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.
I'm not having much luck finding anything on the internet at the moment - I've posted a question on the Language Desk that might help with Google search terms in French. I suspect that, like the UK, there was an expectation in 1939 that there would be catastrophic bombing of civilian centres from the outset, so some thought would have been given to public air raid shelters during the months before and after war was declared. In Britain and Germany, the cellars or basements in people's own houses were the main form of shelter, and I imagine that the French fondness for large apartment buildings in towns would have meant that most people would have found shelter with their neighbours au sous-sol in their own immeuble d'appartements. Alansplodge (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The common word (for "sous-sol" was "les caves" (cellars) and more precisely "les caves-abris" and in general "les abris antiaériens (de la défense passive)". — AldoSyrt (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The search terms "abri anti-bombe France seconde guerre mondiale" return some good results [1], including links to purpose-built structures now turned into museums or memorials. --Xuxl (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In Britain and Germany, the cellars or basements in people's own houses were the main form of shelter" - really? Our article Air-raid shelter says that 3.6 million Anderson shelters (capable of accommodating six people each), and 600,000 Morrison shelters were installed in the UK, in addition to the communal street shelters and the use of existing tunnels and other structures. The article specifically makes the point that the lack of cellars in UK houses was an obstacle to civil defence planning. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably a sweeping statement, but a very substantial number would have sheltered in their own cellars. My grandparents certainly sheltered in the cellar of their Victorian terraced house in London. I've just been reading A Woman in Berlin which tells the story of a woman who lives in an apartment block in Berlin. All the residents abandoned their flats and took shelter in the basement of their building for several weeks while the city fell to the Russians. Stories were passed around about the goings-on in basements of surrounding buildings. Alansplodge (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The French government declared Paris an open city (French: ville ouverte, German: offene Stadt) in 1940 when they couldn't defend it. Bomb shelters were not required in Paris proper but there were industrial targets in the suburbs of Paris requiring shelters in the suburbs. Sleigh (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So how do you explain the following passage from Helene Deschamps Adams's autobiography Spyglass: "With no apparent warning, sirens began to howl. The Allies were getting bold these days, bombing even in daylight. The cafe emptied rapidly, and I rushed to the nearest shelter, the Jasmin metro station. A wide black arrow on the wall indicated the entrance to the air-raid shelter, which was on the train tracks. The ramp going down was only dimly lit, and I moved cautiously. Others, more accustomed to this route of safety, rushed by me." If what you said was true, then how could this have happened at all? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everyone! Perhaps I should have been more specific and said right away that I'm most interested in public bomb shelters in urban areas of occupied France from 1940-1944. Am I right in concluding from the info provided here that in large cities other than Paris (such as Lille, Rouen, Calais, etc.), these were usually in basements of large apartment buildings? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Nazis controlling occupied France weren't so assiduous about air raid protection as were the British authorities during and after the Blitz. I dont think they had ARP wardens for example and it would be interesting to know what kind of air raid warnng systems they had. But when there were air raids the population ran for shelter, the cellar or the Metro, the catacombs, or just under the table. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the same way that gas masks were not required even though everybody carried a gas mask with them. Mustard gas was never used in Word War II. Sleigh (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nantes was bombed numerous times, but there were no bomb shelters, and no Metro. People either hid in cellars, or they just fled the city entirely. We don't have an English article about this, but there is one on the French Wikipedia (which unfortunately doesn't mention anything about shelters). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
colors connected to World War II
I'm trying to find some paints. They should be colors used on the American home front during World War II. Olive drab was used on land vehicles. Battleship gray was used on ocean crossing vessels. What other colors were used at the time?142.255.103.121 (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think "olive drab" and "battleship gray" don't actually match anything commonly referred to as the "US home front", which is civilian rather than military. The colors listed describe military equipment, but not civilian stuff outside of a combat zone (see, for example, the photo of a parking lot in the first slideshow linked by Alansplodge). Also linked from there is this Library of Congress collection of color photos from the 1930s and 1940s. Also, you mention "trying to find some paints" -- are you looking just for representative colors, or specifically for paints in those colors? If for actual paint, what sort of paint are you looking for? — Lomn14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The paint colors seen on the WW2 US home front would have been largely of pre-war activity, since most things do not need constant repainting. Popular Science, March 1942 recommended 2 coats of paint on the house exterior every 4 years, but the article was doubtless edited and slotted for publication before the US entered the war. It has no mention of what colors are popular. Paint was made largely of chemicals (solvents and pigments such as titanium) of strategic importance, but apparently paint was not strictly rationed.They worried more about the steel in the cans than the petroleum in the paint. In 1943, only bronze and aluminum paint were scarce: [2]. By 1945 there was "practically no paint for houses" because of a shortage of lead: In [http://books.google.com/books?id=3CEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA171&dq=paint&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SP1JUeOODcSxyQG-roBo&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=paint&f=false July 1944 they said good paint was still procurable. An Oct 1945 article discussed new pigments and formulations developed by war research, and said the country needed a "facelift" after wartime neglect. My public library has back issues of many magazine from the WW2 period, but I do not see in Google Book magazines such as Better Home and Gardens which had color sections showing then-trendy color choices for homes. A trip to a good-sized library might help more than what can be found online. Edison (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I was watching the closing credits of My Dog Skip (film), I saw Sherwin Williams mentioned in them. The company was one of a few being acknowledged for their assistance and/or cooperation with the film's production. That's what prompted me to ask about colors used during WWII.142.255.103.121 (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Companies paying unsustainable dividends
Recently an article in the financial media called my attention to this fact: Many companies pay dividends so high that they actually have a negativeretained earnings as a result. Sometimes, they are simply borrowing money (accumulating debt) to pay out as dividends.
1. Wherein lies the logic of such behaviour? Isn't it a clear form of self-cannibalization? Are they simply gambling that earnings will go up to cover the shortfall, or is there more to it? What's the endgame, so to speak?
2. In the latter case (accumulating debt whilst paying dividends), who would be stupid enough to lend money to a company for such a blatantly unsustainable and unprofitable purpose? 203.45.183.3 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) Might just be short-termed thinking, possibly combined with a conflict of interest. For example, many executives have their compensation tied to the stock price. Therefore, if you plan to leave the company in the next few years, this would be a good way to maximize your pay before you go, by puffing up the stock price by paying large dividends.
2) The banks may not know. For example, if the company had X dollars budgeted for building widgets, they could instead pay that out as dividends, while borrowing X dollars from banks, supposedly so they can use it to build and sell widgets. StuRat (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example of such a company? It is quite common to pay out dividends that are larger than your profits (or even to pay them when making losses), but only in the short-term. Dividend policies are often intended to smooth out payments rather than leave investors exposed to fluctuting profits. That gives investors more confidence in the stock, so increases the stock price. Paying out dividends larger than your profits over a long enough period to end up with negative retained earnings would be quite extreme (most companies don't start paying dividends at all until retained earnings are fairly large, so even if they are making big losses and paying big dividends, it would take a few years to go negative). --Tango (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A company should pay the dividend which is in the best interest of shareholders. While there are other ways of returning value to shareholders (such as buying the companies own stock) dividends are a standrad mechanism for doing this. There are three reasons to pay an "unsustainable" dividend
If the company has cash which would be give a better return if invested by its shareholders than if invested by the company. (For example corporation tax is 33% personal tax is 20%.)
If the company can borrow at terms more favourable than the shareholders
If the company has traditionally paid a certain dividend they may wish to maintain it, as shareholders are budgeting on the income stream
These reasons will all depend on the nature of the shareholders. It was, I think, traditional British business practice to avoid cutting dividends unless absolutely essential for reason 3 - the thinking was that as the economy/company recovered the dividend would once again be "covered" (dividends were also traditionally a very low percentage of the share value).
Is physical attractiveness subjective or objective? Does objective beauty exist? If so, why do different people from different cultures perceive beauty in different ways? For example, Kayan women artificially make their neck long and to Kayan men, this long neck serve as a sexual attractant. I don't think a New York City guy will find a Kayan woman sexually attractive. Foot binding was prevalent in Chinese culture and Chinese men considered the tiny narrow feet of women to be beautiful. But I don';t think a westerner at that time would have found those feet beautiful. According to this study, women from two different geographical regions, Britain and Malaysia, and from rural and urban areas, perceive male physical attractiveness in different ways. Is there really anything called objective human physical attractiveness? Or the concept of physical attractiveness is shaped by culture, a result of social conditioning? --PlanetEditor (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Physical attractiveness is an uncalculable mixture of universal principles and cultural variability. Wikipedia has an article titled Physical attractiveness. There are some "universal" principles of attractiveness, which hold (statistically, though not in every single individual ever born, but rather on average across many cultures). These include certain things like symmetry of facial features, and some proportional relationships. However, there are also deep cultural distinctions between other measures of beauty and attractiveness. So the answer to your question is both yes and no: There are some "objective" standards of beauty in the sense that there are some principles that seem to hold across all cultural groups (though, again, allowing for some individual variation on the person-by-person level), while there are also many measures of beauty which vary greatly between cultures. --Jayron3215:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even in modern Western cultures, there have been notable changing trends and fads -- in the 1920's, small-breastedness was favored, while in the 1950s large breasts were "in", etc. AnonMoos (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fallacy that if some of a physical quality is good, then more of that quality is better.
It'd be a fallacy if many, many, many animal species didn't do the exact same thing. See sexual selection, i.e. peafowl, mandrill, etc. etc. That doesn't excuse the unrealistic models of beauty that mass media foists onto young women, for example. But at least don't pretend like it's some unnnatural thing; it's a fairly normal state of affairs. If one is going to correct for it, one needs to at least be honest with what it is... --Jayron3222:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of that is true regarding differences between human and other animal cognition. Also of note: Birds of all kinds can fly MUCH better than human animals, dogs smell orders of magnitude better than human animals, etc. All the links do is prove that humans are different from other animals in profound ways, but then again every kind of animal is profoundly different from other animals as well. It means nothing for the point of this discussion. The concept of sexual selection producing what is otherwise a disadvantageous trait (as you said earlier "if some of a physical quality is good, then more of that quality is better", is something which is pervasively common in the natural world. To deny that humans would be entirely immune from such biological principles is disingenuous in the extreme. Humans are absolutely subject to the exact same biological principles as all other forms of life. Now, let me make this clear: that does NOT make it morally correct or right for a culture, for example, to treat their women or men in an undignified or inhumane manner in the name of beauty (i.e. foot binding, for example). That is not an argument I have made. Instead, my point was more subtle (and as a subtle point, requires you to use that human intellect you cite!). The point is that we mustn't deny the existence of the biological pressures that lead to such behavior in humans, because such biological pressures are universal in the Animal kingdom. Instead, the first and most important thing we must do is to acknowledge and understand such biological principles, not because we accept them with resignation and allow the sort of injustices they cause, but because we cannot fix the problem if we don't understand its nature. --Jayron3219:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beauty is objectively measured in Helens. One Helen can launch a thousand ships, a milliHelen's worth of facial beauty will launch one ship. And perhaps set fire to a waste paper basket. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mass media are guilty of misrepresenting abnormality as normality. Let us strive to avoid being misled.
I agree that some features are (almost) universally considered desirable while others vary by culture and time. However, even if there was a feature which was universally considered desirable by every human who ever lived, that would still be a subjective standard, not an objective one, since it's all opinion. Now, if you set some objective goal, like a woman being able to "bear children successfully", then you can come up with an objective physical form; in this case, wide hips. StuRat (talk) 06:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you can find someone to disagree doesn't mean it's subjective. There are quite clearly objective standards of beauty, and more broadly attractiveness that have been written about time and time again. If you think something so intimately tied to evolution is somehow a cultural fabrication, then nothing isn't. Shadowjams (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All kinds of perception of physical attractiveness in "modern societies" or in "tribal societies" are some kinds of fetish behavior whether it is tightlacing during the Victorian era, fashion fads such as whale tail, use of jewellery, tattooing, use of cosmetics such as lipsticks or nail polish, foot binding, neck ring, stretching etc.. None of these is natural, but act differently as sexual attractants to different humans. Human sexuality is lot more complicated than the sexuality of other animals. I think this complexity applies in the perception physical attractiveness too. You can clearly observe the objective criteria for physical attractiveness among mandrills or peafowls. Because they have a homogenous perception of physical attractiveness. Human perception of attractiveness is heterogeneous, not homogenous. And in this sense, human physical attractiveness is always subjective and is always shaped by social conditioning through exposure to different cultures, and by the unique human psychology. What do you guys think? --PlanetEditor (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can add piercing to the list, and Vietnamese people until he early 20th century used to lacquer their teeth black. I agree with Jayron. Plus our evolved nature as human animals and our culture are not opposites. We evolved to a state where we can have culture. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that animals are not attracted to inanimate objects resembling them or members of their species with limbs missing? Have you asked them? This type of attraction is rare in humans, and presumably in animals as well. Humans have the ability to make their fetishes known worldwide; animals do not. --140.180.249.152 (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not unique e.g. [4], the real difference is people can produce things which don't naturally occur and haven't been evolved against. Dmcq (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which cities gave the most votes to which party in 2013 Israeli elections
Just fascinating. If you want to understand just how diverse and politically complex a place Israel is you can, to give just one example, compare the results for the United Torah Judaism party in Jerusalem (1st place, 22% of the vote) and Tel Aviv (15th, 1% of the vote). Overall, the party came sixth, with just over 5%, giving it seven seats in the 120 seat 19th Knesset. --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, the votes-19.gov.il/cityresults website was working fine and today the loading process for the website is slow. Does anybody know? Is it for security reasons?--Donmust90 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A response from Winston Churchill made at a dinner party to an affronted dame.
The affronted dame said 'sir, you are drunk'.
Winston's response was; 'Madam, you are ugly: tomorrow, I shall be sober!
My question is: Who was the woman? If the date and social context were known; that would be excellent. Thank you86.137.130.213 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Susie Bloomfield[reply]
The joke wouldn't have worked, because Lady Astor was insufficiently ugly (click the link to our article and you'll see the evidence). Alansplodge (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She might have been what some would call a "battleaxe" (funnily enough she look a bit like Les Dawson in this image), but the Bessie Braddock article says "She is often erroneously credited ..." with the quote. The source used in the article (that paragon of journalistic integrity, the Daily Mail) says it was "It was an old gag, even then". I don't know who to believe now. Astronaut (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Artist who did hot air balloon print entitled AT&T THUNDERBIRD BALLOON CLASSIC 1988
Thanks to everyone who answered my questions regarding id this artist. I did upload a pic of the print in TinEye Reverse but I'm having trouble figuring out how to use their service & maneuver in TinEye so I will try here again. I bought this print many years ago at an estate sale in Phx., Az but I was never able to know the last name of the artist because she scribbled her last name so badly, it is not legible. I don't know if the experts at Wikipedia are able to see pics on TinEye but if you are it is tagged as PRINTBALLOON6.JPG & the info on the screen where it was uploaded shows it will be there for 72 hours & then deleted. I also don't know if there is a zoom feature to see the artist's signature. I can take another pic of just the sig & upload that if it will help. It is alson being shown on eBay where there is a zoom feature. Use the title of the print to see pic. I think the 1st name of the artist is Gloria? or Diana, but it looks more like a Gloria. The last name may end in islew? I hope you can help me. I have googled till I'm blind. I'm grateful for any help.
Thanks
Barb Greer (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
how can scully still be sceptical about paranormal phenomena when she has actually seen and been attacked by so much of it, when she has been abducted by aliens herself and had a chip put in her and mulder has been abducted as well and lots of people she know have been killed or abducted and she has seen things float through the air and a stretcy man try to eat her liver but still she doesn't believe in any of it, it the because she is secretly mental?? Horatio Snickers (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you are asking us why a fictional character behaves the way she does? Unless the writer has said something in public about the matter, I don't see how this is a kind of question the Ref Desk can answer. --ColinFine (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the number of paranormal things Scully has seen still is much much much smaller than the number of reported paranormal claims that are mistakes or scams. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of a larger problem I've seen with many long-run series. They define the characters initially but fail to update them based on their experiences in each episode. The writers may do this intentionally, as they don't want to mess with a winning formula, and also want people to be able to watch any episode, out of order, without having to know what happened previously. Or, the writers may just be too lazy to redefine the characters.
Sometimes characters who "never learn" are kept that way intentionally, for comic effect, such as Charlie Brown never learning not to try to kick the football that Lucy holds for him, Linus never learning not to wait for the Great Pumpkin, and Fibber McGee never learning not to open the closet full of junk which always falls on him. StuRat (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Christianity has been translated into many languages, however it does not currently contain a translation in the language Lingua Franca Nova (LFN). LFN has it's own Wiki and there is an article within it on Christianity (link: http://lfn.wikia.com/wiki/Cristianisme).
Would you consider adding the LFN version to the Wikipedia article on Christianity?
Thanks
Guido Crufio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guido Crufio (talk • contribs) 22:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Canada is part of a Constitutional Monarchy. As such, at the Federal level there is a Governor General while the Provinces and Territories have Lieutenent Governors (or Territorial equivalents). Is there any way of determining what the monetary cost is to support these representatives of the Monarchy? In other words, how much does Canada pay to have these representatives of QEII?
WOW! Imagine what we could do with that money if it were put back into our economy instead of supporting some antiquated political/philosophical paradigm . . . Thanks.
To put that into perspective, if you took all of that $50 million dollars per year, and instead figured out how much extra the Canadian government could do with it, it amounts to an extra hour and 45 minutes worth of work (considering the proportion of the Canadian government spending this accounts for). That is, over 365 days, there's an extra hour and 45 minutes you could so something with. It's not that much money. --Jayron3200:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that you would need to pay for a replacement. If Canada decided that it wanted to become a Parliamentary republic, then it's hard to think of a country following that system that doesn't feel the need to employ a ceremonial president (I believe that South Africa, Botswana and the Marshall Islands are the exceptions). If that is the case, the new president would probably need all the official residences, posh cars and travel expenses that are currently enjoyed by your Governor-General. The President of Germany, for example, a nice chap who had a distinguished career as a not very successful politician and has no more power than Canada's G-G, has the use of seven palaces. You do need somebody to entertain visiting heads of state and give them dinner in reasonable surroundings, to visit factories and homeless shelters telling everybody how well they're doing and all that stuff. Alansplodge (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never bought this argument. I think governments arrange to have ceremonial presidents because they can, not because they're actually good for anything. As others have pointed out, it isn't really all that much money; that's true. But personally I would like to see more countries dispense with ceremonial heads of state, not so much to save money, as to give a poke in the eye to statism itself. --Trovatore (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But according to sources such as this the German President costs the German taxpayers EUR 4.6mio/year. This is a with more than twice the population of Canada. $50 mio does seem pretty expensive. 86.136.42.134 (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if we're comparing like for like there. According to the first webpage linked by Cucumber Mike above, most of the $50m was spent on maintaining historic properties and operating the Canadian honours system. Whether the German presidential total includes the equivalent fees, or if they are charged to other budgets, I don't know. Alansplodge (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also bear in mind that Canada's total government spending in 2009 was CAD 238,800 million[8] - so CAD 50 million represents 0.02% of the total annual budget. Alansplodge (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder where the money goes. Does the GoG have money shredder where he turns good Canadian dollars into paper goo? Or does he maybe spend most of that money in Canada, thus "putting it back into the Canadian economy"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, Canada is completely independent of the UK, at least since the Canada Act 1982. It just happens to share the head of state with the UK. It also shares the head of state with Tuvalu, but that does not make Canada a Tuvaluan colony. Should Canada decide to eliminate the monarchy, my guess is that the UK will say "too sad, but good riddance", as in several other cases, like India or Botswana. On the other hand, should Canada decide to eliminate the Monarch, there would be all kinds of trouble... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain that if Canada was ever invaded by the army of a fascist military dictatorship, as happened to the Falkland Islands, then the UK would be ready to help Canadians to get their country back. Alansplodge (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Canada could leave the Commonwealth, and it could declare itself a Republic and end its association with the British Monarchy. This has happened in the past: Ireland, Zimbabwe and South Africa come to mind. The UK didn't go to war with those nations then, and I doubt it would if it happened again. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Membership of the Commonwealth hasn't been limited to Commonwealth realms since the London Declaration of 1949. Ireland did indeed leave the Commonwealth in 1949, but South Africa was prevented from renewing her membership in 1961 (on the grounds of Apartheid in South Africa rather than republicanism) but rejoined in 1994 and is still an active member. Zimbabwe was suspended in 2002 for human rights abuses and then terminated her own membership in 2003. Not much similarity with Canada thankfully. Alansplodge (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all Commonwealth realms are members of the Commonwealth, but not all members of the Commonwealth are Commonwealth realms. Australia last seriously considered the subject of becoming a republic in 1999, but we would have remained a member of the Commonwealth whatever the outcome. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]19:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noted many point of similarity between the countries of Bhutan and Switzerland.
Both are mountainous Countries
Both are Landlocked Countries
Both are peaceful countries
Inspite of all these similarities Switzerland is a globalized country with cities such as Zurich and Geneva and has a very high infrastructure and economy. But Bhutan on the other hand is a very improverished country. What is the reason behind that. Solomon7968 (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Location, location, location? Switzerland is in the middle of Europe, and is on the frequently-used overland route across the Alps. It's amidst the economic superpowers of Italy, France, and Germany, and can partake of trade with and between them. Bhutan, on the other hand, is between India and China, but only the distal provinces of such. Aside from an ancient spur of the silk road, there are really no major trade routes through Bhutan. It should also be pointed out that up until recently Switzerland was a relatively impoverished and agrarian (by the standards of Europe), and it was only recently due to industrialization and the growth of the financial sector that it became the rich country we see it as today. (See, for example When Did the Swiss Get so Rich?). -- 71.35.100.68 (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "superiority" of western culture is debatable. Westerners, like any other cultural group, are liable to ethnocentrism on this question. It is certainly true that, until recently, the West outperformed other parts of the word on volumetric measurements of the economy, such as gross domestic product. That has been changing in recent years, as some countries with very different value systems, such as China, have been far outstripping the West in their rate of economic growth. Current global challenges, such as global warming and resource depletion, raise serious questions about whether a culture and a political economy that seeks infinite exponential growth is really superior, in the long term, to one that aims for a sustainable steady state economy. Bhutan has adopted a policy of renouncing economic growth at all costs with its national benchmark of gross national happiness. Marco polo (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is the general question of economic development in Europe, but there is also the specific question of the Swiss economy. I wish that Watch Valley had more detail. The Swiss valleys have industrialised over a long period, and they have been able to update to high-tech engineering. However, much of Switzerland was dirt-poor until the tourists started coming for skiing.
If I wanted to set up a new watch factory, and I really don't because it would be unlikely to succeed wherever it was, I would choose Switzerland over Bhutan, even though the wage bill would be sky-high in Switzerland and rock-bottom in Bhutan. Switzerland has the skilled labour, the services to business (banks, accountants, insurance companies, consultants), and much better transport to get the raw materials in at low cost and the finished product out to markets. The markets would be much nearer, and customers would have more confidence in a product made in Switzerland. Suzhou might be an even more attractive location, though. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The superiority of western culture is "debatable" only to people who have never lived without it. Try telling a North Korean refugee about the environmental dangers of capitalism, and she would probably laugh in your face while asking if you'd rather starve to death. Contrary to what you claim, China has had rapid economic growth only since the capitalist Chinese economic reform, when it essentially renounced communism (another Western idea). Chinese youth are increasingly adopting a Western lifestyle. Most Chinese also recognize the need to liberalize the government by introducing democratic reforms and decreasing corruption.
The superiority of western culture (liberal culture) lies on its value of individualism, that is the main point. Third world or developing countries are largely collectivists (religious collectivist, blind nationalists, ethno-nationalists, economic collectivists or socialists etc.). Western culture generally put much value to the individual, to civil liberties, and human rights, and this value is largely absent in African and South Asian countries.
However I will like to point out that it is completely wrong to claim "western culture" as the only culture that put value to individual rights. Countries that highly regard individual rights include South Korea, Japan, Thailand, Hong Kong, Estonia, Czech Republic, Australia, New Zealand etc. So I think it is very logical to replace the term "western culture" with "liberal culture".
Also, Western Europe is far more superior to the United States. Western Europe has far greater human rights record compared to the United States. For example, death penalty is abolished in the Western Europe, while the US is one of the biggest implementer of death penalty (greater than North Korea), number of atheists are higher in Western European countries while the US is the most religious western country etc. etc. --PlanetEditor (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The West Europe and US comparison? No. It is a fact that countries such as Netherlands, Germany etc. have far greater civil liberties record than the US (in terms of abolition of death penalty, sexual freedom etc). --PlanetEditor (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Atheism is the proof of higher cognitive ability. State-sponsored and carefully arranged murder of a defenseless person is not "right of self-defense". --PlanetEditor (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my observations, I would have to say that atheism is proof of nothing except extreme narrow-mindedness. And the legal permanent removal of a murderer is not murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to extend this debate, but I want to point out that your interpretation of "Western" is very different from that of most people. Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand are usually considered integral parts of the Western world. Hong Kong was a British colony until 1997. Japan became a world power after it started Westernizing due to the Black Ships incident. Almost all the countries you listed are politically, economically, socially, and scientifically Western, and that's only because I don't know enough about the rest to make a judgment. --140.180.249.152 (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the superiority tangent, which was mainly in response to 140.180... I would point out that North Korea's military command economy and western (oligarchic) capitalism are not the only conceivable ways of organizing economies, and sustainability has to be a criterion in assessing the superiority of the western model relative to other models, such as a steady-state economy. However, 140.180 is absolutely correct that the original question was about why Switzerland is wealthier than Bhutan. As others have pointed out, Switzerland's location in Europe is the key. Western Europe during the early modern period had a historically somewhat unique situation of interstate competition for military superiority coupled with an alliance between autocratic states and a technologically innovative mercantile middle class. It was in the context of this alliance that the Enlightenment occurred. States found that technological innovation promoted both military superiority and the prosperity of their middle classes, and so European states promoted scientific and technological advancement in a way states in no other region had done before. Switzerland benefited from and participated in this process, which included the development of a wealth-creating infrastructure of railways, electrical grids, sewers, and later highways and airports. Europe's transport infrastructure, whose Alpine heart is Switzerland, promotes trade and in turn wealth. During the 20th century, Switzerland benefited relative to other European countries from its policy of neutrality, which allowed it to trade with all warring parties when trade had shut down between them and which made Switzerland a safe haven. This particularly benefited its financial sector. Bhutan's neighborhood largely lacks this wealth-generating infrastructure and culture of technology. India has relatively new, budding technology sector, but its centers are far geographically and culturally from Bhutan. While India has a basic railway network, it is nowhere near as dense as Europe's, nor does it extend across the Himalaya. Finally, the Himalaya is a much more formidable barrier than the Alps. Whereas Switzerland's Alpine valleys and the passes between its relatively low mountains tie north and south Europe together, Bhutan and Tibet are separated by the towering wall of the Himalaya, whose lowest passes are higher than many of Switzerland's highest peaks. Travel through these mountains is not feasible because of altitude sickness, snow and ice, and other obstacles. Because the mountain chain is so wide, tunneling through them would be extremely expensive. Finally, Tibet itself is underdeveloped. Marco polo (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the 13th century Tuscany and the Low Countries both had textile industries. Trade routes took raw materials and finished products out; any land route into Italy has to cross the Alps. Therefore Switzerland was on or near the cross European trade routes. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
[unindent] Solomon — one scholarly answer to your original question can be found in Guns, Germs, and Steel. I'd advise you to read the article (and the book, if you have time), but of course you need to remember that the author's attracted substantial opposition as well as support. Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it true that the Goebbels were machine-gunned to death at their own request?
close trolling by timothyhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This story seems more factual: 'Unwilling to accept a world without National Socialism, Magda Goebbels poisons her six children while her husband waits. Then Goebbels and Magda proceed up to the Chancellery garden, where Goebbels shoots his wife before shooting himself.' See Downfall_(film). --Omidinist (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...I recall a heartwarming story he wrote about a young necrophiliac who eventually achieved his lifelong ambition by becoming coroner. [crowd murmurs] The rest of you can look it up when you get home!" -- An Evening Wasted with Tom Lehrer. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article on MadocAfter gathering ten ships of men and women the prince sailed west a second time, never to return. Based on the time period (1171 AD), approximately how many people on average would each of these ships carry?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Model of a knarr
From a quick look at Google, it seems that the main type of ship used around the British Isles in the 12th century would have been a knarr. The bigger cog (ship) was still confined to the northern coasts of the continent at that time. Some information on this page. Alansplodge (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The crew of a typical Iceland knarr was 15-30 people. But knarrs could apparently carry up to 40 tons (estimated for the Hedeby I find), and Olaf II of Norway allegedly took 260 armed men in just two knarrs from England to Norway (which sounds crowded, but not incompatible with the capacity). However, that seems implausible for an alleged transatlantic crossing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
March 23
where did they find gold in ancient times
where was the best place that people found gold (gold mines and things like this) in thousands of years ago? I mean which places had the MOST gold mining not just a little gold here and there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by There goes the internet (talk • contribs) 07:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I look at that already. it just says this place had some gold and this place had some gold and we found some remains of gold mine here and there. I want to know which places had A LOT of gold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by There goes the internet (talk • contribs) 07:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of countries by gold production is a modern list, but it should give some ideas as to what parts of the world gold is found in. The gold, after all, was still there in ancient times. If the OP can indicate for what purpose they want to know the information, or for what parts of the world, we may be able to provide more tailored and useful responses. --Jayron3201:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the gold standard and real wage growth
my teacher said that the reason why there has been no wage growth in the united states is that we went off THE GOLD STANDARD and we print to much money. what are some arguments AGAINST this view. in other words, are there some ppl who thing this would have happened if we stayed on the gold standaed. this is not homework btw i just want to know what the other side of the argument is. also, how can we restore real wage growth in the United States becuase i would like to make some more money in 10 yrs then i make now (assuming i dont get a better job or things like this).--There goes the internet (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you are studying at the same time as working Good for you but if you really want to make a go of it you should invest some time in figuring how to search for things yourself. What work have you done to find an answer for your homework besides asking here? Dmcq (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being offended by what some random person on the internet says is irrational. Also what you say is evidence not truth as far as I am concerned, I try and assume the best in accordance with Wikipedia policy but that does not include assuming everything someone says is true. In this case I have advised you whilst assuming are attending a class and wish to learn. If a question arises during a class then you should treat it as an opportunity for learning rather than just reaching to the internet for some instant answer. Particularly if you have chosen to go and study at the same time as working. You could also have asked during class. Dmcq (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First your premise is incorrect, there has been real wage growth, just not for the bottom 80% of Americans, for the richest Americans, wage growth has been the greatest ever seen. Wage growth is normally tied to productivity, if a worker can create twice as much in the same time, or create twice as much using the same amount of raw material, his wages will double minus the cost of whatever it was that made him more productive (education, new technology, increased capital, etc). Productivity has been increasing over the last few decades, though the wages paid to workers is not increasing mostly due to the rich owners demanding all the profit from the increase in productivity and the workers just accepting this. If you want to see higher real wages in the future then become more productive and demand your fair share or your labour's value. 69.157.30.181 (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
we should get together and seize the property of the boozwazeeee. it is the fault of greedy 1 percenter, that is what i will tell my teacher, but i think he will laugh at me. he doesnt think much of marx and socialism and things like this.--There goes the internet (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
During most of the 19th century, economies with gold-backed currencies showed a long-term overall deflationary trend, partially counteracted at irregular intervals by major gold finds. This state of affairs could be considered good for workers if it inhibited currency instabilities and runaway inflation, but also bad for workers insofar as deflation was creditor-friendly and debtor-unfriendly. In the United States at the end of the 19th century, many farmers and workers (especially in western states) were strongly in favor of supplementing gold with silver ("bimetallism") -- see William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold speech... AnonMoos (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah! i remember this from my history class. there was like this period for like 20-30 years where there was a whole slew of candidates who ran on silver-related platform. that was like the most boring and repetitive part of the whole history book. i'm glad it's over.--There goes the internet (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's incredibly boring for you, but in late 19th century America, it was just about the only politically-realistic way to argue for non-long-term-deflationary non-creditor-friendly monetary policies, so it was of vital interest to many. It was one of the few ways of trying to smooth some of the harsh edges of unrestrained "robber baron" capitalism that was not widely perceived to be politically radical. Of course, owners of silver mines favored bimetallism for different reasons... AnonMoos (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the reason why increased productivity is not reflected in increased wages is globalization, and, in particular, China. Anyone who doesn't accept low wages can just be replaced by a Chinese worker (with a few exceptions). StuRat (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, all this depends on how you calculate buying power. Yes, a dollar today buys less gold than a dollar 100 years ago. But it buys a hell of a lot more cellular service, or computing power, or antiretroviral drugs, or antibiotics, or high-precision watches, or air travel, or free online encyclopedias. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd have a go at our stub article for Stanley Spencer, who designed and built the first British airship in 1902. I'm having trouble establishing a date for the first flight. Many sources, such as this one go for 22 September 1902, with a 3 hour flight from Crystal Palace, London. However, the New York Times says 20 September and the The Nevada Daily Mail says 19 Sep. The Reading Eagle (apparently Reading, Pennsylvania) reports a trial on 11 July which broke a propeller blade and was eventually flown without the engine. The Manawatu Times in New Zealand reported that Spencer's wife flew the airship at Crystal Palace on 14 July, with or without the engine isn't clear. So does anyone have a reliable date for the first flight? Alansplodge (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the primary sources quoted can be reconciled - a first unpowered flight from Ranelagh to Ongar on the 11th, a flight (presumably powered) by Mrs Specner within the grounds of "Baystal" [sic] Palace on the 13th (presumably - 14th July 1903 was a Tuesday, and I think "13" for "14" is more likely than "Tuesday" for "Monday"), and a powered flight from Crystal Palace to Eastcote on the 19th. Note that the Nevada Daily Mail and New York Times articles seem to be based on the same copy, and the Daily Mail says "today" with a dateline of the 19th, while the Times says "yesterday" with a dateline of the 20th. Tevildo (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I mis-read the dates. The Reading Eagle report is for 1903 (not 1902), so we have two flights for 1902 - Mrs Spencer (Crystal Palace only) on Monday 14th July, Mr Spencer (Crystal Palace to Eastcote) on Saturday 19th July, and one flight for 1903 (Saturday 11th July), unpowered, from Ranelagh to Ongar. Tevildo (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I misread the "Reading Eagle" date too. Spencer built a second, larger airship in 1903 called "Number 2", so it must have been that one. I'm a bit puzzled as to why he would let his wife make the first flight - perhaps she had a good insurance policy! Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, based on the above. The books say that it was Aida de Acosta (27 June 1903), but it seems that Mrs Spencer beat her by nearly a year. Assuming the Crystal Palace flight was under power, which the article doesn't actually say. Tevildo (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The plot thickens. The article does imply powered flight; "navigated around" and "under perfect control" doesn't sound like the sort of thing that is possible in a drifting balloon. Can anyone find a better source than a provincial newspaper from New Zealand? Alansplodge (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More information on Mrs Spencer's history, and a cite (the W G Grace / Conan Doyle copy) to "Motoring Illustrated". It's out there somewhere! Tevildo (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think a trip to Beaulieu is indicated. We have a definite publication and date, and they should have a copy of the magazine. Expect a definite answer some time next week! Tevildo (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It comes down to numbers. There are far more Muslims, Muslim nations, and those who want to trade with or otherwise be on good terms with Muslim nations than Jews, Jewish nations, and those who want to trade with Jewish nations. StuRat (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say here "with the Jewish nation", since besides Israel, there are no other.
No, the United Nations itself as an organisaion, has no position on the matter at all, the the individual member countries have a variety of attitudes towards Israel. Roger (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Palau & others vote according to the US vote. This is not an independent opinion.
Consider too that voting according to the Palestine wishes doesn't mean being anti-Israel. A good part of the world really would like to see peace in that region, in the same way that a good part of Israel indeed is against the decisions of their own government. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few years back, I remember reading a news story about a girl who lead a protest in China, or maybe some other country. She was arrested, and police tortured her by pumping cold water up her vagina every day. She died a month later. Does anyone know what story this is? Unfortunately, when I try to Google it, I find few actual news sites. Thanks. --140.180.249.152 (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.
This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page. --~~~~
A few years ago, a cartoon appeared in one of the British papers of Victoria and David Beckham on the balcony at Buckingham Palace , could you please tell me who the cartoonist was and in what paper it appeared. I have tried searching on line with no luck. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.131.240 (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've very frequently seen economic arguments used, i.e. that extending marriage increases cost of Social Security and other benefits. While I do not condone bigotry, there is good reason to question why society should disburse its benefits based solely on who is registered as having sex. Wnt (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We only write about notable topics. I don't think the distinction between secular and non-secular arguments against same-sex marriage is a particularly meaningful one. Pretty much all the arguments are religiously motivated, but most of them are presented in a secular way (particularly when presenting them in US courts, since US courts aren't allowed to make decisions based on openly religious arguments). Therefore, there is no separate topic to have an article on. --Tango (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a litany of articles on the subject, starting with the article on same sex marriage, and including List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States, List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States, and others. The links you provide above probably could be comfortably merged into some other articles. For instance, we have a dozen versions of gun politics articles. Splitting up topics into scarcely different headings dilutes the effort on any one article and creates divides where either POV issues or accuracy issues can fester, let alone the duplicated effort. There's other stuff but that's not a good reason to add to the problem. If you want a concise set of arguments on that point, try to improve on what's already there, or alternatively, if you must branch something out, do so in a broad rather than narrow way. That is, keep the topics broad, and only split them off into narrower ones if the original grows too large. Shadowjams (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Revere;s actual words regarding the British regulars being out (on the night of his famous ride.
I would like confirmation of what I was told by a Massachusets Park ranger, to wit, that Revere actually called out on his unfinished ride that "The Regulars are out!" This distinction would give credence to the notion that we Americans still kept somewhat in mind that we were (technically) British and/or perhaps distinguished between the British "Regulars" and other British forces. Along the same line, I would like to know when we Americans spoke with an accent that distinguished our speech from British accents. This would most likely be sometime after 1812 and the impressment of American seamen by British naval forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.6.54 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article says that the American accent hasn't changed much since that time - it's the British pronunciations that've changed. Around 1776, lower-class Brits and lower-class Americans (ie most people) spoke pretty much the same, but with time more and more Brits adopted the different, upper-class accent. There's more discussion of this here. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very silly article. American accents have changed in some respects, British accents in others. Unless you think Scots, Welsh, Irish and northern English sound 'American', the fact that rhotic accents were then more common in southern England does not mean that they sounded 'American' either. HenryFlower14:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the Colonist considered themselves British for a very long time... arguably many did up til around the time of Independence. They considered themselves "American" too, but that doesn't have the same meaning it does now in their context. Shadowjams (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Observation: it's surprising how much it varies in the U.S. Near the coastline in the East, there are lots of people who don't seem to pronounce "r" in anything. But go a few hundred miles inland and you'll find something very different, even pockets of people who still pronounce "warsh" with an r, something 'rhotic' speakers don't even do. Wnt (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There has always been a lot of variation in English accents. There was almost certainly even more variation among English accents (by which I mean the accents of England) 200 or 300 years ago than there is now. English accents have tended to become more similar since the early 20th century due mainly to radio and television but also to greater labor mobility and the effects of the world wars in moving people around and exposing them to different accents. In effect, the speech of London has increasingly dominated English speech, though areas outside Southeast England maintain (decreasingly) distinct regional variants. The same process has happened in the United States, with General American, a Midwestern-derived variety, gaining ground against regional variants. The American colonies were settled by people from different parts of England, as well as lots of people from what is now Northern Ireland and smaller numbers from Scotland, Wales, and the rest of Ireland. Some American colonies were mainly settled by people from a particular part of the British Isles and hence had similar accents to those parts of the British Isles. For example, eastern New England was settled mainly by people from East Anglia, where non-rhotic speech probably predated the arrival of the Puritans in the 1630s. As a result, eastern New Englanders probably already had an early precursor of the Boston and Maine accents at the time of the Revolution. Coastal parts of the South may have adopted the speech of upper middle class London, which was probably also non-rhotic by the 18th century. By contrast, the interior of New England and most other American colonies were settled mainly by people from the West Country of England and by people from what is now Northern Ireland speaking Ulster Scots dialects. The result was a hybrid accent combining elements of West Country speech and Ulster Scots that later evolved toward General American. Now, the people of New England had been separated from their East Anglian cousins for some six generations by the time of the Revolution, so it is likely that they would have sounded odd to each other, but more similar to each other than to other English speakers. A speaker of a rhotic variety of English might not have been able to distinguish an eastern New Englander from an East Anglian or a Tidewater Virginian planter from a well-to-do Londoner. On the other hand, the hybrid West Country-Ulster accent of the American interior might well have been distinctive even by the late 18th-century. Here is a source supporting much of the above. Marco polo (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
March 24
Veritas Forum and Campus Crusade for Christ
Does the Veritas Forum just host dialogues between Christians and nonreligious people, or is the Forum more focused on religion in general and irreligion in general? I saw this flyer yesterday about "What is the meaning of life?" hosted by Veritas Forum. At first glance of the flyer, it looks like a forum between two professors. One is a professor in mathematics, and the other is a professor in philosophy. They don't really give their religious status. And about the Campus Crusade for Christ: is the main goal of the organization just trying to convert everybody on the planet to Christianity, or is the main goal of the organization trying to help people "connect with Jesus" while maintaining one's own cultural/religious heritage as long as one's native culture/religion does not interfere with basic Christian beliefs? If the latter case, then can a devout Jewish or Muslim person "connect with Jesus"? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main goal of the Campus Crusade is to convert you to a particular brand of evangelical Protestant Christianity. A Muslim, Jew, and even certain types of Christians (particularly Catholics) can absolutely not "connect with Jesus" in any sense meaningful to the CCC. When I was younger and had more free time to spend on being an asshole, I could spend many hours arguing with the CCC from a Catholic perspective, just for amusement. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you describe yourself as an "asshole"? Why did you do that made you an "asshole"? How long ago was then? Why did you stop being an "asshole"? If you have more free time, then would you continue being an "asshole"? Can a person become a Christian of the lowest common denominator? Which Christian church/denomination accepts everybody as full membership? Can a person become affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church but has mixed theology? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was being facetious, but basically at my university the CCC liked to have "interviews" with the people in charge of the other student clubs, and I was in charge of Quiz Bowl for several years, so I was "interviewed" several times. And it was never an interview so much as an occasion for them to proselytize. I kept agreeing to talk to them just so I could annoy them and waste their time. I'm sorry I have no references except for personal experience and opinion, but Campus Crusade for Christ is the worst. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent Veritas Forum at Penn hosted a debate between a Christian professor and an Atheist. It was cosponsored by the religious groups at Penn and the Penn Secular Society. Unfortunately, Videos aren't up yet, so I can't give you an example. RyanVesey01:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The upcoming Veritas Forum is between a Ohio State University professor in philosophy and some professor in mathematics. Little is known about their spiritual status. It is hosted in the Ohio Union and is sponsored by Christian Intervarsity groups on campus and the Secular Student Alliance. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Large unfinished structure which began before 15thcentury
looking for Large unfinished structure which began before 15th century. Nave in Siena is one such but i was looking for others. would appreciate help49.206.53.229 (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)vsmurthy[reply]
By just typing "14th century unfinished" into Google, I found the unfinished "Facciatone" (nave extension) of the Duomo Nuovo in Siena. From our article; "A second massive addition of the main body of the cathedral was planned in 1339. It would have more than doubled the size of the structure by means of an entirely new nave and two aisles ranged perpendicular to the existing nave and centred on the high altar... Construction was halted by the Black Death in 1348. Basic errors in the construction were already evident by then, however, and the work was never resumed."Alansplodge (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and BAE Systems if memory serves. Probably Airbus for some. Check out the pages for the F-22 Raptor and the Eurofighter for a few more names. 81.159.249.142 (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean manufacturers of the hardware that flies aboard the aircraft, the avionics (in flight) software, the hardware or software used in the aircraft design and manufacturing process, or something else? Astronaut (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In-flight hardware and software needs to be to various MIL-STDs or whatever standards apply for the manufacturer in their country. As a result it is often built in-house (ie. made by the aircraft manufacturer themselves). However, some components are sourced from commercial suppliers (for example, according to this press release, Eurotech supply Intel Atom-based hardware for military applications). Design and manufacturing software (the field I used to work in) is a mixture of in-house development and commercially available packages, and will use commercially available Unix and PC hardware. Astronaut (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I asked that because two West Bank settlements gave the party the most votes than any other according these two websites: [[11]] which says in Hebrew, Matityahu and [[12]] about Beitar Illit.--Donmust90 (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]
Population along highway routes
I need to calculate the number of people who live within 100 miles of a U.S. Interstate (100 miles on either side of the Interstate). Is there some way to overlay census data on a state map of the interstate in order to get at least a rough estimate of how many people reside within a 200-mile wide corridor, 100-miles on either side of the highway?
The software that does these kinds of calculations easily is a Geographical Information System, for example ArcGIS. There are some free packages available. You would need to be able to download the Census data and "boundary data" in a format that the GIS can read, as well as a compatible map of the highways. Someone might have already done it, or be able to do it for you. A university department of geography could do it but would normally charge. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might be easier to estimate the population who live further than 100 miles from an interstate. Looking at Google Maps and using straight-line distances, there don't seem to be many gaps - maybe a small corner of Maine, a thin strip along the Canadian border in the great plains, the upper penninsula of Michigan, a couple of spots in the Rockies, the bottom end of the Florida keys, maybe a few other places, all of which have quite low populations. Astronaut (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OP might want the numbers for particular interstates, rather than all interstates. I agree it is going to be pretty much the entire population if you look at all interstates combined. --Tango (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question: are you just looking for people inside the U.S., or do you also want to know how many people in Mexico and Canada live within 100 miles of a U.S. Interstate? Also, don't forget that Alaska and Hawaii also have interstate highways (the map provided by the previous poster only shows continental U.S.). See Interstate_Highways_in_Alaska and Interstate_H-1. RudolfRed (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciation in value of early money
Say you live in a primitive society where nobody's ever heard of money, but there is a division of labor and a barter economy. Your job is to hunt with bows and arrows. When your bows and arrows are worn out and you need new ones, you barter some of the meat you produce to your neighbor whose jobs is to make bows and arrows.
Then people arrive from across the sea and start offering for barter commodities unavailable in your country in exchange for commoditites unavailable in theirs. But in their country, they buy and sell things for money, which consists of silver coins. Over time some people in your country become willing to accept silver coins as payment from the people across the sea because they know they can use them later to buy other things from those people. After this practice is established, people in your country start selling other commodities to their neighbors for silver coins, since that money is in effect backed by commodities that can be bought from the people from across the sea. As the number of people willing to accept silver coins as payment expands, the number of goods offered for sale for silver coins rapidly increases without any correspondingly rapid increase in the supply of silver coins. Hence prices go down. Realizing that prices will continue to go down over the next couple of years as the trend spreads further, some people start hoarding coins in order to be able to buy much larger quantities of goods with them a year or two from now than they can today. This further limits the supply of coins used in trade and thus further drives down prices, and thus more people are impressed by the increasing value of money, and become willing to accept it in payment. At some point the custom of using money to buy and sell things rather than barter spreads as far as it can spread throughout your country and then prices stop their general downward trend.
Is this historically accurate as a description of what has happened when money was introduced for the first time in societies formerly using barter?
How much is known and how much unknown about the histories of such episodes?
Has anyone studied this sort of thing quantitatively in any detail?
Somewhere I saw a Wikipedia article saying money wasn't generally used in Rome until about 200 BC, whereas in Greece it had been used centuries earlier. Did any Roman writers describe this sort of thing?
I don't think you'd get any such effect. The value of the silver coins would be limited by what it could buy from the foreigners who introduced it. StuRat (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's _initially_ limited in that way, nonetheless its utility as a means of making trade far more efficient than by barter alone would give it some value beyond that.
But you, see a big problem with your answer and this comment of mine is the word "would". I'm asking what has happened, not what _would_ happen. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I suspect the opposite is true. As the silver coins become more desirable among your compatriots, the value of your labour, your meat, or whatever you produce becomes relatively less. What's more, seeing the increased desirability of the coins, the foreigners start demanding more for the same number of coins. This is known as inflation. Astronaut (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the value of your meat, your labor, etc., becomes _less_ relative to the coins, that means the value of the coins becomes relatively _more_, which is exactly what I was saying. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Silver coins aren't backed by commodities that can be bought from the people from across the sea but by their silver value. Silver coins can be melted down and made into jewelery. Sleigh (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When the Romans traded for spices from ancient India, the Indians would only accept gold in exchange. The Romans bought the spices with Roman gold coins which the Indians melted down for jewelery. Sleigh (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the press coverage when the incident occurred. It was reported that the six American diplomats were given fake Canadian diplomatic passports, so that the could leave Iran when Canada severed diplomatic relations with Iran in 1980.
The movie Argo, which appeared last year, shows them masquerading as Canadian film-makers in Iran to make a movie called Argo. In the film, they are given fake Canadian passports, but those are not diplomatic passports.
At the time, the press reported that Canada had cut off its diplomatic relations with Iran. I remember an Iranian official quoted on TV in 1980 commenting on this. The movie doesn't even hint at an end to diplomatic relations between Canada and Iran. Why is that not mentioned? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it says there the film was more important to Affleck than the reputation of some Brits or Kiwis or any other incidental facts. At least that's my interpretation of "I struggled with this long and hard, because it casts Britain and New Zealand in a way that is not totally fair. But I was setting up a situation where you needed to get a sense that these six people had nowhere else to go. It does not mean to diminish anyone". Dmcq (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the Canadians had not broken off diplomatic ties with Iran at that time, the Iranians might have stormed the Canadian embassy there the way they did the American embassy. I think the news story about the rescue of those six American diplomats didn't break until all Canadian diplomatic personnel had left Iran. 174.53.163.119 (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I once read an article, linked from Arts & Letters Daily, that discussed a therapeutic response to hearing voices by making friends with them (I think this was how it was described). I would like to read the article again, but Google has proved surprisingly unhelpful. Does anyone know of this article and can give me the link? 67.164.156.42 (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like this. (Note that A & L Daily features archive pages. I merely went to the 2012 archive and searched the page for "voices". It helps that I also read that article when the link was on the A & L Daily main page.) Deor (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions Romme and Escher who popularized this approach and their book [13]. During some volunteer work, I heard that this has become a classic and found it well worth reading for more information and to understand the issues and effectiveness of this therapy. --Aspro (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is an innocent human breaking the law if they want to be guilty
Lying in court is regarded as perjury and is a serious offence in most or all jurisdictions. If someone's mental state is so poor that they are unable to argue coherently on their own behalf, or if they argue positively against their own interests, then they should be regarded as "unfit to plead", or similar, depending on jurisdiction. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lying _under oath_ is perjury, but a guilty plea is not normally under oath. I wouldn't be surprised if it would be considered fraud. But I don't know for sure. 174.53.163.119 (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A false guilty plea being considered perjury would be the most ridiculous catch-22 in the universe. It's well known that many people take plea deals to avoid being convicted of more serious crimes, even if they did not commit them. Imagine being later exonerated, only to be sent back to jail for perjury. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that may well depend on jurisdiction. In Germany, lying in court is punishable, and lying under oath is a felony and carries even stiffer penalties. However, there is an exception for the defendant in a criminal trial, who cannot be put under oath, and is allowed to lie. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roman Catholic and Protestant churches differences
How can you tell that the church you are inside of is a Roman Catholic or Protestant? By the structure or exterior? is there a website that shows photos of Roman Catholic churches and Protestant churches of different nations like Protestant churches in Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, and Norway and Roman Catholic churches in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal and other churches of different architecture style?--Donmust90 (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]
Age is part of the equation. Churches built before about 1517 in Germany, and 1534 in England, for example, at least started out their existence as Catholic. The Eastern Rite Catholic churches are identifiable from the exterior by their onion-shaped domes. Bielle (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) If there are statues inside, it's almost certainly a Roman Catholic church. Catholic churches are often more elaborately decorated, Protestant churches are frequently plainer, but keep in mind that due to changing demographics, some Catholic churches are used by protestants, or vice versa. The name of a church is often a hint too: if the name includes the word 'saint' (or the local equivalent), chances are it's a Catholic church. - Lindert (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken about the Anglican and other Protestant churches named for saints, however the OP specifically asked about continental Europe (Excepting Iceland), and none of these examples are located there, nor is Anglicanism big in those countries. - Lindert (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the OP's first comment which was what there replies most related to seemed to be fairly general. The later question about photos and architecture did only include examples from Europe, but the OP didn't given any clear indication they were only interested in churches from that region and in fact said 'different nations' and 'other churches of different architecture style'. Considering the OP's history, it's particularly difficult to conclude they only intended to cover that region. Nil Einne (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There is a wide selection of exterior and interior images of churhces from around the world in our architecture of cathedrals and great churches article. I don't think there are distinct Protestant and Roman Catholic styles - national styles and period influences are much more dominant. And, as has been pointed out already, older churches were built before there was a distinction anyway. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once you get inside, kneelers are often a giveaway. Historically, at least, Catholics kneeled during portions of service, and as such had kneelers for (minimal) comfort. Protestants, depending on denomination, don't kneel, so wouldn't have kneelers. Also, if the pews have individual communion cup holders, then it's probably a Protestant church. Catholics almost uniformly use a communal communion wine chalice, so don't typically have provisions for individual communion cups. (Though Protestant churches also often use communal chalices.) If there is a prominently featured statue or image of the Virgin Mary, it's likely Catholic, as they venerate her, where as many Protestant denominations don't. A crucifix, rather than a plain cross, is also a good indication of a Catholic church, though, again, some protestant denominations also use it. Another indications is looking at the terminology used in signage (at least in English speaking areas). A Catholic church will list it's services as Masses, whereas a Protestant church might use the term "service" instead (as they might not consider them to be masses). The officiant in a Catholic church will likely be titled "Father X", and be referred to as a priest (unless you happen to get someone higher in the hierarchy, where they may be a monsignor, bishop, archbishop, cardinal, etc.), whereas if the terms/titles pastor, vicar, presbyter, minister, reverend, etc. are used, it's probably a Protestant church. None of these is entirely diagnostic - some Protestant denominations have many of the same outward appearances as Catholics, differing mostly in spiritual/theological issues. -- 71.35.100.68 (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You only have to look at Liverpool Cathedral (Anglican) and the Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral (Catholic) to see that architecture hardly plays a role. One looks like a cathedral and the other looks like the Apollo Moon Landers. Both have statues inside, and both have crosses and crucifixes. Both have a gift shop and cafe. Both are opposite universities, and both are on the same street. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)17:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anglicanism is a rather special case as it bridges the Catholic / Protestant divide. Some Anglicans on the High Church wing consider themselves to be Catholics, and you would struggle to tell their services apart from their Roman equivalent. Those in the Low Church side are definite about their Protestant heritage, and have much in common with the Methodists. Those in the middle, sometimes called the "Broad Church", are not really comfortable with either label. To add to the confusion, many English churches and cathedrals were built as Roman Catholic churches and were taken over at the Reformation. Anglicans being traditionally minded folk, have tended to build their new churches in imitation of the medieval ex-Catholic churches that they are familiar with; Liverpool Cathedral (completed 1978) and the Washington National Cathedral (not yet completed), are prime examples. Alansplodge (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK the same buildings have served as Catholic and Protestant churches at different times in history, so its especially difficult to use architecture as a diagnostic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moshav inhabited by different groups
How many moshavims are inhabited by Kurdish Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Moroccan Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Algerian Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Tunisian Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Persian Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Iraqi Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Bukharan (Uzbek and Tajik separately) Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Afghani Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Syrian Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Bahraini Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Saudi Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Yemenite Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Emirati Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Egyptian Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Libyan Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Kuwaiti Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Omani Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Qatari Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Jordanian Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Turkish Jews?;
How many moshavims are inhabited by Mountain (Azeri) Jews?--Donmust90 (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]
Well, here is a list of moshavim. The article for Avital moshav says it was "founded ... by immigrants from Iran, Turkey and Kurdistan" and has a population 472. The population figure is referenced by a file from the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. Perhaps they have other files for other moshavim, and maybe they have a breakdown by origin, or at least a record of Israeli and non-Israeli residents. Astronaut (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fairies, who are princesses?
There are princesses, and there are fairies. I'm looking for princesses who are also fairies. The only examples like it I can think of are Titania and Mab, but those are both queens, not princesses. Any help? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
![[6]](https://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/content/images/2006/12/20/bessie_braddock_home2_203x152.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](http://www.google.com/imgres?q=bessie+braddock&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rls=DVXE,DVXE:2005-26,DVXE:en&tbm=isch&tbnid=JZDtxWdSyIJmhM:&imgrefurl=http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/02/post_635.html&docid=ctdFyyXq3KrPXM&imgurl=http://www.classicalvalues.com/BessieBraddock2.jpg&w=220&h=450&ei=SeFKUfzOLcfL0AW-yIG4DQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=502&vpy=70&dur=797&hovh=321&hovw=157&tx=89&ty=169&page=1&tbnh=168&tbnw=92&start=0&ndsp=11&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0,i:110&biw=1024&bih=527){kind=link}
