Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities and Template:Nickelodeon Universe: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
Sponge1987 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{navbox |
|||
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]]{{Wikipedia:Reference desk/header|WP:RD/H}} |
|||
| name = Nickelodeon Universe |
|||
[[Category:Wikipedia help forums]] |
|||
| titlestyle = color:white;background-color: darkorange; |
|||
[[Category:Wikipedia resources for researchers]] |
|||
| groupstyle = background-color: lime |
|||
|liststyle = background-color: cyan |
|||
| title = <font color="white">[[Nickelodeon Universe]]</font> |
|||
| group1 = [[Rollercoaster]]s |
|||
| list1 = [[Avatar Airbender]] {{·}} [[Back at the Barnyard Hayride]] {{·}} [[Fairly Odd Coaster (Mall of America)|Fairly Odd Coaster]] {{·}} [[Pepsi Orange Streak]] {{·}} [[SpongeBob SquarePants Rock Bottom Plunge]] |
|||
| group2 = Other Rides/Attractions |
|||
| list2 = [[Danny Phantom Ghost Zone]] {{·}} [[Log Chute]] |
|||
}}<noinclude> |
|||
[[Category:Roller coaster templates|{{PAGENAME}}]] |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 October 4}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 October 5}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 October 6}} |
|||
= October 7 = |
|||
== Existing Gulags? == |
|||
Do gulags still exist in North Korea? [[Special:Contributions/203.188.92.70|203.188.92.70]] ([[User talk:203.188.92.70|talk]]) 03:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Do you mean prisoner work camps? If so, they exist all over. See [[Labor camp]]. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red"><sup>X</sup></font></b>]]''' 04:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::But there's nothing about North Korea specifically. Is there an article on this? [[Special:Contributions/203.188.92.70|203.188.92.70]] ([[User talk:203.188.92.70|talk]]) 04:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Ah, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_North_Korea#The_prison_system here we go]. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red"><sup>X</sup></font></b>]]''' 04:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:It's peculiar, [[labour camp]] doesn't refer at all to the US, whereas [[prison farm]] deals only with the US. Anyway my guess is by 'gulag' the questioner was really thinking of places where political prisoners are included in the inmates and they do forced labour. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 07:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Industries open to the world to compete in but utterly dominated by a region or cultural bloc == |
|||
For instance [[List of 100 largest law firms globally|international corporate law]] is shockingly Anglo-American. 95 of the largest firms are UK/USA and a few of the remaining are Australian. [[Shipbuilding]] according to the latest stats (our article needs catchup) is 90-something% East Asian. Many European countries fully participate in international finance/business and have high English fluency so the composition of the list is shocking. Many American/European countries had as late as the 70s, the majority of expertise and infrastructure, so how did that reversal happen? Anyways, can you think of any other you-would-think open industry that is so dominated? [[User:Lotsofissues|Lotsofissues]] ([[User talk:Lotsofissues|talk]]) 07:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:It does sound awful to dominate in law rather than producing something useful. I believe there was a state in the US which banned lawyers for a time. In Nigeria the people going to university all wanted to study law rather than anything else. Now they dominate in the email scam market. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 08:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Market dominance]] deals with some of this at a company level. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 09:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:You could also look at [[Business cluster]]: the theory is that specialized industries tend to cluster in a single geographic area, even when there are competing firms. --[[User:Xuxl|Xuxl]] ([[User talk:Xuxl|talk]]) 13:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Treasury bonds' risk == |
|||
If everything has a residual risk, why do so many people consider treasury bonds risk free?[[User:Mr.K.|Mr.K.]] [[User_talk:Mr.K.|(talk)]] 10:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Have a look at [[Risk-free interest rate#Why risk-free?]]. Remember that "risk-free" (in this case) generally refers to [[credit risk]]. So even if the [[US Treasury]] never [[default (finance)|defaults]] on its obligations, those assets may carry other market risks which is what you might be referring to as residual risk. [[Special:Contributions/Zain Ebrahim111|Zain Ebrahim]] ([[User talk:Zain Ebrahim111|talk]]) 10:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Actually, I suppose we must consider at least a tiny chance of default. Nothing can be risk-free. Nobody expects that serious governments will print money to pay debt. And what if a meteorite rain smashes major US cities?[[User:Mr.K.|Mr.K.]] [[User_talk:Mr.K.|(talk)]] 10:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::"Serious" governments won't end up in that situation very often. Extreme events are dealt with in the link above. [[Special:Contributions/Zain Ebrahim111|Zain Ebrahim]] ([[User talk:Zain Ebrahim111|talk]]) 11:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm sure Mr. K knows that risk is relative. "Risk-free" most often is verbal shorthand for "it's very unlikely that you'll lose money." Also, because some government securities sell at or below the real rate of inflation, in a sense you're paying for your low risk at the start, since the "investment" will end up with negative return. One way of looking at risk in government securities is to imagine a choice between two governments: if you could choose between a two-year U.S. treasury bond at 2.11% (the yield in the 9/30 auction), what interest would you demand from a two-year bond from the Russian or Chinese government? There's a pragmatic definition of risk. --- [[User:OtherDave|OtherDave]] ([[User talk:OtherDave|talk]]) 12:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:The way I look at it is that if the US government (or another government whose debt is considered risk-free) were to default on its debt then the economic crisis that would ensue (or, rather, that would have to be already in progress) would be so major that the maths would break down anyway so it doesn't matter that one of your assumptions proved false. For example, the [[efficient market hypothesis]] is going to fail because computer systems won't be able to cope with the volume of trades, the assumption that people are rational actors will go out the window (during panic people do not behave rationally), etc. That your risk-free rate wasn't actually risk free will be the least of your worries. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 14:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Offline information == |
|||
What kind of information can't be found online?[[User:Mr.K.|Mr.K.]] [[User_talk:Mr.K.|(talk)]] 10:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Check out the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request|Resource Request]] page and notice what sorts of requests do not get filled. Now that isn't an indication that the information is not online, but I suspect there are a few there which are not going to be found online (like the three volumes of ''Monograph of the land and freshwater Mollusca of the British Isles''). The factors that will decrease the likelihood of finding it online are: rarity (related to age of the information and overall availability), overall public interest, storage medium of the information (information printed on bad paper in the 1700s is unlikely survive the ravages of time nor will scrolls from Ancient Greece and Rome that happened to be in the hands of monks in Medieval Europe who thought the material was worthless and erased/wrote over the material), and interest by those who enjoy the material (rapid fans of certain types of fiction are likely to make even fairly obscure pieces available). The older the information is the more likely random chance will play a role in what survives (e.g. look at the extant works of ancient authors, there may be a correlation between the artistic worth of what survives but I suspect there will be exceptions). |
|||
:Another place you could check out are the master lists compiled by the folks who make scanned comics available. They have a master list of all the comics produced by different companies and mark whether a scanned copy is available. I do not have the list handy and can't quite locate a copy, but I know several exist. If I remember correctly, the list follow the factors I listed above. Older comics were less likely to be available, along with comics that were not particularly popular.--[[User:Droptone|droptone]] ([[User talk:Droptone|talk]]) 12:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Other possibilities: |
|||
::*Why don't they just get over it? |
|||
::*Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
|||
::*Does a person who posts philosophy-undergrad questions ever leave the basement, or can pizza just get downloaded? |
|||
:: --- [[User:OtherDave|OtherDave]] ([[User talk:OtherDave|talk]]) 13:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
=== Expensive information === |
|||
What kind of information can't be found for free?[[User:Mr.K.|Mr.K.]] [[User_talk:Mr.K.|(talk)]] 10:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Lots of information...You cannot find out detailed information about your health (from a medical professional) without paying - either you pay, your insurance company pays or your government pays. On [[IMDB]] you cannot find out certain information without 'IMDB pro' which costs money. In stock market trading terms a lot of information is free (level 1 I think?) but information at higher levels costs extra. Most knowledge that can be sold for a profit will be sold for a profit, though similarly with the right tools and techniques a hell of a lot of that info can be found for free...Or to use a point from [[Good Will Hunting]] you spent 100 thousand on a fancy education you could've gotten for $100 in late book fees at the library. [[Special:Contributions/194.221.133.226|194.221.133.226]] ([[User talk:194.221.133.226|talk]]) 12:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Proof of address == |
|||
Why do banks care where we really live? Is that regulated by law? Or do they need our addresses for a potential civil law litigation? [[User:Mr.K.|Mr.K.]] [[User_talk:Mr.K.|(talk)]] 11:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:In Europe they must have proof of address to comply with [[money laundering]] legislation. If you deposit or withdraw a large sum they must ask you what it is for and record the answer. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 11:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Do they ask what is it for or where did it come from? What if you don't know what is if for?[[User:Mr.K.|Mr.K.]] [[User_talk:Mr.K.|(talk)]] 11:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::They usually ask both. You can answer "general living expenses" or "top up current account". They might think that was odd if the sum was very large. Of course in the current climate you might say you felt it was safer to keep the cash under the bed and they would probably believe you. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 12:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Similar laws in the U.S. - Banks must demonstrate an attempt to avoid transactions of illegal funds. It used to be that banks should use ignorance as a defence. Now, they must show that they asked who owns the money (ie: who are you, where do you live, what do you do) and what the money is for (ie: where did you get it, what do you want to do with it). In all reality, the bank doesn't care. They are required to ask the questions, but not required to ensure the answers are truthful. -- [[User:Kainaw|<font color='#ff0000'>k</font><font color='#cc0033'>a</font><font color='#990066'>i</font><font color='#660099'>n</font><font color='#3300cc'>a</font><font color='#0000ff'>w</font>]][[User talk:Kainaw|™]] 18:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Another reason is that if the person dies, they have a way of identifying the account. Accounts are frozen till the person in charge comes and asks for them. Yes, the [[Social Security number]] helps, but it's just another failsafe to make sure the person is receiving funds fromt he right deceased person. In fact, banks often have someone who scans the obituaries every day; if they read, "John Smoth, of 22nd Street in x township," and they have 3 John Smiths with accounts, they more easily know which one to freeze till the estate process begins.[[User:DTF955|Somebody or his brother]] ([[User talk:DTF955|talk]]) 12:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== do violinists get callouses the way guitar players do? == |
|||
do all stringed players? <span style="font-size: smallest;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.120.232.170|82.120.232.170]] ([[User talk:82.120.232.170|talk]]) 13:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
: I am a guitarist, and not a violinist, so this is just speculation, but any activity which produces friction at the same point on the skin is likely to produce calluses. See [[Callus]] for more information. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::[[Cello|Cellists]] certainly do, particularly on the side of the left thumb, from playing in [[thumb position]]s; to the degree that if you're as out of practice as I am, it can be quite painful until you develop the calluses. I also remember a friend once taking a week-long taster course on the [[sitar]], and painting his fingers with something thick and robust after the first day. --[[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 20:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Recognizing that this is original research of the most ghastly kind (personal experience), I can tell you that as a violinist myself, the answer is YES. You only get them on the four fingers of your left hand, and a bit on the side of your thumb sometimes. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 20:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== fly"s eye dome == |
|||
where do I buy fly"s eye domes? <span style="font-size: smallest;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.144.127.86|70.144.127.86]] ([[User talk:70.144.127.86|talk]]) 14:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== When was the last time Michigan voted for a Republican presidential candidate? == |
|||
I'm from Michigan, and I know it's a strongly democratic state (or at least it has been for the past several presidential elections), and I was just wondering when the last time was when a Republican presidential candidate won in Michigan. --[[User:Alinnisawest|Alinnisawest]],<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Alinnisawest|<font color="black">'''Dalek Empress'''</font>]]</sup> ([[User talk:Alinnisawest|<font color="#cf0021">'''extermination requests here]]'''</font>) 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:See [[United States presidential election, 1988]] -- [[User:Kainaw|<font color='#ff0000'>k</font><font color='#cc0033'>a</font><font color='#990066'>i</font><font color='#660099'>n</font><font color='#3300cc'>a</font><font color='#0000ff'>w</font>]][[User talk:Kainaw|™]] 18:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks, kainaw! I knew it had been a while, but wasn't sure when. Kind of ironic, because [[Jackson, Michigan]] is the birthplace of the Republican party... --[[User:Alinnisawest|Alinnisawest]],<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Alinnisawest|<font color="black">'''Dalek Empress'''</font>]]</sup> ([[User talk:Alinnisawest|<font color="#cf0021">'''extermination requests here]]'''</font>) 18:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::You may find people who dispute that. From [[History of the United States Republican Party]] "The Little White Schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin, where the Republican Party was first organized locally in 1854" - However, this apparent discrepancy is explained by the following from www.gop.com: "The first informal meeting of the party took place in Ripon, Wisconsin, a small town northwest of Milwaukee. The first official Republican meeting took place on July 6th, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan." [http://www.gop.com/About/AboutRead.aspx?Guid=a747a888-0ae6-4441-94f4-2a3a6561f872] (Pick your definition of "birthplace".) -- [[Special:Contributions/128.104.112.147|128.104.112.147]] ([[User talk:128.104.112.147|talk]]) 23:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
The question of the "birthplace of the Republican party" is actually kind of indeterminate, since "Anti-Nebraska" meetings and coalition groups fairly spontaneously sprung up all over the northern U.S. in response to the [[Kansas-Nebraska act]] of 1854. The place of the first meeting to use the word "Republican" to describe itself (or the first meeting for which there is currently-surviving evidence that it used the word "Republican") does not mark the founding of the Republican party in any very meaningful sense... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 05:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== politic in USA == |
|||
Can I know the processus of appointment of high personalities in USA? <span style="font-size: smallest;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/41.207.217.5|41.207.217.5]] ([[User talk:41.207.217.5|talk]]) 18:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:You can look at [[Politics of the United States]] for information on the organization of the government, [[Elections in the United States]] for information on how political leaders are elected to office, or even read the [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America United States Constitution], which lays out the entire process officially. --[[User:Alinnisawest|Alinnisawest]],<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Alinnisawest|<font color="black">'''Dalek Empress'''</font>]]</sup> ([[User talk:Alinnisawest|<font color="#cf0021">'''extermination requests here]]'''</font>) 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::In USA, high personalities tend not to go into politics, but stick closer to the [[Entertainment]] field.--[[User:Wetman|Wetman]] ([[User talk:Wetman|talk]]) 23:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Some high personalities have simply claimed they stopped using years ago, when running for office. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 03:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Please don't bite the newbies. The last two posters are joking about the fact that "high" can refer to drug usage. The original poster was obviously talking about high political offices. --Anonymous, 22:45 UTC, October 8, 2008. |
|||
== Searching for an article on the problem of bearerless names == |
|||
Salutations. I'm planning on writing an article on [[Meinong's Jungle]], and I want to see if there are other similar articles I should look at first. The basic topic is the problem of bearerless names; that is, "how can we refer to things that don't exist?", "why is it that people seem to have serious converstaions about [[Harry Potter]] when there is no such person" etc. However, I can't find articles on [[The present King of France]] (a famous example), [[problem of bearerless names]], [[non-referring names]] etc. The question arose most prominently around the birth of [[analytic philosophy]] amidst exchanges between [[Alexius Meinong]], [[Gottlob Frege]] and [[Bertrand Russel]]. There's an article on the [[theory of descriptions]], but that is only a solution to the problem. Can anyone find the Wikipedia article I am looking for? <font color="404040">[[User talk:Skomorokh|<font face="Garamond" color="black">the skomorokh</font>]]</font> 20:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:King of France? Do you mean the [[Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou|Legitimist claimnant]], the [[Henri, comte de Paris, duc de France|Orleanist claimnant]], the [[Charles Napoléon|Bonapartist claimnant]], or the [[Franz, Duke of Bavaria|Jacobite claimnant]]? I've always found "the present King of France" to be a silly example, since you are actually discussing something that ''does'' exist. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] ([[User talk:Carnildo|talk]]) 21:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Really? Who would that august personage be, Carnildo? (Btw, 10 marks for consistency with "claimnant", but it's spelled "claimant".) -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 22:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Possibly [http://www.thekingoffranceband.com/ The King of France]? [[User:Bielle|៛ Bielle]] ([[User talk:Bielle|talk]]) 22:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: I sometimes refer to such persons as ''the king-subjunctive''. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 05:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Maybe you'll like [[definite description]] better than [[theory of descriptions]]? -<span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 04:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I proposed including [[:Image:L actuel roi de France.jpg]] on the [[Definite description]] article, but no one seconded my suggestion... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 05:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:We have an article [[empty name]]. [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 10:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Thank you Algebraist for hitting the jackpot, and everyone else for the entertaining sideshow! <font color="404040">[[User talk:Skomorokh|<font face="Garamond" color="black">the skomorokh</font>]]</font> 12:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Need reference re: Aroostook War == |
|||
Dear Wikipedians, |
|||
Wikipedia's article on the Aroostook War says that in February 1839, Mainers heard that the Mohawks had offered their military support to Quebec. I need to know the origin (reference, citation) for that fact, for an article I am writing on early West Branch Penobscot settlers.[[User:Mainehist|Mainehist]] ([[User talk:Mainehist|talk]]) 23:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
= October 8 = |
|||
== Opinions == |
|||
{{resolved}} |
|||
After looking up what an opinion is on Wikipedia. It made me greatly saddened that there was no truth to our personal judgments, beliefs, and thoughts. Why personally, do you live knowing that we cannot penetrate the system of nature in truth? <span style="font-size: smallest;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.170.45.41|74.170.45.41]] ([[User talk:74.170.45.41|talk]]) 02:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Although the mysteries of life and death are ultimately unknowable, I go on living because sometimes I get [[pie]]. —[[User:Kevin Myers|Kevin]] [[User talk:Kevin Myers|Myers]] 04:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::If there was ''no'' truth ''whatsoever'' in your personal judgements, beliefs and thoughts then you might have difficulty in continuing to live. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 11:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::As a [[Christian]], I have faith in the one who does know the unknowable, and that He ([[Jesus Christ]]) lives in me. So, [[faith]] plays a large part in how some poeple can live.[[User:DTF955|Somebody or his brother]] ([[User talk:DTF955|talk]]) 12:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I think it is absolutely wrong to say that there is no truth to judgments, beliefs, thoughts. There are certainly beliefs with more truth than others. The fundamental epistemological issue is not so much whether truth is out there (which seems hard to avoid), but whether we do know it or can know it. --[[Special:Contributions/140.247.11.23|140.247.11.23]] ([[User talk:140.247.11.23|talk]]) 14:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:My body continues to live despite my belief that this life is all that there is and that there is no God. I see no scientific reason why I should suddenly die because of my beliefs and in fact I'm very happy to continue living this way. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 19:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Zhuang people]] == |
|||
I'm curious: How assimilated are these folks into the Chinese national fabric? (Are they anywhere near as assimilated as Manchu and Han?) It would be great if responders could note the extend of their Chinese studies/living experience. |
|||
[[User:Lotsofissues|Lotsofissues]] ([[User talk:Lotsofissues|talk]]) 08:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
The Zhuang are of Tai origin, a people who migrated south from central China roughly 5000 years ago. Because of their long history in China, many Zhuang are assimilated with other Chinese groups in these urban areas. |
|||
==[[2008 Thai political crisis]]== |
|||
Okay, so some Thai people are protesting for ''less'' elected members of parliament and ''more'' appointed members. Do they "hate freedom" or something? [[Special:Contributions/118.90.128.113|118.90.128.113]] ([[User talk:118.90.128.113|talk]]) 08:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Yeah, basically, ''they'' (once known as the [[People's Alliance for Democracy]], good Orwellian name) hate democracy, because they are (relatively) wealthy elites from the cities and military people who don't want the majority of poor farmers to have a lot of influence on how they run the country. <span style="font-size: smallest;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/194.171.56.13|194.171.56.13]] ([[User talk:194.171.56.13|talk]]) 09:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Swaziland's Territory Claims == |
|||
In recent years we have seen [[Swaziland]] claiming some Territory from the [[Republic of South Africa]] and that the latter must give back the claimed territories so I want to know how far has Swaziland go in claiming the territories what measures are taken by Swaziland and if it can be possible to get the claimed land. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Zikodze|Zikodze]] ([[User talk:Zikodze|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Zikodze|contribs]]) 09:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:As a practical matter, Swaziland is weaker in almost every respect than South Africa... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 12:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Our Swaziland article doesn't seem to mention this matter? [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] ([[User talk:Rmhermen|talk]]) 16:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Pashtun == |
|||
I am confused. Are the Pashtun people of Pakistan are really Pashto-speaking Pakistanis or Afghanistan? <span style="font-size: smallest;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/142.204.74.18|142.204.74.18]] ([[User talk:142.204.74.18|talk]]) 14:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:There are both Pashtuns from Afghanistan and Pashtuns from Pakistan living in Pakistan -- but some Pashtuns think it would be a lot better to have a separate [[Pakhtunistan]] in place of the current Pakistan-Afghanistan border... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 17:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::This situation isn't unusual, of course, and there are large numbers of such ''national minorities'' almost everywhere you look. The modern state of India has about 1,500 different languages within its borders. Most of the borders of Asia, as with the rest of the world, have been decided by conquest and/or by the convenience of colonial powers pulling out, only a very few by the wish for self-determination shown by indigenous people united by speaking a particular language. [[User:Strawless|Strawless]] ([[User talk:Strawless|talk]]) 23:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Baloch sindhi film industry == |
|||
There is no Baloch or Sindhi film industry in Pakistan? <span style="font-size: smallest;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/142.204.74.18|142.204.74.18]] ([[User talk:142.204.74.18|talk]]) 14:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Sure there is. [[List of Sindhi-language films]] and [http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=balochi+films&spell=1 this] google search should help. [[User:Fribbler|Fribbler]] ([[User talk:Fribbler|talk]]) 14:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Cults == |
|||
I have a question about cults that has been puzzling me for a long time. I have read the article on [[cults]] and it's very informative but I still have some doubts. See cults may happen to be initiated by or grown around a single personality but they often continue after the founder is gone, the leadership taken by some other member. Now this new member also joined the group at some time, no doubt believing in the legitimacy of the cult's basic tenets. Now assuming we are talking about real "cults" (the kind that mislead people), how long does it take for a new member to be "in on the secret", and thus be in a position to run the cult? Secondly, why does he/she do it, why don't they just spill the beans... what motivates members to perpetuate the fraud? Take the case of scientology, Ron Hubbard may have started it out of whatever motivation, but how many of the group (obviously top of the hierarchy) know what the real deal is, when did they come to know about it, and why did they chose to perpetuate the myth? The question is why, how, and why do the "preys" (ones that were taken in by the chincanery) become the "predators" (that is ones who run the whole thing and attract new converts). Thank you very much. -- [[User:ReluctantPhilosopher|ReluctantPhilosopher]]([[User_talk:ReluctantPhilosopher|talk]]) |
|||
:The people who lead a cult after the death of the founder may well be true believers, even to the point of being martyrs for the cause, rather than the cynical con men you posit, who share the "secret" that it is a scam. Some cults really get going only after the founder is dead, and are spread by people who never met him. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 15:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::My question is about the cynical con men who share the secret. [[User:ReluctantPhilosopher|ReluctantPhilosopher]] ([[User talk:ReluctantPhilosopher|talk]]) 16:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Only God knows the difference.--[[User:Wetman|Wetman]] ([[User talk:Wetman|talk]]) 17:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::If those who take over are cynical con men or woman (and please note the "If"; I take no position on this), then, as with con men and woman in every field, the cult is merely the background or environment in which they operate their scam. A scam is a scam -in the boardroom, the church, a living room, a club. What the con person gets out of any one of them is a mix of personal power and prestige, along with worldy goods, all to feed a massive ego. [[User:Bielle|៛ Bielle]] ([[User talk:Bielle|talk]]) 17:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Ahem. Stepping into it with both feet. See [[Paul the Apostle]]. <font family="Arial">[[User:NurseryRhyme|<span style="color:dark blue">Little Red Riding Hood</span>]]''[[User talk:NurseryRhyme|<span style="color:dark blue">talk</span>]]''</font> 22:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== what makes a new edition of a book? == |
|||
What constitutes a new edition of a book? We are discussing this at [[talk:Basic Chess Endings]]. The hardback book came out in 1941, and it was reprinted at least as late as 1960. Some of them had "second edition" and "fourth edition" although there was no change at all to the text. (I consider these reprints, not new editions.) Starting about 1969 to 1971 paperback copies were printed with exactly the same text. At least ten paperback printings were done. So if the text has not changed, can it be a new edition? (The book was revised in 2003.) [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] [[User talk:Bubba73|(talk)]], 17:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: The (dictionary) meaning seems to stem from printing. An "[http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=impression impression]" is "one of a number of printings made at different times from the same set of type, without alteration (distinguished from edition)", whereas an "[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/edition edition]" is "one of a series of printings of the same book, newspaper, etc., each issued at a different time and differing from another by alterations, additions, etc.". So, by that definition, it's a different edition if they substantially have to re-set the type. For example a big-print version is a "big print edition", even if the text is identical with its regular-type cousin. So changing the font, changing the chess diagrams to a different style, or adding a different prolog would make it a different edition, as would a revision of the text. I guess small fixes for typos and fixing printing snafus would be added between impressions without counting as an edition. Now whether the dictionary meaning really relates to a reasonable expectation that a modern consumer might have, that a new edition is a change so great that buying the book again might well be worthwhile, as another matter. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 18:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: Thanks. From the original publication in 1941 until the revision in 2003, the only thing that changed was hardcover to softcover, the cover, and the page that gives the copyright, the revision date, the printing number, and the ISBN. So in my mind, these were all the same edition. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] [[User talk:Bubba73|(talk)]], 19:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: Ah, the ISBN. To normal people an ISBN is just a dumb number than you use to order a book at the library. To people in publishing land an ISBN is a magic key that makes book projects live (publishing projects spring into life when someone orders the ISBN, ISBN is the billing code that everyone uses to bill each other during prepress, and of course ISBN is what everyone calls a book when ordering it). So if you're a publisher and you want to get someone to print a book for you, they probably want you to give them an ISBN for it ('cos their systems all work off ISBNs). If you're publishing an old book (from the ancient times before ISBN) then you order an ISBN for it and that's what you have them print it under. But now there's one (or more) ''kinds'' of the book hanging around in the world that ''don't'' have that ISBN, and your new one that does. As you can't go back and write an ISBN on all those extant copies, I guess you ''call'' the new one "2nd edition", just to differentiate it. But that doesn't seem to explain your BCE problem, as it has different versions (which may, but probably aren't, editions) some with ISBNs and some without. Perhaps "edition" for this case isn't going to help disambiguate, and if you want to refer to a specific version you need to do so by printing too. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 19:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: A self-publishing service Lulu has the following criteria: If you make the following types of major changes, it is considered a new edition: |
|||
* Adding, removing or moving text |
|||
* Adding or removing chapters or an index |
|||
* Changing the sequence of chapters |
|||
* Dramatically changing your cover design |
|||
[[User:MaxVT|MaxVT]] ([[User talk:MaxVT|talk]]) 19:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: In this case, none of that happened except changing the cover design. My hardback copy doesn't have a dust jacket, and I don't know what the dust jacket looked like. Then there were at least three versions of the paperback version cover before the 2003 revision. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] [[User talk:Bubba73|(talk)]], 20:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:From a copyright point of view, if the content does not significantly change then it is not a derivative work but just a copy of the original work, and does not generate a new copyright. --[[Special:Contributions/98.217.8.46|98.217.8.46]] ([[User talk:98.217.8.46|talk]]) 14:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== The Electoral College == |
|||
To Whom it May Concern |
|||
I heard the following and would like to know if it is indeed factual: |
|||
With regards to the Electoral College, if a candidate receives a majority of the vote, the Electoral College vote is irrelevant. |
|||
Now, I know that in 2000, George W. Bush won the electoral while losing the ‘popular’ vote, but neither candidate had a majority as Ralph Nader had several million votes. My question is can a candidate with 50.1% of the popular vote, or the majority of the popular vote, lose the election? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.66.105.156|69.66.105.156]] ([[User talk:69.66.105.156|talk]]) 19:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Yes. It is even possible (though won't happen) that a candidate can receive zero votes from the people but still win the election. There is no Federal requirement that electoral votes be based on the votes of the people. I feel that I should also point out that there is no such thing as the "popular vote." People are not voting for a Presidential candidate. They are voting for an ''elector'' who will cast a vote for a Presidential candidate. So, if I vote a South Carolina elector and you vote for a Missouri elector, we are voting for two different people even though our electors may be voting for the same candidate. -- [[User:Kainaw|<font color='#ff0000'>k</font><font color='#cc0033'>a</font><font color='#990066'>i</font><font color='#660099'>n</font><font color='#3300cc'>a</font><font color='#0000ff'>w</font>]][[User talk:Kainaw|™]] 19:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::What I understand from that is that the only vote that really matters is the electoral college vote; hence, if any vote is "irrelevant", it's the popular vote. Wouldn't the answer therefore be "No", rather than "Yes"? -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 19:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::To be clear, a candidate may have more than 50% of the population vote for an elector that is sworn to vote for that candidate and still lose the election by not having enough electors to win the election. Depending on the state, the number of people per elector is different. In heavily populated states, you get more people per elector. In less populated states, there are less people per elector. That is why there is not a 1-to-1 correlation between people's votes and elector's votes. -- [[User:Kainaw|<font color='#ff0000'>k</font><font color='#cc0033'>a</font><font color='#990066'>i</font><font color='#660099'>n</font><font color='#3300cc'>a</font><font color='#0000ff'>w</font>]][[User talk:Kainaw|™]] 19:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::The electoral college is composed of the electors chosed by each state who convene together to themselves choose the president. Now, the U.S. Constitution leaves it up to each state as to how that state chooses its electors. It would be perfectly legal, for example, for all of the electors to simply be appointed by the governor, with no voting at all done by the people. Popular elections are only required in order to elect members of the [[U.S. House of Representatives|House]] (in the original Constitution) and the [[U.S. Senate|Senate]] (since the 17th ammendment in 1913). The constitution does require that all states vote for national offices and for electors on the same day, but such a requirement could still be carried out such that the Governor of the state would announce the slate of electors on Election day, without any attempt at a popular election. The fact that every state holds popular elections to determine how their electors are appointed is a ''de facto'' reality, but it is not in any way required by law at the Federal level.--[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 19:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes. Furthermore, it's happened. In the [[United States presidential election, 1876]], Democrat [[Samuel Jones Tilden]] received 51.0% of the popular vote, but lost to Republican [[Rutherford Birchard Hayes]] (47.9%) in the electoral college, 184 to 185. -- [[Special:Contributions/128.104.112.147|128.104.112.147]] ([[User talk:128.104.112.147|talk]]) 22:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: 1876 was a special case because in at least 2 states, there were disputed returns; much like Florida in 2000. Ultimately, the case went to the Supreme court who abdicated responsibility, and appointed a 5 member commission to decide the fate of the election. The commission ended up 3-2 republican, so the gave the disputed electors to Hayes, the republican. The election could have easily gone the other way. As other examples, there have been other cases of elections where there were some electoral college problems: |
|||
::*In [[United States presidential election, 1800]], under very different election rules, there was a dead tie for the presidency between Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson, so it went to the House of Reps to choose. It took 36 ballots and a deal brokered by Alexander Hamilton to decide in favor of Jefferson over Burr. Burr would later famously shoot Hamilton over the issue. As far as popular vote, most states didn't hold a popular election to decide electors, and they were merely appointed by state legislatures, so it is impossible to say who got the most popular votes. As a result, the electoral college was reorganized under the [[Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution]]. |
|||
::*In [[United States presidential election, 1824]] four candidates split the vote, with Andrew Jackson holding a plurality, but not the 50+% majority of all electoral votes needed to win. The decision then went to the House of Reps again. Under the rules of the constitution, only the top 3 candidates get to be voted on by the house. The fourth place candidate, Henry Clay, hated Jackson and used his influence as speaker of the House to give the election to Adams, who had neither a plurality of the electoral college votes nor of the popular vote (at least in those states that held a popular vote. Several in 1824 still left it to the legislatures to appoint the electors). |
|||
::*In [[United States presidential election, 1960]], was a very confusing one from an electoral college standing. Kennedy carried 22 states to Nixon's 26 states, and only won the popular vote by less than a tenth of a percent, and had only a 49.7% plurality of the popular vote. However, Kennedy carried all of the "big states" except for Nixon's home state of California. The election is noted for allegations of widespread voter fraud, as the close race in Illinois was largely decided by Chicago, whose mayor Richard Daley was a staunch Democrat. Also, several Democratic party electors pledged to Kennedy refused to vote for a northerner, and instead cast their ballots for Harry Byrd. |
|||
::* Like 1960, the [[United States presidential election, 1888]] neither candidate had a majority of the votes, though Grover Cleveland had the clear plurality over Benjamin Harrison, (0.8% advantage) in the popular vote, Harrison won more electoral college votes. As a quirk, Cleveland, who won every state south of the Mason Dixon, didn't even win his home state of New York. |
|||
::Just some food for thought heading into the 2008 election... --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 01:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::The state legislature could appoint anyone to appoint the electors, or they could order a coin toss, or drawing for high card, or a foot race, or any other means to decide whose slate of electors gets to cast the state's electoral votes. They just have to establish a process then follow it. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 22:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Senators Obama and McCain, after the election == |
|||
If Obama wins, will McCain still be a Senator? If McCain wins, will Obama still be a Senator? If so to both, for whichever becomes President, who will take their Senate seat? --[[Special:Contributions/140.247.249.14|140.247.249.14]] ([[User talk:140.247.249.14|talk]]) 19:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Losing a Presidential election does not eject you from the Senate. Becoming President does. The state will hold a special election to elect a new Senator (similar to what would happen if a Senator left office for any other reason). This makes me think... Which one do you want as President just walking around and giving speeches and which one do you want in the Senate writing and passing laws? -- [[User:Kainaw|<font color='#ff0000'>k</font><font color='#cc0033'>a</font><font color='#990066'>i</font><font color='#660099'>n</font><font color='#3300cc'>a</font><font color='#0000ff'>w</font>]][[User talk:Kainaw|™]] 20:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::For example, [[John F. Kennedy]] was elected president in November 1960, then resigned his Senate seat on December 22. Massachusetts Governor [[Foster Furcolo]] appointed [[Benjamin A. Smith II]] to serve in his place, until the next possible election, when JFK's brother [[Ted Kennedy]] was elected. |
|||
:::The [[Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|17th Amendment]] allows the governor to fill an opening until an election. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red"><sup>X</sup></font></b>]]''' 20:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::I understand that a senator/representative who wins the presidency must resign before 20 January in order to be eligible to be sworn in. But can they be forced to resign? If Obama wins, say, then changes his mind about the presidency and chooses not to resign as a senator, what would happen? -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 21:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Reading the constitution literally, I think he stops being a senator. There is provision for the resignation of a president (originally in [[Article II of the United States Constitution|Article II]], Section 1, now in the [[25th Amendment to the United States Constitution|25th Amendment]]), but not for a president-elect. The articles about electing a president via the electoral college (also originally II.1, now in the [[12th Amendment to the United States Constitution|12th Amendment]]) say that the candidate winning the electoral vote "shall be the president", and if the election goes to the House of Representatives, then they "shall choose the president".<nowiki> |
|||
</nowiki> But [[Article I of the United States Constitution|Article I]], Section 6, requires that "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." If he's required to become president, but he's also required not to be both a senator and the president, then it logically follows that his term as senator is terminated. |
|||
:::::(And before someone says "what if he refused to take the presidential oath of office" -- that would not stop someone from becoming president; it would just mean that he couldn't exercise his powers of office. The requirement for an oath or affirmation (also in II.1) specifically relates to "the Execution of his Office", not to becoming president. [[Zachary Taylor|One president]], in an era where it was not feared that a war could [[first strike|arise in a matter of minutes]], preferred not to take the oath on a Sunday, so he just waited until Monday.) |
|||
:::::But the US has a long history of interpreting their constitution in ways other than reading what it literally says, which means that we won't ever know for sure unless this situation actually happens and any resulting legal cases have been settled. And of course we cannot give legal advice here, so if the original poster is Obama or McCain, he therefore had better ignore this thread altogether. --Anonymous, 22:30 UTC, edited 22:41, October 8, 2008. |
|||
::::::That's very enlightening, Anon. If the termination of their service as a senator occurs automatically, why don't they just let that process take its course rather than actively resigning? Is it because they feel the need to put some distance between themselves and the Congress some time before they take on the president's job? -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 00:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::One very good reason to resign: seniority. A new congressman / senator who takes office a day before another new legislator has seniority, and that often makes a difference in things like committee membership and leadership. [[User:DOR (HK)|DOR (HK)]] ([[User talk:DOR (HK)|talk]]) 03:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Last time I checked, President of the US wasn't a ceremonial position. They do far more than give speeches - they can veto the laws passed by congress, for a start. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 21:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::You are correct. It is also the President's job to take the blame for all the laws passed by Congress. Seriously, the President is not powerless. He is simply the least powerful of the three branches of government - as expressed in many Presidential memoirs. -- [[User:Kainaw|<font color='#ff0000'>k</font><font color='#cc0033'>a</font><font color='#990066'>i</font><font color='#660099'>n</font><font color='#3300cc'>a</font><font color='#0000ff'>w</font>]][[User talk:Kainaw|™]] 21:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::The recent goings on have reminded me that, while the President can veto laws he doesn't like, he cannot insist on laws he ''does'' want coming into force. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 21:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Which, amusingly enough, means that the vast majority of campaign speeches are essentially pointless- the federal government has no control over education, anyway, so that's out, the President can't directly influence laws, so any of his/her policies on the economy/oil/whatever are also out... pretty much the only thing the candidates are arguing on that they might actually be able to do something about is the Iraq war, because the President is commander-in-chief. --[[User:Alinnisawest|Alinnisawest]],<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Alinnisawest|<font color="black">'''Dalek Empress'''</font>]]</sup> ([[User talk:Alinnisawest|<font color="#cf0021">'''extermination requests here]]'''</font>) 21:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: (EC with above)The President is VERY powerful, if you consider that he has great leeway and control over appointments of the entire adminsitrative structure of the government, from the Justice department to State Department to the Joint Chiefs. He's essentially the CEO of the gigantic bureaucracy, and he has considerable power over how that bureaucracy operates. Congress may pass laws, but the executive puts them into action as it sees fit, and that is considerable power. The current administration even believes it has the power to [[signing statements|ignore sections of laws it just doesn't like]] or to [[Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy|fire civil servants for not toeing the party line]]. Insofar as no other part of the government has made any attempt to curb this power, the President has it... --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: (response to Alinnisawest). Actually, the federal government has considerable power over just about any part of the nation that it wants to, via [[Power of the purse]]. Basically, our government already partially funds everything that the states do, from education to road construction, and while it cannot change laws of states, it can refuse to provide federal money to states that don't pass the laws that it wants. For all intents and purposes, that means that it can do whatever it wants with regard to passing laws.<nowiki> |
|||
</nowiki> While its power may be theoretically limited via the Constitution, it can, for example, withhold federal money for highway construction if states refuse to abide by a national speedlimit (it actually did this in the 1970's) or it can refuse to provide federal money for schools that do not meet arbitrary testing standards ([[No Child Left Behind]] legislation under the current administration) even though BOTH of these provisions are techinically left entirely for the states to decide for themselves. States could defy the federal government, but it would be financial suicide to do so, as states need this federal funding to operate. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 22:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: I've heard it said (that most quoted of sources!) that the Federal strings cost more than the cash to which they're attached, but any State legislator who gets serious about declining the deal is leaned on hard by the national parties. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 18:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I expect that circumstances might occur under which a candidate "wins" but does not become President. The electoral vote totals might not be certified, due to objections and obstructionism in the Joint Session of Congress where the votes are counted. One might say thet he is not "elected" until the January 6 Joint Session says he is, but the opinion of the public and historians might be that a majority of electoral votes where in fact cast for him, meaning that he was "elected" for all purposes except for the actions of Congress. There are scenarios where the Senate elects a Vice President but the House is deadlocked and does not elect a President. The Senator in question might choose to remain in his Senate seat if there was no prospect for the House electing him or the Joint Session confirming the actions of the Electoral College. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 22:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I can't believe I just read that the executive branch is the least powerful. Just, wow. See [[Imperial Presidency]], or alternatively, the last eight years. --[[User:TotoBaggins|Sean]] 23:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Right. Much of the federal government flows from the power of the executive (appointments, etc.—[[Michael D. Brown]], anyone?), and the executive is in charge of nominating candidates to many aspects of the judicial branch (e.g. the Supreme Court). Congress has oversight over some of this but the power to nominate already balances things towards the executive. All of this ignores even more overt forms of power like Executive Orders. --[[Special:Contributions/98.217.8.46|98.217.8.46]] ([[User talk:98.217.8.46|talk]]) 23:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::The President can appoint people to various positions in government (ie: the Supreme Court), but Congress has to allow it. Unlike the Presidential veto, if Congress says "no", it is a solid "no." The President cannot override it. You will have cases where Congress opts to not decide - which is nothing more than a very passive aggressive way of deciding "yes." The President is also the Commander in Chief, but Congress holds the money. Could Bush have sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq without cash? Of course not. Congress allowed the invasions by voting to pay for them. Again, Congress has the power to say "no" to the President and the President is powerless to override it. When it comes to Executive Orders, Congress can come in again and impeach the President (or just give him a big raspberry) if they don't like it. They can even pass a law to make the actions of the executive order illegal - putting a stop to it. The President can veto the law, but Congress can override the veto and have the last word. When it really comes down to it, Congress has the ability to say "no" to the President and the President has to work hard at weaselling a way to get what he wants. The President can veto Congress, but Congress can easily override the veto if they want to. What really bugs me about all of this is that even if you consider the balance of power to be 50/50 (which it is clear I do not), why do we spend 99.9999999% of the time debating the Presidential election and ignore the Congressional elections? We don't even have signs or commercials for my local Congressional elections. Most people I know don't even know who our Senators/Representatives are -- and they wonder how this state kept reelecting Thurmond until he petrified. -- [[User:Kainaw|<font color='#ff0000'>k</font><font color='#cc0033'>a</font><font color='#990066'>i</font><font color='#660099'>n</font><font color='#3300cc'>a</font><font color='#0000ff'>w</font>]][[User talk:Kainaw|™]] 23:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::The fact is that the President can keep nominating people he or she wants until the end of time. Congress never get to nominate. That's a lot of power right there. Congress can say no. When it does so there is often a lot of controversy. It's harder for them to say no than it is to say yes, and the President still gets to pick the people they have to say yes or no to. I'd say the Executive still wields most of the power there, even if Congress does have some oversight. Ditto with power of the purse—yes, it's true that Congress has the power to not fund wars, but they do so at their own political peril (and even then Presidents have found ways to fund activities that Congress has explicitly prohibited them from doing—e.g. [[Iran-Contra]]). |
|||
::::As for Congressional elections.. it depends where you are. Some places are such strongholds for one party or the other than without some sort of major event or upheaval there's really no pressure to run a hard popular campaign. In some places they are heavily, heavily debated. And of course in some places there aren't even elections this term. In the case of South Carolina, the likelihood of a Democrat winning is so low as to make it not worth the time to campaign heavily, I'd imagine. The national party no doubt feels the efforts and resources in this regard should be concentrated on closer elections. --[[Special:Contributions/98.217.8.46|98.217.8.46]] ([[User talk:98.217.8.46|talk]]) 00:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Because of the (ahem, ridiculous) [[United_States_Senate#Seniority|seniority]] rules of the Senate, the earlier the respective governor appoints a replacement the more earmarks the state will get. [[User:Saintrain|Saintrain]] ([[User talk:Saintrain|talk]]) 00:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
If a president nominates an evil doofus for the Supreme Court, and the Senate refuses to confirm, as soon as the Senate recesses, the President could appoint him/her as a "[[Recess appointment|recess appointment]]" and they would serve until the end of the next session of the Senate. G.W. Bush appointed by a recess appointments 2 federal judges, a U.N. ambassador, an ambassador to Belgium, a head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and a Deputy Director of Social Security, who would likely not have been approved by the Senate. The Senate has recently prevented aditional recess appointments by Bush by having "pro forma" sessions every couple of days with a few Senators present, so the Senate never formally recesses. In the last year of the Continental Congress, there were similar pro forma sessions, for no obvious reason, where one or two members were present. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 05:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Chinese reform == |
|||
Do we have an article for a PRC equivalent of [[Demokratizatsiya]]? '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red"><sup>X</sup></font></b>]]''' 22:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm not sure if it's a direct equivalent, but [[Gaige Kaifang]] (reform and opening up) is one of the primary policies of the new post-Mao China. The article says it's more like perestroika. A direct translation of demokratizatsiya is 民主主义化 minzhuzhuyihua, but it doesn't seem to be a common word. [[User:Steewi|Steewi]] ([[User talk:Steewi|talk]]) 23:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Napoleon == |
|||
what type of people did napolean have in his army? (ex: cooks, tailors, blacksmiths etc) <span style="font-size: smallest;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.79.116.227|70.79.116.227]] ([[User talk:70.79.116.227|talk]]) 23:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Please see our article on Napoleon's [[Grande Armée]], which contains a lot of good information on these lines. I am not sure if its exactly what you are looking for, but there's lots of good info there. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 01:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::If you mean what type of people by occupation, then we can almost say that the answer is "every type". The Emperor's famous comment ''Une armée marche à son estomac'' ("An army marches on its stomach") shows his attention to logistical planning. [[User:Strawless|Strawless]] ([[User talk:Strawless|talk]]) 22:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
= October 9 = |
|||
== date formats around the world == |
|||
[[Image:Date.png|right|thumb]] |
|||
In the article [[Calendar date]], there is a map (at right) showing which countries use small-endian DD-MM-YYYY style dates (blue), which big-endian YYYY-MM-DD (green), which Usonian MM-DD-YYYY (red), and which are mixed (aqua, purple, black). Unfortunately, a lot of the world is left blank, especially in Africa and the Mideast. If any of you are from a country that's been omitted, could you let us know your country's conventions on the image talk page? Thanks, [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 03:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:[[WP:OR]]? "Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed". --[[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]] [[User_talk:Tagishsimon|(talk)]] 08:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::If the user obtains references for the countries concerned then displaying this information in Image form would not be [[WP:OR]]. "This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." -- [[User:Q Chris|Q Chris]] ([[User talk:Q Chris|talk]]) 08:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::We can discuss on the Talk page how to verify the claims, if the user doesn't provide a ref. Something interesting might turn up. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 08:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::I think it is vital that if the image contains un-cited data then this is made clear. The whole image should be tagged "citation needed" and then details of which areas are unverified given later. If you have difficulty obtaining references for many countries then maybe you could use different shadings (e.g. pale variants of the colours) for unverified data. -- [[User:Q Chris|Q Chris]] ([[User talk:Q Chris|talk]]) 08:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The article lists the countries, though they might not all be there, or might not all have good refs. (I haven't worked on the article.) [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 10:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Just out of curiosity, why is Canada the only country in black? Did we do something bad? Or *gasp* is the black hole to be created by the [[Large Hadron Collider]] going to immigrate here? [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 09:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::It's the only country that uses all three orders. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 10:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::It is? That's news to me (and the [http://www.cdnpay.ca/news/new_cheque_specs.asp reference] in [[Calendar date]] used to back up the claim is less than convincing). How do you define "use"? [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 11:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::It would seem very unlikely that they would use two mutually ambiguous date systems. -- [[User:Q Chris|Q Chris]] ([[User talk:Q Chris|talk]]) 14:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Actually, at work, the e-mail system uses dd/mm/yyyy, the computer clock uses mm/dd/yy, and the computer program with which we carry out our exciting tasks uses yyyy/mm/dd, so that's one example of all three being used in Canada. [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] ([[User talk:Adam Bishop|talk]]) 14:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::That must be confusing. If you see write the date on a cheque, or put your date of birth on a form would you usually put dd/mm/yyyy, or mm/dd/yyyy or yyyy/mm/dd? -- [[User:Q Chris|Q Chris]] ([[User talk:Q Chris|talk]]) 14:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::I write "October 9, 2008" :) [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] ([[User talk:Adam Bishop|talk]]) 18:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::I confirm that all three styles are used in Canada. I probably see little-endian most often, followed by "US style", and big-endian least often. Printed forms usually ask for a specific format; if they don't, you can do as Adam says; and if you don't, you risk being misunderstood, that's all. --Anonymous, [[ISO 8601|2008-10-09]], 18:45 UTC. |
|||
The map is certainly misleading, as the DD-MM-YYYY style is used extensively in the US; the Wikipedia article on [[calendar date]] is absolutely false on this matter. The ''Papers of Thomas Jefferson'' published in 1950, for example, tell us that the Declaration of Independence was adopted on 4 July 1776. I doubt if any American readers have ever been confused by that format, or even found it particularly unusual, as it is seen so often. I suspect that the idea that there is a single "US style" date format is a Wikipedia invention. —[[User:Kevin Myers|Kevin]] [[User talk:Kevin Myers|Myers]] 06:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Except that that is dd MMMM yyyy. dd/mm/yy would be 04/07/1776 which I imagine many people in the US would find confusing. -- [[User:Q Chris|Q Chris]] ([[User talk:Q Chris|talk]]) 07:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:We're talking about number-only formats. If you write 04-07-1776 in the US, it will be almost universally read as April 7, not July 4. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 07:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Hummanities homework!! == |
|||
Locate the following places on the world physical map and not the mojor eccosystem associated with each one:Nepal Mongolia South sea Islands Egypt <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Kittymaree|Kittymaree]] ([[User talk:Kittymaree|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kittymaree|contribs]]) 08:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Gosh that's real power, Lets see, for starters I'd like to locate the South Sea Islands just a short hop away, now that would be really nice. I would much prefer to keep their major ecosystems with them though. ;-) [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 08:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::ps we're not supposed to answer homework questions on the refdesk, see 'Before you ask a question' at the top for some tips for answering questions yourself. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 08:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: Homework's getting easier: "Locate the following places on the world physical map and '''''not''''' the mojor eccosystem associated with each one:". We would have had to name the major ecosystems too. -- [[User:Q Chris|Q Chris]] ([[User talk:Q Chris|talk]]) 08:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::''[[Austin Powers|Mojor]]'' ecosystem? Is that you, Dr. Evil? [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 09:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::No, not ecosystem; ''ecco''system. And [[Ecco|that's]] just confusing. --[[User:LarryMac|<font color="#3EA99F">LarryMac</font>]][[User talk:LarryMac|<font color="#3EA99F"><small> | Talk</small></font>]] 12:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Perhaps ask your English teacher for some extra homework?--[[User:Combatir|Combatir]] ([[User talk:Combatir|talk]]) 13:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:A good bit of general advice for doing homework: Pay attention in class for a few days before it's set. You'll find the teacher generally tells you how to do the homework prior to setting it. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 13:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::This question should be moved to the Hummanities desk. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] ([[User talk:DJ Clayworth|talk]]) 17:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Or perhaps the [[WP:Reference Desk/Homework]]... hmm, now why does that show up as a red link, again? --[[User:Alinnisawest|Alinnisawest]],<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Alinnisawest|<font color="black">'''Dalek Empress'''</font>]]</sup> ([[User talk:Alinnisawest|<font color="#cf0021">'''extermination requests here]]'''</font>) 18:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Wikipedia has articles [[Nepal]] , [[Mongolia]] , [[South Sea Islands]] , and [[Egypt]] which have the information you seek. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 18:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
<''removed. Please don't provide false information.'' <font family="Arial">[[User:NurseryRhyme|<span style="color:dark blue">Little Red Riding Hood</span>]]''[[User talk:NurseryRhyme|<span style="color:dark blue">talk</span>]]''</font> 00:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)> --[[Special:Contributions/98.217.8.46|98.217.8.46]] ([[User talk:98.217.8.46|talk]]) 23:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Oh, whatever. Better to learn the hard way that trying to get out of work can lead to unpredictable results! --[[Special:Contributions/98.217.8.46|98.217.8.46]] ([[User talk:98.217.8.46|talk]]) 16:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== I can't find the damn website! == |
|||
Has anyone here read Thomas Friedman's new book, "Hot, Flat, and Crowded"? Somewhere, early on in the book, he references a website about the origin or history of ideas. I know he does because I own the book, I read it, and I made a mental note to check it out sometime. Well, now I can't find. I skimmed the first half of the book, I searched the book on Amazon, I searched the web for the site. Nothing. Nada. Short of re-reading the book until I bump in to it again, I'm out of ideas. Does anyone have any clue? [[User:Pyro19|Pyro19]] ([[User talk:Pyro19|talk]]) 17:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Does [[History of ideas]] help? [[User:Bielle|៛ Bielle]] ([[User talk:Bielle|talk]]) 17:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::No, it definitely wasn't Wikipedia nor was it the external link provided there. [[User:Pyro19|Pyro19]] ([[User talk:Pyro19|talk]]) 17:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Okay, I found it. It's ideafinder.org. I searched the book on amazon for the term "according". <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Pyro19|Pyro19]] ([[User talk:Pyro19|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pyro19|contribs]]) 23:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Canterbury Tales == |
|||
What were some examples of Chaucer's moral judgement of his characters in [[Canterbury Tales]]? Thanks, <font color="#1EC112" size="3px">[[User:Reywas92|Reywas92]]</font><sup><font color="#45E03A">[[User talk:Reywas92|'''Talk''']]</font></sup> 21:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:According to [[Terry Jones|a member of Monty Python]], he didn't like the knight... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 21:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:The best place to start would be reading the book. Then pay attention in class while discussing the book. Then sit and mull it over for a bit. Then you can do your homework. Good luck! --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 22:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::It is rather a long time since I read any of ''The Canterbury Tales'', and I did not read them all, but what I remember is that on the whole Chaucer, in his narrative, side-steps what we usually mean by moral judgements. For instance, he presents the Monk mostly from the Monk's own point of view. However, I have just taken a look at the General Prologue, and at least one passage there has caught my eye in which Chaucer praises the moral character of one of his characters: "A Knight ther was, and that a worthy man, / That fro the time that he first bigan / To riden out, he loved chivalrye, / Trouthe and honour, freedom and curteisye..." [[User:Strawless|Strawless]] ([[User talk:Strawless|talk]]) 22:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, but as AnonMoos points out, it's possible to read Chaucer's praising of the knight as heavily ironic. [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 08:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
There are so many possible answers to this it is probably best to just look over your reading and class notes and do the homework on your own so we don't mislead you. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] ([[User talk:Wrad|talk]]) 16:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Why Asian Women & White men? == |
|||
Why do many Asian American women like to date and marry white men, but not with black men and brown men? Black men and brown men are sexy and "big", but why many asian american women don't date/marry them? [[Special:Contributions/208.124.207.122|208.124.207.122]] ([[User talk:208.124.207.122|talk]]) 22:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Ask them. This is a reference desk. I seriously doubt anyone will find a respectable study on this topic. However, if someone does, they will surely give you a link to the reference. If you are simply attempting to get a discussion going, keep in mind that this is a reference desk, not a discussion forum. There are thousands of discussion forums available on the Internet that you can use. -- [[User:Kainaw|<font color='#ff0000'>k</font><font color='#cc0033'>a</font><font color='#990066'>i</font><font color='#660099'>n</font><font color='#3300cc'>a</font><font color='#0000ff'>w</font>]][[User talk:Kainaw|™]] 22:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I wouldn't be surprised if someone has done a study on this subject - people do all kinds of studies on what different people find attractive. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::There are some references in the article on [[interracial marriages]] which may be interesting. --[[User:Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM|Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM]] ([[User talk:Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM|talk]]) 23:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Isn't it obvious? White men in general have the most prestige in western society. Films, books, magazines, and newspapers reinforce this notion constantly. [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 09:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::And why do white chicks prefer black men? Seriously, Asian woman are specially narrow in some place, black men are specially well-developed in some place. How should it work?[[Special:Contributions/80.58.205.37|80.58.205.37]] ([[User talk:80.58.205.37|talk]]) 15:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::In other words, 80.58.205.37 has never been to an Asian sex show. Narrow? You've got to be kidding. -- [[User:Kainaw|<font color='#ff0000'>k</font><font color='#cc0033'>a</font><font color='#990066'>i</font><font color='#660099'>n</font><font color='#3300cc'>a</font><font color='#0000ff'>w</font>]][[User talk:Kainaw|™]] 16:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::White chicks prefer black men to what? White men? I don't think so. Interracial marriages aren't uncommon, but they aren't the norm. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 16:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
= October 10 = |
|||
== Austrapolithecus == |
|||
where did they live? what did they look like? what they dicovered of invented? when did they live? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Luseta|Luseta]] ([[User talk:Luseta|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Luseta|contribs]]) 00:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:See [[Australopithecus]]. [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] ([[User talk:PrimeHunter|talk]]) 00:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::If only we had a [[Australopithecus|giant encyclopedia with articles on virtually every topic totally for free that we could look things up in]]... --[[User:Alinnisawest|Alinnisawest]],<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Alinnisawest|<font color="black">'''Dalek Empress'''</font>]]</sup> ([[User talk:Alinnisawest|<font color="#cf0021">'''extermination requests here]]'''</font>) |
|||
:::But it's sometimes hard to look things up when you spell them wrong. [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] ([[User talk:PrimeHunter|talk]]) 00:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Russia/Georgia conflict == |
|||
I'm having a little trouble understanding this, despite having read a number of articles on the subject (both news articles and Wikipedia articles). From what I gather (and simply put), South Ossetia and Abkhazia wanted to separate from Georgia, because they are not ethnically Georgian. Georgia attacked them. Then Russia attacked Georgia for attacking them. Now, many other countries are angry with Russia for flexing its military muscle. Have I got all this right, and if so, why are they angry with Russia when it seems that Georgia was the original aggressor? (Not to imply that it's okay for Russia to go around bombing other countries that did something wrong first - two wrongs don't make a right - but why do they seem to be getting the majority of the blame?) [[User:Cherry Red Toenails|Cherry Red Toenails]] ([[User talk:Cherry Red Toenails|talk]]) 03:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:P.S. Just to make it clear: I'm not trying to start a debate with the "why" part of the question, just asking for clarification since I don't quite understand what's going on. [[User:Cherry Red Toenails|Cherry Red Toenails]] ([[User talk:Cherry Red Toenails|talk]]) 05:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Picture this analogy then. States that are integral part of the U.S., like lets say North Dakota and Vermont, decide to secede from the union. The governments there organize armed forces, and declare that the U.S. is no longer sovereign over them, and that they are independent. Now, picture the U.S. Army marches in to stop this from happening. Now, here's the kicker, Canada then invades the U.S., and begins to place a seige on cities like Chicago, New York, and begins to push in on Washington D.C. Now, replace the words "U.S." with "Georgia", replace "North Dakota" and "Vermont" with "South Ossetia" and "Abkhazia" and the word "Canada" with "Russia" and that is the essense of the conflict. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 05:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
It's more complicated than either, and it isn't about Georgia. It's about NATO. Imagine that it was the US economy that collapsed at the end of the Cold War, and a victorious USSR extended the Warsaw Pact to Cuba and Mexico, reassuring everyone that the US would "get used to it". I don't think they would. For some odd reason, Russia is not reconciled to the expansion of NATO either. The invasion of South Ossetia had basically the same motivation as the USSR had in provoking the Cuban missile crisis: That wasn't about Cuba, but a way to force NATO to pull its missiles in Turkey off the Soviet border. (Which they did, BTW.) All the stuff about "Russian citizens" in SO is BS; it's just the diplomatic excuse for Russia's challenge to NATO. Georgia may have instigated the actual battle, which gave the Russians the excuse they were looking for, but they were not the original aggressor. They insisted at independence that all territories of the Georgian SSR become part of independent Georgia, and SO and Abkhazia refused to go along. They rebelled, and in the case of Abkhazia engaged in genocide (excuse me, I think we use the more polite term "ethnic cleansing" now) to establish a population plurality—the Abkhaz were only 15% of the population, after all. There are hundreds of thousands of Mingrelian refugees from Abkhazia in Georgia. If the US had been smart, 5-10 years ago they would have tried to get Abkhazia to cede its eastern (non-Abkhaz) territories to Georgia in exchange for recognition, and Georgia to recognize their independence in exchange for a place to return many of the refugees. But bluster and bellowing is easier than actually solving anything. Anyone want to bet that the US won't try doing anything about Karabagh until that blows up too? [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 05:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:The international community considers South Ossetia part of Georgia, so Georgian troops are perfectly entitled to enter it (although, under the circumstances, it may have been unwise). Russian troops entering Georgia, and independent country, is an act of war. At worst Georgia violated an agreement they had with Russia, Russia on the other hand invaded a foreign state. The latter is the far more serious offence under international law. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 16:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, quite true. Which I'm sure is why they issued Russian passports, to be able to claim they were protecting their "citizens" regardless of whose territory it was legally. I don't think they (Putin?) are particularly interested in international law, but it is interesting many in the Kremlin see this as harming Russia's long-term interests in having a secure border and territorial integrity. |
|||
::Cherry, a lot of it is propaganda. The main difference from Kosovo is that there were many countries that supported doing something about Kosovo, there were serious concerns about gross Serbian human-rights violations (though people conveniently forget that the Kosovars were using rape of Serb civilians as a tool of war, even teaching Albanian boys that raping Serb girls was a patriotic duty), Serb leaders have been charged with war crimes at the Hague, that attempts at mediation went on for ''years'' after the NATO invasion of Kosovo before there was diplomatic recognition, and that one condition of independence was remarkably strong constitutional protection of minority (Serb) rights. None of this happened in SO: Ossetes complained of being second-class citizens in Georgia, not of systematic murder, and Russian charges of genocide by Georgians have proved empty. No other country supported Russia, and Russia made no attempt at reconciliation between the warring parties. Instead of protecting all citizens of SO, Ossetian and perhaps Russian troops engaged in ethnic "cleansing" of Georgians residents in the southeast. Based on this precedent, the US could issue American passports to Chechens, then annex Chechnya "to protect American citizens", and kick out ethnic Russian grandmothers in wheelchairs as "foreign occupiers"—which is why none of Russia's allies but Nicaragua have rallied to the cause. Not even Serbia has recognized SO! [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 19:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:"Ethnic cleansing" is not a polite or politically acceptable or correct term. It's an abomination. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 19:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I think the words are perfectly acceptable; it's the act that's so nasty. YMMV. [[User:Matt Deres|Matt Deres]] ([[User talk:Matt Deres|talk]]) 20:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Which makes describing it in such a "polite" way so incongruous. We wouldn't describe the serial rape of 50 people as "exploring one's sexuality". Spades should be called spades. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 21:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Which is why I put it in scare quotes. I was being facetious. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 00:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::These days, the term "ethnic cleansing" is usually used ironically. It doesn't have positive connotations. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 00:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Unusual, ribbony necktie thing == |
|||
[http://www.petaimg.com/uploads/1223690803.jpg What is this kind of tie called?] --[[User:Seans Potato Business|Seans]] '''[[User talk:Seans Potato Business|Potato Business]]''' 08:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Invalid URL.--[[User:SquareOuroboros|SquareOuroboros]] ([[User talk:SquareOuroboros|talk]]) 11:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:"string tie" or "Colonel tie" seem to be the common names, at least in western/cowboy circles [http://www.mrboots.com/general_store/western-scarves-ties.html] [http://www.gentlemansemporium.com/store/000771.php] - not to be confused with a [[Bolo tie]] (also known as a Bootlace tie) or a skinny tie (as popular in the late 70s/early 80s). If you Google for those terms, you should see more info. --[[User:Maltelauridsbrigge|Maltelauridsbrigge]] ([[User talk:Maltelauridsbrigge|talk]]) 11:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:In the mid-20th century U.S., they were strongly associated with old fashioned Southern males (or the stereotype of an old-fashioned Southern male). [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 14:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Creative Commons question == |
|||
Is it possible to license a lower quality version of an image/song/film under a CC license and maintain full copyright on higher quality versions?--[[User:SquareOuroboros|SquareOuroboros]] ([[User talk:SquareOuroboros|talk]]) 11:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:My understanding of it is that if you have a photo, you are not copyrighting the specific instance of it (the print), but the creative content (the image in the photo). While there are some ways in which you could systematically modify such a photo that would make it a derivative work (and thus independently copyrightable from the original work), it seems to me that it would have to be a systematic modification that substantially modified the creative content of the work. (So taking a Polaroid and blowing it up to the size of a building might do that, because the idea of enlargement, though systematic and uncreative as a process itself, is fairly creative in its own right. Maybe.) If this is the case, and again this is just my speculation, I would say then that the answer to your question would probably to be "no". But I'm reasoning from an exclusively print-medium point of view; things get complicated with digital rights and copyrights, and questions of specific instances vs. creative content get pretty murky (due to the "thing itself" lacking any real physicality). |
|||
:In more plain language, my reasoning above is "no", because a CC license does not cover a specific file, but the copyrightable content inside the file. Something as "uncreative" (from a legal point of view) as reducing quality is unlikely to generate a new copyright claim. Thus you'd still be applying the license to the same copyrightable content, no matter the size. |
|||
:But honestly, I'm not sure. I don't think it is very clear cut. You might consider asking the CC folks about it since it's a good question. --[[Special:Contributions/98.217.8.46|98.217.8.46]] ([[User talk:98.217.8.46|talk]]) 16:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Of course, you could make your own license that specifically says you're only allowed to reuse it under a certain resolution. Writing your own licenses is not something you should do without professional legal advice, though. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Collateral damage of fixing the financial system == |
|||
What consequences will the actions - flooding the markets with liquidity - of many governments have? Hyperinflation? Another bubble? [[User:Mr.K.|Mr.K.]] [[User_talk:Mr.K.|(talk)]] 11:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: I am no economist, but I have heard many economists on TV and radio talk of the doctrine on [[Unintended consequence]] being largely ignored in short-term financial decisions WRT the current financial problem. The example I have heard cited over and over again is the trend, over the last few years, for the [[Federal Reserve|Fed]] to keep interest rates artificially low, in an attempt to keep the economy from "slowing down". The problem is that low interest rates lead to less saving (because people get lower returns on their investment) and larger debt (because people get cheap credit). The prevalence of cheap credit is why there were so many people making so many bad loans; the idea was that the relatively high risk of these loans was mediated by their very low cost. This was coupled with the fact that companies were disencouraged from keeping enough capital on hand to cover the debts, since they got so little return on this capital, due of course to the low interest rates. It turns out that the likely result of this policy was merely "robbing Peter to pay Paul"; that is it didn't actually prevent the economy from "slowing down", it merely pushed a whole bunch of slow, little slowdowns into the future (read: NOW) until they collided into a single big crash. I have heard at least 3 stories as to what the liquidity will do: 1) Exactly what the government wants and no more (riiiiiiigggghhhttt) 2) It will do nothing, since the high level of risk aversion in the market won't be corrected by the influx of cash. Basically, banks are going to avoid making the risky investments into the housing and credit markets, and the extra cash is likely only to remove the threat of collapse without actually encouraging increased lending. In other words, the markets are a bit punch-drunk, and the scare caused by the current crisis is not correctable in the short term. 3) It will make the sitution WORSE, since any institution that receives government money, either as a purchase of bad assets or by selling the government stock, will give the markets the perception that THAT particular company is in "trouble" causing investors to run away, and thus reducing capital valuation, and exacerbating the problem. None of these opinions seems to be prevailing right now, from what I can tell. So the new law is likely to do either 1) Good things 2) Nothing or 3) Bad things. Take your pick. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 12:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks for your answer (excluding, of course, your last sentence). I suppose injecting capital will have the same effect that the low interest rate have had: just blow more air into the bubble. [[User:Mr.K.|Mr.K.]] [[User_talk:Mr.K.|(talk)]] 12:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== President and VP boarding the same plane == |
|||
Is there a rule that prohibits the President and VP of boarding the same plane?[[User:Mr.K.|Mr.K.]] [[User_talk:Mr.K.|(talk)]] 11:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:According to [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,893923-1,00.html this article in TIME], it's not a rule, but a decision by the president in the interests of security. Best, [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] [[User talk:PeterSymonds|<small>(talk)</small>]] 11:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== countries with the least discrimateion? [discrimination]== |
|||
countries with the most discrimateion? <span style="font-size: smallest;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/59.189.58.229|59.189.58.229]] ([[User talk:59.189.58.229|talk]]) 12:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Not sure there are strict quantitative measurements for that, but you could start with [[Gini coefficient]]... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 14:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Highest Stock Price == |
|||
How do you found out which company has the highest stock price of the day? --[[User:Emyn ned|Emyn ned]] ([[User talk:Emyn ned|talk]]) 15:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:The information can be found through many financial services websites where the financial indicators for all publicly traded companies are usually searchable. [[E-trade]], for example, [https://us.etrade.com/e/t/toolsandresearch/stockandfundscreeners has a stock screener] where you can search for companies based on your own preset criteria. Unfortunately for your direct question, the absolute price of an individual share of a company is meaningless. Since companies have different numbers of shares in open trading, the absolute value of one company as compared to another has no meaning at all. Other measures of a company's value are important, such as price-to-earnings ratio (or basically what the value of the stock is compared to the potential for the company's growth) or the market value as compared to real value (roughly the total number of stocks issued times the price of a stock is market value, this can be compared to the value of the company per the company's assets), or most perhaps importantly the gross trends in the stocks value. That one company trades at $200.00 per share and another trades at $5.00 a share means nothing with regards to the security of each company's stock as an investment. The information is easily sortable, just meaningless... --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 16:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:As of this typing, [[Berkshire Hathaway]] stock is trading at $ 108,886.79. <font family="Arial">[[User:NurseryRhyme|<span style="color:dark blue">Little Red Riding Hood</span>]]''[[User talk:NurseryRhyme|<span style="color:dark blue">talk</span>]]''</font> 19:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Wow. Can I buy, like, .0001 shares of that? Holy cow... --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 19:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::The link to the NYSE listing for BRKA, the preferred stock: [http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/lcddata.html?ticker=BRKA] and BRKB, the common stock: [http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/lcddata.html?ticker=BRKB] of Berkshire Hathaway, for those who care. Good find, NurseryRhyme. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 19:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::(ec) Yeah, BRK-A shares are for "special" people. The unwashed are allowed to buy BRK-B, the "B" shares, which are trading today at fire-sale prices ($3652.01 as of this posting time). [http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=brk-b] (That's actually not such a bad deal.) [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 19:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== If Palin's elected, what happens to her governorship? == |
|||
If Palin gets elected Vice President, will she remain governor of Alaska? If not, what's the procedure for choosing a replacement governor(and is this the same or different in other states)? [[Special:Contributions/137.151.174.128|137.151.174.128]] ([[User talk:137.151.174.128|talk]]) 20:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:If it's like most other states, the [[Lieutenant Governor of Alaska]] will succeed her. <font family="Arial">[[User:NurseryRhyme|<span style="color:dark blue">Little Red Riding Hood</span>]]''[[User talk:NurseryRhyme|<span style="color:dark blue">talk</span>]]''</font> 20:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::[http://www.adn.com/news/politics/story/510242.html Here's] an article that covers most of this. In short, the Lieutenant Governor becomes Governor, and the Attorney General becomes Lt. Governor. It looks like the current Lt. Governor had been running for US House, but lost the primary. If he had won the primary and then the general election, along with a McCain/Palin victory, then the AG would have become governor. [[User:AlexiusHoratius|<span style="font-size:14px;font-family:times new roman;color:navy;">'''''Alexius'''''</span>]][[User talk:AlexiusHoratius|<span style="font-size:14px;font-family:times new roman;color:darkred;">'''''Horatius''''']]</span> 21:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Painting of George III== |
|||
I am trying to find the title and the name of the author of a painting of George III of the United Kingdom. The painting shows the King on a white horse in a redcoat, inbetween two other men on horseback (one in black and the other in red). In the background are troops marching. I have an image of the painting to send if that helps.--[[User:Johnbull|Johnbull]] ([[User talk:Johnbull|talk]]) 23:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Why the Japanese Navy didn't take Pearl Habor in World War 2? == |
|||
Why didn't the Imperial Japanese navy move into Hawaii and turn it into a Japanese military base after their aircrafts bombed the U.S. navy force in Pearl Habor? The Americans were going to build up the fleets again, so why the Japanese just bombed and then left? [[Special:Contributions/72.136.111.205|72.136.111.205]] ([[User talk:72.136.111.205|talk]]) 04:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:See [[Attack on Pearl Harbor#Possible third wave]] for some discussion on the Japanese decision not to follow-through after the second wave. [[User:Bielle|៛ Bielle]] ([[User talk:Bielle|talk]]) 05:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||