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.
Which areas of the world (as in two countries or more) had a lot of wars between each other (rather than against non-state entities) after World War II? Besides the obvious U.S. and U.S.S.R. Cold War, I'm thinking of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which had wars in 1948-1949, 1967, and 1973, the India-Pakistan conflict (especially in regards to Kashmir), where there were wars in 1948, 1965, 1971, and 1999, and Iraq, which had a war with Iran in the 1980s, a war with the U.S. and other countries in 1990-1991, and another war with the U.S. (before Saddam's govt. got overthrown) in 2003. Are there any conflicts and countries that I'm missing? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The former Yugoslavia only had large-scale conflicts for about 10 years or so. I'm talking about a timeframe of at least 20 (but hopefully 30 or more) years. Futurist110 (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The Koreas have technically only had one war between each other, but officially it is still ongoing, though that may be included in your "Cold War" umbrella. China and Vietnam had a war in 1979 and went on to have some interesting quasi-wars during the 1980s. Chechnya may or may not be a state, depending on your point of view, and Russia has fought two wars over it. Libya has also fought several wars with Egypt and a few other nations of the Maghreb, though I'm afraid I'm much too lazy to look up all those right now. Evanh2008(talk|contribs)01:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Koreas are technically still at war with each other, but they only fought one real, actual war with each other in the early 1950s and that was it, in contrast to Israel/the Arab world, India/Pakistan, and Iraq/its neighbors and/or the United States. Futurist110 (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the war in Afghanistan started in 1979 and continues until today. However, unlike the other countries (which had either the same leadership throughout all these wars (Saddam) or democratic governments), the Afghan govt. in 1979 and the Afghan govt. in 2011 are not the same by any means. Futurist110 (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The war in Afghanistan that started in 1979 is not the same war that continues to this day, except in the most vague sense (which probably then would say that Afghanistan has been at war for nearly its entire modern history). 1979 was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan after a period of relative stability and peace. When the Soviets withdrew, the country remained in a state of civil war for some years. The Taliban eventually more or less "won" and again was a period of relative stability and peace. Then the US invaded in 2003, producing the current conditions of a US-supported Northern Alliance government posed against a Taliban. I wouldn't say these are all the same wars, even though Afghanistan has been more or less a war zone for quite a lot of this time (and again, technically, it has been a war zone for much longer than that, by that definition). --Mr.98 (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001, not 2003. Also, there was still a war in Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001, but it was generally in the northeastern corner of Afghanistan (where the Northern Alliance still controlled some territory). Other than that, I agree with your point and that's pretty much the point that I was trying to make. Futurist110 (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article at portuguese Wikipedia also has a second wife listed, but there are a lot of redlinks there. German Wikipedia has information on his son Manuel Antonio, [3] presumably that's where you got the information on Adriaan Von Gent. German Wikipedia also has info on another decendent [4]. I checked Dutch Wikipedia, but it has pretty much the same articles as German Wikipedia does. --Jayron3205:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The online genealogy are pretty detailed on those children, but I am actually specifically asking about Manuel's direct heir general which would be his granddaughter Isabel Maria's descendants, the Ghent/Gent family. GeneAll.net list four sons and five daughters but give no detail about the sons and Geneagraphie.com name only two daughters. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting lots of "Hompesches" following the links from Geneall, Wikipedia has only one article on a Hompesche, Ferdinand von Hompesch zu Bolheim. The Hompesche line runs out here, where it seems to pass through a daughter to the Freiherrs (barons) of Riedesel Freiherr zu Eisenbach, Wikipedia has an article on a Volprecht Riedesel Freiherr zu Eisenbach. None of this is firm, but following the links from your website, this is as far as I can get. --Jayron3206:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This source lists three daughters, two of whom had children (these are the two daughters listed at Geneagraphie). Apparently only Egerie-Adriana-Sibilla had grandchildren. --Cam (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source for use of "race" in U.S. ouside Census
Hello, I need a good source for the fact that the term "race" (when refering to humans, not dogs) is still widespread in the U.S.outside the U.S. Census. I'm talking of official documents, for example forms used in universities or similar institutions, where options for "race" might include "Caucasian", "African American", "Asian", "Hispanic", etc. (For those of you who speak German, the background of the question is here). --Neitram (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of institutions, one place where I have been asked many times what my "race" is are in hiring documents — it has to do with Equal opportunity employment reporting. (They are not allowed to use the data in making hires, and indeed, in many places that data is acquired by a totally different part of the organization making the hiring and is not shared with those who make hiring decisions.) Another unusual place to look are in adoption procedures — when adopting (and presumably when listing a child for adoption), you get to make race preferences, and indeed different fees are associated with different races (white babies cost more, basically — presumably because they are lower in supply and higher in demand). I thought this was somewhat amazing when I first heard of it, but it came from a reliable source (a very good friend of mine who recently adopted a child). --Mr.98 (talk) 13:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When applying for university, they'll typically have you check a box similar to that found of census forms (i.e. both a "are you Hispanic" question, and a "what race do you identify with" question. Buddy431 (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many US states have race on the driver license. Oddly, my North Carolina license application had a place for race, and the word "race" appeared on the license itself at the far right of the license, but my actual race was not given because there was no room at the right edge. Go figure. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In 2003, Connerly helped place Proposition 54 on the California ballot, which would prohibit the government from classifying any person by race, ethnicity, color, or national origin, with some exceptions, such as for medical research. Critics were concerned that such a measure would make it difficult to track housing discrimination and racial profiling activities. Editorials in newspapers such as the San Francisco Chronicle and Los Angeles Times criticized the measure, saying that the lack of such information would hamper legitimate medical and scientific purposes.[12] The voters did not pass the measure.
Right, as part of the aforementioned equal opportunity stuff. Most of the above are about tracking trends based on census categories so that you can show whether the fact that your employees diverge from the general population is a matter of who applies or a matter of systematic discrimination. The driver's license though is probably a matter of forensic identification: law enforcement (ideally) only uses "race" as a code for "here's how you can quickly know if this is plausibly the right guy or not." So when the law says that the suspect is an African-American, or a Caucasian, or whatever, he's not saying, we tracked his ancestry and have made a pedigree and a DNA analysis and so on, he's saying, look, you know more or less what I mean, in terms of what such people generally look like. (This practice has been criticized by some as highly problematic, promoted by others as pragmatic.) Separate from this are the needs of pollsters and survey makers (who may or may not be affiliated with the government) who just want to make sure that when they do a survey, they don't take for granted they are getting a representative slice of the population (something that comparison with census numbers, again, can be useful for). So there are lots of different usages going on here, not just one, and all of this is somewhat parallel and separate from generic social notions about race (which don't map cleanly onto the US Census categories). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your good responses. Unfortunately my discussion mate Klaus Frisch does not accept any of these as a source. I decided to give up aguing with him. --Neitram (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is propositional, formal, mathematical, etc., different to philosophical logic?
How is propositional, formal, mathematical, etc., different to philosophical logic. It is certainly different and if that is show it difference in form of arguments and how it is to be criticized if wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BT-7A (talk • contribs) 11:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The replies to your previous questions suggest that nobody here is able and willing to enter into the kinds of discussion you appear to want. If your question is not answered by Logic or related articles, then it may be that Wikipedia is not going to be able to help you. --ColinFine (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a mathematics degree, and studied formal logic at university. Both my brothers are university academics in other fields, with a firm grounding in philosophy, including philosophical logic of a non-mathematical character. And we find the domains intersect frequently. Propositional logic is a specific formalism, but the underlying principles of logic are not exclusive to mathematics. Conversely, philosophical logic can be described in mathematical terms. Your premise, therefore, is wrong. You have supplied a conclusion and demanded premises and evidence to demonstrate it. This shows me that you are unfamiliar with logic as practised by mathematicians, philosophers, scientists, or the man on the Clapham Omnibus. If you are unwilling to learn what is offered, you will never appreciate why your demands go unanswered. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The AF PX Spring Sale! Buy One, Get One Hundred Free! All-You-Can-Eat Sushi Bar!!!!! While Supplies Last!"
Since the early spring of 1942, the US had been decoding messages stating that there would soon be an operation at objective "AF." Commander Joseph J. Rochefort and his team at Station Hypo were able to confirm Midway as the target of the impending Japanese strike by having the base at Midway send a false message stating that its water distillation plant had been damaged and that the base needed fresh water. The Japanese intercepted this and soon started sending messages that "AF was short on water."
Why did the Japanese encode an intercepted plain text message? I mean if you have intercepted a plain text message, the original sender already have known that this message is out there for everyone to hear. There is no need to keep it a secret. Re-encode this message only provides your enemy highly valuable study material.
It doesn't say they encoded a plain text message. It says that they intercepted the message, and they then no doubt passed this "useful intelligence" among themselves, in their usual manner.
If they resend the intercepted message to their HQ in Japanese or English plain text with "Midway" replaced by their code word "AF", it's extremely stupid because they have given the U.S. a part of their secret language.
If I understand cipher correctly, there are at least two layers of coding. The first is to replace your written language into some sort of mumbo jumbo. For example, you may replace all instances of "ice cream" into "frog pie" or "watery venus ruler". The text is still readable by humans, they just don't under what you mean. Then you encrypt your message using a machine. The encoded message is now not readable.
It sounds to me that the U.S. had deciphered the secret code but could not figure out what "AF" mean. They released a plain text message from Midway. Then they intercepted a coded message which, after decoding, turned out to contain "AF" in it.
This is quite unimaginable to me. I don't think anyone who knows how to operate a military intelligence system can be so stupid to let his operators encrypt ALL MESSAGES to the point that his enemies can use them to generate test output so easily.
Suzuki: "Kato san, I just learned they have opened a new sushi bar on Midway Island!"
Kato: "That's great!"
Suzuki: "Let's pass this wonderful news to the HQ!"
Kato: "And don't forget to use the word 'AF'!!!!!"
It looks like they are sending out grocery store flyers to attract unsuspicious Japanese customers to me. Intelligence people are not supposed to take a bite so easily.
Well, the person who decided to send the message was probably not a cryptologist, so it's an easy mistake to make for a layman. Another famous example of Japanese incompetence in the field is when they sent the declaration of war to the Japanese ambassador to the US, with orders to present it just prior to the attack. They sent it both in code and marked "for the ambassador's eyes only", which meant the ambassador had to learn how to decode it himself. They failed to allow time for this, and thus their declaration of war was late, which was a great propaganda blow, as they would forever be remembered for a "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor. StuRat (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Pearl Harbor decoding fiasco is another weird story to me. Sometimes, TOP TOP TOP SECRETS are just broadcast around the world so everyone can hear. A message can be read by a soft-spoken lady over shortwave radio: "34 74 90 48 09 23 54 ...." No one knows who was the listener. The message could be from Tokyo but the message could be heard in Moscow or Singapore. Just about everyone who has a receiver can get the message. Then only the Japanese ambassador has the one-time pad to decode the message. This kind of secret code can be decoded in minutes.
I think the message was received and typed by a radio operator in the Japanese embassy. He did this job all day long not knowing which message goes to whom. And probably more than 90% of the messages were for other unrelated diplomatic or military units. Another officer picked up messages for this embassy and one of them was marked "FOR THE AMBASSADOR'S EYES ONLY".
The ambassador took the message to his top secret room where the one-time pad is stored and decode the message. It won't take very long to decode the full text. You don't need to be a math guy. You just need to look up the one-time table.
There's still some learning curve. For example, is the current code just written on a page of the code book with today's date on it, or is it more complicated than that ? StuRat (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consider that sending the info along uncoded is also a problem, as then the US, who they presumed didn't know about their plan to attack Midway, would wonder why there was so much interest in a seemingly minor detail at Midway, which would only be significant if it was about to be attacked and thus cut off from resupply. StuRat (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These listening post operator must have been trained and trustworthy people to access military secrets. I really don't think the Japanese forces could have been so unwise to train their people to encode plain text messages. On the other hand, many listening posts are created to pass all intercepted information all the way up. They don't review and filter information. However, they select the proper channel to transfer each piece of information. You only use your best encryption system to send top secret messages. -- Toytoy (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still say that the number of people who know a code is greater than the number of trained cryptologists. As such, they may have thought the code was unbreakable (particularly if they were unfamiliar with computer decryption). And, if it was unbreakable, then sending all messages in that code would make sense. StuRat (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the intelligence business, you assume ALL YOUR ciphers are broken and EVERYONE in your country could be a God-damn @#$% traitor. Then you use creative and inhuman ways to mitigate damages. -- Toytoy (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The screw-up, such as it was, is that the Japanese cryptologists hadn't caught on that the US had caught on that the Japanese had broken a US code (wow, confusing!). "Midway's water generator is broken" wasn't sent in the clear, but rather in a US code that was known to be broken over transmission media that were known to be interceptable (I forget if over air or via tapped telegraph line). The Japanese cryptanalysis group then retransmitted that info, but not as a straight retransmission (if nothing else, swapping "AF" for "Midway", but also language translation, vagaries of word choice and grammar, etc). And even by the now-primitive standards of 1940s cryptography, encoding a subtly different plaintext message didn't provide additional value to a codebreaker. The Japanese did understand code compartmentalization (see Japanese naval codes, which discuss diplomatic vs military vs merchant), but there weren't all that many usable ones (nor are there today, really), and virtually all of them were broken at that point. Certainly you don't pick a code that is "less secure" for less important information; you pick the best code you've got. And that loops back to the main screw-up by the Japanese -- they didn't properly account for why the Americans were using a less-secure code. — Lomn14:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For a similar but subtly different concept, see gardening (cryptanalysis) - it was practical to make carefully planned actions in order to provoke a message with predictable elements of content, such as specific coordinates or codenames. Weather reports were often used for this as well - very pro-forma content, and often the complete text could be more or less predicted in advance. The goal here was to use it for breaking as yet unknown ciphers, but the same system also works for identifying codenames in broken ones, as at Midway. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Canonical Works of Literature
Who decides which works are admitted to the canon of a particular culture? And how are those decisions made.
ie. the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art: the neoclassical canon.
You seem to think that there's a formal process. I suppose, in the case of school boards setting curricula, there might be, but, in general, it's up to what individuals choose to read or ignore. This can change over time as tastes change. For example, Huckleberry Finn may lose popularity because of the name of the character "Nigger Jim". StuRat (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there will ever be a backlash over Nigger Jim, it hasn't happened yet. So far, public opinion of the text has been improving over time. Initially, Huckleberry Finn was tremendously unpopular in the South for its sympathetic treatment of blacks, and unsympathetic treatment of slavery and racism. Today, it's possible that the language (including the offending name) will be seen as archaic or distasteful, which might make it difficult for some to read. This wouldn't necessarily remove it from canon. On the other hand, if the U.S. gave up on Civil rights and re-instituted slavery, subsequent public view of Huckleberry might be weaker and the book could fall out of canon.--Robert Keiden (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no single canon. There are, however, books that most educated people have read at some point in their lives. These sorts of things are largely determined by what sorts of books are assigned in places of education. Most Americans who have finished high school and college have probably read Hamlet, for example. (I myself was assigned to read it at least twice.) Over the years, the commonly-assigned books certainly change. I was assigned to read Invisible Man, for example, and not Moby Dick, whereas I imagine that thirty or forty years ago the latter would have been required reading and the former not. In terms of what books are included, there is no single formal process, but there are multitudes of general trends as to which books educators find "work well" with different ages and feel are important for educated people to have read. There are also issues of appropriateness — Ulysses is frequently ranked as one of the most important or best novels in the English language, but its difficulty for a reader, along with its explicit sexual content, mean it is unlikely to show up on all but the most challenging and insulated high school reading lists. (And despite its high praise, I suspect most educated people have not read it, though they probably have heard of it.) In prior eras you can find similar things at work, but it does usually fall back on formal educational systems. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea what USATEMCOM is or was? I've run across the term in a document from 1965: a manufacturing company in the USA (Indiana) was trying to contact them, and from the context I'm guessing that they were trying to become USATEMCOM's supplier for whatever they manufactured. A "Major General Turner" was involved, so it may well have been something in the US military. Google gives me just 20 results when I search for USATEMCOM, and they're all Portuguese pages where Google separated out the word to <USA tem com>. 2001:18E8:2:1020:B1B9:4E32:3CE8:AB45 (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the "USA" obviously refers to the United States of America. The "COM" typically means "command", in a military sense. The "TEM" could possibly mean temporary. Given the date, during the Vietnam War, I would guess this was a temporary command post set up for command and control of that war. StuRat (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most COMs use "US", not "USA" in their acronym. I've never heard of a temporary command with an acronym — by definition, the things with acronyms are usually established to one degree or another. That they would be dealing directly with a manufacturer like that seems unlikely. I don't think that's it. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Major General Carl C. Turner was the United States Army Provost Marshal General from 1964-1968, which seems like a pretty good match and a possibility. (As an aside, in 1971 he was sentenced to three years in jail for soliciting 136 firearms from the Chicago police department and keeping them for his own use.) I ran the acronym and variations of it through quite a few search engines (including military tech reports and Congressional reports/hearings) and came up with nothing. There was a company called Temcom, Inc., that made various aerospace/rocket sensors and things for the military and NASA, but all references I've found to them date at the earliest from the early 1980s. Knowing which company it was might help narrow it down in terms of what industry they worked in (e.g. electronics, versus metalworking, versus other things). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I looked back at the document in question (it's regarding a letter to Birch Bayh's office; I work in the archives that has Bayh's papers) and can tell you very little. The sender is Grote Manufacturing of Madison, Indiana, but they don't specify what they're trying to sell. The document is a carbon of a letter from Bayh's office to the company responding to a letter that they sent to Bayh, which I can't find. I just noticed that the Byah staffer typed "US ARMY" on the top of the carbon; I'm sorry that I missed that earlier. This is everything I know about this document. 2001:18E8:2:1020:B1B9:4E32:3CE8:AB45 (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Grote has been in business since 1901 [1], making automobile products since the 1920s, and have been focused on "high end" auto safety since ~ the 1930s. Whatever they wanted to sell was probably connected to transport. I wonder if USATEMCOM could be some misformation of TACOM (USATACOM?) In 1965 they could have been the responsible party for auto-related acquisitions (while in a state of major reorganizational overhaul [7].) The acronym could simply be wrong (Bayh's or Grote's mistake, or both). --Robert Keiden (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this is an architecture question. I'm trying to describe something in my screenplay and was wondering how I should refer to something. Typically, at any strip mall, at least in the US (I'm picturing a Wegmans), there's a sidewalk with a roof over it that is connected to the storefronts. The roof is supported on the other side by columns that go down the strip mall. Is there a word for this type of roofed sidewalk? Is there a word for this type of roof? Thanks! 129.3.184.139 (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I name them only as "covered sidewalks" because "loggia" seems a much too fanciful a term when compared with some of the classic ones. However, I think "loggia" is correct, in English and Italian, as the article linked above shows. Bielle (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think your first instinct was right. Calling it a loggia will likely lose many in a US audience. A "covered walkway" is the variant I would choose. You might also want to include a pic to illustrate exactly what you mean, as it could be covered in many ways, all the way down to a canopy. StuRat (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Natively, the southern hemisphere colonial-influenced architectural examples you mention are called "verandahs", but they would normally be understood to be attached to each individual building, rather than a long arcade / loggia that would, for example, run down the whole block of buildings. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Political parties of Israel mizrahi sephardi reform conservative non-zionism
Is there any political parties that advocates Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews who are Reform and Conservative Jews? Also, which political parties are non-zionist?
Wikipedia has an article titled Politics of Israel. If you have any further questions about any other countries, you can always answer them by reading Wikipedia articles titled "Politics of Whatever" where "Whatever" is the name of the country you are interested in. From those articles, you can follow links to individual articles about each party and find out what their positions are on various issues. --Jayron3216:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that answer was a bit unhelpful. The answer to the OP question is by no means self-evident by a quick reading of that article. --Soman (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't by a quick reading. Which is why there are links in articles which can be followed to find more articles. For example, one can find a link to the article titled Likud, which is an Israeli political party. That article explains the ideology of that party in some detail. The Politics of Israel article has further links to all of the other parties. Clicking on each link in turn will give a person access to the same information for each party. --Jayron3216:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The terms "Reform" and "Conservative" refer to streams of synagogue-based Judaism that don't exist as religious affiliations in Israel. What correspondence there may be with the synagogue-based Progressive Judaism movement in Israel has no necessary correlation to any political party, nor to the Sephardic or Mizrachi-identified populations. Israeli Jews who are halacha-observant and affiliate with an orthodox or Haredi (so-called ultra-Orthodox) community, are highly likely to support its associated political party. This helps ensure government support in terms of funding and legislation for their educational and welfare requirements, and seeking the imposition of halachic law upon all Jews in the country (e.g. marriage and burial) and in some spheres, all inhabitants (e.g. restricted public transportation on Shabbat). Israel's non-halacha-observant Jews, known as "secular" (Hebrew: חילוני, hiloni, m.pl. hilonim), are likely to vote for parties according to platform planks on national security and socioeconomic issues. Some parties (e.g. Meretz) campaign for pluralism and against "religious coercion" (i.e. imposition of halachic restrictions and requirements upon the secular and non-Jewish populations), as do some politicians (e.g. the late Josef "Tomy" Lapid) from more centrist parties. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In a word: no. Shas is not conservative (with-a-capital-C) in the Jewish-religion sense: it's Sephardic Haredi, which is fundamentalist, advised by its spiritual leader, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. Neither in the political sense: it's a large minority party whose platform is to support its mainly Mizrachi (Haredi or traditional) constituents' interests. To which end it enters into the government coalition led by a (larger minority) mainstream party, conditional upon receiving government ministries* and choice committee spots. This gives Shas the power to set policies within existing legislative frameworks, including influential budget allocations. *To appreciate this, note that the Interior Ministry in Israel, usually a top Shas demand, isn't about federal lands and natural resources like the U.S. DOI.-- Deborahjay (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about the small but important difference. Though i must point out that MOI's around the world are similar and unlike that of the DOI in the US.Lihaas (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either the Calendar is wrong or the Clock is. It's that simple.
There are 12 months in the year. There are 12 hours on a twelve hour clock.
Are these the undisputed indisputable facts? Are you with me so far? Now. Now. Take the apocalyptic year, 2012. And take an apocalyptic morning, let's say tomorrow morning. Let me claim that there is no way I will survive tomorrow morning.
At what point can I know for a fact that I was wrong. That, despite the unrelished meetings, I did survive? If the claim is that I will not survive tomorrow morning, I will know I am wrong at... (think of a time.)
Now if the claim is that we will not survive 2012, that claim can be falsified at..?
Okay. Your two answers were: 12:00 noon. That's when I know I was wrong. I survived the morning. 1-1-13. That's when we know we survived 2012. Do you see a bit of a discrepency here? Let's go back to the indisputable undisputed facts. There are 12 months in the year. There are 12 hours in the A.M. and 12 hours in the P.M. Yet after the last day of the 12th month it's the FIRST month and after the last minute of the ELEVENTH hour (not twelfth) it's the FIRST hour.
12 and 12. Twelve months. Twelve hours each in the a.m. and pm. No "zero o'clock" or "0/1/2013" on either one. Oh shit. I kind of fucked up here in my thinking in that, er, there is a minute 0 but there is no day 0. I guess I may be quite wrong here. But the hours - the hours - if you will excuse this little derailment.
while the months go
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ,8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1-AND-SWITCH, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 , 12, 1-AND-SWITCH
"january 1st" has the same mental feeling as "12:01 am". but one has a 1 (january) and one has a 12 (noon and midnight).
Either the Calendar is wrong or the Clock is.
logically the 1 o'clock should be at the top of the clock, just like January is the first page of the calendar. I rest my case, your honorables. I argued it as well as I could. I even kind of foreshadowed with "undisputed" and "indesputable" where the i and the u are different, having one or two legs respectively like the one or two digits of 1 and 12. but this is secondary to the blinding logic displayed previously.
I am demonstrating and inconsistency. Mathematically, would it be possible to define two kinds of 7's instead of a nine, written identically but differing in value (one having the value previously known as "8" which now has the value previously known as "9" - a figure that no longer exists)? Of course. We could count: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8 - with the two sevens having two different values, like a capital i versus lowercase l (identical in some fonts). But that's stupid. "How much is it? It's $7. "You mean $7 as in '5, 6, 7' or 7 as in '7, 8, 10'?" "Uh, the big seven." "Oh okay. So almost $8." "Right, almost $8. What used to be called $9." "I came for some groceries, not a history lesson" "Sorry." So you see, we could easily count, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 17, 18, 20. and so on. But we don't. Because it's stupid.
80.98.245.172 -- The clock uses modulo 12 arithmetic (see modulo arithmetic), except where "0" would occur as the name of an hour "12" is used instead. The fact is that hour numbering systems (originally "6th hour of the day" means noon etc.) were invented before the concept of mathematical 0 was commonly known in Eurasian cultures.. AnonMoos (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos: Exactly. And so does the calendar, except where a "0" would occur as the number of the month, "12" is used instead. So if it's both "modulo-12" arithmetic, why does one flip at 12 and one flip at 1? Or, are you saying that "the calendar uses modulo 12 arithmetic, except where "0" would occcur as the number of the month 1 is used instead, whereas on the clock where 0 would occur as the number of the hour, 12 is used instead? Which do you think is more natural? 80.98.245.172 (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using 1 for 0 makes more sense to me, because it derives from how we would talk. Think of how years are presented in a super-pretentious manner: The 2012th year of the Lord. By that standard, year 1 is "The 1st year of the Lord". It just makes sense. But looking at the history of counting the hour, it becomes obvious why the first hour would be a 12 and not a 1 or 0, and its simply because the clock is drawn as a circle. You start the day in the 0th hour and progress to 1, on and on to 12 (or in older systems, 24). Then it starts over. But when you look at the time during the 0th hour, the dial will be next to a 12. Is that why it's called 12 O'clock? I dunno. But I can see that connection being made for clocks, as opposed to months, which have names rather than numbers, and are not typically measured on a circle (I can confess however, to once finding an 18th century clock that did have a month dial). Someguy1221 (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Both the calandar and the clock derive from Babylonian times, this is covered some in the article Duodecimal which covers the use of base-12 systems in horology (the study of timekeeping) as deriving from Babylonian. The rest of your post sounds like amateur numerology which is akin to astrology and horoscopes in terms of a reliable field of study. So to give you a short answer, the fact that the number 12 shows up in various methods of time keeping (both hours and months) is because it derives from the base-12 numbering system in use in the Ancient Middle East. The "2012 is the end of the world" bit comes from a particular interpretation of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar, which resets on December 21, 2012. There's nothing particularly notable about rolling over the Long Count calendar, it has happened 12 times in the past and nothing much happened on those dates. --Jayron3218:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User Jayron32, you seem not to have taken the time to get the meaning. Please raise your left hand to turn from AM to PM and vice versa as I count. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... Okay. Now I am counting months. Please raise your left hand when we reach a new year. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5....
So you see, actually even though I gave you the same list, which is a 12-cycle, you are choosing two different points to roll over on. Does this make sense to you? That when we turn from 11 to 12 we go from am to pm or the end of the day in the case of midnight, whereas when we go not from 11th to the 12th month, but the 12th to the 1st we change years? Does this make sense to you? This kind of off-by-one error would make sense if the two things were divided in an off-by-one way, like there's 11 months but 12 hours or 12 of one, 13 of the other, or 10 and 11. But dividing into 12 in both cases, this does not make sense. I understand that it's historical. I'm asking from a usability perspective.
Also, I have a qualm about the fact that people say we use the base-ten number system due to having ten fingers. In fact we only name 9 of the 10 digits. (Which is why ten takes two digits). If I count from my right pinkie in, I can only give 9 of the fingers digit-names; the tenth finger has no name, and is supposed to represent a roll-over. We should be using base-11, so that we can count from 0 to 10, and then roll over to 1-0 when we run out of fingers. 80.98.245.172 (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it doesn't work that way. Good luck getting the small group of people known as "everyone else" to adopt your system. As AndytheGrump already notes, there is an arbitrariness built into the system. Arbitrary systems are by definition inconsistent. They don't change merely because they are inconsisent. It is what it is. If you want to invent your own personal clocks and calandars and eleven fingered hands, be our guest. But don't expect the whole world to suddenly wake up one morning and agree that your system is somehow "better". --Jayron3219:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jayron. Thanks for taking the time to see what I'm talking about. Actually, I don't want to change anything. I would just like to hear some arguments about (for example if we were starting ab ovo) which one "would be" better. Which one makes more sense all other things being equal. I think it's quite weird to change AM-PM at a different time from changing from 12 to roll around to 1. Don't you agree? If high noon is when we get to pm, wouldn't have putting high noon at 12:59 plus one have kind of made more sense? In this case the clock would be slightly rotated for 1 on top. Thanks for your ideas. I realize this is a bit pedantic. 80.98.245.172 (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But not in a good way. When the time is 1 o'clock, that means the first hour past noon/midnight has just ended. It doesn't mean it's just starting. The first hour starts on the stroke of noon/midnight, but doesn't end till an hour later. It's like it takes a whole year for a baby to become 1 year old. It enters its first year of life the moment it's born, but the number 1 doesn't get to be associated with it till it's finished its first year.
The calendar is differently organised. It becomes the first month (January) immediately the 12th one (December) ends. We don't have to wait till January is completed before we start calling it January. The moment we turn the page, we're on the January page. Same with the days of the month. The 1st day starts immediately the last one of the previous month ended. The moment we turn the page, we're on the "1st of the month" page. The first hour of the first day starts at that point, too, but we have culturally agreed to recognise it only at the end of the hour in our timekeeping language. Some other languages may have a completely different way of telling the time, where they talk about "7 minutes of the first hour" to mean what we call 12:07. It's a language issue, not a logic or science issue. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn]20:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if we are going to be pedantic, it's worth noting that trying to make the system less arbitrary (or at least, easier to work with) has been tried before - in post revolutionary France, where decimal time was introduced, along with a decimal calender - though the latter named the first day of each ten-day week primidi which still leaves the problem the OP notes. The system didn't really catch on - possibly because the Republic didn't have the power to fix the rather fundamental problem that 365-and-a-bit isn't a power of ten. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with either system, just a different conventional way of assigning numbers to periods of time (as stated above). More peculiar if the fact that there was no year zero in our date system (the year after 1 BC was 1 AD, but even this is logical if you think of it as first year before and first year after). Mathematicians cannot agree on whether to start the natural numbers at 0 or 1. Dbfirs20:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I think "the year after 1 BC was 1 AD" is a wonderfully wrong-headed view of history. As Vicki Pollard would say, "Yes, but no, but yes, but no". First, they created a new era, starting with the supposed birth year of Jesus. Pages of a book, months of the year, fingers of your hand, notches on your bedhead etc all use the natural numbers, starting with 1. It would have made no sense to start the Christian Era with any number than 1. Later, they dreamt up the "BC" (latterly "BCE") thing to refer to the years before Jesus's birth. Likewise, it would have made no sense to start the BC Era with any number than 1. The AD series and the BC series are both perfectly fine in their own right. The only problem is that they're not easily amenable to a mathematical view of history, which demands an unbroken arithmetic series. That does not make it "peculiar" that there is no Year 0 in our system. It would have been extremely peculiar if there had been. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn]21:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Later thought: Look what happened when the Gregorian Calendar was introduced in 1582. Thursday 4 October (Julian) was immediately followed by Friday 15 October (Gregorian). The Gregorian calendar was not retrospective, so there's a 10-day discontinuity in the series of dates where the Julian interfaces with the Gregorian. I've never heard anyone who says it's peculiar that there's no Year 0, say that it's peculiar there are no such dates as 5 through 14 October 1582. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn]03:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose it's only "peculiar" to a mathematician who thinks of BC numbers as negative integers, and to astronomers who really do use a 0 (year). I wasn't criticising historians (or Bede) for the use of "first year after" and "first year before" which, as I wrote above, is equally logical. It all depends on the original meaning of the numbers that we now use. I agree that the "missing days" are even more peculiar, and the idea was rejected both by some governments and by many of the general public at the time. Dbfirs06:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a consequence of the fact that dates are specified within a period (month, or year), while times are specified relative to a point of time. There is nothing fundamental about these choices: the Roman calendar specified dates relative to a point (a day) rather than within a month. --ColinFine (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing that the OP hasn't noticed is that the numbering of the month's is also quite arbitrary. The new year used to fall on the spring equinox. Starting the year on 1 January has only been going on for about the last 400 years - Gregorian calendar#Beginning of the year has some more information. If you really want to experience some freakyness with dates and time, you should travel across the international date line and have the same date again or end up wondering what happened to Monday (depending on which direction you cross). Astronaut (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the reckoning of time you first need to do two things:
divide the time into intervals of more or less equal lenght and then subdivide them into shorter intervals, thus creating a hierarchy of intervals from very short to very long (seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years, centuries, eras, eons, etc.);
pick an arbitrary starting point in time from which you will count the intervals.
Now, there are generally two ways to do the reckoning:
telling how many full intervals have passed since the starting point;
or telling in which interval, counting from the starting point, we are now.
Example of the first method: when you say it's 1:05 a.m., you mean that 1 full hour and 5 full minutes have passed since the last midnight. Let's call it the clock method.
Example of the other method: when you say it's 19 September 2012, you mean that we are in the 20th day of the ninth month of the 2012th year since the beginning of the Common Era. It is, of course, the calendar method.
It doesn't mean that we could not reverse the scheme. We might use the calendar method for telling the time of the day and instead of saying it's 1:05 a.m., we could say it's the 6th minute of the second hour of the day (06.02). We could also use the clock method for dates, e.g. today is 2011 years, eight months, and 18 full days since the beginning of the Common Era (2011:08:18). But we don't, because the commonly accepted convention is to use the clock method for the clock and the calendar method for the calendar.
One more thing: there's no interval zero in either of these methods. In the clock method, 00:01 means that only one full minute has passed since midnight and we're at the beginning of the first hour of the day. In the calendar method, the first year of the Common Era is AD 1; the first year of the second century of the Common Era is AD 101; and the first year of the third millenium is AD 2001. It's no rocket science, just simple arithmetics. — Kpalion(talk)23:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
famous & mean book reviews
Howdy. English doesn't seem to have an equivalent to German Verriss (dict.leo suggests scorcher/scorching review or slating (review), but basically it means a mean takedown of a piece of art, specifically a devastating book review. Anyway, this is what I am looking for: withering, mean, even evil, but also hilarious reviews which are famous/legendary works of literature in their own right. My favorites so far include Clive James' 1978 review of Brezhnev: A Short Biography and Dwight MacDonald's 1958 By Cozzens Possessed, which effectively destroyed Cozzen's reputation as a writer. Might make a nice anthology, looking forward to suggestions: --Janneman (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hanslick's is one of hundreds of bad reviews of music contained in The Lexicon of Musical Invective by Nicolas Slonimsky, described as "a compilation of hilariously bad reviews by critics of composers since Beethoven's time." -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn]21:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having just read Clive James' and Mark Twain's superlative examples of the art of murder by review, I have to wonder what either would have had to say about Wikipedia's prose - I suspect that it might be painful to read. Meanwhile, I'll add "Eschew surplusage" to my list of obnoxious but necessary edit summaries. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Diana Rigg, the actress, once assembled a collection of devastatingly-hostile theatre reviews called No Turn Unstoned (1982, bibliographic information at the Wikipedia article). While I've glanced briefly at this book in a bookstore, I've neither acquired, borrowed or read it. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have adored Clive James' reviews ever since, as a teenager, I read a piece in (I think) The Sunday Times in which he described a recent Christmas TV special thus: Demis Roussos looked and sounded like a sack of rubbish being attacked by rats. Oh, to find a copy again. I have read more than once about an infamous review of a theatre revue called A Good Time, which simply read: "No." but a source escapes me so far. - Karenjc20:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly we dont have a page for this, but does anyone know the size of the hall? How many delegations sit in each row? How many rows? And what is at the back where the non-member state entities sit (Like Palestine)Lihaas (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The General Assembly building holds the General Assembly Hall which has a seating capacity of 1,800. At 165 ft (50 m) long by 115 ft (35 m) wide, it is the largest room in the complex. The Hall has two murals by the French artist Fernand Léger. At the front of the chamber, is the rostrum containing the green marble desk for the President of the General Assembly, Secretary-General and Under-Secretary-General for General Assembly Affairs and Conference Services and matching lectern for speakers.[8] Behind the rostrum is the UN emblem on a gold background.[26] Flanking the rostrum is a paneled semi-circular wall that tapers as it nears the ceiling and surrounds the front portion of the chamber. In front of the paneled walls are seating areas for guests and within the wall are windows which allow translators to watch the proceedings as they work. The ceiling of the hall is 75 ft (23 m) high and surmounted by a shallow dome ringed by recessed light fixtures. The General Assembly Hall was last altered in 1980 when capacity was increased to accommodate the increased membership. Each of the 192 delegations has six seats in the hall with three at a desk and three alternate seats behind them.[8]
Well, since the back of the Assembly chamber seems wider than the front (opening out like a fan from the rostrum), rather than the same width (like a cylindrical aeroplane/airplane), I don't think there's a uniform number of delegations per row. You'd really have to look at the actual seating plan, probably best obtained by asking the UN's Department of Public Information directly if you can't physically visit the UN and take the tour. Otherwise, examine a good, detailed, recent photograph or photographs of a General Assembly session. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody help me make out the exact wordings in this image? And if anybody know who may have been the artist (there is a name in the words but I have idea who he is or if he was the artist)? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The top line says Honolulu, Oahu, Nov. 1840. J D. Dana from shipboard. The bottom line is more difficult, but possibly says XXXX Exploring Exhibit --- my best guess is Milken Exploring Exhibit, but that's a wild guess. The artist is James Dwight Dana -- I have added a picture of his signature here so you can compare. Looie496 (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dewey Defeats Truman is infamous (and more than just the Chicago Tribune) but were these ever officially retracted by the papers and if so when? As much as I have heard about these no commentator has ever mentioned an official retraction, was it just an oversight? Thanks. Also references/citations would be helpful (I couldn't find any or any reference to any). Marketdiamond (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an educated guess, but I'm assuming Yes since no newspaper would want to have its reputation ruined by refusing to correct obviously false news. Futurist110 (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't guess or assume our answers here. There's a difference between telling the real story in the next edition (an implicit acknowledgment they got it wrong) and saying explicitly "We were wrong". No way of knowing which of these happened, without looking at the actual newspapers. Medeis's link is the place to visit. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn]07:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is yes: Never again, we hope. The November 4th edition of the tribune included that along with 20 other articles about Truman's victory or tangentially related issues. I can't read the article itself as it's behind a paywall. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Addendum: It's interesting to me that although the announcement of Truman's victory was on the front page on the 4th, the paper's mea culpa was shoved back to page 22. I can't read the articles on the front page either, so I don't know if they mention the mistake. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does make a certain amount of sense that the correction/retraction was back on page 22. Corrections are often pushed back in the later pages. Dismas|(talk)08:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably be added to the article. Somewhere it should also note that there was another major error on the page — one of the paragraphs of the "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" story was printed upside down, if I recall, a nice sign of the rushed state of things. (There is a copy of the paper on display at the Newseum.) --Mr.98 (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Public and private Campaign financing
In most countries, political campaigns are financed by a mixture of public and private funds. Is there any countries with purely publicly funded campaigns? Or purely privately funded campaigns? A8875 (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the U.S. at the federal level, the amount of "public funding" of campaigns is such a pittance compared to private funding, it might as well not exist. It basically amounts to pissing in the ocean. There are also stipulations which a candidate has to follow to voluntarily accept the public funds. Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States#Public_financing_of_presidential_campaigns has some information. During the current election cycle, neither candidate has accepted the funds, as they can raise so much more money if they refuse them. There is literally no incentive anymore (especially in the post-Citizens United world) to accept the public money. At the state and local level, there are a smattering of "Clean Elections" movements attempting to pressure candidates into a fully-publicly funded campaign. Everyone kinda laughs at this and goes about wiping their asses with the huge volumes of cash they get from donors. --Jayron3205:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have overlapping articles called campaign finance and political finance (they have merge tags) - some of the sources sound like they might be promising. Political finance claims that India and Switzerland have no public funding, and gives Sweden, Germany, Israel, and Japan as examples of countries that have particularly generous public funding, but at least Germany and Japan also have private funding (I assume Sweden and Israel do too). I would imagine some one-party states could be considered to be examples of countries without private funding. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish Holy Sites in an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Treaty
Has there been any agreement between the two sides over who will get permanent control and sovereignty over Jewish holy sites outside of Jerusalem (such as the Cave of the Patriarchs) in previous Middle East peace negotiations? Also, have there been any speculation in the news as to how a peace treaty will affect these sites? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the issue of many holy sites is for final status negotiations. For example, in regards to the Cave of the Patriarchs, negotiations haven't given a final decision, BUT negotiations have created temporary agreements. Since 1996, under the Wye River memorandum, Israel and the Palestinian Authority agreed to divide access to the Cave of the Patriarchs. Under this agreement, Muslims are granted access to 81% of the Cave of the Patriarchs; Jews are granted access to 19% of the Cave of the Patriarchs. However, for ten days each year, Jews have access to the full site (these 10 days have special significance in Judaism; the source below does not say when they are but perhaps they are the Ten Days of Repentance). What will happen in the future is open for final negotiations.
(EC) It's likely that many types of shark might do such a thing as is described in that link. The story merely says that the shark investigated the man's craft and then moved off, the man decided to follow it and saw a fishing boat that the shark was heading for, and the fishermen rescued him.
Sharks often investigate floating objects to see whether or not they're edible - evidently it decided that the man's boat was not. Sharks often smell or otherwise sense the activities of fishing boats, and head for them to see if any discarded or injured fish are in the water. This shark evidently did first one, then the other: there's nothing in the story to suggest the shark was deliberately choosing to help the man (of whom it was probably unaware) in the boat, and almost certainly sharks do not have sufficient mental capacity to be able to make such decisions.
People lost at sea often follow sea creatures or birds in the hope that they'll be heading for another boat, or land: Christopher Columbus is reputed to have done so on his first Atlantic crossing, thus finding the Americas. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. In an earlier article on the same incident, which I can't find now, I got the impression that the saved man was attributing the event to a deliberate action on the part of the shark. Or maybe I got that impression from a headline added by an editor. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have know for quite some time about the ring of forts that surround Paris (see Category:Fortifications of Paris). They are quite substantial looking forts about a mile or so apart and easily noticable once you know what to look for on a map. Anyway, I've just noticed a similar ring of forts around Antwerp and that got me wondering... how common was this kind of thing: building a ring of forts around a city? And is it just in European? Astronaut (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of strategy was used prior to WW2, when it became clear that a defensive line was of little defensive value, since the enemy could destroy it with artillery, bypass it with paratroopers, etc. Modern defenses depend more on rapid response (aircraft, tanks, etc.) to any incursion. StuRat (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These forts are called Polygonal forts and the idea of placing them in an extended ring really got going in the 1850s and was known as the Prussian System (it's not mentioned in our article which is a bit lacking in some respects). The previous idea was a continuous wall strengthened by strong points called bastions, which is covered in our Star fort article. Paris was actually the last gasp of this concept, where they built the immense Thiers wall, 33km long with 93 bastions. It was completed in 1844, but by that time, the range of artillery had improved so much that it was possible to sit outside the walls and bombard the centre of Paris with impunity. The Prussian System was basically a line of forts which were really bastions without any connecting wall - the ground between was made impassable by cross-fire from the individual forts. The first major system was at Poznań Fortress. Other similar systems were built all over Europe, Liege and Verdun are two more famous examples. The best British example is at Portsmouth, where the forts were called Palmerston Follies. See also Fortifications of Paris in the 19th and 20th centuries which describes the first ring of forts built 1840-44 and the second ring 1870-1890. Alansplodge (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two answer your question about these systems outside of Europe, the only example that I can think of is Port Arthur in Manchuria which was fortified by the Russians[12]. Singapore had a lot of forts but (in my view) each protected a vulnerable point rather than being a mutually supporting system. Alansplodge (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The best examples are European (the double rings around Paris and Antwerp: Liège and the Fortified Position of Namur are the other big set-pieces in Belgium, the Fortified region of Belfort, Maubeuge, Lille, Fortifications of Metz and Strasbourg in France, and others). Less elaborate works were done around Washington, Richmond and Atlanta during the American Civil War as semi-permanent structures, and US coastal ports were protected by very substantial fortifications against seaward attack. Rio de Janiero has a system of coastal forts. Coastal fortification systems are in general more common, particularly in the Americas. They weren't really intended to be mutually-supporting, though, in the way the fortress rings were. The Maginot Line, Alpine Line, Alpine Wall, Siegfried Line, Czechoslovak border fortifications and Mareth Line would be linear examples of mutually-supporting fortifications. Acroterion(talk)22:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Less famous but quite impressive is Przemyśl in Poland, which once guarded the eastern border of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Also in Poland is the Russian-built Fortress Warsaw with two rings of forts, the outermost completed in 1909. The Russians disarmed them in 1913 after the failure of their forts at Port Arthur, allowing the Germans to march in unopposed less than two years later. See Fort Beniaminów (one of 30 Warsaw forts). Alansplodge (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the difference of philosopher to metaphysics/ethics/epistemology writer just lies with the entitlement
A simple yes or no with a brief explanation would do.
I am a bit confused of this matter because when I was browsing I've come across this "writers of____ like "James Frederick Ferrier" who made significant changes to philosophy and others if not, certainly is philosophical. So again does the difference lie with just the entitlement but not the nature of the doer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rt56h3 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we've made clear before, when you've asked similar questions, that we aren't going to provide you with the justification or validation you seem to be seeking to call yourself an autodidact philosopher, or whatever you'd like to call yourself. --Jayron3201:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Rt56h3, as Hegel said, quoting from memory, 'Man is a born metaphysician. He does metaphysics before he learns to walk or talk....' Think he said this in several ways in several places, I think this is from the Encyclopedia Logic; misplaced my copy. You're a philosopher. Everyone is. You'll be a better one if you go read some Hegel, or many others, most even longer dead, some a bit easier to read.John Z (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
City planning and trees that line the street
I live in the NYC Metro Area and was wondering about the trees that line the streets. The small ones look like they were planted in the designated little squares of dirt but there are some trees that line the streets that appear to be many, many decades old. In some New Jersey towns I see ridiculously large trees! Now, it could be that these little towns (such as Clifton) are really old (1917, as in the case of Clifton) and the trees are humongous but still less than 95 years old. Or perhaps there were vast forests everywhere and the city planners had the foresight to cut down all the trees to make room for the roads and the houses but left the ones that were in particularly specific locations to serve as street-lining trees. As a side point, I notice that the trees lining the streets in Manhattan appear to be at regular intervals, while the ones in Clifton tend to be spread out somewhat haphazardly, leading me to speculate that the little NJ towns were built around the trees even if NYC was not. Just wondering if anyone had any knowledge of such a thing. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)01:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've occasionally encountered a tree "grandfathered in". You can tell because they are usually not the typical offset from the street, and the sidewalk often takes a jog around them. I suggest you look at those "haphazardly placed" trees and note if they are all the same offset from the street or not. If they are, then it's likely they were planted there. The haphazard spacing might be because many trees have since died and been removed or were removed for other reasons (to make way for a new driveway, etc.). Also, when trees are planted along a road, they often are all the same species and age (although this is a bad idea, increasing the chances of spreading tree diseases and pests). StuRat (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New York has a tree commission, I recall the NY Times has had an article on them from time to time (they were planting gingkos a few years ago, but only the male ones which do not fruit). As for New Jersey, the state is so balkanized with municipalities (600 or so I think) that it's hard to give a hard and fast rule. It may well have been the developer's decision.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite interesting that you mention ginkgos -- over the past 10 years or so I've come to realize that there are so many gingko trees in Manhattan and it certainly seemed like there was an inordinate number of them localized at institutions or higher education, such as Pace University, Columbia University (both campuses), Yeshiva University, Fashion Institute of Technology, etc. A year and a half ago I emailed the NYC Parks Department about this, but they said that gingkos account for only 2% of their trees and that there is no move on the part of the parks department to localize their numbers in any particular spot. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)17:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the specific article I remember reading, but if you check the NY Times web site, there are a fair number of articles which at least mention the gingko as a street tree. As for the question of Clifton, I think StuRat summed it up fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clifton may have been incorporated in 1917 but surely some of its streets are much older. People have been living in the general area for centuries. Nearby Passaic, New Jersey dates back to the 1600s. At StuRat said, if the trees are "street trees" it seems likely they were planted on purpose, perhaps long ago. He mentioned disease, which was my first thought about gaps and "haphazard" spacing. Throughout the US Northeast, and elsewhere, American elm trees were perhaps the most commonly planted street tree. Many streets in many towns were lined with nothing but elm street trees, which in many places had grown to large sizes and made the streets strikingly beautiful. In the early 20th century Dutch elm disease wiped out most of these street trees. I'm not sure if American chestnut trees were widely used as street trees, but they were also wiped out by Chestnut blight—even worse than the elms, some of which survived. The American chestnut tree is practically extinct. Our Ulmus americana page has a bit of info about the use of elms along streets, for lawns, etc. Pfly (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'combo' copy of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price - use?
I went to 2nd & Charles, a used book/movie/music/games/electronics store in my area. There I brought a 'combo' edition of the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. The book has a 1989 date on the title page, but a 1982 copyright date. The binding is a dark blue soft cover that one would find on a Book of Mormon. (An image of the cover is here: [14]). I've seen the Mormons advertise the Bible and the Book of Mormon on TV, but not the other two. So I'm left wondering, what is the usage of this edition in the Mormon church? - Thanks, Hoshie04:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like the part of Erewhon that deals with the Book of the Machines, an imaginary treatise quoted by Butler's narrator at some length, dealing with the application of Darwinian evolutionary theory to machinery and Man's relationship with it. For example: "It is said by some .. that the machines can never be developed into animate or quasi-animate existences, inasmuch as they have no reproductive system, nor seem ever likely to possess one. If this be taken to mean that they cannot marry, and that we are never likely to see a fertile union between two vapour engines with the young ones playing about the door of the shed, however greatly we might desire to do so, I will readily grant it.". The ideas for this material appeared earlier: in Darwin Among the Machines (text here), he says: ... there is nothing which our infatuated race would desire more than to see a fertile union between two steam engines. - Karenjc09:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, thank you for your accuracy, Karenjc!
Resolved
Homer
How do we know that Homer wrote the Iliad and Odyssey. I know that until to this day, we don't know anything about Homer beside his name. How did people think he wrote Iliad and Odyssey in the first place?65.128.190.136 (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because we know nothing of a person's life, doesn't mean it was impossible for him to have done certain things. It may be that he really didn't write them, but they've been attributed to him for millennia. Literally. We can't prove the attribution is true, but we can't prove it's false either. Unless we have evidence someone else wrote them. But we don't. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn]08:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My question is what made we think that Homer is an author of the Iliad and Odyssey? How they've been attributed to him for millennia? Was there something in the Iliad and Odyssey says Homer is the author?65.128.190.136 (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I think the word 'Homer' means "the author of the Iliad and Odyssey". There's good textual evidence that they are by the same author, so such a person clearly existed. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Homer did (or did not ;-) compose the Iliad and Odyssey, but he almost certainly did not write them. Both show strong evidence of a long oral transmission before they first were written down. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we know who first wrote them down. In general, our knowledge of pre-classical Greece is fairly sketchy, and we have depressingly little texts even of classical Greek authors, and even those often only via quoted or borrowed texts by later writers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's been about 30 years since I stopped believing that Will Shakespeare from Stratford wrote the works attributed to him. But that's because there's strong evidence a certain other person was behind them. I'm not going to get into that here as it's OT. There is no such credible alternative in the case of Homer. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn]12:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since we don't know anything about Homer other than that this name is the label for whoever wrote the Iliad and Odyssee, the reference of the name "Homer" is, by its very definition, "the person who wrote the Iliad and Odyssee". Thus, asking, "did Homer write the Iliad and Odyssee?" is tautological – the answer is "yes", by definition. (Put it this way: if "some other person" wrote them, then by definition that other person would be "Homer".) The only conceivable way in which the answer could be "no" is if nobody wrote those works – i.e. if they were created by two different people, or created in a way that didn't involve individualized "authorship" at all (purely through anonymous oral compilation, etc.) But as far as I know, the current predominant opinion in scholarship is still that there was an individualized act of creation by a single individual (but see Homeric question for details).
Another, legitimate, question to ask would be: "how do we know the person who wrote the Iliad and Odyssee was called Homer?" To this, the answer is: ancient Greek sources, from the classical era, which must in turn be based on a few centuries of oral transmission of the name (along with his works). Fut.Perf.☼09:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright let me get this all straight. Let say at some point in the past, someone wrote the Iliad and Odyssey. From that time and on, it was passed down that Homer was the author. So basically we know Homer is the author from the fact that is was from oral transmission. Is that right?65.128.190.136 (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, basically. To answer another detail question you asked above, there is no reference to the name Homer in the text of the works themselves; it's a matter of external attribution. Fut.Perf.☼09:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Yes, that is probably what happened. See also Ancient accounts of Homer. The first known literary reference to Homer is in the work of Xenophanes in the late 6th century BC (source), which is about two centuries after he lived. There may also be a reference to Homer by Callinus in the 7th century BC, but that is disputed (source). - Lindert (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand it, the Iliad and the Odyssey were first written down in the 6th century BC, based on the best oral traditions (this was during the rule Peisistratos in Athens). The texts as we currently know them were established in Alexandria in the 2nd century BC. But the earliest surviving copies of the text are from the 10th century AD (i.e. approaching 2000 years after Homer was supposed to have lived). So while they have always been attributed to someone named Homer, Homer did not have any influence on the poems as a text. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the earliest surviving complete copies, but there are more incomplete fragments dating back to 3rd century BC. See Haslam, "Homeric Papyrus and the Transmission of the Text" [15] for some neat information on textual transmission. See also The Homer Multitext Project for a lot of resources.
As for the original question, one thing which is often mentioned is that within the early oral tradition of the Iliad and the Odyssey the poems were probably partly improvised and would change from one rendition to the next. In this case, the poems, as they were eventually written down, would be a text that had many authors who each contributed a little to the final form. That can still be consistent with there being a real "Homer" poet who took some previous material and added a great deal and so was the most significant and famous contributor, while his text may have been further added to by later singers of the poems as well. --Atethnekos(Discussion, Contributions)04:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The American fighting machine
Why the US army with all the armaments and all the money in the world has been totally beaten by a bunch of Afghan peasants who have zero artillery zero aircraft and zero armoured vehicle and zero transport? --78.107.220.203 (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) That's not a fair characterisation of the Taliban. They're not peasants but semi-professional militiamen. They have a range of armaments, including some heavy weapons 'liberated' from the Soviets, or supplied covertly by their friends in the region. It's not necessary to have aircraft to fight aircraft - good AA capacity and a naturally defensible terrain will do fine. And they have plenty of transport, as well as less need of it (seeing as it's their own land they're fighting in).
2) The Americans and their allies aren't 'totally beaten', but merely fought to a standstill.
3) This is a classic asymmetric conflict. Napoleon faced a similar problem fighting the Peninsular War, where the Spanish irregulars (from whom we get the word guerilla) fought the massed forces of Imperial France to a halt for long enough for their allies to land in Portugal and establish a beachhead. America suffered a similar bloody nose in Vietnam, which also had in common with Afghanistan the problem that it's a very long way from home. Afghanistan is also landlocked and mountainous, which makes any ground deployment very difficult indeed. And the British Empire and the Soviet Union both foundered in attempts to control Afghanistan too.
4) America's military objectives are dependent on being able to created a more congenial political environment. It would be fair to say that Afghan politics in the past decade have not been marked by a sudden whole-hearted conversion to western-style democracy. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The infiltration of traitors into the Afghan forces being trained by the US and its allies isn't helping. They shoot their trainers. Very unsporting. And demoralising. HiLo48 (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To the original question: Part of the answer has to do with the U.S. objectives in the war. The U.S. trivially has the ability to exterminate almost every man, woman, and child in Afghanistan, or enough of them to destroy any resistance to the U.S. within Afghan boundaries. Doing so is unlikely to have a very good effect on the security of the U.S. in the long term, nor does doing so further the expressed goals of the U.S. in Afghanistan. The war has a greater goal than "kill'em all and let God sort'em out", and insofar as it does, that gives the Taliban and other opponents the ability to avoid direct conflict and to build resistance and support for themselves. --Jayron3211:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is that elements within the Pakistan ISI continue to support the Taliban, giving them financial support and a (relatively) safe place to which they can withdraw when threatened. The US would thus need to declare war on Pakistan to win in Afghanistan, but seems unwilling to do so. StuRat (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They certainly pretend to be, but having Osama bin Laden hiding out by their military academy, and then arresting the Pakistani who help the US find him, makes it clear that they are not. StuRat (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Among the many reasons the US is not willing to declare war on Pakistan might be the fact that Pakistan has nukes. The US is more interested in reforming its relationship with Pakistan that it is in trashing it. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That (StuRat's) is a somewhat naive view. The US performed an illegal (at least under international and Pakistani law) operation, killing several people under Pakistani jurisdiction. The Pakistani government acted to restore and defend its sovereignty. Compare this e.g. to the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, an illegal act by the French secret service on New Zealand soil. The New Zealanders caught, prosecuted, and imprisoned some of the French agents, but both are still SEATO members and on generally cooperative terms. Not all organs (much less citizens) of any state act in accordance with official policy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Taliban and al Qaeda operating freely from within their nation would represent a far greater threat to their sovereignty. That is, unless they are acting under the control of elements within the Pakistani government, which is the case, at least in the case of the Taliban. StuRat (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
War are won by infantry men carrying small weapons. Being motivated and able to blend with the local, which seem to support them in many occasions is also an advantage. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Putting this in more political science/military lingo, territory is won by "boots on the ground", not planes, not drones, not missiles. War from the air can kill people and eliminate bases, but it can't hold territory. Afghanistan is a large country and the number of boots required is very large. The radical differences in culture don't help either — it's hard to win "hearts and minds" when your way of life is considered inherently decadent and sinful by the people you're trying to convince. No historian would have found any of this surprising; no military man ought to have. But neither historians nor military men really run wars — politicians have proven themselves entire daft at setting realistic military goals. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We MUST stay the course. We can't just cut and run! (Sorry. Just thought I'd throw in a couple of the "daft" clichés routinely used by politicians in my country to justify stupid wars.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But equally loopy is the debate we have to have all over again every single time an Aussie loses their life there. This is a real live shooting war and it's absurd to expect no casualties. Sure, many people objected to us ever going there in the first place, and that's a perfectly respectable position. But given that we are there, the loss of any single life, no matter how regrettable, is no argument for pulling up stumps and leaving. The reasons countries participate in a foreign war, or choose not to participate, are above individual lives. The people who argue we should not have gone there, do not base their argument on the possibility that Australians might get killed. Otherwise, they'd be arguing for the abolition of car, train, bus and air travel and lots of other things. No, it's a question of principle. But that principle is chucked asunder whenever a life is lost, and the argument becomes one of saving lives. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn]22:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the fact that people have been known to die while using cars or planes is never a rational argument for not using them. Neither was the possibility of casualties used as an argument for us not to be involved in Afghanistan, before we went in. Now that we are there, when someone dies it does become the argument why we should pull out. The goalposts get changed every time someone dies. And the politicians get sucked in every time, and defend why these regrettable events will not deter us. It's fine to express regret for the loss of lives, but that's as far as the commentary should go. The decisions about whether we should/should not have gone in; and now that we're there, whether we should/should not pull out, have nothing to do with loss of life. That is a given in a war, just as it's a given that sometimes people get into planes and cars and don't survive the journey. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn]23:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a ridiculous point of view. Of course the question as to whether sending people to die for a given purpose is a good one to raise. The costs of war are tangible — they are not abstract. Lives are highly important to people. If the cause is just, then people say the lives were given for a good reason. If the cause is unjust, then the loss of life is a severe indictment to whomever squandered them. The idea that you can separate out the loss of life from the debate about the goodness of the war is totally, totally asinine, I am sorry to have to say. The fact that wars cause loss of life is a great reason to avoid pointless wars. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about just presenting an opposing viewpoint, rather than describing mine as "ridiculous" and "totally, totally asinine"?
In any case, let's pretend this is a reference desk. I'd like to see an argument against us being involved in Afghanistan, that was (a) presented before we went there, (b) couched in terms of the possible loss of life to our soldiers, and (c) made by a significant commentator. And the response from the other side. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn]05:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, just because maybe no one explicitly said that many would die, that doesn't mean people were not considering it. War is loss of life. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because I took strong umbrage with the way you automatically dismissed the alternative point of view yourself, as if actually caring about the consequences of a war as it plays out is an unacceptable position. If you are going to throw rocks preemptively, they are going to get thrown right back at you in response. I'm not here to debate the Afghan War with you — but I am not going to stand by quietly while you belittle the position that the deaths of people involved should not constitute a good reason to debate the continuance of a war. Yours is a shallow position and I'm going to call it out as such. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... maybe no one explicitly said that many would die, that doesn't mean people were not considering it. War is loss of life. Well, exactly. But they weren't arguing that we shouldn't go in because people might get killed (because that was always going to happen), or because all war is unthinkable and wrong (which it ought to be), but because this particular war was not appropriate for us to be involved in. That was their argument for why we should keep our noses out, and it ought to remain their position regardless of whatever happens there. You call my position shallow, but I call it principled. But maybe I place too high a premium on principle. Wars have been fought over less. I wasn't dismissing anything (automatically or in any way), and I'm certainly not belittling the loss of life (ours or any other country's). I feel these losses as much as anyone who isn't a family member or friend does. I've made my point and I understand and respect yours. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn]21:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a high school teacher I quite often encounter students telling me of their plans for a career in the military, because they see it as a good way to be trained for a trade (or almost anything really), and the pay is good (for a teenager). All true. But I feel it's important to point out to them that members of someone else's military will be trying to kill them, and some seem incredibly amazed at the thought. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, at least, the military recruiters work hard to make potential recruits think the military is about anything else but being shot at. Thus we get ads on TV showing the military assisting a US community hit by a hurricane, etc. I believe much of the dissatisfaction, depression, and suicide in the military is due to people joining with unrealistic expectations. StuRat (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When a student brings that up, the question you should ask is, "Are you willing to die for your country?" If the answer is flat-out "No", you could suggest that maybe the military is not their best career choice. Note that "willing" does not equate to "eager". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 12:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country. (mistakenly attributed to Patton, but invented for Patton). Dying for ones country is often mixed in an unholy alliance with "My country, right or wrong", when it would be better served with a healthy dose of "Are you fucking mad? No way!". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "die for your country" is more an American perspective. Australians historically have often died for other countries. World War I didn't involve our country in any direct way, but we joined it because the UK was involved. Same happened in WWII. No threat to Australia in 1939, but our PM declared that because the UK was at war, so were we. (Of course, once Japan started bombing our towns, things changed a lot.) Since then, many of our leaders have pointed at treaties, the real worth of which to us has, of course, never been tested, as a reason to join in. HiLo48 (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that the same applies to the US. The US wasn't directly threatened in WW1. In WW2, while the US wasn't directly threatened early on, there was the sense that, if it didn't stop Japan and Germany, they would eventually threaten the US. StuRat (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that only happened because the US participated in a trade embargo against Japan, in attempt to reduce the future threat there. Had the US not participated in the embargo, there would have been no immediate threat. Then Japan would have been content to attack everyone in the Pacific except the US. Of course, once they had conquered the Pacific sans US, the US would be their next logical target. StuRat (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, the time-honored "look what you made us do" argument, the trigger of many a war. The Japanese had ideas about doing to Asia what Germany wanted to do to Europe, and they thought by bombing our Pacific fleet, we would leave them alone. They thunk wrong. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You say "the US army with all the armaments and all the money in the world". But the US is only willing to use a relatively small part of their resources in Afghanistan. And their willingness to risk the lives of their people is limited for a war (around a millionth of the American population is killed yearly), so they try to use their superior armaments from a distance where it's hard to identify the enemy. Like in Vietnam they do inflict much larger losses than they incur, but the enemy seems more committed. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why the US army with all the armaments and all the money in the world has been totally beaten by a bunch of Afghan peasants who have zero artillery zero aircraft and zero armoured vehicle and zero transport?
Totally beaten? Are the Afghan peasants keeping the manufacturers of the armaments, the aircraft, the armored vehicles from making money? Are the officers not getting promotions? Are intellectuals not getting paid for writing about how we must not cut & run? Are congressmen not getting campaign warchests & other nice things from the nice people they direct money to? Business as usual seem to be going along smoothly, as usual.John Z (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Totally beaten" would mean the US surrenders to, and is occupied, by the Taliban. At worst the US might lose Afghanistan once again to the Taliban. Since Afghanistan's strategic importance is quite low, that's not much of a loss. In this context, Afghanistan often manages to repel invaders, because it's "more trouble than it's worth", keeping in mind that it's worth very little. StuRat (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a deadline to stop persecutinginvestigatin the whereabout of any nazis?
The 'youngest' nazi, some 15 year old German boy at 1945, would be 82 today. And at 15, you probably aren't very high in any hierarchy, although you could denounce some Jews hidden somewhere. So is someone going to draw the line and say there are not more nazis left? (at least old nazis). OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Wiesenthal Center still maintains a list of people who might be alive whom they would like prosecuted. Most are in their late 80s or early 90s, where they are believed or known to be alive.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec x3)In practical terms once the suspect would be 120 years old there is no point in keeping the case open. In some jurisdictions unsolved cases with no statute of limitations are "automatically" closed after 100 years. I don't know the specifics of German practice. Roger (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that it's legally possible and morally necessary, but logically some year, maybe at 2020, couldn't you draw the conclusion that all big fish should already be dead. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the point ? The only way the issue would come up is if you actually captured a high enough ranking Nazi to qualify for prosecution, which is extremely unlikely to happen then. Note that Germany passed a law at some point basically saying that the statute of limitations had passed. I'm not sure if that was ever repealed. It was done decades ago, though, allowing former Nazis to hold positions in government and industry. (Note that they weren't all murderous thugs, some simply joined the Party because it was expected of them.) StuRat (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rank isn't relevant, ordinary low ranking Nazi death-camp guards have been successfully prosecuted. The German government decided that just having been a party member was no longer a reason to prevent someone from holding certain positions in government or public service - the decision had nothing to do with war criminals. Roger (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=394973: "In 1968 a change in the law made conviction far more difficult. By that time, the statute of limitations had expired on all Nazi crimes except murder. Each time the statute of limitations threatened to expire on murder, the legislature extended it after long debates. But the statute does not mention murder or manslaughter. Instead, it defines murder as a crime punishable by life imprisonment and manslaughter as a crime punishable by fifteen years imprisonment. The statute of limitations on the latter expired in 1960. The former, which has not expired, applies to the perpetrator; it also applied to the accomplice, who seldom received a life sentence but who could have received it. In 1968, a change in §50 of the Penal Code made the reduction of sentence mandatory for the accomplice if he did not share the base motives of the perpetrator. Such a reduction to no more than fifteen years meant that the statute of limitations would have expired in 1960 for this kind of accomplice to murder." (I believe this passage refers to West Germany.) StuRat (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For Germans, like Pp.paul.4 it comes as a surprise how soft the new Germanies were on the nazis. Only starting at the seventies, and only on West Germany, you would see some serious steering away from the ideology. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's accurate or in any way fair. Exactly what "ideology" did the West Germans maintain until the 1970s, and the East Germans continue?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they seem to have treated genocide just like an ordinary crime, with the same statute of limitations and such. To the rest of the world, this is a far more serious crime, requiring more serious investigative efforts and penalties. StuRat (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well II, the denazification, starting by the Americans after the war was followed by a the German Vergangenheitsbewältigung in the 70, which is mainly a byproduct of the way of thinking of the sixties. During the perido 1945-1970, West Germans didn't show much interest in their past, they were actually trying to pass the page. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to comment too, but I figured it's just unfamiliarity with English tenses. I think Sleigh meant "It would not behave been against the law for ..." , and "It would behave been expected for ...". He's talking about what he thinks would have been the case back then, not what he thinks should be happening today. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn]23:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see... Wow, what a perfect example of where grammar comes into play... I apologize for my overly harsh language - such overt espousals of racist views on an international forum flares my nostrils. --Activism123405:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this context, that would be the only reasonable or AGF interpretation. But the mere presence of the word "would" does not signify past tense. I just used it in my first sentence, and that's not past tense. Sleigh's sentence is grammatically incorrect if it's meant to mean what he is assumed to have intended, but it's saved by the context, and only by the context. Take it out of that context, and you'll get the reaction it did get from Activism.
See Hedge fund. Very simply: It is privately controlled investment vehicle, where the managers control both what they invest in, and who gets to invest. If you have an open investment model (like a mutual fund), the fund is heavily regulated, and the fund managers can only invest in certain types of investments, and can only do certain things. Hedge funds, because they aren't traded on the open market, allows the managers to invest in more exotic investments. Hedge fund investors tend to be high-net-worth individuals (i.e. not you or I), or commonly institutional investors like pension funds and large corporations. Ostensibly, a Hedge fund is supposed to make money whether the open markets are rising or falling (hence the term "hedging ones bets"), but because of the nature of some of the exotic investment vehicles and strategies they use, like short selling and things like that, they can provide some of their own risk. Remember all the shit that went down about five years ago with Mortgage backed securities and Credit default swaps and all that stuff? The people who invested in those were largely hedge funds, and when they went bad they went very bad. --Jayron3221:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. What happens is a few rich people will pool their cash and hire someone to invest it. That pool of money that is called a "hedge fund" and the guy investing if for them is called a "hedge fund manager". Since it's a closed club, the investing isn't regulated like with mutual funds, so they get to play "fast and loose". When its rich people playing around with their extra yacht money, that's one thing. Where hedge funds cause problems is when large institutional investors started to get involved. Before, major United States financial institutions were forbidden from playing with their cash this way, by the Glass–Steagall Act, which was put in during the New Deal era to prevent banks from all going belly up as happened during the Great Depression. During the 1980s and 1990s, banks saw hedge funds take off, and were (from their perspective) losing lots of money by playing by the rules, so they agitated for the restrictions to be taken off. The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act removed the restrictions on banks from playing around in hedge funds, and many financial analysts have placed the recent financial crisis on the exposure of commercial banks to the risks that hedge funds carry with them. Part of the problem is that the massive influx of banking capital into the hedge fund market ate up all of the "safer" investments quickly, so hedge fund managers were forced to invest the banks money in riskier and riskier vehicles, because the safe options were already saturated. There was an award winning episode of This American Life called "The Giant Pool of Money" which explains how the change in regulatory structure led to forcing hedge fund managers to take riskier investments. It's quite good and easy to follow for the lay person, you can listen to it here. --Jayron32 21:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Edit: It may not have been that specific episode, per se. That was the first of the series on the financial crisis, and looking at the syopsis, the role of bank deregulation may have been covered in a later episode, there were 5 in the series. They are all very good to listen to, and I recommend them all, but the Giant Pool of Money one started it all off. They're all availible online from the site I posted. --Jayron3222:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A friend of mine who works at one explains it like this: basically you can invest in the stock market, or bonds, or other things. Or, if you have a lot of money, you can give a lot of it money to him and he'll try to make it into lot more money. How will he do this? It depends on the fund — most think they can "beat the odds" one way or the other. Some are just relatively straightforward investment companies. Some have magical formulae or intelligence sources. Some just claim to hire really, really smart people. One guy came up with an algorithm that analyzed Twitter chatter and tried to guess which way various stocks would go based on it, and then founded his own hedge fund based on the principle. And so on. Either way, the only way you get to play with a hedge fund is if you have a lot of dough, and are willing to take on a lot of risk — because in general, you shouldn't expect to beat the odds every day of the week, but this is what these funds are trying to do. They are a very high-stakes form of investment. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what they're more likely to do is not so much make a lot more money, but (in proportional terms) a little more money, very safely, and ideally a little more money than other investments could get you, that safely. Some of their individual investments may be very high-risk, but they are balanced ("hedged") by other ones that reduce the net risk (and also the net return, of course). See statistical arbitrage. --Trovatore (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I work with hedge funds (among other investment vehicles) in my day job. Traditionally the term has not had any standard definition. I think of a "hedge fund" as, essentially, an investment pool that is not publicly registered and that invests in liquid investments, such as publicly traded stocks and bonds, commodities, and currencies. There is now a standardized definition on page 57 of the PDF of Form PF, but I won't quote it because it is not responsive to the "simple terms" request.
The term "hedge fund" is an historical anomaly. Hedge funds may or may not engage in hedging transactions. They vary greatly in the amount of risk they take.
Investors in hedge funds generally must be accredited investors. In addition, hedge funds characteristically pay performance fees, so investors generally must also be qualified clients under Rule 205-3, which is a somewhat higher standard and typically would require net worth of $2 million, excluding your primary residence. Some hedge funds require all of their investors to be qualified purchasers, which is a higher standard still and essentially restricts investors to the truly wealthy. John M Baker (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read about investment too much and it seems the ultrarich are all so spoiled their biggest worry in life is a microscopically higher risk they won't get their money back from diverse AAA corporate bonds than from US Treasuries. Yet some ultrarich throw it in the riskiest, highest yield thing they can find. Go figure. 96.246.70.87 (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A majority is always 50%+1. Always. So, for any parliamentary body, divide the membership by 2, add one to that answer, and that's it. Chamber of Deputies (Italy) states that the body has 630 members. 630/2 = 315, so a majority is 316 seats. You can do the same math for every parliamentary body in the world. --Jayron3203:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it takes any number greater than 1/2 of the total. For an odd number, it is impossible to split the group down the middle. For example, in the U.S. House of Representatives, there are 435 votes, so a majority in that case is 218 votes, with the rest being 217. --Jayron3204:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It can be a bit more complicated than this. A parliament might require a supermajority for some kinds of votes, some members might not normally vote, and you have to take into account what happens in the event of a tie. For example, the British House of Commons has 650 members, but 4 of these are the Speaker and Deputy Speakers, who don't vote (except as a tiebreaker), and 5 more are currently held by Sinn Fein who have a longstanding policy of abstentionism, so in practice, a majority is 321 (I think?). There are also parliamentary bodies that work on a consociational basis---that is, decisions have to be agreed by sufficient members representing different communities. For example, in the Northern Ireland Assembly, members are designated as "nationalist", "unionist", or "other", and many votes require both a 60% majority and 40% support from both unionist and nationalist members (this system is applied to any vote if 30 or more members ask for it). 81.98.43.107 (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But what's a majority government? As per our article, this normally refers to one of two things 1) A government which under ordinary circumstances has enough members to avoid being defeated by a motion of no confidence (or perhaps more accurately a government which is assured of Confidence and supply) OR 2) A government which under ordinary circumstances has enough members to pass ordinary legislation (at least in one house if the system is bicameral). The tie breaker thing is somewhat irrelevent (you will take in to account if they have to vote when determining the majority) but any members who never take their seats, as well as any requirement for a supermajority or some additional requirements than a majority of seats; even for ordinary legislation. Nil Einne (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about sticking to the core definition: A majority government is a government formed by a governing party that has an absolute majority of seats in the legislature or parliament in a parliamentary system. An absolute majority in any legislature is 50% + 1. That is the Alpha and Omega of the matter. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn]11:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question, have you actually seen a copy of the two sources, or are you simply relying on the livejournal.com webpage for your information (If the latter, see our policy: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT...it is very poor practice to cite something you have not actually read). Blueboar (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone identify this 'barbarian-warrior' engraved artwork?
I came across this image the other day: [17]. Does anyone know anything about this little engraving? Is it historical? I suspect it likely is, but I'm not certain. What's the story behind it? Is it Anglo-Saxon? Scandinavian? What does it represent? Is it part of a larger piece of art? It makes me think of something out of the era of Beowulf, and it sure seems similar to our picture of the recreation of the Sutton Hoo helmet: File:Sutton Hoo helmet reconstructed.jpg.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Ever since the question was asked I knew that I'd seen it before, and that it was Scandinavian, but I just could not find it either online or in my books. I hate it if my brain demonstrates how semi-functional it really is... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To expand a bit on what Gabbe is saying: the episode in question is making fun of the long-standing inside joke that the show has never revealed where "Springfield" is located (though I have seen two fairly decent analyses done which claim that it could be either Springfield, Oregon or Springfield, Kentucky, those are still just idle speculation). The exchange is meant to highlight the fact that Springfield doesn't "exist" to the outside world. The joke about the "other" Lou Gehrigs disease is just an absurdist little joke, perhaps to highlight the fact that Springfield is such a distinct place that it has it's own diseases. --Jayron3217:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Duchess of Windsor
I know someone who says he was brought up in a house in South Florida that used to belong to the Duchess of Windsor. I find no reference in her history of ownership of a house in Florida. Do you know of any such reference and if she, perhaps, owned any of the original Faberge Eggs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wagon1944 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See this: 1916 - Granted a stipend, following the death of Grandmother Warfield. Departs in the spring for Pensacola, Florida, where she meets U.S. Navy pilot Earl Winfield “Win” Spencer, Jr.; they are married that fall in Baltimore. The couple settles in naval housing in Pensacola. And yes, she seems to have had one or more Faberge Egg--Tagishsimon(talk)15:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But she wouldn't have owned that specific house, since it was naval housing - presumably on a military base owned by the US Government.
If the couple moved to private housing later on...well, in much of North America at that point in time it was common for the husband to be the sole legal owner of the marital home with the wife holding dower rights (basically, the right to not have her residence sold without her permission), but I don't have a clue as to what Florida's laws were or whether joint ownership was common (or possible) in Florida in the 1916-1927 period. --NellieBly (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Were Native American tribes able to start fires before Europeans arrived?
Also, this may not be easily answered, but did Native American settlements form near natural hot springs to any great degree, or were they not particularly attractive to them? Thanks. Vranak (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not only were they capable of fire, they were capable of creating vast city states — more populous than any in Europe at the time — with complex metallurgy and agriculture, and were quite adept at forest management (through the use of fire). They were in many ways quite on par with Europeans. What they lacked were long-range sea faring technology, gunpowder, steel, and the inborn resistance gained from living near many types of domesticated animals for many thousands of years. The technological disparities between the Old and New Worlds at the point of contact are somewhat exaggerated by the fact that the Native civilizations faced immense population crashes on account of the diseases picked up inadvertently through the conquest, which had a devastating effect on the major "civilized" societies that were there. (It is even theorized that the subsequent decline in forest burnings after the population die-offs in the New World contributed to the Little Ice Age.) Highly recommended reading: Charles Mann's 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus and 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created, both of which are very fun reads and will open your eyes quite a lot to what is currently thought about the populations of the New World and the consequences of the "Columbian Exchange". (I only assume eye-opening is necessary given your initial question, which suggests a deep ignorance of actual Native American technological sophistication.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second Mr. 98's recommendation for Charles Mann. He's fantastic; 1491 is really eye-opening. Besides Tenochtitlan, which he links above, there were other large cities even in North America, most notably Cahokia. The Mississipian culture was as urban as any culture in Europe at its height, but it collapsed for unknown reasons. Until and during the first few years of European settlement, Native American villages and towns along the east coast of North America were quite settled and sizable, but diseases move faster than people, and the impression that the Europeans got of the Americas as terra nullius was largely because many Native Americans died off before they were ever met. For example, Plymouth colony was settled exactly where it was because the land had previously, as recently as a decade before, been the site of a large settled town of the Patuxet tribe. It was wiped out by diseases, probably caught from European fisherman who set up temporary outposts on the shores of North America decades prior to any permanent colonization. New England today is much heavier forested than during the pre-colonial times, because most of it was heavily cultivated farmland by the Native Americans. It was slowly reclaimed by the forests only because there was a gap of several decades between when the Indians died out and the Europeans started clearing it again. Native Americans probably had a much more advanced culture and technology than is in the popular conception. --Jayron3203:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you liked 1491, you'll love 1493. It's considerably better in my opinion, both as a work of writing and a work of history. I made the mistake of reading 1493 first and then felt that 1491 was tepid and slow by comparison. But both are good; it's just that 1493 is really, truly excellent. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adding another yes! about 1493—I'm about halfway through and have found every chapter very interesting and about every other truly fascinating, about things I had never known about but which had and continue to have major effects. The chapter on malaria amazed me. I had no idea. Pfly (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Living near many types of domesticated animals would have been no help preventing dying from disease as the disease resistance would have been to different diseases. Living near many types of domesticated animals didn't help the Europeans from disease when they travelled to the tropics. The Amerindians didn't have the horse or an equivalent and didn't invent the wheel. Sleigh (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's more complicated than that. Native American immunity was genetically far more limited in part because of the founder's effect. I'm unsure whether exposure to additional pandemics earlier on would have helped that, but I wouldn't be surprised if the relative lack of such things didn't encourage a change in the status quo. They also lacked the cultural experience that comes with exposure to pandemics — things like quarantine. It's plausible that if they had more exposure to such things their societies wouldn't have totally collapsed in the way that they did, that the death rates would have still been impressive but not catastrophic. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They had the wheel as a miniature toy, not as a practical transportation device. Of course, without draft animals, about the only feasible load-bearing use of the wheel would be in wheelbarrows...
StuRat -- The usefulness of wheels isn't always dependent on roads. The wheel apparently had a strong impact on the way of life in the eastern Ukraine and southern Russia ca. 3000 B.C., an area where there were no cities or real roads. Later the chariot revolutionized ancient warfare without being confined to roads... AnonMoos (talk) 06:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the great South American empires did have excellent roads. Anyway, the wheel is fine and good, but they managed to build massive empires without them, so holding up the wheel as some sort of gold standard isn't totally sensible. They certainly knew the principle of wheels. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The OP might do well to look at the article on the book Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. The author believes that early humans may have harnessed fire 1.8 million years ago. Even though that claim is a little controversial, sources in that article will tell you that the first definite evidence of hearths is 250,000 years old. This is way before Native Americans reached their continent. (12,000 years ago?) So humans had fire long before they spread all over the globe. Australian Aboriginal people, who arrived on that continent at least 40,000 years ago, appear to have used fire right from the time of their arrival. HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to respond to Mr. 98 to disabuse him of the notion that "they were in many ways quite on par with Europeans", but since many others have made similar points, I'll just post here. It's true that the technological disparity was smaller than what scholars used to believe, and certainly smaller than what the OP seems to believe, but the most advanced Amerindian societies in 1491 AD were primitive compared to even the oldest European/Asian civilizations. Absolutely no Amerindians invented the wheel as a method of transportation, even though they built plenty of roads on which it would have been useful. Nobody domesticated draft animals. Nobody used metal for any purpose other than cosmetic, with the exception of gold, which is easy to identify and doesn't need to be smelted, cast, forged, tempered, or alloyed. Writing, one of the most basic tenets of civilization, was only invented in a small Mesoamerican region and never spread beyond that. Compare this state of development to that of Bronze Age Sumer, the first human civilization, which developed the wheel 7000 years ago, bronze working 6000 years ago, and writing 5000 years ago. Actually, you can read about any of the Eurasian cradles of civilization; not one of them failed to develop bronze-working or writing from very early on.
To illustrate just how important writing is, we know virtually nothing about any pre-Columbian Amerindian society because they (aside from Mesoamericans) never developed writing, and couldn't record their histories, discoveries, culture, etc. By contrast, every Eurasian empire had writing. The Spanish conquistadors would have been familiar with the history of the Roman Empire and of Athens, which collapsed 1000-2000 years before their own time, whereas the Americans had little idea about events happening only a few hundred kilometers away and less than a generation ago.
Mr. 98 compares the populations of Mesoamerican vs. European cities, but is Kinshasa more developed than New York simply because it has more people? Europe is not a fair comparison for the Old World anyhow; if we're only to compare "the best" from the New and Old Worlds, the Old World representative should be China. In terms of population, sophistication, technological development, or virtually any other factor, Tenochitlan couldn't compare with Tang dynasty China, and probably pales in comparison to even the Han dynasty. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, however, there is a minimum level of technology and civilization needed to maintain an urban center. The basic definition of urban is people not involved in subsistance farming, and the more populous a city, the more sophisticated things like agriculture, infrastructure, and administration needs to be to support that city. Yes, there is not a perfect correlation between population size and development level, but that also doesn't mean that the existance of large conurbations is not, all by itself, an indication of a certain level of advanced civilization. After all, civilization means roughly "the act of living in cities". --Jayron3222:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I was learning to calculate inflation-adjustments in school we used subscripts. The statement
101982 ¤ = 151993 ¤
means that ten units of currency ¤ in 1982 had the same purchasing power as fifteen units of the same currency in 1993. I have since then, however, never seen anyone use this notation to denote inflation-adjustment, so I think it's likely to be misconstrued. Gabbe (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, is this symbol well recognized? If I denoted a number as such on a Wikipedia article and linked the symbol to the article on inflation it would be appropriate for encyclopedic? Thanks, any other suggestions are also welcomed! Marketdiamond (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"¤" is the generic indeterminate non-specific currency symbol, which appears in a number of computer character-set standards (probably partly because Eastern bloc nations objected to giving the capitalist dollar symbol "$" too great prominence), but which has seen little real-world use. I'm sure that Gabbe only used it as a random arbitrary example of a currency symbol to be used in combination with date subscripts, not because "¤" is associated with the idea of inflation adjustment. (By the way, the date subscripts are vaguely reminiscent of General Semantics...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos is precisely right, and by using it the "¤" symbol I seem to have caused more confusion then I intended. If you (Marketdiamond) want to indicate that an amount has been inflation-adjusted in a Wikipedia article, you might want to read the {{Inflation}} template and the examples listed therein, or look at articles which transclude that template. Gabbe (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to argue whether the position makes sense or not. I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject matter to engage in such discourse. I'm simply asking for the names of historians, if there are any, who supported this position. A8875 (talk) 08:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bit of info in the chronology section at the beginning of our World War II article. This book (pg 64) says it started in 1937 ("in the Pacific theater"). I don't know the authors, but it's published by Cambridge University Press. (The other citation for 1937 in our article seems less reliable.) Our article also says AJP Taylor, who is certainly a notable historian, considered the European and Pacific theaters to be two different wars that merged into a world war in 1941, although there is no citation for that. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my humble opinion, a war between two countries (Japan and China) in the same region isn't a world war. It might be the cause of one, but not one in itself. At the start of September 1939, we have a war involving Poland, Germany, the Soviet Union, France and the French Colonies, the UK and the British Colonies, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. That is a world war. Alansplodge (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but the Dominions entered the war of their own volition, not because (like India) they were told to by London. I don't think anyone was in any doubt that they were involved in a world war in 1939. Is there a date for the first use of the phrase "Second World War"? Alansplodge (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's not the case in Australia's case. Chamberlain announced that a state of war existed between Britain and Germany. That was at 8 pm Australian Eastern time on 3 September. At 9:15 pm, Australia's Prime Minister Robert Menzies went on radio to fulfill his "melancholy duty" to tell the nation that Australia was, as a direct consequence, also at war with Germany. It was not a case of Australia deciding independently that she would also declare war on Germany to support the mother country; there was no time for such niceties as a parliamentary debate on the matter; it was Menzies' view that Britain's decision bound Australia, automatically. There was also a widespread national consensus that Australian could never remain neutral if the mother country was at war, so there was immediate acceptance of this state of affairs from the community. The other dominions did not have this view. They made their own decisions, and their own separate declarations of war. A full account is here. See also Military history of Australia during World War II. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn]20:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was more than that. Also, we didn't accept the Statute of Westminster till 1942. When we did, it was made effective from 3 September 1939. But on 3 September 1939, we didn't have that. At that time, as my ref reveals, the notion that the King could simultaneously be at peace and at war with Germany was one that Menzies found impossible to accept. He was on the record as considering himself and the nation "British to the bootstraps". Whatever proclamations, gazette notices or other formalities the Australian government went through did not amount to any sort of Australian declaration of war with Germany; they simply placed it formally on the record that Britain's declaration also applied implicitly, inherently, automatically to Australia. Menzies' radio broadcast only 75 minutes after Chamberlain's ultimatum expired was the informal, if public, announcement of that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn]23:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information - it's a fascinating subject. I yield to your superior knowledge, however I still believe that Australia had greater autonomy than it allowed itself to believe. Alansplodge (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right from the legal/constitutional angle. But remember, this was still 10 years before there was any such beast as "Australian citizenship" - that wasn't created till 26 January 1949. Prior to then, all resident Australians were legally British subjects. Even when the Queen visited in the 1950s and 1960s, it was common to see people waving Union Jacks rather than our own flag. We thought of ourselves as distinctly different from the British people, yet still somehow the same. Even post-war immigrants from every country of Europe and other places were supposed to feel just as British as Australian. Some even did so. It's kinda weird that a German who'd fought the British could migrate to a new life in post-war Australia, do good works for the community, and finish up with an award in the Order of the British Empire. We didn't get our own system of honours until 1975. Anyway, this is getting increasingly OT so I'll just shut up now. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn]04:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could also argue that it started with the Italian occupation of Ethiopia, the German occupation of Czechoslovak territories or the start of the Spanish Civil War, on similar criteria. --Soman (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Marco Polo bridge incident was on the 9th, not 19th. I'm pretty sure many historians argue for that start date, just like many historians argue that it should be "color" and not "colour". What you call the date is irrelevant as long as everyone knows what happened, so I would be disappointed if any historian took significant effort in arguing that it should be called "the start of WWII". --140.180.242.9 (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heck... one could argue that WWII started with the signing of the Peace of Paris in 1918. But the OP isn't asking us for our opinions as to when The War started... he/she is asking if there is an academic source that supports a specific statement he/she read online. Imagine that... someone actually asking about references on the reference desk! How original Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Buddhism sources.
Can someone tell where these, or equivalent, ideas can be found:
1: "there is no spoon" (from Matrix). There is no spoon - the spoon exists only in the Matrix, which really means it doesn't exist as a physical object. This is an important lesson for Neo, to help him realize that manipulating the Matrix isn't about focusing on an object and trying to change it.
2:"there is no tragedy, just comedy" or something like that. In the same direction: after meditating for some time you'll discover that no tragedy happened to you. Ptg93 (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first idea has many sources in Buddhism, especially in Zen. My favorite is the following koan:
Gunin was the fifth Zen patriarch. One day he announced that his successor would be he who wrote the best verse expressing the truth of their sect. The chief monk of Gunin’s monastery thereupon took brush and ink, and wrote in elegant characters:
The body is a Bodhi-tree
The soul a shining mirror:
Polish it with study
Or dust will dull the image.
No other monk dared compete with the chief monk. But at twilight Yeno, a lowly kitchen worker, passed through the hall where the poem was hanging. Having read it, he picked up a brush that was lying nearby, and below the other poem he wrote in his crude hand:
There is no Bodhi tree;
There is no shining mirror.
There is no thing of any sort,
So where can dust collect?
Later that night the patriarch called Yeno to his room. “I have read your poem,” said he, “and have chosen you as my successor."
(Note: many versions of this can be found in various places -- I have tweaked this one, mainly for brevity but also for meaning.) Regarding the second idea, "there is no tragedy, just comedy" is not a Buddhist notion in the slightest. Looie496 (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But there is the idea that there is "no tragedy happened to you", which sounds like nirvana. Although Looie's response to the first question is quite clear I was reminded of the metaphor of "painted rice cakes" that comes up in Zen writings, typically suggesting that a painting of a rice cake is not a rice cake and eating it would not satisfy hunger, then broadening this metaphor to all things and all hunger—ie, all things are just paintings/images, not actual, and none can satisfy the hunger for enlightenment. Dōgen talks about this, for example [21]. When introducing the basic concept he says "all rice cakes actualized right now are nothing but a painted rice cake". Perhaps this is similar to the idea that the spoon only exists in the Matrix. Of course this is only the starting point for Dōgen, who takes it farther to "painted rice cakes do satisfy hunger". When I saw The Matrix I was hoping that the "real world" in it would turn out to be just as "unreal" as the matrix. That would have been more in keeping with the Zen-like parts of the movie. But alas, apparently the real world of The Matrix is really the real world. Dōgen would have accepted that. Pfly (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do people find sources and references for very specific economic data? For example, how many persons are involved in water treatment in France, or how many labor hours are spent on agriculture in the United States, things like that. Very usually, simple internet searches are not effective.
Obviously there can't be any answer with universal applicability. It's a combination of search sophistication (for example, searches in Google Scholar or Google Books often work where ordinary web searches don't), and topic-area expertise extensive enough to know which publications are likely to contain a given piece of data. Looie496 (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It depends if you want data on just one country or if you want to compare different countries. For France go to Insee, if they don't have it, it probably isn't collected. For the UK start at www.statistics.gov.uk, and the website even has direct phone numbers to statisticians working on different topics. Most stats offices in developed countries do their best to help researchers. For comparative stats Eurostat for the EU, and OECD for a wider group of countries. If you want to ask a more specific question we might be able to point you in the right direction. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Identifying an old Irish Abbey from picture/pictures I took and you could keep of an Irish Abbey not listed in your county list of abbeys
Gentlemen,
I have a number of pictures I took at an Abbey ruin in Ireland. We were in Co. Laois so the abbey would be rather close. I searched your county list but did not see it. If you could recognize if you could keep the picture for your files. I just want to know the name of it.
I would need instructions or permission to send a jpeg of the photo. I can make it whatever size you like.
You can always upload the pictures to Wikimedia Commons. Go to http://commons.wikimedia.org and select the option on the left that says "upload file". Any pictures you have taken will be availible for use on any Wikimedia project. Make sure to place the picture into categories to help identify them, do the best you can in selecting appropriate categories even if you don't know the name of the picture. When you do upload them, there will be options on how to lisence your pics for use on Wikimedia projects, this is usally the CC-BY-SA lisence. --Jayron3222:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for size, I suggest you upload them at whatever size you currently have. Shrinking them down removes detail, while enlarging them takes up more space without adding any detail. If you have both thumbnails and full-sized images, then just send us the full-sized ones. Wikipedia can adjust the size, as needed. StuRat (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Hispanic Black & Non-Hispanic Asian Populations for U.S. Cities Since 1970
This census paper above shows the non-Hispanic white population, but not the non-Hispanic black and non-Hispanic Asian population for all the big cities in each state. I tried looking at the U.S. Census reports that it listed on its bibliography but I couldn't find anything specific in regards to this. Maybe I'm bad at searching U.S. Census documentation, but if anyone could please help me out, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you very much. And Yes, I know that the Black and Asian Hispanic population for the U.S. wasn't that large, but I would still like to know its number for all (or at least most/some) of the big cities in each state. Futurist110 (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is the correct link. I've checked it again (including the detailed U.S. state tables in it) right now and it provides race and Hispanic origin data for all the large cities in each U.S. state. However, it also gives you separate data for non-Hispanic whites, but not for non-Hispanic blacks and non-Hispanic Asians. This link that I posted also has a "Decennial Census Data References" at the bottom of it. However, I looked at some of those references for the 1970 Census, for instance, but I couldn't find what I was looking for. Futurist110 (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Football Coach quote "I'm not growing [type of flower] I'm growing men"
Waaaay back when I heard (probably from a High School or College lesson or even a CSPAN type coverage) of a legendary football coach pre 1950s (or 1960s) such as Pop Warner or Amos Alonzo Stagg, coaching for a stint out in the Pacific coast (U of Pacific, Stanford, Cal etc.) Story goes a lady of town (even a bit elderly) walked by this coaches house and called him out to compliment him on how well his flowers were growing and he thanked her. Later this same woman walked back past the coaches house as he was conducting practice with the team all over the yard, including where the flowers were and she shockingly called him out about all the damage that the team was causing to his flowers, to which he responded in a hardboiled way "I'm not growing (petunias, marigolds?) I'm growing men!". The quote is seared into my memory from a time before blogging or wikipedia was really around to confirm and catalog and hyperlink quotes like these and I remember it from a very reliable source (text book, VIP guest speaker, CSPAN, tv documentary, or professor). Please help I have searched all over for this, searching by college by era by coach names (tried a bunch). Thanks! Marketdiamond (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search for '"not growing" "growing men" football' finds this PDF [22] which includes the quotation about his a farmer and his children in the form "I'm not growing corn, I'm growing men." So I can't help but think this is one of the quotes attributed to a wide variety of people and if it was ever actually said in that manner (it's more likely apocryphal), the source is probably unknown. Nil Einne (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW to be honest, the farmer story sounds slightly more plausible then the coach story which just sounds strange. Why would someone bother to put so much effort in to growing their flowers to be worthy of a compliment, if they knew they were going to be destroyed when they used their yard for coaching? Giving random quotations to old ladies obviously wasn't the reason, and it doesn't seem that they would aide the 'growing men' in any real way. It's possible the coach was bored during the offseason (although I wonder if this was likely in that era) or didn't expect their yard to be used (either there was supposed to be somewhere else to practice or they weren't a coach) or that the flowers were from who they purchased or rented the house from (or the tenants before them), but these don't seem that likely. A third alternative is it wasn't the coach who grew the flowers in the first place but their wife or similar (in which case the coach starts to sound more like a jerk then an inpiration). Nil Einne (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ Nil Einne, thanks for the link! The story made it seem like the flowers were there when the coach moved in or he just had them put in as an afterthought. Yes I am increasingly thinking this was at one time an actual story that kind of took on tall tale status and although I remember a very credible source telling it and attributing it to a college football coaching legend. @ JackofOz, funny enjoyed it. Marketdiamond (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how widely spread this usage is, but if this story had occurred in Australia, I can imagine the statement being "I'm not growing pansies. I'm growing men". It would be a play on the slang meaning of pansy, being a homosexual. I'm sure Jack will be able to confirm the usage. HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That term "pansy" didn't mean gay when I was a kid, it meant "unmanly" (as did "fag", by the way). The term for gay was "queer", and the term "gay" itself was under the radar in the general public until about the 1970s. However, those terms also carried further implications. Consider this little scene from an early 1930s film called International House: W.C. Fiels has just arrived in a fictional Chinese city called Wu Hu. Fields calls out to the fussy hotel clerk (Franklin Pangborn), "Where am I?" The clerk yells back, "Wu Hu!" Fields pulls a flower out of his lapel and says, "Don't let the posy fool ya!" ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The way I remember the story being told it was not "pansy", the double meaning would have hit me, it was more along the lines of petunias or marigolds etc. The speaker/source may have changed it for effect, but the effect of the speech was that men grew up best rough and tumble etc. without any implied joke with double meanings. Marketdiamond (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
September 23
Corporate tax rate and hiring costs
I've run across a couple blog posts ([23] and [24]) which confirm the recently empirically validated idea that decreasing the effective corporate tax rate tends to suppress hiring because it puts the return from paying taxes on profits above the expected return from hiring and further production using pre-tax revenue (which also involves a feedback threshold effect in the macroeconomic situation when many businesses are facing the same changes in the effective tax rate -- if they all aren't hiring, the risk of investing in further production increases because consumer spending is suppressed.) As we've seen, this is accompanied by a spike in profits and bank deposits. I've come across some very oblique references to this effect in old theory papers, and in one recent labor economics sourcebook, but I'm looking for more mainstream sources on it. Does anyone have any suggestions for where this particular situation might have been studied in peer reviewed papers? —Cupco00:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you will find much mainstream support for those ideas. On the other hand, hopefully the additional taxes collected aren't just used to line politician's pockets. If those tax dollars are used to fund education, infrastructure, etc., this can create a more attractive place to open or expand a business, if they have an educated workforce, good roads, ports, airports, etc. StuRat (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat, I'm reasonably certain you didn't understand the question — it doesn't claim that there are "additional taxes collected" at all, it is about decreasing the tax rate — and using it as an opportunity to stand on a generic soap box about taxation is very poor form indeed. (It looks like you are trying to start a debate on an entirely different question.) If you don't know the answer — it would take some familiarity with economics to give a good answer — why not do the world a favor and keep it to yourself? --Mr.98 (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those blogs argue that decreasing the corporate tax rate suppresses hiring. Therefore, we are comparing a lower corporate tax rate with a higher one, to try to determine which will create more jobs. In that context, we should consider both sides of the equation, how the increased (or decreased) taxation affects hiring, and also how the increased (or decreased) spending affects job growth. It's illogical to consider the impact of taxation without also looking at the impact of the corresponding spending. Indeed, the ideal tax rate for job creation is entirely dependent upon how the government spends those taxes. StuRat (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except of course you need to first establish a decreased corporate tax rate leads to a low level of government tax/revenue collection (and therefore less money available for government spending) which wasn't at issue until you started to bring up off topic issues in to the discussion but could easily be disputed since as per the original discussion, the effect of changing the tax rate is complicated. Nil Einne (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has been argued that, in the long run, cutting taxes can increase revenue, but not in the short run. (If you cut taxes by 10%, that's not going to increase the size of the economy by 10% the first year.) And, of course, there's a limit to the benefits of always cutting taxes, as obviously a 0% tax rate won't increase tax revenue, no matter what the economy does. StuRat (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was also partially my point, but StuRat is mistaken anyway. It's not simply a matter of growth which may take some time, but changes to behaviour which can happen very fast, e.g. if a company starts bringing more money in to the US which they used to hide in other places. While it's not usually claimed it will balance out straight away except in extreme cases, it is ultimately incredibly complicated and not something even economists agree on so not something to be just dismissed as unimportant. In any case, most of the spending StuRat described like education etc will take a long time to have an effect. In other words, if you want to consider this, you have do actually consider it properly and not just throw in random extra information. Either that or we can just stick with the original question and assume the OP is aware it's incredibly complicated. Nil Einne (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evangelicalism in the US
I've wondered why do evangelicals seem to have so much power in the United States. It seems that public influence can be swayed by evangelicals, and politicians often campaign to get their votes. There's even a fast-food restaurant that closes on Sundays, which is quite unusual in current society. Evangelicals also seem to be much more common (or at least more visible or influential) in the United States than in any other country. Why is this the case? Does it have to do with the fact that, in the early days of the United States, people emigrated there to practice their religion and escape persecution? Or maybe this is just an illusion, since I've watched too much Simpsons? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew02:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers. Evangelical Christians are a large enough proportion of the population in some parts of the U.S. to be able to be a sizable voting block. In the Southeastern U.S., your question would be like asking "Why do Muslims have so much power in Egypt?" Of course, in many parts of the U.S. (Northeast, Midwest, West Coast, etc.), there are not many Evangelical Christians, and so there aren't as many Evangelical politicians. --Jayron3202:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...(Northeast, Midwest, West Coast, etc.), there are not many Evangelical Christians"? That's just not true. California, for example, has more Evangelical Christians than any other state. However, they are proportionally fewer in the West and Northeast (I wouldn't include the Midwest) and so not as important as a voting block.--William ThweattTalkContribs04:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
California has more of everything than any other state. It's 1/6th of the country by population. Evangelicals in California don't make as significant of a voting block as they do in, say, Alabama, because they are not as significant a portion of the Californian population. If I crammed together a bunch of southern states to equal the same population as California, there'd be more Evangelicals in that southern Mega-state. --Jayron3204:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. One thing that must be understood about US politics is that evangelicals have large negatives with a significant portion of US voters. You will note that the Republican Party is trying very hard to hide their evangelical block from the public, as they know this is a sure way to lose a national election. StuRat (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? I'd say it's far more reasonable to state that parties are trying to hide their more radical subgroups, but "evangelical" is not a one-to-one correspondence with "radical". — Lomn13:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Additionally, I'd say that things like both parties including "Jerusalem is the rightful capital of Israel", or however it's phrased, in their national platforms is calculated to appeal to a large number of evangelical Christians -- even the radical ones -- as well as Jews) — Lomn13:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Democratic governments act in the interest of their citizens. Politicians in democracies are elected by their citizens. So if a certain district has a large number of Evangelicals, a politician is naturally going to try to recruit them, because he/she will have to represent them in the government. The same would go for a district with any religion, race, ethnicity, etc. Evangelicals are a large part of American society, and as such, have greater influence. That's how a democracy functions. The part about closing on Sunday isn't part of the government. That's a personal decision by the restaurant owner, and can happen in any country even among a minority (the issue of #s doesn't apply here). --Activism123403:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To put this quantitatively, 26% of Americans identify as evangelicals according to our article. Evangelicals also have disproportionate power because they put heavy emphasis on a president's piety. A president can hope to attract the votes of a vast majority of evangelicals by being more religious than the other guy, but can't hope to attract a similar percentage of votes from the non-religious (15% of the population) by being less religious. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if he espouses the issues of the evangelicals, like saying he wants to ban abortion and arrest all illegal immigrants and their children, that will lose him the national election. StuRat (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Bible doesn't explicitly condemn abortion either and actually values prenatal life as less than postnatal life since I think there was a line there about someone being forced to pay a fine for forcing a woman to miscarry rather than being charged with murder. Also, Reagan and both Bushes supported repealing Roe v. Wade (which would have caused some U.S. states to ban abortion) and they won the U.S. Presidency, sometimes by huge electoral and popular vote margins. Futurist110 (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but none of them campaigned on that issue: "A Bush Presidency will mean the end to abortion forever !". That would have made them lose. Keeping their evangelical leanings hidden is the way to go, which is what Romney is doing. Also, back in Reagan's time, the backlash against evangelicals hadn't fully developed yet. As for the views of evangelicals being at odds with the Bible, I couldn't agree more. StuRat (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of separation of church and state in America was a result of reflection on Puritan society. Consider Thomas Hooker, Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams, etc, who rejected Puritan lifestyle and established new colonies that promoted religious tolerance. The Salem Witch Trials really did it too. --Activism123404:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who made this curse? (shown on PBS about 10-15 years ago)
A man was being pressed to death and at one point his tongue stuck out. Someone took his cane and pushed it back in. Then he put curse on the estate until every stone he scartered over the land is returned. Maybe he said how many. And apparently stuff after that (like the Hpe diamond) that the modern owners keep the one(s) that've been found. And there's lake or pond on the property and they believe that they might never (all) be found. 96.246.70.87 (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is an apparently purely American (other than for royalty and pontiffs) habit of using ordinal numbers with names (e.g. Davis Love III, George Hamilton IV). My central question is "What's up with that?", but it might be useful to break it down into How did it arise? Is it practised anywhere else? and Is it considered a bit pompous even there? I'm genuinely interested, so no Yank-bashing please. HenryFlower05:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It denotes the third bearer of that name in that family (in the case of Davis Love) or the 4th in the case of George Hamilton. European monarchs and popes follow the convention. There is, however, an interesting exception: the House of Reuss, whose males are all called Henry and numbered sequentially until you get to 100, when the sequence starts again. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Googling this subject suggests that it's adopted from the tradition of using Roman Numerals with royal lineage. Also, consider this: The typical name consists of strictly letters, not numbers (with the exception of Tom Lehrer's friend Hen3ry). Roman numberals are letters too. So it works. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No--the format of the ordinal is not what interests me; its use is (serves me right for trying to be concise). This manner of naming would never* be used in the UK, because a) children seem less often to be named after their parents, and b) if they are, they would be referred to by some sort of nickname rather than the full name. What interests me is the sociology of the American practice.
To complicate things further, is the practice ever followed with women? (Now that married names are going out of fashion).
In addition to a deterrent and preventing future crimes, there's also the element of retribution: an eye for an eye. A sense of justice. If you think capital punishment is equivalent to murder, then imposing a fine is equivalent to theft, and arresting someone is equivalent to kidnapping. - Lindert (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Punishments generally have up to four purposes: retribution, deterrent, prevention and rehabilitation. Obviously, capital punishment doesn't do the last one (a lot of punishments only to two or three of them) but the arguments for the other three are basically the same as for any other punishment. The counter-arguments are also pretty much the same as for other punishments. You can argue that it doesn't actually achieve the desired result (the evidence for capital punishment being an effective deterrent is pretty weak, for example) and you can argue that the punishment is disproportionate (ie. you can argue that the immorality of executing someone outweighs the benefits - some people put infinite weight to that immorality, so would never accept capital punishment regardless of the benefits). You can also argue that the punishment does more harm than good (eg. putting people in prison exposes them to other criminals and get them involved in more serious crimes once they are released), although I'm not sure you could construct an argument against capital punishment along those lines (except in the case of martyrs). --Tango (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion going on on the Science desk at the moment (that I think should probably be here, which is why I'm asking my question here) about the theories of Jared Diamond and how a lot of people disagree with them. I have read Guns, Germs, and Steel and found it a very interesting and plausible theory. Can anyone recommend a good, detailed critique of it, ideally also written for the layman? --Tango (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved.jpg)
_sid_103).jpg)
![[14]](http://pics.librarything.com/picsizes/d4/57/d457b6cf6c1a162593342455551444341587343.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](http://media.libri.de/shop/coverscans/848/8485331_8485331_xl.jpg){kind=link}
