Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Reference Desk

Science Mathematics Computing/IT Humanities Language Entertainment Miscellaneous Archives
How to ask a question Search first. It's quicker, because you can find the answer in our online encyclopedia instead of waiting for a volunteer to respond. Search Wikipedia using the searchbox. A web search could help too. Common questions about Wikipedia itself, such as how to cite Wikipedia and who owns Wikipedia, are answered in Wikipedia:FAQ.
Sign your question. Type ~~~~ at its end. Be specific. Explain your question in detail if necessary, addressing exactly what you'd like answered. For information that changes from country to country (or from state to state), such as legal, fiscal or institutional matters, please specify the jurisdiction you're interested in. Include both a title and a question. The title (top box) should specify the topic of your question. The complete details should be in the bottom box. Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please don't post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers. Be patient. Questions are answered by other users, and a user who can answer may not be reading the page immediately. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to seven days.	Do not include your e-mail address. Questions aren't normally answered by e-mail. Be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites; making your e-mail address public here may make it very public throughout the Internet. Edit your question for more discussion. Click the [edit] link on right side of its header line. Please do not start multiple sections about the same topic. Archived questions If you cannot find your question on the reference desks, please see the Archives. Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk. Do not request medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor or lawyer instead.
After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. Your question will be added at the bottom of the page.
How to answer a question Be thorough. Please provide as much of the answer as you are able to. Be concise, not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated.	Link to articles which may have further information relevant to the question. Be polite to users, especially ones new to Wikipedia. A little fun is fine, but don't be rude. The reference desk is not a soapbox. Please avoid debating about politics, religion, or other sensitive issues.

October 23

Strange battleship-like game...

Does anyone know of this game, or what its name is?: You start with a square grid and someone hides a under one of the squares. You try and guess the square, but if you get it wrong, they have to tell you the distance between them and your guess. Is there a specific name for this? 68.39.174.238 00:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like the Minesweeper game that's included with every copy of Microsoft Windows and some Linux distros, although the aim is not to click on the hidden "mine". --Canley 02:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't really sound like Minesweeper to me (the numbers on the squares don't indicate distance to mines but number of adjacent mines, and there are far more than one mine hidden), but I don't have any idea as to what it could be. -Elmer Clark 02:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't imagine it would be a very long game - you could locate any spot within three guesses... BenC7 05:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Or even two.  --Lambiam^Talk 07:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a sort of 3D Battleship-like game called Sub Search, could that be it ? As I recall, instead of just a "hit" or "miss", as in Battleship, they also had a "near miss", when you were within one grid space of hitting the sub, in any direction. StuRat 18:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wumpus? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, since you didn't have to move on the board, you could randomly pick squares and had more then 1 chance. If you want to play, it's part of Intel's latest attempt at viral marketing. 68.39.174.238 03:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

searching a link on Product review page

Hi there,

I am searching a page where I can R&D on product also can Review, Test & provide comments on software OR products are added in wikipedia site.

please help me in the same.

Your request is not quite clear, but in any case Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a product review site.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

But a link to a product review site, from an article about that product, might be OK. StuRat 04:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hindu fasting calculation

Need information on Hindu fasting. The type of fasting, Why fasting is important in spiritual mean, Meaning of punnya in fasting, If man do fasting will punnya divide in me & my wife, Rules for punnya

If our articles on fasting and Hinduism don't help you, I suggest you ask your guru. You wife must do her own fasting.--Shantavira 13:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

His wife is already pretty fast. I couldn't resist. Scared another one away... X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve) 07:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

RMS Titanic

I have a few questions which relate to the doomed ocean liner, RMS Titanic. The first question is, why is the stern section so much more damaged than the bow? The second pertains to the forward grand staircase, who designed it, and was it custom built for the Titanic- and the Olympic I believe. Thirdly, on the film, the forward most chimney stack appears to collapse because the wires - at least thats what I think they are - collapsed; what held the funnel on. Penultimately, how much would a ship like Titanic cost to build today? And are there any projects that seek to rebuild the ship, or possibly even raise the wreckage? I apologise for such a loaded question. Ahadland 15:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I can answer one or two of the questions:

• The bow was lighter than the stern, which contained the massive engines. The bow sank once it filled with water and broke from the stern. Having water inside and outside meant the pressure was equalized, so no crushing occurred as it sank. The stern, being much heavier, was able to sink while still containing lots of air. This meant that once it sank to a sufficient depth, the pressure from the outside water caused it to implode. It also then was heavier than the bow, so sank rapidly, imbedding itself into the bottom and causing further damage.

• I believe there was a plan to raise the Titanic using balloons filled with air. However, this was never done.

See our RMS Titanic article for more info. StuRat 18:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Titanic can never be raised; it's in such bad shape that (according to Eaton and Haas in Titanic: Triumph and Tragedy) it would fall into a million pieces if anybody even tried. *Nothing* would work. It's just too fragile and too badly damaged.

Titanic is also only one of a dozen or more ships of its age and size that are lying on the ocean floor. Her sister ship Britannic is one of them, as is the Lusitania, the Empress of Ireland (sitting on the bed of the St. Lawrence very near to Quebec City) and the Wilhelm Gustloff, on which over eight thousand people are thought to have died. If somebody wanted to raise a ship, they would likely look at one of these, since they're better situated and in better condition.

As to recreating her - Titanic is a very romantic ship. People think that because of the hullaballoo surrounding her sinking and because of the beauty of the decor in the first-class sections, she must have been the greatest ship that ever floated. Not so. The First Class accommodations were luxurious *for their time*, but there were only three bathtubs available for all the First Class men (and no showers - despite what was shown on that odious 1996 TV mini-series, Titanic had no showers). Only a handful of cabins had private washrooms. The engines created enormous amounts of smoke compared to modern ships, and a lot of that descended onto those walking the decks. Only some staterooms had electric heaters; there was no central heating except to the common areas. The lights in the cabin could be dim and flickered.

Many people would contest that, seeing as your giving a point of view, rather than fact

Quite frankly, the lowest-priced room on a Carnival Cruise Lines ship is probably more comfortable than a first-class room on Titanic was. Add to that the fact that you'd have to make significant changes to the ship to make it insurable and registerable under modern laws, and add to that the immense cost of all that First Class decor in a time when woodworkers, carpenters, etc. are paid a living wage (unlike 1910), and the idea of building a new Titanic as is becomes economically unfeasible. --Charlene 23:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it could never be raised. There are several strategies that could work:

• Cut it into small pieces, raise them one at a time, then reassemble it at the surface.

• Lower a rigid platform to the sea floor, "roll" it onto that (using balloons filled with air), then raise the platform.

• Encase it in some type of rigid foam which will hold it together, then raise that.

Note that none of these approaches are practical with current financial and technological limitations, and there is also the "disturbing a grave site" aspect to be considered. However, it could be raised at some point in the future, if there is anything left to raise, by the time we are ready. StuRat 00:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I used to be in to reading about the Titanic in my younger years. I recall that apparently the forward funnel of the Titanic was false and wasn't a functioning chimney, and in fact was used as storage, mainly for deckchairs. Although this doesn't say how it was attached it may explain the ease with which it broke._-Stubbly

• Could anyone help with the Grand Staircase question? or the one about the collapsing smoke stack?

• The smoke stacks aren't nearly as substantial as they appear. They are just thin sheet metal, so will even collapse under their own weight if laid on their sides, especially after they've had a chance to rust for years. StuRat 18:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ye but Stu what made it collapse whilst the ship was sinking? Surely, as its portrayed in the film it wasnt just held on by cables?

The force of the water against the funnels would tear them off as it sank. This force is similar to air resistance, but much greater, due to the much greater density of water. StuRat 04:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

So what about the Grand Staircase

Was it custom built or not and who designed it? Also was it made of real wood, and how much pressure would have been on the glass dome when it shattered

Franc value in 1910

What was the value of the French franc in 1910?

100 centimes, and the rate was quite constant during more than a century. -- DLL ^{.. T} 17:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In the year 1913, it took 5.18 Old Francs to buy one U.S. Dollar. That would have been about 4.2 German Marks. One Franc of the year 1910 is equivalent to 3.39975 euros of 2005. [1] - Nunh-huh 18:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

When the French discuss money, is it always a franc discussion ? :-) StuRat 21:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

i'm sure francophiles always profit from such tête-a-têtes. - Nunh-huh 21:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Francly my dear, I don't give a damn. Clarityfiend 00:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Is every reference desk required by Law to have at least one noxious and silly conversation going at any one time?! 68.39.174.238 03:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The nerve of us! That's the job of Congress. Clarityfiend 16:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no, that's the beauty of free speech! Being allowed to be silly and annoying just for yourself... ;) 惑乱 分からん 22:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The value of the FF at that time was expressed in units of gold. The article French franc explains it well. -THB 03:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Recommended Tenchi Muyo series?

As an otaku-in-training, I'm interested in getting into the Tenchi Muyo! anime. However, with the sheer number of TV series, OVA and related spin-offs out there, I'm not sure where to start. Can anyone please give me any recommendations on where to start, which series are the best and a recommended viewing order? Ppk01 17:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the OAV/OVA are the original. They go in order, and are the real timeline. The movies are also part of this timeline, I believe. Second came the TV series, which is also known as Tenchi Universe or Shin Tenchi or No Need for Tenchi in the U.S. (no need because every episode title start with No Need for...). This is a different timeline, and different histories for the characters. Then the third series is Tenchi in Tokyo, which is again a different timeline and different character histories. This one was also broadcast on TV and focuses more on romance than anything else. There's also GXP which has a relative of someone from Tenchi but doesn't really focus on the main cast, and I have not seen it. There are spin-offs like Magical Girl Pretty Sammy too, but that's like Card Captor Sakura, and I've never seen those either. Hope that helps. BTW, I like the original the most, including the character histories. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! --Ppk01 23:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Venezuela in UN Security Council

What are the countries that are supporting Venezuela in its bid to obtain the non-permanent Latin American seat on the UN Security Council? -81.170.56.183 20:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

See 2006 United Nations Security Council election#Latin American and Caribbean seat and the links at the bottom of that page. User:Zoe|(talk)

California Real Estate Exam

What is the title or name of "the" exam to get a real estate license? Further, how long does it take to obtain such a license...could it be done in a few months?

On a slightly different tangent, I was curious, approximately what percentage of all people that are now around the age of 18 go to college?

ChowderInopa 20:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer your first question, the article real estate broker explains that realtors in the United States generally go through two phases of licensing. This is also true in California. An entry-level realtor must first obtain a sales-agent license. According to this real estate school (which I found at random and which neither I nor Wikipedia endorse), a dedicated student can pass the exam for a sales-agent license after just two and a half weeks of study. After a realtor gains some experience, he or she can take the exam for a broker's license. You might find claims on the same website about the time needed to study for that exam. Another resource is the website of the California Department of Real Estate. Marco polo 21:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the second, assuming you're in the US, the Census says that 35.1% of people 18-24 years old are enrolled in college or graduate school. If you click on the "Change geography" link in the light blue box in the upper left corner, you can view by state, by urban area, etc. (38.9% of 18-24 year olds in California go to college, for instance.) --ByeByeBaby 05:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Question about Music Production

When songs are recorded and sold on CD's, are the techies and "little guys" involved in their production paid royalties based on how big the song sells, or are they just paid a fixed rate no matter what? Thanks, anon.

Flat-fee plus the prestige of working with big artists (and the resume boost it could entail).--152.23.204.76 00:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

October 24

magazine ownership

Who owns Rolling Stone magazine?

Wenner Publishing? See Rolling Stone. Hyenaste ^(tell) 02:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Great civilizations

I'm doing a project which relates to the years 793-1066. I need some general background info on the the major civilizations and players of the time - I'm quite well versed in European history in this period - I'm however lacking a bit regarding... the rest of the world :(

What major players existed in the world in this period? What was the major cities in which their powers were focused such as Rome, Samarkand or Constantinople. I'm looking for anything outside of Europe - Africa and Asia in particular. I'm aware that North and South American history is very sketchy for this period so it ok to come up with an educated (and substantiated) guess.

Gardar Rurak 05:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In the Americas, you'll want to look at the Maya civilization, Toltec and Zapotec in Mesoamerica (we have an article on Mesoamerican chronology with a timeline), and the Nazca and Moche amongst those in Peru. In North America, start with the Mississippian culture in the US and the Haida in Canada; there's not enough recorded history to establish "players", but these are a couple of the more advanced and interesting cultures.

In Asia, there's a lot to learn; check History of China, History of India, Persian Empire and Khmer Empire to begin. This map, although a little later than you want, gives a good overview of Asian cultures. Similarly, start with History of Africa; the Ghana Empire may be interesting. --ByeByeBaby 05:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This period saw the apogee of the Byzantine Empire, reaching across Europe and Asia Minor, under Basil II, after whose death began the long decline.. Have a look also at the Chola Empire in India. For the Chinese Empire the early part of this period was marked by political division, which ended with the rise of the Song Dynasty. Clio the Muse 05:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone wonders about those years, 793-1066 is known as the Viking Age. DirkvdM 08:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course; but can the Vikings really be defined as a 'major civilization'? Like the Goths and Huns of a previous age they were a 'people on the move', so to speak. They had little in the way of political unity, though they did, of course, establish a number of important power centres in Europe and beyond. Clio the Muse 12:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Vikings" didn't move. They travelled, but they didn't actually move anywhere, or colonize much. But there's no such thing as a "Viking civilization" to begin with. The Viking Age people of Scandinavia never considered themselves to be a single people. Some of the distinctions were even maintained for centuries after they'd lost any political or cultural meaning. --BluePlatypus 20:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

They moved alright, and they colonized. To the north-west they settled in Iceland, Greenland and, for a time, North America (Vinland). To the south-west they established settlements (and kingdoms) in England, parts of Scotland, the Isle of Man and Ireland, where Dublin was established as a Viking base. Still further south they were granted lands on the northern coast of France, where Normandy (the land of the north men) was established in 911. Their descendants were later to settle in southern Italy. To the east they sailed down the great rivers, and are said to have established Kievan Rus, the first Russian state, in the ninth century. Still further south many settled in Constantinople, becoming the bodyguards of the Byzantine emperors. So, I think the contention that the Vikings moved, colonized and settled is reasonably accurate. Don't you? Clio the Muse 22:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that colonisation doesn't necesserily mean conquering. And quite often the Vikings lived peacefully alongside the original inhabitants, exchanging bits of culture. Possibly like the way the Dutch later colonised - first establish a trading post, then more and more, spread your power and eventually take over. Although they did plunder too. Just like the Dutch did (except that they raided Spanish gold transports). And what do you know, in the North of the Netherlands live Frisians, close relatives to the Vikings. DirkvdM 10:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Literature and art dealing with the question, "What makes a man?"

I'm looking for stuff that thematically deals with that question. (Ex. plays or paintings.)

Could you perhaps narrow it down just a teeny-weeny bit? As far as literature goes, you could probably make a case for most of the world's best-known works as dealing with this topic. --Robert Merkel 05:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

1. The poem If— by Rudyard Kipling.
2. The painting The Creation of Adam by Michaelangelo. Anchoress 06:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You could start with What are Little Boys Made of?. --Shantavira 08:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well Death of a Salesman concerns a man whose idea of "what makes a man" is horribly misguided and destroys him, if that helps. But yeah, I really don't anticipate you having much trouble finding material for this, gotta agree with Robert Merkel that a huge percentage of literature has been devoted to trying to answer this in one way or another. -Elmer Clark 22:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In terms of finding a painting, the Web Gallery of Art, http://www.wga.hu/, is a good website. I plugged in Creation under a title search and found various renaissance bronzes depicting the creation of Adam. -midnight_coffee

Origin of the phrase 'violence begets violence'

Is it apocryphal, or did the phrase originate with someone? If so, who? Thank you. Adambrowne666 08:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, somebody must have been the first person to utter such words, but I have no idea who. Epigrams can't be proven or disproven, they are true for those for whom they have meaning, and untrue for others. It's not a question of apocryphality (?). An apocryphal story is one that many people believe to be true, but isn't true. For example, the oft-repeated claim that Columbus discovered America is apocryphal. He was not only far from the first to find the Americas, he never got to the USA at all. JackofOz 12:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Americas are not limited to the US, but also include the island Columbus managed to find. While he wasn't the first person to discover the Americas (that would be the original native Americans) or even the first European (that would be the Vikings), he was the first European from whom the information propagated to the rest of Europe. The Vikings didn't make maps, and, in any case, just thought they had found an inhospitable island, so this info never spread. The info did spread from Columbus, such that subsequent explorerers were able to discover the scale of the continent (and accompanying islands) that had been discovered. StuRat 15:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The earliest reference I have found to the exact phrase is from The Sham Squire by William J. Fitz-patrick printed in 1866 but citing a letter from 1798. A slightly later reference but from a book printed earlier is Alvan Lamson's Sermons of 1857 which has the words right after a quote from Jesus about living by the sword (Matthew 26:52), probably explaining the popularity of the phrase. There have certainly been a lot of "something breeds/begets something" phrases used, but whether any are older then violence would be interesting but difficult to discover. If you just want someone clever and distinguished to have said something similar try "These violent delights have violent ends" Romeo & Juliet, Act II, Scene VI MeltBanana 13:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Then there's "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword"...a warning that keeping swords on the wall will kill you when they fall ? :-) StuRat 18:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes - I took one definition of apocryphal - 'of doubtful authorship' - to mean just that, where it actually means 'of dobutful authenticity', as you say, JackofOz, so thanks for pointing that out. Thanks, too, MeltBanana, for your amazingly scholarly answer - how do you find these sources? Adambrowne666 01:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you'll be able to find an easy answer for that - it probably didn't originate in English, given how many other languages have the same expression. --BluePlatypus 10:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

GREAT KANTO EARTHQUAKE

In total how much damage, in Pound Sterling, in todays money, did the earthquake, fires, landslides etc do??? thanks--William dady 09:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

1. 1923 Great Kanto earthquake states "The damage is estimated to have exceeded one billion U.S. dollars at contemporary values." Convert to sterling on your own.

2. STOP YELLING!

B00P 10:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The article says that the damage exceeded $1 billion at the time. Let's be conservative and suppose that the damage totaled $1.2 billion in 1923 dollars. According to this site, that would be $13.7 billion in 2005 dollars. This works out to roughly $14 billion in 2006. That roughly equals £7.5 billion (sterling) today. Note that this is a very rough estimate. The article says that the damage exceeded $1 billion. The total could be $1.2 billion, as I have posited, or it could be twice that. Marco polo 12:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

An alternate method of working out the cost would be to take that $1 billion estimate, convert it to 1923 pounds at $4.03=£1, so roughly £250 million in 1923; then apply this site to convert to 2005 pounds, which gives around £9.5 billion. Of course, the damage could have been well over $1 billion.... -- Arwel (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Ivan Scanlen (Captain) 1886-1941

Could you provide me army records of Captain Thomas Ivan Scanlen. He is my grand father. He fought for HIS majesty's Forces in East Africa in the 1900's. His parents are both from South Africa. thx bryan scanlen E-mail scanlen_bryan (at) yahoo·com.

I'm afraid we do not keep army records. Do you know which army this was? In that case, you might try inquiring with that army.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Mona Lisa

Hypothetically, if the Louvre were to have the Mona Lisa valued, is there an estimate as to what the art guy's prediction might be?

If you go to Mona Lisa, it says that what it was insured for $100mil in 1962, which is equivalent to $645 million in 2005. However, it has probably since then rose in value, considering Picasso paintings did, and I would say over a billion wouldn't be too much of an estimate? But that's probably still too little due to it being the world's most famous painting. Thus, priceless is really the only real estimate. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the term "priceless" is a cop-out. If you tried to sell it for 1 trillion dollars, nobody would buy it, so it does have a finite value. The only thing I know of that's truly priceless are all the foods in the grocery store which they "forget" to mark. :-) StuRat 17:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Do I have the nerve to say that it is just a piece of colored poplar? I wouldn't pay more than a hundred dollars for it. It's just a painting. StuRat you philistine! X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve) 18:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd pay everything I have for it, knowing I could turn around and sell it for millions, wouldn't you ? StuRat 04:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Priceless simply means it has no price. In other words it is not for sale, and will never be for sale under any imaginable circumstances. It may have an insurance 'value'; but that is really quite arbitrary. If lost it could never be replaced. Clio the Muse 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I can imagine it being sold. Say the museum is in bankruptcy and needs cash to survive. They could then sell it to another museum, which would care for it properly, and the first museum could have the money they needed to keep their doors open. StuRat 04:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It actually belongs to the state of France; and states do not go bankrupt. The painting was stolen once, in 1911, and caused great national concern. Anyway, add as many zeros as you like to a figure of one: La Gioconda will remain in the Louvre. Clio the Muse 07:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually even if it belonged to the museum which as stated by clio it does not they still could not and would not sell it, however they could loan it out to another high-profile museum for money for a pre-set period of time. this should make them enough money to keep in buseniss, also the specific museum (le louvre) has enough other forms of art to loan and some they might even sell.Graendal 11:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, we're talking France here. Nevermind the Mona Lisa, they pretty much sold Paris itself to Hitler. Say the US government offered the French Government Stu's hypothetical price, a trillion $US. The Mona Lisa would be on its way to the US faster than you can say: "on capitule" Loomis 23:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Another contention that will never be proved one way or the other! What I will say is that possession of this painting is so caught up in French notions of national pride that it would take a very bold-or very foolish-politician to agree to the sale. Images of 'falling heads', 'rampaging crowds' and ' bloody guillotines' all flit across my mind. Clio the Muse 01:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it more caught up in French notions of national pride than Paris itself? "Falling heads", "rampaging crouds", "bloody guillotines"...can you get any more French than that? Loomis 02:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the image that flits through my mind is that of Herr Adolph admiring from that particular viewpoint in Paris, (I don't know the name for it, but I remember being right there,) the latest trophy he bought from the French: The Eiffel Tower. Can anything, and I mean ANYTHING, be it the Mona Lisa or whatever, be more instilled in the notion of French pride than the Eiffel Tower? Loomis 17:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is one piece of information about the Eiffel Tower that you might not be aware of, that could go some way to explaining the French national character. After the Germans occupied Paris in 1940 the key to operate the lift/elevator to the top was found to be missing. It remained so throughout the whole occupation, forcing the Herrenvölk to demonstrate their Aryan prowess by climbing all the way up to admire the view, no simple feat. It mysteriously reappeared in 1944, after they had been ejected. Oh, yes, I think Hitler's viewpoint was from the Champ de Mars. Needless to say, he made to attempt on the Tower.Clio the Muse 23:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Interesting indeed. But that only leads me to two further questions: 1) Are you saying that Nazi Germany, despite all of its achievements, including such technological feats as the development of the Enigma code, and the invention of the V-2 rockets, couldn't muster the brainpower necessary to pick a simple lock? And 2), even if they couldn't, are you saying that their buddy Phillippe didn't have a copy that they could borrow? (Quoi?! Vous n'en avez pas le clé pour l'ascenseur? Ne vous inquietez pas! Je m'en ai une copie dans mon tirroir! :) Ok, now I'm just being silly. Loomis 15:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why were typewriters invented for the blind?

In wikipedia's typewriter article, it states that many typewriter prototypes were invented to help the blind communicate. I see a couple of problems with this. First of all, they were blind, not mute, they should have been able to communicate via speech. Secondly, if it was in regards to written communication, aren't blind people capable of writing? And think about how much harder would it be to teach a blind person to type rather than write!

Much help appreciated !

Xhin 19:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult to write if you can't see the lines of text on the page. However, it is rather easy to type a message without worrying about one line of text overlapping another one. As for them not being mute, being blind doesn't help a person talk to someone else in another country. Having a typewriter helps the blind communicate with people who are far away. Of course, communication by letter has died down a lot from the old times - first because of telephone, and now because of email. As for a blind person using a computer, I know a blind programmer who works at Microsoft. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In one of the Little House on the Prairie books, Laura Ingalls-Wilder described how Mary Ingalls, who was blind, learned to write with a frame and stencil - she knew where the letters were by feel, and could line them up on the page. I imagine that learning to touch-type would be a great deal easier and much quicker in the end.sthomson 14:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be almost impossible for someone who had been blind since birth to learn to write, as they couldn't see how others write (and since seeing what they themselves write is important feedback needed for learning). If they already knew how to write when they went blind, then maybe they could keep the skill up, but it wouldn't be very readable. Just as an experiment, try writing a letter in the dark and see how bad it looks. StuRat 04:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Apostle Paul, Sexual Orientation

When I was much younger (in the 1960's) I worked with a group of priests and brothers from an order where there were lot of members with advanced degrees in theology. Around the monestary, they used to refer to the Apostle Paul as the "Gay Apostle". I orignally thought this was some kind of "in house" joke (because some of the brothers had been gay before joining). But, when I inquired, I was told that there was some evidence that Paul/Saul had been homosexual before becoming a Christian. The evidence they talked about included the fact that Paul was raised in a Greek city, a Roman citizen, and from the upper class and that both Greek and Roman upper classes had a higher precentage of homosexual activity than society in general either at that time or today.

I recall the discussions indicating not only that there was some historical basis for this assertion, but that there was a small body of theological work discussing the implications of this assertion.

The issue has recently been raised by some gay friends.

My question is whether there is in fact some historical basis for this assertion and whether there are theological works discussing the implications?

--71.38.135.176 19:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's an online extract of Bishop John Shelby Spong's Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism discussing the possibility that Paul was gay. Marcus Borg may also have written on this issue, but I'm way out of my expertise here... Hope this helps. Cheers, Sam Clark 21:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I was about to refer you to the same essay by Spong, but Sam beat me to it. Here are a couple of other observations. First of all, there probably wasn't such a thing as a gay identity or self-identity in ancient times. This seems to be a recent thing. There were actions, considered sinful in the Judeo-Christian tradition, that a person might feel drawn toward. The person might be tormented and consider himself (or herself) a sinner, but that person would not have considered himself or herself "gay." It is important to remember that, while Paul was raised in a Greek city and was a Roman citizen, he was also a devout Jew before his conversion experience. So he was raised with the Jewish scripture that labels homosexuality an "abomination". That could have caused some self-loathing if he felt drawn to such activity, even if the Gentiles around him accepted it, if only in the limited context of relations between adult men and adolescent boys. (See pederasty and homosexuality.) That self-loathing could explain Paul's (ascribed) authorship of some of the most homophobic passages in the New Testament, such as Romans 1:26-27. Marco polo 21:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Those are some interesting implications... but the fact remains that there's no evidence to even suggest that he was homosexual --froth^{T C} 02:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You both for the assistance. --71.38.135.176 23:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll mention that Bishop Spong's theology is considered by most to be heretical. Have a look at the numbered points under "New Reformation" on his article page. BenC7 10:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

politics

Is a vote for a republican a vote against the self interest of most Americans?

The answer to this question depends on whether people see the Republicans as the defenders of "traditional values" or of America against terror and whether they see these traits as more central to their self-interest than things like habeas corpus, health care, education, public services generally, future debt loads, the environment.... Marco polo 21:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a distinction between what people perceive as their interests and what their actual interests are: I wonder which the questioner meant? Sam Clark 21:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

See What's the Matter with Kansas?... AnonMoos 22:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, unquestionably, voting Republican is against your interest unless you think averting gay marriage is more important to you than keeping our economy healthy by reducing the deficit, stopping wealth transfer to corporations and rich folks, slowing the growing social divide between rich and poor, forcing corporations to reduce pollution and follow regulatory rules, sending the children of middle class and poor people to fight and die in horribly destructive wars for the benefit of Halliburton Corporation, continuing to generate fear and disgust in many of the other countries of the world, and getting the bastards who have been lying to you for the last 6 years out of office. I bet I could think of a few more reasons if those are not enough. alteripse 23:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's why mommy is a democrat ;) Anyway, I don't like the Republicans, either, but you could read up on the articles and make up your own mind... 惑乱 分からん 23:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

An amazing book. I never saw it before. Unfortunately, the sample pages make me think it lives up to virtually every dishonest Republican caricature of Democrats. I would rather argue that Democrats sure aren't saints, but it is hard to imagine any other group of people causing as much general harm to most of the citizens of the US as the current administration has. This has to be a 120 year high tide for incompetence, greed, corruption, stupidity, dishonesty, and debasement of the Constitution and American political traditions. alteripse 00:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is that book for real? It looks like a satire.

Anyway, I agree with Sam Clark that it's a matter of perception. I think a lot of white Americans, consciously or subconsciously, identify with the "haves" over the "have nots" because of the racial dynamic in the U.S. -- Mwalcoff 01:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not in a monarchy. The only monarchy in America I can think of is Canada. Any republican movements there? DirkvdM 07:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Zat is right. Zee first ting ve fur trappeurs do apres ve put oop our igloos is 'ang oop a picture of zee Queen. Clarityfiend 16:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Only Canada? You dissapoint me Dirk. What about the Netherlands Antilles, and Aruba? Not to mention all those Carribean island-nation monarchies that have the Queen of England as their head of state. Loomis 22:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, forgot about those. Silly me. Although there is some controversy over whether islands can be regarded as part of a continent - the reason some Brits don't consider themselves to be Europeans. DirkvdM 11:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

But of course none of these countries is in "America", as Dirk would have us believe. They're in The Americas. The word America, where used without any qualifier such as North, South or Central, indicates the USA. There might be a confusion between this and the word "American", which these days is used by some people to refer to people from any part of the Americas, eg. Peru. While a Peruvian might be described in some context as "an American", that doesn't make it correct to say that Peru is part of "America". JackofOz 23:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

See America. DirkvdM 11:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think voting for a Republican is for your interests. Laleena 12:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think so too Laleena. But shhhhh! Don't tell anyone. Loomis 22:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't want every Tom, Dick and Harry in the country to go out and vote for them, right? 惑乱 分からん 22:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Depends.

It seems to me that the ability to vote against what others define as one's 'self-interest' must count high among the core definitions of democracy. Sadly, there are two many places in the world where the state is all too ready to define what the 'interests' of its citizens are. Clio the Muse 07:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

October 25

Comparing prizes for common goods and services

Hi, does anyone know if it exist a webpage that compare and update prizes for different items like food, alchohol, taxi and dining..For instance, on this site I would have been able to compare the prize for one beer in Athens with one beer in Mexico City. I understand that this kind of estimation have to be both roughly calculated and constantly updated. But does anyone know if a site like this exist? --Petteroes 08:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean prices ? StuRat 15:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Of course! Sorry - I'm Norwegian...:)--Petteroes 15:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I got the idea that English was a second language for you when you said "if it exist a webpage that compare and update". A native English speaker would have said "if a web page exists that compares and updates". Here is your question corrected, in case you would like to improve your English:

Hi, does anyone know if a web page exists that compares and updates prices for different items; like food, alcohol, taxi and dining ? For instance, on this site, I would be able to compare the price for one beer in Athens with one beer in Mexico City. I understand that this kind of estimation has to be both roughly calculated and constantly updated. Does anyone know if a site like this exists ?

StuRat 16:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It would seem to be an impossible question concerning an impossible task, like counting the grains of sand on a beach. Just consider the amount of information that would have to be processed moment by moment. Clio the Muse 05:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, they didn't say the site would have to list every product in every country. Perhaps it could just have a few sample products compared in several countries. StuRat 06:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course; but, even so, take the example of something simple, like the price of beer. How would you compensate for the differences between bar to bar, neighbourhood to neighbourhood, district to district, city to city etc. etc. etc.? I'm sure you get the picture. Taxi rides? I shall have a brain-storm even letting that one cross my mind! Clio the Muse 07:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The search terms you are looking for is "cost of living" With this [2] google search you get a lot of worldwide results, some just compare salaries, while some others should compare housing and other goods, just look through the results a bit. Nowimnthing 16:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A cost of living index adjusts for an average of many such items, but doesn't typically break down costs of each individual item by country. StuRat 22:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

All about Persia

What is the Total of Persian lemon production per year in tons and dollars for 2005 or 2006

- the Total of Imports of persian lemon per year

- the Persian Lemon prices (everywhere)

- and the names of the companies who sell the lemon

By Persia, do you mean Iran ? StuRat 15:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

He probably did mean Persia. See Iran naming dispute. JackofOz 23:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps, as I mentioned below, in speaking of "Persian Lemons" s/he was referring to Persia/Iran no more than one would be referring to the capital of Belgium when speaking of Brussels sprouts. The Lime, also known as the Persian Lime, apparently originated in Persia/Iran, and, according to the article on it, its name was apparently "derived from the Persian name لیمو, limu (the fruit was introduced to Europe during the Crusades)". Of course the fruit is now cultivated around the world, and so its connection to Persia is in name and origin only. Loomis 23:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

General Motors, Ford and Chrysler sell lots and lots of lemons. Clarityfiend 16:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

They also sell lots of quality cars, and foreign companies have sold lots of lemons, too, like the infamous Yugo. Land Rover, with 204 problems per 100 models tracked, placed last in the 2006 J.D. Power & Associates Initial Quality Survey: [3]. The second to last place finish was Isuzu, with 191 problems. Cadillac, on the other hand, had a better quality rating than foreign car companies Acura, Nissan, Audi, Volvo, Mitsubishi, Kia, Mercedes, Scion, BMW, Subaru, Mazda, MINI, Saab, Suzuki, Isuzu, and Land Rover. So, your implication that all US cars are junk and foreign cars are quality is just plain wrong. StuRat 20:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Spoken like a true Michiganer ! Loomis 22:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Seriously though, despite the misleading header, the questioner is probably asking about a Persian Lime, which is much more commonly known simply as a Lime. I'm guessing that the Lime originated in Persia, but beyond that the question probably has little to do with Iran. Loomis 22:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Geez, lighten up StuRat. ==>> IT WAS A JOKE! <<== (Excuse me. I must report my success in wrecking the U.S. economy to my master, Kim Jong Il. He'll be tickled pink...er...red that he can bring the Great Enemy to its knees without bothering with all that nuclear bomb nonsense.) Clarityfiend 22:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's a sensitive topic here, where the local economy has been wrecked by exactly the misperception perpetuated by that type of joke. I therefore take every opportunity to set the record straight. StuRat 23:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, no more American car jokes. *heavy sigh* Clarityfiend 03:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest Yugo jokes ? They really were crap, and now they don't even make them anymore, and the country no longer exists, so those jokes can't hurt anyone. StuRat 05:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides, doesn't Ford own "foreign" cars like Jaguar, Land Rover, Volvo and even a third of Mazda? Doesn't GM own Saab? Isn't Chrysler run from Stuttgart these days? Aren't most Toyotas and Hondas on the road today in the US manufactured in Kentucky, Indiana and Ohio? Doesn't GM manufacture more cars in Ontario than in Michigan? With the new global economy, it's not like the old days when an "American car" was an "American car", and a "foreign car" was a "foreign car". And that, in short, is what I have to say about the "Total of Persian lemon production per year in tons and dollars for 2005 or 2006". :) If I'm not mistaken, somebody up there originally asked a question about Persian citrus fruits. Loomis 12:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the original poster would like to clarify whether they are talking about Iran/Persia or just about a particular kind of citrus? And to sign their question with four tildes? (~~~~) Then it is possible that somebody might be able to help. --ColinFine 14:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Colin! Despite my efforts, I really have no idea what the original question was about. Perhaps it was about Iran, perhaps it was about lemons/limes, and perhaps it was even about very badly manufactured Iranian automobiles (not that I know that Iran produces any automobiles, but who knows). In any case, after days without clarification from the original questioner, and after apparently wasting our time in researching the origin of that really sour green citrus, at this point I don't feel there's any problem in salvaging this space for whatever discussion we see fit. Loomis 17:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Albert RN

I have a clear recollection of seeing Albert RN on television while in London in 1951 (no doubt about the date). However since the film was not released until 1953, what I saw could not have been the film. Was this a stage play previously and was the play broadcast on BBC in the summer of 1951?

Other titles:

• Break to Freedom (USA)
• Marlag 'O' Prison Camp (USA) (promotional title)
• Spare Man

--Light current 15:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like youre correct! Albert (1951) was on TV. [4]--Light current 15:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

FlickBook

Could I please have some information concerning FlickBooks Things such as First Flickbook made When was it created? where was it most popular? what is the average page amount for a flick book?

--81.99.103.113 11:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

By "flick book" do you mean a book with a slightly different illustration on each page, such that you see apparent motion when flipping through the pages rapidly ? If so, those are called flip books. StuRat 15:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

They're often called "flick books" in the UK; actually until I read this I didn't realise "flip book" was used. I've set up a redirect from flick book, which should sort that out. Loganberry (Talk) 02:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Bosch, the last judgement.

I need a picture of Bosch's "The Last Judgement" with as high of a resolution as possible. Preferrably over 1500 pixels in all dimensions. Thanks. Clq 12:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Good site http://artchive.com/ftp_site.htm MeltBanana 13:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that after using the above link, you must pick "Bosch", on the left side, to get to the desired page. StuRat 15:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I found it. Thanks. Clq 22:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it legal for the British Secret Service to assasinate Dodi Al-Fayed ?

In British Law, treason is defined as

The British law of treason is entirely statutory and has been so since the Treason Act 1351 (25 Edw. 3 St. 5 c. 2). The Act is written in Norman French, but is more commonly cited in its English translation.

The Treason Act 1351 has since been amended several times, and currently provides for four categories of treasonable offences, namely:

• "when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King, or of our lady his Queen or of their eldest son and heir";
• "if a man do violate the King’s companion, or the King’s eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the King’s eldest son and heir";
• "if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King’s enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be probably attainted of open deed by the people of their condition"; and
• "if a man slea the chancellor, treasurer, or the King’s justices of the one bench or the other, justices in eyre, or justices of assise, and all other justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their places, doing their offices".

And treason was punishable by death. The penalty for treason was changed from death to a maximum of imprisonment for life in 1998 under the Crime And Disorder Act. Before 1998, the death penalty was mandatory, subject to the royal prerogative of mercy.

On 31 August 1997 Diana was involved in a car accident in the Pont de l'Alma road tunnel in Paris.

What if it was not a car accident but an assasin sent to terminate Dodi Al-Fayed secretly but lawfully?

A british agent on her majesty secret service who is licenced to kill. 211.28.178.86 12:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, Dodi Fayed was just Diana's boyfriend. So he wouldn't come under the definition of treason you quote. Nor would Diana herself, since she and Charles were divorced at the time of her death. Furthermore, there was no conspiracy to assassinate either of them. Henri Paul was drunk at the wheel, he got into a chase with some paparazzi and the car crashed. End of story. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

duh! I forgot about the divorce. I thought I had something there. The Prince and Princess of Wales were separated on 9 December 1992; their divorce was finalised on 28 August 1996. 211.28.178.86 12:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetically if the secret service killed dodi fayed it would be illegal. Dodi was not guily of treason. Diana was divorced from charles and thus no longer his companion. Furthermore even if she where his companion, british law does not apply in france where the killing occured.

Is that right? If the Queen was murdered while on a state visit to some foreign country, would the assassin be beyond the reach of UK law? Would the British legal authorities have to settle for ensuring he was prosecuted under the law of the country in question? Would it make any difference if the assassin was a British citizen or not? JackofOz 21:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out the article on extraterritoriality, Jack. It's not the greatest article as it only deals with the issue conceptually and historically, yet says nothing definitively that would lead to an answer to your question. Still, it might give you a better idea as to the likely answer. Loomis 21:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

However I'm pretty sure that under international law it doesn't matter whether the killing would have been legal in the country in question or not (in any case, extra-judicial killings are rarely legal). This would be murder under French law and whatever the legality in the UK would be irrelevant under law. Of course, the French government could perhaps choose to go easily on the person. Extrajudicial killings even those that have gone wrong e.g. by Israeli agents have sometimes AFAIK been treated more lightly then they should have under law. Nil Einne 11:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if he was technically guilty of treason against the Crown, judgement and sentence would have to be determined in a court of law. An intelligence agency carrying out an extrajudicial killing would not be protected by the statutes of the Treason Act. --Canley 03:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

But if it had been approved by the Queen would it still be treason? I understand for example that Diana technically committed treason while she was Princess by sleeping around but AFAIK the reigning monarch can't commit treason against the crown/herself so it's questionable whether it would be treason if she approved it. It does matter if the person committed the killing was a British citizen (or other Commonwealth countries with the Queen as head of state). AFAIK there is no way someone who is not a citizen (or perhaps a permanent resident) of the UK or the other commonwealth countries could commit treason against the crown of the UK/commonwealth country.Anyway as others have stated, due to the divorce it seems unlikely it would have been treason to kill Diana even in the UK. N.B. High treason in the United Kingdom might be useful. Edit: Sorry I got confused and thought we were debating whether it was treason to kill Diana Nil Einne 11:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You're making the mistake of excessive literalism here, and not understanding the importance of convention in the British system above and beyond the plain written text of the law. In modern times, the monarch's position as essentially above the law carries with it the unspoken quid pro quo that the monarch will act sensibly at all times, which means in the conduct of their official duties they will follow the advice of their ministers, and conduct themselves impeccably at other times. If they don't, ways and means of dealing with them will be found. If we're playing silly-buggers hypotheticals, if the need really arose you could have one of the other royals, um, quiet deal with the situation, and then be appointed monarch, at which point they would become immune from prosecution. --Robert Merkel 11:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about a major change in the law. There is no provision in British law to enable someone to be appointed monarch. Whenever the current monarch dies or abdicates, the person at the head of the line of succession inherits the throne. They themselves have no say about this. If they have become or married a Catholic, or died, then they're off the list and somebody else would be the heir. Deposing a monarch could be done, but probably under the legal artifice of an act of parliament under which they are deemed to have abdicated. JackofOz 03:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting topic and I'd love to get in on it, yet I'm confused by your response, Jack. Are you responding to Robert? If so I don't see where you disagree with him. Is it the fact that he said: "one of the other royals" rather than: "the royal next in line"? What exactly do you mean by "a major change in the law"? I'm sure your contribution was meaningful and intelligent, and that's why I'd be very interested if you could clarify what you said. Loomis 11:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm...now that I think about it, I wonder whether there may be some other individuals who may actually be guilty of treason according to the above-mentioned statute. :) Loomis 22:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge your astuteness, Loomis, in recognizing my meaningfulness and intelligence. Yes, the royal next in line is who the law says succeeds, not just some other preferred royal. If for argument's sake the "establishment" considered Prince Charles so undesirable that something had to be done to ensure he never became monarch, what would the options be? (a) Kill him. (b) Somehow arrange for him to marry a Catholic - impossible without first bumping off Camilla or getting them divorced, and next to impossible in any event. (c) Somehow arrange for him to convert to Catholicism himself. In any of these scenarios, Prince William would succeed Elizabeth, because he would be next in line. If William was also unacceptable, he would also have to be put through a death/Catholicism process and Prince Harry would then succeed. etc etc. If the "powers that be" wanted the Duke of Duckworth to become king, they could not just "appoint" him without bringing about a change in the law to allow such an appointment. Such a change would require the consent not just of the UK Parliament but of the parliaments of all the Commonwealth Realms. For the Duke to become king within the existing law, firstly he would have to be in the line of succession, and then everybody ahead of him (including the current monarch) would have to die, be killed, become a Catholic, or marry a Catholic. Removal of people from the line in any other way would require a change in the law. Installing a monarch extra-legally would amount to a coup. JackofOz 01:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the "next in line part", and that's what I was getting at. However, it might be a bit easier to knock Charles out of the picture in favour of William than your three options. If the government and the PM dislike him enough, they could simply put as much pressure on him to abdicate as they had on Edward VIII, who was neither killed, nor married to a Catholic, nor converted to Catholicism. Loomis 09:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

French franc in 1910? (take two)

Do you know what the worth of the French franc in 1910 would be?

Your question was already answered, scroll up a bit to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Franc value in 1910 — QuantumEleven 13:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem there was that you didn't provide a unit of comparison. What was the value of the French Franc in 1910 as compared to what? Loomis 21:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The value of the French franc in 1910? Why, exactly the same as it was in 1909 and 1911: it was worth one franc. Clio the Muse 22:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. One French Franc in 1910 was worth 100 1910 centimes, or, if you prefer, one tenth of a 1910 ten Franc note. :) Do you now see why it was impossible to answer your question the first time around? I'm not trying to mock, but perhaps if you'd give us a bit of context as to why you're asking this particular question, we'd be much better able to help. Loomis 23:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it was not only possible to answer the question the first time, it was answered. Several times, but only one of the answers was actually useful. It might be best if those staffing the reference desk opted to provide only useful answers. - Nunh-huh 23:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You are obviously annoyed, justifiably so. Any reasonable person would have accepted your useful and detailed answer the first time round, on the assumption that there was a serious intent behind the question. The fact is, though, your research on this was ignored; which means that the whole issue is best treated as a joke. Clio the Muse 23:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with you if this were the joke desk. Since it's the reference desk, the equivalent of "see above" was the reasonable response to the repeated question. The answers at a reference desk are supposed to provide information nto the questioner. Answers which seem to have come into being only to make the responder feel or appear to be smarter than the questioner are really out of line. I think the policy suggested on the talk page - of removing unresponsive answers - would do much to improve the page. Nunh-huh 00:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I really do not want to take this too far, but cast your eye over some of the questions that have been placed on this page. There would seem to be a great many jokers. I treat all questions with the level of seriousness I believe they deserve. Where an honest and straightforward answer is asked for that is exactly what I will give, within my degree of competence. I suppose by definition the person who answers the question-if it is an honest answer-is indeed 'smarter', if that's the right word, than the questioner, since they already have the information required. But to be pefectly frank with you I also believe that a fool is best treated in accordance with the measure of his folly. There is wisdom in that and a purpose in jokes; and I assure you I am not attempting to be glib. Clio the Muse 00:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The reference desk would be much improved if the page were treated a bit more seriously. Or, conversely, if only funny jokes appeared here.- Nunh-huh 01:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that idea is that the definition of "funny" is not "whatever Nunh-huh thinks is funny". I think a reasonable level of humour is perfectly fine, nay essential. The question is, where do you draw the line, and we could probably debate that till kingdom come without ever coming to a consensus. I have less of a problem with jokes (being a regular punster myself) than I do with people who respond to questions saying they have no idea what the answer is but then provide a guess anyway. Astute guesses have their place, but wild off-the-planet guesses are very unhelpful. Would you want a reference librarian who guessed the answers to questions rather than went away and looked in the right place for the answer? Not me. I know this is now getting way off-topic, but that happens sometimes. JackofOz 01:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, what one wants at a reference desk is the correct answer, or, if that cannot be obtained, helpful guidance as to where one might find that answer. Not guesses, and not jokes. - Nunh-huh 02:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with you, sorry. Proper questions should always be answered by precise and correct answers. But where a question is frivolous or malicious it should be dealt with accordingly, either by condescension or humour. I'm a little surprised that you seem blind to this simple point. You are not, I hope, without humour, an essential ingredient of true wit. Clio the Muse 08:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This particular question was neither frivolous nor malicious, and should not have been dealt with by either condescension or mockery. Humor certainly has its place, but there are contexts in which it has neither purpose nor beneficial effect. Condescension is particularly inappropriate. - Nunh-huh 16:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Clio on this one, but I'd just like to add: You have to remember that we're all volunteers here, and we're all human beings as well, not humourless androids. If in the process of learning and teaching we have a little fun, I'm all for it. To be honest, if humour was forbidden at the RefDesk, and it was instead reduced to a sterile Q&A page, I'd imagine many valuable contributors would just stop coming, to everyone's detriment. I know I'd have no interest in slavishly answering other people's questions if I weren't allowed to have a bit of fun in the process.

With regards to Jack's comment, I too try my best to provide accurate answers, and very occasionally, I do provide what I'd call an educated guess. But whenever doing so, I always make sure to make it explicit that I'm not 100% sure on the answer. I hope that in that sense at least, I'm keeping up with the high standards to be expected here. Loomis 11:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, the first question was not frivolous; the second clearly is, because it had already been answered, and the answer ignored. Condescension is appropriate where it is invited; and this is the approach I would take where I feel that the question has a malicious intent. Clio the Muse 23:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh for god's sake, gold was money then, not the worthless fiat currency we have now. Exactly how much gold the FF represented at that time is explained in French franc. -THB 03:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course that inevitably leads to the further question: how much is/was gold worth? And once again, expressed through what unit of comparison? Loomis 20:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to study law and qualify as an attorney, but dont want to practise

Please, can anyone provide me with information about online colleges or distance learning schools. Where i can enroll and study to qualify as an attorney. i am looking for colleges that they fees are not too high, and ones that have flexible study programs that you can accerlerate your course. Thanks for your help.

Kenandrewandyke 15:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Please, can anyone provide me with information about online colleges or distance learning schools. Where i can enroll and study to qualify as an attorney.

i am looking for colleges that they fees are not too high, and ones that have flexible study programs that you can accerlerate your course.

Thanks for your help.

i need urgent replies please about qualifying as an attorney i need to study either through online or distance learning and enroll on colleges that you can accelerate your course i am in the United States [email address removed] Thanks

I have removed your email address for your own protection. Take a look at Legal education. Strong English writing skills are generally required for a law degree. I don't know whether any law school offers remote courses, but you can search Google with terms like "law degree" and "distance learning". Marco polo 16:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

States vary but, usually you need a ba and law degree to practice usually 7 years. Some states have other programs. For example in virgina and vermont, one can still become a lawyer by reading law.

Add to that whatever amount of time it takes to pass the bar, depending on whichever state you're in. Loomis 21:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

American history

What is another major event in American history from 1300 -1500 AD other than the discovery of America by Columbus?

Since USA didn't exist at that time, are you referring to North America, South America or both? 惑乱 分からん 17:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Since there are two major meanings of America and he obviously doesn't mean the second one (for Columbus didn't discover the US), it must be the first one, which regards America as one continent. DirkvdM 11:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The rise of the Inca empire.

• The disappearance the Mississippean culture due to disease? Geogre 12:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Where did the disease come from? The Europeans, or was it "native"? 惑乱 分からん 12:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Try Mississippian culture. Cahokia was certainly abandoned during that period, but the cause is not known. --ColinFine 14:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The Iroquois Confederacy was probably established around that time. Adam Bishop 17:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Degrees of Protection" of a currency

There's a confusing section on Kazakhstani tenge which says:

Kazakhstani tenge has 18 degrees of protection. Tenge is one of the most "equipped" currencies of the world.

I can't work out what this means. Haven't found anything either on Wikipedia or on the internet at large that would explain what "degrees of protection" are when talking about a currency.

Does anyone know what this means? If it's rubbish I'll remove it. Thanks -- Muntfish 16:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It originates from an edit made by Geevee on April 3rd, 2006.

It seems to be a translation from Russian:

• У казахстанского тенге 18 степеней защиты. Тенге в числе самых «экипированных» валют мира.

Possibly it's referring to security features, such as holograms and watermarks. 惑乱 分からん 16:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, степень in this sentence has the sense of a step, or a measure. I'd suggest this is a better form of words: "The Kazakhstani tenge has 18 security features, more than most other currencies.". JackofOz 21:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind editing the article? 惑乱 分からん 22:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. JackofOz 23:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Crazy Fox has beaten me to it, and came up with an even better sentence. JackofOz 23:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks all, it makes a bit more sense now, but I still think it could benefit from some clarification that this refers specifically to the banknotes (and which ones - just the 2006 issue, or previous issues as well) - not the currency in a more general (economic) sense. And the section name still says "Degrees of Protection".... thanks -- Muntfish 10:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

need help urgently

the question is Which mission is known as the "most expensive rubbish in history"?

need answers..

I guess that depends on personal opinion... There's no clear answer... 惑乱 分からん 17:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No way of answering that - if nothing else, what sense of the word Mission are you using? --Mnemeson 17:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Have no idea if this is what you're thinking of, but could just as well suggest the Bay of Pigs Invasion... 惑乱 分からん 17:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Iraq War comes to mind. When not adjusted for inflation, has there ever been a more expensive unsuccessful mission ? StuRat 20:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Generally, it seems as a failure, although Iraq wasn't a particularly nice country to begin with. At least it was successful in accomplishing its primary target, removing Saddam Hussein from power. 惑乱 分からん 22:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That depends if you're only counting expenditure, or if lost revenue is counted - Norway's yearly expenditure is approx US$100bn. Their income is approx. US$150bn. All of the surplus, and some of the expenditure, is covered by their massive oil revenues, with which they fund the highest standard of living in the world, and bank enough money every year to run the country at that standard for 6 months even if they had absolutely no tax revenue (a rather impressive racket that they've been running for 4 decades now). Considering that, I think the failure of Sweden to assert their control over Norway in 1905 when Norway declared their independence was.. quite stupendous, dwarfing Iraq by a long way in terms of lost money. The Swedish King attempted to do so, and raise an army, but the Swedish people refused to take up arms, so a completely failed military mission with substantial consequences. --Mnemeson 21:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Heheheh... Well, to be fair, Norway didn't find oil until 60-70 years later. As far as I have understood, in 1905, Norway didn't have much of value. The way I have heard the story, a war would have been completely pointless, but a lot of nationalist conservatives in the government wanted a war, because of silly notions of "national honor". After somebody estimated that a war really would cost more than it would gain, someone was chosen as a scapegoat to prevent the war from happen, and everybody else to keep their honor mostly intact. I don't know this history as good as I should, I really should catch up on the details... 惑乱 分からん 22:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with the Norway story, but hearing it, I'm truly impressed with how well the Norweigians exploit their natural resources to the benefit of their citizens. To tie two of the threads of this question together, I just can't help but wonder and dream of the utterly amazing standard of living the Iraqis would have if, after being freed from the slavery of dictatorship, they just simply followed the Norweigian example. Oh well, I guess I'm just a dreamer. But I haven't entirely given up hope. In the words of the immortal Lenin: "Some may say, I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one. Perhaps someday you'll join us. And the world will live as one." Wait a sec, did Lenin actually say that? :) Loomis 23:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems like our senses of humour do sometimes coincide. :) DirkvdM 12:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I'm feeling more hopeful already. If Loomis and Dirk's senses of humour can coincide, then perhaps peace in Iraq, the Middle East, and even the entire world is possible! :) Loomis 11:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the common Iraqi population has much possibilities at the meantime. The country seems to be in a state of chaos, with local warlords competing for personal power and gain. 惑乱 分からん 01:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's finally time for me to admit it. The old proverb is true. The path to hell is indeed paved with good intentions. Loomis 05:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't want to cause a war here but AFAIK Iraq were expressedly forbidden from allowing any form of nationalisation of their petroleum resources by the US (and possibly the UK) when forming the new government. So it seems unlikely they could follow the Norway story even if they weren't blowing each other up (and some might say they're blowing each other up because of that but let's not go further there) Nil Einne 12:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for this ? I've seen just the opposite, a proposal by US Congressmen to provide Iraqis each with a payment from oil production, so they each have a stake in it. StuRat 17:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That just doesn't make any sense Stu. Are you trying to say that there was actually a plan whereby the Iraqi people would actually benefit from the wealth of their own country's natural oil resources? That's got to be nonsense! How would Haliburton benefit from this? Are you saying that the US administration actually dared to put the interests the Iraqi people before the interests of wealthy American oilmen? That's preposterous! Are you actually implying that the goal of the whole thing was actually to benefit the Iraqi people, and was not, as anyone with half a brain sees it, all about taking control of Iraq's oil resources to benefit America's fat-cat elites? Stu...you're being absurd. :--) Loomis 09:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC) (Sorry, forgot to sign again...this is becoming a bad habit). Loomis 09:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The proposal came from some Congressmen, not the administration, so you may well be right about them. StuRat 22:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the entire war was approved by Congress, 77-23 in the Senate, and 296-133 in the House. Loomis 10:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me a bit, it's easy to be suspicious when you consider all the dictators which USA isn't trying to remove. 惑乱 分からん 12:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Slobodan Milošević didn't have any oil, yet the US still attacked him. StuRat 17:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's so ambiguous that it cannot possibly be a genuine (well thought-through) question. Perhaps it's a pun, or some other tease. Maybe the person who set it is looking for genuine rubbish, like a piece of artwork, made of rubbish, with the word "Mission" in its title? --Dweller 21:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The mission impossible movies? Clq 22:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The same question has been posed on yahoo answers, the two onl answers there say "Litter left behind from the Apollo moon landings", though that would not make it a "mission" Clq 22:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, thanks for the help.. the answer WAS Apollo - but the deadline was already over by then.. it was an inhouse quiz question.. Thanks for the help though Arun

Damn, I wanted to say that! Alas I only go through the ref desk once a day. Actually, I was thinking of the Apollo mission itself and manned space exploration in general. Scientifically speaking, you can do much more for a fraction of the money if you send robots because manned spacecrafts have to provide life support for the people on board, be safe enough (losing a robot is an acceptable risk) and return back to Earth (and safely land). Just look at what the Voyager program and Pioneer program brought us (alas the articles don't state the cost). What did 'we' get out of the Apollo program? Some national pride for the US and some shots of guys playing golf on the Moon. DirkvdM 12:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

While it's true that robotic missions are less expensive now, especially for long trips, that was not true at the time of the Apollo program, since robotic technology wasn't up to the job, then. There was also quite a scientific benefit, such as being able to retrieve moon rocks and study the geology of the moon, and developing the basic concepts of space travel for subsequent missions. StuRat 12:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the robots would of course have been much simpler then, but they certainly could bring rocks back to the Earth. The first one to do so was Luna 16. I don't see a price indication, but I bet it cost only a fraction of what the Apollo flights cost. But you don't need to examine rock to do scientific research. Taking photos is a major fist step, like Luna 3 taking photos of the invisible far side of the Moon. Mariner 2 took some close ups of Venus and the Venera program went even more close up, taking reading and photos from the surface, somewhere where people could never go, even with today's technology. And sending people where the Voyagers and Pioneers went is still way out of our league. So yeah, unmanned space exploration is definitely the way to go. Unless we establish bases in space or on other heavenly bodies, and Mir has shown how much difficulty that entails. DirkvdM 19:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Luna 16 just drilled a hole in a random spot (where it landed) to take a sample. Humans, on the other hand, could walk around and select rocks and items of interest to take back. As for space stations, you are aware there is one up there now, right ? See ISS. StuRat 22:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Luna 17 had Lunokhod 1 on board, only 4 years <wrong - see below> after the first manned Moon landings. The USSR tried to get a man on the Moon too, but it's a good thing they developed the technology just too late to beat the US, because that meant that after that they went all-out for unmanned missions. Had they not wasted time and energy on manned landings, they would probably have developed the rovers sooner. (The concept was 'easy' enough to develop with the technology of the time.) And that is my point. If the money that went into manned missions had been put into (ten times as many?) unmanned missions we would have learned a lot more a lot sooner. The Lunokhods didn't return any rocks <also wrong - see below>, but had they had the money for the Apollo programme at their disposal, they most probably would have done a whole lot more. An advantage of unmanned rovers is that they can in principle go as far as they wish - Lunokhod 2 travelled 35 km. With the technology of the time, no human could have travelled anything close to that, largely for safety reasons. Lunar rover says about the US manned rovers that "the greatest range from the LM was 7.6 km."

And yes, of course I know about the ISS, and one difficulty is that people are willing to risk their health for an adventurous job, but for a space station to be successfull it has to be constantly manned, which requires a lot of people to 'rotate' because staying in space is a serious health hazard (especially a problem for Mars missions, which take as long as a year). But if the adventure is gone, people will be less willing to go. Except maybe Russians, ironically, because they've got this attitude that nothing can harm them (a cultural thing). DirkvdM 08:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

During that period of rapid scientific advances, 4 years made a huge difference. Look at the differences in technology available during the Apollo program with those from 4 years before it's inception. StuRat 13:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction. That was 1970 (very sloppy, sorry), so just one year later. And it did bring back samples of the Moon. See Luna programme. You're being sloppy too, though. Your point actually supports my position. With the speed at which technology developed it made more sense to put time and money in improving robots than starting manned missions. Ultimately, robots have done science much more good than manned missions. Certainly if you look at yield per cost. DirkvdM 14:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

But once you go down that "wait until we have better technology" road, you can wait indefinitely, as surely there will always be better technology available next year. StuRat 21:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Unmanned space flight will always be more useful (per buck) to science. Manned space flight might be fun, but it should not be confused with doing serious research. Mixing entertainment up with science forces scientists to perform tricks in stead of doing science. Maybe Hollywood should do the manned space flight bit. Too expensive for Hollywood you say? Well, if there is not enough entertainment value, then why waste so much money on it? Of course if you do both, it makes sense to combine them, but I don't see the point in wasting, what is it, 90% of the budget of space agencies on entertainment. DirkvdM 07:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

But USA beat the Russians, USA beat the Russians to it!!! @_@ 惑乱 分からん 12:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't look inhouse to me [5]. BTW, the whole question is much clearer as to what it's asking then the version you posted... I suggest you tell whoever was writing the questions to write their own questions and also to copy the complete question and not just part of it if they are going to copy. Nil Einne 12:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, if that question was posted, it would probably be answered in less than 30 minutes... 惑乱 分からん 12:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

More like 30 seconds, unless of course the "Voyager" they were talking about was the tv series. :) (Just kidding -- I'm a bit of a Trekkie myself...only a bit though, I swear I've never been to a convention, I don't speak Klingon and no, I don't even own a pair of cheesy costume Vulcan ears :) Loomis 11:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

Am I the only person to find her sexually attractive here? Even though she has far-right views and I'm virtually a communist, there's something about her. They do say that opposites attract. Does anyone have any sexy pics of her? --84.65.103.207 23:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This one works for me.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

So you don't mind the Adam's apple, huh? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

She's mildly attractive but the picture on her page makes her look rather ugly (anorexic and old). I mentioned this before on the talk page and suggest we find a better one but no one seemed to care (and since I think she's an idiot I didn't follow up on the issue). The picture itself comes from her page which is one reason it's used so perhaps she doesn't agree Nil Einne 11:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, she's damn ugly on that pic. And if that is the picture she prefers then maybe she is ugly on the inside as well. DirkvdM 12:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

She always reminds me of Hitler's ideal Aryan breeding stock. There was a Star Trek where a planet goes Nazi after a historian from the Federation shows up. The female Party leader on the planet was a dead ringer for Coulter. Geogre 12:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if she prefers it. There are several none of them of particular good quality [6]. Perhaps she should fire her web developer but I guess it's hard to get someone who would want to work for you when you're Ann Coulter :-P

Are you implying that all web developers are freedom-hating communists and terrorist sympathizers? :) I'm not a big fan of AC but I do admire her idealistic, straight-talking nature and her 'never say die' attitude. She doesn't strike me as the sort of person that could ever be bought or sold by anyone either. I'd have much more faith in Ann Coulter as president than GWB. --WineBob 00:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You really admire a woman who said that the widows of 9/11 are happy that their husbands died and are more interested in self-aggrandizement than in getting answers to what happened? User:Zoe|(talk) 01:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And for that matter, you think someone who could write the astonishingly dishonest drivel in Godless is 'straight-talking'? Good grief. Sam Clark 11:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok let's sum up the above comments. One certain allegedly sexy Republican female is: "Anorexic", "Hitler's Ideal Breeding Stock", "Ugly on Both the Inside and Outside" and "Astonishingly Dishonest". What a brilliant Democratic display to a dissenting view. Beautiful!

Oh well. If only she was as irresistably attractive, debonnaire and oh so suave as Michael Moore, and so astonishingly truthful as he was in his brilliantly unbiased masterpiece: Fahrenheit 9/11... well ... Loomis 07:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

From this discussion I was expecting her to look like Mo Mowlam. Skittle 17:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I would like to interject and comment that, having weighed up all the available visual evidence - I would 'do' Ann Coulter. --Kurt Shaped Box 18:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Highest paying profesions

Hi guys! what are (or will be in the next 5 years) the highest paying jobs and/or prophesions?.

here are some jobs, tell me if any of this isn't high paying and stress the ones that are. (specially for foreign people in countries like Canada, the US, Australia and France).

• chef.(technical degree)
• computer programer and/or graphic designer (informatics)(technical degree).

...uh... any more ideas?. --Cosmic girl 23:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

what is the relation between quality assurance and training? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M25farid (talk • contribs) .

Chefs have technical degrees? And for what country specifically, because I'm pretty sure it differs from one country to the next. Generally, doctors in the US have some of the highest paying jobs. I know for Texas, the highest average salary was for chiropractors a few years ago. And of course, no one can predict the next five years. And it's profession. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Entrepeneurial jobs can be very lucrative too. It's just like scrounging around in the dark though; sometimes you find crap, sometimes you find gold. --AstoVidatu 00:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Jobs where you have to know how to spell properly. 8-)--Light current 00:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The highest paying jobs (other than being a celebrity or CEO) are generally jobs as a hedge fund manager or investment banker with an institution like Goldman Sachs. Most Goldman Sachs associates make more than $400,000 a year. You don't even really have to know how to spell. :-) You just have to come up with ingenious ways to rip other people off. They generally prefer MBAs, preferably from places like Harvard, Stanford, or perhaps Oxford or Cambridge. Jobs as chefs don't pay terribly well in the US. An average chef probably makes at or slightly below the median salary. Of course a star chef does fairly well (but nowhere near an average hedge fund manager). Computer programmers and graphic designers have average to slightly above average salaries. Computer programmers in particular are facing a lot of competition these days from low-paid programmers in India. Marco polo 00:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. Maybe this is a clever neologism (is that the right term?) - a prophesy about a profession. Clarityfiend 02:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure she knows how to spell it properly in her native language; Spanish. Do you know how to spell it in Chinese? German? Italian? Let's keep it down with the spelling jokes, some people are actually trying here.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If she's hispanic, perhaps she didn't refer to chef/cook, but "jefe", chief/boss/head... An easy mistake... 惑乱 分からん 11:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

thank u freshgavin =)...the jokes where funny neways...I don't mind :P. but I wonder...what was funnier...profesion? or prophesion? I guess the later...but I corrected it soon enough I guess... dunno how u figured out I spelled it that way the 1st time. I guess I'll just have to ask Aleksey Vayner about success...lol.(success spelling and finding a 'prophesion'I like more than mine, and one that pays nicely, not cause I care a lot about money, but cause I wanna teach someone a lesson :|...( I know..random)--Cosmic girl 03:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of El Jefe, there will probably be a vacancy in Cuba sometime in the next few years. And since one reasoning is that Castro solely represents the Cuban government and the government is supposed to possess the entire economy of the island, he sometimes appears some list of the richest people in the world. Being hispanoparlante would actually be an advantage for any job applications there. And you can put on your CV that you have participated in one of the grandest communist enterprises the world has ever seen, Wikipedia. DirkvdM 12:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The highest job would probably be to be the founder of an extremely succesfully company, like Bill Gates. If this doesn't work for you, you could always become the dictator of some rich country. Nil Einne 12:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I want neither...so being a computer programer or a biotechnology scientist won't do? lol... I don't wanna be filthy rich, though, I just want a col job like designing videogames with a nice paycheck. --Cosmic girl 13:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I think you primarily need to work hard and make your name known... 惑乱 分からん 13:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're serious about programming videogames, it might interest you to know that the DigiPen Institute of Technology [7] in (where else) Redmond, WA offers a four year B.Sc. in Realtime Interactive Simulation. I remember reading an article about designing them - they were more interested in creative people, artists, writers, etc., rather than technical skills, I think. Clarityfiend 01:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Make your name known, yes. Working hard is one way to do that, but if that's what it takes for you you might be doing the wrong thing. Try something you can be good at jut by being clever. DirkvdM 09:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Like spending your days editing at the Wikipedia RefDesk rather than getting a REAL job, Dirk? :) Sorry, I just couldn't resist. :) I'd expand on that notion but I'm off to work. See you back here when I get home, relax, perhaps crack open a beer and enjoy the RECREATION that is the Wikipedia RefDesk. :--) Loomis 13:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Just like I do, except I mostly do it in the morning before I start to WORK on the encyclopedia. :) DirkvdM 07:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you telling us your posts are usually written in a state of drunken inebriation, Dirk? That would certainly explain a few things ... :) JackofOz 10:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

October 26

Concerning This Photograph

I remeber reading somewhere that this photograph was taken at Utah Beach, but the image caption says Omaha Beach. Obviously it can not be both beach, so which beach is it? 75.9.140.241 01:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have said it was Omaha, but the angle-and the limited perspective-makes it difficult to be certain. Clio the Muse 01:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Manneken Pis

I was in Brussels in September and stumbled upon a festival (during the beer celebration) concerning Manneken Pis. It was September 2, 2006. When they unveiled the statue in his costume, the crowd sang a song in French about the statue. What are the lyrics to this song and how do they translate into English?

It seems the song is by Maurice Chevalier. The French lyrics are here. I will leave the translation to others :-) --Cam 02:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

For translations you do better to ask on the Language reference desk, but what the heck, here's a quick job (and remember, you asked for this):

In the world there is a place
Where in heat or cold,
There rules a pretty young guy.
Generous day and night
Before many onlookers
He dispenses all his goodness.

Manneken Pis, little guy from Brussels
Manneken Pis, cute bringer of happiness,
Manneken Pis, sprinkle the prettiest women,
Manneken Pis, sprinkle all hearts.
When he goes: pss, pss
And again goes: pss, pss,
Softly, he gaily pushes: pss, pss, pss.
Manneken Pis, an immense innocence
Comes out in a full jet
From his little whistle.

Countries may move,
Tire out, get angry;
Him, he never deigns to change.
Even in adversity,
He defends liberty
and the right of free speech.

The most reputable people
Have come to admire him
And he has shown them all
Decorated(?) costumes,
Bemedaled jackets,
That didn't cancel that.

He seems to contemplate everything
With a disinterested eye.
Nothing seems to aggravate him,
Anything can go the wrong way;
Yes, but he, day after day,
Is always satisfied.

I have the very strong impression
That he loves this song
And makes it flow in his own fashion,
And I'm going to start thinking
That he wants it to start over
He asks for a full encore.

--Anonyme, 03:55 UTC, 27 octobre.

On another note, when I was in Brussels a few years ago, I was told by friends that manneken pis is so called because he ran up to emperor napoleon while napoleon was parading through the streets and pissed on his boots...anyone else heard of this? It isn't in the Manneken Pis article... ChowderInopa 00:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That's definitely not true, because the legend and even this statue itself is at least a hundred years older than Napoleon I of France. But there is a legend that from the 12th century about a man whose son urinated on the enemy. There is also a version in which the boy neutralizes explosives. As usual with legends like these, nothing is clear. Keep in mind that there is also a Manneken Pis in Geraardsbergen, and they claim theirs is the original one.Evilbu 20:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Name that tune

It's a waltz or something ballroomey that has a melody that goes something like this (in super bad notation):

                     E♭

                       D                     D

                         C         C       C

                          B♭    B♭     B♭
      A,      A,
                            A♭,     A♭,
    G       G   

  F       F       F

D       D       D

TIA, this is driving us batty. ¦ Reisio 01:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Musipedia is the best place for "name that tune" questions.--Shantavira 08:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had a play with Musipedia but can't find anything that fits the "waltz/ballroomey" description. Tell me if I've got the right order or not:

• E♭, D, C, B♭, A♭, B♭, C, A♭, B♭, C, D, D, F, G, A, D, F, G, A D F.

Can you indicate where the first beat of each bar falls? And are you sure the "A"s in the DFGA runs are not "A♭"s? JackofOz 08:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool site, but yeah I didn't have any luck either. Fairly certain those would be natural A's - I'm thinking the D & F are pickup notes and the G would be the downbeat of the next measure. It's possible the waltz vibe is completely hallucinated, though. :/ Thanks for the responses. ¦ Reisio 00:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Worlds Most Powerful Institutions

I'm writing a novel and am trying to come to some sort of consensus as to the world's most powerful institutions, specifically those that if brought to collapse would have the largest impact on the world at large. Some suggestions I have received and researched so far include: The Federal Reserve, OPEC, The European Union, NATO, Harvard, Oxford, NYSE, The UN, The World Economic Forum, WTO, Transatlantic Business Forum, ICC, European Monetary Union, WHO, Business Roundtable, and G8 Summit.

What I'm looking for is a list of the 12 most powerful institutions, with a bit of supporting evidence or links to where I can find such.

Thanks in advance.

--Spriteyone 06:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the NYSE, since the stock market crash of '29 revurburated world wide I would say this is a safe group to include. 75.9.140.241 06:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't really imagine the world shivering if Harvard or Oxford collapsed. What about The World Bank, and a few of the world's biggest companies, like IBM, Walmart, Boeing, or Micro$oft? Anchoress 09:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church? Huge in terms of high influence over individuals and groups, being the largest organised religion, and a very wealthy corporation. Natgoo 09:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The IMF? The US? Wikipedia?  --Lambiam^Talk 10:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Is Walmart that important? I thought they were only important in United States... 惑乱 分からん 11:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much that they're so important, it's that they're so huge. Several of the biggest companies in the world (including WalMart, IIRC), have economies equivalent to those of small nations. In addition, as stated below, WalMart (and other companies with ties to raw materials and manufacturing networks - Ford and GM are other examples) can cause significant shifts in global markets v/v their purchasing power and the economies they support. Also, although WalMart is US-based, they have had such an impact on the economies of communities where they have eliminated competition (for goods and employment), that if they were to suddenly fold, the trickle-down effect might well shake the US economy, and therefore the world's. Anchoress 12:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean, if you look at the WalMart page (which I hadn't when I mentioned them), it says they are the second largest corporation in the world, and they have 20% of the grocery market in the US. Lots of communities have no other local source for the goods they buy at WalMart; imagine they were to collapse? It would probably throw the US into a recession due to the overnight explosion in the cost of consumables and the resulting unemployment. The article also says WalMart is the largest employer in the US and Mexico. Anchoress 12:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest FIFA as well. This is of course impossible to quantify so you'd have to make it up yourself. Surely this is part of writing a novel? BTW, if you're talking about companies, don't forget Nestlé. And if you're including Walmart probably should mention Carrefour as well (and perhaps Tesco. These are important actually and even Walmart not just in the US. For example, they say Walmart keeps the Chinese economy growing. Not really true but it is important in many ways. There probably should be some financial type companies as well, maybe ING Group? Nil Einne 12:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you mention Tesco, you might as well mention Ahold, which has a much higher net income - at a comparable revenue, which supports the claim that they overprice their products. DirkvdM 13:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The New York Stock Exchange is pretty important, as is the Federal Reserve banking system in the US, but any national bank that goes bust or any national stock exchange that goes bust will have enormous ripples. The bigger the institution, the bigger the ripples. If the NYSE or Fed went bust, the ripples would be tsunamis. Geogre 12:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course who knows, maybe the Bilderberg Group is the most important of them all? 12:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Could be, but it's very unlikely. See [8]. -- ExpImp^talkcon 12:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

the catholic church and microsoft :|...and Aleksey Vayner's charity enterprise...lol j/k.--Cosmic girl 13:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You could try these: Forbes Global 2000 and List of the world's largest companies. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 23:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe CISCO, Swiss Re and Munich Re might be other competitors. But nothing, imho, beats the US of A and the stock markets in impact, i believe... On the other hand all those, who are merely associations of other institutions will not have a large impact: If EU, NATO, OPEC or the WTO collapse, the member states are still there, with all their power and influence.-- ExpImp^talkcon 12:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The First Sports Car

Hi, I need to know which was the first sports car developed in the world - I know that the term sports car itself is debatable and we'll not include supercars in this Based on my research I am assuming it is

"the one Ferdinand Porsche invented. It was the first supercharged Mercedes-Benz SS & SSK sports cars in Stuttgart, Germany in 1923" - Automobile History, www.about.com

Anybody with different views / figures?

Thanks George

• There are those who think that the 1911 Vauxhall C-type was the world's first production sports car. [9] --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Night of wilding in Central Park

Many years ago, several black youths were charged with raping & beating a white female stockbroker in central Park. The crime was referred to as the 'Night of Wilding'. What was the outcome of that case?

– — … ° ≈ ≠ ± − × ÷ ← → ·§ sheryl

The victim's name was Trisha Meili - you can read about the case in her article if you don't want to sit through the Erik Estrada-filled goodness of Night of the Wilding. Natgoo 10:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that "wilding" was a misinterpretation of "Doing the wild thing", that is, having sex, a phrase from a song out at the time called Wild Thing (Tone Lōc song). StuRat 17:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Dora Maar au Chat

Can anyone tell me if the Dora Maar au chat was just painted in oil paint ?

I know it has been painted in a synthetic cubism style but I need to know exactly what media was used

Can ayone help ?

Master Lee Lee 11:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)--Master Lee Lee 11:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sotheby's listed it as "oil on canvas". Can't say for sure if it was exclusively oil, but I have a feeling they'd have noted the fact if it had been something more exotic. --BluePlatypus 14:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Death Star in ROTS

Was thinking of asking this in the ROTS article but OT so here instead. Was there ever any explaination in any of the G or C canon (see Expanded Universe (Star Wars)) of why the first Death Star took 20 years or so to build (and it already seemed to be well on the way in ROTS) but the second one was done in perhaps a year? If not what about the lesser/non canon? Nil Einne 12:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose, like any new technology, it took many years to test and perfect. But, once perfected, production could be relatively quick. For example, the first nuclear weapon took any enormous effort to produce, but now they can be churned out quickly on an "assembly line". StuRat 17:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, this is answered on our Death Star page:

"Lucas has made offhand comments regarding the first Death Star. He explains that the incomplete Death Star at the end of Revenge of the Sith was the exact same one as seen in A New Hope. He goes on to say that it would be "a bit of a stretch", but explains that due to "union disputes and supply problems", it took 19 years to build (a curious nod to a conversation about the contractors in Clerks). However, Kevin J. Anderson's novels Jedi Search and Champions of the Force explain that a prototype Death Star was built in preparation of construction of the first Death Star in A New Hope, which would give another explanation for why the first Death Star took so long to build, in contrast with the second Death Star from Return of the Jedi.[4] The contradiction between the novels by Kevin J. Anderson and the movies have since been resolved (or retconned) in The New Essential Chronology, which establishes that the first Death Star was indeed the one seen at the end of Revenge of the Sith: however, major problems with the technologies used to create the planet destroying superlaser led to the creation of a testbed proof-of-concept prototype to ensure that the superlaser and the other systems would work. Created by Bevel Lemelisk and Tol Sivron, this is what became the Death Star Prototype. Once this was completed and tested successfully the First Death Star was completed, thus reconciling the various elements of continuity."

So sturat is essentially correct, the first death star needed a prototype to test out various functions, once that stuff was worked out, it went much faster. It may also be noted that while the laser is functional in the second death star, the superstructure obviously still had a lot of work left to finish. So if we consider the second one half finished in the 4 years since the battle of yavin, that would give around 8 years to completion. So really just a little more than twice as fast as the first one. Nowimnthing 00:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

But did it need a key to turn it on? 192.168.1.1 8:36, 27 Rocktober 2006 (PST)

I need information about online colleges that offer Juris doctor degree that you can accelerate

Can someone please provide me with details of colleges that I can study law online and can accelerate email.....kenandrewandyke.com

You asked virtually the same question yesterday. Please go back and see the answers that we offered yesterday. Marco polo 14:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Shareholders Suing Company

I'm wondering on what basis can shareholders sue a company they hold shares in? I was reading the article on class action and it said they could sue for losses, but isn't that a risk one takes when buy shares? --Username132 (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well you can sue someone for anything in the US it seems. However I would say shareholders have the right to sue a company if they have done something illegal etc. Nil Einne 14:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

At a minimum you must have standing, which means you were harmed in some way by the party you are suing. StuRat 17:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You're playing lawyer, Stu. "Standing's" got little to do with it. According to statute, the proceeding you would institute would be termed "Opression". Loomis 07:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The article strike suit mentions some ways in which a stockholder may sue a company - although a strike suit is illegal in some states. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Desperate Housewive

In the pilot of Desperate Housewives, Paul Young decides to dig up the toy chest with the body in it. My question is why didn't he just leave it where it was?

He's a necrophile? Clio the Muse 23:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Military to military relations and military culture in Ghana

I would like to have information concerning military to military relations, as well as the military culture in Ghana. This is strictly for academic work. Thank you in advance.

129.237.203.182 16:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You might start by checking out the website of Ghana's armed forces when their server is not down, as it seems to be at the moment. There you will get a sense of their culture, and you will see that they have participated in several UN peacekeeping missions within Africa. If you read the article History of Ghana, you will see that in the past, Ghana's armed forces, like those of other African nations, have initiated coups d'etat that overthrew civilian governments, generally in response to government misrule. Unlike many other African nations, however, Ghana's military has returned power to civilian governments. The main exception was the military government of the late 1970s, which descended into corruption itself. This government was overthrown by a lower-level officer, Jerry Rawlings, who yielded power to an elected government. When economic turmoil and corruption continued under the elected government, Rawlings took power again in 1981. During the 1990s, Rawlings stood for election and was returned to office in elections judged free and fair. He retired from office in 2000, and the opposition defeated his party in elections that year. His party ceded office peacefully, and Ghana has had relative stability under elected governments since. I belive that Rawlings is credited with removing Ghana's military from the country's politics. Marco polo 18:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What does free will mean?

I looked over free will, but it doesn't seem to answer this question: how is a universe with free will distinguishable from a universe without free will? The only thing I could think of was that a universe without free will lends itself to predictability. Is there any other way? And given that constructing a model of the universe complex enough to be predictable is at the very least monstrously impractical and probably (I think but am not certain) impossible, doesn't that render the question moot, even inane? grendel|khan 16:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not distinguishable by us, else there would be no argument as to whether or not we have free will. However, it will be different to those who are calling the shots and making us think like we have free will, as well as those people who are aware of that. Say you have improv. Can you say that it was scripted or actual improv? As the audience, you can't tell. But you could if you were the staff in charge, or the actor/actress. We're like the audience to the universe. We can only suspect, but not prove. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

But why do we bother asking, then? It's about as meaningful a hypothesis as the flying spaghetti monster. It can have no possible, conceivable bearing on our actions, our morality, on anything. And yet the article says that ideas about free will do influence these things. It seems that it's not thought of as just a vaguely interesting hypothesis that ultimately doesn't matter one way or the other. grendel|khan 17:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Humans ask because when a person commits evil, they want to claim that they were destined to commit evil (no free will), therefore it isn't their fault. When something evil happens to you, you claim the person who did had free will so you can blame them. All in all, it is merely a means for humans to shove blame around. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but then they're destined to be caught, and destined to be punished, and so forth. It's just mealymouthed weaselwording, signifying nothing. Why is it considered an important issue in philosophy? grendel|khan 18:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see you mention philosophy before. Why is it important to philosophy? It is a question without an answer. If it ever were answered without any doubt of any kind, it would no longer be philosophy. It would be science. You should read philosophy to better understand why it focuses on issues like this. --Kainaw ^(talk) 18:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out the chapter "Free Will and Determinism" from The Concept of Physical Law by Norman Swartz. —Keenan Pepper 04:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem of free will is interesting because its answer will have huge effects on what we take the meaning and shape of our lives in the universe to be. Some people think that if there's no free will, our lives are purposeless and morality is impossible. Others think that, because 'free will' in the sense of spontaneous, uncaused causation of our actions is impossible, morality is very different from what we thought (e.g. it doesn't consist of praising some people and blaming others for making particular choices, since they could never have chosen otherwise). Ted Honderich's book How Free Are You? is particularly good on this. Cheers, Sam Clark 09:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Southern Presidents?

How many of the United States presidents could be considered to have come from the Southern United States? The presidential section of that article is highly unclear.

Thank you,

--CGP 22:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The answer depends on how you define the South and how you determine where a person is "from." By my count, there were 13 presidents who were unambiguous Southerners:

• Washington
• Jefferson
• Madison
• Monroe
• Jackson
• Tyler
• Polk
• Taylor
• Andrew Johnson
• Lyndon B Johnson
• Jimmy Carter
• Bill Clinton
• George W Bush (despite having been born in CT)

Then there are the ambiguous cases:

• Woodrow Wilson spent his first 30 years in the South, but his entire pre-presidential political career was in NJ
• Harry S Truman was from Missouri, but Missouri is a border state, and Truman spent most of his life in northwestern Missouri, which is arguably more Midwestern than Southern
• George HW Bush was born and raised in the Northeast, but spent most of his pre-presidential career in TX

• Although Abraham Lincoln was born in KY, his family moved to IN when he was 7, and his whole pre-presidential career was in Illinois.

Marco polo 00:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If by the south you mean the old slave states-including the border states of the upper south-and if you also mean those presidents who were born there, by my calculation there were seventeen, excluding Lincoln, though I do not suppose there is any good reason why you should. Clio the Muse 08:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

different attitude towards surveys in different countries

I moved from Germany to the US some eight years ago, and there are of course many cultural differences. One thing I realized only recently is with regard to commercial surveys. In both countries, companies collect feedback from consumers. But while German companies provide some incentive (usually a prize), American companies hardly ever offer anything. Are American consumers just so much more willing to donate their time for free, or are companies not really interested in feedback here? — Sebastian (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't participate unless paid. The survey-takers apparently don't believe in capitalism, in the US. StuRat 23:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup, strikes me as pretty ironic, too. — Sebastian (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There are online unpaid surveys in the US, but the results are problematic, because it is a self-selected group and perhaps not representative. Companies in the US do also pay people to participate in focus groups and other forms of market research. Marco polo 00:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I took part in a focus group for a movie ad once, simply out of curiosity. I wasn't paid. People also check off those little comment forms you sometimes see at restaurants, presumably because they hope it will lead to improvements. -- Mwalcoff 00:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I took part in a focus group for a TV show once, but I got a free dinner for two out of it. I hated the show, though, which starred Tom Wopat as a single father of a bratty teenage daughter. They must have taken my advice, because AFAIK that show never saw the light of day. StuRat 18:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I just had an idea: Because the US are a bigger market, there could be more customers for the average product. Thus maybe US companies already get about as much feedback as their German counterparts, even without incentives? (Of course this wouldn't apply to individual restaurants, but it probably was introduced in restaurants chains first.) — Sebastian (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the market is that much larger, only 2-3 times, possibly... 惑乱 分からん 02:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The EU is actually much bigger than the US (and the distances are shorter). DirkvdM 09:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well in Flanders it's sort of common sense you get a coupon or something when you take a survey. When I visited Universal Studios in Florida there was an employee at the entrance asking all sorts of questions, and it's not that we were displeased but we were sort of surprised he didn't give us anything:) . Evilbu 11:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is population size and attitude. "Population size" is not the population of the country - is the number of people you find mindlessly wandering around the shopping centers. I haven't been to any shopping centers in Germany, but the ones in Norway and England were very sparse compared to the U.S. ones. Also, the European shoppers appeared to be busy. They were just wandering because they had nothing to do. Yes - there were some teens and vagrants, but the average person appeared to be shopping, not just wandering. In fact, a Norwegian lady stopped me and asked if I was American. I asked how she knew. She said it was because I was wandering around with a mindless grin on my face. So, increasing the number of people that aren't busy doing something will increase the chances of getting a person to take a survey without getting something in return. On a side note: Fast-food restaurants do not perform surveys as much as market tests (in the U.S. - I don't know about other countries). The midwest (ie: Des Moines/Kansas City) is commonly used. Growing up in KC, we had all kinds of cool things at McD and BK that never showed up elsewhere. I didn't realize it until I was in Chicago and I ordered Chicken McNuggets. They lady at the counter thought I was retarded. I tried to explain to her that we had the things for over 5 years in KC - they just hadn't passed the midwest marketing test yet. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

They sometimes approach it the other way around. A guy in a shopping street (the European alternative to the shopping mall): "Would you like a free newspaper?" "Yes, thank you" <trying to take it from his hands> "Would you like to answer some questions then?" "No" <still trying to wrestle the newspaper from him> "But you can only get the newspaper in return for answering the questions." "Well, why did you say it was free then?" At which point I usually give up. What do I want with a free newspaper anyway? I've already got an online subsrciption. DirkvdM 19:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

October 27

King Henry VIII

Did King Henry the VIII have control over the legal system of England? Nick 00:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)nicholassayshi

Hi Nick - our article on Henry VIII doesn't talk much about his relationship with Parliament, Parliament of England notes that it was under Elizabeth I the Parliaments began to become uppity (so before that point the Monarch, e.g. Henry, would have been in strong control). List_of_Acts_of_Parliament_of_the_English_Parliament_to_1601#1509_.281_Hen._VIII.29 is very thorough, but most of the acts themselves don't have articles, so knowing the King's position on them is impossible from this perspective.

Possibly the most important act passed in his reign was the Statute in Restraint of Appeals, which removed Papal authority, making the King the final point of appeal (i.e. cementing his control) - the most important interactions to consider would be those between Parliament, Monarch, Privy Council, and Church - Henry removed the Church from the equation, in theory controlled the Privy Council, and had to deal with the Parliament - an assessment of the success of his control of those would go towards his control of the legal system. You may also want to consider the view that at this time the monarch was not merely above the law, the monarch was the law. You'll probably find writings by Geoffrey Elton very interesting in this regard, his two main focuses were Henry VIII and political history. --Mnemeson 01:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have little to add to the above answer, intelligent and well-informed. However, I would question the contention that Henry removed the church from the general political nexus. He ended Papal supremacy, yes, but that is a quite different thing. Churchmen were still powerful players in Henry's court. I would also urge some caution over the contention that the English monarch was the law, which would make him the political equivalent of some oriental despot. Tudor absolutism always had a firm constitutional basis, and there were some things even the king could not do. Henry's Reformation would have been inconceivable without the active co-operation of Parliament. Clio the Muse 08:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little hazy on this ("it's not my period") but I would guess that Henry ultimately (theoretically) appointed the Justices of the Peace. I think that magnates still had the right to be judged by their peers and again, Henry had powers of appointment and removal. Church courts were also under his jurisdiction after his break from Rome. His own legal/religious wrangles were usually conveniently turned so that he was in the right, such as the thorny subjects of could he marry Catherine of Aragon and later could he divorce her. The only problem was that the Pope disagreed and Henry couldn't control the Papal court. So I'd guess the answer is yes, he pretty much did control England's legal system. Historians with better knowledge of Tudor England (ie most people) pls feel free to correct me!--Dweller 19:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Henry himself did not appoint JPs, the responsibility for whom lay with the Lord Chancellor, the chief legal officer of the realm. He, in turn, would depend upon local recommendations. The marriage to Catherine proceeded with full papal dispensation. Later papal resistence to the divorce was the occasion of Henry's break with Rome. It is important to remember that Parliament is the high court of England, and Henry, mindful of this, was always careful to secure full Parliamentary co-operation. There had long been an active anti-clerical mood in England, and deep resentment over some of the extra-territorial papal powers; so Henry's move against separate church courts, for example, was widely supported. The English constitution, I stress again, was always based on the active co-operation of Parliament and Crown. It was when this broke down that the problems started; and Parliaments both before and after the reign of Henry VIII showed no reluctance in curbing and removing unpopular monarchs. Clio the Muse 23:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Who appointed the Lord Chancellor? (that was what I meant by "ultimately"). --Dweller 09:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

hey

What is the meaning of life it self?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.91.91 (talk • contribs)

Mu. Ziggurat 02:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe, The Justified Ancients Of Mu Mu?? 惑乱 分からん 03:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

See Meaning of life. —Keenan Pepper 04:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

42 -B00P 05:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That we need a FAQ.--Shantavira 06:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Which we have. DirkvdM 09:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

42... that one is getting revoltingly cliched. -- Chris 17:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Stick it in there then!--Light current 17:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If people stop asking the question, we will stop giving the answer. :) DirkvdM 19:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Spoof splurge?

A friend keeps emailing me pps files with (admittedly) pretty pictures, accompanied by a few gut wrenching platitudes, and usually ending with a story about a brave little disabled boy. I don't want to hurt her feelings by asking her not to send me this crap. It struck me that there must be some excellent spoofs of this sort of material that I could send her in return. Does anyone know where I can find same?--Shantavira 07:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You want to parody a disabled child ? If you don't want to offend her,just tell her that the files take up too much space or something.You don't need to make fun of disabled people to get your point across.Serenaacw 09:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Erm, why so touchy? Spoofs of "this sort of material" don't have to mean parodying a disabled child. Even if it did, anything involving Timmy from South Park would work for me!Snorgle 11:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just remembered the following which someone sent me recently:

BILLY CONNOLLY’S CHAIN LETTER

Hello, my name is Billy and I suffer from guilt for not forwarding 50 billion f**king chain letters sent to me by people who actually believe if you send them on, a poor six year old girl in Scotland with a breast on her forehead will be able to raise enough money to have it removed before her redneck parents sell her to a travelling freak show.

And, do you honestly believe that Bill Gates is going to give you, and everyone to whom you send “his” email, a $1000? How stupid are we?

Ooooh, looky here! If I scroll down this page and make a wish, I’ll get

laid by a model I just happen to run into the next day! What a bunch of bullsh!t!

Maybe the evil chain letter leprechauns will come into my house and s*domize me in my sleep for not continuing a chain letter that was started by St Peter in 5AD and brought to this country by midget pilgrim stowaways on the Endeavour. f**k ‘em!!

If you’re going to forward something at least send me something mildly amusing. I’ve seen all the “send this to 10 of your closest friends, and this poor, wretched excuse for a human being will somehow receive a nickel from some omniscient being” forwards about 90 times. I don’t f**king care.

Show a little intelligence and think about what you’re actually contributing to by sending out these forwards. Chances are, it’s your own unpopularity.

The point being, if you get some chain letter that’s threatening to leave you shagless or luckless for the rest of your life, Delete it. If it’s funny, send it on. Don’t piss people off by making them feel guilty about a leper in Botswana with no teeth who has been tied to the arse of a dead elephant for 27 years and whose only salvation is the 5 cents per letter he’ll receive if you forward this email. Now forward this to everyone you know. Otherwise, tomorrow morning your underwear will turn carnivorous and will consume your genitals. Have a nice day.

Billy Connolly

PS: Send me 15 bucks and then f**k off!

(Formatting wikified --Anonymous, 23:10 UTC, October 27)

Snorgle 11:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that one is quite funny. Not subtle, but certainly funny. I was thinking more of a Power Point presentation in the style of the ones I keep getting. Perhaps I could even turn that into one. I shall have to scout around a bit more.--Shantavira 11:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw something similar as that on a Swedish art show once, with catch-and-response parodies: -"Are you poor?" -"Don't be lazy! Work harder!", -"Earning too little?" -"Get a sex-change!" etc... with the underlying notion that you always had yourself to blame... =S 惑乱 分からん 13:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to being forwarded your email if you do create it! Oh, and I must comment that I'm sure Billy Connolly didn't *really* write that email, especially given the use of the term "rednecks" in it. It is funny to think of him saying it, though.Snorgle 12:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't look at each entry, but here's a list of stuff like that: [10] Anchoress 13:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I came over as 'too touchy',make fun of whatever you want,but not people who can't stick up for themselves.Serenaacw 11:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

religion

hey, i just wanted to find out what the fastest growing religion in the west is and why.

alot of people say its islam despite whats going on around the world but im not so sure.

See fastest growing religion (seems to need work) and [[11]]. Why? Possibly a difficult question to answer. BenC7 10:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hint: some people have a choice which religion to join. Some religions allow people to change to another religion.--Shantavira 14:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the "fastest growing" is a rather silly concept. Let's say I start The Church of Kainaw. I'm the only member. I get one recruit. I've doubled in size in one day. Did Islam, any sect of Christianity, Hindi, or Buddhism double in size? I doubt it. So, the Church of Kainaw is the fastest growing religion! Woohoo! --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, for this reason, "fastest growing" usually means "tiny". Now, if the growth is measured in the absolute number of converts, as opposed to percentage growth, then you might have a useful measure. StuRat 18:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, this produces the opposite bias; popular religions like Christianity and Islam can gain millions of followers per year simply due to births outnumbering deaths, whereas smaller religions would have to gain huge numbers of converts to match them. --ByeByeBaby 19:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a "percentage of market share" change would be the best measure, then. That is, if we go from 40% of all people believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster to 50%, view that as 10% growth, not 25%. StuRat 06:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt either Christianity or Islam is gaining followers in the West due to births outnumbering deaths - across the West, the only country with a naturally increasing population is Iceland, the others are either growing through immigration (e.g. US, UK), or shrinking despite it (Germany). Unless they have unusual demographic curves, all organisations will be similarly losing people on the birth/death ratio, and if they're growing, they're making them back through immigration. Religion in particular is losing people on the age curve - whilst 63% of over 54s in Europe believe in God, it's below 50% for younger than that [12]. Conversion of people who already believe in something, or immigration from people who are disproportionately more likely to believe than not believe would be the best bet for any religion seeking to increase, not the birth rate --Mnemeson 21:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Atheism. Because people get ever better education. DirkvdM 20:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that belief in God is a sign of backwardness and ignorance? Are you saying that devout Jews, Christians and of course Muslims are basically backward and ignorant? You seem to be implying that the great prophet Muhammed was either lying or delusional, and that belief in the divinity of the Koran is based on nothing more than naive stupidity and lack of education. Is that true? :) Ok I'm obviously just shit-disturbing again, just to make a point. No need to take me too seriously. :) Loomis 22:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I was about to say 'Yes, basically". But then you tell me not to take you seriously. Sure, can do. :) DirkvdM 09:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I said no need to take me too seriously! So I take it that it's your opinion that (along with Abraham, Moses and Jesus of course), the prophet Muhammed either never existed in the first place (which is unlikely, even to secular historians) or if he did, he was basically either a lunatic who thought he was talking to Allah, or a sociopath who claimed he was? Don't worry, nobody knows your personal street address either. :) Loomis 12:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Is atheism really a religion or just a lack thereof? Hyenaste ^(tell) 20:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It depends on how you define "religion". Webster's seems to define it as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe...". In that sense I'd say Atheism is definitely a religion. But I'd disagree that it's the "fastest growing". Of course this is just an educated guess, but I'd say that the fastest growing religion has definitely got to be deism, or some variation thereof. Loomis 22:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If I tell you that I don't know the cause, don't understand the nature and cannot figure out a purpose of the universe, does that count as a set of beliefs? If not, explain why that should be incompatible with being an atheist.  --Lambiam^Talk 00:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If that's truly the way you feel, then no, that doesn't count as a set of beliefs, rather, it counts as a set of unanswered questions. I'm sorry to tell you, but you're not an atheist at all, you're an agnostic. Put as simply as possible, the definition of an agnostic is one who says "I do not know". The definition of an atheist is one who says "I do know. And what I do know (believe) is that there is no God". Loomis 01:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, we agree once again. This is getting to be scary. :) DirkvdM 09:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

To me atheism simply means the absence of a belief in an omnipotent entity that can be ascribed a personality. It does not imply that you have discovered an explanation for the cause of the universe or subscribe to some higher purpose.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have said that atheism is arguably the most absolute of all the 'religions.' To assert, with complete certainty, that God does not exist, is bold in the extreme. If in doubt the most logical position would have to be agnosis-no knowledge-, that the existence or non-existence of God is not subject to any acceptable set of proofs. Clio the Muse 23:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Some people believe that the Universe is God. I think it's called pantheism. Well, how could you possibly logically exclude that? So then the only way to assert, with complete certainty, that God does not exist, is tantamount to asserting with complete certainty that the Universe does not exist. Which then implies that nothing exists, and in particular that atheism does not exist. So atheism denies its own existence. Therefore, clearly, an atheist cannot claim to be an atheist, because that would imply the existence of atheism, and therefore the existence of the Universe, and consequently the potential existence of God. Simple, isn't it?  --Lambiam^Talk 00:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

But atheism isn't pantheism! When an atheist denies God, he doesn't adopt pantheistic believes for a moment and set God equal to the Universe. Atheism isn't dependent on pantheism or any other religion: the idea doesn't deny the existence of other religions, only of a supreme deity or more. Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That's correct. Your reasoning is somewhat circular, Lambiam. Loomis 01:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Is not! Don't you see the difference between (a) not being to assert with complete certainty that it is impossible to define "God" as "the universe", and (b) embracing pantheism? Define a necessary difference of substance, rather than of choice of terminology, between the notions of "supreme deity" for a non-atheist and "laws of nature" for an atheist.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"Intelligence". No, that wasn't a cheap shot. What I mean to say is that the difference between the two concepts you mention is "intelligence". A "supreme deity" for a non-atheist, be him or herself a traditional Monotheist, a Pantheist or a simple Deist, is the sense that this "supreme deity" is a force endowed with a certain intelligence and sentience. The "laws of nature" to an Atheist are no less random and lacking in sentience than necessary for the universe to operate in the smoothe fashion it does. The difference is the belief in a supreme "intelligence" or "sentience". Perhaps I'm not explaining myslef well enough. Loomis 13:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly agree any more. Clio, have you been reading my previous posts? What you just said is exactly what I've been saying over and over and over (to no avail of course!) It's actually quite eerie. When it comes to a belief in the unprovable, atheism has got to be the ultimate. I've always maintained that I have enormous respect for agnostics, for having the courage to say quite simply: "I just don't know". Atheism, on the other hand, is the conviction, the steadfast belief based upon no proof whatsoever, that there is absolutely, positively, unquestionably, no God. If that's not a "religion" I don't know what is. Clio, this is eerie indeed! Loomis 23:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No mystery, Loomis: it's an argument with broad underpinnings in logic; and we have obviously reached the same logical conclusion. Clio the Muse 00:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't sell yourself short, Clio. Wiki is filled with really bright people, yet no one has yet reached the same "logical" conclusion as we have (at least not in the year I've been here). Ok, now I feel like we're doing a bit too much mutual ego-stroking for a G-rated audience. :) Loomis 01:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There you go, you should have paid more attention to what I say and you'd know that I am also of the same mind. :) DirkvdM 09:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying then, Dirk, that you're a devout Atheist? :) Loomis 13:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ehm, no, agnostic. Sorry, I hadn't read the entire thread. Did I misunderstand something? DirkvdM 07:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, your original statement just confused me as to your position. ("Atheism. Because people get ever better education".) From that I couldn't help but take it that you saw Atheism as the most enlightened position; the result of the conquest of "education" over ignorance. But now you say you're Agnostic. Though I'm far more impressed in you for having arrived at the Agnostic's conclusion that "you do not know", I'm still puzzled by your initial response. Are you saying, (in a rather uncharacteristically humble way :), that you don't consider yourself well educated enough to be a true Atheist? I'm still a bit confused as to your position. Loomis 15:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Teehee. Wikipedia isn't censored for minors so stroke away. I'll get my video camera and we can... uh... nevermind. :D Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That of course is true for strong atheism, but not necessarily so for weak atheism (see weak and strong atheism), which happens to be very similar to agnosticism . Also note that agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive (agnostic atheism no less!). Hyenaste ^(tell) 00:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, Hyenaste. I've had a quick look at the pages you have highlighted, and I have to say that I find some of the argument a little difficult to follow. The suggestion that children might be considered 'weak atheists' seems to verge on the logically absurd. The same contention might be made for those suffering from profound mental incapacity or, for matter, all of the lower primates. It would seem to be that a 'weak atheist' is someone who either has not yet addressed the whole question of God, or for whom God forms no active part of their lives. Otherwise the boundries between a 'weak-atheist' and an agnostic seem to be so paper thin as not to be worth serious intellectual consideration. As for 'agnostic atheism' I can feel an infinite regression coming on! Clio the Muse 00:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is foolish to label children as inherent atheists. Antetheistic maybe? I sense bias in labeling atheism as a 'step' before theism, implying that theism is superior to atheism. As for weak atheism and agnosticism, it might take some more meditation to discover the big distinction (whatever it may be). Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm - I find the article on agnostic atheism interesting, because that's the way I've always defined simple atheism - as the article begins, "atheism is generally defined as "a condition of being without theistic beliefs"". I'm atheist - I'm a theist, I have no theistic beliefs. I don't believe and affirm that God does not exist, because that's a theistic belief, and I don't have those -it also seems to be covered by Weak atheism, the central assertions of which are difficult to refute. Concepts of theism seem to be one of those interesting ways that language can be used to mean something, something else, or nothing at all depending on what you want it to. --Mnemeson 01:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

We are indeed reaching the limits of language as the net of meaning, if it might be so expressed. Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, davon muss man schweigen. Clio the Muse 01:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's say that I claim there's another Earth inside each and every electron. I also claim that no scientific experiment can ever prove, or disprove, my theory. Would you believe me? Why not? There's no proof that I'm wrong! It would be "bold in the extreme" for you to say "Bowlhover, you are absolutely wrong", because you have no proof. If you flatly deny my theory, then your belief is not a belief; it's a conviction, a steadfast belief based on no proof whatsoever. I have enormous respect for the people who dare to say, "I don't know if Bowlhover is right; maybe there's another Earth inside every electron. We can't know for sure!"

Now imagine if I overthrow the government of my country, and set up a dictatorship. Every citizen is forced to learn, and accept, my theory; if they don't, I'll have them tortured/executed. After I'm dead, my children will continue my dirty work. If this goes on for many millenia, I'm sure that my theory will be at the same position as Christianity is at right now. --Bowlhover 01:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, have you heard about Russell's teapot? It's very similar to your example. Also notice that it is an entire universe in each electron, not earth. Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You heretic! Ten years in the dungeon for that anti-religious statement! What, what do you mean we don't have a dungeon? Yes, I've heard about Russell's teapot. I've also heard about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. But I wanted to come up with a different parody, because we all know about the more famous ones, and also because I wanted my arguments to closely parallel the ones made above by the other editors. --Bowlhover 02:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

All religion is in the mind (ie just your musings) 8-) --Light current 01:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

On that basis you could say literally everything is in the mind, and the external world is no more than an ideal construct: Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius leaps to mind. Religion is an age-old attempt to make sense of the physical world and and the place within it of rational and mortal beings. It is both internal and external, present and transcendent. Clio the Muse 02:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're getting over-excited. It was just a joke. --Bowlhover 02:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Bowlhover; the least thing excites me! Far too much intellectual stimulation. I don't see the joke, though. I thought Light current was making a serious point. But I'm happy to change direction-and tone-if you like. Clio the Muse 02:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Light current has his own versions of emoticons, as explained on his user page. DirkvdM 09:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

politic lingo

what exactly does the term 'cash on hand' mean in political campaigns?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.154.88 (talk • contribs)

Can you give us some context please?--Shantavira 14:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"In the period ending July 2006, candidate x had raised $2.5m, and had $220,000 cash on hand". It means the money they have available to spend --Mnemeson 14:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Often, people pledge money to a campaign. So, if I am pledged $100, I can say that I've raised $100. However, I don't have any cash on hand until the people hand it over. Then, when I spend it, it was still raised, but it is not on hand anymore. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The usual meaning is more like this: Cash on hand definition. It's an actual accounting term. They might have plent of money in the bank (checking account, etc.) available to spend, but it wouldn't be cash on hand. -THB 03:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Walter Bailey

i am trying to request an article on the above person. your request-an-article page is very muddled and exceedingly murky about how to enter such a request.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdhilliard (talk • contribs)

Well first off is he notable according to wikipedia standards? If so you can add the article yourself. Nowimnthing 15:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Derek Bentley and Christopher Craig court case

I would like to know the date of which Bentley and Craig first appeared before the magistrate to discover what the future held in store for them i am assuming it was around January due to the date on which Bentley was executed would it be possible to be informed of the exact date of which the court case took place? thanks alot.

They were both arrested on 2 November 1952. The trial opened on 9 December, conviction following two days later. Bentley was hanged on 28 January 1953. It was that quick. Clio the Muse 22:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

By British practice, that was at the longer end of the normal delay between conviction and execution - the minimum delay period was "three clear Sundays"; 4-6 weeks was fairly typical. -- Arwel (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I would assume that they would first have appeared in a magistrates' court to be remanded in custody a day or two after their arrest (well, perhaps not in Craigs' case as he broke several bones in jumping from the roof). -- Arwel (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Film title needed

My mother remembers an old B&W film, but since it was a while since she has seen it, details are sketchy. Plot points included:

A woman having a child with another man (she was married)

The boy being sent away (possibly war evacuation

The boy going on to a train and accidently going into a quarantined carriage with TB sufferers. He might have caught TB.

She also didn't see the end and would like to know how it turns out! Thanks in advance --Bearbear 21:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't TV a horribly infectious disease that causes your brain to rot away ? :-) StuRat 21:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Its certainly succeeded in your (nut)case. Harr harr! 8-)--Light current 01:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

:( --Bearbear 10:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe it's one of these: IMDB -THB 03:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look, thanks --Bearbear 10:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Mood amoung soldiers towards the end of WW2

The 20. of April 1945 Hitler kills himself. At this time, were the Germans "expecting" to loose? The mood amound the soldiers the days before the scuicide, was it hopefull? Did they have the feeling they were loosing? Soldiers on the other side, what were they thinking, how long did they think they had left to fight? Did they know they were winning? What was the reaction on both sides on Hitler being killed? Was it expected? No, this is not an essay question :) I am analyzing a war poem, and since I know very little about the second world war I am hoping that some people could give me at least some answers to the questions above, so that I get a slight impression of what soldiers were thinking. Thanks. Clq 22:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

How can you possibly explore what was going through the heads of so many men at any given time? The best you can hope for is to look out some war diaries and recollections, which might provide a degree of insight. What I will say, though, is that any German expecting to win at that point in the war would have been taking optimism to quite inconceivable levels of absurdity; either that or they were simply clinically insane. I would say that the general reaction to Hitler's suicide was elation on one side and despair on the other, though there may have been many Germans who secretly shared the sense of elation, believing the war would quickly come to an end. As far as the fighting men are concerned-and the only really big battle going on at this time was in Berlin-I imagine they lived from moment to moment, not daring to think too far ahead. But they were no doubt pleased by the news Clio the Muse 23:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There is strong evidence of the lack of morale in German troops by the time of Hitler's suicide. For example, they were surrendering in droves, not the type of thing they would do if they still thought they were winning. By contrast, the Japanese continued to fight up until the end, and may very well have thought they could still win, until the atomic bombs were dropped. StuRat 00:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, though we are probabaly touching here on two quite different sets of cultural assumptions. In the west soldiers generally do not see the point in continued fighting when a battle is so clearly lost. I find it hard to accept that by the summer of 1945 even the Japanese retained any hope of victory; but in cultural terms death was, for a great many, still preferable to surrender, the ultimate disgrace for a soldier. Some were still holding out (refusing to surrender, that is) years after the war ended. Clio the Muse 00:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I heard (from eyewitnesses and other sources) was that most Germans were desparately hoping for the war to end. There's even a song describing this sentiment which somehow managed to pass censorship:

Wenn die Lichter wieder scheinen

und wir wieder unsern kleinen Abendbummel

durch die hellen Straßen machen

werden wir tanzen, werden wir singen,

babadubadabadubada

...

(and later:)

stör'n uns endlich mal keine Sirenen

...

Translation: When the lights will be shining again, and we will once again do our evening stroll through the brighly lit streets we will sing, we will dance ... (and later:) finally no sirens will disturb us for a change... — Sebastian (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting, though it might bear a slightly different interpretation from the one you are making. It really only expresses a general, and rather sentimental, longing for the end of the war, which-by 1942-was probably not incompatible with official policy. The real issue, of course, was how the war ended. Now, for a real mood of-apparent-defeatism you could do no better than the song taken up by British Tommies in 1914, which contains the following wonderful line, You can send my mother, my sister and my brother, but for God's sake don't send me. Just imagine that being sung in the Third Reich!. Clio the Muse 03:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, this really helps. Greatly appreciated. Clq 07:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've read that some of the German military leaders hoped to fight on so they would be able to put up enough resistance against the US and Britain that those countries would make a separate peace, leaving out the Russians. There was a report this year or last showing that Churchill did have a representative negotiate with the Germans toward the possibility of such an armistice, so that the German Army (less the Nazi leadership) could fight with the West against Russia. It didn't pan out. If the Russians had moved slower against Germany, and if the Battle of the Bulge campaign had been more successful, this gambit would have had a better chance, although if the war had lasted a few more months the US Air Force would have had nukes available to use against Germany. As for fighting on when there is no hope of winning, consider the Confederacy in the last year of the American Civil War. After the fall of Vicksburg, no southern leader expected to win, and they were just delaying the inevitable, giving up land slowly, as in Joe Johnston's slow retreat in Tennessee and Georgia. After Vicksburg, they gave up even the hope that European nations such as Britain would enter the fray by using their sea power to break the blockade and resupply the Confederate Army by sea in exchange for cotton. Edison 15:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly true that Hitler, virtually to the end, hoped for a separate peace with the western allies, believing that they would join the struggle in the east. As far as I am aware, there is no convincing evidence that Churchill or anyone else took these proposals seriously, and peace feelers put out by people such as Himmler and Göring were quickly dismissed. That is not to say that the allies did not encourage anti-Nazi conspiracies in the German army. On your second point, Edison, I think there was still a reasonably high expectation in the Confederacy that the north might be fought to a standstill, even after the fall of Vicksburg. The hope was that the Union would lose the will to fight in the face of mounting casualties. By 1864 Confederate hopes focused on the possible victory of George McClellan over Abraham Lincoln in the presidential election, on the assumption that he would be willing to make peace. When this hope vanished all that was left was the war of attrition. Clio the Muse 23:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I once read that 1942 was a turning point, a year in which the mood started to change and people in the occupied countries started to realise Germany and its allies weren't that invincible. (Am I correct about that?)Evilbu 19:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right, though this probably came in stages. Possibly the first realization that the Germans in particular were looking at defeat came with the failure of the Moscow offensive in the winter of 1941. But the big turning points were Midway, Alamein and Stalingrad, all in 1942. Clio the Muse 23:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Just curious Clio: Why would the Battle of Midway be of THAT much importance to German morale? Ok, so the Allies beat the Japanese in some battle way off in the Pacific. Those "racially inferiour Nips" were beaten by those "Aryan" or "near Aryan" Americans and Brits. But wouldn't that only prove Hitler's grand theory and embolden the Germans at least as much as discourage them? Okay, I could see how, if they thought it through, they'd realize that an Allied victory in the Pacific would only allow the Allies to focus more attention, effort and resources in Europe. Yet it must be remembered that the "Allied" Alliance and the "Axis" Alliance were two rather different creatures, excluding, of course, Stalin's very reluctant and completely self-serving participation with the Allies. Loomis 18:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I was casting the net more widely to take in the general causes for the decline in German morale; and the end of Japan's runaway victories in the Pacific would seem to be one important factor. But you are right, I have no specific information on this. As far as the racial perceptions are concerned, though, I can say that the Nazis had defined the Japanese as 'honorary' Aryans fighting a 'mongrel' enemy. Clio the Muse 23:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That only begs a question that I'd thought I'd never have to ask: Were the swarthy Italians considered "honorary" Aryans as well? In the case the answer is yes, what then excludes one from being an "honorary" Aryan? Except of course being Jewish...but then again...even the Jews, were they actually considered "less Aryan" than the Japanese? No need to explain. It was madness so I suppose trying to derive any sort of sensibility to it is fruitless. Loomis 08:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

October 28

Sodomy in Ancient Bologna

I was told by a tour guide who described the waring of two factions outside the city of Bologna, Italy in which the commander of the victorious troops publicly sodomized the vanquished leader of his opposition, perhaps the commander was a representative or a warrior Pope, circa 12-13 century. I have search in vain to find a cite for this event. It was also briefly listed in a magazine article back in the 1970's. Can anyone tell me who and where and when with historical reference?

• I'm not saying it's not true, but you should know that tour guides are very prone to exageration and fabrication. -THB 03:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In the ancient world it was a way of degrading enemies. In Christian Europe, though, it was a cardinal sin, not openly practiced. Clio the Muse 22:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Japan's Foreign Policy Toward Vietnam

Hi. I have posted my Master's Thesis under my userspace, but I am more than happy to put it out in the general circulation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Davejenk1ns/thesis Where is the best place for this? Wikipedia? Wikisource? Davejenk1ns 01:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like it would make a good wikipedia article. -THB 03:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think so, because of WP:OR, which excludes any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. There is a wealth of material in the Thesis that can be used to improve existing articles, but inasmuch as the Thesis aims to gain insights about Japan's foreign policy and provide explanations for Tokyo's actions, that's excluded by Wikipedia's policies.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about it, but Wikibooks might be another option. DirkvdM 09:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

RENE DES CASTES

SIR,WHO IS RENE DES CASTES FROM HIS CHILDHOOD TO ADULTHOOD AND HIS ACHIEVEMENTS?

HOLY SHIT YOU JUST EXPLODED MY HEAD IT'S RENÉ DESCARTES ALL HIS ACHIEVEMENTS ARE LISTED THERE. HYENASTE TALK 02:29, 28 OCTOBER 2006 (UTC)

I don't know? Or do you mean Rene Descartes (in which case you should read the article)? --Bowlhover 02:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Pleas do not use all caps. It is considered as shouting! THanks--Light current 02:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You would shout, too, if your head had been exploded! -THB 03:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What with? Clio the Muse 03:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

To be fair. Hyenaste's head exploded after the anonymous question... 惑乱 分からん 13:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

My head exploded a long time ago! I starred in Scanners 8-)

Chinese propaganda

I remember reading a propaganda article in my grade-3 Chinese textbook. It went something like this: one day in the 1940's, the CCP was having a battle with the KMT. (This story-starter is about as cliched in Chinese propaganda as "once upon a time" is in English stories.) The KMT soldiers were firing out through the embrasures in a fort, and the Communist forces could not advance under fire. To solve the problem, one soldier decided to block the embrasures with his body, providing some time for his comrades to rush past the fort. I also remember a reference to the "morning star" (Venus?).

I have three questions. First, what is the (fictional?) soldier's name? Second, is this story plausible? Third, if it is plausible, did it really happen?

I'm skeptical about whether a human body can block bullets coming out of a fort. Won't the soldier just fall down after getting shot? If not, can't I just poke at the body using my rifle, causing it to fall down? If that doesn't work, how about shooting through the body at whoever might be in my bullet's path? --Bowlhover 02:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda is the operative word here. Just how many 'embrasures' can one body block? It must have been a very small fort and a very narrow range of fire with (very) low-caliber guns. It's a political fairy story for small children; no more than that. Clio the Muse 03:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Depending on the geometry, if a body could fall over the gun portal, and thus block it's view, that would make aiming at attacking soldiers impossible. This could possibly afford an opportunity for soldiers to approach to a range where grenades could be used effectively. StuRat 06:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems pretty likely to me that the force of the bullets would quickly push the body back off of the wall, though. Any embrasure that would be at an angle where a body could easily "fall" on it and be stuck would be pretty useless for shooting anything other than people who could fly. --Fastfission 15:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Bullets exert high pressure on the target, over a very short time period (impact force), but have minimal force associated with them (less than the kickback on the gun), despite Hollywood movies showing people being blown 10 feet backwards when shot. The low force exerted is especially true if the bullet goes entirely through the target. StuRat 16:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, a 9 mm fired out of a pistol has as much energy as a baseball thrown at 60 mph, or roughly around there. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I can buy that. If a baseball weighs a third of a pound, that would mean it would cause a 200 pound soldier to move backwards at one tenth of a mile per hour, if we assume 100% of the force is transferred to the person and they are on a frictionless surface. [60 x (1/3) = (1/10) x 200]. Of course, neither of these assumptions are correct, so they aren't likely to move at all. StuRat 21:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe with a small embrasure, the soldier could fold his arms against his body and dive halfway in, so his arms were inside and his feet outside, then extend his arms. Then when he was killed, if he had a lot of stuff in his low-hanging backpack, they would not be able to pull him the rest of the way in, and with his arms sticking out, they could not push him back out. Thsy would have to get out their bayonets and carve him up, by which time the other side could have stormed the fort. Maybe his "comrades" could hold on to the legs to help with the blocking. It would be a great maneuver to teach in basic training, right after "throwing yourself on a grenade" and "throwing yourself down on barbed wire to make a human bridge." Not so different from American football. Edison 15:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Very funny. (Seriously, it is.) Of course, embrasures are usually just large enough to poke a gun's barrel through.

To Clio: this story is not just a fairy tale for small children, because nearly all Chinese adults know about it. It's simply propaganda. We all know how good China's government is at lying. --Bowlhover 20:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Bowlhover. Clearly a fairy story for boys and girls of all ages! To the other contributers I have one simple observation: imagine, if you can, a fort that could be blocked by the body of a single man, imagine its height and imagine its width. The KMT must have occupied Lilliput. Clio the Muse 23:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It all sounds suspiciously like the story of Arnold von Winkelried, the Swiss national hero.

PLEASE!! HELP ME, Polar-experts!!

I have asked it again and again...What was the name of the expedition - I think it was American - which used a snowcat too heavy for the eniroment they was going to explore. Eventually the snowcat drove itself stuck in the ice and snow.. I think we're talking about the 1940's or 50' here...Thanks!--Petteroes 02:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe those who knew the answer ignored you because you were shouting. DirkvdM 09:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The previous time you asked you did not supply the information that this was supposed to be a relatively recent event, as far as Polar expeditions go, which would have helped to reduce the search space considerably, nor did you provide any feedback on the answers supplied, thereby possibly reducing the enthusiasm of the reference desk volunteers for answering your question.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you gave more information on another desk before. The fact that no-one responded strongly suggests that no-one found an answer then.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right that there was such an expedition, but I haven't so far been able to trace it. Try working your way through our list of Antarctica expeditions and polar exploration. I'm not sure that snowcats as such even existed in the 40s and 50s. According to history of Antarctica, Hillary successfully used specially adapted farm tractors to get to the South Pole in 1957.--Shantavira 11:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Shantavira! You're the only one who have actually answered my question without being sarcastic or arrogant. You see, most answers on this forum are from people who just want to correct the question, rather than trying to help. The reason I repeated my question, is simply because no one ever bother to read archived questions.

I seem to remember seeing a picture of the equipment (heavy tracked snowcats) abandoned in the polar region in National Geographic printed perhaps in the early 1960's or late 1950's. It might have been an Admiral Byrd expedition in the 1930's or soon after WW2. He had the backing of the Navy, so he could take lots of heavy stuff there. Edison 16:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Exemptions for Warriors About to Wage Holy Jihad

I have a few questions about Islam. It’s my understanding that warriors who are about to wage holy jihad against infidels are granted certain “exemptions” from their normal religious restrictions – for example, they are permitted to drink and have sexual relations with women other than their wives. With this in mind, I have the following questions:

1. Is my understanding correct?

2. Were such exemptions granted to the 9/11 hijackers before they carried out their mission? And if so, did they take advantage of these exemptions as I have been told they did?

3. What is the official Islamic term for these exemptions?

4. Who has the authority to grant such exemptions?

I don't know about the name under Islam, but under Christianity, when such exemptions were offered by the Catholic church in exchange for money, they were called indulgences, and were one of the key complaints of Martin Luther which led to the Protestant Reformation. As for the 9-11 terrorists, I believe some of them did drink alcohol, I didn't hear anything about sex, though. StuRat 06:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

An Islamic scholar might be able to assure one that under certain circumstances actions that are normally forbidden are exceptionally allowed. For example, diabetics do not need to fast during Ramadan. The fact that the exception is allowed is not created by this assurance; it already existed even if perhaps unknown to the not equally schooled believer. If one wants to avoid committing forbidden actions, one should only follow the advise of trustworthy scholars who can speak with authority on such matters. No mortal being has authority to grant any exemptions to what God has ordained.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That may well be the official Islamic line, but, in reality, the scholars do make up all the rules themselves. If not, they wouldn't all come up with different rules, like women required to wear burqas in some countries, a simple head scarf in others, and no requirement elsewhere. StuRat 13:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In many cases it is not a clear-cut issue that that is considered a religious injunction (as opposed to a matter of "decency"), and even less so that the people prescribing this are considered scholars or authorities of Islam. To the extent it is, there are of course all kinds of interpretations and traditions. Take the fact that an observant Jew will not put butter on a meat sandwich. The Torah proscribes cooking the calf in its mother's milk, and it's not an obvious step from there to this interpretation of what is kashrut. But can you say: "The rabbis make up all the rules themselves"? They mostly just hand down the tradition, which they believe to be the best available interpretation.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would say that. I would also say the same of Christians, as in the mantra "abortion is murder", which they apparently made up, despite the lack of any such statement in the Bible. One possible exception may be the Quakers, who allow each member to come to their own interpretation, as opposed to imposing the questionable interpretations of some religious leader upon the flock. StuRat 16:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Also note the self-serving nature of many of the interpretations. If a Muslim scholar decides it would be in his political interest to have his opponents killed by suicide bombers, then suddenly suicide bombers become the "will of Allah", even though directly in conflict with the prohibition on suicide recorded by Mohammed. StuRat 16:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This is especially true if the opponent happens to be the Great Satan United States of America. Ohanian 03:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not true. There's no consensus on what Jihad is, so there could hardly be any agreement on specific details like that either, which would probably be highly debated even if there had been a consensus on the basics. --BluePlatypus 18:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Is There Such a Thing as a Tribal Godfather?

The structure of the Mafia families was originally modeled after the old Roman legions, which were based on Regimes, Capos and Soldiers. Each family was ultimately controlled by a DON, who was insulated from actual operations by several layers of authority. According to popular belief, the Don's closest and most trusted advisor was referred to as the CONSIGLIERE ("counselor" in Italian). In reality, the consigliere was meant to be something of a "hearing officer" who was charged with mediating intra-family disputes. He also takes care of the economic side of the "business". An UNDERBOSS was possible as well, and beneath the underboss were a varying number of CAPOREGIMES, or captains, who ruled over a unit of soldiers, or "made" men, who conducted actual operations. This structure was depicted in the classic film THE GODFATHER, directed by Francis Ford Coppola.

My question is this: Do tribes in the Middle East or elsewhere have the functional equivalent of a Don, an Underboss, a consigliere, caporegimes and soldiers? And if so, what are they called and what are their responsibilities?

In the US tribe, the Don is called the President, the Underboss is called the Vice President, the main consiglieri have various titles such as National Security Adviser, Attorney General, and Secretary of Commerce. For the rest see our article on the United States Department of Defense. Their responsibilities are quite similar to those seen in The Godfather. Every tribe will have its own private terminology, but usually a quite similar structure.  --Lambiam^Talk 09:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a big stretch to call the President of the U.S. the Don. The Don is at the top of the chain of authority. The President is nowhere near the top. He has to get permission from Congress for just about everything he wants to do: Pay for troops to stay in Iraq - Congress votes on it. Appoint someone to the Supreme Court - Congress votes on it. Pay to help hurricane victims - Congress votes on it. Make an official statement that the U.S. does not hate all Muslims - Congress votes on it. Then, even if Congress gives the President permission to do something, the Supreme Court can overrule Congress. So, since the President answers to Congress and Congress answers to the Supreme Court, it would be the Supreme Court that is Don. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait! Did I just misread that whole thing? Is Lambiam saying that the President is a Don or the Don is a President? --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think he's saying that the President is a Don, so your counter-argument makes sense. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 19:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The concept of 'fringe' (in UK politics)

Hey, I'd like to know what a (or the?) fringe is, when the term is used to refer to the fringe at a party conference. Google/Wikipedia searches didn't really help : /

Thanks in advance, Iachimo 10:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A fringe event, such as a fringe meeting, is an event organized at the conference but not part of the official program and not held under the responsibility of the conference organizers. Usually the purpose is to facilitate an exchange of thought between people sharing a concern that is not part of the current party line.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) Iachimo 11:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. It has a slightly different meaning in the US, where it's those with extreme views not embraced by the party. It can even be called the "lunatic fringe", to make their views seem even less acceptable. 13:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That meaning also exists in the UK. Fringe means on the edge and in the context given by Lambiam it can be used for non-political activities. For example - The offical Edinburgh International Festival co-exists with the Fringe Festival. But it can equally mean on the extreme wing of an entity e.g. the Celtic fringe Jooler 14:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The article explains the term from the geographic location of the remaining Celtic nations at the "fringe" of inhabited regions.  --Lambiam^Talk 18:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

People with views not embraced by the party line will be considered extremists and lunatic fringe by party bosses anywhere. Maybe the difference is that Britishers like to identify themselves as fringe.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have a more negative meaning to the general public in the US. StuRat 16:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If a certain southern English county elected an M.P. from the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, would that make it The Surrey With the Fringe On Top? Clarityfiend 22:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In the Netherlands, with its many 'fringe parties' (to coin a phrase?), there is now a movement of young (wannabe) politicians (LuxVoor; http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lux_Voor) who want to pull progressive movements within the various parties together into a unified front. Sort of a fringe movement by the above definition, it seems, but not quite the same. DirkvdM 07:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

difference of wizards and magicians in society

i need to do a project on the difference wizards and magicians id different societys around the world...cindy

Go right ahead. Did you have a question? You might be interested to read our articles on magicians and wizards.--Shantavira 12:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Help with an un-identifiable memorial coin

This LeJour pocket watch (French) has on the face, stars surrounding it, such as the modern Greek coin. The back, (I was told) depicts the coin given to a specific colony during the French revolution. I cannot find any info on it. Who could help me identify this?

Can you describe what you see on the back?  --Lambiam^Talk 22:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The colony might be Haiti (Saint-Domingue), which began its own revolution in 1791. Clio the Muse 22:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What does "obdurate" mean?

U.S. News & World Report, Oct.23,2006 page 58 - "Not only has advanced neuroscience research revealed an obdurate mystery at the core of consciousness, but...."

See obdurate.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In the sentence given 'obdurate' may not be the best usage. The word 'enduring' would probably have served the purpose better. Clio the Muse 00:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps obstinate. StuRat 01:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

October 29

Treason question, based on last night's Battlestar Galactica

Template:Spoiler Spoilers for anyone who hasn't seen the newest episode yet, and pretty major spoilers for those who don't watch it (and you really should!) Wikilinks provided for ease of browsing, should that strike your fancy. Anyway, humanity has escaped from New Caprica and has begun trying and executing collaborators who worked with the Cylon government. Felix Gaeta anonymously fed government to the Resistance but of course they don't know it was him, so he goes up on trial and is convicted, though he is exonerated at the last moment. My question is, how often has this happened historically? Have there been last-second or posthumous revelations of the truth, or do people falsely accused of collaboration generally go unexonerated? Are there any good sources about this phenomenon (if it has indeed happened in real life)? Thanks. Stilgar135 02:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Last night in which country? Is this some re-re-rerun? DirkvdM 07:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It was played in the US last night. This was its first showing. Stilgar135 23:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The very first showing is on Friday on the Sci-Fi channel in the US [13]. We get it in Canada on Saturday night, and I'm sure other channels/countries probably do as well. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I would think last-second reprieves would happen, but less often for posthumous reprieves, at least while the war is still on, as the government would likely be more concerned with the negative propaganda and morale implications than justice, during the war. StuRat 01:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

World War I

approximately 6 million people died in the beginning of the 20th century in world war 1. i want to know how to calculate the effect on humanity of that loss. were these people the loosers in life [ i hate to say that ], the winners, or were they just a random sampeling of so the societies they represented ?

perhaps, looked at another way, i wonder what the demographics are for who fights our wars. i understand there isnt ' an answer' for this question, but perhaps there is a field of study i might be made aware of. thank you so much, david mcgrew Davismac 03:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Added a header to separate this from the question above. --Cam 04:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle casualties for the First World War were most heavily concentrated among young men aged between 17 and 25, ever after known as the 'Lost Generation'. This figure incidentally is calculated at around 9 million-see World War I casualties. You will find references to these losses in the period after the war, particularly in literature. The most obvious demographic effect was to create a disproportion in the population amongst the countries most heavily effected, basically those that had been at war since 1914. However, you should also bear in mind that the total number of wartime deaths-for both men and women-was greater than those actually killed in combat.Clio the Muse 04:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if they died, they were obviously losers. :) What do mean by the term? Are you talking about class distinction? Of course there were more lower class people among the dead, because there were more of them. Whether that was disproportionate, I don't know. But there were several rebellions and officers shot by their own men who were fed up with going over the top. WWI certainly had a great effect on class change, with the Russian revolutions of 1917 being the best known example. But also in the Netherlands, a neutral but not quite unaffected country, there was a revolution (well, almost); Troelstra#Proclamation_of_the_socialist_revolution (I wrote that :) ). DirkvdM 08:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Is There Such a Thing as a Tribal Godfather?

With respect to my earlier entry at 12:29AM on October 28th - when I asked whether or not there is such a thing as a tribal godfather – I did not make myself clear. I am not interested in the parallels between the historical structure of the Mafia and the U.S. federal government, although I find those parallels very interesting. What I want to know is this: Are there any parallels between the historical structure of the Mafia and:

1. Various religious denominations within Islam – such as Sunni, Shi’a, Sufism, Salafis, Wahabi etc.

2. Other Islamic groups – such as Islamic fundementalists, Islamic extremists, Islamic terrorists etc.

3. Various tribes, especially those in the Middle East – such as the Bedouin tribes that are located throughout the desert belt in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula.

Also worth noting: I define a tribe as "a group of people bound together by family bloodlines, a certain way of life, economic interest, or a common belief system".

By the way, I am not asking these questions because I think Muslims are gangsters, or anything else along these lines. My interest is much more secular and sociological in nature.

Moritz Hochschild (aka Don Mauricio)

Hey there :-) I am currently doing researches about Don'Mauricio for a friend, but the web is not very clear and I don't find many articles in English. Would it be possible to know more about him? I found the German Article if someone is able to translate. Thanks a lot :) --Adys 04:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and translated the German article for you, see Moritz Hochschild. The second to last paragraph doesn't really make sense to me though, I think I may have mistranslated something there. If someone with a stronger grasp of German could take a look (particularly at that and the closing paragraph) that would be helpful. Anyway, I hope it's of use to you. -Elmer Clark 10:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Death Penalty

Hi. I am wanting to know if the county attorney/district attorney, has to file certain paperwork in the beginning of a criminal case if he feels the case is a death penalty case. Or, can the county attorney just notify the defense attorney sometime during the case, that he is now seeking the death penalty instead of life imprisonment? Does the death penalty charge have to be decided on at the very beginning of the case? And if so, what particular information or documentation is needed? Please advise ASAP! Thank you, Dianne

That would depend entirely on your jurisdiction. In many US states, for instance, they would have to charge the accused with "First degree murder with special circumstances" in order for it to be a death penalty case. StuRat 07:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Chief Wasatchaka

Who is Chief Wasatchaka? I cannot find a reference on him anywhere on the web that is not a copy of the Salt Lake City and County Building Wikipedia article. If he is important enough to have a statue on portrait in that building, it would seem like there should be some information on him somewhere. Is that article perhaps mistaken, or maybe is the name spelled differently? -- 70.59.241.153 07:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

He may have just been a local chief in the area at the time it was settled, which might make him notable enough for a statue but not enough to have a Wikipedia article already written. However, hopefully we will have an article on him some day. StuRat 07:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The article says portraits. However, looking through google, the most mention I've found is that there are portraits of former mayors and some civil leaders. No mentions of any chiefs. The pages I found were the Utah City Guide and Utah's travel site. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they meant Washakie? --Cam 17:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that seems likely. StuRat 01:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Alternative strategies not violating human rights

Alternative strategies not violating human rights 196.35.140.250 09:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

See human rights. Do you have a question? -Elmer Clark 10:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Your question is unclear. For example, do you mean stopping violations of human rights, as in Darfur ? StuRat 01:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

British Liberal party between 1906-14

Evaluate the problems that the British liberal government faced between 1906-14.(They were in the top in 1906 what happened after that especially?).

a-Suffragettes

Do --ByeByeBaby 16:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

b-Conservatives

Your --ByeByeBaby 16:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

c-Irish MPs

Own --ByeByeBaby 16:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

d-Labour

Homework --ByeByeBaby 16:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

E-Radical-Labour

(You may want to read our articles on the History of the United Kingdom, the governments of Henry Campbell-Bannerman and H.H. Asquith, Liberal Party (UK), Labour Party (UK), Conservative Party (UK) and Women's Suffrage. Or, you know, your notes from class.) --ByeByeBaby 16:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a huge question and you will really need to do the detailed work yourself. Try and get a hold of George Dangerfield's The Strange Death of Liberal England. It may be a bit dated now, but covers this whole area, and in my view anyway is one of the best history books ever written. To give you a general hint the areas you need to look at are Ireland, the legal status of trade unions and labour militancy in general, votes for women, taxation and parliamentary reform with particular reference to the People's Budget, the arms race and international relations up to 1914. Clio the Muse 23:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hitler, Goebbels, Joe Louis, Max Schmeling, radio Broadcast 1938

Wikipedia's article on Max Schmeling contains the statement:

"Joseph Goebbels ordered that the broadcast of the fight to Germany be cut off."

However, German sports writer with the Associated Press, Roy Kammerer , based in Berlin: wrote in 2005 that "The fight was a huge event worldwide and left a lasting impression on his era of Germans, who followed blow-by-blow on radio."

And there is this letter to the New York Times:

July 3, 1988 No Knockout Of Broadcast LEAD: To the Sports Editor:

To the Sports Editor:

The Title Fight That Was Bigger Than Boxing (The Times, June 19) was of great interest to me. You write, Part of the postfight lore . . . is that the German broadcast of the bout was cut off before the fight ended. It was not.

As 13-year-old students at the Jewish boarding school Internat Hirsch at Coburg, Germany, and interested in heavyweight boxing, we asked to be awakened at 1 A.M. that day to hear the fight. Some of the kids missed it because it was over before they got to the radio.

I have never forgotten the German announcer's plea: Get up, get up Maxie, please get up - oh no, oh no - stay down - it's over! Weeks before, the German newspapers showed pictures of Louis's right thumb as being overly long as well as other statistics to imply unfair advantage over Schmeling.

We applauded Louis's victory as a ray of hope for us. We had grown up among Nazi pomp and muscle flexing, witnessing repeated accommodations of the West to Hitler and almost believing that they were unbeatable and that all others - including ourselves -were as inferior and weak as they wanted us to believe.

LUDWIG (LARRY) STEIN Chappaqua, N.Y.

I'm not quite sure what to do with the above information in regards to Wikipedia's entry. Talk page, discussion, edit?

Thanks, Mario Asbury Park, NJ

Hi Mario. Why not add what you just wrote to the article itself? Don't reprint the whole thing, of course, but you can say that the story of the radio feed getting cut off is a myth, then cite the sources you have. -- Mwalcoff 15:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mwalcoff, but I'm new and not quite sure what you mean. Do I edit the article itself? Or use the talk/discussion pages?

Yes, just edit the article itself. Don't worry if your edit isn't perfect; others can fix it later. The important thing is that the article reflect published sources... it sounds like it doesn't do that right now, and that you can help. Click on this link for an introduction to Wikipedia, and thanks for your interest in helping! --Allen 16:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Allen. I just made the changes.

I would also add the story to the talk page, as it may be removed from the main page because it's "original research". The talk page version is more likely to last. It's a good story that really shows the significance of the fight in Germany. StuRat 00:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Akbar

Why was akbar considered a great ruler?Please tell in detail--59.144.247.39 12:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see Akbar. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title. . --Shantavira 15:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Once you have read the page on Akbar I would be happy to deal with any more specific questions you may have. Clio the Muse 23:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Civil marriage

I believe there was a long dispute between the Catholic church and various countries about the question of whether officials other than clergymen should be able to marry people which was still going on at the end of the 19th century. I would like to see information on this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.161.155.106 (talk • contribs) .

Did you try Catholic marriage or marriage? You might have to be more specific, such as asking more specific questions, because what you want seems pretty broad. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics

It seems to me (and I may be wrong) that the value placed upon mathematics by Western culture has greatly decreased in recent centuries. Many of the founding fathers were mathematicians, the Declaration was inspired by Euclid's elements[14], and Garfield even came up with a proof of the Pythagorean theorem. But nowadays it seems that the definition of an "intellectual" excludes mathematical (or scientific, for that matter) pursuits, and would suggest more of a political commentator or philosopher. The article on Euclid's Elements states, "Not until the 20th century did it cease to be considered something all educated people had read." Why do you think the value placed on mathematics has so greatly declined, or do you not think this to be the case? --JianLi 22:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I perceive that intellectualism itself has seen its share price decline in the 20th and 21st centuries. How long has the epithet 'nerd' and its variants been around anyway? Was there ever any notion in antiquity that a person could be too interested in books, learning, and academia? -- Chris 23:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well actually, about the use of "nerd": it seems to me that while the word "intellectual" is reserved for non-scientific/mathematical intellectual pursuits, "nerd" is applied to intellectual pursuits that are mathematical/scientific. So even if intellectualism is suffering a decline by being branded as "nerdy," mathematics and science are the fields disproportionately suffering.

The important point here is that Euclid was broadly within the comprehension of most educated people, not just mathematicians. By the twentieth century mathematics was pursuing a course impossible to follow for those who were not specialists in the subject. Clio the Muse 23:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Princeton University

Why is Princeton #1? It does not seem to be so special, compared to Harvard or Yale...or even Stanford. I really don't understand how it took over the top spot in US News' rankings. It seems incorrect. 207.200.116.12 23:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Princeton is traditionally one of the "Big 3" Ivy League universities, along with H and Y. It is differentiated in having a substantially stronger focus on teaching (esp. undergrads) than H&Y plus a weaker focus on research and graduate education compared with H and Y (e.g. P doesn't have a business school or a law school - see Princeton Law School - but it has the highest per-student spend of any of the large US universities). Bwithh 00:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to know why Princeton is #1, just look at the formula for the US News rankings. Princeton is number one because after the score is calculated, it edges out the other schools at the top by one or two points. These points are so close that Princeton and Harvard often tie for #1, as they did last year. Though the methods of score calculation are pretty straightforward, a lot of the criteria, in my opinion, are unreliable or irrelevant. For example, one is percentage of alumni who donate to the school, which supposedly gauges school spirit. This means that a school can score many points if every single one of its alumni donates a trivial amount, such as $0.01, to the school. But even if you were to agree with the criteria used and how much each is weighted compared to the other, the difference between a #1 or #5 school is only a few points. --JianLi 00:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you were to rank universities in terms of prestige, according to a recent study, Harvard would be #1, followed by Yale. The study calculated prestige based on school-versus-school yield (though I believe this is made slightly suspect due to selection bias). That is, for people who are accepted to both School A and School B, and who end up going to one of the two, which one do they choose? A Harvard-Princeton match-up, for example, would yield something like 73% choosing Harvard and 27% choosing Princeton. Then again, prestige is not necessarily a good indicator of school quality. --JianLi 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

One often-overlooked criteria I find interesting is percent of graduates who win a Nobel Prize; according to Wikipedia's article, nearly 1 in 1000 graduates of Caltech go on to win one. Though this might be lower if one were to look only within the past few years, this ratio whups that of Harvard, Princeton, or Yale. --JianLi 00:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

October 30

Bicycle ONLY village/city/town

I am curious if there are any cities which either restrict or severely limit the amount of motor traffic with a cleaner alternative like bicycles? I have been hearing of places scattered throughout Europe (Amsterdam, Nueremburg) which are heavily populated with bikers but I am more interested in a 'Bicycle ONLY village' I have heard of somewhere in Switzerland. Any information is appreciated!

I believe that parts of the formerly Disney-owned community of Celebration, Florida are like that. StuRat 00:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

But that town seems completely artificial, anyway? Any natural town (where the inhabitants are rich enough to own cars)? As a footnote, I heard about some city that was so polluted that every 2nd day only cars with the last number on their registration plate being even/odd (interchanging) were allowed to drive. Rich families often had two cars, one with an odd and one with an even number, so they could drive any day... 惑乱 分からん 01:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe in parts of the United States some years ago they did this, except they alternated days in which you were allowed to go to the gas station. Meh, before my time though. Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The first thing that comes to mind when I read this question is Iceland. That's all I know, but perhaps someone else knows more about it. Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)