent convicted of perjury and sent to jail for that than for refusing to testify? Is there some explanation for why he took this strategy? Mark Geragos (his lawyer) usually seems to be a pretty good lawyer. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is selling the steroids is a crime in and of itself? If it is not, he might not be able to take the 5th because self incrimination would not apply to a legal act. I am not a lawyer so do not consider this expert opinion, just my personal theory. Googlemeister (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in the U.S., anabolic steroids are under Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act since the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greg Anderson can not plead the 5th because he already plead guilty and served his sentence for his involvement with BALCO. The deal he reached with the government would preclude them from trying him again for his involvement with BALCO or Barry Bonds. Since he couldn't possibly put himself in legal danger by providing the testimony they ask for, he can not invoke protection from self-incrimination. At least that's my understanding of his situation. Sperril (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I hadn't thought of that. So it sounds like he's refusing to testify out of fear of perjury/loyalty to Barry (which is pretty bizarre too IMHO). Qrsdogg (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein's image

From Albert Einstein, "Einstein bequeathed the royalties from use of his image to The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Corbis, successor to The Roger Richman Agency, licenses the use of his name and associated imagery, as agent for the university". He died in April of 1955. How long will they be able to collect image license profits? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section header to this question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oy, personality rights are very complicated. Different states have different terms in the United States. It is such a mess of legal back-and-forth, contradictory cases, etc., that I'm not sure a straightforward answer is even give-able at this point, until someone tries to claim personality rights over someone who is LONG dead and the courts battle it out, and even then, the specifics of the case (where did the person die? where is the case being tried?) seem to matter. If it is treated as a strict trademark issue, then there are no limits, so long as the trademark is maintained. But it gets into very murky legal territory. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Britain's importance

How important was Roman Britain to the Roman Empire over the ~375 years the Romans were there? When I read articles like Hadrian's Wall and Antonine Wall, I think: Hmm, these are pretty major projects; Britain must have been unusually important to the Romans. Or was Britain largely considered unimportant hinterlands? The Roman Britain article doesn't seem (upon my skimming) to place Britain within any larger context of the Empire. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This essay by the historian Peter Salway (especially the section on "Conquest and settlement") argues that Roman Britain was a pretty important place. He says that up to one eighth of the whole Roman army was garrisoned in Britain, that the province's population was comparable with the population of England in the High Middle Ages, that it could boast of "the largest mosaic (at Woodchester in Gloucestershire) and the largest city hall (London) yet discovered north of the Alps, and in Hadrian's Wall the most elaborate frontier work along the whole perimeter of the empire", and that Britain's overseas remoteness gave it an exotic glamour which added to the propaganda value of victories won there. --Antiquary (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And see also the section "Importance of Britain" in An Overview of Roman Britain by Dr. Mike Ibeji, which takes a similar line. It says, for example:
Throughout its history, Roman Britain acted as a proving ground for aspiring politicians and a powerbase for usurping emperors. Set aside arguments over whether Britain was 'profitable' or not (it certainly was when Julian used it to supply Germany in the 360s!), for such calculations never mattered to the empire. Britain was a frontier province, which contained three legions for most of its chequered history. As such, it was important.
--Antiquary (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why though? Was it the silver mines or the opportunities to prove oneself in difficult circumstances or some key trading position? Fainites barleyscribs 15:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed costs for airliners

I am trying to locate sources for the fixed costs of various airliners. For example, if I bought myself a Boeing 747-400, what would I pay on a monthly or yearly basis, besides the initial purchase and expenses incurred from flying/running the engines (i.e. anticipated maintenance/hour of flight time, fuel, and landing fees)? Obviously this would include insurance, scheduled maintenance, parking, etc. What would it cost for a smaller airliner, such as a Dehavilland Dash-8? I also am not concerned about paying the flight crew, that I can figure out separately. Thanks! And to answer the inevitable, I won't be buying myself a Boeing 747-400 anytime soon, this is purely academic). Falconusp t c 20:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This thread from Google Answers seems to answer most of your question, and contains many references. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I was actually looking more for the fixed costs, not the operating costs. Flying aside, what would it cost me to buy one, park it, and keep it insured and in airworthy condition? Falconusp t c 01:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Ah, I misread that as running the engines on the ground, not just being parked. Thank you! Falconusp t c[reply]

Business = evil

Which type of businesses are considered evil or not-evil and why? Why do some people seem readier than others to consider that business is evil? Is it because they believe businesses make their money by cheating people? Thanks 92.15.0.67 (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of corporations has several starting points for your latter questions. I think that concern about "cheating people" is minimal, if by "people" you mean "consumers of their products" — the more common concern that I read about is that corporations have all the rights of a person, but additionally are immortal and therefore can accumulate far more wealth than almost any person can; and in a world where politicians are essentially for sale, it seems inevitable that corporations' will is going to be foisted upon the people. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when Google made their motto "Don't be evil", what they basically meant is don't try to make money by doing things that trick people or limit their freedom. Looie496 (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I believe, the bigger a business, the "eviler" is seems. This is because, it would seem, because there is one person or a small group of persons at the top, with power over a person who is lower down on the totem pole. Additionally:

It is true that many different people have many different moralities. They even have different moralities on what morality is; that is, if there are many right goods or just one good. Look at moral absolutism, amoralism, moral relativism, and moral universalism. Also, Business ethics is more than appropriate. schyler (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See megacorporation, corporate social responsibility and Big Oil. ~AH1(TCU) 02:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear if you are talking about business per se, or specific businesses. From our article on exploitation:
  • Organizational or "micro-level" exploitation: in the broad tradition of liberal economic thinking, most theories of exploitation center on the market power of economic organizations within a market setting. Some neoclassical theory points to exploitation not based on market power.
  • Structural or "macro-level" exploitation: "new liberal" theories focus on exploitation by large sections of society even (or especially) in the context of free markets. Marxist theory points to the entire capitalist class as an exploitative entity, and to capitalism as a system based on exploitation.
BrainyBabe (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I go with what the philosopher Frank Zappa said: "Communism doesn't work, because people like to own stuff." In any case, I think that generally speaking, businesses are a lot more responsible than they used to be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Businesses in certain sectors may be seen as "evil" by some people -- tobacco, alcohol, firearms, etc. Others may not like businesses said to be responsible for a lot of pollution (oil companies, car companies) or that have had complaints over labor issues (Wal-Mart, Nike). All such companies will spend a lot of money trying to prove their "responsibility." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my country, Australia, commercial current affairs TV programs seem to specialise in demonizing certain types of businesses. Regular targets seem to include car dealers, banks, building firms, supermarkets and landlords (although tenants are seen as a problem at times too). Given that our commercial TV is very derivative of the American model, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the same thing happens there. HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Businesses are only as responsible as they are made to be, unless they happen to have an idiosyncratic owner, as their prime duty is to their shareholders. They are only made to be responsible by either enforceable regulations or public pressure that may affect their profits.Fainites barleyscribs 22:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renew Chinese passport

It is about time to go down to Chicago and renew my passport. I note someone mentioned above that the consulate requires proof that you have not naturalized as a citizen of another country, but the Consulate website doesn't seem to mention anything about this, so I assume it goes under "六、领事官员根据情况要求的其他与申请事项有关的材料" (other documents as requested by the consulate). What kind of proof is required? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth can anyone prove they have not been naturalized by another country? They might conceal the paperwork somehow. There might not even be any paperwork. They might not even know they've been naturalized. Suppose Libya or Iceland or the Klingon Empire downloaded your name from the internet and naturalized you (put you in their citizen database) without telling you. Could you get in trouble with the Chinese government for that? I'd hope the Chinese consulate has to just go by what you tell them. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Call the consulate and ask them. The Masked Booby (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, you just hae to prove that you did not become an American citizen (which would be the most probable case, in your situation). Anyway, ask them for a list of documents, and take exactly the docs in that list to renew your passport. Bureaucracies are not thinking anyway, they are just processing stuff. Quest09 (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was covered a couple of days ago - American authorities will issue you a letter or certificate certifying that you aren't naturalised in the US. Call the consulate to find out the correct contact to get that letter. -PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

King Tut Expedition

I am looking for the names of each expedition member of Dr Howard Carter's team that discovered the tomb of King Tut. Can anyone give me each of their names?Miamimason (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the ones who died from the "curse" were[3]:
Clarityfiend (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The journalist H. V. Morton seems to have got himself unofficially attached to the team. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


February 12

Social advice - conversations

Hi. When I hear a group of peers, often friends engaging in a conversation, I often tend to eavesdrop even while working on another task. Since I often comment to the group while not officially in-conversation, this often creates conflict and temporary social rejection. My question is, what can I do to either join into the conversation in a socially-accepted manner as to not disrupt the flow of the conversation, or to defer my interest to a later time or solicit involvement in the conversation in advance? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 02:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for a joke, laugh, then say a witty response. ¡Voíla! schyler (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And when it is a serious conversation...? ~AH1(TCU) 03:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eavesdropping is "is the act of secretly listening ... " (my emphasis). One partial solution is to make it obvious that you are listening (and interested), eg by looking at the group, turning your body toward them, physically approaching the group. Ie openly join the conversation as a listener first, then speak. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You normally have to be invited to join the conversation. Simply being near the group and jumping in won't work. Quest09 (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that... If you're in the same area, where you couldn't help but overhear, I don't see a problem with jumping in if you have a relevant point to make. Although, when I do this, I usually start with something like "I couldn't help but overhear you talking about..." Dismas|(talk) 11:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are certain setting when that would be acceptable. And others when that would be the beginning of a quarrel. Quest09 (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. What I need here is to learn which situations this is acceptable and in which this is not. Even laughing at a joke, and making a comment, often the response will be something in the way of "why are you listening to our conversation?". ~AH1(TCU) 17:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, in my work place, the only time a conversation does not include any and all comers is one held behind closed doors or one where the interlocutors are deliberately speaking softly so as not to be heard by others. Otherwise, anyone in earshot is welcome to join the conversation. It's even often assumed that others will hear the conversation and take whatever action may be appropriate if some change to policy or procedures is the topic of the conversation. That's what often passes for "communication". It's called "keeping one's finger on the pulse" or "keeping one's ear to the ground", apparently. Which is bad news for those who like to be informed personally of things they're expected to be aware of, or who have a hearing issue. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formalizing social rules can be quite challenging. Depending on how you are perceived - peer or enemy, what you say - contribution or criticism, when you say - expected or not, how high you are regarded - expert or know-it-all, you can be committing a faux pas or just taking part on the conversation. Quest09 (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is arguably a difference between a business conversation and a social conversation. However, it's like with those loudmouths on cellphones who get all huffy when they become aware that others are paying attention. If folks are yapping so loudly that others can hear them without trying, they have no right to get resentful about someone piping in. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So we have five Wikipedians downplaying this social rule or referring to its intrinsic stupidity, and one who is keenly aware of it and warning about its dangers. Is there any way to predict what the response might be to commenting on such a conversation or is this all intuitive? Is there a specific age group for which this is more of a social concern, for example in the form of a bell curve, or is it more culture-dependant or demographically-trending? ~AH1(TCU) 17:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a cultural variable. I used to join in the conversations of strangers (on a bus or in other public places) and I noticed that the response varied from complete acceptance to very strange looks and an embarrassing silence, mainly depending on how far south I was in the country (UK), but also on the population density with densely populated areas being less accepting. In most of Scotland and Northern England one can get away with this practice without creating embarrassment. I seldom try it in London. Dbfirs 14:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fuad II of Egypt

Has there been any discussion of King Fuad II of Egypt returning to the throne of Egypt? Corvus cornixtalk 03:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I rather doubt it. His father wasn't exactly popular during the latter stages of his reign, and the guy himself only lived in Egypt for about the first year of his life. I think Fudd I of Hollywood would have a better shot. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason why he's called the "pretender to the thrones of Egypt and Sudan", namely, that those thrones have ceased to exist. There are no thrones to return to. -- Jack of Oz [your turn]
Also, some of the hostility to Mubarak was because it was believed he was aiming for a hereditary presidency and was planning to have his son Gamal Mubarak succeed him.
Corvus cornix -- The Egyptian monarchy originated from an early 19th-century Albanian adventurer who took advantage of the chaos following Napoleon's invasion, and among Sunni Arabs any dynastic loyalty to a whole royal family in general (as opposed to respecting a specific charismatic or powerful individual) often tends to be rather weak, so that a restoration is exceedingly unlikely. However, the Cordwainer Smith quasi-novel "Quest of the Three Worlds" is kind of an elaborate science-fiction allegory about an heir to the overthrown Egyptian monarchy who tries to deal with the aftermath of the violent revolution there... AnonMoos (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The nadir of Smith's work IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested in Abolished monarchy#Current monarchies that were abolished and then restored. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Facebook page for Fuad, on which it states: "King Fouad II - Last King of Egypt - has announced clearly several times that he has no interests in politics or any efforts to restore his throne. We do respect the King wish and therefore would like to draw your attention that any discussions about this issue are just unrealistic hopes." Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism -- ok to feed a starving animal?

Forgive me if this seems a silly question; I ask it in all seriousness. In Buddhism, life is suffering, and the golden rule of sorts if to help when you can, and do no harm when you can't. I wonder at the Buddhist choice in the situation of a starving animal (let's say a cat). I come across a feral cat that is obviously starving. If it is true that I haven't the resources to adopt it (and we must assume I'm living in a country without a humane society, in this case China) but I know I can give it enough food for today only - would I be doing it harm in doing so? It seems at first glance an easy decision, but I cannot guarantee this animal's future comfort - only satiation of its present hunger. In doing so, I would prolong its life -- a life of slow starvation and much suffering, which would seem to violate the principle of doing no harm. By not feeding it I may be hastening its death through inaction, thereby increasing its present suffering but reducing its future suffering (it will die faster). Viewing this problem strictly through a Buddhist lens, I am not sure which approach would be most appropriate. For the compassionate, please note that I am not posting this from a mobile phone while a kitten is starving at my feet. Rather, I've begun reading introductory Buddhist texts and considering their potential applications to my life. There are a lot of stray animals in China and no place to take them, should your own home already be full. The Masked Booby (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another Buddhist maxim is to give what you can; take what you need. Just because you can't feed the world doesn't mean you shouldn't help out a starving cat (or any other creature) if you can. Buddhism would suggest you encourage a compassionate attitude in other people (i.e. teach them Buddhism) so that more people will help starving creatures. The Buddhist view is that you have to decide on your priorities, based on your awareness and compassion, not blindly follow any rule.--Shantavira|feed me 08:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributing. While working to change the feelings of others would have a macro impact, I guess I'm hung up on whether it is "right" to feed our hypothetical starving cat, thus prolonging and worsening its suffering? The Masked Booby (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you feed it, it should become stronger for a day or maybe for a few days; and maybe another compassionate person might then come along who would be able to help the cat further. If you don't feed it, you increase the chances it will starve to death, and decrease the chances that it will live long enough for someone else to help. Also, perhaps you could move the cat to an area that's known to be infested with rodents. That should provide the cat with a good supply of food for awhile. And if you really want to help on a broader scale, perhaps you could take steps towards creating a humane society organization. I don't know much about Buddhism, but I doubt very much it would take the position, "I don't know what to do, so I'll do nothing." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A key point here is ones intent in action, in Buddhism one acts in a mindful way. The choice that one makes is informed by the intent. I would avoid getting hung up on the concept of suffering as it's not particularly analogous to how we would normally use the term.
In a practical sense I don't see any context where making the choice to not feed the animal when one could, would be a choice that purified ones karma.
ALR (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But if you feed a predator, you necessarily need to kill other animals to obtain food, or let others kill them for you. Wouldn't that also be against Buddhist principles? And, since life is suffering anyway, and everything is transient, why not let the feral cat starve anyway? Maybe it gets born as a better being the next time. Quest09 (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beware of applying human moral standards to animals. Cats, hawks, eagles, sharks, etc., are not "evil", they are just doing what they have been programmed to do via the evolutionary process. The predator/prey thing is part of the balance of nature. It is the nature of cats to keep the rodent population in check, just as it is the nature of rodents to breed prolifically. If you remove predators, you end up with a population explosion of prey (as with deer in America), and you have to legalize hunting so as to keep the herds culled and prevent the prey from suffering mass starvation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you describe is basically Samsara, the cycle of life. Different strands of Buddhist thought take different views on the issue of taking life. Like I said, don't get hung up on the word suffering, it doesn't really capture the subtlety of the journey to enlightenment.
The reborn in a better life issue is pretty much a gross simplification of what is meant by transient.
As a student of Vajrayana Buddhism my tradition recognises that life is systemic.
ALR (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And where is your place in the system? Do you help the starving cat or the fleeing mice? Quest09 (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recognising that one lives in the moment, makes decisions and takes responsibility for the outcomes of those decisions.
ALR (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a non-answer. Anyway, I'll feed the cat, since I don't feel anything about mice, but cannot stand seeing a cat suffering (in the physical sense). Quest09 (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a non answer, or a recognition that until one has to make the decision the discussion about it is moot?
ALR (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then, it is a moot non-answer. We'll have to decide when the case arises. Quest09 (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's not a non-answer to say that you don't know until the circumstances arise. I suppose the best Western analogy would be that you decide on a case-by-case basis, rather than a set standard. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We should note here that koans come from Zen Buddhism. For some Buddhists, the best answers are those which are non-answers, and the best way to understand is with non-understanding. -- 174.24.195.38 (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously inclined to feed the cat. I think that is indicated by your posting the question. The pleasure that one derives from feeding an animal is the sensation that there is a relationship with the animal. Withholding food from the animal is the withholding of the entering into the relationship, which in turn is the depriving of oneself of an available pleasure. Bus stop (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are the sorts of conversations that make me exceedingly happy that I'm more inclined toward Carvaka and pragmatism; the answer to this question in both would be to do whatever the hell you feel like. I don't think there's a straight, definitive answer to this question in Buddhism. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are interested in reading Buddhist texts, Masked Booby, I would not recommend any book more highly than Zen Flesh, Zen Bones (compiled by Paul Reps and Nyogen Senzaki).
There is a koan included in that book about a cat. It is from the ancient Chinese text The Gateless Gate, and is called "Nansen cuts the cat in two":
Nansen cuts the cat in two
Nansen saw the monks of the eastern and western halls fighting over a cat. He seized the cat and told the monks: "If any of you say a good word, you can save the cat."
No one answered. So Nansen boldly cut the cat in two pieces.
That evening Joshu returned and Nansen told him about this. Joshu removed his sandals and, placing them on his head, walked out.
Nansen said: "If you had been there, you could have saved the cat."
Mumon's comment: Why did Joshu put his sandals on his head? If anyone answers this question, he will understand exactly how Nansen enforced the edict. If not, he should watch his own head.
Had Joshu been there,
He would have enforced the edict oppositely.
Joshu snatches the sword
And Nansen begs for his life.
These old-time monks, I should mention, devoted their entire lives to Buddha and his teachings. Both Nansen and Joshu were considered to be among the greatest Zen masters of their time. So why did Nansen kill that cat? WikiDao ☯ 03:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I second this recommendation; I read this for a Chinese and Japanese philosophy class in the fall, and I loved it. And it's fairly cheap. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree with your remark above Blade that there's no way to answer the original question definitively on the terms it defines as "strictly through a Buddhist lens".
From my own personal point of view, btw, I would just genuinely not want to kill a cat or to harm any other creature in any way unless there was a really good reason for it. There may be some Buddhist school or tradition that has composed a complete list of such really good reasons -- if someone else could provide a link to that, would that answer your question? If not, or if that doesn't happen, I would only want again to suggest that the previously mentioned book is worth looking into if you are really interested in questions like this one. Regards, WikiDao ☯ 03:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vikings in Cornwall

I am curious as to whether or not the Vikings ever invaded Cornwall and did they have any settlements there? The article on Cornwall doesn't mention anything about them. I once read that Olaf Tryggvasson's alleged son, Tryggvi the Pretender left descendants in Cornwall. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viking expansion#Cornwall mentions that they initially fought off viking invasions, but around 1000 AD they succumbed to Sweyn Forkbeard. Nothing about settlements though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found this map showing the extent of Viking settlements in England. By doublechecking with a similar map in a Danish history of the Vikings in England I have, I can see that the information it contains is legit. The viking settlements were mostly concentrated in the Eastern part of England, and there were none southwest of Berkshire. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page has some information about the Cornish-Danish alliance of 838 AD mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; “There came a great ship army to the West Wealas where they were joined by the people who commenced war against Ecgberht, the West Saxon king. When he heard this, he proceeded with his army against them and fought with them at Hengestesdun where he put to flight both the Wealas and the Danes”. Nothing about settlements though. Alansplodge (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a legend that the surname Trigg which is found in Cornwall derived from the descendants of Tryggvi the Pretender. Is it possible that the son of Olaf Tryggvasson could have gone to Cornwall and sired offspring prior to his attempt at claiming the Norwegian throne?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard that legend. I would have thought a surname "Trigg" in Cornall (and it's not a surname that I would associate with Cornwall) would come from the Hundred of Trigg, which itself derives from the 7th Century Pagus Tricurius - land of three war-hosts. DuncanHill (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of my mother's ancestors came from Cornwall and his surname was Trigg. They were intermarried with the Johns family (also of Cornwall). I never thought it sounded Cornish either, yet we have original documents that give his birthplace as Cornwall.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have an uncited statement in John Johns Trigg that the Triggs came from Cornwall. I also find one "Elizabeth Triggs" (note the terminal s) imprisoned in Bodmin Gaol in 1832 for stealing a poker, tongs and a fire shovel. DuncanHill (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John Johns Trigg was my great-great-great-great-grandfather, and his ancestors did come from Cornwall in about the 1680s.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Triggs" appears on this list of Cornish surnames and this page gives its frequency in the 1881 Census, showing Cornwall to have the third highest occurence of the name "Triggs" after Hampshire and London. Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Alan, good stuff. DuncanHill (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Back to the original question - this map has Cornwall in green, which "denotes areas subject to frequent Viking raids but with little or no Scandinavian settlement". Apparently this is good news if you're Cornish and worried about Multiple Sclerosis. Alansplodge (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A marker for permanent influence of Danes and Norwegians in Britain is in hydronyms. Even large rivers in Cornwall have names with Celtic, rather than Saxon or Norse origins. Briefly sketched in Bruce Mitchell, An Invitation to Old English and Anglo-Saxon England--Wetman (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is an "eminent jurist"?

As asked, who is an "eminent jurist"? Thank you so much. --Aristitleism (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every important jurist? Being jurist itself is rather dependable of your law degree. And being important is a question of prestige. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiweek (talk • contribs) 20:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]
No, I have found the term in a judgment of the ICJ and also found that, according to Wikipedia articles, several persons have held such position. --Aristitleism (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a description, rather than a position. A jurist is someone involved professionally in law and justice, usually a judge. Eminent means well-respected. --Tango (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is (possibly was) an "Eminent Jurists Panel", an international group of senior judges and lawyers. Here is a link with additional information. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two further identical questions: Who is a famous novelist? Who is a respected authority?--Wetman (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The term "eminent" means something that stands out.[4] I would say it means "notable, only more so." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Dickens (obviously) and the Pope (depending on context). Kittybrewster ☎ 10:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Eminent jurists" just means "eminent jurists". Jurists are scholars or experts of law, who are usually senior judges or respected professors of law, though in some countries and in other contexts a "jurist" means a person who is learned in law but is not a lawyer. In any case, "eminent jurists" has special significance in international law because they are (collectively) seen as a subsidiary source of international law. For example, international courts may refer to eminent jurists if they are held by consensus in the field to correctly describe a rule of international law. I am guessing the OP saw the term in such a context.
It's not a job, position or title to which a person is officially appointed or elected (no badges or certificates either), but rather a status which is accorded by consensus amongst lawyers and jurists in the field. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"do you think people are against you" as a assessment question

Filling an assessment questionnaire, for assessing schizophrenia, I came across this question (or perhaps, the question came across me, trying to catch me, who knows?). Whatever, how can this question be reliable? If you are a member of persecuted minority, your realistic answer can be 'yes', and that is not a sign of schizophrenia. Wikiweek (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, if you think that the question is not a reliable indicator. But, the problem is not the question per se, but the use of online tools to diagnose any illness. A physically present psychologist or psychiatrist will take into account such things as you being part of a minority, even if not explicitly told to do so. At least, that seems to be the best practice. Quest09 (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In those sorts of questionnaires, no one particular question is a defining factor in determination. It's the responses as a whole that indicate your tendency toward (condition). While paranoia is a symptom of schizophrenia, you aren't going to be diagnosed a schizophrenic just from answering "yes" to that one question, nor are you a non-schizophrenic just because you answered "no". How you answered the other questions will help determine if your answer is an indication of (condition), or might be some other factor (member of a persecuted minority, had a bad day, etc.). Quest09 is also right in that such questionnaires, even taken as a whole, are not definitive, but rather serve as aides to professionals who can evaluate the responses, and further explore why you gave them. -- 174.24.195.38 (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact minorities are often incorrectly diagnosed with schizophrenia/paranoia.http://www.cchrint.org/tag/over-diagnosis/..Hotclaws (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Correctly interpreting the results of a psychological screening or therapy interview is very difficult. That is why a psychiatrist is a trained medical doctor who has undergone several years of schooling, technical training, apprenticeship, and residency. A psychiatrist is able to meaningfully interpret the entirety of a person's circumstance and situation, not just the response to a single question. "Short questionnaires" should not be considered conclusive in any way; at best, they may help guide a trained professional by providing a wide set of indicators; but they are not a substitute for professional diagnosis. Nimur (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

riddle: something rather heavy someone would always have with them, where-ever they go

what is the size of a hefty 15 inch laptop (in weight and bulk) that someone would always have with them (once havnig acquired) wherever they move? 109.128.173.201 (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

15" is a screen size. The weight of a 15" laptop can easily be from a 1-15 pounds, depending on many options. It could even be more if you take into account bullet-proof military laptops. The idea that a person will always have the laptop with him/her is wrong. Who takes their laptop in the shower? -- kainaw™ 20:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A human brain. -- ke4roh (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean from apartment to apartment and city to city as they move. Fine, imagine 7-11 pounds and about the volume of a typical dell or hp 15 inch laptop. 109.128.173.201 (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I use a 15 inch laptop, and according to specs it weighs 2.7 kilograms in it's basic incarnation (you can convert kilos into your quaintly archaic weighing unit if you need to, I can't be bothered). Add to that the various miscellanea you carry around with it (mouse, portable HD drive, cooling station, cables and stuff) and I'm guessing along with the bag it shouldn't come out more than five kilos, six at most. I carry the thing around every day, to work and back, and apart from having a bit of a problem with my right shoulder some time ago when I would walk quite some distance with it (about two or three kilometers every day) and which got better when I figured out the computer bag was to blame and started changing shoulders while I carried it and then switched over to a backpack completely, I never thought it was much work to carry the thing around. I should add, this is (or rather, was when I bought it) a fairly competent computer, fit for most work that doesn't include heavy duty graphics and can run just about any non-graphics-hog game. TomorrowTime (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Will you answer my question in terms of what else, other than a laptop, of that size would be with someone throughout their moves? 109.128.173.201 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ke4oh had it. "Have with them" does not necessarily imply "carry".--Wetman (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A friend of mine once carried a nearly full bottle of Goldschlager with him for four years. Not on him personally, but he moved it whenever he changed living situations which was often as it was during college. We eventually drank it, but realized why we hadn't opened it in so many years. --Daniel 00:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't laptops have carrying handles and how do you coil up neatly the cables on the battery charger (and external mouse if included)? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the early portables / laptops did, in fact, have built-in handles. I'm thinking of the HP laptop in particular. The handle was necessary, as the machine weighed approximately a metric ton (or so it seemed) with its battery attached. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even Apple did it in the late 90s with their g3 'clamshell' iBook. Had to find any photos online but they do exist if you search. ny156uk (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Giagantic clown shoes? Dialysis machine? Family Bible? Hotclaws (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had some experience around people with spinal injuries in the 1980s. I'd say the answer is an artificial respirator, although I have no idea what size they'd be these days. We don't seem to have an article (that I can find) that clearly shows what I mean (box that can fit under the seat of a wheelchair) but see Artificial_respirator#Types_of_ventilators under "Transport ventilators". --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the surname 'Lust'?

Reading a story I came across this unusual surname. A preliminary Google search didn't help so I thought I'd check in here. I'm thinking Polish or Belarussian -- anyone have more than just a hunch? Vranak (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a variant of Lustig - German and Jewish (Ashkenazic), nickname for a person of a cheerful disposition, from the German lustig (merry, carefree). Hanks, Patrick; Hodges, Flavia (1988). A Dictionary of Surnames. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 336. ISBN 0192115928. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) DuncanHill (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pronounce it Loost.--Wetman (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Lust" as an Old English / Germanic word once had a broader meaning,[5] of any kind of desire or pleasure, as in the old expression "lust for life". As with terms like "intercourse", one specific usage has become the dominant meaning. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, speak for your own anglo-self! In modern standard German, "Lust" retains the old meaning. "Ich habe keine Lust" means "I don't feel like it", and before you mention migraines, "Ich habe keine Lust, die Steuererklärung auszufüllen" means "I don't feel like filling in my tax return form". ---Sluzzelin talk 01:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was speaking of English. Many German words adhere more closely to their roots than do their English cousins. Given the German pronunciation, I'm thinking another example would be the lyric, "He has lust the fateful lightning of his terrible, swift sword." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are you trying to do here? Is that meant to be a pun? It doesn't make any sense with any meaning of the word, and isn't how the lyrics go. 86.164.25.178 (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wetman said it's pronounced "loost" in German, which is a homophone of "loosed". I have now added italics to the previous comment for clarification. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. The pronunciation I was taught in school wasn't homophonous with loosed, but I imagine that's one of those things that varies. Or we were taught wrong :P 86.164.25.178 (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was assuming that the vowel sounds in "loosed" and "loost" rhymed, but in thinking about it, the German "u" sound might rhyme with "look" or "book" rather than with "loop" ... or "loose". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Might? Well, it does, definitely. And if I may say so, if you didn't know that, then you really have no business answering questions about German pronunciation on a Reference Desk. That probably sounds terribly snappy and harsh, Buggsy, but we should stick to what we know, and not tangenticate into things we can only vaguely guess at. Because none of us knows everything. Not even I, believe it or not.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relationships in The Moonstone

The 1868 novel by Wilkie Collins has a plethora of confusing cousinly relationships. I have tried to piece them together at The_Moonstone#Characters but am not satisfied. There is the wealthy young heroine Rachel Verinder, and her two suitors, Franklin Blake and Godfrey Ablewhite, who are described as cousins. Neither can be the son of the wicked general who stole the moonstone. The small-minded Drusilla Clack calls Lady Verinder and also Mrs Ablewhite "aunt"; Rachel sometimes calls her "Clack", without honorific, and sometimes "Miss Clack" (FIRST NARRATIVE, Contributed by MISS CLACK, niece of the late SIR JOHN VERINDER- CHAPTER I); the heiress calls the poor relation "Drusilla" only when she is trying to make a good impression. How are they all related, and is Rachel's mode of address normal? BrainyBabe (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a family tree. I don't think it is ever really specified who Drusilla is, but I think it would be common for even a petty heiress with her position to maintain to treat a poor relation, who is rather a hanger on, as little better than a housekeeper. meltBanana 23:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That family tree is an intriguing find, but not entirely convincing -- e.g. it doesn't mention the honorifics of Lady Verinder (and her deceased husband, presumably a baronet). It posits that all of these cousins are the fruit of the marriages of many sisters, thus explaining the many surnames; but Franklin Blake and Godfrey Ablewhite do not, as far as I can recall, refer to one another as cousins, so that won't wash. Any Victorianists around? BrainyBabe (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you need a Victorianist, it is the same family tree, but without Drusilla, as in The Moonstone ed. Steve Farmer, Broadview Press (1999) ISBN 1551112434
I spoke, a little way back, of my lady's father, the old lord with the short temper and the long tongue. He had five children in all. Two sons to begin with; then, after a long time, his wife broke out breeding again, and the three young ladies came briskly one after the other... Of the two sons, the eldest, Arthur, inherited the title and estates. The second, the Honourable John
If you know anything of the fashionable world, you have heard tell of the three beautiful Miss Herncastles. Miss Adelaide; Miss Caroline; and Miss Julia--this last being the youngest and the best of the three sisters
came my lady's [Julia] nephew, Mr. Franklin Blake
Like Mr. Franklin, he was a cousin of hers. His name was Mr. Godfrey Ablewhite....Honourable Caroline insisted on marrying plain Mr. Ablewhite
etc. Also the character list you linked to calls John Herncastle a general when he is described as a colonel. meltBanana 01:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's a good step forward. I had read the whole novel, but some time ago, and in listening to the Radio 4 adaptation grew confused. Drusilla Clack is introduced as "niece of the late Sir John Verinder", which allows her to call Lady V "aunt", but I don't see how that extends to Mrs Ablewhite (Lady V's sister). Nor why the two suitors don't seem cousinly. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Drusilla is indeed Sir John V's niece, she'd be his sister's daughter and Lady V's niece by marriage. It's not stretching the imagination too far to regard the sister of your aunt by marriage as a sort of aunt too, particularly if you are a dependent member of a rich and important family who has to curry favour with your relatives (and hope the odd little legacy may come your way). As regards Godfrey and Franklin's relationship, remember Franklin spent his schooldays and teenage years abroad, after a short time living with the Verinders after his mother died. Remember also that Godfrey's mother's marriage angered her relations ("There was terrible work in the family when the Honourable Caroline insisted on marrying plain Mr Ablewhite ... he had presumed to raise himself from a low station in the world - and that was against him".) The rift healed eventually, but probably after the child Franklin had been sent abroad. It's quite possible he has hardly, if ever, seen Godfrey in his life before they meet to celebrate Rachel's birthday. Karenjc 12:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Flipping through my copy I find this, too (the narrator at this point is Betteredge). "On my way back to my own part of the house I was encountered by Mr Franklin. He wanted to know if I had seen anything of his cousin Rachel. I had seen nothing of her. Could I tell him where his cousin Godfrey was? I didn't know, but I began to suspect that Cousin Godfrey might not be far away from Cousin Rachel." Karenjc 12:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - good points, all! Now I am searching the Gutenberg text (which lacks the notes of chaps such as Steve Farmer). Blake Franklin's father is "the wicked Colonel's executor" - a favour between brothers-in-law. Godfrey Ablewhite is flagged up right at the beginning as the product of "what they call a misalliance" - and we all know that no good can come of that.
But Drusilla Clack does seem very familiar with her uncle's wife's sister: "My Aunt Ablewhite is a large, silent, fair-complexioned woman, with one noteworthy point in her character. From the hour of her birth she has never been known to do anything for herself. She has gone through life, accepting everybody's help, and adopting everybody's opinions." BrainyBabe (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jane-Anne Stamper be damned!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverend Innes and dinosaur denial

At one point in the movie Creation, Reverend John Brodie-Innes makes Annie Darwin kneel on rock salt for saying dinosaurs existed. (The event isn't shown, just discussed.) As far as I can tell, this is completely fabricated, and Innes's relationship with Charles Darwin was only a positive one. I wonder: is there even any plausibility that an Anglican minister at that time would apply that particular form of corporal punishment in his Sunday school?

What I'm mainly curious about, though, is whether or not the denial of dinosaurs ever had currency during Darwin's day, when a lot of specimens were being discovered. I've run across the notion that fossils are the work of Satan, but mainly in contexts that satirize creationism, with the occasional way-out-there "crank". Of course, for almost any idea, one can always find at least one person who believes it. So: in concrete terms, are there any Wikipedia articles about a person or an organization that avowed/avows that dinosaurs never existed? Contemporary young-earth creationism doesn't hold this view, but maybe a few of its antecedents did?

Unless you can link to a Web page about someone, or answer my question about Victorian ministers, please don't respond (for example, with personal anecdotes). I don't want this to become a flamefest about creationism. Thanks!

There was no denial of the fossils. It was a matter of interpretation.--Wetman (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know it would have been an extreme minority view both now and in the Victorian period; I'm just wondering if it ever had sufficient currency to be notable enough for Wikipedia, like, say, Time Cube or modern geocentrism. ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 01:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have known more than one fundamentalist Christian who theorize that Satan created the dinosaur fossils just to deceive us. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The book Omphalos (book) by Philip Henry Gosse was a fairly well-known book by a reputable author of the time which tried to reconcile fossils with the Biblical creation account, and it did not advocate a logically incoherent hypothesis or claim that God was trying to deceive us. However it was not received with great favor among mainstream Christians or scientists... AnonMoos (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I'd forgotten about that! That's exactly what I was after. And while something Omphalos-like is sometimes a part of modern creationism (it has been argued that God made the Earth "complete" and therefore old, and that he made "light in transit"), it never includes "instantly-made fossils", which are instead thought to be remnants of the Flood. ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 16:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the question is abut historical accuracy, I'd just like to point out that Brodie-Innes would not have been referred to as "Reverend Innes", "Reverend Brodie-Innes" or even "Reverend John Brodie-Innes" in the UK. See The Reverend#Usage. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that point. It's probably (another) error in Creation. (Emma says "Charles, Reverend Innes is a dear friend and neighbour.") ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 16:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

case law resource for self-representation

While it may be difficult or impossible to express statutes and code in the form of a polychotomous key because they are open ended, with the exception of tax law where statues statute are expressed in the form of a decision table in order to find loopholes, it is quite possible to express cases which have been decided in the form of a polychotomous key because they are not open ended. As a result would such keys make self-representation possible or would there still be some kind of unspoken taboo in regard to the warning that "Persons who represent themselves have a fool for a client."? --Inning (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a question? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have already seen this "polychotomous key" thing many times here in the RD. Some people might call this behavior obsessive, but I prefer to call it special. Quest09 (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You must understand that even though the RD is not a forum it is a source of information from presumably "learned" scholars. Anyone wishing to count themselves out of this definition can respond or not respond to any question asked. --Inning (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Because two times two is seven, is it an even number?" AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please add your example of an Oxymoron to that article. Thanks. --Inning (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is even because it is a multiple of two: namely, two times one. The fact that two times two is seven has nothing to do with it. 109.128.173.201 (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you consider "…cases which have been decided…" to be "…not open ended…" and "…statutes and code…" to be "…open ended…"? I would think it would be the opposite. "Statutes and code" have to be stated clearly and crisply, but "cases which have been decided" can involve unique circumstances and ingredients—consequently might be more difficult to crisply characterize. I don't know if a polychotomous key could be made for "self-representation". Bus stop (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Statues statute and code can not encompass all possibilities. This is what the courts are for. But when the court reaches a final decision and the process stops in the last court to have jurisdiction no more possibilities for decision, hence new variables exist presuming no new evidence is found which might change the decision. Cases beyond the possibility of new evidence would certainly qualify as closed cases. --Inning (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Statues"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't worry. In my workplace, we sometimes need our clients to give us information about the hours they've worked and their income. Where that data is not available from their employer, we hand out a form that's grandly and pompously headed "Statuary Declaration". I've made the point numerous times that these forms purport to refer to statues, monuments, garden gnomes and the like, rather than to statutes, laws and regulations, but they just look blankly and ignore me. I'm embarrassed to work in modern-day offices sometimes. The spell checker is king, but sometimes a very stupid king. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]
My kudos for pointing this out. Sometimes I forget to change the "spell check before sending" option for email and words not added or updated in the dictionary screw any chance of my getting a reply. --Inning (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self-representing yourself is often a very, very bad decision. That's not only in the case you don't know anything about law. It is in general, no matter how good you understand the laws, a bad idea. Simplifying the law doesn't change that. Quest09 (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you detail the reason it is a bad idea in cases where self-representation or being represented by an attorney is the only factor the case was won or lost. I.E., all of the facts and the law point to guilty or not guilty? --Inning (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because the psychological illusion is that the other person, who is merely hired to do a job, is another person who genuinely believes in the "rightness" of your case? Bus stop (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clear cases often do not go on trial, they end with a plea bargain, or no one gets indicted. The cases which go on trial are those where there are doubts. Quest09 (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the question the OP asked in the next section, I feel safe in giving the legal advice that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should he attempt to be his own attorney. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question is why no one should represent themselves versus only someone who asks a question regarding a possible reason for not doing so. --Inning (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point being that ignorance of the law and what it is, are very strong reasons for not representing yourself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pro se legal representation in the United States (We don't seem to have an article that covers the topic in other legal systems) has some decent info. Lawyers hire attorneys for some of the same reasons physicians go to doctors. --Daniel 01:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure you need surgery on your back or innards under anesthesia and you have no choice but to hire a physician. I can think of lots of medical emergencies and calls for diagnosis and treatment that can be provided by medical flowchart. In fact I think they are currently used in places like Africa where doctors are few and far between. --Inning (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was going to be my next observation. And its for similar reasons: "He who doctors/represents himself has a fool for a patient/client." And if you screw up, what are you going to do? Sue yourself? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree on one point... with so much money going for pornography it is apparent that a lot of people like to screw themselves perhaps "Because the psychological illusion is that the other person, who is merely hired to do a job, is another person who genuinely believes..." they can also make some money. Unfortunately, in the case of pornography and the law they are apparently right. --Inning (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What has that got to do with anything? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a polychotomous key from what you are saying is judged to be like pornography, i.e., you buy either to help do the job yourself if for some reason the alternative is not as affordable or as available. Both are alternatives that provide options which allow attorneys and wives who benefit financially to a far greater degree to avoid the accusation of "arm twisting". --Inning (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As metaphors go, that one is pretty obscure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know of any wives who can hold sex over their husbands in absence of alternatives? What about attorneys? Know of any attorneys who do not charge a fee because the prospective client is indigent and no alternative to having an attorney is available? --Inning (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Regardless, there are plenty of reasons not to be your own attorney (or doctor). One is that the one you hire can presumably be more logical and detached about the situation, compared with the plaintiff or defendant whose emotions could cloud their judgment. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An attorney can also negotiate better with the prosecution, talk with witnesses, approach experts, than a suspected criminal. You need much more than law to solve a case. 212.169.190.82 (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope OP has realised after all these questions that this is not a forum of creative jurisprudence scholars who share his or her love of the term "polychotomous key". In fact, it would appear that most people who understand that term understand it in a different way to the OP. Perhaps the OP would consider taking a degree in jurisprudence or at least some night courses in jurisprudence, so that he or she can tie his or her understanding of jurisprudence to mainstream understanding. That would help the OP to communicate his or her ideas to others using a vocabulary which is more meaningful to those interested in the subject. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One thing the OP does realize is that you have not followed this section from the beginning and are one who supports the idea of the psychological illusion which jurisprudence terminology allows. I have a better idea. Why don't you convert all that goobly gock Gobbledygook BS to a polychotomous key so that it makes sense to the rest of us? --Inning (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's rich coming from someone whose user name is "Inning", but who refers to himself as "innings" (no cap; extra s) on his user page. Maybe we can work out the discrepancy using a polychotomous key. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 07:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite certain that what I wrote above was not legalses. If the OP cannot understand it, then it is probably an even better sign that the OP should undertake some courses so that he or she may converse with other people interested in such such topics (be it polychotomous keys or jurisprudence) using a vocabulary that others can effectively engage with. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 13

Trade Secret

Is the law a trade secret and the public process a business owned and operated by the legal profession?--Inning (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No and no. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why does that question sound vaguely familiar? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a quote sometimes attributed to Patrick Eberhart "The law is a trade secret and the public process a business owned and operated by the legal profession in absence of the law being published in the form of a polychotomous key" or variants thereof. No idea what it means. Nanonic (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a cynic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read that. In fact it is in part why I asked the question. Since the attribution is unsourced I'm confused. Is he the person being quoted or the person posting the unsourced quotation? --Inning (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what it means that nobody knows the law except lawyers, and they keep other people from knowing it by writing it down in a way that makes it difficult for non-lawyers to search for laws that are relevant to a given situation. Which may be true to a certain degree. Looie496 (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you see a sign that says "speed limit 65", you don't need a lawyer to interpret that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You do though, because if everyone is going exactly 7 MPH faster, should you make everyone pass you at 7 MPH? What if the road makes it dangerous for you to be passed with such frequency? Shouldn't you just go 7 MPH faster yourself? 109.128.173.201 (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're expected to know what the rules of the road are, in order to get a driver's license. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the quote is to say that only those who are in the legal profession can really make use of the law. This is fairly true, and is why people are encouraged never to represent themselves in court. A posted sign is only the most blunt and not always correct aspect of the law; if you want to see how much it leaves out, look up your state's actual codes on road behavior. For kicks, compare those to what you have to know to get a license. It is not expected that drivers know all rules of the road and their full legal ramifications.
You can still get a ticket for going the speed limit, if the road conditions are poor, for example. Only a lawyer is probably qualified to know exactly how to argue such a case in actual court. However I think calling it a trade secret is entirely incorrect, because in principle and in practice, people can learn the "secret" — it is not hidden away, it is just complex and requires a lot of training. Theoretical physics is not a "trade secret," even if it is more or less the monopoly of trained theoretical physicists. The information is not kept from people; it just happens to be overwhelming complicated, and requires considerably training for "accurate" understanding. Legal proceedings are even more complicated; not because of conspiracy, but because in actual practice, legal operations necessarily have to adapt to how complicated the real world is. Any actual "key" that reflected actual practice of law would be similarly complex; I do not see how it would "liberate" legal knowledge. One could argue that legal codes should be drastically simplified, but this too seems to me to be a fanciful idea. Even for "simple" criminal law, things get complicated rather fast if you actually care about justice and nuance; for things like tort law or corporate law, the complications become so varied that even lawyers have to specialize. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Carriage return character goes here.) --Inning (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are very good points, Mr. 98. When I started sixth or seventh grade English classes our teacher showed us how to diagram sentences and the very first thing we learned in introduction to computers was flow charting binary logic and decision tables. We learned that the reason they were necessary was because computers were so complicated and complex that everything had to be kept organized and using these tools were the best way to do it. --Inning (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually the opposite. Computers, especially years ago, were logically un-complicated. Hence the instructions had to be very precise. The law is not so. It's an evolving creature, as all human enterprises must be. Our teacher told us that computers are fast, accurate and stupid, while humans are slow, inaccurate and complex. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was also informed that computers were accurate and fast and that because humans were complex they made lots of mistakes for that reason that were difficult to prevent or catch. The Soviets tried to remedy this problem by basing human decisions on rules that used binary logic rather than rules that used variables with many states. Fuzzy logic was an effort to rectify this by making binary variables into values of probability with "maybe" being the 50, 50 chance. The problem is that while yes and no and maybe do represent at least three states there is still a dichotomy rather than a polychotomy, which can handle an infinite number of states. This capability allows logic to handle complex issues in a logical format to address the problem of human error due to complexity of the human mind. --Inning (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Is this a Turing test? Corvus cornixtalk 06:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is what a Turing test? --Inning (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technology is the devil's work?

I'm hoping for early references to this idea - religious as opposed to the other forms of technophobia - and aside from Faust, too, if possible. Can anyone help? Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such as fire, the arrowhead, and the wheel, for example? Certainly Genesis' first part contains such a warning, from God, about "the tree of knowledge". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's often misquoted that way. It's the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This should not encourage technophobia, but instead suspicion of anybody who thinks they know absolutely the difference between good and evil. Staecker (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry- now I see schyler beat me to this below. Staecker (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks - maybe that's when the idea started? Was it a common idea in religious thought? Medieval, say? Adambrowne666 (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever actually seen the expression "technology is the devil's work" anywhere? Magic and witchcraft are "the devil's work". Technology is just machinery. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, never heard that expression. I tried googling technology + devil's work, and didn't get much. I'm happy to talk about machinery too - or bows and arrows or whatever - I'm not even sure if I'm right in thinking it's an idea in religious thought - I have only the vaguest notion that I read/heard about it somewhere - I am hoping someone will be able to find evidence of it in medieval or later texts. Adambrowne666 (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just have trouble believing there ever was a significant opinion along those lines. I don't think even the Amish consider automation to be "the devil's work". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to point out that the forbidden fruit did not come from the Tree of Knowledge, but from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Indeed it was a tree of knowledge of evil in that the eating of its fruit was the one evil Adam and Eve could do. schyler (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I'd suggest that 'technology', or perhaps more accurately, those who use it, have been seen as sinister, if not necessarily 'evil' in many contexts - an obvious case are smiths, who seemingly possess the ability to turn rocks into metal, and have this been seen as dangerous in many cultures - from Thor in Norse mythology (who wields a smith's hammer) to the mystique surrounding metal workers in parts of sub-Saharan Africa - I'll see if I can locate a source for the latter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't it depend on application? I mean, guns can be used to kill people or to kill animals for food. A glove can be used to keep hands warm or to cover someone's face to smother them. What kind of technology are your thinking about? --Inning (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps look into the Luddites? They were against technology - granted, on political rather than theological/philosophical grounds, but perhaps there was bit of the Puritan mixed in too - according to the article, a hammer they used to smash machines was called the "Hammer of God"... or something... Herostratus (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if modern day computer virus and worm coders do it for the same reason - programs that generate code taking their jobs? --Inning (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generally they do it because they're social misfits who get kick out of it and don't care about anything or anybody but themselves. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's Prometheus and fire, but there fire is not evil. I don't think that this is particularly a Biblical theme (though at one point in the Book of Judges, the Israelites are not happy that the Canaanites have iron chariots, but the Israelites don't...). AnonMoos (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are "dark satanic mills" even in England's green and pleasant land - this view was perhaps more common at the time of the industrial revolution than the middle ages. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here is a medieval poem called A Complaint Against the Blacksmith:
 Swart smutted smiths, smattered with smoke,
 Drive me to death with din of their dints;
 Such noise on nights ne heard men never.
 What with knaven cry and clattering of knocks!
 The crooked caitiffs cryen after coal! coal!
 And bloweth their bellows till their brain bursteth.
 Huf! puf! says the one; haf! paf! says the other;
 They spitten and they sprawlen and they spellen many spells.
 They gnawen and gnashen and they groan all together,
 And holden them hot with their hard hammers.
 Of a bull-hide be their barm-fells;
 Their shanks be shackled for the fiery flinders;
 Heavy hammers they have that are hard to be handled,
 Stark strokes they striken on a steely stock,
 Lus! bus! las! das! snore they by the row,
 Such doleful a dream that the devil it to-drive!
 The master loungeth a little and catcheth a less,
 Twineth them twain and toucheth a treble,
 Tik! tak! hic! hac!, tiket! taket! tyk! tyk!
 Lus! bus! las! das!... Christ give them sorrow!
 May no man for brenn waters on night have his rest?
So people were complaining about technology even then. Looie496 (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...Though little alarmed by a lot of alliteration.--Wetman (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where does this poem come from? The Mediæval Bæbes sing a very nice version of this. --TrogWoolley (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A rather comprehensive list of these themes in Western literature and thought is in Roger Shattuck's Forbidden Knowledge: From Prometheus to Pornography. As the title suggests, technology is only one small part of the over cornucopia of "forbidden knowledge." I would also take care as to what I call "technophobia" — the original Luddites weren't afraid of technology as a whole, they were just resistant to technologies that would radically upset the existing socio-economic order (put them out of a job). That's not the same thing as people being "afraid" of technology in my mind, much less connecting it with religious themes. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Amish people. ~AH1(TCU) 17:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, the Amish don't think technology is "evil". They think that some (but not all) modern technology creates social situations that are unwholesome. (They do use some high-tech stuff, in fact. Just not stuff that materially changes the "way of life" they deem worth living.) It's a subtle point, but an important one. It's not considered illogical to reject technological change on the basis of undesirable consequences. It is definitely considered illogical to reject technology because you think the devil made it. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The magic aspect of metalworking, the first real "technology", (weaving and pottery being crafts really) is reflected in the fearful laming of Hephaestus and Wayland the Smith. Technology was alarming from the Bronze Age get-go.--Wetman (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all - all excellent grist - keep it coming! Adambrowne666 (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

relationship names

hello every body....

  • i want the relationship names in Telugu to English.

like example: in Telugu maridhi means in English is "brother in law".. like that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabarish.kalangi (talk • contribs) 09:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

teluguwebsite.com has an extensive list (wow, a lot of distinctions! For example, "maridi" is given as "Wife's younger brother. Husband's younger brother.") ---Sluzzelin talk 09:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also multilingual list of Indian kin terms which translates "maridhi" as "husband's younger brother", while "wife's younger brother" is "bammaridhi". ---Sluzzelin talk 09:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear bombs at home

Is it legal for Americans to own and possess nuclear bombs under the "right to bear arms" thing in the Constitution? 92.15.7.193 (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Military weapons are not protected by the second amendment. Although this reminds me of a fake "toy" nuclear weapon, whose tagline was, "Be the first kid on your block to be the last kid on your block." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And, where stays which weapons you can have? I'm not questioning the wisdom of the government to not let anyone bear rockets, but they have to regulate that somewhere, don't they? 212.169.190.82 (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 2nd_amendment contains in its own words some limitation: "as allowed by law." That gives the law makers the possibility of regulating things like atomic bombs, missiles and whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "as allowed by law" is not in the second amendment. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you're right. They are in the 1689 Bill of Rights.Quest09 (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The vague phrase "to keep and bear arms" probably covers it, in the sense that it implies that it's up to someone else to define which arms are allowable. In the late 1700s, the ultimate weapons were probably cannons, and I don't think that the average citizen would have been allowed to own an operable cannon. But muskets were OK. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 prohibits private ownership or production of nuclear weapons. It makes it explicitly unlawful for "any person to transfer or receive in interstate or foreign commerce, manufacture, produce, transfer, acquire, possess, import, or export any atomic weapon," except as explicitly authorized by the US government (e.g. the military can have them). There are many other regulations throughout the law which make it effectively illegal to possess enriched uranium or plutonium in any quantities without a government license. There has never been any doubt that the Supreme Court would recognize weapons of mass destruction as laying beyond the protections of the Second Amendment, however exactly where the line should be (assault rifles? machine guns? grenade launchers?) has long been heavily contested, and has shifted over time. (And before you ask, could I have one before 1954?, the answer is no, because the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 said essentially the same thing. What about before 1947? At that point it would have been impossible anyway since the only technology in the world that could produce nuclear weapons was in possession of the US Army Corps of Engineers, and they weren't going to let you have one.) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, David Hahn ran into some problems with the authorities and he was only building a little breeder.--Aspro (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to the confusion is the fact that the States all have different laws... Nukes aside, some weapons are perfectly legal to own in one State, but are illegal in another. In some cases the weapon may be legal to own, but the ammunition is restricted. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some have suggested that the second amendment should be interpreted as only giving citizens the right bear the kinds of arms that existed at the time it was written. Things would be a lot safer. (Although not necessarily for anyone trying to actually use such weapons.) HiLo48 (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like suitcase bombs are illegal. However, we cannot offer legal advice. ~AH1(TCU) 17:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That depends. Does the following sentence make sense:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear nuclear Arms shall not be infringed."
If it is a sensible sentence, then nuclear bombs ought to be covered by the amendment and protected. 109.128.173.201 (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As we've discussed on here before, the interpretation that the Second Amendment allows any and all types of guns is at most a very recent one, but even then, many categories of military hardware are prohibited for private ownership. Nobody has ever challenged the Atomic Energy Act on Second Amendment grounds, and they would certainly lose, even in a court staffed by NRA lobbyists... --Mr.98 (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NRA are not pro-private nuclear proliferation, and I believe no one is. Furthermore, the consequences for any kind of weapon being at the hands of any kind of person can be so devastating, that no one is defending this idea. Quest09 (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that was exactly my point. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting question though... could a State government authorize nuclear weapons for its militia units (such as the New York Naval Militia)? I could see the argument that this should be allowed under the Constitution... but there may have been laws put in place about this since the Civil War. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Federal law would override state law in a case like that. Regarding the NRA, they do not lobby for the rights of citizens to own military weapons. The irony of that stance is that the whole theory behind it has to do with potentially "resisting a tyrannical government". But without military weapons, that would be kind of hard to do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That could be against the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Quest09 (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it violates the NPT. The NPT just says, "don't give them to other countries, and don't develop them unless you're one of the five members of the nuclear club." It doesn't have anything to say about the fact that one country might have different levels of government within it. Even if Alabama got the bomb, it would not violate the NPT, for the US as a state overall is allowed to develop nukes under the NPT. It would, however, violate the Atomic Energy Act. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It also say (vaguely) reduce your nuclear weapons pile. If a state government wants some, that could mean that the federal government would need to reduce their arsenal, to comply with the NPT. Otherwise, you'll end up having more bombs than earlier. Quest09 (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That part of the NPT has never been considered binding by the nuclear powers. It has been interpreted as an expression of a general goal, not a requirement that no new nuclear weapons be produced. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right the NPT is not originally binding, but set the path to the 2010_NPT_Review_Conference and New_START, which would cap the total number of warheads in general. Quest09 (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The US has many treaty obligations, to be sure. But this is a fairly separate issue from the question of whether individual states could produce nukes. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only the US federal government can possess and transfer nuclear weapons under the Atomic Energy Act. State governments are totally left out of the equation. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "right to bear arms" is rooted in the traditional right of self-defense. Weapons that go far beyond the requirements of self-defense, like cannons or bombs, have never been protected by the 2nd Amendment. —Kevin Myers 20:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a historical reenactor I knew a number of people who owned functional cannons (black powder), tanks (non-functional main gun), machine guns, etc. More is allowed than you imply. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not follow. Just because something is allowed does not mean that it is protected by the Constitution. Black powder cannons might be legal in some states (I've seen plenty of them at historical reenactments, though I never thought about who actually owned them), but you don't have a Constitutional right to own one. —Kevin Myers 22:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, the IPs point is that, in the case of "historical weaponry" such as cannon, tanks and machine guns... a lot of people would argue that Americans do have a Second Amendment right to own these things. This isn't the venue to determine who is correct on the issue (I don't think it has ever come before the court)... but the issue is definitely debatable. Blueboar (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What Kevin is saying is that just because something is currently allowed does not mean it is protected from being banned, should Congress decide it wants to. It's a fair point. Status quo is not indication of Constitutionality. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite true. Typically, things are not banned until they become a problem. The number of street crimes and assassination attempts committed by cannon in the USA, I daresay is very small, compared with handguns. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed... And it's been ages since someone was mugged at tank-point. Blueboar (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But if they did, they'd have to contend with the full force of cannon law.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pachabel had a canon, but he didn't live in the US. Googlemeister (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither did Pachelbel.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 07:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is important to note that the courts have very broadly allowed any bill of rights amendment to be abridged provided that the limitation is "necessary and proper" to a legitimate governmental aim, and narrowly tailored to avoid being overbroad and overly restrictive. I think you'd be hardpressed to say that preventing nuclear extinction of the human race is not a legitimate goal of government, or that refusing to allow the citizenry to own megadeath weaponry is overly broad. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would also depend on which jurisdiction you live under. I know that certain places such as Berkeley, California and Chico, California have been declared Nuclear free zones by their city councils. Corvus cornixtalk 06:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, nobody thinks that those local ordinances can trump federal law. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously, there are many groups of naval cannon left unguarded as historical ornaments in Britain, usually at the seaside. If the wooden plug they usuually have was removed from the end of the barrel, then it should be easy to fire them. 92.28.251.167 (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, there are many an old cannon on town squares in the US. Getting your hands on one would be the easy part. Finding functional ammo would be the challenge. —Kevin Myers 15:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have expected those weapons to have been spiked or partially filled with concrete or something. Are you sure that they are actually functional? Googlemeister (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anecdotally, some were used by the Home Guard (United Kingdom) in 1940 although I can't now find a reference. BTW, the wooden plug is called a tampion. In the UK, "Antiques held as a curiosity or ornament are still exempt from certificate control under the terms of Section 58(2) of the Firearms Act 1968."[6] Alansplodge (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, in the US "antique firearms" are not regulated by the National Firearms Act. Individual states can regulate antique firearms to a degree (our article says that Oregon does), as long as they don't run afoul of federal law and the 2nd amendment. But there's probably not much call for such restrictions, since muskets don't seem to be the weapon of choice of modern wackos. —Kevin Myers 14:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Miller addresses this issue directly, as does subsequent dicta. Our article on it has some good discussion: "In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." quoting Printz. Shadowjams (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Or to quote from Heller: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...." —Kevin Myers 01:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leprosy in the Roman Empire

Hello all, I am writing a response paper on the film Ben-Hur. My task is to evaluate the historicity of some aspect of the movie. I decided to investigate leprosy in the Roman Empire, since it is an important movie subplot. Unfortunately, I'm running a little low on information. I can verify that yes, the disease occurred back then and, according to one source, was indeed cause for banishment. But how common was it? Would a prisoner with leprosy really be released into a colony? What were the nature of the Roman leper colonies, if they existed? There is plenty of information on Medieval practices, but not of those around the time of Christ. I would appreciate some sources dealing with these questions. Thanks! WordyGirl90 18:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two suggestions for books that are likely to contain enough information to get you started:
  • Doctors and diseases in the Roman Empire. University of Oklahoma Press. 1988. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
  • A History of Medicine. Vol 3:. Roman Medicine. Horatio. Press. 1998. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
There's a lot more out there, though. Looie496 (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Latin Vikipedia has an article Lepra, which gives you the Latin name of the disease, for a start. Unfortunately that article simply gives a long quote from Leviticus 13, a work of the seventh century BCE. True leprosy was known to the Greeks as elephantiasis. When Arabic texts, drawn from Greek were translated into Latin in the ninth century CE, this condition was confused with Lepra graecorum,, "Lepra of the Greeks", resulting in the impression that all scaling conditions of skin were leprosy. This second mistranslation is credited with the introduction of the term leprosy for Hansen's disease thatpersists to the present day. Try googling some of these terms with "Rome" or "Roman" at Google Scholar.--Wetman (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pliny the Elder records a treatment for leprosy among the Romans was to soak the leaves of the elm tree in vinegar and apply them to the ulcers.[7] citation: Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia, 24.49.84, translation by John Bostock (1855). The Natural History was published about 77 CE, which would have been about 40 years after the conclusion of the movie Ben Hurr. The Latin is:

ulmi et folia et cortex et rami vim habent spissandi et volnera contrahendi. corticis utique interior tilia lepras sedat et folia ex aceto inlita. corticis denarii pondus potum in hemina aquae frigidae alvum purgat pituitasque et aquas privatim trahit. inponitur et collectionibus lacrima et volneribus et ambustis, quae decocto fovere prodest. umor in folliculis arboris huius nascens cuti nitorem inducit faciemque gratiorem praestat. cauliculi foliorum primi vino decocti tumores sanant extrahuntque per fistulas. idem praestant et tiliae corticis.

the English by John Bostock is sometimes quoted as chapter 33 of book 24:

The leaves, bark, and branches of the elm have the property of filling up wounds and knitting the flesh together: the inner membrane too, of the bark, and the leaves, steeped in vinegar, are applied topically for leprosy. The bark, in doses of one denarius, taken in one hemina of cold water, acts as a purgative upon the bowels, and is particularly useful for carrying off pituitous and aqueous humours. The gum also which this tree produces is applied topically to gatherings, wounds, and burns, which it would be as well to foment with the decoction also. The moisture which is secreted on the follicules of the tree gives a finer colour to the skin, and improves the looks. The foot-stalks of the leaves that first appear, boiled in wine, are curative of tumours, and bring them to a head: the same, too, is the effect produced by the inner bark.

Gx872op (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"What we may have to accept is the ambiguity and confusion caused by the polymorphous nature of leprosy when it appeared in the ancient world, if the disease was at all like modern leprosy." (Michael W. Dols. "Leprosy in medieval Arabic medicine" Journal of the History of Medicine 1979): download it ).

With reference to the Latin article, it's fairly clear that Leviticus isn't referring to the disease we know as leprosy. For one argument (of several), the biblical disease afflicted both people and inanimate objects. See our article Tzaraat. Perhaps someone with knowledge of Latin should amend the article to remove that and add Gx872op's excellent material. --Dweller (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does suicide send them to Hell? Mom told me this, but where in religious text does it say so?

It'd be pretty sad for him to be burning now because <<<someone I know>>> was found dead with some kind of a long-barreled gun in <<<some place>>> at the edge of a forest in Kansas.

However, I've had a hard time finding text in scriptures that say that suicide automatically makes you Hellbound. Where would it say so? --70.179.187.21 (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note original thread was a BLP violation and was removed, quite rightly; I've replaced it in an anonymised form. Hope this isn't a problem. Will notify two relevant users. Egg Centric (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Religious views on suicide, which talks about the views of Aquinas and others on the matter. Do bear in mind that not all churches' teaching is directly based on a particular passage in scripture; rather, it can be the product of a synthesis of several passages, tradition, reasoning, and so on. (I'm not sure how information about a successful suicide can possibly be a BLP violation.) Marnanel (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suicide being the willful and unlawful taking of human life, it would be classified as a "mortal sin" or something like that. That could be the Roman Catholic view, but I've heard other Christian leaders say that someone who has been "saved" but later becomes mentally ill and commits suicide should still be "saved". In a partial answer to Marnanel's question, I would say there's only one way to know for sure, but I would be quick to add, "don't try this at home - or anywhere else." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...a "mortal sin" or something like that. That could be the Roman Catholic view, but I've heard..." Why have you guessed this, when it is so easy to look up? There are churches which do not list their beliefs for all to read: the Catholic Church has theirs listed on the Vatican website, if you don't believe the answer in our article that Marnanel linked. For example, "Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide. 2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. the Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives." 86.164.25.178 (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are surprisingly few actual references to Hell in scripture. It is mentioned a lot in Judeo-Christian commentary, but not that often in actual scripture. Blueboar (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of sayings of Jesus about Gehenna or the outer darkness, where "the worm never dies and the fire is not put out" or where "men shall wail and gnash their teeth". Then of course there's Revelation. From the Hebrew scriptures, the Book of Daniel has some language that could be interpreted as being about Hell ("the smoke of their torment went up for ever" or some such).
That said, I am not aware of anything in the Bible that directly says suicides go to Hell.
On the other hand, I believe the Qur'an is rather more specific, detailing the punishment as according to the method of suicide — those who throttle themselves are throttled forever, and so on. --Trovatore (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the suicide of choice would be a fun hallucinogenic overdose. Googlemeister (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I very seriously doubt that. As far as I can figure out, the relevant Surah is 4:29-30, which simply says "(4:29) Believers, do not consume each others' properties illicitly - only mutually acceptable transactions are permitted. You shall not kill yourselves. Allah is merciful towards you.(4:30) Anyone who commits these transgressions, maliciously and deliberately, will be condemned to hell. This is easy for Allah to do." Fairly straightforward, with a nice bit of libertarian sentiment in there. Of course, one might discuss if and when a suicide is "malicious". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems that I confused the Qur'an with the hadith, or sayings of Muhammad. See religious views on suicide#Islam, which is presumably where I picked up this tidbit in the first place. --Trovatore (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where one would "go" would be the same answer as the answer to the question, "What is the punishment for violation of the Ten Commandments?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious answer is that it depends on your religion. If you subscribe to one of the Abrahamic religions then the widely-held view is yes, suicide does send you to the Abrahamic Hell (because if it didn't then everyone would just do a single good deed and kill themselves to get into the Abrahamic Heaven; then these religions would have no followers [not because all their followers will have killed themselves but because people wouldn't believe them]). However, some religions (such as Jainism and Buddhism) permit suicide if for a good purpose (for example, a hunger strike to protest human rights violations). And of course from a scientific point of view killing yourself is no different from dying in any other way. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "greater sin" rule figures into this. If your death will allow others to survive, then your death would be the "lesser sin" of the two. Praying for forgiveness just before you pull the trigger might help also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine how killing yourself would allow another person to live. But allowing yourself to die so that others may live is a different story, and I doubt that would ever qualify as suicide. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be considered a "selfless" act vs. a "selfish" act. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taking your own life if your party doesn't have enough supplies for everyone would be a case of killing yourself to allow other people to live. Lawrence Oates tried this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colapeninsula (talk • contribs) 10:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All we know for certain is that he went outside and said he may be a little time. Did he intend to wait for death, or did he misjudge the severity of the conditions? Even if he was fully prepared to die, we come to a definitional issue. Is waiting out in the cold in the full knowledge that it will probably kill you, effectively the same as picking up a knife and stabbing yourself in the heart? In outcome, yes; but in intent ...? Why is it that doctors are not permitted to practise euthanasia but there's far less of an issue when it comes to turning off patients' life support systems? The outcome is the same - the death of the patient - but the actions are not the same. I have a friend who's retired and getting on a bit now; his daughter often asks him what he's doing today and his reply is always the sardonic "Waiting for death". He might have to wait 20 years rather than an hour or so, and the ultimate cause might be organ failure due to extreme old age rather than exposure to extreme cold - but is he not committing suicide in the same sense as Oates did? Questions, always more questions ... -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Picking up on that thought it could be argued that Jesus committed suicide. And he went to hell for three days didn't he? Further it could be argued that a person commits murder by neglect when failing to feed or water another who is unable to feed and water themselves. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a mistranslation. It being Spring Break, and a bit nippy in the Holy Land, He went to Daytona for three days. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article may be of partial interest to all interested articulate parties. schyler (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a link to The Watchtower, and so covers the Jehovah's Witness view. It would be considered more honest, and less an attempt to evangelise, if you said 'This article explains the Jehovah's Witness view' rather than just saying it 'may be of partial interest'. 86.164.25.178 (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suffice it to say that whenever I post something it is inherently and intrinsically the view of Jehovah's Witnesses... schyler (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps you ought to make your biases more clear on each and every post. Littering up the Ref Desk with links to the Watchtower is not very helpful in and of itself; even less so when you blithely pass them off as neutral references. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't suffice at all! It's not the responsibility of everyone else in the world to know and account for your bias, it's your responsibility to make it clear. APL (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Like 86 said, many churches may now be shifting judgement away from religious leaders and instead let God decide. Others will insist that suicide is not acceptable on any circumstances. Also, you may be interested in this. ~AH1(TCU) 12:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That page uses the expression "NDE experience" - a nice of example of RAS syndrome. Pais (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My parish priest said that a suicide could be considered to be mentally ill,therefore not responsible for their actions therefore not sinning.Hotclaws (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True; see Christian views on suicide#Modern Catholicism, although it seems to be more nuanced than that - "not 100% morally culpable" rather than "not sinning" at all. I think this is the reason why people who commit suicide are nowadays allowed to be buried in sacred ground, instead of at crossroads, like they used to be. When I was a child, I asked my father why Judas Iscariot went to hell, since he had repented of betraying Jesus, and my father said it was because Judas had committed suicide, which is the only sin you can't repent of (because by the time you've committed it, it's too late to repent). Pais (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought for the OP, as Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount "Judge not, that you be not judged", then none of us know for certain whether anyone has gone to hell or heaven. That's between them and God, not for us to judge. TammyMoet (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Generation

One hears about Generation X and Generation A, but to which generation do people born in the late 1950s belong to? I believe they're too late to be Baby-Boomers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles on these subjects notes that some use the term Baby-Boomers up until the mid-1960s and then followed immediately by Generation X. Generation Jones is a recent term applied to the crossover group however. Nanonic (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Generation Jones does describe the people born roughly from 1954-1964, especially the part about having high expectations only to be confronted by harsh reality. Isn't this also the first generation who grew up in the era of the television?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Health and Retirement Study of the University of Michigan, people born from 1955-1959 are "Mid Baby Boomers" and '60-'64 would be the "late baby boomers" 65.29.47.55 (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Baby-Boomers were really those born after the war; the generation of people born in the late 50s-early 60s grew up in a different social and cultural milieu.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that "Baby-boom" refers to two distinct things... a demographic grouping, and a cultural grouping. Those of us who were born between 1957 and 1964 are part of the broad demographic statistical phenomenon known as the "Baby-Boom" (the bulge in population that started in the late 40s and came to an end in the mid 60s, when there was a marked drop off in the number of children being born.) Culturally, however, there is a huge difference between those born in the late 40s to early 50s and those of us born later. A lot of the cultural commonalities that define the "boomers" do not apply to those of us at the end of the boom ... We were too young for most of it. While I don't particularly agree with all the rational behind "Generation Jones" ... it at least gives us a distinct name. Blueboar (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I am currently in the process of reading Tony Judts excellent Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945. In a note on p. 447 he writes: "The baby-boom generation itself never wanted for employment. It was its immediate successor, the cohort born after 1953, which entered the employment market just as jobs were getting harder to find". So it seems he defines 1953 as the last year of the baby boomers. Unfortunately he does not seem to provide a name for the following generation, unless you want to style yourself "The cohort born after 1953". --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cohort born after 1953 Generation?... nah. Lacks advertising appeal. Perhaps "the Unnamed Generation" or "Generation: Unnamed"... (gives us an air of mystery). Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So why is there a need to label and categorise oneself? I meet all the chronological requirements of the baby boomer category, but I've never thought of myself as such. The people born pre-war don't seem to have generational categories at all, but their lives have not been rendered poorer by such a lack. Few people in the West give serious credence to Chinese astrology, where one is a Tiger/Rabbit/whatever depending on which year you were born in. But when it comes entire generational spans of years, that somehow seems to be given more, rather than even less, significance. Curious. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a fitting comparison. Sharing the same period of history, culture, and technology while growing up (as opposed to other generations who did not) is not the same thing as sharing one's ordinal year of birth within a twelve-year cycle. The former is food for theories among scholars (Mannheim, Strauss/Howe), the latter is not. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I'd also take issue with the suggestion that people born before World War II did not have generation-based identities. Consider the Silent Generation or, especially, the Lost Generation. Marco polo (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but they're much less frequently applied or even referred to, compared with the baby boomers, Gen X, Gen Y and whatever else they have these days. Everyone who's a Gen X knows they're a Gen X, but not everyone who's a member of the Lost or Silent Generations would even be aware they're in that grouping. The propensity to classify whole generations of people with a single label is very much a post-war phenomenon. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(WP:OR) I think that's largely true and I wonder if it's somewhat due to the incredible shift in communication and transportation that's taken place since that time. A Gen X'er in Toronto has watched the same shows and used the same technology and listened to the same music as a Gen X'er in San Francisco - or at least to a much greater extent than would have been possible a hundred years prior. As communication and transportation blur the lines between our geographical boundaries, we may become more acutely aware of our generational differences (see also: generation gap). Matt Deres (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about the "Tony Manero" generation for those of us born between 1954 and 1964?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What was the combined total area of the USSR and its satellite states?

--75.15.161.185 (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page for USSR has its total area. Each of the Eastern Bloc states has its own page with its own area in it. Just add them up! Some of this will depend what time period you go looking for satellite states (e.g. Yugoslavia, Albania, which leave the bloc). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 14

Grand Mosque Tirana

is the Grand Mosque Tirana the same as Et'hem Bey Mosque? b/c i saw some wonderful night picture of the former, but it doesnt lool anything like the latter.(Lihaas (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Perhaps the pictures were of Baitul Awwal Mosque the only other significant mosque in Tirana I found mention of. All references to a grand mosque seem to refer to the one on the central square, i.e. the Et'hem Bey, but Awwal means first. Otherwise you could link to the pictures, someone may be able to identify it. meltBanana 05:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt's dissolvement and suspension

What revolutions have resulted in not just the dissolvement of parliament and suspension of the constitution but entire legal system to be replaced by the law being set forth as a list of known variables and states subject to clarification through new variables and states from court rulings or reconsideration of the legislature so as to illuminate judgments being based on on psychological illusion versus fact and the law? --Inning (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still none, since you asked last month. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What publications have you read which say this so that I can avoid them in my continuing search? --Inning (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I even ran out of breath in my head reading that sentence. What makes you think publications will go out of their way to tell us that something so specific doesn't exist? Vimescarrot (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question is what publications 75 read in the last month which did not provide an answer to the original question. Suppose the original question was "How many nude girls are their running around the Vatican?" To his answer "Still none, since you asked last month." comes the question "What publications have you read which say this so that I can avoid them in my continuing search?" "Saying this" simply interpreted means only "What publications have you read in the last month that have led you to this conclusion?" --Inning (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dog Fancy and Disney Princess Magazine didn't cover the story, and neither did Nintendo Power. Does that answer your question? Aaronite (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are trying to say, but my guess is that it has something to do with your polychotomous key law. I think there is a fair chance that, unless you yourself have written publications about it, noone else has either in the past month. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are happily charging down the argument from ignorance rabbit hole. Look not for avoiding things that don't confirm your assumptions. Look instead for things that confirm them. Do you have any reason to believe that your assertions have happened? I see absolutely no evidence for thinking that this has occurred. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Answer. We are not aware of any. Have you tried Google Scholar? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, "dissolvement" is barely even a word... AnonMoos (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go for dissolution myself. Alansplodge (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The OED agrees that it's not a word. Parliaments are often dissolved, or adjourned, or prorogued. The noun forms of these verbs are dissolution, adjournment and prorogation, respectively. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I get the feeling that somewhere Professor Kingsfield is turning over in his grave? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demand curves (and supply curves)

Today in AP Macroeconomics, we covered supply and demand, including supply and demand curves. When asked to draw a demand curve from a given set of data, I accidentally switched the axis (I put quantity on the Y and price on the X). When my teacher pointed out that price always goes on the Y axis, I was puzzled as to why. My confusion arose because to me, price is more of an independent variable compared to demand (when the price increases, demand goes down, and when the price drops the demand goes up), and in mathematical graphing you always put the independent variable on the X axis. As class went on, I began to see how neither one is really more independent or dependent to the other, but to me that would mean it didn't matter which one went on which axis. I did ask my teacher why price always goes on the Y axis, but he could offer no better explanation that "That's just the way it's done." Checking the Wikipedia article on demand curves, I see it doesn't offer much better of an explanation, saying only "according to convention, the demand curve is drawn with price on the vertical axis and quantity on the horizontal axis." So, that leaves me still wondering: Why is price always drawn on the vertical axis? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 21:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"By convention" is essentially it, as far as I know. And by convention, I mean Alfred Marshall's convention. Before him, they were drawn both ways round. After him, well, virtually always with price on the Y-axis. I assume it was useful to him to have it that way round, but equally he might have just flipped a coin, I don't know. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 22:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conventions often don't have reasons behind them. It's just useful for everyone to do something the same way and one way happens to stick. --Tango (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reasoning behind this is that Price is generally considered to be the variable that sellers manipulate, while Quantity is either a stable given or an outcome influenced by demand. In other words, one is assumed to have a given quantity of an item (or rather, a steady stream of the item coming from producers) and a given level of demand: one then manipulates the price in order to increase demand. excessive demand may spur increases in the stream of items produced, but producer actions such as flooding the market or artificially restricting availability are generally considered to be unpleasant business practices, and economists tend to ignore them despite their prevalence in the real world. The economist is (all things considered) an oddly moral beast. --Ludwigs2 19:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a source! (Not for the morality of economists of which I am a student, alas.) [8] Bottom of the page. Marshall, for reasons we can only guess at, broken with tradition. And everyone else followed him. Someone should add that to the article... - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 19:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipe tan wants YOU to add that to the article! --Ludwigs2 02:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the X independent Y dependent convention existed when Marshall first drew his graphs. Our article on dependent and independent variables doesn't go into the history of the concept, but our article on regression analysis (related idea) dates its formalisation to the work of Karl Pearson, later than Marshall. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The choice is arbitrary in that neither price nor quantity is the "independent" variable. Rather, the two are mutually determined. From the individual's perspective, price is independent in that the individual responds to the going market price by altering quantity demanded (if the individual is a consumer) or quantity supplied (if the individual is a producer). From the market's perspective, quantity is independent in that price responds to the difference between quantity demanded and quantity supplied. In short, the traditional demand and supply graphs are an attempt to describe a dynamic relationship in static terms. Hence the confusion. Wikiant (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 15

Computer question-answering

Is IBM's Watson, the computer system which plays Jeopardy at the championship level able to answer a complex question like: What are two failed attempts to report the installation of an unlawful homemade electric fence having possible installation or equipment defect and unknown voltage and current to the employer of someone with the responsibility for how much anesthesia is given to cancer patients during surgery? --Inning (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you represent it using a polychotomous key? 212.169.189.40 (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Represent what? --Inning (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question in question. 212.169.189.40 (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what a rule is? --Inning (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how to write intelligible questions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to answer an intelligible question? --Inning (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes. [9] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might enjoy playing here. --Inning (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"What is leg?" Watson is good at asking questions. 68.198.183.69 (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A system on the Watson level should easily be able to do searches based on criteria like that. The questions that Watson is designed to handle are much trickier, since they involve wordplay. Your sentence looks complicated but it actually has a simple basic structure. Looie496 (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case could Watson replace an attorney or judge and for that matter the Wikipedia Reference Desk? --Inning (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Watson can't think, it basically pattern matches words, and tries to find where they match, then outputs that as the answer. But it's not able to generate something new. The novel thing is how incredibly well it does that pattern matching - it's able to use free form text as the input. But the output is constrained to looking up information and outputting it. To use ref desk as an example, it would be unable to give the answer I just did - I got my information from watching the game and inducing how it works, watson can't do that, it can only output what it already knows. However what it would be able to do would be to give people links to relevant articles based on their question. (Not always, but frequently enough to be useful.) BTW: The number one job of Judges/Juries is figuring out who is lying. No algorithm will help you with that. If people always told the truth in court there would rarely be a reason to have a court. Something like 90% of cases go to plea bargain - that's basically what happens when you have people who tell the truth. Ariel. (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't thinking also pattern matching? But, in a very refined and abstract way? The output here in the RD could be also construed as looking up thing and outputting them, creatively, drawing from several sources, but never entirely new. Quest09 (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pattern matching is an aspect of thinking. But there is more to thinking than just pattern matching. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think even Watson would have trouble with your barely intelligible questions. It would not, however, become irritated by your persistence at asking them, as several reference desk posters seem to have.
Seriously, though, the capabilities of the Watson computer system are unknown outside of IBM. Watson represents a valuable trade secret, and it's very likely that its capabilities won't be fully published until they're ready to start selling them, by which time it'll probably be very different anyway. APL (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points here... first in regard to the law being a trade secret. The point at which this becomes and issue is where the rules of court and the law become so complicated and demanding that to stay within them requires the expertise of an attorney in the same way as any other game. Here it seems is where Watson could sustain or over rule and objection. Second, Watson seems to perform the task of identifying something which requires that whatever it is be classified according to criteria even if the criteria is esoteric. There is already a classification engine that can be scaled which allows esoteric criteria to be classified for rapid identification here that can benefit from the hardware, database and language processing capability that Watson uses to arrange variables and states in an order which requires the least number of queries be made. Most rearrangements show that identification is possible with only one question although there may be hundreds of variables and states. --Inning (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC) | Soap-boxing on the nature of the Justice System.}}[reply]

This is a reference desk, not a soap-box. If you want to lecture people on how the justice system is flawed and how it should be replaced with mathematical perfection, please do so elsewhere.APL (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not soap boxing but a legitimate response to your diatribe. You need to respect it instead of trying to censor it. Otherwise two can play at this game. --Inning (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um who said anything about the law being a trade secret? APL definitely didn't. The mention of trade secret wasn't in relation to the law being a trade secret. In other words, no it was not a legimate response to the alleged diatribe. Frankly I can't help wondering if Watson would be more capable of giving an appropriate response to what people have actually written then you since you seem to be using a 'keyword' based response system... BTW, if your message as intended to the previous question you started, well wrong section so again I suspect Watson will have less problems answering questions at the appropriate place and still, not a legitimate response since APL didn't say anything in that previous question of yours so they clearly can't have had a 'diatribe'. And considering APL is a respected contributor whereas you have been banned multiple times each time usually more or less solely in relation to current activity I don't think there is any 'game'. P.S. Continually spamming your algorithms to the reference desk isn't likely to make people think any more highly of them particularly when you alienate most people even without the spam. Nil Einne (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inning is on his "the law is a trade secret" kick again. Someone needs to ask Watson, "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck..." and see what it does with it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answers on Jeopardy are already known and linked to the question being asked or classified so they can be identified. While Watson is given the criteria of the answer in the question its job is to see if it can match an answer to the question. It is the fact that there is already a known answer to the criteria in the question which makes the question intelligible. However, Watson may eventually be asked to answer unintelligible questions because not all questions are classified, i.e., have a specific answer like the trivia questions on Jeopardy. This would not be necessary for case law if cases where classified and published in the form of a polychotomous key. If optimally classified then the node in the key will be minimized. --Inning (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why were the Europeans successful in colonizing North America and not Sub-Saharan Africa?

Why were the europeans successful in colonizing North America and replacing the native American population whereas they couldn't do the same thing in Sub-Saharan Africa? When the early europeans arrived in Sub-Saharan Africa, they brought diseases there and they fought against the african tribes for lands and resources as just as the europeans had done the same to the native American tribes. 174.114.236.41 (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically it comes down to climate. The only part of sub-Saharan Africa that Europeans were able to colonize heavily was the southern tip -- the only part that lies outside the tropics. The diseases that Europeans brought to the tropical parts were nothing compared to the diseases they found there. Looie496 (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two main things. The first problem was that unlike Europe, which has four seasons, sub-Saharan Africa has two- wet and dry. Europeans could grow their crops down in South Africa, which also has four seasons, but their crops failed further north. The second problem was that disease, which was a major factor in their conquering North America, turned against them. African people, unlike the Indians in North America, had some immunity to European diseases through contacts with Ethiopians and Arabs, and had some immunity to malaria (although now that Africa is urbanizing, we're finding out that their immunity isn't nearly as developed as Europeans, and their immunity to malaria is insufficient). It was mostly malaria (and some African sleeping sickness) that did the Europeans in, at least until they figured out that quinine can prevent it (quinine, by the way, is the substance that flavors tonic water; it was used as a medicine first, then as a flavoring). That being said, the Europeans most definitely did take control of sub-Saharan Africa; the Belgian Congo is known for having been a particularly brutal example of colonization. The Europeans didn't wipe out 95% of the population as they did in the Americas, but they most definitely ruled sub-Saharan Africa- as well as everywhere else in Africa, except for Liberia (which is even worse than most of the rest of the continent now) and Ethiopia- with an iron fist. If you're interested, you should try reading Jared Diamond, specifically Guns, Germs, and Steel and Collapse. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would it also have been the case that the far greater genetic diversity of Africans, compared to native Americans, would have given them greater resistance to diseases brought by the Europeans? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Psrt of the nuanced answer to be found in A.W. Crosby Ecological imperialism: the biological expansion of Europe, 900-1900: in a nutshell the "portmanteau kit" of animals, including horses and cattle, that created "New Europes" in places like Argentina, North America, Australia, didn't thrive in sub-Saharan Africa.--Wetman (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that Africans had continued exposure to European diseases (and vice versa) for a lot longer a period than the Native Americans did. (Similarly those in Asia.) Trade and travel between the continents was continuous over the course of thousands of years, unlike with North and South America. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When Europeans came to a new continent, local diseases killed many early on, leaving a higher percentage of those who had some natural immunity to local diseases, as basically everyone was challenged with the new disease. A similar process took place among Native Americans with respect to diseases brought by Europeans. Earlier a similar sorting out had taken place with respect to plagues brought to Europe from Asia a few centuries before the European colonization of America. Edison (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that those explanations are the whole story. Europeans did colonise some parts of sub-Saharan Africa: the entire country of Sao Tome and Principe, various coastal areas of West Africa, or large areas of Kenya, for example. I wonder if it is more significant that the contrast in climate and seasons simply made much of the continent a less desirable place for Europeans to colonise, when there were alternative possibilities. Warofdreams talk 17:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sao Tome and Principe, Cape Verde, and Seychelles were totally uninhabited before Europeans got to the respective islands making those countries up. I must say, though, given that Arabs had been going down to Comoros for over a thousand years I'm surprised they didn't land on settle that's what I meant to say at least some of the islands of Seychelles. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. That doesn't change my point that Europeans were able to settle areas of sub-Saharan Africa. Warofdreams talk 09:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arabs and others did occasionally land on the Seychelles. They just never settled there. Marco polo (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing part of the bigger picture. In the US, the 'colonials' revolted and set up an independent nation early on: their allegiance was to a nation they considered their own, and native peoples were considered an impediment to expansion to be beaten back. In sub-saharan africa, europeans saw themselves as colonists, and native peoples were viewed as a resource to be exploited, so their intent was to subdue and westernize the native populations, not drive them out and supplant them. Had Europeans chosen to drive out the native populations (in south Africa, India, the middle east, asia)they could have done so, and the native populations in those regions would be as thin as the populations of Native Americans in the US. --Ludwigs2 19:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think that's correct. While it's certainly true that the US has treated the aboriginal population in just about every shitty way possible, the colonization of the hemisphere was only possible because the land had already been nearly wiped clean by smallpox, measles, plague, yellow fever, hanta-virus and other maladies. Could Europe have taken over India? Sure, anything's possible, but it would be a staggering task; it's a much easier situation (both in terms of logistics and easing your conscience) if the "natives" are killed off through infection - that wasn't likely to happen in India (in fact, just the opposite). Matt Deres (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas: "The scope of the epidemics over the years was tremendous, killing millions of people—possibly in excess of 90% of the population in the hardest hit areas—and creating one of "the greatest human catastrophe in history, far exceeding even the disaster of the Black Death of medieval Europe." 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's true of the east coast indian tribes, not so much of the midwest and western tribes. notwithstanding, the American indians would have recovered their population losses over time, if they hadn't been pushed out of their lands entirely by settlers. Note for instance that the caribbean islands and central and south american indian tribes (which suffered the same loses from disease - if not worse - as the north american tribes) are much more numerous the caribbean and south and central america were run much more like the African continent). --Ludwigs2 01:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that statement is about the entirety of Native population in the entire New World. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North America was somewhat attractive to colonial settlers -- familiar weather, good soil, not too many indigenous people left around to prevent settlement. Africa was a lot different -- insufferably hot, full of jungle and relatively densely populated already. The European population of Africa, with a few exceptions (South Africa, Rhodesia, Algeria) never amounted to more than a tiny percentage of the overall population, while Europeans were able to overwhelm North America demographically quite easily. Basically, would you rather live in Virginia or the Congo? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather live in the Congo. Bus stop (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...you'll enjoy "Bongo Bongo Bongo I Don't Want to Leave the Congo".--Wetman (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point. Bus stop (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cable Car funicular

I saw something in a picture book. It was an apartment complex in San Francisco, California, having its own funicular shaped like the city's Cable Cars. Is this true?24.90.204.234 (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently so. Dalliance (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israel's supposed possession of atomic weapons

What is the point of having atomic weapons and not admitting it? They are for deterrence, so, if you have them, others have to know. Quest09 (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See policy of deliberate ambiguity for some general discussion of the advantages of ambiguity. Israel derived two benefits from this. One was plain old deterrence — which you can get without announcing "we have a bomb." You can make it clear that everyone who you want to think you have a bomb knows this, one way or another. Or you can make it appear that you probably have a bomb — which generally speaking is probably enough in many cases. (And certainly everyone has known for the last 25 years without any doubt.) The other is that the Israeli relationship to the US appeared to rely on Israel not announcing they had nuclear weapons. The US had opposed Israel getting a bomb, but once it was a done deal, they essentially said, "if you don't announce that you have a bomb, we won't have to levy sanctions, cut off trade, etc. with you." So it's a fig leaf, of sorts, for US-Israeli relations. Now it is not clear that this policy is working anymore — everyone knows that Israel has a bomb, and everyone knows that the US has long known this. The fact of Israel having a bomb is definitely making it hard for the US to not have an obvious double standard in the Middle East with regards to nuclear weapons, which doesn't disturb (most) Americans very much, but does disturb those in the Middle East. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like the US military policy "Don't ask, don't tell" regarding US soldiers whose commanders and peers suspect or know are homosexuals. Edison (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not unrelated in its basic approach — a "public secret" in exchange for some looking the other way. It is also not unrelated in the fact that there have been unintended consequences which may have undone the entire purpose for the policy. It's an evolving thing. There are some, notably Avner Cohen, who say that whatever utility the opacity policy may have had, it has long since passed, and that it would be better for Israel and the region to "own up" to its nukes in a formal way, so that they could actually be considered legitimate tools for bargaining. (Cohen also argues, I think persuasively, that Iran may be trying to achieve a similar level of "ambiguity" regarding its own nuclear program.)--Mr.98 (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. 98, you can't make a generalization that something "doesn't disturb Americans very much". It may be true that it doesn't disturb the American government and that it doesn't disturb most Americans, but it certainly does disturb some Americans, including this one. Marco polo (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]
I've added a "most" to clarify what I meant. I don't know the exact numbers, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also just add: there is really no ambiguity about them possessing nukes at this point. It is an "open secret" as far as it goes. There is no need to qualify discussions of it with "supposed." The Israeli government does not even deny having them; they just do not confirm that they have them. We have a tremendously good idea of when they developed nuclear weapons, why, who helped them (the French), and so on. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing the Israelis never intended to have their nuclear weapons widely known. The difference between Israel and, say, North Korea is that the Israelis never intended to use their nukes for diplomatic leverage. I think Israel's weapons are there as a last resort in case of an invasion that threatened the state's existence, at which time the country might "admit" to having the weapons and threaten to use them. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nuclear weapons are used almost exclusively for diplomatic leverage, just as conventional weapons often are, they certainly haven't been dropped on anyone for a long time. I think a distinction should be drawn between an open secret that is well known and a secret that is only known in diplomatic circles. I'm expect the governments of states in the middle east knew something of Israel's capabilities long before Mordechai Vanunu made it public knowledge, and a vague, unspecified deterrent can be very powerful. meltBanana 00:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Double standards" are what all diplomacy in the Middle East is made of. Nothing special here. --Wetman (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or indeed anywhere. "Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock." - Wynn Catlin (though often misattributed to Will Rogers). Matt Deres (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As one or more of the above responses have probably already said, your question itself makes me wonder why in the world you would think that anyone could possibly not know that Israel possesses a nuclear deterrent? South Africa and, um, maybe a couple of other folks helped them out with that too, btw, 98;) WikiDao ☯ 03:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Israel's getting tense / Wants one in self-defence / 'The Lord's our Shepherd', says the Psalm / But just in case, we better get a bomb." --Tom Lehrer, "Who's Next?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this joke

ITE is more racially diverse than RJC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.217.228 (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, why do you believe that's a joke? Quest09 (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why it would be a joke. The only relationship between ITE and RJC that I know of is Institute of Technical Education and Raffles Institution (Junior College), two universities in Singapore. ITE is very much more racially diverse than RJC because ITE has many foreign students and RJC does not (mainly because it is a junior college). -- kainaw™ 15:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The OP does geolocate to Singapore, so you probably have it right. --Tango (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many times did Labour take Britain to war?

The answer to this is five according to something that was said on The Daily Politics this lunhtime? However, I can only think of four instances in which this happened; Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq. Can anybody confirm if the answer is five, and, if so, what the fifth was? Thanks 86.162.52.248 (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Korean War under Clement Attlee? Pais (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or the Third Cod War under Harold Wilson? "War" is a bit of an exaggeration for that kerfuffle, though. Pais (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall that would add up to five, but I think they were referring to the period between 1997 and 2010, which is what has me stumped because I only remember the four listed above. And we didn't really go to war with Sierra Leone, I don't think. I always thought we just sent a few peacekeeping ttoops there, but I could be wrong. I suppose it depends on what is regarded as a war and what constitutes sending troops to war. 86.162.52.248 (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our list of wars involving Great Britain brings the total up to five by adding what it calls the Desert Fox War of 1998. Including a four-day bombing campaign in a list of wars strikes me as being a bit of a stretch, but I'm no military historian or international lawyer. --Antiquary (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"District Miss'y"

Can anyone tell me what the function of this position is within a church? I saw this role on a church sign in Phoenix Arizona and looked it up on Google, it seems to be a position for women within a church, but I couldn't find any details about its history or function. --Daniel 17:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It stands for District Missionary, but I don't know what that really means. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My guess it would be a kind of local outreach program (a job traditionally given to women in a lot of Christian sects). basically, this would be someone who either organizes other women or goes out herself to visit with parishioners who are new to the area, sick, bereaved, having difficulties, or possible just haven't been to church in a while. roughly the equivalent of having a neighbor who drops buy with a casserole to welcome you to the neighborhood or help you when things are going sideways. --Ludwigs2 19:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Walsgrave triangle,Coventry.

I am trying to find out how the Walsgrave Triangle in Coventry got it's name.Internet searches have failed to come up with an answer.Thank you for your time.92.21.222.13 (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason that "It's probably named after Walsgrave-on-Sowe" is a bad answer? Marnanel (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be just a coincidence but the triangular Walsgrave Triangle Industrial Estate is err.. well.. um... triangular.--Aspro (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your smart arse answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enzosdad (talk • contribs) 02:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to know what you were actually asking. Can you explain? Marnanel (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Walsgrave probably simply meant Wal's grove or a group of trees connected to someone called Wal. meltBanana 03:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The initial answers were not very kindly written. The area of Walsgrave on Sowe takes its name from the Old English wald + graf, meaning "grove in or near a forest". The River Sowe's name is pre-English and of unknown meaning. (citation: The Popular Dictionary of English Place-Names, A. D. Mills). The Walsgrave Triangle takes its name from Walsgrave (which is where it is), and its triangular shape. DuncanHill (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Duncan. It's near where I live and is now a triangular-shaped industrial estate. Very boring really. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find the laws governing public facilities like a city recreation center?

I would like to know which resources I should reference to get a better idea on the rules that govern my local recreation center in Texas, USA. They are recently promoting chiropractics. I figured there should be something to prevent public facilities to endorse non-science based medical treatments, otherwise things like fad diets, homeopathy, etc would find it exploiting such locations profitable. Should I be looking for rules/laws locally, state or federal level? Maybe I shouldn't bother because they are very different from public school regulations?

JimmyRuska (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on Texas law, but recreation centers are usually owned and run by cities or counties, so they would be in charge of the rules regarding the use of the facility. You should probably get in touch with your member of city council, mayor or county commissioner. However, note that the city/county might be limited in its ability to choose who gets to rent space out from the facility. There may be constitutional restrictions against discriminating against points of view. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're offering "free screenings", with pamphlets written like an advertisement at the front desk. They make no note chiropractors are not medical doctors and there's no evidence treatment does anything. The move seems to be done by the "health and wellness coordinator". I sent an email but probably to little effect. They just thanked me for my 'opinion' and briefly claimed their good intentions. JimmyRuska (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here[10]. Gx872op (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! 75.53.45.23 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 16

Source of citation

.To be or not to be. -- Shakespeare To do is to be. -- Nietzsche To be is to do. -- Sartre Do be do be do. -- Sinatra

The first and last are pretty easy. But are those in the middle real? If yes, where from? Quest09 (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The middle two are probably just made up for the purposes of the joke. I've seen the Sartre quote attributed to Kant as part of the same joke. —Kevin Myers 02:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The way to do is to be" is often ascribed to the Tao Te Ching and is in this interpretation (47.2). "To be is to do" seems to be a commonplace although this guy ascribes it to Plato in his Sophista with the equivalent greek but I can find it in no other translation. What is the actual source for the 4th one. meltBanana 04:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 4th is a reference to Sinatra's famous (or infamously bad) scat singing at the end of Strangers in the Night. —Kevin Myers 06:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Vision and Mission Statements?

Can anyone shed some light on the history of vision and mission statements? I'm curious how long they've been in widespread use. Did Henry Ford have one? How about the East Indian Company? Hudson Bay? Wikipedia's V&M page lacks any historical context. The Masked Booby (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google books does not provide any results of the use of "vision and mission" in a coorporate context prior to 1970. This is the earliest, but it does seem to use the terms in a context that implies familiarity with the term. However from the results I would think it was a term coined in the 20th century, probably in the later half, and thus none of the companies you mention in your question would have had vision and mission statements (I know for sure that the East Indian Company did not, but was not certain whether perhaps it was a term Ford himself could have coined). --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They've been around a long time in the form of general aims or aspirations, but in the sense of a formally worded and specifically named pair of utterances called "Vision Statement" and "Mission Statement", it seems to me they took off in the 1980s in the corporate world. Once there was a critical mass of them, it became unacceptable for an organisation not to have them - but typically the people who wrote them had no idea of the difference between a vision and a mission, and as often as not just wrote them off the top of their heads during a break between meetings, rather than consulting widely within the organisation to find out what anyone actually thought about where the joint was headed. They were rarely if ever given more than lip service, which is why they're now a lot less prevalent. Trends come and go. Like outsourcing. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The OED has four quotes for "mission statement". The first from 1967 is from Management Science journal but has an aviation or military context: "Particular stress is placed on the type of mission to be flown by an aircraft. Each respondent was given a mission statement." The second from 1972 uses the phrase in the modern sense in the field of education, refering to "'mission' statements" in college catalogues. The third, from 1986 uses it in a business context, but coming from a book called The IBM Way seems to refer to a practice that existed for some time previous in the company. "Vision statement" isn't in the OED.
So from that evidence they may have originated or first become popular in education in the late 60s or 70s, moving into business some time soon after. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Politics and war several in 1

How many times has each political party taken the UK to war? Which party has taken the UK to war the most? And which political party was in power for the majority of the Victorian Era? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom#Prime Ministers under Victoria (1837–1901) for political parties "in power" during the Victorian era.
As for "taken to war", you may need to define some parameters first. Do you start counting from the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801? Or would you look further back to, say 1541 or 1603? That said it is probably meaningless to look too far beyond the 18th century given the focus on political parties. But what about wars conducted by one of Britain's colonies or territories? Do the various invasions of Canada count as Britain going to war? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You will also need to decide what is "war". If you are looking for what is a war at law, then you'll need to stop after World War II and exclude, for example, the Korean War. An alternative is to look at what in common terms is regarded as a "war", which is similar to but may not be the same as what in international law is regarded as an "armed conflict". It may then become a little uncertain what is and isn't a "war", and you may find that a lot of minor conflicts in the 19th century for example suddenly looks a lot like a war in a modern sense. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what type/field of logic is used when thinking in...

chess, xiangqi, weiqi, maths, sudoku, iq tests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.218.69 (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every type of logic is used in maths. IQ tests are rather not precisely defined. You can call anything that you want an IQ test, so here any type of logic can also find an application. For mental games like chess, try combinatorics. 212.169.187.62 (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who originally said "good judgment comes from experience ... experience comes from bad judgment"?

Who originally said "good judgment comes from experience ... experience comes from bad judgment"? An Internet search turns up many hits of variants of that quote, attributed to different people. It's not clear who originally said/wrote it. Can someone help? --173.49.10.170 (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not new, as I first heard it decades ago. A "rebuttal" to it goes, "Experience means applying yesterday's answers to today's problems." Obviously, sometimes you can and sometimes you can't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will Rogers seems to be credited for it frequently, but no source is given. I have a book of Will Rogers quotes, complete with dates at least, but that specific quote is not in there. It is rather interesting, though, that the form attributed to Rogers is, "Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment." Notice it doesn't say that all experience comes from bad judgment. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=414257567"