Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pharos (talk | contribs) at 16:55, 25 January 2006 (→‎ratio of entrepreneurs to working population of USA: something more than 10%). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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  • Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk.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

January 18

Buckingham Palace dimensions

What is the square footage of Buckingham Palace? --24.184.40.229 00:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could measure the outline from satellite photos, then count the number of floors from a pic of Buckingham Palace... Ojw 12:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China Beach

How does My Khe, a beach in Cental Vietnam come to be called China Beach?™

According to my map of Vietnam, My Khe and China Beach are side-by-side. There is also a note that many people assume they are one beach and refer to both beaches as either My Khe or China Beach. They are not the same beach. Since it is on the South China Sea, it may have easily been called "The Beach on the South China Sea" and then shortened to "China Beach". --Kainaw (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heidegger

What did Heidegger say about technology? I didn't understand the article, sometimes it seems he is against it and others he cherrishes it...--Cosmic girl 00:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he ever makes any conclusive statement about technology. I've only read Building Dwelling Thinking (its a beautiful read) which is where his thoughs on "Dwelling" are really laid out. Basically in order to be humans must dwell. Dwelling entails projecting an order into that which we see. We measure the land in order to make a relationship with it and then we build in order to sort of centralize our concept of that place. In the Heideggerian view, buildings are markers that we use to create our relationship with places. We manifest our relationship with what he called "the fourfold" (earth, sky, divinities, and mortals) through building, which allows us to dwell authentically.
As I see it, technology is the instrument by which all this occures. A distinction could be drawn between "modern" technology and traditional technologies but I don't think its very meaningful. Building can be interpreted many ways. You could interpret the Internet as the product of our attempts to dwell in a fast moving modern world. But building is also things like decorating your office cubicle, or lanscaping your yard, or painting your apartment when you move in. We use technologies to make all these things happen.
Hope that answered your question ;) And if you're interested, Building Dwelling Thinking can be seen here, but I much prefer it in physical book form (which has all sorts of Heideggerian implications of course). Jasongetsdown 15:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! :) --Cosmic girl 19:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popol Vuh in the original Mayan?

I'm wondering if anyone knows of a freely available online version of the Popol Vuh in the original classical Mayan, preferably in both the original script and a transliteration into Latin. All I seem to be able to find are Spanish and English translations, not the original text. --86.135.217.213 00:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC) EDIT: OK... having actually read the article on the Popul Vuh properly (ahem) I now change the above to a request for the original version in Quiché Mayan and drop the request for it in the original script (which apparently doesn't exist). --86.135.217.213 00:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Dickinson

This book says that when Emily Dickinson was nine years old, her father commissioned a painter named Otis Bullard to paint portraits of each member of his family, including the future poet, who is the "most fully characterized" of the children. The only images I've ever seen of Emily Dickinson - at any age - are the two on WP's article on her. Where can one see this painting of Dickinson at age 9? Zafiroblue05 01:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson

What is Andrew Jackson's nickname other than old hickory. It is Old blank Face. I dont know what the blank is but I know it is 4 letters. What is it? anybody? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.100.114 (talk • contribs)

And you know that it's four letters (it may be of some help to a Ref Desker) because? hydnjo talk 03:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crossword puzzle clue? AnonMoos 06:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He was also known as the "Hero of New Orleans" or "King Andy"
I don't know if it could be "duel," but he participated in over two hundred of them and never lost. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 18:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American woman president

The article Michelle Bachelet#Political life states that she is "the first woman who was not the wife of a previous head of state or political leader to reach the presidency of a Latin American nation in a direct election." Why the circumlocution? Which women were president before her? Common Man 05:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he was thinking of Isabel Peron - depending on how one defines "Latin America". JackofOz 07:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a definition of Latin America that doesn't include Argentina? --BluePlatypus 14:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Thanks, though, JackofOz - that's probably it. I'll simplify that sentence accordingly. Common Man 02:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above quote is correct, even if a little contrived:

—Cantus…☎ 02:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough reply! I'm sorry that I changed the sentence. Common Man 08:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic and Protestant

--BluePlatypus 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Is it roughly true that in Europe Germanic people are Protestant and Romance people are Catholic? deeptrivia (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Bavaria or Austria... AnonMoos 06:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Roughly yes. Luther was German of course and the country is broadly considered Protestant though the number of Catholics has always been quite high. Scandinavia went decidely Protestant after the Reformation (bear in mind the geographic remove b/w Rome and the Germanic-speaking countries) while England adopted Anglicanism. Marskell 07:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland and Poland aren't much closer to Rome, nor do they speak romance languages, and they've always been devoutly Catholic. It was more about politics. --BluePlatypus 10:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland is an exception, yes. Polish, however, is NOT a germanic language, it's slavic IIRC. The bigger germanic languages are german, dutch, english, afrikaans and the scandinavian languages (not including finnish, which is finno-ugric). To further complicate the issue, we have lots of descendants to italians etc in the USA. Most of them speak English today even if their ancestors spoke italian. It is more unusal that they have lost their religion, however... TERdON 17:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a pointless "correction". Who said Polish was Germanic? Irish isn't Germanic either. That wasn't the point adressed. --BluePlatypus 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the main question (far above) didn't mention slavic languages at all, but merely romance and germanic ones, I thought it would be appropiate to point out that Polish is neither to avoid misunderstandings. By the way, what are the common types of Christianity in other eastern Europe countries? Most of them have slavic languages, and I don't really think all of them have orthodox churches. And actually the main language in Ireland isn't really irish anymore, it would be English. Which indeed is germanic. Otherwise that argument works perfectly well for Sweden and Norway as well (neither sami or finnish are germanic languages, and are languages of (some) native Swedes and Norwegians...). TERdON 03:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though to say that Anglicanism is entirely Protestant is to ignore how Catholic it is in some areas, both geographical and religious. However, I guess the original question was phrased with the typical and incorrect belief that all Catholics are members of the Church of Rome. [[Sam Korn]] 12:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, the Church of England comes along before Martin Luther. It is the first Reformed Church. Also, other national churches are frequently non-Lutheran and non-Roman Catholic as well. In particular, while Calvinism dominates the noisy side of the Protestant movement these days, it has historically been the smallest portion of the pie. (I'm not sure to whom to credit the origins of Baptist thought, as Congregationalist churches, which are now numerous, lack a defined theological dogma.) Geogre 14:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to nitpick (no that's not true I love to nitpick), but Luther's protestant movement broke with Rome before Henry VIII's Church of England did. Both of course claimed continuity with the earliest Christian church. Luther nailed the 95 theses in 1517 and the break with Rome was complete by 1519. If I recall, Henry VIII in his younger days was awarded the title defensor fidei precisely because he argued against Luther. He didn't force the C of E to break with Rome until 1532. So what are your grounds for claiming the C of E preceded Martin Luther (unless you are using disparate starting points, in which case foul!)? alteripse 01:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanians, a Romance people, are Orthodox, like their Slav neighbours. Ireland's own language, Gaelic, is not a romance language. Dutch-speaking people, who speak a Germanic language, are divided between the predominantly Protestant people of the Netherlands, and the predominantly Catholics Flemings in Belgium. Ground Zero | t 16:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is freedom acquire or inborn

Depends where you live. AllanHainey 12:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It also depends upon whether you're an existentialist or empiricist. Geogre 12:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or a cat. I think it was Heidigger who said that. Or maybe I just made it up. --George 23:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously acquired, although to those living in a the "free world" it's an easy mistake to make to assume it's inborn. --86.135.217.213 19:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not so obvious. Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that people are born free, and have lack of freedom imposed, while John Locke argued the converse. GeeJo (t) (c) • 01:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom in animals or babies is beautiful and not learned. That's what we seek the rest of our lifes. Then, as is the same for everything, beauty, love ... freedom has to be learnt unrelentlessly ; it must be something different in the very concept, because it is associated with will and desire and mind, an can somethimes come back to expression and gesture. --DLL 14:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take the converse view to your own: no being is naturally "free", and animals and babies are even less so than adult sapients. We are enslaved to Nature by our very design, through evolution. The freedom of which is most often spoken of today is artificial; it is a trick of a modern system of decentralized governance known as "capitalism" (aka "democracy") that gives us the illusion of freedom in the form of the ability to communicate more effectively. However, it is not the natural state of the human being to seek this artificial freedom - this is an alien goal imposed on it by the dogma of our society. Real freedom is in knowing that you can never "free yourself" in the fashion that society expects and be true to the form of your natural self - a slave to nature. In reality, we must either master the self and be at peace with our place in true nature (not that offered by society), or abandon all hope of ever being free. Put simply: Most humans are naturally slaves, some pretend to be servants, but very fewer are truly masters. :) I'm pretty sure I believe something like that. --86.135.217.213 14:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you babbling about? If I understand your position correctly (and I do) you believe people can't truly be 'free' within the bounds of government, and should instead be 'free' within the bounds of 'nature'. I would be very interested to know, however, in exactly what ways you follow this doctrine to its logical conclusion, since you are apparently well enough connected to the grid to have internet access. To move on to your senseless slaughter of basic knowledge: You claim that capitalism is Also Known As democracy, and that both mean either representative or confederate government, depending on what you mean by 'decentralized'. Capitalism is an economic system, however, involved with freedom of trade (rather than, for instance, communism, which said, you get this much and be grateful for it) and democracy is a system of government, involved with freedom from autocratic rule. You claim the freedom most talked of today is an artificial freedom and a trick of the modern system of decentralized government, yet I get the impression that the most common forms of freedom talked about today are freedom from oppression, persecution and genocide, which people were doing long before the 'modern' governments you're talking about even existed. By mentioning communicating more effectively, I assume you're referring to freedom of speech, freedom of the press or mass communication. What makes you think free and easy communication creates illusory freedom? Most totalitarian governments would disagree. They know from bitter experience that, if you let the people talk to each other, they'll soon be fighting for real freedom. More important than those things, though, is your apparent claim that it is better to break the bonds of continental community, and strike out on our own, free to survive in the wilderness by our wits unaided. Even apart from the problems that would cause in modern times (what with a population unsupportable by streams and farmland, and without skill or guidance), do you have any idea how hard it could be to live like that back when it was the thing to do? My family and I went to a zoo a little while ago, and had an interesting talk with the experts in the Australian section. They had some fascinating stories about the megafauna of Australia, about people disappearing in the night, swollowed by alligators and the like. Of course, being the pwnsrs we are, any time we're faced with a giant monster we hunt it down and kill it, so those kinds of animals are less common now. You might also be interested in Before Cows Were Giant Hamsters, which provides another example of what 'nature' could dish out before we tamed it. There's also the fact that outhouses didn't exist back then, flush toilets are a pretty recent invention, and paper for them is even more recent than that. You want to be that free, punk? Bitch. Black Carrot 03:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London

Why do attractive people only come out after 0830 in the morning on londons transport system ?

Because they're getting their beauty sleep before then :) Natgoo 09:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider the industries in which a beautiful face is required, such as modelling, advertising or say theatre, they tend to have jobs which have laxer regulations over starting times (perhaps worth looking into the etymology of the phrase "fashionably late"). Other industries such as Banking or IT tend to have clearly defined start times. Of a similar note, it was a source of continuing envy for me at University that Science Faculty classes, which are typically male dominated, always seemed to be in the morning, whereas the Arts faculty, which was similary female dominated, had the majority of their classes in the afternoon. Gallaghp 12:53, 18 January 2006 (GMT)
They do come out earlier; the tube trains are so late and crowded they don't get on until 8:30 :-). On a serious note, it's possible they needed the time to apply make-up etc. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the author's eyes don't focus properly until after 8:30, so everyone looks ugly until then. --Kainaw (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full name of Hugh Gaitskell's father-in-law

I would be very grateful if you could please tell me the full name of Hugh Gaitskell's father-in-law. With thanks.

He was Guy Lawrence Charteris (1886-1967), second son of Hugo Richard Charteris (1857-1937), 11th Earl of Wemyss & March, fourth son of Francis Richard Wemyss-Charteris-Douglas (1818-1914), 8th Earl of Wemyss & March. - Nunh-huh 11:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer. However it seems to be incorrect. The surname of Hugh Gaitskell's father-in-law was Creditor. Hugh's wife, i.e. Creditor's daughter, was called Dora and she was born on 25 April 1901. Can you please let me know what was Creditor's first name? Thank you.

That last answer is a bit odd as Guy Lawrence Charteris is the grandfather of Cynthia Asquith. I don't know if the families are related or if it was simply a mix up of prime ministers' wives. Dora Gaitskell's father was Leon Creditor, her mother Tessa Jaffé and Dora was born near Riga. Source ODNB MeltBanana 14:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer.

Sorry for the confusion. There's a family connection, but it's not the one you wanted, so I've stricken out my wrong answer above so it doesn't mislead. - Nunh-huh 01:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading images

I wrote and submitted an article on Uqair, an ancient fort in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I would like to submit and image as well. How do I do this?

[Question moved from the top] basically just click on Upload file (should be on the left of your browser window), also see Wikipedia:Uploading images. MeltBanana 15:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that you will need to have an account and be logged in to upload images. Also, this type of question belongs at the help desk, not here. -- AJR | Talk 00:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that when uploading an image, you'll need to provide a source and a license. for a list of the latter, see WP:ICT. GeeJo (t) (c) • 01:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Bachelet

I've read in the Washington Post that Michelle Bachelet went to middle school in Bethesda, Maryland, USA. (See [1]). I've searched on google and in wikipedia and I haven't been able to find which middle school it was. If anyone knows, can figure out or can point me to a better place to look for more information, I'd greatly appreciate it. NoIdeaNick 15:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youth and Oldness

Youth is a good asset but unfortunately it is given only to young ones. Give me your views please.

Youth is given to old people too, but it was so long ago that they forgot where they put it. AllanHainey 16:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds a little bit like a homework essay. Nevertheless, it seems to be impossible: Youth (n):The quality or state of being young (Wiktionary). If the old could be given youth, it would hardly be youth, would it? Vitality, maybe, but not youth. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 17:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the lunatic president of Turkmenistan has officially decreed that youth lasts until 37 [2]. Marskell 17:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cumaean Sibyl (or Sibyl of Cumae) was granted a wish by Apollo. She asked for eternal life, and he granted it. She did not ask for eternal youth. Thus, she grew older and older, more and more withered, until, according to Trimalchio in Satyricon, by the salacious "Petronius," she was kept in an ampula, or terra cotta jar. Trimalchio says that her attendants asked "Sibulla tis theleis;" and she replied "apokthein thelo" ("Sibyl, what do you want?" "I want to die"). This was used as the epigram to The Wasteland by T. S. Eliot. He seemed to think that Western Civilization was in the Sibyl's state. Geogre 01:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be pedantic, but the words reported by Trimalchio/Petronius cannot have been quite as transliterated here. I'm afraid I don't know how to write the Greek characters (can anyone guide me on this?) but the words must have been 'Sibulla, ti theleis? Apothanein thelo' or (less likely) 'Apothneskein thelo'. And ampulla has a double 'l'. Maid Marion 09:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working from memory, but I believe it is "apokthein." You're probably right about the tis/ti, as I never could get that rule right when I took the class. (I thought Latin was hard until I took Attic Greek. I thought that was hard until I tried to take Irish. I then thought I was bad at languages, until I took French and realized that not everything was as hard as Latin and Greek and Irish. Then I began rapidly forgetting ancient languages.) (Is the kappa missing in "apothanein/apokthanein?" I'll check later.) There used to be a limited Greek alphabet visible by default on the editing screen. One can display it by choosing "special characters" at the bottom of the editing box. Geogre 12:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice about Greek characters - I'll experiment later. As for the quotation, apokthein is not a Greek word (or not Classical Greek at any rate). The present infinitive is apothneskein (the middle e has an iota subscript, but that is beyond transliteration!), and the aorist infinitive is apothanein, which I imagine is what was intended. Maid Marion 12:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youth is a gift for every living entity. It allows it to spawn seed and then prepare to die. After it can be fun too, you still can love, play, make fun, think ; and maybe run slower. --DLL 13:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Existance is a good asset, but unfortunately it is given only to existant ones. Hmm, that reminds me to Smullyan's book. Life is a good asset, but ... – b_jonas 16:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 19

Israel and The Law of Return

Is it ture that a Jewish person can claim Israeli citizenship by returning to Israel and applying? What are the requirements to become a citizen of Israel? What documents are needed and where can I obtain more information? --00:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)~~

Why don't you try:
  • a) moving to Israel

or

Or better yet; try both! СПУТНИКССС Р 00:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not very helpful. Law of Return is fairly long-winded, and goes into more depth about teh controversies than the actual application of the law. Ultimately you need to go to Who_is_a_Jew#Definitions_in_the_State_of_Israel for a succinct answer. Anyone with at least one Jewish grandparent, or spouses of Jews can apply for citizenship. Proof of identity/lineage along with a statement from a rabbi should be enough in this case. If you're a convert, you'd need a statement from a Beth din confirming your status. GeeJo (t) (c) Link title• 00:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goethe's Faust Pt II

At the end of Goethe's Faust Pt II, Faust ascends into heaven. However, I've read various interpretations that contest whether this is because (1) Mephistopheles loses the bet so the Angels claim what is rightly theirs (Booknotes), or (2) Mephistopheles wins the bet, but does not get Faust merely because of the Angels' trickery (Wikipedia). Which is correct? --JianLi 23:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Wikipedia link is correct. The angels don't really make the case that Mephistopheles lost the bet, and he believes he has been cheated:
Mir ist ein großer, einziger Schatz entwendet:
Die hohe Seele, die sich mir verpfändet,
Die haben sie mir pfiffig weggepascht.
Bei wem soll ich mich nun beklagen?
David Sneek 10:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --JianLi 03:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alarm clocks

What sort of alarm mechanism (like an alarm clock), could a functionally deaf person use in order to wake up on time? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are vibrating/bed-shaker alarm clocks that for the deaf and hard of hearing. —Wayward Talk 11:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds complicated and non-portable. I should clarify I'm just asking out of interest. Any further information about such devices? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 11:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are portable ones which just sit inside the user's pillow case, the RNID has some examples shown in their online shop[3] which (they say) are suitable for people with profound hearing impairment. -- AJR | Talk 16:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
mobile phones and certain watches can also be used to set alarms and vibrate when they go off, though I'm not certain how effective they'd be at waking someone up. GeeJo (t) (c) • 12:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The solution for ringing telephones is to have a light flash. It would be easy enough to have a slightly brighter light flash to indicate a wake up time. It would certainly work, require very little voltage, and be quite practical. Geogre 12:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A colleague of mine has an alarm clock which is best described as a lamp with a dimmer switch. When the alarm goes off, instead of a buzzer the light turns on. It starts off dim and then gets increasingly brighter. He considers it to be the most natural way of waking up, as it mimics the sunrise in the morning. Gallaghp 13:26, 19 January 2006 (GMT)
A very nice idea for a present. Try (googled for it) : alarm lamp. --DLL 13:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also [4] on vibrating alarms. – b_jonas

Proof of the existence of Jesus

Without wanting to offend anyone's religious beliefs, I'm curious to know whether there is any evidence of Jesus's existence outside of the Bible. Regards, Gallaghp 13:10, 19 January (GMT)

Depends on whether or not you believe the texts of Josephus are accurate and genuine. There are several references that the historical person of "Jesus" existed, was born around 6-4BCE, and was a Jewish leader. They do not, however, prove that he was the Son of God - which is ultimately a matter of faith. See Historicity of Jesus#Non-Christian writings and Historical Jesus for more information. GeeJo (t) (c) • 13:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely remember that there is a reference in Tacitus to a disturbance among the Jews associated with a personage called Chrestus, which people have interpreted as a reference to Christ. (On this interpretation, Tacitus would have misunderstood the Greek term Christos, anointed, as Chrestos, the sort of name one might give to a slave, 'useful'. The two Greek words would have been pronounced identically at this era.) And I'm pretty sure that Josephus refers to him quite extensively - someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Maid Marion 13:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you're not wrong, though the main criticism about his use of Christos isnt that he may have mistaken it with Chrestos, but rather that he should have referred to the person in question by his proper name. See Tacitus on Jesus for the paragraphs in question, along with a translation and commentary. GeeJo (t) (c) • 13:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, please, the french Academie of science declined to look upon every resarch concerning squaring the circle, trissecting an angle and so on, one century ago. Why cant't our Desk do the same concerning subjects unrelated to proofs ? This is an opinion, I expect that it is not felt as too rude.
We can discuss about every great things Christ "said" because this is something that really moves people. That subject is practical and interesting and all. Did not he say "If you have only a seed of faith, it is enough" ? For such subjects, proofs are made for rough and heavy minds. --DLL 13:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Why cant't our Desk do the same concerning subjects unrelated to proofs ?" - mostly because we all (or maybe it's just me) like to hear the sound of our own typing, and are usually quite happy to waffle on about any old subject regardless of whether anyone's paying attention or not. :) GeeJo (t) (c) • 14:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And he's not asking us to provide proof, he's asking whether or not people think there is proof. The short answer is, "If there is any, there isn't very much, and it's not very equivocal." --Fastfission 04:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if one rejects the existence of Jesus (rather than the divinity of Jesus), then one must come up with an alternate explanation for how Christianity started without it's founder. StuRat 19:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul could have made it all up. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or he could be cobbled together from a variety of messiah-types who were running around at the time. --Fastfission 04:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is more controversy about Jesus' existence and status than about any other great soul of the past. Muhammad certainly lived, but did not pretend to divinity for himself. No one can say if Lao_Tze lived, but his teachings are taken into account without questions. Some church[men] might be responsible for that situation. --DLL 15:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about Jesus, but I've got an autographed copy of the Bible, so I can confirm that God definitely exists. ;) Fuzzypeg 11:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. StuRat 22:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post modernism

What are the positive aspects of post modernism/modernity for society or the individual?--195.93.21.72 13:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds suspiciously like a homework question, but see Postmodernism and the daughter articles relating to it for details and come back here with any specific questions you have regarding the text. GeeJo (t) (c) • 13:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Eager quest of questions!

I want to know who is the first prime minister & president of the world.please reply back at (Do you really want to get spammed?).

There is no President or Prime Minister of the world (and unlikely to be any in the forseeable future), so I'm afraid your question makes about as much sense as "who is greatest mountainclimbing trout ever?" — QuantumEleven | (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See President of Earth and note the seventh word in the article. GeeJo (t) (c) • 15:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The user might mean "which person was the first to be prime minister in history" and "which person in world history was the first to be a president." Both of those questions are also likely to be unhelpful chases. In English, the English term "prime minister" is used long after the first person performed the function of prime minister. As for "president," that's even worse, because there might have been a president of an Elk's lodge before there was a president of a town council before there was a president of a nation. Geogre 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they are asking who is the first recorded elected leader of any nation, as opposed to a hereditary king or military conquerer ? StuRat 19:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is even more ridiculous. Most stone-age tribes probably had elected (in some form) chiefs. My guess is that even some animals can be described as electing a herd leader. --Ornil 20:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be why I said first recorded elected leader, now wouldn't it ? Also, I doubt if many stone-age tribes, or any animals, ever held elections. StuRat 23:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now, let's be reasonable. Everyone know the only one that matters is George Washington. Black Carrot 22:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, everyone loves a president who both grows cannabis and loves cricket. GeeJo (t) (c) • 10:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeppers. That's what I look for in a president :) Natgoo 03:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is also possible that what is wanted is the President of a world corporation. The questioner perhaps could use time travel into the future to help answer this question, unless it is about some other planet than Earth. User:AlMac|(talk) 04:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russell

I've been reading the problems of philosphy by Russell, and I really don't know why is he regarded as the most or one of the most brilliant philosphers of this time, since I already thought all that before I read his book, or before I read anything, for that matter, and also well... all he says seems pretty obvious to me... and also I think descartes was wrong in assuming with such faith that he did in fact exist, because we can not be THAAAT sure even of that, I mean we can be sure, but not like descartes was... so I don't think that taking I think therefore I am as a pillar for modern philosophy is any good...seriously.( not that Russell isn't cool, he is one of my favourites in fact). --Cosmic girl 15:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the only one to think that Bertrand Russell wasn't much as a philosopher. His work was mostly in mathematics and then in materialist skepticism. His Why I Am Not a Christian is petulant and simple-minded, IMO, but the reason for the centrality of Descartes is that he is establishing the law of identity. How do you know? How do you know anything? How do you know that you exist? So, Descartes starts off with a principle that cannot be denied: "I" exist because "I" ask the question. It's A=A. It came in part of his Discourse on the Method, and it was supposed to be a way of beginning with the most certain thing and moving on to less certain things. This was related to the 17th and 18th c. view of probability: one begins with the least unlikely and then admits more doubt as one goes along. The Method is very important as the foundation for Western rationalism, although plenty of folks quarrel with propositions later in Descartes, and it's possible to quarrel even with cogito ergo sum. Geogre 15:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, because we aren't even sure if 'I' exists... well I exist but I'm inpermanent so I don't think its a very good start. --Cosmic girl 19:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think you're judging him rather harshly. Problems of Philosophy is a book for a popular audience, so if you're already familiar with philosophy it's not for you. As Geogre (who is not me - I'm George! :) ) pointed out, Russell's best work was in highly technical fields, not the sort of thing you can buy copies of at your local Books-a-Million. The online (slowly expanding) edition of Principles of Mathematics is closer to that sort of thing.
Point is, if you're not interested in fairly technical arguments about the philosophy of mathematics and language, then people like Russell, Wittgenstein, and Quine are not for you. You'd better read either older, big name folks - Hume, Kant, and so on - or more recent Continental philosophers like Heidigger and Sartre. Analytic philosophy may just not be your thing. --George 21:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, (assuming I recall correctly) Russell, by his own account, largely 'abandoned' theoretical philosophy to focus more on politics, peace and practical philosophy. And I also recall reading an account which attributed this to him being intimidated by Wittgenstein's brilliance. No doubt Gödel's massacre on Principia Mathematica had something to do with it as well. I wouldn't rank him as one of the most brilliant of all time, (I would put Wittgenstein in that category though), but certainly he was more than the equal of, say, Frege. --BluePlatypus 23:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Later on, he did get into practical matters, and particularly activism, and that's why he's an important social figure. In philosophy, the Summa Mathematica attempt is hugely important, but, as George says, it's very technical. (Is he an Analytical? I'd never consider him one.) (I also think Wittgenstein is more accessible than all that, although he's certainly not an appetizer.) In particular, though, I'd recomment Hume. He's very readable, and he has, to some degree, remained unsurpassed. He's a skeptic as well as an empiricist, but he asks the questions that other empiricists wouldn't. He'll ask questions that you won't be able to answer, probably, and demonstrate an acuity of insight that's truly impressive. Sartre is accessible without three years of college Philosophy, and so is Immanuel Kant, but I don't think you'd enjoy reading the one book you'll be able to find by him (Critique of Pure Reason). His shorter essays are much more approachable. Geogre 02:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cosmic girl, you say "I already thought all that before I read his book". Isn't that a quality for a philosopher to assess true ideas (assuming they were not printed before - see Copyright). Ideas and concepts have their own life of course in our brains -our background, ideal world, human egregore -, and putting them down on paper is a nice hobby.
Then your own impermanence is real compared to that of the ideas you carry and promote or reject (see Meme), but it is a good start to state that there is something – an idea, false or not, permanent or not – perceived here and now : the - I - that exists and asks questions is just another child of the cosmos. --DLL 15:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yiddish newspapres published in England

What are the names of the Yiddish newspapers which have been published in England and in which years was each one published? Thank you

HealthCare system in canada

Can i have your opinion on canada'a health care system? I've read that canada's federal and provincial government has no longer effective control over its healthcare system. what are the doctors reaction over this system? Are they satisfied with their income plannings? Can you throw some light on this issue and let me have some information about it. thanks! i am stll waiting for an answer!

January 20

The Queen's nationality

My question is simply: Is Queen Elizabeth II a New Zealander?

I know she's the Queen of New Zealand, but is she a New Zealand national?

Does this answer apply to all her realms? I really hope she's Jamaican. Dmn 00:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Parliamentary Research Service of Australia studied this question in 1995 [5], and concluded that the Queen was not an Australian citizen under the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (or other applicable laws) by birth, adoption, descent or grant. There is a certain conflict between the notion of citizenship and the notion of monarchy, in that a citizen of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. is a subject of the Queen, but the Queen cannot be her own subject. See the article Monarchy for more on this. --Canley 04:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stars inside or out side of the P on Playboy mag.

Can you answer me this what is the meaning of the stars inside or out side of the P on the cover of Playboy Mag. I'm very intrested. Thanks

From [6]: "Urban legend has it that the stars represent either the number of times Hef had slept with the Playmate of the Month or his rating of how good she was in bed. The actual explanation is less titillating. Except for a six-month period in 1976, the stars appeared on Playboy covers from 1955 until 1979. The star system changed over the years, but it ranged from zero to 12 at its peak. The number of stars indicated the domestic or international advertising region for that edition of the magazine. The regions included a military edition, Canada, the United Kingdom, Chicago, Los Angeles metro, New York metro, eastern United States, southwestern United States, etc. " - Nunh-huh 01:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the real meaning of the stars is a let-down, but you can still hunt for the bunny on each cover. --Kainaw (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Victory" by Tonchi Hulijic

I am looking for the sheet music and orchestra accompaniment trax for my daughter to play the violin piece "Victory". I heard this on tv one time so I know it exists. Thanks to anyone who knows where I can find this. Desperate Mom ````

Hmm. Well, the sheet music for piano can be found here or here (requires a fee for more than the first page), I can't seem to find any for the violin part. GeeJo (t) (c) • 14:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth trying to contact the store at the Bond website, I'm sure they'd be willing to sell a copy to you/find someone who will. GeeJo (t) (c) • 15:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Partnerships, inheritance in the UK

Now in the UK we have civil partnerships, as an attempt to create equality between different and same sex relationships, giving both the same rights.. Does that apply to artistocratic titles acquired by marriage? My knowledge of the peerdom is a bit vague, and there's no clear wiki article I can find, but I assumed that if the daughter of a Duke marries, her husband becomes a Lord (if he wasn't one already). If she entered a civil partnership, what would her female partner become? Lord or Lady? Neither? Henriksdal 15:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt if British titles will ever reflect homosexual partnerships...the two things are from such different worlds, the titles are from the medieval period and the partnerships are quite modern. StuRat 16:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, a man doesn't acquire any title by virtue of marrying a duke's daughter. Generally, a wife takes her husband's titles, with occasional exceptions when the wife outranks the husband and takes appropriate action. A husband does not take his wife's titles (again, sometimes. exceptionally, a title is granted to a husband because of the importance of his wife, or because she is a peeress in her own right, but this is a new grant of a title and not an acquistion by marriage). It might also be pointed out that [1] any title acquired through marriage is a "courtesy" title rather than a substantive one, and [2] that "civil partnerships" are not "marriages", no matter how they're advertised.... - Nunh-huh 01:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, regardless of what happens in a marriage; a civil partnership isn't a marriage, and doesn't convey the same rights regarding titles. David Furnish didn't become Lady John upon civil partnership, did he? Natgoo 03:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all that should be taken with some knowledge of homosexual partners of the past who have gotten titles. The most famous is Piers Gaveston, but James I's George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham was also given elaborate titles for, basically, being his paramour. Further, the objections raised by the nobility at both times was not to the king's dalliance with another man, but with his diluting the peerage with commoners (e.g. Christopher Marlowe, himself highly involved in homosexual relationships, writing near the time of James I Edward II (play) and having his barons complain about the unnaturalness of the king's love and the baseness of Gaveston). That's not the same thing, of course, but it points to the fact that homosexual peers can create positions for their lovers that will grant pensions and/or annuities, even if they're not the king. Geogre 04:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, that has happened in the past. You can hand someone a title now only if you're in government. Natgoo 04:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

school

who are some African Americans who have contributed to computers?

You could browse the articles at Category:Computer professionals and its subcategories. Common Man 21:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could I write and publish a book called "The Bible"?

I just noticed that apparently the title The Confessions of Nat Turner has been reused. Is there any limit on reusing existing book titles? Would it be permitted to call a book "The Bible"? Common Man 21:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the name is trademarked, you can't use it. (Names, titles, slogans are to short to be copyrighted) Noone has a trademark on "The Bible", so go ahead. --BluePlatypus 22:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the basic answer, but as with most legal questions, there probably are variations by country. For one thing, you may find that something is a trademark violation if it's only similar to an existing trademark, but on the other hand, it can be exactly the same and still no violation if it is in a different field of business. (See e.g. the Apple cases.) In practice most book titles are not trademarked anyway, although commercially important series titles might be. Just for fun I did a search for trademarks using the phrase "The Bible" on the US Patent and Trademark Office web site. There are 63 current trademarks containing the phrase, although none of them is just "The Bible". (They include "1-800-THE-BIBLE", "Vote the Bible", and "The Bible for the Next Generation".) --Anonymous, 22:50 UTC, January 20, 2006.
Also keep in mind that people don't appreciate the holy words in their religion being taken lightly. If you do that in the wrong place(the deep south, for instance) or with the wrong religion(the Qu'ran, for instance), you could end up getting hurt, and it'd be nobody's fault but your own. Black Carrot 00:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, to summarise - no, there would be no legal reason against it, but it'd be a pretty stupid move. Natgoo 03:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's someone's fault! You can never put the entire blame for a crime on the victim. And for something as basic as freedom of speech, there's no justification whatsoever for violence. Words are only words. It's as ridiculous and repulsive to me as those who blame rape on the victims clothing. --BluePlatypus 22:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting hurt includes getting killed. In some faiths, only a true messenger from God is permitted to write the word of God, so if they try to kill you and by some miracle you are saved, that might be the proof they need. User:AlMac|(talk) 04:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add that as it'd be a stupid move not only from you (the author) but also from the publisher, I think you might find it hard to find someone who is willing to publish such a book.
The difficulties apply especially if the book not only has that title, but it is similar in apperience to the Bible or claims inside that it is the Bible. It would probably be much easier to publish a short article whose content clearly doesn't resemble to the Bible with such a name, although "On the Bible" or "My Bible" or something similar might be a better title.
Just one more thing. There are a few books called Exodus. – b_jonas 15:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Era Nobles

What did the Victorian Era Noblemen live, on, I mean, they do not seem to have work or jobs, where did their money came from?

I assume you mean true nobles in England, as in people with a title (dukes, earls, etc.) Most simply, they inherited their wealth. Along with titles, they inherited real estate and other assets which drew them revenue, the details of which would be administered by a staff. In truth, many were far less wealthy than their lifestyle would lead you to guess; the maintenance of their lifestyle at any cost was of primary importance, which is how their huge lands have been whittled down to the relatively small hereditary holdings in England today, as they sold off pieces for cash. With a few exceptions, the truly wealthy in the Victorian age were not so different than today; businessmen, investors, traders, etc. - Dharmabum420 23:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree mostly. But it's worth pointing out that by the Victorian age, I believe most nobles did actually work, if not "for a living" but for the sake of having something to do all day and because not working was (and is) considered bad for character. --BluePlatypus 23:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's very true. It should be pointed out it was often different work than the non-titled were doing, not dissimilar to today's nobility; military service, charity work, philanthropism, etc. - Dharmabum420 23:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside those who were looking after their estates, they were running the Empire, either in the military, politics or administrative posts: then there were the Church of England and liberal professions such as the law for younger sons/poorer nobles. But not trade which was unsuitable for a gentleman and left to the middle-classes. BTW their hereditary holdings havent been whittled down that much. A recent BBC documentary showed the aristocracy still own 30% of the land in Britain (compared with 50% in the 1870's). Jameswilson 00:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I was under the impression that most of the aristocracy clung blindly onto their titles with little else (okay, the House of Lords seat would be pretty cool) - if the 30% figure is true it's a minority shareholding (as in, a very few people own that 30%, and not every titleholder owns land). Class in England (today, and in the Victorian era) really has very little to do with assets, liquid or otherwise - it's possible to be poorer than a dog's dinner and still be a nobleman. Lady Isabella Hervey is a perfect example - she professes to be dog poor and she is really only famous for being on Big Brother (UK TV series), yet she is the titleholder of the family; and the richest people in England are far removed from the nobility (excepting the royals of course - I'm thinking about people like Lakshmi Nivas Mittal and Bernie Ecclestone for eg.) I'm from Australia - 30% of England is not much at all, really, maybe a sixteenth of the size of the state I left - it might be worth a lot due to the inflated pound, but it's not really much land. Natgoo 04:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Lady Isabella Hervey is the title holder of the family; the title would belong to her grandfather, father, or eldest brother. Lady Hervey holds a courtesy title, a title that will not pass to her offspring. —Wayward Talk 06:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "title holder" in her family is her youngest (but only surviving) brother, the 8th Marquess of Bristol. She's "Lady Isabella" because her father was a Marquess (and, incidentally, she's not "Lady Hervey", which would normally indicate her husband was a peer or a knight). Proteus (Talk) 20:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest single holding is that owned by the Duke of Westminster - 250,000 acres, which is nothing in Australian terms I imagine. Alright it includes large parts of central London so its very valuable. I think the difference between now and the Victorian period is that if you became super-rich through industry or commerce back then, you would have almost certainly been ennobled so "new money" gradually became "noble money" as you sold your industrial company and bought a country estate befitting your new status. But since the 1960,s thats stopped happening (new hereditary titles scarcely ever being created I mean). The rich of today might still buy land (I think their share of the total according to that programme was 4% of Britain) but they dont get the hereditary title. Jameswilson 05:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 21

English county ≈ which US designation?

Is there a US designation of any sort (that the average American is likely to be familiar with) that is approximately the same scale (in terms of area and/or population) as the English county? My understanding is that the US county is much smaller than the English designation of the same name. Thryduulf 00:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to our own article, the average American county is 2/3 the size of an English "ceremonial" county. And counties vary greatly in size (so "average" doesn't mean much), and there's no expectation that an American county "should be" this or that size: the expectation is only that it should be the governmental subdivision smaller than the state. I'd use "county" for "county". - Nunh-huh 01:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Geographically, in terms of area, county = county. But in terms of powers, the US has an extra layer of government (the 50 states) which Britain traditionally doesnt have, so the things that State Governments do in the US are done by other bodies (higher or lower) in the UK.

Arguably, the new Scottish and Welsh administrations are like US states, but there is still no equivalent of that level in England. Jameswilson 02:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. There is no US equivalent to the English county, just as there is no English equivalent to the US state. See Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England and Counties of England for some more info. Natgoo 04:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
US counties range in size from 34 square kilometers to 52,073 square kilometers and from 67 people to 10.2 million people. San Bernadino County, California is 2.5 times the size of Wales. -- Mwalcoff 03:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, one should say eastern USA, I suppose, to avoid that problem - deserts, mountains, etc. Jameswilson 05:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I was unable to edit the Wikipedia help desk because of some Spam Filter notice. I am not allerting you of this. I tried to contact the meta wikimedia people but when i tried, it did the same thing. Please help. 5aret 02:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having the same problem. JackofOz 04:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the right spot to mention this, as it's not really a reference question, but as a concerned admin, I've got to ask: was this notice on your side (your system blocked Wikipedia) or ours (we rejected you for being a "spammer")? If the former, your filtering software may be blacklisting Wikipedia for any number of reasons or blacklisting the reference desk. (Bess, one of the most popular filters in the US, blocks anything with question and answer sections as being a "web forum," and it will clear Wikipedia and block just this section.) If we're kicking you out as a spammer, then that's something you both need to mention on wp:an. Geogre 04:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly wasn't on my side. I was just trying to tell a questioner they had posted their question in the wrong place (although I noticed somebody else was able to respond to it). JackofOz 04:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it was your side. Its got nothing to do with my system because the message said that wikipedia had blocked it because of the words "auto, height, overflow" in that topic. Also, I did not use any of these words. Also, Geogre, I cannot get into the wikipedia help desk, that it why I had to post here, obviously. So what do I do? 5aret 16:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was my fault. I added the text to a reply to a question about spamming. After I replied, the text was added to the spam filters. I have now removed the text. It should only have affected users trying to edit the whole page. --GraemeL (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your favorite poem?

What is your favorite poem? My favorites are "Concord Hymn," "Happy the Man," "When I have Fears that I may Cease to Be," "I'm nobody! Who are you?" (Dickenson's #288) and "The Tyger."

--Neutralitytalk 06:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Road Not Taken, by Robert Frost. StuRat 06:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Death of a Naturalist, by Seamus Heaney [7]. --Commander Keane 07:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
next to of course god america i by e. e. cummings. —Keenan Pepper 07:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hadrien's address to his soul
animula vagula blandula
hospes comesque corporis
quae nunc abibis in loca
pallidula rigida nudula
nec ut soles dabis iocos! - Nunh-huh 07:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crossing the Bar by Tennyson. JackofOz 08:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This side of the truth, Dylan Thomas. Marskell 08:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
mmm. some good choices (good question, BTW). I'd go for "Alicante" by Jacques Prévert. Grutness...wha? 09:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Waste Land, all the way -- Ferkelparade π 11:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sonnet 29 by Shakespeare, or Do not go gentle into that good night by Dylan Thomas. GeeJo (t) (c) • 12:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mine is "Második házasság" from Ranschburg Jenő in the book Gyerekségek. – b_jonas 15:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spring View by Du Fu. Mark1 17:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Old Vicarage, Grantchester by Rupert Brooke, for its comedy value, and The Sign of the Cross by John Henry Newman. [[Sam Korn]] 18:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Easily The Face on the Barroom Floor by H. A. D'Arcy. (Bad country music MIDI plays when you open the site - o noes!11) Cernen Xanthine Katrena 18:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Sonnets, Spelt from Sybil's Leaves, Piggy on the railroad and On Passing the New Menin Gate for starters. MeltBanana 20:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm partial to The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock and, in a lighter verse, Testament and numerous other poems by Dorothy Parker. (Which should tell you a lot about my outlook on life.) --George 00:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Sunday Morning" by Wallace Stevens. The text for this poem is online. It's all about imagination. Halcatalyst 02:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fire and Ice by Robert Frost. It's sweet and short:
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Highwayman, by Alfred Noyes. I love the rhythms of it. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psalm 103, Prufrock, Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird, all of the Holy Sonnets of John Donne, all of the terrible sonnets of Gerard Manley Hopkins, Gawain and the Green Knight, Essay on Man, Essay on Criticism, Dunciad, Rape of the Lock, Vanity of Human Wishes, Paradise Lost, Beowulf, Odyssey, Aeneid, To His Coy Mistress, Juvenal Satire 3, Metamorphoses, Easter Wings, John Donne's 2nd Anniversary, Portrait of a Lady by Eliot, Wasteland, Dreamsong #14, Dreamsong #366, Station Island #3 by Heaney, "Away from It All" by Heaney, those are the ones that come to mind as favorite single poem. Geogre 02:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I offer more? the most despairing poem I know:
In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
Who, squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it.
I said: "Is it good, friend?"
"It is bitter-bitter," he answered;
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."
And the most skeptical:
A man said to the universe:
"Sir I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
Both by Stephen Crane. Halcatalyst 16:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I have to add the minimalist sonnet I saw somewhere on a WP user page (I think Geogre's, but it's not there now):




Halcatalyst 16:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Aeneid, especially Book VI. Or The Rime of the Ancient Mariner - Coleridge's one perfect effort (silver medals for the uncompleted Christabel and Kubla Khan). Maid Marion 16:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first five that pop into my head: Whitman's Song of Myself, Ginsberg's Howl, E.E. Cummings's i like my body when it is with your, Michael Palmer's Sun, and everything by Pablo Picasso. --Tothebarricades 06:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silly title question

A silly question I know, but... a woman married to a KBE or other Knight (British honours system) is called "Lady X". But what about the new civil unions? What, if anything, is David Furnish's title? He can hadly be called "Lady John", can he? Grutness...wha? 09:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 is here, but I can't find anything about the honours system. Nor does the honours system review have anything to say on the matter. So, by default, my guess is that David Furnish wouldn't have a title at all. Interestingly, one of the recommendations the UK government didn't accept was the suggestion to phase out knighthoods, which would make the question moot; however, it raises the interesting question of what happens when a hereditary peer wants to form a civil union (what an awkward turn of phrase) with his or her gay partner? --Robert Merkel 10:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which I note has been speculated upon above.. --Robert Merkel 10:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the peer is a woman, then it's relatively easy - Baroness and Lady X. For a man, um. Um indeed. There was a letter in the Times suggesting "Laddie", but that isn't likely to come into use... Shimgray | talk | 15:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Men can't gain titles by marrying ennobled women. Men can't gain titles by marriage; women can't bestow (for want of a better word) titles by marriage. Nothing changes. [[Sam Korn]] 18:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not that any of that really matters, since Civil Partnerships aren't marriage (legally, at any rate). Proteus (Talk) 22:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kent State Shootings

We are a 7th grade research team studying the Kent State Shootings for the National History Day program. Can you help us find this national study? See below.

In 1970, the Urban Institute conducted a national study that concluded the Kent State shootings was the single factor causing the only nationwide student strike in history - over 4 million students protested and over 900 American colleges and universities closed during the student strikes.

At a guess, I'd think that passage refers to "The Report of the President's Commission on Campus Unrest", which is the only 1970 source included in the reference section of our article on the Kent State shootings. You can get a reprint of the report from Amazon. GeeJo (t) (c) • 13:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I were you, I would include the lyrics (or possibly the music in a multimedia presentation) for this song, which was popular at the time:
http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Crosby-Stills-Nash-Young/Four-Dead-In-Ohio.html
StuRat 15:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the students across the US who participated in the strikes and sit-ins and "people's parks" and anti-war marches did not consider them a response primarily to the Kent State shootings. Rather civil unrest was arising in a hundred places across the US that spring. The degree of disorder, the destructiveness, the percentage of students participating, the response of the authorities, and any local lasting effects varied from site to site. Kent State was perhaps the worst (or best remembered) event, but not the only place where at least one fatality occurred-- there were two students killed by police during rioting at Jackson State University in Mississippi [8] but the students were black rather than white and circumstances and the public responses differed substantially. Didn't another death of a graduate student happen at the University of Wisconsin as a result of a bomb or some sort of attack? The President's Commission was interested in interpreting the widespread unrest as either a response to a single event or to communist agitation, rather than a pervasive loss of confidence by the university communities in the government policies of the day, especially the vietnam war. Much idealism and much destructive stupidity. alteripse 04:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the famous photograph of the Kent State shooting. Ironically, the dead student was on his way to ROTC class (military officer training). A mathematics grad student died at the University of Wisconsin as a result of a bomb planted in a building where research for the Department of Defense took place. Halcatalyst 14:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical demographics

When did the peoples who now populate northern Europe begin to live there and where did they migrate from?

--Inquirealot 14:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they came from the Caucasia region in Southwest Russia and Georgia, hence the term caucasoid. I'm not sure on the time frame, perhaps 50,000 years ago ? StuRat 14:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term "caucasian" is based on the 19th century pseudoscience. There is no real evidence the so-called Caucasian race emerged there. --BluePlatypus 19:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend very much on what you mean by "the peoples". There were people of some sort in Italy at Monte Poggiolo around 800,000 years ago. On the other hand, the Proto-Indo-Europeans seem to have migrated to Europe around 1000 BC- see especially the map half-way down that second page. So some time between 800,000 BC and 1000 BC is the most likely answer, though of course people have continued to migrate into and out of northern Europe to the present day. ;) Mark1 17:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noone knows exactly, it's way before recorded history in those parts. See Germanic peoples. It's believed that the Germanic peoples at least first lived in Scandinavia, before going south due to climate change. (See Fimbulwinter and Nordic Bronze Age). The Goths, by their own accounts originated in Scandinavia. As for the Sami, see Sami history. Wherever they came from it wasn't the same place as the Germanic peoples. The Finns, although closest in language to the Sami, are believed to have arrived later. The arrival of the proto-Germanic peoples to Scandinavia is usually regarded to be in about 2800 BC, with the Battle Axe culture. --BluePlatypus 19:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are ways to tell what happened and when, without written records. Art which depicts various ethnic groups would help, except that art from that period is so crude it's difficult to determine the ethnicity of the people. Skeletal remains can be examined for racial features. Genetic studies are even more promising. StuRat 05:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably say "proto-proto-Germanic", since the Battle axe culture is far before the proto-Germanic culture. --BluePlatypus 19:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely 800,000 B.C. to 1000 B.C. is the "most likely answer" only because it is an answer that can't be wrong. Homo sapien sapien didn't exist 200,000 years ago (maybe even 100,000 years ago or less). The great ice age ended less than 12,000 years ago and probably much more recently in Scandanavia. I suspect (pure speculation and intuition, i.e. I barely know what I am talking about) that the people we call Scandanavians have lived in Scandanavia for less than 5,000 years. This does not seem like a long time to me. It seems curious to me that no where on the planet are there indigenous people that look anything like Scandanavians other than in the geographical area extending from Ireland across northwestern Russia. This seems to me both curious and odd and is why I inquired about this subject in the first place.

The question can't be answered. The peoples in Europe are different peoples, ethnically. Some are from northern Africa and got there 20 years ago, some are Germanic tribes that took part in the great migration of approximately 1,000 BC. Some are Celtic peoples who took part in the migration before the Germanic one. Some are from the Italian penninsula originally. Some are from a northern Indian source and arrived at the same time as the Celtic migration. Some are aboriginal peoples who may have been there for 30,000 years. Some are.... The point is that there is no "peoples" of Europe. Europe is currently a mix. Europe formerly was a mix. Europe was a mix before that, too. Before that, it was also a mix. You're talking about a very large area that has been heavily travelled. Geogre 02:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(fixed formatting - — QuantumEleven | (talk))

  • Although almost every inch of Europe had been visited by some form of homo sapiens sapiens long before 100 BC, it was around then that a handful of interesting clans that spoke a simple Germanic language began to show up in the history books written by Romans and Greeks. Since they could not possibly have come from the south or west without having been spotted earlier, and since the north was rather cold, it stands to reason that they came from the east, from the enormous plains stretching from Ukraine through Siberia to India, just barely far enough away from the local empires that groups of a couple thousand could form and develop a culture. The land that they settled in was by no means empty, but they did a very good job of kicking the Celts and Romans out, along with other tribes who never made it into the history books. Slavs, Huns, Magyar, Vandals, Goths, and others came quickly on their heels. There is some evidence, though, that the Lapps were there the entire time.--Mareino 16:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Use Sami, most of them consider "Lapp" to be very derogatory. --BluePlatypus 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they are asking about the initial arrival of modern humans in Northern Europe, replacing the earlier Neanderthals ? StuRat 03:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tracing abdinasir... asap

where does the name come from? --MaoJin 16:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

asap

Arabic, literal meaning basically "slave of the one who gives victory" عبد الناصر AnonMoos 09:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the *other* Saint Cecilia?

Hi, I quote the article on Saint Cecilia:

>>Another St Cecilia, who suffered in Africa in the persecution >>of Diocletian, is commemorated on February 11.

I have never heard of her. Can anyone elaborate on this *other* saint. I'm planning a party for the 11th February and I could easily turn this fascinating discovery into a theme, but I will need more information. Thanks so much, Cecilia

This mention is taken directly from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica.[9] I have done a quick google, and can't immediately find any other mentions of an "other" Cecilia - the Catholic Encyclopedia mentions a theory that the "usual" Saint Cecilia was martyred during the persecution of Diocletian[10] which suggests they may be the same person, but then the different feast days suggest they are not. Good luck with finding anything out, and I hope the party's good. AJR | Talk 00:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the Oxford dictionary of Saints (D.H.Farmer, Clarendon Press, 1978) only lists one St. Cecilia. Grutness...wha? 01:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, FWIW, The Book of Saints (Victor Hoagland, C.P., The Regina Press, 1986) only lists the one St. Cecilla as well. Her day is Nov. 22 according to this. Dismas|(talk) 14:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there are two. However, the reason there is very little mentioned is that the other Cecilia is virtually unknown. My source, Omelbert, mentions her to the same degree as the 1911. This is a pretty sure sign that she's a legendary saint. I doubt she's been demoted, but it's possible. Geogre 02:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folk Rocker

What folk-rocker said he'd like Billy Dee Williams or Mickey Rooney to play him if his life story is filmed?

Google has failed me. =(

I don't know but I'd have to say that those two are a fascinating pair to choose. Not only because of their race but their ages as well. Dismas|(talk) 22:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting system of Belgian Senate

Hey, I'm working on filling out table of voting systems by nation, and I came across the Belgian Senate. As far as I can tell, a portion of members are "directly elected", but I can't tell by which voting system they are. Is it single winner or multiple winner at the district level? What are the rules for winning? Thanks! Scott Ritchie 22:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the Belgian Parliament's website:
"Federal Members of Parliament are elected for a four year term using proportional representation (the so-called D’Hondt system). ...
"The Senate has 71 Members, divided into three categories.
"40 Senators are directly elected in three constituencies, those being the Flanders constituency, the Walloon constituency and the bilingual Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde constituency.
"The French-speaking voters elect 15 Senators. The Dutch-speaking voters elect 25 Senators. The residents of the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde constituency can choose whether they want to vote for the election of 15 French-speaking Senators or for the election of 25 Dutch-speaking Senators.
"21 Senators are appointed by and from the assemblies of the three Communities: ten by the Parliament of the Flemish Community, 10 by the Parliament of the French-speaking Community and one by the Parliament of the German-speaking Community. Since they remain Members of the Parliament which appoints them, these Senators hold two offices (sometimes even three), sitting both at the federal and at a federated level.
"10 Senators are chosen by the two above-mentioned categories of Senators. Six of them are appointed by all of the other Dutch-speaking Senators, and four by the French-speaking Senators.
"The Constitution guarantees a minimum representation of Brussels’ residents in the Senate.
"Finally, the children of the King or, if there are none, the Belgian descendants of the branch of the Royal Family called on to reign, are Senators by right at the age of 18. They can only vote at the age of 21. They are, however, not taken into account for the quorum.
"This category of Senators was created to give the heir to the throne the opportunity to acquire political experience and to stay in touch with society. At this moment, all three children of the King, i.e. Crown Prince Philippe, Princess Astrid and Prince Laurent, have taken the oath as Senator and sit in that capacity in the Senate." -- Mwalcoff 16:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

virginia woolf quote

Can anyone identify the source, and exact wording, of a quote from Virginia Woolf along the following approximate lines: "Happiness is weeding in the garden, looking toward the house, and knowing that someone in there loves me."

"Happiness is a warm puppy." - Charlie Brown StuRat 16:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Garden of Earthly Delights

I asked about this on the articles talk page, but it can take weeks to get an answer.

In the lower-right corner of the center panel, there is a naked European man standing next to a naked African man, with his arm around him. Was Bosch trying to imply something with this? Captain Jackson 19:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the answer is "probably". But that only begs the further question "what?" And that one's far harder. It is possible, as I suspect that you're really asking, that it was a suggestion that homosexuality was permitted in the garden, but it could just as easily be symbolic of equality and friendship of race - that all people can share the garden peacefully. I don't know whether any definite answer is known, but this is one of the most analysed works of art, so it's possible that someone will know... Grutness...wha? 22:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The center panel is supposed to be showing humanity having fun through sin, so I was wondering if Bosch was trying to imply that Europeans and Africans mating was sinful. Captain Jackson 00:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Bosch wouldn't do anything that crude, even if that was his opinion. Such a question constitutes unconscious backreading (reading our own ideas into the past), a natural enough impulse. Halcatalyst 23:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 22

nazi propaganda

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwzp16 (talk • contribs) 21:29, January 21, 2006 (UTC)

no question

There's something glaringly wrong with your question: you didn't bother posting a question in the first place. You should check the list of things to do before you post at the very top of this page before posting a question. Your question may be deleted if you see this notice; you should reformat it to prevent this from happening. --Aaron 02:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one of my favorites: Image:Liberators-Kultur-Terror-Anti-Americanism-1944-Nazi-Propaganda-Poster.jpg AnonMoos 10:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a finnish author, who died less than 70 years ago, published texts before 1917 (in the Grand Duchy of Finland). Are those texts still copyrighed by the finnish copyright law? --82.212.68.237 10:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Assuming Finnish copyright law is similar to US copyright law, the moment he died is an essential part of the rule. Regardless of when the piece was written, the author must've died at least 70 years ago. If he didn't all his works (including the earlier ones) are protected. - Mgm|(talk) 11:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not entirely true for U.S. copyrights. All works published before 1923 are out of copyright regardless of the date of the authors death, many others are out of copyright because of non-renewal. Rmhermen 17:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the 43 § of the Finnish copyright law, the copyright doesn't expire until the author has been dead for 70 years. The legal entity in which the text was written doesn't matter. - ulayiti (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colour blind politics.

This is just my curiosity asking this; I've never heard a really good answer. Why do we associate the colour red with communists, and, less so, the colour blue with capitalists? I've heard people answer "Because the Russian army wore red", or some such, but that just leads to another question, so it's not really an answer, is it? Why did the Russian army wear red?

Thank'ee,

Zzt.

I believe red, being the color of blood, is often used as the color to represent danger and revolutions, especially bloody revolutions, as was the case in the Russian Revolution. StuRat 12:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see here.

Communism -- no mention of red
Marxism -- no mention of red
Leninism -- no mention of red

Hmmmmmm... let's try Red (disambiguation). It says red is slang term for a communist. Yes, but I already knew that.

How about Red flag? Eureka! First sentence: "Historically, and most generally, the red flag is an international symbol for the 'blood of angry workers.'" Halcatalyst 14:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It also happened to be Marx' favorite color (although yes, it predates him). Also, in Russian the words "red" (красный) and "beautiful" (красивый) are related. So "Red is beautiful" makes a good Soviet slogan. :) --BluePlatypus 14:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.ukraine-observer.com/articles/215/781. The Russian word krasny, which means red, also has subtle meanings like "masculine" as well as "beautiful". Red Square in Moscow got that name long before the Russian Revolution. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, the red and blue of the French tri-colour originally represented blood and sky, respectively. Given that "Left" and "Right" as we presently understand them are rooted in the French revolution, researching where the appropriation of the two colours arose might begin with that topic. Not an answer, just a thought! (a real stumper BTW). Marskell 21:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red was the colour of the flags of the Soviet union because it used flags based on that of the Paris Commune. Prior to that time they were often used for rebellion and mutiny, and also piracy, and - as ponted out above - they (in Socialist and communist usage) refer to the blood of the workers. There's a fair amount about that at red flag. Unfortunately the page on communism at Flags of the World - which is the best other site to look for information on national symbols and flags - is under construction, otherwise that could probably have helped further. Grutness...wha? 22:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a mention in the red flag article of its use at the Merthyr riots of 1831. This was probably its first association with workers' struggles. Warofdreams talk 12:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is also The Red Flag which was written in 1889 & which, at least in the UK, has associated the colour red with Socialism & communism. AllanHainey 13:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are these old news report films that were taken in black-and-white but the red flags were coloured by hand on it, so I think they took the red color very seriously. – b_jonas 11:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

artist query

Could anybody tell me the name of the artist who paints faces where each element is made up of vegetables (e.g. a tomato for a nose)? thankyou in advance.

Giuseppe Arcimboldo was one such. I believe there are others. --Shantavira 13:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pow officer derny (french forces)

hi i am trying to research a french officer capt derny (commandant) who was a prisoner of war from 1941 to 1945. he was held at oflag iv.d Elsterhorst. i wish to know what unit he served in & what happened to him. hope to get a reply from you soon, thank you. george.

I hardly thing anyone is walking around with that information in their heads. You should probably try the French and German war archives. --BluePlatypus 20:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a first name for Captain Derny ? StuRat 20:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polavision technical specs

Hi, I'm working on a big table of film formats for a future Wikipedia article. I was wondering if anyone might be able to help direct me to some technical details regarding Polavision, which was Polaroid's briefly-lived 8mm camera system. Specifically, I wanted to know the dimensions of the frame for filming and projection (the latter are usually a bit smaller), or at the least, an aspect ratio for either. Many thanks in advance! Girolamo Savonarola 16:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cassiopea,the pentagon, reptiles and whatever

What's the dealio with Laura Knight-Jadczyk??? any skeptical criticism? (or any non-biased information since everything is on her side) because I can't find any.--Cosmic girl 18:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question you are asking. Who is that, and what are you asking about her ? StuRat 20:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google on "Laura Knight-Jadczyk" turns up all kinds of hits that set my woo-woo meter screaming involving chanelling aliens and strengthening your aura to combat dark forces. Essentially though with any claim that requires skeptical inquiry the two essential questions to ask are.. 1: What claims is this person making, and 2: What evidence are they providing to back those claims up. Juding by my (admittedly very brief) research the answers to those appear to be 1: Just about everything, and 2: None.

Also, it appears she's one of the current breeds of peddlers of "quantum flapdoodle", which is the art of trying to make all kinds of supernatural nonsense sound reasonable by connecting it with quantum mechanics. Basically the logic is that quantum mechanics is weird and complicated, and therefore it must explain everything from ghosts to psychic transdimensional dolphin-hive-minds in dimension X (because they're 'weird' and 'complex' too, you see)

Perhaps she'd be interested in trying for James Randi's million dollar challenge. --Noodhoog 20:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank u guys, yeah I agree totally ..and I know about Randy, he rules... but the thing is that there's this book by laura k-j that talks about the pentagon and how it wasn't a plane that hit it but a misil, and there's even a video and all and so...http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon_sp.htm#Main here it is... but it's in spanish, I'm sorry...but by seeing the images you'll get the point. what amazes me here is that I'd have dismissed all her nonsense right away but the subject of that book seems a liiiiitle more down to earth compared to her channeled stuff or whatever and since she has this self confidence in believing all she says well it makes me doubt a little.--Cosmic girl 21:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't a plane that hit you would need to explain the missing plane and passengers, along with the plane engines and other debris that somebody apparently "planted" at the Pentagon (if we are to believe this conspracy theory). And then you need to explain why the US gov is willing to engage in a massive conspiracy to make it look like a plane hit instead of a missile. StuRat 22:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but from what I understood, noone was able to find the plane, and the government supossedly confiscated recordings from nearby stores or whomever had been filming. but then again, I find it really hard to believe because you are right, why would the government do that? I think conspiracy theories are as dangerous to the overall world culture as the new age and all that stuff.--Cosmic girl 22:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When a plane hits at those velocities, not much is left, most of it is vaporized or torn into tiny peices. The engines, wheels, and black boxes may be the only large peices left. I hardly find it surprising that the authorities would want all video tapes of the incident, do you ? StuRat 22:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanx a lot! :) --Cosmic girl 23:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • See also :
9/11: The Big Lie (Surprisingly, the Google calculator does not answer : I had to try 90/11.) --DLL 20:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand! was it a lie?--Cosmic girl 19:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was the book a big lie ? Yes. Was 9-11 a big lie ? No. StuRat 19:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha!!! well I tend to think like StuRat, but I always keep room for doubt ...u know, just in case.--Cosmic girl 19:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Davy Crockett

What were the last few moments like for Davy Crockett when the Spanish sent be Santa Anna finally broke into the Alamo?

  • They have been imagined by several authors and in a couple of movies, but we have no first-hand account from anyone who saw what Crockett himself did or experienced in the last hours of the assault. New fictional and non-fictional accounts are published every decade. The controversy about Crockett is briefly described in our article Battle of the Alamo. alteripse 19:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unplanned Pregnancies

I've heard that half or 50% of all the pregnancies in the world are unplanned.There's such thing as a planning or not planning to have a pregnancy?When people grow up, they usually get married,(or their wives)become pregnant, and then have children.So what do people mean when they say that a pregnancy is unplanned?And why is the rate of unplanned pregnancies in the world so high?Has it always been so high in the past?

Media:user:bowei

A planned pregnancy is when a couple (usually married) want to have a baby and stop using any birth control intentionally. An unplanned pregnancy is when no birth control is used out of negligence or when the birth control method fails. StuRat 22:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism

Has there always been atheists in the past, long before the theory of evolution was made? Media:user:bowei

Yes. Atheism isn't based on the theory of evolution. ☢ Ҡieff⌇↯ 22:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well there goes my theory that atheists are a higher form of life that evolved from believers. Grutness...wha? 04:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See History of atheism for more information. Atheism has existed pretty much always, and it has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution. - ulayiti (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As atheism is simply the lack of belief in god/gods then yes, it has always been around - indeed, we are all born atheist. It is not possible to believe in a concept until you are aware of it's existence. If I say to you that there is a god named Frozzwibble, then you may believe me, or you may not. However, you certainly were atheist regarding Frozzwibble until you first heard about him. --Noodhoog 23:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blasphemy! Don't use His name in vain. ☢ Ҡieff⌇↯ 00:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It depends how you define Athiesm; as a lack of belief or as a belief in the non-existance of a god. As far as I understand it, Athiesm is the belief that a god DOESN'T exist, thus being born not knowing anything doesn't qualify you as an Athiest. You'd just be ignorant.   freshgavin TALK    01:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe not knowing (and possibly not caring) if God exists is called agnosticism. They don't consider admitting they don't know something to be a shortcoming, but rather consider claiming you know the absolute Truth, when you do not, to be a fault. StuRat 07:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'standard' atheism is the position of saying "I do not believe in god as I do not have sufficient evidence to prove he exists." not the position of saying "I know for absolute fact there is no god." The latter is sometimes referred to as 'hard' or 'explicit' atheism and is actually a flawed position as it requires proving a negative, which is impossible. You cannot prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist - just because you haven't found him yet doesn't mean he isn't somewhere else you haven't looked (perhaps on the moon? or mars? or maybe he's invisible, and so on). The only time you can prove a negative is by having a positive which is mutually exclusive to the claim to be disproven. If I say that the Earth is square, and it's quite clearly round instead, then I can be proven wrong, but you cannot disprove the existence of any thing. --Noodhoog 12:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me again.. just thought i'd throw in a quick clarification about agnosticism vs atheism. Agnosticism is a "maybe, maybe not" position, or even "don't know, don't care". Atheism is a "I'll believe it when I get sufficient proof, but until then I don't" position, or in other words, the skeptical approach. Hard atheism is the position "I know for a fact there is no god." --Noodhoog 12:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is hardly knowledge or fact. Anybody can say "I know for a fact" about anything. If you say that when you're taking about God, positively or negatively, you're just making a fool of yourself. Halcatalyst 13:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I know for a fact that God is a clump of spaghetti with meatballs for eyes ! I also know he is covered by parmesan cheese and we are preparing a Holy War against those infidels who say he is covered with romano cheese. Who could allow such blasphemy to stand ? StuRat 15:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people know for a fact things that aren't true! And I can make that statement absolutely!!! Halcatalyst 15:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
470 BC :
"Enter Socrates, who was perceived as questioning the gods, and in light of the recent war, it was all too easy to ascribe defeat to impiety rather than incompetence." --DLL 20:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

Is there, or has there ever been, a religion which says that there are many gods and the Universe is divided into many parts?And that each section of the universe, consisting of a group of stars, is controlled by one god, who has created planets,life and people there.If there's not, then I wonder why?

there are some new age religions that say that there is one group consciousness or something like that, which is 'in charge' of each galaxy and/or created it.--Cosmic girl 23:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't about galaxies being controled by different gods, but animism states that every object in the universe has a spirit. The ancient Greeks and Romans would probably have believed that different gods controlled different galaxies had they known that there are many galaxies in the universe.

Are you a Star Wars fan, wondering about the Force? Captain Jackson 00:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a religion that thought that groups of stars were gods. Thats how our constellations got organized and named. Black Carrot 02:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, though not explicitly stated in any Mormon scriptures, one can infer by scriptural reference and religious teachings, as I have, that this is the case. It is explained that God created us in His image. In the LDS religion, we believe that people can become gods in the afterlife, assuming they lived righteously and were judged accordingly by...uh...the people who judge us (I've forgotten who, exactly, but I think it might be Jesus and Jesus alone). If this is actually the case, then we can assume that God was once human, and lived on a planet similar to Earth, and his God was a human once, and so was his God...brings a little trouble to intelligent design theories, eh? Raises the question, "So, if God was human once, and he had a God that was human once, who's the original?" Hard to say, really. (After all, although I try my darndest to portray it, I don't know everything.) Cernen Xanthine Katrena 03:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is sort of like the picture of the world held up by an elephant, which stands on the back of another elephant, which stands on the back of another, and so on all the way down.... If I'm not mistaken, this is part of Hindu philosophy. (Don't test me on the article, I haven't read it.)
Never heard about this! Just noticed though that someone has hopelessly screwed up the Hindu cosmology article. deeptrivia (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, it's time to fix it. How about you do it? (Don't ask me, I've already confessed my total ignorance.) Halcatalyst 23:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In turn, this reminds me of the cosmologists who have now calculated that there must be some 500 million universes out there. See The Cosmic Landscape : String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design by Leonard Susskind. Susskind, at least, is very sure of himself (and sure that God is ruled out). I'm not so sure. Halcatalyst 03:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dating question

I don't know if anyone has an answer, this seemed like the best place to ask, but I want to know what's the Best way for a girl to tell a guy she likes him? Thanx in advance. --anon

Different methods would be appropriate for church or spring break in Mexico, but "smile at him, laugh at his jokes, and touch him when you get the chance" works about everywhere. StuRat 23:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~djb/shelley/1880onlove.html
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 23:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends of the person. Everyone reacts to certain things differently, and some people are particularly unaware of what may seem like "obvious cues" to others, so indirectly showing affection might not be perceived at all. Knowing the guy enough will give you a good idea of how he'd react to certain things, and you could start from there. ☢ Ҡieff⌇↯ 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be easiest just to tell him you like him, if you think he'll like you in return. He probably will, guys are easy. If you think he won't, try googling seduction. Most of the information is for guys who want girls, but I'm sure you could turn it around. Black Carrot 02:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found that, among North American youth, the direct method ("hey, we should hang out more"; "why haven't you asked me out yet?") works pretty well. You have a pretty high success rate, and if the guy does say no, then the other guys in your social group at least know that you're a fairly confident girl, which makes you seem more attractive to them. Romantic advice tends to translate very poorly across cultures, though. There is one trick that works in every culture, though: get a friend who's about three years older than you and who's very socially comfortable, and ask that friend for advice. --Mareino 16:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 23

What is the greatest distance from east to west in Canada?

First, that article gives the positions of Canada's extreme points, but not the distances between them.

Second, the phrase "greatest distance from east to west" is not very well defined. Are we being asked for (1) the great-circle distance between the country's two most widely separated points, on the assumption that the path connecting them is something like east-west? Or (2) the length of the longest due east-west path (parallel of latitude) with its west end at the country's west side and its east end at the country's east side? Or (3) the length of the great circle joining the ends of that path? Or something else?

It appears to me that the two points for (1) will be the southwest corner of the Yukon Territory (near Mt. St. Elias), and Cape Race in Newfoundland. (Not Cape Spear, because the great circle path comes into Newfoundland from the northwest, and the coast from Cape Race to Cape Spear is fairly close to north-south in alignment.) Mt. St. Elias is at 60°18'N according to my atlas, and the north-south border is at 141°W, so the combination of those coordinates should be close to the border angle; and for Cape Race the atlas gives 46°40'N, 53°10'W. Then this distance calculator makes the distance 3,456 miles or 5,561 km.

For (2), the longest parallel in degrees is just near the Arctic Circle, from 61°18'W (Cape Dyer) to the 141°W Yukon border, for a length of 79°42', but as you go south the degrees get longer, essentially in proportion to the cosine of the latitude, so that's not going to be the right answer. There are three latitudes farther south that look like candidates: 53°25'N, with the parallel from 55°50'W in southeastern Labrador to 132°45'W in the Queen Charlotte Islands, or 76°55' long; 49°15'N, from Cape Freels in Newfoundland at 53°28'W to 126°1'W on Vancouver Island near Tofino, or 72°33'; and 48°39'N, from near Cape Bonavista in Newfoundland at 53°W to 124°49'W on Vancouver Island, or 71°49', traversing a long section of the US. Correcting for the latitude, I make it that the last of these is the longest, equivalent to 47.446° at the equator. That's about 3,275 miles or 5,272 km. But these figures will be somewhat inaccurate, even if I measured and calculated correctly, as I did not attempt to take into account the non-spherical shape of the earth.

For (3), using the same endpoints as the last calculation above and the distance calculature linked in (1), I get a great-circle distance of 3,160 miles or 5,085 km.

That was fun! --Anonymous, 10:32 UTC, January 23.

  • Grin! --Anon.

Wouldn't the "greatest distance" go around the far side of the Earth, say 21,000 miles ? LOL. StuRat 16:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That could be taken as the distance from the East Coast to the West Coast, with no direction specified. StuRat 19:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question also specified "in Canada". And my interpretations used words like "with its west end on the west coast" in order to cover the "far side of the Earth" objection. --Anonymous, 04:10 UTC, January 24.

Ex-patriot Figures

I was wondering if anyone had any statistics on the number of Americans currently living abroad, preferrably ordered from the country with the greatest number of Americans to the least. Even a top 10 or 20 list would be useful. Thanks for the help.

can't help, but you'll get further if you look for expatriates. A lot of them are still probably patriotic Americans. I hate to recommend (gasp!) a book, but this sort of fact can probably be found in an up-to-date "Information Please Almanac" or "World Almanac and Book of Facts". There may also be online versions...? Grutness...wha? 04:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're writing a report, you need to spell the word "expatriate". (Might help you look for figures, too). - Nunh-huh 05:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might also check relevant U.S. gov departments such as Immigration and Naturalization or State. Marskell 07:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patience of medici

what is the patience of medici and how it works?

Here's some URL I found:

www.aworld.ru LD4All

and an old one which isn't accessible anymore:

ezboard's forum

referenced in this google's cache:

google's cache

and a part of the last one maybe:

"His magic studies caused lively interest the kingly persons, and Mary Medici was one of the admirers. To the experts of card games is known the patience of Medici - surprising magic patience,whose secret passed to it from the Di. There is nothing surprising in the..."

(retrieved from various metasearch)

thanks for any answer. greg. 83.214.15.209 02:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an answer as such, but it may give some clues... patience (known in some countries as solitaire) is a form of card game played by one person. So far so good, but... there are numerous connections between the Medicis and the use of the Tarot deck, so I suspect that that is used rather than the standard 52-card deck used today (and which at least partly developed from it). Grutness...wha? 05:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genghis Khan

Hi, This is my first time so I'm not sure how this works. I had surgery so it's been very hard for me to find the answers to these three questions that are needed on 01/23/06. Can you please help? The questions are as follows: 1. Khan's empire at the time of his death extended across Asia, from the Pacific Ocean to the Caspian Sea - Name one civilization conqered by the Khan as an example of that empire. 2. His descendants extended the empire and maintained power in the region for several hundred years - This period is called the Pax Mongolica by modern historians. Describe that period. 3. His grandson, Kubilai Khan - Name one event in his reign beyond having lots of descendants and establishing the Yuan Dynasty. *I hope you will respond and thanks for your help. Sonja Sharpe

Look at our Ghengis Khan, Kublai Khan, and Pax Mongolica articles. StuRat 05:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.

What does 'habits of inquiry' mean ?

"Habits of inquiry" till the patterns of behavior you develop to learn things, especially in school. They might include asking questions and praticipating in class discussion, using the library, and even performing experiments. Halcatalyst 13:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 83.214.15.209 05:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

!!!
THIS IS NOT exactly WHAT I WROTE. Some kid with time on his hands is doing custom editing here. No skin off my teeth, but if some administrator knows how to spank 83.214.15.209, I won't consider it child abuse. Halcatalyst 16:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian female philosophers

I would like to know more about particular Asian female philosophers - sort of the Asian versions of Simone Weil and Simone de Beauvoir - leading figures in their fields who created fields of enquiry or wrote interesting books and completely dedicated themselves to their work. Tahnk you very much, --EuropracBHIT 09:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps not quite what you're looking for but Murasaki Shikibu is at least partly credited with inventing the novel. Marskell 14:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the question about literature in general, look at Mirabai, Arundhati Roy, Mahadevi Varma, Shobha De, Jhumpa Lahiri, Amrita Pritam, Anita Desai, Kamala Das, etc. deeptrivia (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction

Was there any direct effect upon Reconstruction Period with the impeachment of Andrew Johnson?

See Andrew Johnson, specifically the section on his impeachment. --Kainaw (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obtaining copies of British naturalisation papers

Can you please tell me how one can get copies of British naturalisation papers of people who arrived in England during the 1890s. Thank you.

It tells you here. Lots of other info too. --BluePlatypus 19:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economic expansionism

Was economic expansionism an ideology of sorts, similar to imperialism? Or was it merely a historical process that was, ideologically, just a subset of manifest destiny. Lastly, can economic expansionism ever be considered imperialistic in any way? Thank you--Urthogie 19:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That depends. Marxism maintains that capitalism has an inherent difference between wage and cost that can only be satisfied, without revolution, by continual economic expansion, and such expansion requires territorial control and subjugation. Therefore, according to Marxists, all capitalism is inherently imperialist and economic expansion is an ideology. Even without Marxist theory, economic expansionism inevitably seems to enunciate a set of ideological principles as a second order of business, and generally these are imperialist, whether we're talking about Manifest Destiny or the great Southern Empire that the Confederate States of America anticipated or, arguably, the Monroe Doctrine (which was purportedly a denial of colonialism but has been alledged to be a colonialist contesting of another colonialism, substituting economic imperialism for state imperialism). However, economic expansion is not knowingly imperial. It is the need to grow and is an impulse. The ideology comes later. Geogre 22:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Matrix trilogy

What is the significance of the sunglasses? It seems like most of the main characters are wearing them, even when fighting, and they rarely come off accidentally.

On a side note, how do Morpheus's sunglasses stay on? They have no arms to loop around the ears.

For the most part, they simply increase the mystery around the main characters, the agents etc. They also help viewers distinguish bluepills from redpills and in the Agents' cases, they also make the agents look like the men in black. Agent Smith's sunglasses also gradually change in form as he becomes more of a rogue program to look less like those of other agents and more like Neo. (Why do I know loads about sunglasses in the Matrix and nothing about useful stuff? :) )smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Morpheus's sunglasses are "pince-nez" (French for "pinch nose") glasses, meaning they stay on by pinching the bridge of the nose. The good guys (Neo, Morpheus, etc.) wear round or curved sunglasses. The baddies (Agents, Cypher, The Twins) wear sunglasses with corners. When Smith returns in Reloaded his sunglasses are the same shape as Neo's, but with sharp corners like an Agent's. --Canley 01:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're also good product placement. --Robert Merkel 03:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be good product placement, the brand name must be clearly visible. StuRat 14:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus they help to hide Keanu Reeves' perpetually glazed, mindless and expressionless eyes. And sunglasses look cool. Proto t c 11:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who said this quote?

I know that in the song "Your Ex-Lover is Dead," the Stars use the following quote: "When there's nothing left to burn, you have to set yourself on fire." Who originally said this quote? I know it's been around for years, and it's one of my favorite quotes, but I would very much like to know who said it first.

I thought it was the singer's father? At least I'm pretty sure he read the line. --Tothebarricades 06:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, Torquil Campbell's father uttered these famous words. http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/whatson/aotd/aotd_stars_fire.shtml --195.194.74.92 15:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boyfriend Advice

I don't have any older brothers or sisters, so I figured I should ask here, so I have something to tell my little sisters. How can I tell if the guy I like likes me back? We always say hi to each other, and we talk all during the classes I have with him. He doesn't have a girlfriend, and we are friends. We flirt casually, but our lockers are right next to each other. I don't want to ask him out and have him say no, because that would be so awkward. Should I or shouldn't I ask him? If this helps at all, I live in the southwest. Are guys different around the country?

It's impossible to tell from a description like that how somebody feels about you - remember, you're hardly an unbiased observer. He *might* be interested in going out with you (and be too awkward to figure out how to ask himself, which is a relatively common phenomenon amongst teenage boys) but then again he might be happy to flirt with you because he think there's no chance of a relationship.
In any case, relationships are always awkward, and rejection is always unpleasant, but unless you ask you'll never know. Only you can make a decision as to whether you want to ask this specific boy out, but, tell me, are you never going to ask *anyone* out because it would be "too awkward"?
If you do decide to ask him out, put a little bit of thought into doing so; for instance, have some thought as to where you might like to ask him out on a date (what kind of movies does he like, for instance?), and whatever you do ask him in private; don't ask a male about *anything* related to their emotions in front of their friends, particularly their male friends (and, yes, this applies to the "sensitive" ones too...). And finally, though it may be hard, have a bit of a think about what you'll do if he says "no"; you may feel like it, but running off with tears running down your cheeks is probably going to make reestablishing a friendship much harder than remaining calm. If you want to have a cry, don't do so in front of him!
Oh, and teenage boys are essentially the same everywhere - they have hormones running like crazy through their bodies and their brains are trying and failing to catch up...
Good luck and I hope it works out for you whatever you decide to do. And please note, my only qualifications for giving this advice is that I was a teenage boy once... --Robert Merkel 03:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sure sounds to me like he likes you. StuRat 06:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might also make a difference what type of guy is he. Is he outgoing with lots of friends who invite him to all the parties and play on the football team with him? Has he had lots of girlfriends in the past? If this is the case, he would ask you out by now if he were interested, and all you can do is turn up the flirting a notch or two and hope for the best. On the other hand, is he shy? More inclined toward writing for the school paper or writing songs on his guitar? Has he had very few (or no) girlfriends? Then it might be best for you to just ask him out, as Robert outlined above. Good luck! — BrianSmithson 19:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naturalized Epistemology

Hi, Can someone explain to me what exaclty is the 'anti-psychologism' of Kant Frege and Hegel? and what does the whole naturalized epistemology vs. the other epistemology which I don't know what is called, is about? because I don't udnerstand really what each says and how it contradicts the other one.--Cosmic girl 21:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you've seen our article on anti-psychologism, perhaps I can paraphrase it. The theory says that logical truth does not depend on the content of human ideas. So a proponent of anti-psychologism would expect an alien with no knowledge of human culture to agree with the logic of a statement such as "All crows are either black, or they are not black". The opposing viewpoint is that these truths are partly human constructs.
[11] has a useful introduction to epistemology, which discusses various theories. Warofdreams talk 12:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see... Anti-psychologism sounds pretty rational to me ...so why then is Kant considered an idealist? and how come Ayn Rand despised him so much when by that I can see he was pretty rational? at least in his epystemology. so I assume that naturalized epistemology says that logic is a human construct? since NE is supposed to be the opposite of anti-psychologism...but to me it sounds by their names like they should be the opposite, I mean, NE should mean that logic has a basis in reality and not culture, and anti-ps. should be the opposite of that, just judging by their names, but I'm wrong and now even more conffused.--Cosmic girl 19:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As our article on naturalized epistemology says, it covers a range of viewpoints, but all essentially say that logic is derived in part from empirical science and is not something with which people are born with an understanding of. So it is a counterpart to anti-psychologism, if not exactly its opposite. Kant is an idealist in the sense given at the top of the idealism article, that "Epistemological idealists might insist that the only things which can be directly known for certain are ideas." I'm not familiar with Rand's views on the subject, but it seems they were expressed in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, and there's a substantial article at objectivist epistemology dealing with Rand's views. Warofdreams talk 15:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary Creationism and Deism

Because of the debate between creation and evolution, some people say that God first created the earliest and simplest life forms, and then, he slowly allowed or influenced them to evolve into more complex ones like us.This is called evolutionary creationism.But the problem with this belief is that then, you have explain why if God(or a god) decided to create life, he would create it that way.I wonder, is there a possible reason why God would do that?If so, can somebody tell me? Another strange belief is deism.Deism is a philosophy wich says that God created the world, but after he created that, he left it strictly alone.It says that God exists, but he doesn't do anything to change,influence or intervene in the world.Deists compare God to a watchmaker, who after he creates it, lets it function by itself.But the problem with deism, again, is why.Why would God(or a god) create a universe and then just leave it alone?In Wikipedia, it said that deists believe that it's because the best of all possible worlds has been created.Is that saying that deists believe that the world is perfect?Of course, it's obviously not!Also, that doesn't explain why God decided to create the world in the first place.So would God(if he exists) really create the world and leave it alone?

Media:User Bowei

Well, for the first bit: that's the conundrum religious people get into if they claim to be able to explain the actions of their God. Since they will always end up with things they can't explain, they always end up with the contradiction of seeming to know exactly what God was thinking in one case, while shrugging and saying "The lord works in mysterious ways" in another. So you really need to adress a more fundamental theological question first: What makes you think humans are capable of fathoming the will of god/the gods? I don't see how Deism is either better or worse than other faiths in that respect. --BluePlatypus 23:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BluePlatypus , and I also think that the best way we have to aproach or guess truth is science, and I also think that we have to be brave and dare to think and reason and never give up, no matter how irrational some things seem sometimes. --Cosmic girl 19:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


You're both being terribly dismissive of some very intelligent folks. The Deism under discussion is the late form, with the "clockmaker God." The answer to the "problem" is that such a Creator is not the Abrahamic one; it is a disengaged deity that merely enjoyed the engineering. The other answer, if one did wish to have an Abrahamic vision of the deity and try to force it into this Deism, is that God turned from the natural to the spiritual creation when it was done. The article is, I think, terribly wrong, and I do plan to fix it, eventually. "Deism" refers to several different things. This sort is the Voltaire version, and the idea is that another created world would be worse. It isn't that this is a wonderful world, but rather that no world could be made better, that every evil is a balance with a good. Geogre 22:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. The kind of deism Geogre is talking about is strictly the 18th century kind: of the Enlightenment and heavily influenced by Newtonian science and therefore both empirical and rational (the universe [and we] are no more than machines). Let's just say that any deism (intelligent design???) of the 21st century ought to recognize it cannot be Abrahamic (i.e., Jewish, Christian, or Islamic) and that deism fundamentally implies NOT theism = "there is no god interested in you". Halcatalyst 22:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've been a little ticked that the Deism article doesn't take in the Lord Herbert of Cherbury sort or the earlier 18th c. "natural religion" sort. One strand of the thought wanted to survey all world religions, found out what was in common to them all, and then assume that such was the "primitive" and universally true religion (the founding assumption being that the true God communicates to the innate soul and that society and education pervert this and all established churches try to deny it). Another sort wanted to find that religion that could be deduced from the empirical world. Voltaire's version is of that sort, and it's related to some other post-Newtonian religions innovations (like the form of hylozoism that took life from all sense of privilege and saw it as just another natural phenomenon). These late 18th c. deists were fairly profoundly trying not to be Christian. Geogre 11:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything against Deism guys, I just said I find science a better tool than aimless speculation, speculation is great, but let's just not make it irrational or aimless even if the univrese turns out to be that way (which I doubt) because we get nothing out of that but a confussed mind... maybe Deism turns out to be true, but like Halcatalyst said, even deism has evolved, so we can expect it to evolve even more I guess... and yes, I suspect good and evil are balanced but does that mean we can't work for the betterment of our world? it seems to me that you are saying that as the world is already the best it can be let's do nothing, actually I think that our human condition can be improved and a belief in God is to ignore our own strengths...--Cosmic girl 23:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. StuRat 13:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the question... You can't second guess god. That's pretty much the point. But one good reason is that God cares about process over destinations. If god just wanted some folk to worship him, why didn't he just toss people in directly to heaven, without all that silly life business? If all living things eventually die, why not just start them off dead? Why have history, when He could have just painstakingly assembled the world and started it off at a timescale of 5 minutes ago? Because, plausibly, there is some meaning to the idea of experience, choice, and change, and creativity exhibited in life existing outside of God. God wants to be a teacher, perhaps, instead of an operator, a lawmaker instead of a tyrant, a trainer instead of a straitjacket. And besides, why not? God is surely patient enough to wait for evolution to happen.</theological soundbite of the day>--Fangz 02:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely valid position. Intelligent Design goes not to Deism but to orthodoxy. The idea that the creation of the world's 7 days in Genesis might be 7 billion years goes to orthodox, non-Deist, thinkers. However, this is not really what Voltaire and his deists were going on about. They specifically wanted a rational and non-interventionist and dispassionate God, which is not a Christian, Jewish, or Islamic God. Geogre 11:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another belief similar to the "watchmaker" idea is that "God is dead". That is, God created the universe but at some point ceased to exist. A variation might just have him being "elsewhere" and not concerned with Earth at the moment. Both of these beliefs require God not be omnipotent, of course. They have the advantage of explaining the apparent lack of strong evidence for current direct intervention by God, despite having references in many holy books to frequent direct intervention in people's affairs by God in the past. Skeptics, of course, would just say that those "miracles" were tricks which couldn't hold up to modern scientific scrutiny. One biblical story in particular seems to support this view. Moses supposedly confronted the Pharaoh's priest and both had their staffs turn into snakes, with Moses's snake consuming the others. Now, if one supposes that Moses was able to change his staff into a snake by direct action of God, this brings up the question of how the Pharaoh's priest changed his staff into snakes. Either his god did it (which contradicts the monotheism presented by the Bible) or it was just a "magic trick" (say with hidden snakes up his sleeve). If his was a magic trick, then why couldn't Moses's snake be the same ? StuRat 13:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course, it could be. But maybe it wasn't. Maybe there is one god, and he/she/it intervenes whenever he/she/it wills it. Whether we like it or not, and whether we notice it or not. Halcatalyst 15:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harris County

Can you(or anybody) please give me a map of Harris County in Texas, with all the city limits and city borders shown on it?(Post it on Wikipedia)

Go to www.google.com, pick Images, and type:
"Harris county, Texas" map
and you will find many maps. StuRat 05:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth

Do anyone know when ariyan A. johnson was born. she played on the steve heavry shoe

What? Sir/Madam, can you please write more clearly? Let's see, did you say, "Does anyone know when Ariyan A. Johnson was born? She played on The Steve Harvey Show."? If so, the best I can figure is that she was born about 1976. Why? Because, in the film Just Another Girl on the I.R.T. (1993), she plays a 17-year-old. Of course, knowing the film industry a little too well, the fact that she played a 17-year-old isn't saying much.

January 24

Time

Is there any evidence that time exists and is not just a misconception that our minds have created for us?

--24.29.92.197 00:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the article Time. Halcatalyst 01:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I remember things that I believe to have occured in the past, and my present sensory experiences seem to agree with them, but really there's no way I can be certain that the past actually existed, because I have no way of experiencing it directly. I highly recommend Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy for a deeper look at this issue. —Keenan Pepper 01:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't know it from the article on memory (written from a psychologist's point of view), but most brain scientists hold that memory is reconstructed through neural associations. Neurons give "hints" to one another to fire or not. The foundation of human memory is not discrete, like bits in a computer. That's the real reason we can't experience the past directly: It no longer exists for us. The brain operates only in the present. Halcatalyst 03:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The movie What the Bleep Do We Know!? had an interesting section related to this, namely that the human brain doesn't distinguish between memories of things and visually seeing them. You'll have to watch the movie for a better explanation, as I any explanation I give wouldn't do it justice. {{subst:WAvegetarian/sig}} 04:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I hated that movie so much. The quacks and pseudoscience were endurable, but the worst part was when they chopped up the interviews of real physicists to misrepresent their views. It was just awful. —Keenan Pepper 05:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quacks? Psuedoscience? Are you perchance suggesting that housewife wasn't really channelling a 35,000 year old warrior spirit who came from the continent of Lemuria and conquered the city of Atlantis? Pfft. I suppose you think it was more likely that she was just, I dunno, making it all up for fame and money or something. As if! ;) --Noodhoog 12:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you question the existence of time, why not question the existence of the universe ? Perhaps it's all just somebody's dream. Still, even a dream implies that things are changing during the course of the dream, which, of course, requires time. 06:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"Is there no change of death in paradise?" Wallace Stevens wanted to know.
Does ripe fruit never fall? Or do the boughs
Hang always heavy in that perfect sky,
Unchanging, yet so like our perishing earth,
With rivers like our own that seek for seas
They never find, the same receding shores
That never touch with inarticulate pang?
Halcatalyst 14:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That gave me goosebumps! I need to read more Wallace Stevens. —Keenan Pepper 17:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hey, nobody's stopping you! ;P In the combination of language and ideas I've found no peer to Stevens. He wanted to... not find... not just believe in... not create, exactly... but by means of words to co-create reality, what he called the "supreme fiction." He knew it had to be ordered, somehow.
Oh! Blessed rage for order, pale Ramon,
The maker's rage to order words of the sea,
Words of the fragrant portals, dimly-starred,
And of ourselves and of our origins,
In ghostlier demarcations, keener sounds.
From "The Idea of Order at Key West," found at [12]
A few of his best-known poems, including "Sunday Morning" (quoted in the next-to-last passage above), "Anecdote of the Jar,""The Emperor of Ice-Cream," Peter Quince at the Clavier, "The Snow Man," and "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird" are found at web-books.com.
Halcatalyst 22:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stevens is absolutely sui generis, and none of the people who imitated him have even succeeded in aping him, IMO. (I once had a student write of "The Anecdote of the Jar," "The white man had not yet settled east Tennessee in 1924.") Stevens was quite hostile to Christianity, and I've always thought that was strange, and he himself had a bit of an inferiority complex according to some anecdotes from Donald Hall. Magnificent poet, though, and the only methadone for the morphine of Stevens that I've found has been A. R. Ammons. Geogre 11:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he was hostile to Christianity, but he
  • often heavily uses its major symbols, e.g., the day is
Stilled for the passing of her dreaming feet
Over the seas, to silent Palestine,
Dominion of the blood and sepulchre.
("Sunday Morning")
  • retells and interprets stories from the Bible ("Peter Quince at the Clavier"),
  • and even alludes to patristic fathers (Jerome), "Notes Toward a Supreme Fiction," III.1),
  • always asking, "What am I to believe?" (ibid., III.viii).
To me, his quest was always religious, never atheistic; he was always a pilgrim, a seeker, skeptical though he may have been. Halcatalyst 12:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, those between the wars (i.e. Modernism) were constantly seeking Order, whether in Marxism or Fascism, and those immediately after the war rejected the quest for Order in favor of the individual (from the early Sartre and Camus on to the 1950's and Beat poetry and its desire for a mystical persona to the 1960's retreat to Confessional poetry).
However, on the subject of the question, the reader could consider Henri Bergson in addition to the usual run of names (Augustine of Hippo et al.). Geogre 13:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freud and Lenau

In The Interpretation of Dreams, Sigmund Freud makes a reference to a poem by Nikolaus Lenau "which puts infanticide and the prevention of children on the same plane." What is this work? And, what other figures have put forward the same argument? --Tothebarricades 05:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California Highway Patrol Jurisdiction

Can the CHP pull me over on a side street? They did.... Was it legal? What is their jurisdiction?

The agency has specific jurisdiction over all California state routes, U.S. Highways and Interstate highways, and also serves as a statewide patrol force, especially in unincorporated and lightly populated areas of the state. --from California Highway Patrol#Highway Patrol Duties --jh51681 06:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) Was the place that you got pulled over anything like what is described in the first sentence of the "Highway patrol duties" section of the California Highway Patrol article? If so, I'd say, yes, they were more than likely within their jurisdiction. And think about it from their point of view. If they weren't in their jurisdiction then why waste their time giving you a ticket that they know will be thrown out of court when the judge finds out that they were overstepping their bounds? I'd consult a lawyer if I were you though since I'm just some idiot on the internet. Dismas|(talk) 06:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Joe Torres dead?

Given that the article says he is, but doesn't give a source, is he? Alphax τεχ 14:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Google... [13] --Kainaw (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

life slave

a realitive of mine save the life of a young chinese woamen during ww1 she was cut and bleeding he patched her and saved her life. i often heard her call him master when they thought they were alone so one of the last times i saw them i asked her she was much easier to talk to then he was he saved my life he is my master. when you save some ones life there life is yours he saved my life when i was seven he was seventeen he would not take me then though i wanted to prove my worth he finaly consented to me being his mate after i had blosemed the first time. but i have always done my best to keep master happy. just how popular was this life slave and how deeply imbeded was it and was it like she said till her master dies and beyound. for she killed her self once her master was buried and all things taken care of

Your writing is very hard to read. You need to learn to use capitalization properly and learn proper sentence structure so we can understand you. StuRat 14:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a question mark in that whole block of text, so I'm assuming there's no question. —Keenan Pepper 17:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is the idea of a "Life Slave" that this person has encountered personally have antecedents anywhere? I guess that would be the question. Marskell 17:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard of this concept before, but thought it was fictional, not real. StuRat 12:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me take a shot at rewriting it in actual English:

A relative of mine saved the life of a young Chinese girl during WW1. She was cut and bleeding and he patched her up and saved her life. I often heard her call him "master" when she thought they were alone. Then, one of the last times I saw them, I asked her about this. She was much easier to talk to then and said "He saved my life so he is my master. When you save someone's life their life is yours. He saved my life when I was seven and he was seventeen. He would not take me then, even though I wanted to prove my worth. He finally consented to me being his mate after I had blossomed the first time. But I have always done my best to keep master happy."

Just how common was this life-slave practice and how deeply imbedded was it ? And was it like she said: "'til her master dies and beyond" ? (She killed herself once her master was buried and all his affairs were taken care of.)

StuRat 19:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada elections

How come the Conservative Party is in charge? I am an American and slightly confused, it seems to me that the NDP and the Liberals together have more seats than the Conservatives so why don't they work together? arent they both left parties?

See Canadian federal election, 2006. It has plenty of info on the issues and parties involved. --Kainaw (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While a Liberal/NDP coalition or deal would be possible, it is parliamentary tradition that the party that gets the largest number of seats gets the first crack at forming a government. The Conservatives will have to deal with the other three parties to get legisaltion passed. If the Liberals and NDP formed a coalition or made an agreement for the NDP to support the Liberals, they still would not have enough votes for a majority, so the Liberals would have to make deals with the Conservatives (who would be very pissed off) or the Bloc Quebecois (who are very opposed to the Liberals), which would be very unlikely. Ground Zero | t 15:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's parliament has three parts: the Crown (currently Queen Elizabeth II), represented by the Governor General, an appointed Senate and an elected House of Commons.

Canada's branches of government relate to each other by an unwritten constitutional convention that differs from the US where the powers of the various branches of government are written in to a consitution.

By convention, the Governor General is able to exercise the reserve powers of the Queen, but does so within the context of a strict set of traditions. One of the main jobs of the Governor General is to ensure that the country always has a Prime Minister. By tradition the Governor General asks the leader of the party winning the most seats in the election to try and form a government. The leader then becomes the Prime Minister (once he is sworn in) and the party starts to govern. If the ruling party is defeated in the House of Commons on a confidence vote, the Prime Minister by tradition asks the Governor General to dissolve the House and a general election is called.

In 1925 the Governor General ignored tradition and the Prime Minister and asked the party with the next highest number of seats to form a government after the first party was defeated in a confidence vote. Although this was technically within the Governor General's reserve powers, it was outside of tradition and created a constitutional crisis. This second Prime Minister and his government lasted only a few days.

So, the Governor General, in theory could by-pass the Conservatives and ask the Liberals to form a government with the NDP and Bloc (who are both leftest), but this would cause a constitutional crisis and most likely the Liberals would not accept as the Canadian public would punish them severely in any ensuing election for not following tradition. The Queen would also most likely be asked in this case to fire the Governor General (whether she would or not is uncertain, however she would be quite annoyed no doubt by the situation). In the worst-case, it would potentially cause civil war.

As an interesting side note, the Governor General is also the commander in chief of the Canadian military.

The above is rather misleading. The important point is that the parliamentary system was not designed to require political parties in the first place. The Governor General (GG) selects as prime minister (PM) a person likely to be able to form a government (i.e. a cabinet) that will to command the support of a majority of the Commons. If there are parties, then that's going to be a party leader, but it doesn't have to be the leader of the party with the most seats. However, by tradition they do get the first try.
In 1926, PM King lost a confidence vote, showing that his government was no longer able to command majority support, and asked for a general election. The GG, Byng, was doing his job when he refused this. The PM serves at the convenience of Parliament, not the other way around; and if Parliament was ready to accept a Meighen government, then it was Byng's job to make Meighen PM. As it turned out, Meighen wasn't able to make a lasting government either; but that doesn't prove it was wrong for him to have the chance. What would have been a real constitutional crisis would have been if he hadn't been allowed to.
In Ontario, a similar situation played out in the provincial legislature in 1985. At the provincial level we say Lieutenant Governor (LG) instead of GG and Premier instead of PM, but the system is the same. In the 1985 election the provincial Progressive Conservatives (PC), Liberals, and New Democrats (NDP) finished with 52, 48, and 25 seats respectively. The premier going into the election was Frank Miller of the PCs, and he tried to form a government, but was defeated on a vote of no confidence at the first opportunity. The Liberals made a deal with the NDP for support; the LG named the Liberal leader, David Peterson, as premier; and Peterson's government lasted. No civil wars, no crises, just a government that could command the support of a majority of the legislature. Of course, Miller didn't make the mistake of asking for a new election.
So returning to the new federal Parliament, Paul Martin could have tried to stay on as Prime Minister if he thought he could command the support of a majority of the Commons -- but the Liberals and NDP would not make up a majority. He'd need the firm backing of the BQ or the Conservatives, neither of which is imaginable. The other parties will be more willing to support the Conservatives, since they do have the most seats and someone has to govern, so Harper becomes PM.
--Anonymous, 11:52 UTC, January 25.

American Politics - The President's Cabinet.

Is there any information available on whether or not an American President has been less successful or more successful in relation to whether or not his appointed cabinet members are his friends/associates?

China's population 2004

I cannot seem to find China's or France's Population in 2004. Also, in January 17th, 2005 what was the Japanese exchange rate to American dollars? --12.215.176.30 20:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Thank you very much![reply]

Try the following link [14]. It is from the US Census Bureau. Type in a year and get a list of country populations. It also lets you get projected future populations. --Kainaw (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try the following link [15]. Enter the date range and currencies and you will get a table of historical exchange rates. --Kainaw (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 25

19th Century Eton College

I have a rather strange question, I believe. I would like as much information on the King’s Colledge of Our Lady of Eton beside Windsor (as the Wikipedia puts it) as it was about 150 to 200 years ago (1800’s, 19th century). That is, what it looked like, how it was run, what the rules were, what the classes were, what the decor was, what the uniforms were, what the the prevalent ideas of the time at the school were, etc., etc., etc. I am not British, nor have I been to Eton. In fact, I have only been to England once. But I am writing a book in which one of the characters goes to Eton in that time period. Believe me, I wouldn’t have that in the book if I could help it, but it is unavoidable. If you are a historian, an old student (obviously not 200 years old, but still...), a staff member, know others like those, or what have you, I am sure that any and all information you could give me would land me far ahead of where I am now. -24.17.154.203 06:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Assistance would be deeply appreciated. Deeply.[reply]

As a starting point, have you read Tom Brown's Schooldays? it may be about Rugby rather than Eaton, but it's a very famous novel written by a public school alumnus in the period you seek. Beyond that, there must be innumerable written accounts of Eton (seeing the prominence of its alumni). Have you considered contact the college itself with your request? They must have a historian who could point you in the right direction. --Robert Merkel 04:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Focus Commercial -- Music

Does anyone know the instrumental music playing on a current U.S. Ford Focus commercial?

Minor question on Saudi royalty

I have a minor question on Saudi royalty. Abdullah is king and, should he die, the crown prince what-his name becomes king. Is this right? I wasn't really clear on this point. --Blue387 07:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what "crown prince" means. Abdullah's half brother Sultan is the current crown prince. See King of Saudi Arabia for info on how the crown prince is selected. StuRat 11:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship between newly married couples

How many hours per day would a newly married couple have sex between them on an average? (Why I am asking this is that, all these days I was thinking that on an average couples would have sex for half an hour to one hour. But my friend told me that most couples have sex for 3 to 4 hours a day on average). Is is true? I would also like to know how many hours would satisfy a woman.

Everyone is different. But your friend is lying. And as for how many hours would satisfy a woman ... no woman is ever satisfied. Poisonous she-devils that they are. Proto t c 09:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, maybe they just want to cuddle ? I believe the frequency of sex will reduce in any relationship over time, both as the newness of the relationship wears off and due to age. That 3 to 4 hours figure might only last for the "honeymoon period". If they live long enough, sex may stop entirely at some point. This isn't necesarily the end of the relationship, just the end of it's sexual phase. StuRat 11:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ratio of entrepreneurs to working population of USA

What is the ratio of entrepreneurs to working population of USA and the world. Is there any website where the figure for various countries are available?

"Entrepreneur" is a rather vague word, which could mean the founders of Google but could also extend down to a sidewalk hot-dog vendor who owns his own cart. Without a clear definition, coming up with stats would be difficult. Also, I disagree with your characterization of entrepreneurs as nonworkers. Most of them work very hard. StuRat 11:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't read any such characterization in the question. Entrepreneurs are a subset of all working people. He/she was asking what proportion they are to the whole set. JackofOz 11:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you could read it that way. StuRat 12:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were about 23 million businesses in the US in 2002, and presumably about that number of business owners. That's I think something more than 10% of the working population.--Pharos 16:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movie about college grads

A few years ago I saw a movie about a group of friends who were graduating from college and feeling lost trying to figure out what to do with their lives. I'm trying to figure out what movie it was. It seemed like it was made in the 80s or early 90s. I remember it having John Cusack in it, but I've searched his filmography and can't find it so maybe I'm wrong. I know it had this other actor whose name I don't know but who looks like Craig Kilborn and was in quite a few cheesy 80s movies. In this movie he played a guy who had been in college for something like 7 years. So...any ideas? Thanks, Adam Konner 07:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Elmo's Fire? If that wasn't it, you may want to look over the films that the Brat pack filmed. If it came out in the 80's then there's a fairly good chance that it had one of the members of the pack in it. Dismas|(talk) 09:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Dutch culture

Is it okay in the Netherlands to gift someone a DVD after watching it (i.e., after taking off its plastic cover) ? deeptrivia (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. David Sneek 11:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say: depends. If it's a DVD I really like, but is really hard to obtain, and you have it, and you give it to me (even though you like it), I would say: okay. If it's a DVD you received as a gift, watched one time and really didn't like, then I would say I would not find that especially. Merely giving someone something because you're too stingy (Yeah, I know the Dutch are the ones who are supposed to be stingy) to buy a real present and hence give something away that you don't care about anyway is not so cool. I rarely, if ever, give people used stuff, or re-give presents. Berteun 11:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably in as bad taste in the Netherlands as it is anywhere else on the planet Earth. You can certainly give a used DVD to a friend, but to call it a gift (Christmas, birthday, etc.) seems quite gauche. --Nelson Ricardo 11:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it would be more acceptable for a DVD than other items, since the quality of the movie should not be reduced by playing it. Also, assuming it's in excellent condition, the fact that it's "used" may not be apparent. They might think you just removed the wrapper to make it easier for them. For some new gifts, I intentionally open them beforehand; to check for missing parts, assemble them, test them, or burn off that horrid residue that fills a house with a burning smell the first time a new cooking appliance is used (why can't they eliminate that at the factory ?). StuRat 12:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, if I got a DVD with the shrinkwrap removed as a present, I'd just assume they'd removed the shrinkwrap to get rid of the price-sticker or something. As long as there's no visible wear, I wouldn't notice or mind. --BluePlatypus 16:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of an Islamic story.

I heard the following Islamic anecdote, or legend perhaps. A man goes travelling, but knowing his wife is pregnant, he says to God (or Allah): please take care of the baby. After he returns he finds out that his wife died and has been buried. He goes to the burial ground and digs her up, and finds the baby alive and the mother only partially. He then hears a voice that tells him that that which he trusted to God, God gave him back. But as he only asked for the baby and not the mother, the mother died.

After some Googling, I've found a German article [16], a review of the book ‘Der Schrecken Gottes’ (The terror of God) which mentions that it is ascribed to Umar ibn al-Khattab. Umar is a prominent Islamic figure, yet, I could not find the legend in other places (the review says it's in the reviewed book, but as I'm not living in Germany German bookstores and/or libraries do not abound, so I cannot check it). The story intrigues me though, so, if someone knows it, or knows the details, it's origin, or is able to find a webpage, I would be thankful.

Maybe that explains why Muslims must pray 5 times a day...if they fail to ask Allah to protect anyone they know Allah will punish them by killing that person. Also, note the male bias in this story. There is no mention that his wife needed to pray to Allah to preserve his life. The subtle implication is that a man's prayers to Allah are more important than a woman's prayers. StuRat 12:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that implication. Please try and keep away from expressing personal opinions about the shortcomings of a religion. Proto t c 12:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I provide balance by expressing comments about the shortcomings of all religions equally, LOL. StuRat 12:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Population of Derbyshire in England in the 1910s

Can anyone please tell me what was the total population of Derbyshire in England in the 1900s and the 1910s? Thank you.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=36660042"