Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Reference Desk

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 Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk.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

August 29

Himalayan whistle kid

In a Halloween episode of the TV show "Will & Grace," Harlan (a client of Will's) mentions adopting "Himalayan whistle kids."

What is a Himalayan whistle kid?

A kid from south-central Asia that enjoys whistling? Russian F 02:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

See Surreal humour. -- the GREAT Gavini 11:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Jack also mentions such an adoption in the "New Will City" episode. As show creator Max Mutchnick explains in the book "Will & Grace: Fabulously Uncensored" by Jim Colucci, the references to "Himalayan whistle kids" originate from a joke nickname he and his brother gave to a pair of step-siblings with whom they'd speak by phone but apparently could never understand, saying it was because the step-siblings spoke in hoots and clicks like kids across the Himalayan valleys. -- Lewist2ca 08:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Weather in California

Does it snow in California during the winter season?

The last time it snowed in San Francisco was in February, 1887, when 10 cm of snow fell on downtown San Francisco. So, very occasionally, yes. As you go more south, you expect less and less snow, but even as far south as Los Angeles there was a trace of snow on January 22, 1962. --Lambiam^Talk 01:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but California also goes quite a bit north from San Francisco, right to the border with Oregon, and contains mountains, as well. So, it certainly snows in some parts of California, but not in all. StuRat 02:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And also like here. --Lambiam^Talk 08:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that California geography is varied and localized. Most of southern California's precipitation happens during winter months, so it isn't unusual to see snow covered peaks from downtown Los Angeles in January or February along the San Gabriel Mountains, which has four ski resorts. There are more ski resorts farther east at the San Bernardino Mountains, particularly near Big Bear Lake and Lake Arrowhead, California. Along the San Gorgonio Mountain crest patches of snow remain on the northern face as late as May (it even has glacial troughs from the last ice age). Central California's snow falls mainly in the Sierra Nevada (US) mountain range. Rainfall generally increases as one heads northward along the United States pacific coast, so the snows get deeper (and the ski runs get longer) as one travels northward. I'm not sure whether low elevations in northern California see regular snowfall: the climate is moderate anywhere near the coast. Durova 14:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It has snowed in small doses in various parts of the state. I have experienced snow in both Berkeley and Torrance. It tends not to stick, but it's definitely white, flaky and cold.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 15:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I used to live in beautiful South Lake Tahoe, California, where there is often a meter of snow on the ground for half the year. During the winter, i even occasionally see it on weather maps as the coldest place in the contiguous USA. Foobaz·o< 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's typically either International Falls, Minnesota or Caribou, Maine that gets the honor of coldest place in the contiguous USA. StuRat 03:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw a couple of (what looked like) snowflakes in San Francisco circa 1991; and last winter the peaks around Lick Observatory were snowy for a few days (sadly Lick's webcam wasn't working). —Tamfang 07:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Open-ended philosophical question

How do I know I'm not dreaming right now? How do you know you're not dreaming right now? I just want a few opinions. Russian F 02:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The old adage is to pinch yourself and see if it hurts. I prefer to pinch a woman. That way, if she doesn't slug me, I know that I'm dreaming. :-) StuRat 02:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This world is not a dream. Edward Bond‘s Lear

The world is the place “we prove real by dying in it.”--Patchouli 05:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Aye, but "What dreams may come, when we have shuffled off this mortal coil?" DirkvdM 08:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

See also Solipsism and Matrix. --Lambiam^Talk 05:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention Buddhism. As Lewis Carroll said, "Life. What is it but a dream?" But my rule of thumb is that if I think I might be dreaming, then I am (but drugs or injury might render this invalid). There are some things I find impossible in dreams, such as reading, so that is also a useful check.--Shantavira 07:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I also find it impossible to read in my dreams, but very rarely I'll have a dream in which I can read something very clearly, so it is not a watertight test. Also, I've woken up from dreams, to later really (?) wake up, so I only dreamt the first waking up. --Lambiam^Talk 08:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Reading is an airtight test for me. What happens when I pick up a "book" in a dream is that it might read coherently for a sentence or two, but at my normal reading speed it soon degenerates into nonsense strings. Durova 13:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but what about that second time then? How do you know you really woke up then? Several films have been based on this idea , although it is usually not about real dreams but a computer modelled reality or dreams conjured up during stasis. DirkvdM 08:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I once had a dream three layers deep. —Tamfang 20:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Who cares what life is, were here, make the most of it. Philc _T^E_C^I 12:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thus shall ye think of all this fleeting world:

A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream;

A flash of lightning in a summer cloud,

A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream.

(final verse of the Diamond Sutra) Rentwa 13:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

see Methodological skepticism#Objections to philosophical skepticism Nowimnthing 14:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have heard that apparently 90% of people dream in black and white. I certainly do unless a specific colour is picked out. Bearing in mind that colour is subjective I would have thought you are living life to the full unless you can show that u actually did fall on me last night and my cat is a vampire --russ 22:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I see in color in dreams, I hear things, and I can read quite well. But I never quite FEEL things. I will feel something specific, such as a snake bite in a nightmare, but not the general things that most take for granted, like a light breeze, the temperature of the air around them, or in some cases the seat one sits upon. I once went under surgery, and in two hours dreamed up a whole three months or so, which was a tad disorienting upon waking. But I didn't KNOW the three months were imagined, so I didn't really mind. To me, I was living, so why worry about it? -Russia Moore 02:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Josip Tito

i want to know the significance of this person in view of the cold war?

After World War II, former anti-Axis allies the USA and the USSR turned on eachother, and, while not actually waging war, sponsored wars in other countries, and worked hard to get other countries on "their" sides. Although Tito lead Yugoslavia into Communism, he did not actually align himself with the Soviet Union; instead, he balanced himself between that country and the United States. Although Yugoslavia's leanings certainly were a factor in the history of the Cold War, the country was neither Pro-Soviet, nor Pro-American, so Tito didn't actually have any role in the balance of power. I am, however, not an expert; I'd recommend reading Josip_Broz_Tito#Post-war. Hope that helps. Picaroon9288|ta co 04:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

However, in a broader sense, Yugoslavia was a communist state, and not a Western democracy. So, that puts him on the same side with the Soviet Union and later China. StuRat 05:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslavia was an important member of the Non-Aligned Movement. The ideologists of the two blocks aligned with the superpowers popularized the conflict in ideological terms (as opposed to economic, geopolitical, and real-political): capitalist democracy versus communist tyranny, or socialist justice versus capitalist oppression, and both sides had a tendency of classifying everyone who was not with them as being in the enemy camp. As you can read in the article, the Movement had little cohesion and struggled with internal contradictions. That may have been the main reason why its influence was not more than it was. But it may have had a role in preventing each of the two superpowers from obtaining more geopolitical power than it already had. --Lambiam^Talk 05:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As a cohesive movement, it didn't work, but the general tactic of playing with alignments worked out pretty well, and was used by China, both Koreas, East Germany, India, and many others I'm no doubt leaving out, to great effect throughout the Cold War. Even states that could not claim to go to the other side — i.e. North Korea, which could never plausibly claim to join forces with the USA, or South Korea, which could not plausibly claim to change sides to the Communists — could threaten their own imminent collapse. --Fastfission 15:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, StuRat, you're right. I was making the point that althought Tito was a Communist, his policy was neutralist, (possible neologism alert) and he isn't as significant in the Cold War as he would be if he had come down on either side of the Iron Curtain. But he is significant for being the first world leader (followed by Mao and Hoxha) to show that Communist and Pro-Soviet are not synonyms. Picaroon9288|ta co 06:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Tito is usually credited for being the first concrete example that 1. you could be Communist but not necessarily do everything that the Soviets wanted you to if you had some degree of political and military independence, and 2. minor powers could play both sides in the Cold War—just because one was a superpower did not guarantee that you would get your way. For much of the Cold War the minor and medium powers (i.e. France and China) were the tails that wagged the (superpower) dogs. --Fastfission 15:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is quite offtopic, but when mentioning Hoxha...., weren't those bunkers that litter Albania mostly built out of fear of invasion by Yugoslavia?Evilbu 00:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Would Yugoslavia really want more Albanians?? Picaroon9288•talk 02:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Poem from Groundhog Day

Hi, I know that the poem that Rita quotes to Phil is The Lay of the Last Minstrel by Sir Walter Scott, but I don't know about the French poem that Phil quotes to Rita, about half-way into the movie. What is it, and who wrote it? Is it available online?

Much thanks in advance. :) --Kjoonlee 05:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you quote a bit of it? Have you Googled a quote from it?--Shantavira 07:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried, but I couldn't catch enough words correctly. --Kjoonlee 09:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

According to th Trivia page of the imdb entry: " The French poem Phil recites in the German restaurant was written by Danny Rubin, based on the lyrics of Jacques Brel's "Batchelor's Dance". Translated into English the poem reads: The girl I will love / is like a fine wine / that gets a little better / every morning." --Lambiam^Talk 08:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. ^_^ Heh. Actually, it seems to be the same as the actual words by Jacques Brel. I added the following to the article. --Kjoonlee 09:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• The French poem Phil quotes to Rita is La bourrée du célibataire[1] by Jacques Brel.

What is Sunan Abu Dawud?

Narrated Thauban: "The Prophet peace be upon him said: 'The nations shall gather and team up against you (i.e., Muslims) as the predators gather and team up against their preys. A questioner asked: 'Is it because of us being low in numbers at that day?' The Prophet replied: 'No, you that day shall be in great numbers, but you will be as powerless as the foam of the water on the surface of the river, and Allah shall remove any fear from your enemies toward you, and He shall put in your hearts a corruption.' A questioner asked: 'O Apostle of Allah, what is the corruption?' The Prophet replied: 'The love of life's amusements and the fear of death.' (Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, The Book of Fierce Battles - The Gathering of all Nations against Islam, Book 37, Number 4297)"

My question is, what is Sunan Abu Dawud and is it authentic? Ohanian 07:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

See Sunan Abu Dawud. I must say, it sounds made up, just like the pseudo Nostradamus prophecies of the fall of the Two Towers. I never heard of such a strange name for his hadith collection. --Lambiam^Talk 08:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this a known card game?

Back in my country of origin, Lebanon, there is a very popular card game which they call "400" or "four hundred" (Arba' miyeh). I want to know if it's known by another name in the world, or it'l limited to Lebanon and maybe the Arab countries. For the description of the game: It's a 4-players Trick-taking game game. At the beginning of the round each player receives 13 cards (The deck is dealt to exhaustion). In addition, on a sheet of paper, each player announces how many rounds (or triks) he will take: 2, 3, 4... with the condition that the total must not be under 11. As for the rules: It's a Trick-taking game. The rank-order is (from high to low) ace, king, queen, jack, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 with the Heart as the trump suit (it's above all other cards). In the beginning of each round the first player who drops a card decides of the suit that must be played in the current round. If another player doesn't have any card of this suit, he must drop any other card from another suit (but it won't have any value), unless he drops a heart card (the trump). The player who wins the round is the one who dropped the highest card from the "decided" suit, or if a heart card is played, the highest heart card. When all cards are played, each player sees if he won as many rounds as he announced. If this is the case he adds as many points as he announced in the beginning of the game (eg. +4), and if he doesn't he is deduced as many points as he announced (eg. -2). The game finishes when a player reaches 41. I hope this clarifies for you. Thank you. CG 07:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In Australia, and most other places I think, it is called 500. It is quite popular. BenC7 10:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the "500" plays with 45 cards and a joker whereas the "400" plays with a full deck and no jokers. CG 11:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

While not identical, the core of the game is that of Spades in the US. Substitute Spades for Hearts as the trump suit (no gameplay change), remove the 11-trick minimum bid (not much gameplay change), and you've got basic Spades, all ready for the addition of house rules (which are many and varied). — Lomn | Talk 15:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are pretty similar. After a quick check on the rules, I played online spades for the first time and won :-) CG 07:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have played both games...there are differences. Enough to warrant an artice, which I created (400 (card game)) --69.199.125.213 21:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Debenture over Ltd Co UK

Any help or clarification please. Generally, given that a bank holds a debenture over a company, can one still offer ones shares in the company as security for a loan elswhere other than from the bank holding the debenture? Also, who is the chargor? Is this the Ltd Co? Who is the Chargee, are they the bank with the debenture? Thanks in anticipation,

[email address removed]

Alexander Westphal - birth and death dates

Can anyone supply birth and death dates for an Alexander Westphal who was alive in the 1890s? He was a German neurologist. One of his pupils was Otto Lowenstein. See [2]. Hopefully Westphal will be in some paper biographical book somewhere. Carcharoth 11:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Found it. I wasn't searching online properly. See [3]. Karl Friedrich Otto Westphal (1800-1879) was the father. Alexander Karl Otto Westphal (1863-1941) was the son. Carcharoth 11:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Correction (nearly a year later). I didn't look at the above link closely enough. The link is now dead, but this wayback link shows that the content is the same as at whonamedit.com. I quoted the grandfather's dates, not the father's. Grandfather and father had the same name. Alexander Karl Otto Westphal (1863-1941), Karl Friedrich Otto Westphal (1833-1890, the father) and Karl Friedrich Otto Westphal (1800-1879, the grandfather). Sorry for the inaccuracy first time round. Carcharoth 14:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Historical Figure

http://img174.imageshack.us/my.php?image=17qj2.jpg

Since you guys seem to know everything please tell me who this man is.Cheers.

Leon Trotsky; the pic is in the article too.--Shandon 15:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks wish the quizmaster would stop takin pics from here. I feel dumb.

Longevity

How is it calculated? Are decreasing infant deaths responsible for the increase in longevity or do the survivors of infancy actually live longer? The reason I ask is that a lot of famous people in the 1800's and before lived well into their eighties. Peter

Famous people were better off than the general populace, so they could afford better medical care, food, heat in winter. etc. --Nelson Ricardo 18:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Lifespans of the rich haven't changed significantly for 100s of years - Shakespeare talks about 3 score years and 10. Sewers and the mass production of soap are credited with increasing lifespans for the masses during the industrial revolution. This is quite interesting. Rentwa 20:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as you had a way to avoid the major problems, life expectancy has remained fairly constant - there are medieval records from before the English Dissolution of the Monasteries that show Nuns - who by definition avoided childbirth, one of the greatest dangers for women in their times - living well into their 70s, 80s and even 90s. --Mnemeson 22:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

While maximum lifespan has never changed (up to 130-140 years for some people with perfect genes), the percentage of this maximum lifespan which has been realized by the average person has steadily increased. We are now a bit over 50% of that maximum. StuRat 23:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get that 130-140 figure from, Stu? Who says this is the maximum lifespan? JackofOz 04:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Because that's the maximum observed lifespan, throughout history. StuRat 04:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Our article Maximum life span suggests that maximum life span for humans has remained at 115-120 throughout history, with the oldest ever person dying at 122. It seems reasonable to suppose that at some point Jeanne Calment's record will be broken, although if we all start taking rejuvenation drugs at some point in the not too distant future then you could argue that she had the longest ever natural lifespan.-gadfium 04:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, she holds the record. I'm quite prepared to believe that people have actually had longer lives than her, but there's no evidence that would satisfy the record-keepers. JackofOz 04:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Calment was not only the oldest (well documented) living person ever, but she was "with it" right up to the end of her life (certainly up to her 122nd birthday). Some of the other people who were/are supercentenarians are described as "unable to communicate". If I'm ever in that state, and certain not to recover, please disconnect my life-support unit. If I'm still making semi-coherent edits to Wikipedia, then don't disconnect it, even if you disagree with my edits.-gadfium 05:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but what if I disagree with ou here and now already? :) DirkvdM 08:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A physical limit is set to age by the loss of a bit of the end of the DNA with every copy made when a cell duplicates. I forgot the details of this and I can't find anything on it. Anyone else? DirkvdM 08:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about telomeres, and the enzyme which rebuilds them, telomerase. Unfortunately, telomeres are one of the limiting factors for cancer, so excess telomerase is not a good idea in general. What I'd like to see is a time-limited telomerase which rebuilds the telomeres in each cell, then turns off after a short time. I'm sure lots of people are working on this.-gadfium 09:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Corporations & Nonprofits in fundraising

Hi again, I am back with a few questions and I was wondering if any1 could spare the time to help. My question is this; do corporations actually earn money by working with non profits in their fund raising efforts, ie. having local restaurants donate a percentage of their receipts for a certain night to a school activity, or do these corporations just write it off as a tax deduction. Also, is fundraising replacing taxes for schools and other organizations where fund raisning used to be just for the "extras". Furthermore I do have 1 more question and that is what is pervasive fundraising and what are normal responses to it. I would be very happy if this was respnded to quickly as it is time sensitive.

thank you very much for your time and effort! 24.60.194.249 21:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)eryinyes1996

Well, my experience has been that companies will gladly sponser or otherwise help out non-profits for a variety of reasons. First off, there is the deduction, so they won't LOSE money off the venture. Secondly, they get their name out. Ever seen someone wearing a t-shirt from a walk to raise funds? The back is often covered in sponser logos. That's advertising. Plus, it looks great for them. "See, we care about finding a cure! We are a good company with morals!" And in some cases, companies will sell products or services at a non-profit's event, either keeping the funds themselves and working as a "lure" to get people to come (for instance, a resteraunt selling food at an event may convince people to come out for the good food and feeling that they are doing a good deed), or giving a portion to the non-profit. -Russia Moore 03:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank u very very much russia, that was incredibly helpful and I was desprate 4 that info!

Stamp collecting

Hey guys, I received a stockbook with about 200 stamps from the Soviet Union 1930-1991. Can you tell me any information about how to find the value of this book, or any other helpful information? Thank you very much! — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

Well there is an online catalogue here http://www.allworldstamps.com/ but it is difficult to use as there are no pictures. You could go to a library which will probably have a catalogues with pictures or you could look on ebay. But for the USSR in this era the chances are you'll only get a couple of cents/pennies or so a stamp. MeltBanana 19:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Try Stanley Gibbons the top stamp dealer.Or have a look and see if there are any stamp shops/stamp clubs in your area.Most members will happily have a look through and see if they're worth anything. I found boxes of stamps in my cellar and some have turned out to be worth quite a bit(well,10-15 pounds for a stamp...not a bad day's work) Lemon martini 20:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pennies!? What if I save them for 20 or 40 years? — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

Sorry to disillusion you, it is just a likely guess based on what is probable, but then again there might be something valuable in there. Communist states often produced huge numbers of issues well beyond what was needed. Also if they appear Cancelled-to-order, with a post mark and glue still on the back, then they are prepared specially for collectors and are of even less value. MeltBanana 00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Brehan Law?

My Irish mother (RIP) always mentioned the the use of Brehan(sp)law in ancient Ireland, which, according to her, greatly influenced the laws/customs we have today in the west. She said the name came from a Irish King, who was able to set up these laws for his subjects as a way of dealing with everyday conflicts.

Was their such a King? Was their such a system of laws that have been in one way or another handed down to us through the ages?

Thanks.

See Brehon Laws. The article also explains the derivation of the name. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare

Why is Shakespeare regarded as one of the greatest writers in history. The plays that I have studied, King Leer, Romeo and Juliet and the merchant of Venice are in my opinion of no literary value. The scorelines are unrealistic, while at the same time meant to be set in a realistic world. In the 3 plays I've mentioned there is not one character who is believable. The themes running through the plays are repetitive and boring, there is nothing revolutionary about them, they were written about before Shakespeare, Its not like he was the first to write about these themes. I see no reason why Shakespeare is considered great, in fact in my opinion his plays are among the worst I've ever seen (in my opinion of course). 194.125.179.235 19:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

See William Shakespeare. It explains why he is respected in history. As for your opinion, hopefully you will eventually mature to realize that most of the world will always disagree with you - always. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with all your criticisms, but I don't like Shakespeare very much. I think he's highly regarded because he makes profound observations about the human codition (the quality of mercy...to suffer the slings and arrows etc), but I still find him pretty turgid to read or watch.

I think saying Shakespeare is one of the greatest writers ever is a bit totemic, and most people are afraid to disagree for fear of being thought ignorant.

I also think the British tend to cling to Shakespeare/literary heritage because they don't have the musical heritage of the German/Austrians (Mozart, Bach, Beethoven), or the painting heritage of the French/Italian/Spanish. Rentwa 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You consider Shakespear turgid = boring? I hate to tell you this, but way too many ppl share the same opinion about classical music and old paintings. Fact is that all the "old artists" are clung on by the respective nation. Flamarande 21:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It think the language issue (understanding Early Modern English) does make it a bit hard to follow, and thus boring, to those new to his writings. StuRat 21:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you find it turgid, then it is (to you). I dont like it either-- having been forced to study some of it in school. Basically its too old fashoined for todays world. Similarly with some classical music and paintings. Maybe thats why some would call me a Philistine (but they had a bad press!). Quality in arts is always in the ear, eye, brain of the audience/viewer/reader.--Light current 22:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

See, if its rewritten like West Side Story, with a bit of music, everyone can uderstand it. Yes? Im looking forward to Hamlet-- the musical 9-)--Light current 22:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean The Lion King (musical)? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm always in two minds to some level about Shakespeare - and I think a lot of it comes from enforced class reading, where people with no interest, or voice acting ability were given a part and droned through the putting out of Lear's eyes as if it were nothing. You mentioned studying the plays - have you watched them be performed, or merely read them in class? If the latter, I thoroughly recommend you watch performances. Whilst my entire English lit class found Othello's willingness to believe his wife betrayed them ridiculous, considering that a handkerchief was the strength of Iago's evidence, it is still an interesting characterisation. Unrealistic? Fact is far stranger than fiction, and there are many people much weirder living in this world with us today. If you find nothing else in it, look at his vocabulary - he added reams of words to the English language, without which we would have a far poorer literary heritage. Gender characterisations are huge - in the time of Elizabeth I, the very rare sight of an English queen reigning in her own right, he had Queen Margaret order "Off with the crown, and with the crown, his head. And while we breathe - take time, to do him dead", he had Lady MacBeth after a murder note "A little water cleans us of this deed". There is much of interest in Shakespeare, even if you feel it is not of note. --Mnemeson 22:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I watched a film of some Shakespeare play whilst I was at college. It was so interesting I cant even remember the title!--Light current 03:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare is important partly because of his historical context - he was the most prominent writer of the period when the English nation state was rising to world prominence, the Protestant reformation was getting bedded in, and the modern English language was being established. Shakespeare and the King James Bible are, effectively, the founding works of modern English literature. He was also a brilliant writer, but you can't please everybody. I can't read Jane Austen, but a lot of people think very highly of her. --Nicknack009 23:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

King Leer sounds like a very interesting new version.... :) Lemon martini 13:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Having said what I said above, I suppose Twelfth night could be quite amusing if updated int a modern farce!--Light current 18:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Really. Let me think - what if the leading lady was Amanda Bynes. As a guy, she can secretly fall in love with Channing Tatum. Then, have Disney produce it to give it a full media backing. What on earth would it be called? Something like She's the Man? I guess not - dumb idea. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes thanks for that. I already found it out. But there arent any more are there. I mean its a good story line.--Light current 00:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wel,I think he's great-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 21:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Evil

What is the real meaning of the word 'evil'. Without going into religous mumbo jumbo can anyone say if evil is subjective or objective?--Light current 20:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Slightly related - 'evil' is only 1 letter away from 'devil' and 'good' only 1 away from 'God'. Rentwa 16:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Subjective most likely. Criminals may not see what they do as "wrong" or "evil" but the victims may. Evil is any action or quality that goes against your personal beliefs --The Dark Side 20:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Subjective without any restriction or qualification. --Lambiam^Talk 20:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So Ghengis Khan or Ivan the terrible wasnt all bad then?--Light current 20:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not (Ghengis is still considered a national hero by the mongols, and Ivan unified Russia). They were responsable for many cruel deeds but that doesn't turn into bad ppl, it rather turns them into ruthless rulers, and that might be a good caracteristic for a ruler. During the middle ages it was preferable to hav a strong and ruthless king who could keep his nobles in line, rather than a weak ruler who was incapable of hurting a fly (and therefore of mantaining law and order amongst his nobles). Flamarande 20:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if they were "all bad", the judgement that they were all bad is inherently subjective. --Lambiam^Talk 20:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Good and Evil" aka "Bad and Good" are simply human concepts who are completly subjective. Our own judgement depends completly upon the circunstances and our own human morality (wich simply changes with the passing of time). In nature there is simply no good or evil (or even morality). Flamarande 21:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I could replace your word 'bad' by my word 'evil'! OK then now the biggie! Hitler!?--Light current 21:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the terrible argument. Let's not avoid it. Let's suppose Hitler had won the war, and all of us had been indoctrionated by Nazi ideals. We would consider the final solution as a good deed and praise Hitler for saving Europe from the "Mongolic Bolshevist Communist hordes". We would consider him a good person. Does anyone disagree? Flamarande 21:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC) There is even a cynical joke about it: "What was the problem of Hitler?" Answer: "He lost the war."

I tend to agree! And of course the vitors in any battle tend to assume moral superiority-- is that your view?--Light current 21:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn't necessarily my POV. I rather think that Hitler should burn in Hell until his victims forgive him (assuming there is a hell and a afterlive). The victors always tend to consider their cause as just, rightous and chosen by providence (Gods, God, whatever) and try to write history along these lines. Notice that many times the losers of a battle/war turned themselves into the innocent victims. But I believe that Moral superiority is much overvalued, but then I consider that PC is way too strong these days. I try to be a realist and therefore also a bit of a cinic. Flamarande 21:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Evil is anything one does that does anything or anyone bad for a fact. its kinda like the act of doing something NO ONE agrees on.Jk31213 21:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, now show me something everyone agrees upon. Flamarande 21:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Everone agrees on the fact that there will never be total agreement. 8-)--Light current 22:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with everyone here and say there is true evil, which I will define as wanting to maximize pain and suffering in others. Serial killers frequently fall into this category. There are many more who also seem to be willing to inflict pain and suffering on others to achieve some goal (like world domination). I wouldn't so much call this evil as, perhaps, amorality. Then there is the case where inflicting pain and suffering on one group can prevent another group from be so inflicted. This falls into the "end justifies the means" argument. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan, which prevented much greater pain, suffering, and death from a prolonged war, would be an example of that. Then there is not wanting to personally cause pain and suffering, but also being unwilling to take any effort to prevent others from so suffering. StuRat 21:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Stu, you might want to rephrase that statement into as wanting to maximize pain and suffering needlessly. The Romans (and much later the Mongol hordes under Genghis) would give every city a fair chance to surrender. The first city that didn't surrender would be razed to the ground. What normally happened was the following cities surrendered quickly. Was the first a "bad" action ? Ruthless perhaps, but evil? Real live isn't as easy as that.

I also know of a person who by torturing another is considered to have participated a really good act. If the suffering to achieve world domination were acceptable many of us would praise such an act. World goverment = no more war between nations. If we agree that our thought process (and our actions are merely results of our thoughts) are chemical reactions inside of our brain then amoral persons are the result of bad chemical reactions. But that is a truly slippery slope we are walking. Flamarande 21:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with that and add that sadistic behavior (in real life, not bedroom games) also comes with an element of schadenfreude. The really evil person is neither confused nor psychologically unfit, but gets genuine amusement from the suffering of others. Durova 22:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn't simply as simple as that :) the Romans had Gladiator fights and liked to watch ppl being torn apart by wild animals, or burned alive, and we don't consider the Romans as "evil". Morality simply changes with the passing of time. If you can justify the cruelty with your moralty then it stops being evil, at least in your eyes. You can justify it with many things like justice, tradition, sports, religion, etc. Flamarande 22:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to respectfully disagree, and perhaps it's a bit of objectivist in me: social constructions of morality certainly change over time, yet that does not mean that morality in itself alters - it just means that evil people sometimes gain enough power to impose their disturbing world view on a society, and that they appropriate and distort any ideals or prejudices that can excuse their personal goal of creating human suffering for their own amusement. An eighteenth century Virginian (I forget exactly who) described raping his slaves as "A pleasant and inexpensive way of making new slaves." I wouldn't call the average Roman particularly monstrous, but I'd have a different view of the first one to say, "Hey, let's put these slaves in a ring with some swords and make them kill each other. That'd be great to watch!" Durova 13:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are wrong, morality surely changes. Most societies don't do bad actions because they somehow fell it pleasurable. They simply believe in its rightousness = it is the proper thing to do. Let's use a simple example. During the middle ages killing a "heathen" or a "pagan" was a good and worthy act. The morality of the society at that time defined that as good and Christian act. No evil rulers somehow manipulated Christianity into attacking Muslims. A knight who really liked (took pleasure) to kill Muslims and raping Muslim women (they even washed and used perfume!) was a bloody and manly hero, and accepted as such by every Christian. As the values and morals of the WEST (Christianity) began to change so did our judgement of our past. Today he will be considered an evil person, but on those days? Flamarande 22:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You're mixing different sorts of examples. Note the narrowness of my definition: to increase human suffering for one's own personal amusement is objectively evil. That doesn't apply to a Medieval crusader who seriously believed in heaven and hell, and who believed that all Muslims were headed for the latter place, and who felt a moral duty to convert them if possible and rescue the holy lands from their control. If he killed some on the battlefield, then according to his world view perhaps fewer souls would be corrupted by error and more people would ultimately go to heaven. I'll accept a claim saying views of that man's actions have changed. Yet you stir those elements in with a fellow who thinks it's roaring good fun to disembowel guys and rape women: that second type of man is evil, and as I've stated before, that sort of person will exploit and distort any system of morals in the pursuit of schadenfreude. Durova 13:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The Romans fall into that second category, by being willing to inflict pain and suffering on others, if it achieved a political goal (the surrender of a village, for example). To me, that doesn't fall into the same category of evil as a serial killer, for whom pain and suffering in others is it's own reward. StuRat 23:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What if the serial killer has some sort of mental disorder? Does that make him evil even though he can't really control his actions? --The Dark Side 23:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Then they are still evil, but at least now we know why. StuRat 03:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No. He has committed what the Wikicommunity percieve as evil acts, but they may not perceive him as evil in himself (although some may do). Since both evil and good seem to be subjective concepts, no one can be considered intrinsically evil--Light current 23:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Atheists believe that evil is subjective, whereas the faithful of the three main monotheistic religions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam — believe in an objective evil defined by God and described: in the Old Testament for Judaism (which they call Tanakh); the Old Testament and New Testament for Christianity; and in the Old and New Testaments as well as in the Qur'an for Islam. Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 00:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC).

You're mistaken about the atheists part, at least for some atheists. Check out Immanuel Kant and the categorical imperative. It's an objective system of ethics that doesn't depend on the supernatural (faithful people believe it also as a rational explanation of their beliefs). Durova 14:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct of course. BTW how did you ever get away with that username? 8-)--Light current 00:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you live backwards are you evil? Evil is objective: if you do something evil people object. Why should good vs evil == good vs bad? Isn't there a difference between something bad and something evil? Why is good an antonym for both? Am I asking rhetorical questions? MeltBanana 00:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes!--Light current 02:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

'Causing suffering to other beings' would be my definition of evil (and pretty objective). Rentwa 10:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

By that defn, hunting animals are evil (esp cats)--Light current 11:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks all for the replies. It has helped to make up my mind.--Light current 11:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? Have you made your mind up to be evil? :) Rentwa 16:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well no not really. Its just that when people call me an evil b***** in the future, I can say: THats only your POV!--Light current 17:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that "only their POV" is in many cases shared by the rest of society and as such quite powerful (most of the time). Flamarande 19:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course. Hence definition of evil maybe 'that which most peole agree is evil'--Light current 19:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The original question really has no answer but depends on one's position regarding the age-old philosophical debate contrasting moral relativism with moral absolutism. I tend to lean heavily, though not entirely, toward the latter. I suppose it's up to you. I still suggest those two articles as good reads, as at least they provide a good conceptual framework for the question. Loomis 19:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily true: there are philosophical systems that construct a definition of "good" and of "good actions" independent of religion. See categorical imperative. Durova 13:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I would if we had a page on it.--Light current 00:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Try it now that I've fixed the spelling. JackofOz 06:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Business Partnership

Im in a business partnership with one other person. Hes thinking of retiring and selling his half. Can he sell his bit to anyone he likes without consulting me or getting my agreement? If so I would be forced to work with a new partner. Can that be right?--Light current 20:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the legal form and basis of the partnership? Is there any written agreement? --Lambiam^Talk 20:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes we have a written agreemnet that states that no other partners may be brought into the business unless bothe of us agree. Illness and death of one of us is mentioned as is leaving with notice, but I think this particular case isnt mentioned. I wonder if the Partnership act covers this?--Light current 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, obviously, he cannot sell his bit to another person, and thereby bring an other partner into the business, without consulting you and getting your agreement. --Lambiam^Talk 21:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the courts would interpret it the same way. First, can you offer to buy his half ? If not, perhaps he is willing to let you check out the potential new partner, have you asked him ? Also, the potential new partner, unlesss he's an idiot, would also want to check you out and only buy in if he thought you two would make a good team. Another option, if your original partner is willing, is that he could become a silent partner, letting you do all the work while he still gets paid a percentage (you might want to reduce his percentage a bit since he will no longer be working). In short, I strongly suggest you talk this all over with your partner before bringing lawyers in and creating unnecessary expenses and nastiness. BTW, you should list your location so we know what country/state laws apply. StuRat 21:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good advice Stu, Im in the UK.--Light current 21:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

But with respect, he would not actually be bringing someone else in, but just selling his interest in the business. Can you see the distinction?--Light current 21:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I can't, obviously. There may be several ways of bringing in someone else, but selling your interest as a partner to someone else, meaning the other person is supposed to thereby become a partner, qualifies in my eyes as "bringing in an other partner". --Lambiam^Talk 03:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks for that! 8-)--Light current 03:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Some kind of logo? Source, please!

When browsing a forum, I noticed one user with an avatar which looked like a blue circular smiley face wearing a baseball cap with writing surrounding it. I've seen this logo several times before (although I think the seemingly satirical text in this version has been added by said user), and I've always wondered were it came from and what it means. The image can be found here. Thank you in advance for your help! Ppk01 21:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

http://tenser.typepad.com/tenser_said_the_tensor/2005/01/technorati_laug.html WASTE MeltBanana 00:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Which is to say, Laughing Man (Ghost in the Shell). EdC 05:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

richest person

I know that Rockfeller was the richest person ever, having some $912 million ($189 billion today) at his peak but who was the second? Bill Gates might not fill this space.Jk31213 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to tell with all those kings/princesses/royalty and such. --Proficient 18:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well,I think they are just nasty;if I had that much money,I'd spread it around-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 21:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

One cannot benefit from it without spreading it. —Tamfang 03:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Islamist/Muslim Distinction

Is there a distinction between one who is refered to as a Muslim and one who is an Islamist? Are all Islamists Muslims. Are all Muslims Islamists?

Can one be an Islamist and not be a Muslim? And can one be a Muslim and not be a Islamist?

How do people in the Middle East label themselves?

Donald Grant

I've heard "Islamists" used to refer to fundamentalist Muslims, such as the Salafi. StuRat 23:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the article on Islamism, the term refers to a political philosophy that advocates the spread of Islam and Islamic law. A Muslim who does not advocate those things, or who does not believe in using government or other forms of coercion to do so, would not be an Islamist. I suppose it is theoretically possible for one to be an Islamist without being a Muslim. George Galloway is, as far as I know, not a Muslim himself but seems to support radical-Muslim causes. -- Mwalcoff 23:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean the Palestinian cause? There are also Christian and even Jewish Palestinians; it is not per se a Muslim cause. --Lambiam^Talk 09:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to his defence of radical-Muslim organizations and causes, such as Hezbollah. Regarding the Palestinian issue, it's true that it can be interpreted in a non-religious sense, but certainly much of the anti-Israeli feeling out there has to do with returning Palestine to the Muslim ummah. Therefore, opposition to Israel can be described as an Islamist attitude. -- Mwalcoff 11:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the old PLO was a secular terrorist organization, while Hezbollah is a Shiite fundamentalist terrorist organization, and Hamas is a Sunni fundamentalist terrorist organization. Apparently all the Palestinians have in common with each other is their willingness to randomly kill civilians in a pointless attempt to get Israel to vacate the Middle East. Have any of them even heard of Ghandi ? StuRat 11:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah is not a Palestinian organization. --Lambiam^Talk 07:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds to me like this might be a recent distinction used in practise by the media, sort of like 'fundamentalist' being used only for Muslims. Just a hunch. And what would 'islamic' then refer to? Or indeed 'Islam'. DirkvdM 08:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Islamic" is the adjective that means "related to Islam", whereas "Islamist" means: "related to Islamism". The specific meaning of "a movement for reinstating the caliphate" is indeed relatively new, the older meaning referring more to culture and religion. It's catching on; now "Christianist" is also used with a political sense. --Lambiam^Talk 09:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer the original questions plainly, "Islamist" and "Muslim" are not synonyms. An "Islamist" is a person with a political philosophy of Islamic supremacy based on a very conservative interpretation of Islam. A "Muslim" is any adherent of the religion of Islam. Most Muslims are not Islamists, but some fraction of Muslims are Islamists. It is hard to imagine a sane non-Muslim being a true Islamist.

People in the Middle East label themselves in all kinds of ways. Identity is very complex there, as elsewhere. People may label themselves in terms of religion, nationality, ethnicity, or even tribe. In terms of religion, people may label themselves as Muslims, Christians, Jews, or one of the smalller religious groups (e.g. Druze). Or they may label themselves as members of a particular sect of Islam (Shi'a or Sunni) or some other religion.

However, if they label themselves "Islamists", they are definining themselves in political, not religious, terms. Islamism is a political philosophy rather than a religion. Marco polo 17:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

An Islamist thinks that the 1400 years of aggressive attempts to conquer neighbors, political oppression, and forced conversions have been worth it and simply need to be continued. alteripse 02:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've heard the same point many, many times, and perhaps it's true. "Most Muslims are not Islamists, but some fraction of Muslims are Islamists". Fair enough. Who, then, are the voices of this vast majority of peaceful, non-Islamist Muslims? Where are these "moderate" Imams and Mullahs, who it would seem, should be speaking for this "vast majority" of peaceful Muslims, who, as true Muslims, follow the path of peace and kindness? Where are they? Can someone please name me one Muslim religious leader who outspokenly preaches to his flock of "millions" that Islamism is wrong, that terrorism is wrong, that the Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda etc. are all wrong in pursuing an evil path of violence? Can someone please name me just ONE? Loomis 01:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Carla Bruni

Does anybody know where I could find the English translations to the songs on Carla Bruni's CD, Quelqu'un m'a dit, or at least just the title track of the same name?

Try this [4] I will not vouch for the accuracy of the tranlation however. Consider using Google in these cases. Flamarande 22:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I googled for an hour and found nothing, you are obviously a far superior googler than I will ever be. =)

Not really I just wrote" Quelqu'un m'a dit english translation ", and picked the most likely link, in this case number 3. Flamarande 22:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the translation is quite good, and not because "Someone really said it to me". -- DLL ^{.. T} 18:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

August 30

Pay someone to sue someone else?

What do you call it when you pay someone to sue someone else? thanks. WP 00:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It depends on whom you pay. If it's a layperson, it's criminal conspiracy. Otherwise it's called 'hiring a lawyer'. Anchoress 02:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is the public prosecutor, it may be called bribery. --Lambiam^Talk 04:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Proxy sueing?--Light current 02:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It could fall under barratry. EdC 05:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "champerty" may be a possibility, too, although I think that would only apply if you actually expect a share of the winnings (rather than, say, encouraging a lawsuit just to cause problems for the target). -- Vardion 07:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If I understand the question correctly, the two terms I'm familiar with are maintenance and champerty. Loomis 19:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I call it a good idea if you do it in calif. where it is chaterlization

Netball Player's wage

Hi!
Hope I've got the right category for this question: What do the top Netball players earn per annum (including any sponsorship deals etc)? I know it's a lot less than male athletes, but I'm just curious. I've heard $4000/year but that sounds absurdly low to me. Would appreciate any help. --Fir0002 00:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Too much (I dont like netball)--Light current 02:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing a word in your question. Is it female netball players you're asking about? If not, why the comparison to 'male athletes'? Anchoress 02:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry yes, I forgot (I typically associate netabll as a female sport:-) --Fir0002 08:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I know pretty much nothing about netball, but in general the difference between the salaries of the popular professional sports and the less popular is huge. In many countries it is common to find that even olympic medallists can't earn a living doing their sport, and have to have fund-raisers even to be able to afford training. DJ Clayworth 15:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Fir0002, most Australian netball players earn very little. The best paid is probably Liz Ellis, because of her media profile. Ellis is a full-time professional, and gave up a career as a solicitor to do so, which suggests that through the combination of her media work, endorsements, and playing fees, she makes a decent living. The same probably goes for Sharelle McMahon. But to give you some indication of the pay, you may be interested in this link to Australian politican Andrew Bartlett's blog, which has a discussion of the topic, and this ABC news story on the players threatening to strike if the base payment to players was not raised to $1500 per full season! $4000 sounds about right for match fees.

Another illustration of the fact that there's no money in netball is that Irene Van Dyk, probably the greatest netballer ever, still works as a teacher in New Zealand.

As to why they don't earn much money, a national league game involving the Melbourne Phoenix tends to attract a crowd of maybe 1000 people, and one game a week of the national league is shown on ABC television in a graveyard slot (you can watch the game live on ABC2, but I'll bet money that less than 20,000 people do across Australia). Any Australia-New Zealand game sells out bigger stadiums, but there's only probably three or four Australia- New Zealand matches a year. Nobody's interested in any other international matches, because the nature of netball and the gap in standards makes the games uncompetitive. --Robert Merkel 13:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that detailed response! --Fir0002 09:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

According to this article, van Dyk was offered NZD$170, 000 to play for Wellington for two seasons, and turned the offer down, demanding NZ$1.45 million (widely seen as completely unrealistic): http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10395837 Presumably she would also be paid for international appearances, but not a lot: Netball NZ's total income is around $6 million (see the annual report at http://www.netballnz.co.nz)

Buddhism in the Middle East

Does anyone have stats on how many people (%) are Buddhists in Middle Eastern countries? I've heard that historically, there are a lot of Buddhist contacts between China, India, Iran and other such countries. I have heard a large number Persians and Afghans were once Buddhists in the past, but Islam is the dominant faith now. The article Buddhism by country seems to lack stats for many Middle-Eastern countries. Also, where can I get more information on Buddhism in the modern Middle East, assuming a Buddhist culture still survives there in some form.

Also,are there Buddhists in the country of Egypt today?

Quantum bird 02:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• I doubt there are any Buddhists in Iran especially since new ones will be executed.--06:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

For Afghanistan, see Buddhas of Bamyan.--Patchouli 11:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The real areas which are currently Muslim-majority, but were once significant centers of Buddhism, were what is now the Pakistani Punjab and Afghanistan (which are only marginally part of the "Middle East"). These areas played a strong role in the formulation and spread of Mahayana Buddhism. But Iran and Egypt were never majority-Buddhist. The current westernmost majority-Buddhist ethnic or national group are the Kalmyks (also not really located in the "Middle East"). AnonMoos 11:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

My International Buddhist Directory doesn't list any Buddhist groups in Middle Eastern countries.--Shantavira 11:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

So I assume then perhaps none of the original silk road Buddhist's culture survive any more in the Middle East, having been replaced completely with Islam? 64.231.141.217 00:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of the Silk Road was never really IN the Middle East in the first place (for most definitions of "middle east"), but yes, there was a Muslim cultural expansion starting in the 8th century, and a limited Buddhist counter-movement in the 16th-17th centuries, the final result of which is that Central Asia and Sinkiang were left majority-Muslim, while Siberia and Mongolia were left non-Muslim. AnonMoos 10:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it very hard to believe there is any country that has no Buddhists at all. Maybe not significant numbers in some countries, but surely some. JackofOz 06:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Check this article, it might be helpful. CG 07:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert Menzies, Australian PM 1939

i need help in finding information on Robert Menzies and his contribution to Australia's WWII development... can anyone help me?Gooding 06:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Try Robert Menzies, John Curtin. See also Brisbane Line. You might also have a look at Military history of Australia during World War II, but that concentrates mainly on the strictly military and ignores the political manoeuverings surrounding it.

One hint to what Australians thought about his contribution to World War II development was that his first stint as Prime Minister ended in the middle of it...--Robert Merkel 06:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

thank you very much. GoodingGooding 06:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

William Faulkner american literature

   Hello,
   I would be grateful if you could give me information about this author and his book:
   William Faulkner   The Sound and The Fury,
    Thank you very much,Jeny.

See our articles on William Faulkner and The Sound and the Fury. --Lambiam^Talk 07:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

popular titles of British authors from 1900

I have been asked to compile a list for a small country library in France of English and American authors: the popular titles, can you help?

• See Category:American writers and Category:British writers. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If by popular you mean best-selling, you might also want to take a look at List of bestselling novels in the United States. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And this College Bound Reading List shows titles that are definitely still current as reading material. How long should your list be, ideally? And should this be more the literary genre, or primarily for entertainment, or a mixture? --Lambiam^Talk 09:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian Budget Crisis Update ?

I haven't heard anything about this for quite some time now. The issue was that the Western Democracies were going to stop providing funds to the Palestinian Authority, as a result of the Hamas election victory, and their insistence on retaining their goal of the total destruction of Israel. Some Muslim nations (notably Iran) had said they would pick up the difference, but generally have shown no serious desire to help the Palestinians (except for giving them weapons, if you call that "help"). So, just how is the PA making payroll ? If it's not, are their employees working for free ? StuRat 11:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Last time I heard, several weeks ago, the PA is not making payroll. The Western countries are supplying some money direct to workers (using suitcases of cash taken across the border would you believe). Yes the employees are working for free, and no they are not happy about it. DJ Clayworth 15:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that, DJ ? If true, this would seem to violate the West's pledge to cut off aid until Hamas stops sponsoring terrorism. StuRat 20:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. hasn't ruled out "humanitarian help".http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/30/world/main1252981.shtml I think DJ confused food and medical aid — if that is what humanitarian aid means — with cash.--Patchouli 20:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "suitcases of cash" was tongue-in-cheek.--20:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the latest http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060830/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

--Patchouli 19:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is another one from today

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2373158&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312.Patchouli

WMD hazard symbols

I've been wanting to re-draw this image as an SVG file, which should be pretty easy. The problem is that I want to check to make sure each of the symbols are up to international specification (on that graphic, the biohazard one is not, for example). But I can't find any image of a "chemical weapons" symbol anywhere else on the internet. What is the international symbol for a chemical weapons hazard? I'm looking for a reliable source on this. --Fastfission 13:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is an international spec http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/simcenter/chemical_symbol_story.htm MeltBanana 20:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. I had picked up the feeling that the third one wasn't internationally used like the other two were, and in the end just decided to go with the skull-and-crossbones because at least it was well understood. Here's what I made out of it: Image:WMD world map.svg. --Fastfission 14:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Magazine months

Does anyone know how the convention of magazines being released bearing the next month's date on the cover started? (i.e. a magazine out on August 1st will be the September issue). --Alex.dsch 15:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think what happened is that at some time the magazines started hitting the stands earlier, so the September issues, which used to come out on September 8th or thereabouts, now came out on September 1st, then August 22nd, on so on. My theory is that the publishers of, say, Cake and Cookie Recipes realized that their competitor Baking Cookies and Cakes sold more because they were out a few days earlier. As the Recipes people moved their release dates forward to counter this effect, the Baking publishers got wise to it and in turn brought their dates forward. And so on. --Lambiam^Talk 15:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Another reason they do it is to try and give the magazine a longer 'currency' on the news stands. If someone picks up that August issue in the last week of August and sees that it is dated September, they will be more likely to buy it than if it was dated August. At least, that's the theory. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it's very similar to the automotive industry. It's actually become rather absurd lately. Hasn't anyone noticed how ridiculous it was when, say, '07 models began appearing in ads and began to be offered for sale last spring? It's gotten to the point where if you're looking to by a used car, and it's, say, a '03 model, it could have very well been purchased and on the road as early as the summer of '02. And the release date keeps on getting pushed earlier and earlier. I wouldn't be surprised if by the fall of 2010 you'll be able to buy a 2012 model car. Quite an irritating and misleading practice I'd say. Loomis 19:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

(After edit conflict...) Note that something similar happens with new car models, they almost always are called next year's model, not this years. Since people want whatever model is the "newest", having a later date on your car just makes it seem more valuable (and it actually is more valuable, since others think the same way, giving it a higher resale value). I don't think anything short of legislation would prevent companies from doing this. I also wonder what forces prevent this type of "inflation" from going further, why can't a model be 2 years ahead, or 10, or even 100 ? I suppose at some point people stop thinking of it being an early model, and instead conclude that the date is just a lie. StuRat 19:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, great minds think alike, and unfortunately, so do ours. :-) StuRat 19:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Psychology. Yeah 19.99 is a lot cheaper than 20.00 2007 is much later than 2006. Freeze your bills/nothing to pay till 2007 (ie 4 months)--Light current 21:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot of it had to do with publishers' paranoia about newsstand employees prematurely tossing magazines. Bill Gaines supposedly worked out a publishing schedule for Mad Magazine according to which the magazine came out eight times a year, and no issue was actually offered for sale during the calendar month listed on the front cover! AnonMoos 22:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

THat makes sense. After all what was the title of the magazine? (BTW you could only get it here on the underground market)--Light current 03:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What, Mad magazine? No way. You're in the UK, right? I grew up there and I used to see it on the shelves in WH Smith all the time when I was a kid. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 05:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I must be older than you. Only some kids could get it and we never found out where they got em. Perhaps it was just that they didnt sell them in the local shop!--Light current 00:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know that the 8-times-a-year schedule applied to anything except the North American version (foreign editions of Mad were rather independent). AnonMoos 17:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

How do I add a listing..

of a published songwriter/composer who is not listed on this site? I can provide the factual information.

First off, you need an account to create a page, and that account has to be (I believe) four days old before you can start an article. Second, I recommend going over the "Help" section in the left nav bar, reading up on the information about how to create and edit articles, format them properly, and so on. Then, I'd definitely read the guidelines for inclusion of people in the music industry to ensure that your considered artist is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Then do a search for the artist's name, and when it comes up with a red link indicating there's nobody there, click on that and add the information - formatted well, avoiding promotional wording and ensuring that reliable sources are included - in the edit box there, add an edit summary, and hit save. There you go! Good luck with it. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

When I make a new article, I usually open up a similar article as a model and click edit. I don't actually edit that other article, but I copy a lot of its code and rewrite for the new article. That way it's easier to keep a consistent style across wikipedia, and I don't have to look up things.You could just pick a song article in a similar category and use it as a model. - Rainwarrior 18:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Mistakes

Why do women never let men forget their (the mens) mistakes? Is this improvment training or a self defence mechanism?--Light current 20:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Self-defence mechanism? I don't see how. Maybe it's some sort of mothering instinct? They see men as children who need to be taught a lesson perhaps? --The Dark Side 20:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but when they've learnt it and apologised, bought flowers, taken em out etc, why dont the women drop it?--Light current 21:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Trying to milk it for all it's worth? --The Dark Side 21:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dont think so. But they bring past mistakes up in current arguments. THats why I ask if its a self defence mechanism. See?--Light current 21:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, some men do like being spanked. :-) StuRat 22:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but not with the tongue. That gives me bad earache--Light current 22:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists, the lot of you. I beleive it's cultural. I know in my predominantly female family, we don't let anyone forget their mistakes. After the Women's Lib. movement, women were taught to have high standards, to be independant. But let's face it, settling down and having someone you can count on is nice. But there is still that standard. Women still want partners to be as god as or better than themselves. If you don't fix your mistakes, it's hard. Compounded with the apparent whininess, cattiness, and mood swings of women, along with the old tradition of trying to find "a good catch" with the newer idea of having higher standards in the menfolk, women may come off as crazy nags. But there's a method to the madness. Just my POV, though Good luck! -Russia Moore 03:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Women still want partners to be as god as or better than themselves." A bit of a Freudian slip, there, Russia :). —Daniel (‽) 16:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean theyre all looking for Mr.Perfect? And if they cant find him theyll nag you until you are (or until you get so pissed off that you leave)--Light current 03:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was Faulkner who wrote that we love in spite of, not because of. Basically yes, generally women want Mr. Right, but not Mr. Perfect (esp. not that annoying doll they have now). I think the idea is that you find someone who you like, someone who works for you. When you encounter a problem, rather than give up, you try to help the person you love. Sadly this often becomes nagging, and is accompanied by a lack of care and understanding/ability to compromise. Some women are more reasonable than others. -Russia Moore 03:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So what? Women looking for Mr Perfect? Men look for Miss Perfect too! We have high standards too. Why pick on women? At least they try to nag a man into Mr Perfect or die trying. Rest assure that as soon as they find (their) Mr Perfect, they will stop nagging you and abandon you. As long as they are nagging you, you know that you are the best piece of shit that they can find so far. Ohanian 03:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah well that answered my next question. Thanks.--Light current 03:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Could we safely assume the same of men, then? -Russia Moore 20:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Gold in economies

This is a two parter. Is it true that national banks "hoard" gold because most currencies are valued against gold? If the first part is true, then wouldn't a massive gold strike (or alot of little ones) destabilize the world economy and we would have to go back to bartering since our money is worthless? --The Dark Side 20:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Until the 1970's every national bank held a large amount of gold and you could exchange your banknotes for gold at the national bank. This policy served mainly as a psicological reassurance of the public. What was your interrest in having gold? You can't eat it, and almost no shop will accept a currency.

It also basicly screwed any country that bought more (imported) than it sold (exported) to the rest of the world. How? Simple, you (the country as a whole) paid with your banknotes for their products and they (their national banks) returned your banknotes and took your gold instead. Your currency lost its value because it had less reassurance and at the same time their national currency gained in value because they had more gold. There were also other big problems. For example the value of the currency of a country who had gold to mine (e.g. South Africa) was very secure unlike other country (e.g. Germany) despite the second's economy being much better.

But with the Vietnam war the US began to import more and more products (warmaterial) from the rest of the world than it was exporting. As the other nations began to exchange the USbanknotes for gold, and the USdollar was in real danger of losing almost all of its value. Therefore president Nixon passed a law (read Nixon Shock) mandating that the USdollar would not be convertable anylonger into gold by the US national treasury. Almost all other countries followed the example of the US, AFAIK. Currently the value of a currency is dependent upon the trust the public puts on it, and little else.

Please notice that I am NOT an economist. I could be mistaken in some minor particular points. Flamarande 21:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC) As always, in case that it turns out that I am wrong: I never claim to know the whole truth. Good luck. This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds. IMF

Note that unsecured currency means, in another Great Depression, total, not just partial, economic collapse would occur. StuRat 22:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the article on the Bretton Woods System. I'm sure you'll find it interesting and I'm sure it'll answer a lot of your questions. Take a look at it and once you're done I'll be glad to discuss any remaining confusion. Loomis 22:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The real value in gold is not that you can eat it but you cannot fake it and you cannot duplicate it. So to get gold, you either mine it, buy it or steal it. Ohanian 22:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Same goes for Caribou dung Ohanian. Gold actually does have some extremely important technological uses, so it still has a value all to itself. Still it's nowehere near the value attached to it by the market. Loomis 22:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Or transmute it from lead. ColourBurst 13:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Before the Nixion law, the more gold a country has in reserve the higher the worth of their currency. But now since you can't exchange money for gold what's the point in having so much? (I'm sorry but i didn't read that article, it's way too long for right now) --The Dark Side 23:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There is very little point to keeping reserves, and by keeping gold scarce these reserves increase the price of useful things made with gold, such as computers. Some countries are thus eliminating their reserves. Canada, for instance, has sold off pretty much all of its reserves. - SimonP

The gold could at least provide the government some ability to operate in the face of total economic collapse, as they could pay the bills with gold, until that ran out. StuRat 01:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read Bretton Woods system, you will see that currencies were "pegged" to a certain value in terms of gold. In fact, they were pegged to the U.S. dollar, which was valued at $35 to an ounce of gold. This worked only as long as the U.S. dollar remained convertible into gold. (It was convertible into gold only for foreign banks, by the way, and U.S. citizens were forbidden to own gold bullion, but that is another story.) Nixon ended U.S. dollar convertibility and later legalized gold ownership for U.S. citizens.

Under the gold standard, the value of a currency depended mainly on the relation between the quantity of its currency and the quantity of its precious metal reserves (gold and silver, mainly). Long ago, before bank notes became widespread in the 1800s, coins were the only currency, and their value was essentially the value of the metal they contained. Bank notes were accepted at first only because they could be exchanged for a set quantity of precious metal, which was the only thing seen to have real value. In order to support the value of their bank notes, nations created central banks (probably the first of which was the Bank of England). A big part of the job of the central banks was to manage the country's reserves of precious metals and to make sure that the value of the bank notes in circulation remained in proportion to the reserves of precious metals.

If a country increased the quantity of currency in circulation (in the form of bank notes) without increasing its reserves of precious metals, there would be inflation, or a drop in the value of the currency. Deflation would result if the quantity of currency in circulation decreased relative to precious metals reserves. Precious metal reserves fluctuated mainly because of trade. Before the 1930s, international transactions were ultimately settled in gold bullion. For example, if on a given day the United Kingdom sold £1,000 of goods to Germany, with sterling valued at £10 per ounce of gold, Germany owed the United Kingdom 100 ounces of gold. If on the same day, Germany sold the UK RM20,000 of goods, with the Reichsmark valued at RM100 per ounce of gold, however, the UK would owe Germany 200 ounces of gold. These transactions were settled by the Bank of England transferring 100 ounces of gold bullion (the net balance) to the German Reichsbank. In this way, a country with a positive trade balance would accumulate gold reserves, whether or not it possessed gold mines. A country with a negative trade balance would see its reserves diminish until its dwindling gold reserves forced it to curtail its imports and/or increse its exports. A country like South Africa would accumulate gold reserves only if its imports were less in value than its gold production. A country that produced silver could also trade its silver for gold, which would allow it to increase its imports of other goods.

Under Bretton Woods, currencies were pegged to the dollar, and most international trade was settled in dollars, rather than gold. Nations accumulated reserves of dollars, which were convertible into gold in principle, but this principle was not applied so often. The problem came in the 1960s when the US began to expand the number of dollars in circulation and to run a trade deficit (though nowhere near as big as today's deficit), paying for its trade deficit in effect by printing dollars. Because of the principles I have just explained, the increase in the dollar supply decreased the value of each dollar, and some nations began to demand payment in gold rather than dollars. As the gold reserves of the United States began to decline, Nixon ordered the "gold window" shut, and the dollar, and the rest of the world's currencies, were no longer tied to gold.

However, most nations still had gold reserves, which were still seen as an important source of backing for their currency. In fact, most of those reserves are kept at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, so the reserves are largely in US territory, though not legally under US ownership.

The delinking of currencies from gold has caused the value of the world's gold to drop relative to the value of all currency in circulation. On the other hand, the value of a unit of almost every currency has also dropped relative to gold. In almost all countries, the rate of inflation (in terms of prices for goods and assets) since the end of the gold standard has been much higher than it was under the gold standard, as central banks have been free to expand the quantity of currency without any physical constraints.

The argument for selling off gold reserves is that they are no longer relevant, since currencies are not convertible into gold any more, nor is international trade settled in gold bullion. Those who advocate selling off gold argue that the nation would be better off investing the money in ways that generate a return.

The argument against selling off gold reserves is that they function much like foreign-currency reserves. A central bank can sell foreign currencies from its reserves and buy its own currency to support the value of its currency. A central bank could also sell gold in the same way. Thus, gold reserves help to support the value of a currency. Traders are less likely to launch a speculative attack on a currency if they know that the currency is backed by substantial reserves in the form of gold or other currencies. The argument for keeping gold in the reserves, rather than other currencies, is that gold is a hedge against a global financial crisis. In a scenario in which a financial crisis damages the value of all currencies, linked as they now are by a global structure of derivatives, a nation with substantial gold reserves would be better able to support its national currency and financial system than a nation without gold reserves.

Marco polo 13:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems we have found someone who is really knowlegable in finacial matters who could explain it in a easy way (allthough I think nothing is really as easy as it sounds :). Don't forget that accumulating wealth (e.g. gold) and only do nothing with it, is contrary to the better economic sense. You should keep some money for emergencies, sure. But you should invest (wisely if possible) the largest amount of wealth you have to make more money (a good anti-example is Uncle Scrooge who keeps all that enormous amount of money in his vault gaining only dust). Therefore most of the national banks are currently selling their gold (never at same time of course, or the price would fall too much). Another reason against for keeping large gold reserves is that you have to expend money and resources to protect it (I guess the goverments pay the USgov for keeping their gold in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York). User:Flamarande

Our article on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York reports that "The Federal Reserve Bank does not own the gold but serves as guardian of the precious metal, which it protects at no charge as a gesture of good will to other nations." I suspect that it is a matter not only of "good will" but of U.S. strategic interest. In a global financial and/or geopolitical crisis, the United States could conceivably take advantage of its role as custodian of much of the world's gold reserves. Marco polo 13:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, by the way, Flamarande! Marco polo 18:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Do we have a list of quantities of gold and silver reserves, by country ? StuRat 02:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

We have a listing of official gold reserves, though there is some doubt whether the officially reported numbers are accurate. Marco polo 13:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see the US has the most gold, so when the massive trade and budget deficits cause them to default on their foreign debt, and this brings about an international currency collapse, they will still have enough gold to survive. :-) StuRat 05:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Club dancing

I like dancing at clubs, but I'll like to dance something and not just improvise... Where can I learn actual dancing moves (for nightclubs)? Thanks.

How about a school of dance?--Light current 22:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's actually pretty simple. Just walk out of your house, turn left, walk to the corner, take another left and keep on walking until you see a bus stop. Take that bus and eventually you'll come upon a dance studio. Ask them what they charge for lessons, and what particular styles they teach, and if it appeals to you, join! Good luck. Loomis 22:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Club dancing requires that you dance as if you had a club foot. :-) StuRat 04:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A bit sick StuRat! 8-(--Light current 04:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

A good start is popping, which is popular mainly for house and hip-hop style clubs, though you can basically pull it off anywhere that everyone isn't head-banging. Like Loomis said, you generally learn that kind of stuff at a dance school, but if you've got funky laser equipment at home (like I do) there's no reason you couldn't practice in your room! There's loads of videos on the internet (check out websites like [5], which was the first google hit I got) that have cool videos and even some video guides on things like popping, liquid, digits, as well as other "skills" such as glow sticking and stringing (Awww no articles? Who's not supporting the Wiki club culture! Anyways glow sticking is obviously spinning around glow sticks, and stringing is basically the same thing except the glow sticks attatched to long strings. Kind of like club-nun-chucks.)  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  13:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

tv program names listed by year and network

Could you include tv programes in the US, Canada and Great Britain listed by the year(s) they were shown and the network they were on for research purposes? Thank you for this consideration.

EVERY SINGLE PROGRAMME? We'd love to help you out here, but that seems like a task that would take several thousand manhours. If you want us to direct you to the best source we can think of, that's perfectly fine. I'm afraid though that your request requires a bit more work than what we're here to provide. Loomis 23:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

For American shows, this is a good place to look. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

cross-vested jurisdiction

209.53.86.61 22:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Is there an agreement between Canada and Australia re maintenance/alimony? Is this called cross-vested jurisdiction. What does that mean?

Yes, there is an agreement (see this website), but the Australian government calls it "reciprocal jurisdiction" or a "reciprocal agreement on child support". I think the term "cross-vested jurisdiction" can be applied in this case, but in Australia it would be more likely to refer to the judicial systems of the Australian states. --Canley 00:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Interstitial spaces?

Hi - a sociology question - in modern life, there are so many places that we go to with the objective of leaving them as quickly as possible - waiting rooms, fast food joints, service centres, lifts, train stations etc etc - and I wonder if there's a technical, generic term for those places? In WP there's a page with the above name, but I'm not sure if it applies. Thanks Adambrowne666 23:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dumps, dives, crap holes etc. What does the page say anyway have you looked?--Light current 23:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Just looked. No it doesnt apply--Light current 23:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

THe best I can come up with is transitory domains. It aint a proper phrase, I just invented it, but you can use it if you like!--Light current 00:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, though it doesn't really light up my socks - I rather suspect the writer of interstitial spaces has invented the phrare himself - original research; what do you think, Light Current? Adambrowne666 22:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What exactly does a peace treaty mean?(For instance Israel)

Hello,

I've been reading the article about the peace treaty in 1994 between Jordan and Israel.[6].

But what exactly changes when one makes peace? Is it not all psychological? (Okay, maybe loosening control on borders, or simply opening them up, can be a change).(Jordan hadn't been in a conflict with Israel since Yom Kippur anyway, if I recall well.)

For instance the USSR had a treaty with Japan in the second World War,which they eventually broke in the last days of the war.

Does it somehow make attacking the other more treacherous, does it imply more sanctions from other nations if one attacks another nation that it has made peace with it?

I know my question may be weird, but I was thinking about that.

Evilbu 23:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a weird question at all. You're right in pointing out that the "Peace Treaties" between Israel and Jordan in '94 and the one between Israel and Egypt in '79 (I believe) have produced rather, what I believe would be called, "cold peaces". The Egyptian and Jordanian government and "media" (if you consider state-run media as any real sort of "media") are still not still not exactly "good buddies" with the Israeli government.

But it's not worth nothing. Implied by such "Peace Treaties" is the open and honest mutual recognition that the "partner" is a legitimate state, and worthy of legitimate dialogue. What this translates into is, in fact, rather important. What this means is that both Egypt and Jordan now have, at the very least, diplomatic ties with Israel, including the existence of Jordanian and Egyptian embassies and official ambassadors in Israel, and corresponding Israeli embassies and ambassadors in both Cairo and Amman.

Contrast this with a state like Lebanon, which, at least technically, has been in a "state of war" with Israel for almost 60 years. In fact Lebanon came extremely close to formalizing a peace treaty with Israel on, I believe, at least two occasions. Unfortunately these negotiations failed, and, also unfortunately, what this means is that Lebanon and Israel have no diplomatic relations. No Israeli embassy and ambassador in Beirut and likewise no Lebanese embassy or ambassador in Jerusalem. (Ok, if they'd prefer to have one in Tel-Aviv that would be fine too.) Similarly, Iran is "in a state of war" with what they call "the Zionist Entity". Again, no diplomatic ties, no embassies and no ambassadors. It would certainly have been helpful, given the recent conflict with the Hezbollah, if Israel and Lebanon had such "diplomatic relations". Perhaps the whole tragic conflict could have been avoided. Similarly, if Iran would recognize Israel and exchange ambassadors, perhaps a dialogue could develop, and Iran would no longer seek to wipe "the Zionist Entity" off the map. Unfortunately any sort of diplomatic relations with Iran are extremely unlikely, and should Iran continue on its open path to destroy "the Zionist Entity" by nuclear means...well...Israel will have no choice but to send the IAF, with or without the US, and with or without the blessing of the UN, to destroy Iran's nuclear ambitions for good (not with nukes though, simply with its conventional Air Force). Of course the UN will label the whole thing as a "reprehensible act of aggression" on the part of Israel (and the US if it gets involved). And of course Israel (and, again, possibly the US) will once again be ostracized by the UN. The same thing happened when Israel took out Iraq's osiraq nuclear programme in the '80s. Not just the UN, but even the US, through Reagan's V.P. GHWB expressed its condemnation for such a "deplorable act of unprovoked agression". Oh well, for the sake of humanity and millions of lives, what must be done must be done. Damn the UN if necessary. Loomis 23:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Only if necessary ? I say we damn the UN whenever we get the opportunity. :-) StuRat 01:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, for Lebanon to have normal diplomatic relations with Israel, they would actually have to disarm Hezbollah, as not many countries will tolerate having a heavily armed terrorist organization, dedicated to their destruction, right on their border. StuRat 01:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It can also be a framework for future discussions as well. As for the USSR breaking their treaty with Japan—that was something everyone saw coming from a mile away, even the Japanese. More of a surprise was Germany breaking its non-aggression treaty with the USSR, which caught Stalin off-guard even though he didn't put much faith in Hitler. In any case, I would hazard to guess that this sort of treaty breaking happens more in countries with centralized power—if a politician in a Western-style democracy broke a peace treaty to start a war, they would probably get tossed out at the next election. In a dictatorship, there would most likely be fewer consequences for something like that (but even saying that, not all dictatorships are run by a single man; eventually the Politburo booted Khrushchev out, for example). --Fastfission 23:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Alliances and treaties can mean as much or as little as the countries involved want them to - the Triple Entente was the reason Britain entered WW1, to defend France - though Field Marshall Sir Douglas Haig noted that the French would "be the people we'll be fighting next". So in 1914, (1) it was strong enough to take the UK to war to (2) defend a county that the political and military elite expected to be fighting before long, and has now survived more than a hundred years. The Treaty of Versailles was the basis for the peace of the 20s, but it was never entirely fulfilled, and Germany breached it when it came to its advantage to do so. Treaties can be CBMs - Confidence building measures - but, like Wikipedia, in order to work, people need to assume good faith - with which, they can work very well, without which they're not worth the paper they're written on. --Mnemeson 00:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I am yet again (in a painful way) discovering how my history teachers tried to make our country look more important than it was....but I was always taught the UK immediately declared war upon Germany because they violated Belgian neutrality, when marching to France through our nation. Neutrality was one of the important demands made by the British when our nation was "made" in 1830.Evilbu 00:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you're right. Well, that was another thing. Sorry. I forgot the Treaty of London, 1839 that guaranteed Belgian neutrality. But again, it shows how treaties can be treated - Germany tore it up, Britain went to war to defend it (well, partially). Good point. --Mnemeson 00:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that either side can withdraw from a treaty, as long as they notify the other parties, as the US did with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, so they could develop antimissile systems. StuRat 02:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The practical effects of the Israel-Jordan peace treaty included:

• The establishment of "normal" diplomatic relations, meaning the countries put embassies in each other's country.
• The establishment of trade between the two countries.
• Allowing citizens of one country to visit the other.

It's true that the pledges not to invade the other country are only as good as each country's will. But I would hope the reaction of the international community (in the West anyway) to a brazen violation of a peace treaty would be enough to dissuade an attempt to start a war. Note that although most Egyptians still don't like Israel, the peace treaty has held since 1979. -- Mwalcoff 04:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

August 31

Elizabeth Godolphin - benefactress of the Gololphin School (1725).

I cannot find out anything else about her on the web. Would be very grateful if you could help.203.173.2.19 00:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Caroline Shelton

First of all you spelt the school wrong. I did a search and it didn't turn up much on her. The best I could find is here. --The Dark Side 01:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Women and shoes

Not to be stereotypical, but how come a lot of women seem to like shoes? What about shoes attracts them? Is it a sentimental thing for shoes? Do they think the shoes are a part of them, make them attractive etc. How come more women than men care about shoes?

Also, I know a lot of men (stereotypically, yes I know) may have a favourite car/motorcycle/gadget that they feel sentimental about, giving it a name, personality etc. and getting all upset and sad when the item is old/worn-out and has to be retired/discarded? Do women ever feel the same way about their shoes?

Do women feel sentimental about throwing away their old shoes? 64.231.141.217 00:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

They never throw away old shoes. THey have so many pairs that they never wear out 8-)--Light current 00:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you seriously ask your librarian these kind of questions? --The Dark Side 01:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No sorry. Its 'this kind of questions'. Grammar you know! 8-)--Light current 01:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Try either "This kind of question", or "These kinds of questions". JackofOz 06:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean 'These kinds of question' dont you?--Light current 11:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It is all good. --The Dark Side 16:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, notwithstanding that it's all good, this kind of questions, per Light current, is, I'd imagine, fine, although I'd likely say questions of this kind. As to the shoes, Imelda Marcos is probably the archetypal shoe collector (having owned somewhere between 1060 and 3000 pair [or is that pairs? :)]), but perhaps she's simply a compulsive hoarder; according to our article, upon her husband's deposition, she left in their presidential palace 500 brassieres and 200 girdles. Joe 00:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

THe number of pairs of shoes is probably only limited by the available cash!--Light current 00:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Light current, those who make errors while correcting others are in for a fun time.

• There's no such word as "dont"; there is a "don't" (abbreviations require apostrophes, you know!)
• The "Its" when you corrected The Dark Side is "It's" (ditto)
• "Grammar you know!" needs a comma after grammar. Without it, you're telling him he knows grammar, which is the reverse of what I think your point was. :--) JackofOz 01:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont use apostrophes in my abbreviations as I cant be bothered typing them (everybody understands them). Commas are defined under punctuation, not grammar. However, you are correct about the comma. I forgot it. 8-)--Light current 01:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I could have sworn your user page says you're a self-declared pedant and perfectionist. Must have been thinking about someone else, I guess. JackofOz 02:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Ive relaxed a bit on talk, but Im still keen on getting the articles perfect!--Light current 02:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Then I encourage, implore, entreat, exhort and beg you to mend your slack ways and return to the perfection you were destined for. We perfect people didn't get where we did by practising imperfection in our spare time, and if you profess to become like us, you have to do what we do. (cough) Besides, if perfection is the sine qua non for the general anonymous consumer of WP articles, then how much more should it be the minimum standard for people who take the time and trouble to come to the ref desk with particular questions. This is just as much the public face of Wikipedia as any article might be. (Thus endeth today's lesson). Go, and sin no more. JackofOz 04:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think it may appear to make me look too stuffy and British?--Light current 13:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a difference? No, just my joke. "Certainly not" is my serious answer to your question. Peer pressure is not the be-all-and-end-all.  :--) JackofOz 23:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

nursing school/nursing skills

The teacher want a short paragraph on:Why shouldnt you place a dirty linen bed sheet on the floor when changing a patients bed sheets.And why should you place a dirty linen bed sheet on the floor when changing a patients bed in ER.

Think infection--Light current 01:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, you got my curiosity. What is the difference? alteripse 02:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Youre a doctor, not a nurse, Alterprise. Isnt that right?--Light current 02:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

How often is the ER floor disinfected? How often is the ward floor disinfected?--Light current 02:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the teacher would also want it to come out of your own noggin. You won't have a gang of Wikipaedians gathered round when you are in surgery...'OK so I have to amputate.Where can I find out how to do this and why it's not a good idea to leave the severed limb lying about on the floor'... Lemon martini 07:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it because it could be the start of a legend in the theatre ? 8-)--Light current 12:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a doctor, so I have never had to change the bed linen. But now I am curious as to why it's ok to drop the dirty linen on the floor in the ER but not a hospital room. They both end up going to the hospital laundry. Both places have plenty of people wearing shoes from outside the hospital. So if this is a real question and not a trick or a joke, I would like to know the answer. alteripse 14:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I am neither a doctor nor a nurse. But my logic would be:

1. This is about cross infection
2. In a ward, you dont want infective materials (or body fliuds) on the floor where they can be picked up and tramped around to other patients on the shoes of visitors ore nurses.. So you put soiled or used linen in a nylon bag.
3. In an ER which I assume is similar to A&E over here (UK) you are trying to stabilize patients/ save their lives etc. Cross infection is not the priority here, and changing the sheets must be done with minimum disruption to the patient. Hence: chuck em on the floor (the sheets not the patient). Also I would imagine that each emergency bay is for one patient only nad that this bay will be sterilised before it is used again.

That is my uneducated guess. But Im probably wrong in part.--Light current 15:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You might have hit on it with the difference between transmissibility of hospital-acquired germs versus community-acquired germs. The former are more dangerous to other patients. I would still prefer to hear an answer from a nurse who knows the rationale given to her when she was taught that. alteripse 20:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If I get it right, Im gonna apply to be a nurse! Actually , I fancy the Matrons job! 8-)--Light current 20:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal free license

I am thinking of releasing my non-derivative work on the Wikimedia Commons under the following license, which I wrote myself:

This work may be used for any purpose provided that:

1. Attribution must be given to me. If the work is a derivative, an exact copy of the original or a link thereto must be included.
2. This work cannot be used for advertising.
3. This work cannot be included in any product to which Digital Rights Management technology is applied.
4. If a derivative of this work is published, it must be released under a license that does not forbid any use, other than advertising, that would not be forbidden by any version of the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License, GNU Free Documentation License or GNU General Public License.
5. The conditions in this list numbered 2, 4 and 5 (the latter having "enough of this work" changed to either "enough of the work located at [original URL]" or "enough of this work and/or the work located at [original URL]", and the text in these parentheses removed in the former case) must be imposed on any derivative works that contain enough of this work to be covered by the same copyright. The condition in this list numbered 3 must be applied to all derivatives that descend from this work.

The penultimate point is an attempt a flexible copyleft. The idea behind the last is that if, through a long series of derivatives, my work is completely eliminated from a descendant, then the descendant doesn't have to be copyleft or suffer the advertising restriction if the intervening authors don't want it to.

My questions are:

• Will the advertising restriction make the license unfree by generally accepted standards?
• Is this license actually forward-compatible with GFDL, GPL and cc-by-sa?

NeonMerlin 05:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

For Wikimedia Commons questions, you should ask at Wikimedia Commons itself, but in general, "no commercial use" licenses are not acceptable there (and are deprecated here, for that matter). AnonMoos 09:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL ANTHEM!!!!!

Hi, I need to download the national anthem of Australia, Advance Australia Fair (the remix version that was played during New Year's Eve 2004)to do my assignment. Where can I download from? THANKS Jon

Jon, our article on Advance Australia Fair actually mentions this dance remix, and says that it was commissioned by Clover Moore. You could try contacting her to ask. --Robert Merkel 13:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought that was Waltzing Mathilda. DirkvdM 09:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

History of the U.S. Air Force Order of the Sword

Not sure if this is the right place to turn with a question that actually concerns an article, but does anyone know anything about the history of an U.S. Air Force decoration called the "Order of the Sword"?

The Wikipedia article (Order of the Sword (United States)) has been infested by pseudohistorical claims to continuity with the Royal Swedish Order of the Sword, which in this version of reality was founded as a war organisation of non-commissioned officers by Gustavus Vasa. The Swedish order was in fact founded only about 200 years later, in 1748, by Frederick I, as a pure state decoration and limited to commissioned officers. The Order is then supposed to have been introduced to America during the Revolutionary War, then remained dormant for a long time, until it was revived during the civil war, "when it was presented to Robert E. Lee", then dormant again until it was revived in 1967 (diff), or, according to another version, it remained domant all the time until 1967 (diff). In some versions the history stretches back to the 12th century, or a medieval "British" connection is introduced.

The article originally linked to a couple of webpages detailing the claimed history of the USAF decoration. These pages are now gone from cyberspace. "Order of the Sword" + "U.S. Air Force" (or similar searches) gets a number of Google hits, such as this or this, offering versions of this story. It appears likely that 1967, when the order was supposedly revived, was the actual foundation year. But there seems to be no official page and no useful sources that do not suffer from obviously parroting some kind of probably very recent USAF lore that contradicts well-established knowledge on the Swedish decoration. up+l+and 08:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

globalization

A few questions: 1. how do you know that globalization is occuring? 2. What are Niesh Markets? 3. Why have they been able to take off? Thanks.

• The way you phrased that makes me suspect it's a homework question. Feel free to ask help with any specific questions, but don't expect us to do your homework for you. Try reading globalization to start with. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And you might want to check your spelling as you research - it took a while before I realised your second question was referring to Niche markets --Mnemeson 12:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this time it wasn't homework? I remember when I got homework, the topic would either be handed out on paper, or it would at least be written on the blackboard. Does this teacher actually spell Niche "Niesh"? If so, the questioner could use all the help s/he could get! Loomis 12:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sometimes people who ask homework questions here forgot to take notes and only remember hearing something. Anyway, he should now have enough information in the articles to figure out the answers himself. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

stainless steel nail files

I'm searching for a company in the US who currently manufactures stainless steel nail files. I've searched every search engine possible with no luck. Can you help me?

Why SS? Are you going to file your nails under water?--Light current 13:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Which search engines were those? Mind you this company sells them, but I'm sure if you ask them nicely they'll tell you who manufactured them. :-) For more leads, try this google search. Anchoress 13:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Anchoress, the company you linked to is from Pakistan, not the U.S. ColourBurst 16:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, lol, I have to read more carefully. Missed the 'US' part. Or forgot. Sorry all! Anchoress 19:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Government of United States

If Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are the only "commonwealths," what types of state governments do Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey have? And what are the fundamentals that establish their laws, including Pennsylvania? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.232.72 (talk • contribs)

The other 46 states are States. Would you be interested in the Pennsylvania Constitution ? --Mnemeson 14:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Commonwealth" is, in the case of the states mentioned, simply a flowery word carrying no meaning. There are 50 states in the US. Properly speaking, US Commonwealths are those political divisions of the United States somewhere between "territory" and "state", and the term is pretty much archaic. — Lomn | Talk 15:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you say (after all, America isn't 'The United States and Commonwealths'), but as long as those four refer to themselves as Commonwealths, I'm (personally) inclined to use the flowery word, at least from time to time. Both self-definition and words are fun :) --Mnemeson 15:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are states like the other 46 U.S. states. The only thing that they have in common is that they happen to use the word "commonwealth" as part of their official name, unlike the other 46 states. But the governments of the four "commonwealths" do not have any special features. They are like the governments of the other 46 states. Each state has its own set of laws. The four states that use the word "commonwealth" as part of their name do not share any particular law because they are called commonwealths. Every state, including the four "commonwealths", has a state constitution that sets out the rules for its governments and for its law code. Marco polo 15:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And don't confuse all of this with the Commonwealth of Nations. DirkvdM 10:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to be confused with The Wealth of Nations? Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How can one contact you over the phone

By picking up the reciever, dialling the number and waiting. Why not use the email facility we have here for registerd users?--Light current 14:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In any case, Wikipedia is not a company, and we do not link up with foreign companies to help manage waste. --Lambiam^Talk 15:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well were gonna have to manage this waste of 3 posts!--Light current 16:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggest just deleting this whole para--Light current 19:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

women and sex

I want to find out what influences women to indulge in pre-marital sex even when they know it is wrong. Most importantly why women would have sex with married men yet they know it is wrong. How is it that the woman's level of education does count for much when making such decisions?

Wrong in what sense? And how do you know it is wrong? --Lambiam^Talk 15:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Whats 'wrong' about it in your view? and what do you mean by sex? kisssing, cuddling, petting, heavy petting......etc. Remember Clinton?--Light current 15:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that men do it too. ;) --The Dark Side 16:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Different cultures have different moral standards. I personally believe, because of this, nothing is absolutely right or wrong, it is relative to the culture you are in, and if something was morally right or wrong it wouldn't matter, because whatever culture you are in decides. Sound good to you? — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

It is normal of human live to have sex. It is normal. Leave it go

Some people enjoy doing something because they think it's wrong. (None of my sex is pre-marital, because I never intend to get married!)--Shantavira 17:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Things that are forbidden or disapproved of have always attracted thrill seekers and others for increased excitement.--Light current 17:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be two different questions here: 1. Why would an unmarried woman engage in any sexual intercourse? and 2. Why would an unmarried woman conduct an affair with a married man? The poster treats these two issues as nearly interchangeable and morally wrong. In questioning the behavior only of women, rather than men's behavior also, the poster reflects a double standard.

Some people share the questioner's beliefs and violate their own principles because they desire sex (and possibly because they have low self-esteem or use sex as a replacement for other social relationships). Other people simply believe in different values: they might agree that sex outside marriage is wrong and consider it equally wrong for both men and women; they might regard sex between two unmarried people as ethically neutral but deplore adultery; others might regard "stealing a boyfriend" or "stealing a girlfriend" as nearly as offensive as adultery while having no qualms about sexual relationships between otherwise unattached people; others might regard the use of safe sex to prevent unwanted disease and pregnancy as the most important concern; still others have open polyamorous relationships along such guidelines as The Ethical Slut, in which the main ethical imperative is that all conduct occurs between informed and consenting adults. Durova 19:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Cannons on Ships

Did European warships have cannons in 1398? When did they start to have? --Longwang 15:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Our article on Cannons seems to suggest they didn't. Probably the 17th century from the looks of it--VectorPotential^{71.247.243.173} 16:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Meaning the 1600s, not 1700s. Haven't you ever watched Pirates of the Caribbean? — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

Not really, is it a good movie? Saw the trailer once. oh, and nevermind about the canons, I just re-read it, 17th century is when they started making them out of metal, probably had stone projectiles going back quite a bit further--VectorPotential^{71.247.243.173} 16:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Cannons on a Ship

Thank You! I was asking because I've seen a 19th century painting depicting the Teutonic Knight's attack on Visby, which shows cannons on the ships. I was wondering if that's historically accurate. --Longwang 16:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the plural of 'cannon' is still 'cannon', so your title is wrong. —Daniel (‽) 16:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Both forms are correct according to Webster. --Longwang 17:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Another incredible coincidence on the ref desk. I read this while updating the administration of my video tapes and was just wondering why 'Pirates of the Carribbean' and 'Curse of the black pearl' looked so similar. Turns out the full title is 'Pirates of the Carribbean: curse of the black pearl'. I mean, I had just realised this a few seconds ago and was just rewinding one of the tapes for re-use when I read this. What are the chances? This happens to me a lot here on the ref desk. Is it hauted or do I spend too much time here? Btw, it's an entertaining film. Not bad for a Walt Disney movie. DirkvdM 11:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights

Do educated people actually support the crap known as Human Rights, or is it just some popular culture thing? --Life 17:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you educated? Do you think it is fun being tortured and imprisoned because a family member expressed disapproval with the actions of the powers that be? Explain why you think it is crap. --Lambiam^Talk 18:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say Human Rights was about 99% - 100% pure crap - I have Tony Blair endlessly haranguing me about Human Rights, I see bombs being shipped from US to Isreal via UK and today I hear that most of the cluster bombs dropped by Israel were dropped in civilian areas within 72 hours of the cease-fire (hundreds of thousands of unexploded bomblets in the report I heard). I have no view btw on right or wrong in the Middle East conflict, I'm just saying that as far as I can tell 'Human Rights' is nothing more than an emotive piece of Newspeak for politicians trying to claim the moral high ground (usually when they're about to spatter more gobs of human flesh across the world). Rentwa 23:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's more of a reason to condemn the policy of those governments than the human rights they're not abiding by. It's human rights that allow you to be critical of them without being arrested and tortured. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In the current climate of political apathy I don't think the Blair government cares much about a few embittered loners ranting on the internet, but it did use political bullying and legal chicanery to prevent the BBC reporting what the overwhelming majority of people regarded as the truth about its Iraq propaganda, and eventually forced the Director General of the BBC to resign. The scientist who leaked the truth was driven to suicide by the sh*tstorm Blair unleashed on him. Free Speech?

Re your comment 'That's more of a reason to condemn the policy of those governments than the human rights they're not abiding by' - there's no sense at all in making a distinction between Human Rights and the regimes that grant them or take them away. Human Rights as abstract concepts are just truisms about governance and happy lives - everyone agrees broadly on the principles. Rentwa 11:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If human rights didn't exist then why are you able to use the internet so freely? --The Dark Side 19:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in the aftermath of the holocaust as an effort to prevent Nazi atrocities from happening again. That sounds like a good enough reason to take it seriously, even if you disagree with it. Where have you gotten the idea that the whole thing was "crap?" I suggest you read a wider range of sources before making up your mind. Durova 19:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I did not know its historical nature, and I understand now that if what you say is true, then it was an overcompensation for Nazism, but today it is far too strongly libertarian that it endangers society. And I do not mean to say that people should be tortured because a family member disapproves of the authority. That is very bad for the society. However, it is also bad for the society to say something like "nobody can be tortured, ever, even if the safety of the world depends on it," which is what Human Rights seems to do.

--Life 22:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That would depend on your reading of it. A Kantian interpretation would say that torturing a person breaches their Human Rights, and is never acceptable. A Utilitarian interpretation could say that the right to life of everyone else demanded that that person be tortured. Whilst I personally find that utilitarian reading reprehensible, some people wouldn't see that as a twisting, so much as a reasonable view. Whilst neocons find them inconvenient, Human Rights are amongst the most important political theories to come out of the 20th century. --Mnemeson 22:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I subscribe to the utilitarian interpretation. Also, if someone rejects the concept of human rights totally, as terrorists do, I don't see how they can then claim protection under them, once they are captured. Human rights should be reciprocal, if you don't honor them, then yours shouldn't be respected. StuRat 01:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but I've never been able to agree. Moral imperatives (the acceptance or not of which appears to be where we differ)demand that you treat someone in a certain way, regardless of their own actions. If Human rights are to mean anything, we have to fight to uphold them even when we despise the person they're protecting. Otherwise, they become merely rights for the people we agree with. Kant's damned hard to read, but I think he has a lot of good stuff to say. --Mnemeson 01:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I approach this issue from a peculiar point of view: I'm a U.S. war veteran whose nearest relative was one of the last people to escape from the World Trade Center alive. That said, I'm not at all confident that human rights violations are acceptable against terrorists. Here are a few reasons:

• Torture is an unreliable method of getting information. People who are being tortured will say anything to stop the torture.

• True, but if you verify the info you get, and only stop the torture if it's proven to be true, you should eventually get good info. StuRat 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Suppose you've got the wrong guy: the real terrorist is still out there hiding and the dude whose rights you've abused is just an honest dentist.

• True, so torture should only be used when you're absolutely sure who you've got. For example, if you catch somebody red-handed planting a bomb. StuRat 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• A country loses the moral high ground when it violates international treaty. No matter how good a reason we think we have in the short run, when some other country commits real atrocities we'll look like fools and hypocrites if we complain.

• The U.S. of A. probably won't be the world's strongest country forever. Suppose China is the leading superpower fifty years from now: what sort of example do we want to set for the next top dog?

• Both of these points assume that terrorist groups and other countries will do whatever we do. They never have in the past, so I doubt that they will in the future, either. StuRat 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Cruel actions can radicalize otherwise peaceful individuals. I joined the U.S. armed forces after 9/11 specifically because those bastards nearly killed my family. So when, as an American, I came into contact with foreign nationals (especially refugees or people in custody) I always wanted to act in a way that would leave them telling family and friends how nice the Americans are. I certainly didn't want to inspire new hatred against my country.

• Really nasty people usually try to "muddy the waters" by claiming their target is "just as bad." Stooping to their tactics alienates your own potential allies. Durova 14:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Both of these points, while true, neglect to mention that that, no matter what we do, those terrorist groups and other countries will claim we are engaging in a campaign of genocide against them. "News" orgs like al-Jazeera are all to happy to lend credence to such conspiracy theories. StuRat 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• So, to summarize, torture should be used rarely, when we are sure we have a bad guy who has info of critical importance in saving lives, and who we don't plan to ever release. Don't torture some random guy you find on the street without any ID, but do torture bin Laden, if captured. StuRat 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the orginal poster life. Human Rights are crap. Let's look at it shall we?

There are a total of thirty articles outlining people's human rights, but the most important principles declared are considered to be the following:

• The right to life, liberty, property and security of person.

• The right to an education.

• The right to employment, paid holidays, protection against unemployment, and social security.

• The right to participate fully in cultural life.

• Freedom from torture or cruel, inhumane treatment or punishment.

• Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

• Freedom of expression and opinion.

Here is why some Human Rights are crap.

(1) Right to life. If all humans have the right to life then how can muslims kill infidels in a holy war? Crap!

(2) Right to liberty. If all humans have the right to liberty then how can a human submit themselves to Allah totally? Crap!

(3) Right to property. If all humans have the right to property then how can anything belong to Allah? Crap!

(4) Right to security of person. If all humans have the right to security of person then how can muslims threaten to kill apostates? Crap!

(5) Right to an education. That's acceptable as long as the education is about the truth and not spreading lies about Allah.

(6) The right to employment, paid holidays, protection against unemployment, and social security. The right to participate fully in cultural life. All acceptable.

(7) Freedom from torture. If humans cannot torture other humans then how can we extract information from traitors? Crap!

(8) Freedom of thought. If all humans have freedom of thought then they will think of sinful thoughts. Crap!

(9) Freedom of religion. All people are free to choose the correct religion. Acceptable. It's choosing the incorrect religion that is unacceptable.

(10) Freedom of expression/opinion. If all people have freedom of expression then how can one intimidate people that say nasty things about Allah? Crap!

Ohanian 01:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should remove the the comment before mine since it seems that the author is distraught that his religion is not the one and only true religion. --The Dark Side 02:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

- sorry? are you suggesting that fundamentalist islamic terrorists dont respect human rights? well, duh! they also dont respect the law generally-does that mean that the law is crap? what would you prefer-that we had no rights? that people could kill at will? on the issue of torture, could you please agree that a world completely without torture is better than a world where toture is rife? perhaps you might consider how best to acheive that objective? i personally believe (and what would i know with my expensive, liberal education?) that if countries such as mine (the UK) take an absolute stand against torture (and human rights abuses generally) then some day, in the far distant future, other countries might feel the same. we may not like it that those dirty foreigners who want to blow us up can say what they say without expecting to have their finger nails pulled out, but thats the sacrifice civilised society makes in the hope, however naǐve, that should we find ourselves accused of horrible things in some far off land, we can make it to the court room with our pedicured nails. - yes, educated believe absolutely in human rights. we believe in all those things you think are crap and we respect your right to belive otherwise. there may be those who hate us but that doesnt mean we have to stoop to their level. throwing away all the right we've fought for would be the most grotuesque knee jerk reaction, after all, only fools rush in..200.199.163.198 02:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the truth.

• Humans do not have any human rights.
• Instead human may be given privileges by Allah.
• Allah gives a group of humans (muslims) certain privileges that other groups do not have.
• It is only because of these god given privileges that muslims can perform certain actions.

Ohanian 04:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Those are the kinds of opinions that, unfortunately, give Islam a bad name. JackofOz 04:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree with that statement utterly and completely. Those, by far most responsible for giving Islam a bad name, are certain Muslims themselves. You're a Muslim, you crash a jetliner into an office building, YOU'RE the one giving Islam a bad name. You're a Muslim, you blow yourself up in order to kill as many innocent lives as possible, YOU'RE the one giving Islam a bad name. You're a Muslim, you lead a country, and you call for the genocide of an entire people, YOU'RE the one giving Islam a bad name. You're a pacifist Muslim cleric, but you don't have the balls to condemn all of these atrocities, YOU'RE the one giving Islam a bad name. You're an average, hard-working, peace-loving Muslim, yet you can't resist participating in so-called "peace rallies" wherein the flag of the genocidal Hezobollah organization is waved proudly, (nay, dare even object to it!) YOU'RE the one giving Islam a bad name. I'd say it's long overdue for Muslims to finally stop playing the worn out old victim role, and start taking responsibility for the deeds and misdeeds of their brethren. Only once this finally occurs can Islam retake its rightful place within the world's three monotheistic religions of peace. Muhammed, if he is indeed the man of peace he is described to be, would be utterly disgusted by ALL of those who claim to follow his teachings, yet passively acquiesce in such disgraceful, disgusting, inhuman, wholly Un-Islamic acts. Muhammed would surely be disgusted with what his teachings of peace, kindness and benevolence have degenerated into. Loomis 05:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said. In the case of the Palestinians, the strategy of using terrorism to get what they want is such a dismal failure, you have to question their sanity. It's been almost 60 years since the partition, and, unless they consider death and destruction to be an "accomplishment", they have nothing to show for all the violence aimed at Israel. Had they followed Ghandi's example, and offered solely peaceful resistance, they would have the international community fully behind them, and even Israeli popular opinion would be sympathetic. This would allow them to have their own state, with full control of the borders, a booming economy, and peaceful relationships with their neighbors. Instead, they elect a terrorist run government, their economy is in collapse, they are pariahs in the civilized world, and they still don't seem to be willing to change course. StuRat 07:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Better not reveal your address, because someone might come over to your place to check how much you value your rights. DirkvdM 11:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Ohanian. It is a lot easier just calling the terrorist Islamic as opposed to something like neo-Islamofascist. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

I was the asker of this question; however, the topic has strayed from my interests. I do notice, however, that some proponents of Human Rights say things such as, "You can only say human rights are crap because human rights prevents you from being captured and tortured!" This is fallacious; the fact that Human Rights prevents this does not imply that Human Rights is the only thing that can do this. In reality, good governance does this, by realization that torturing somebody for saying Human Rights are crap is an idiotic move for the society(I think it is evident why). What I am trying to say is that Human Rights, although it corresponds slightly with good governance, also mandates certain things that are detrimental to society, such as the rights to life(even for dangerous criminals), to an education(even for retarded people), to paid holidays(clear cultural bias), freedom of religion(including religions with dangerous practices), freedom from torture(even when it is necessary), anf freedom of speech(even for dangerous massive propaganda campaigns). If I have misinterpreted Human Rights, and in reality they are supposed to be suggestions instead of mandates, please let me know. --Life 03:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the thread, but I don't see the problem. You're a human, right? And you have rights, right? Well, there you go. What those rights should be is a different matter. I suppose that at the core of this is that, like many people, you don't care much about rights that (you think) will not likely ever apply to you. And the further problem is that those other people might think that about differnt rights, that do apply to you. If they for a majority you're screwed. So that's why it is a good thing out of self interrest to promote a society that honours all rights, even the ones that don't apply to you.

This makes me think of that German who said that when the nazis started arresting the commies he didn't take action because he wasn't a commie. When the came for the gays he did nothing because he wasn't gay. When they came for teh gypsies, ... you get the idea. When finally they came for him there was nobody left to protest. DirkvdM 06:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That was Martin Niemöller. --Lambiam^Talk 07:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Brothers in Arms

I heard that the song is dedicated to the defeated Vietnam soldiers (apparently US and allies). Is it true? I typed some combinations in Google but found no relevant hits. --Brand спойт 18:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

According to our article on the eponymous album, the song you mention, and the previous three songs on the album, refer to guerilla wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 1980's. dpotter 03:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Canada License Plate

Hi, I'm in Vancouver BC and this morning I saw a CANADA license plate, if I remember correctly black lettering on white, odd dimensions compared to regular, 5 or 6 digits...the provinces issue their own license plates & this wasn't a Veteran's plate either. Any ideas what these are issued by/for? The vehicle was an unmarked van with normal windows & an old guy driving. Google was not my friend today.--24.80.70.174 20:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

According to US and Canadian license plates, the license plate you saw was for a vehicle belonging to Canada's armed forces. Marco polo 20:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one, thanks. I was pretty sure it was armed forces but it was a plain vehicle.--24.80.70.174 20:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well we've never had the richest armed forces, you know?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  16:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

September 1

Musical Opinion

In your opinion, what is/are the best album/s ever. This is question is strictly opinion based, I am interested in exploring music I am not familiar with and would appreciate all serious responses. Thanks for your input.

Asking which albums have been found to be best in surveys etc. would be more in the spirit of this forum; see Pop albums that have consistently appeared in top lists, etc., and I know that the BBC news site has accounts of the results of several such contests... AnonMoos 02:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Anything by Nirvana is a good start. --The Dark Side 02:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Zombie and Water No Get Enemy by Fela Kuti, The Velvet Underground and Nico by The Velvet Underground (and Nico), The Complete Last Concert by the Modern Jazz Quartet, Porgy and Bess by Miles Davis (as well as Miles Ahead, Someday My Prince Will Come, Bitches Brew, the list continues), Green Onions by Booker T and the MGs, Highway 61 Revisited by Bob Dylan (and ALL his other stuff), Tje Ni Moussou by Amadou and Mariam, anything by the Bothy Band, Bill Evans, Keith Jarrett, or by Astrud Gilberto, or Art Blakey (though I especially love Paris 1958). Astor Piazzola's pretty cool. If you haven't noticed, this isn't a single GREATEST cd, but it's a list of a bunch of good ones and good artists in pretty varying fields, cause that seems to be what you're looking for. If you want great classical, look into Tchaikovsky (his concertos and piano pieces are just as good as the ballets), Debussy, Beethoven (no shit), Mozart (but he's so passe), Prokofiev (Romeo and Juliet is the bomb)......... Hope that's what you're looking for. I didn't want to overload you with names. Oh well. 70.108.185.102 04:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mozart passé? Hardly. Quality endures. JackofOz 04:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I was kidding about that. And I left out Kind of Blue (and hundreds of other albums - including, now that I see another contributer's name, Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon, and a lot of his other albums). 70.108.185.102 05:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The soundtrack to Godzilla the movie was pretty good too.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  16:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

have you heard kelly clarkson's new one- breakaway? thats pretty good. also christina aguilera's stripped really helped me out. oh, and kylie minogue's 'fever' is, in my humble opionion, pop perfection.200.199.53.17 20:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Perfection does not exist in the world of pop music. Pop music is hardly what I was looking for. The largest response was quite satisfactory, for that I thank you.

Rhapsody in Blue by George Gershwin. Possibly the only succesful haybrid classical/jazz song ever. --The Dark Side 20:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are truly interested in studying music, then you should listen to every big hit you can and ask yourself, "Why was this a hit?" Focus especially on the music you do not like. The same goes for any form of art. For example, you can watch every movie that wone the Academy Award for Best Picture and ask, "What made that movie so special?" In my personal opinion, there are very few songs that near perfection. The ones that do tend to stand the tests of time. Obviously, you can't look at anything in the past 25 years to see if it has stood the test of time - but there is a hell of a lot of music that existed long before MTV started telling us what was good. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thart sounds like really bad advise. You may score some hits (althouhg marketing is more important for that), but this will only hinder you in making good music. The best art is made by people who don't give a shit about the rest. Think of it. Which great artists played by the rules? Art is about breaking the rules. DirkvdM 07:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Freddie Hubbard and Charles Mingus have done a few near-perfect songs as well, in my opinion. And Led Zeppelin. And Henri Dikongue. And yes, Gershwin's amazing. Sashafklein 01:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

And Curtis Mayfield's Superfly is pretty sweet, as is Funkadelic's Maggot Brain (if you're into funk), although I couldn't get away with calling either best-album-of-all-time material. Sashafklein 01:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The Wall by Pink Floyd of course. And several other bands most of whose entire repertoire is good, like Led Zeppelin, Genesis, ELP (with the exception of Love Beach), Jimi Hendrix (the official releases), Manfred Mann's Earth Band (Nightingales and Bombers is the first album I liked from beginning to end) and of course the Beatles (especially Abbey Road). Then there's seventies (and only seventies) Queen (especially Queen II and Sheer Heart Attack). As for single albums, Ten Years After Recorded Live, Jethro Tull's Thick as a Brick, Just a Poke by Sweet Smoke (I can play that whichever mood I'm in) and because it was a sign of its times, Never Mind the Bullocks. I notice that those are all British bands. Not that I don't like music from elsewhere, but I was being very critical (is that good English?) and in that light none of, say, the Doors albums stand out enough.

To right this national wrong (?) some classical music (although you asked for 'albums', I'll focus on the pieces, not the performances). There's the best piece ever, the Pathetique by Chaikovsky, Romeo and Juliet by Prokifiev, Rachmaninov's 2nd and 3rd pianoconcerto, Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez, most stuff by Geschwin and of course the Four Seasons (no, not the girlie group). And of course many many more, but I could sit here all day. DirkvdM 07:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If I were stuck on a deserted island with playback equipment, three pieces of music, and a year's supply of batteries, I'd choose:

• Somethin' Else by Cannonball Adderley
• "Piano Sonata No. 31 by Beethoven, performed by Wilhelm Kempff
• The Unforgettable Fire by U2 Durova 21:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Marble pedestal signed Petrelli? Value?

Kudos to all who have helped in the past - I have an item in Maine at James Julia up for auction thanks to you.

Now I am searching for information on a marble pedestal signed I believe 'Petrelli'. It's white, beautiful, very ornate, and topped (separately) by a white marble sculpture titled (again I believe) Apollo Belvedere. Made in Italy probably early 1900's is it was purchased for the opening of a Minneapolis hotel in 1906. Any links or ideas as to value or where/how to sell? If this is not the proper place to post please feel free to let me know. Pedestal is approximately 3-4 feet tall.

Original artist:[7] Yours must be a reproduction. Petrelli seems to be an Italian name.--Light current 03:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Raimondi seems to have been an engraver, not a sculptor. The Apollo Belvedere was sculpted by an unknown artist and discovered 40-50 years before Raimondi got into the act. JackofOz 03:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, he didn't engrave the actual sculpture, he made an engraving (ie. a two-dimensional representation onto a flat surface) of what it looked like. Like a picture, only engraved rather than painted or drawn. The engraving was copied and that's how the image of the statue became well known throughout Europe. JackofOz 04:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see! Thanks. Well where is the original sculpture now?--Light current 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the caption under the pic, it's in the "Museo Pio-Clementino". JackofOz 05:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Except that this "original" is a copy of a much earlier bronze sculpture. --Lambiam^Talk 07:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't I see that? Not looking properly. Sorry 8-(--Light current 14:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Buddhist Philosophy

I do remember, some time ago, reading something about how someonoe on the path of Enlightment who must, if he "meets his parents on the road, kill his parents; if he meets Buddha, kill the Buddha". But I could not for the life of me remember where I've read it (and yes, I am pretty confident it is an authentic, non-fictional source).

So my questions would be,

a) who said that, from what source, and, b) why would you have to kill your parents and/or Buddha? Is there a deeper meaning to it?

It's just a curiousity question, albeit one that reveals a fascinating insight into Eastern philosophy. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

--Amry 03:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Check out Linji and Killing the Buddha for more information and references. ---Sluzzelin 05:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Something the koan doesn't explain is that according to traditional Buddhism, a Buddha cannot be killed, only wounded. And wounding a Buddha and murdering one's parents are among the five most heinous offences that anyone could possibly commit.--Shantavira 05:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's 'patriarchs' not 'parents', and if it means what I think it means then it's like Hui Neng's 'Finger Pointing at the Moon':

The truth and words are unrelated. The truth can be compared to the moon. And words can be compared to a finger.

I can use my finger to point out the moon, but my finger is not the moon, and you don't need my finger to see the moon, do you?

Rentwa 12:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Those comments fall under what is commonly called the "twilight texts". My favorite part of them is the story of a priestess who proves she is on the path to enlightenment by offering the head priest a dinner of her own feces and urine. He eats it to prove he is further down the path than her. The point of all of it is the realization that nothing exists - therefore, there is no such thing as good and evil. If nothing is evil, you can kill the Buddha and you will not have any bad kharma following you. It is really nothing more than saying, "I'm above all that good and evil stuff." --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

History of British Motoring

I am looking for information on the number of cars on British roads from the 1930's to the present day and how many cars owned per family. Also historical petrol prices and Road Tax prices. Any help gratefully received. Thanks

Automobile article is a good start.--Light current 14:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Vehicle excise duty doesnt have much history 8-(--Light current 16:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

'Fever' in the MasterCard Soccer worldcup spot

Apparently, the daughter of the producer of the spot, Frank Lieberman, sung the version used in the spot[8]. I would be interested in purchasing a copy, but was unable to get a definite answer on if that's even possible. Thanks, RichiH 13:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Advertising Impressions for Printed Materials

I have searched all over to find out how many advertising impressions does it take to stick in someones mind?

I have heard seeing the same thing 3x times is what it takes but I am not sure. I would like to find an article or some information on it.

Thank you! Christine

Memory is strongly related to emotions. You will remember something after a certain number of times and for only a certain time, depending on your interest, motives in life, learning, and so on. Printed material differs also from other media, a good combination (TV or radio ads) may change the data. -- DLL ^{.. T} 17:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. For a highly interesting (or highly annoying) ad, you might remember it after one viewing. For a really boring ad, you may never remember it, no matter how many times you see it. StuRat 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• also people remember it wrong,not printed but everyone remembers the Leonard Rossiter/Joan Collins drinks ads and no-one can remember if it's Martini or Chinzano-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 20:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

Painting

Can someone be as kind as to tell me what this painting is?

http://img103.imageshack.us/my.php?image=20uy4.jpg

It's the Monet painting, Impression, Sunrise. According to the Wikipedia article, the Impressionist movement was named after this painting. PoliticalJunkie 17:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

wow, that is a really good painting for a four year old with crayons. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

That's probably exactly the same thing you would have said if you had been born 200 years ago.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir Issac Brock

Hello, i am wondering if you could find out for me what Issac Brock said in his address to his troops just before the battle of queentson heights and his death. It would be a great help seeing as the book i owned that contained that information is lost to me.

thanks

142.161.226.195 19:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Try Sir Isaac Brock, and also here.EricR 19:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm searching for heaven on earth

I'm thinking of moving in to an inhabited place on earth that hasn't known any war, battle, major conflicts, occupation, opression, dictatorship, major crimes, epidemics, economic difficulties, natural disaster or a significant polution, and where there is internet, satellite TV and mobile access. Do you know such a place? CG 19:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically Antarctica is inhabited, though the hole in the Ozone layer may qualify as pollution or disaster. Nowimnthing 20:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Internet, satellite TV, and mobile access sound nice, but I don't suspect they would be any good if you didn't have the health care to enjoy it. And "hasn't known any war" - do you mean ever? Scandinavia's been pretty peaceful for a long time now, but look at the Vikings. The existence internet access, cell phone networks, health care systems, and so on pretty much guarantees a sophisticated economy, which guarantees at least some level of economic difficulties. Basically, in short, there is no heaven on earth. zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read utopia or even Utopia. The fact that a similar place has been sought for most of human existence and has not been found, or the people who claim to have found it are often seen as nutjobs suggest either: such a place does not exist or the wrong search criteria have been used. P.s. satellite TV is not usually a common element of classical utopias and may even constitute the undesirable oppression element. MeltBanana 20:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Patagonia in S. Chile looks like a pretty cool place (lots of tourism photos available online) - inhabited, but sparsely; awesome scenery; colonised by civilised Spaniards. Slight problem with Pinochet a few years ago, but I don't think you're going to find anywhere that's 100% perfect. Rentwa 20:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose a rich person could buy an uninhabited island and add all the modern technology, and a small population, and thus create your "heaven on Earth". Would that count ? A new volcanic island would be the best bet that no wars had ever been fought there before. Sealand might be an example, using a new man-made island. StuRat 20:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess Switzerland would generally fit your bill, except of course the war part. Although the last one was the Sonderbund War in 1848, and it was a pretty boring one, too, with less than a hundred dead. Sandstein 21:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I second that vote for Switzerland: lived there very contentedly for 11 years and I found it remarkably serene. Einstein is reputed to have said he'd like to be there if WW3 broke out, because it takes at least 50 years for anything to start happening in Switzerland. :) Unfortunately this also goes for its pick of recent films (usually a couple months behind the UK) but otherwise it is very modern and incredibly organised (particularly its clockwork-like public transport.) CptJoker 02:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer my wars boring. :) DirkvdM 07:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You're in luck, then, as the coming war with Iran will require boring a hole into their bunkers to destroy their covert nuclear weapons program and kill the scientists working on it. StuRat 21:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Depending on how literally you want it to have never known war, Iceland is about as close as you're going to get. It voluntarily placed itself under Norwegian rule (because of civil war in Iceland), it passed peacefully by treaty into Danish rule, the British occupation in WW2 consisted of a warship parking in the harbour without firing a shot purely to avert the legalism that it was part of Denmark, and the Nazis had invaded Denmark, its independence in 1944 was uncontested (and already practically de facto since the early 1900s), and it entered NATO - a military alliance - on the explicit understanding that it would never be required to develop a military of its own. The fifth highest GDP/capita in the world, with boundless geothermal energy, Scandinavian levels of crime and education, very stable democracy, the most free press in the world (Reporters without borders)... --Mnemeson 02:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel that I live in such a place. New Zealand hasn't had any war or battle since the mid 19th century, doesn't really have any enemies (although in these days of global terrorism that's a relative thing), little major crime, mostly prosperous, a decent state-run health care system (although not as good as it used to be), good communications with the rest of the world and mobile reception over the whole of the country, and English-speaking (not that you said that was one of your criteria). Pollution is low, especially outside the major cities, and the scenery is world-class. See New_Zealand#International_rankings for how New Zealand compares with other countries on a number of scales. It isn't necessarily easy to get permission to immigrate to New Zealand, but if you are a skilled worker there'll probably be a job for you.-gadfium 03:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand is indeed a good choice. Costa Rica is another. No army and still they're left in peace, dig that! And some impressive natural beauty that they try to preserve because it's a source of income. They even have a place called Paraíso (Paradise). However, it's geologically active, with earthquakes and landslides and firearms are way too easy to come by (the only guns on display I ever saw on my travels were in Costa Rica).

So New Zealand still wins. I suppose not having any transportable natural resources would prevent invasion. If your greatest asset is serenity then an inviasion would destroy that and thus be pointless. And that goes for both New Zealand and Costa Rica. The Maldives and the like would also count if it weren't for the rising sea level. As for internet access, a telephone line is enough and where can't you get that? And satellite tv only requires a receiver (right?), but is that a criterium for heaven?

Iceland sounds good too, although I hate the cold and touching on the arctic circle means the winters won't be too nice. But speaking of non-transportable natural resources, they've got a very important one - thermal energy. Energy is an important prerequisite to sustain a modern utopia, and they've got loads of it, but invading the country for it would be pointless. So we want New Zealand with the climate of Costa Rica and geothermal activity of Iceland. Hold on, New Zealand has that too, but is it enough (and would you be willing to sacrifice the natural beauty aspect of it?).

And the Dutch get preference treatment when emigrating to New Zealand, so what am I still doing here? DirkvdM 07:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

To my surprise, there are no places called 'heaven', but there are several places called Hell. DirkvdM 08:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Scotland, or if you want some sun, Monaco, I think most of your answers would be european coutries, but also there's Australia. I wouldnt recommend moving to an LEDC, such as a south american, asian, or african country, as the difference in wealth of between the top and bottom half of the population is going to be very high, which can cause high crime rates, and corruption. And a lot of them have their hidden darker sides, eg. Maldives seems perfect, but then, they have apparently are extremely unwelocming to foreigners, rarely grant anyone permission to live there other than locals, and are one of the top persecutors of christians in the world. Philc _T^E_C^I 11:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

And the winner is...(rumble)...: New Zealand (unless you make me change my mind ;) CG 21:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Be sure you see the statue erected of Richard O'Brien in Hamilton. :) CptJoker 02:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No-one's mentioned the Palm Islands or The World Islands off the coast of Dubai. The islands are all less than five years old, while the country itself has never taken part in any major military conflict. Healthcare and access to technology are all world-class. Howard Train 05:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Because there not built and there just a rubbish commercial project anyway, to make a nice looking place, they build as many houses as humanly possible on it, for maximum commercial return. Basically because its rubbish and fake. Philc _T^E_C^I 13:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• yes but I'm not telling coz too many people will move in-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 20:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

Evolution of sports

How did humanity come up with most sports played today even though they have no seeming evolutionary roots? Take ice hockey, for example. What purpose would the skills required to hit a puck over several meters of ice into a net served for a band of Cro-Magnon hunter-gatherers? C. M. Harris ^{Talk to me} 21:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Most sports are a test of the skills required to bring down prey - yes, the prey wasn't a hockeypuck, but the necessary hand eye coordination, reflexes and strength are all demonstrated by the participants.Adambrowne666 23:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe many started as a form of warfare or execution of prisoners. The "ball" was frequently the decapitated head of the enemy. StuRat 00:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I heard of that, but frequently? Anyway, it may have to do with people not growing up. Why do kittens play? Or adolescents of any species. Well, mammals anyway. Maybe it has to do with the mammalian need to develop the brain. And humans have a bigger brain, so they need to train it more. DirkvdM 08:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I still think it's a way of demonstrating your viability as a hunter to potential mates - see, I can whack this puck with great accuracy - just as I'd whack a mammoth with my spear. Adambrowne666 12:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ah but have you seen one taken down with a combat tiddlewink?-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 20:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

If you'd whack a mammoth with a spear the way you hit a puck, you'd be the laghing stock of your hunting mates. And the mammoth. Maybe it would fall off a cliff laughing. Is that the idea? DirkvdM 05:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As an attack skill, being able to hit a rock long distances with a stick is a pretty good plus. From that logic, of course, baseball, golf, lacrosse, and hockey all come from the same roots. Ice and skates are modern additions.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  07:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen a weapon that uses a technique remotely similar to that. And with a good reason. It's a difficult way to get your projectile to do what you want it to. Therein lies the challenge, and that's what makes it a sport. So there's a reason to think sports are not meant as hunting practise. Real weapons aren't used very often in sports, and javelin throwing is about distance, whereas for hunting precision would eb more important. Archery is the only exception I can think of. Unless you don't use any weapons of course, like in wrestling. Most other 'martial arts' (silly name) are to stylised to be realistic, but they may still have started as a real practise. DirkvdM 07:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right; while I don't think it's likely a weapon would be designed with that function (though there may have been some sort of atlatl that could perform a similar feat) I do think that it's not far-fetched to imagine even a monkey that has gained the ability to use sticks as tools to use it to whack at loose rocks instead of throwing it or smacking their target directly.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  14:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point - the precise nature of the sport matters less than the fact that the competitors get a chance to demonstrate their athleticism - reflexes and strength etc - this being the skill-set that makes a mate attractive because it indicates he (she?) will be a good protector and provider.Adambrowne666 11:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

80:20 rule

Is Wikipedia following the 80:20 rule? That is, do 20% of the editors/admins do 80% of the work? --Light current 21:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Some Wikipedia types - writers: those who mostly write articles/make major contributions (very few); pedants: those who make minor edits (majority); Nazis: those who mostly delete (not many, fortunately, arguably a necessary evil); big-mouths: those who show off on the reference desk :D; and vandals. Any more? Rentwa 21:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but I fit into all of those categories! --Light current 00:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

We need one of those surveys that will give you a score: writer - 14%, pedant - 39%..., then a summary: 'You are an embittered loner with an obsessive hatred of politicians...'. Maybe someone could write one at one of those survey websites? The Wiki Type Test (WTT). Rentwa 00:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah a Wikipersonality quiz!--Light current 00:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's the Wikipediholic Test. But that only shows one aspect. DirkvdM 08:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Spiritual food

Hi - I think it's Hinduism that has the idea of a kind of spiritual nourishment that is present in all food - it's this that is being offered to the gods when people make offerings of food at shrines. Can anyone tell me please what this spiritual food is called? I used to know, but the name escapes me now. Thanks. Adambrowne666 22:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sentient foods? —Keenan Pepper 01:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that takes me closer - doesn't seem to mention the actual animating principle, but I should find it from that article - thanks again. Adambrowne666 12:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

literary songs

I am looking for a list of popular songs that reference specific novels (i.e The Cure "Killing an Arab" referencing The Stranger). Can someone help me?

Thanks, Dawn

The Police: Wrapped Around Your Finger:

You consider me a young apprentice
Caught between the Scylla and the Charybdis
Hypnotized by you if I should linger
Staring at the ring around your finger..

Devil and the deep blue sea behind me.....
Vanish in the air, you'll never find me
I will turn your face to alabaster...
Then you will find your servant is your master...

And you'll be wrapped around my finger....

The Scylla and the Charybdis being from Homer's Odyssey. StuRat 00:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The Police: Don't Stand So Close to Me:

Young teacher the subject
Of schoolgirl fantasy
She wants him so badly
Knows what she wants to be
Inside her there's longing
This girl's an open page
Book marking - she's so close now
This girl is half his age

Don't stand, don't stand so
Don't stand so close to me
Don't stand, don't stand so
Don't stand so close to me 

Her friends are so jealous
You know how bad girls get
Sometimes it's not so easy
To be the teacher's pet
Temptation, frustration
So bad it makes him cry
Wet bus stop, she's waiting
His car is warm and dry

(Chorus)

Loose talk in the classroom
To hurt they try and try
Strong words in the staff room
The accusations fly
It's no use, he sees her
He starts to shake and cough
Just like the old man in
That book by Nabakov

(Chorus)
(Chorus)

Where the book by Vladimir Nabokov is Lolita. StuRat 00:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The lyrics are quite good. Who wrote them? Sting?--Light current 00:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the article it was Sting.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

List of songs that retell a work of literature MeltBanana 00:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ramble On and Battle of Evermore by Led Zeppelin both refer to Tolkein's Lord of the Rings. Rentwa 01:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Bo Hansson has an album 'Lord of the Rings' and also 'Music inspired by Watership Down'. Iron Maiden have an album with songs about films, Piece of Mind (Iron Maiden album), and several of those must be novels as well. DirkvdM 08:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wuthering Heights (song) Durova 21:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Jefferson Airplane drew rather literally from John Wyndham's book, Chrysalids, in the song Crown of Creation. "Life is change. That is how it differs from the rocks." "In loyalty to their kind, they cannot tolerate our minds. In loyalty to our kind, we cannot tolerate their obstruction." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest starting this as a wikilist, List of Songs that Reference Novels. It might get populated fairly quickly and it's an interesting topic... --Bookgrrl 22:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Lady Elanor-Lindisfarne is The Fall Of The House Of Usher

Space Odyssy by The Byrds is the short story by Arthur C. Clark that is the basis for 2001-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 20:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

September2

Harmonica voice guy

I'm trying to find the name of this blues/folk rock singer. I'm not sure whether he actually plays the harmonica, but when he sings his voice sounds just like one. Anyone know who I'm talking about? —Keenan Pepper 01:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

bob dylan?

Leon Redbone? —Wayward ^Talk 02:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not him. I mean this guy's voice sounded exactly like a harmonica, only with words. —Keenan Pepper 03:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If it was exactly like a harmonica, you might want to check out the songs listed in vocoder#musical history.--Shantavira 07:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, found it: I was thinking of Alan Wilson. —Keenan Pepper 20:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Are we near the end of the "Easy Life"?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_nafeez_m_060831_us_army_contemplates.htm

The article above seems to suggest that the next 20 years will be of endless conflict. Ohanian 02:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems rather excessively pessimistic. While I would agree that there will likely be constant conflict over the coming decades, it should all be put into perspective. Most likely they will all be tiny conflicts (like the recent Israel/Hezbollah conflict), with casualties nowhere near those of WW2. StuRat 03:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I say that yes, the next 20 years will be endless conflict, just as the 20 years after that will be endless conflict, just as the past 20 years was endless conflict, just as the 20 years before that was endless conflict, just as every year of recorded history has been endless conflict. You have to hide from history to not realize that there always been conflict. Just look at the list of wars and you can see that it keeps going and going and going. Peace is nothing more than one spot of the world taking a break while another part of the world continues the conflict. --Kainaw ^(talk) 03:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That's an exaggeration, but yeah, there will always be war or a 'conflict' somewhere in the world. But will it be significantly greater in the next two decades? I'd rather say after about a few decades. Oil will gradually run out, and though alternative technologieas are already available, some will think that stealing oil will be cheaper. But there's a greater threat. What if the climate change will indeed be as bad as predicted (and so far the expectations have largely come true)? Less predictable weather means there will be bad harvests not just in some place, as we have seen happen so often, but all over the place. Refugees will have no place to go because it's bad everywhere. Shortage of resources is often a reason to go to war, but shortage of the second most important resource all over the world will mean al hell wil break loose. And the most important resource, water, may also become a problem in some places. DirkvdM 08:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The human species is an animal, specifically a primate. Like most other animals, when resources are plentiful and easy to obtain we are predominately peaceful. We are social animals and band together for mutual protection, company and co-operative efforts. In order to maintain the usefulness of the group we work for peace within our group, and that's the basic drive of 'civilization', law, manners, custom, fashion, rules and social mores.

When resources get scarce and/or hard to obtain, the 'civilising' drive is pushed to the back seat and we use more agressive methods to get what we need. The harder things get the more violence will become 'acceptable' or at least understandable and to some extent tolerated, by the army, by police, by 'national security forces' and eventually by individuals and small groups.

At the moment, in many countries, violence is against the law and is frowned on socially because there is plenty and violence threatens people's safety and social peace. When things get rough, violence will become more accepted because we all may have to eventually indulge in it to survive and we don't want to have to judge ourselves too harshly for it. Different times, different rules. Ohanian 23:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

jobs for over 50 s

I have to come out of retirement in the Dallas Tx. area due to medical bills resulting from an injury. I am 52, is there any companys that try to hire people my age? I will try anything that I can physically do. Thanks a lot02:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any DIY stores near you? Thry try to hire older people with knowledge!--Light current 02:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What did you used to do before retirement ? StuRat 04:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I used to work! 8-))--Light current 18:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you had a look on employment websites like, to take a well known example, Monster.com? --Robert Merkel 06:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I can think of at least two things where maturity is an advantage: business and teaching. In business fifthy-somethings give the impression of having experience maturity and competence. Regarding teaching, this also applies, but since in the UK the average schoolteacher only stays in the profession for a year or two, you can still train in your fifthies and have as long a career as anyone else! I would suggest careers that involve giving advice or where maturity is valued (eg rather morbidly the funeral business)

You could also try being a freelance gardener. Here in the UK they earn a lot per hour. It does not have to be skilled gardening work - it could be lawn-mowing, clearing overgrown gardens, etc. They get work by advertising in the local paper and putting leaflets into people letterboxes - or mailboxes as you probably call them in the US. Similar areas could be housecleaning, odd-jobs, moving away rubbish, etc.

You could also try working in a supermarket etc - there was an academic study some time ago which showed that people working in bad jobs were more likely to then get a good job than the unemployed.

Thanks folks!14:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup. People who traditionally have had difficulty finding a job, or finding a job that pays them more what they are worth have traditionally started their own businessed. Many people have faced the issues, including minorities that are discirminated against, immigrants, people blackballed by the government, people discriminated based on their sexual preference, or sexuality and people discriminated based on religion or age. Open a store and sell goods, or sell goods over ebay, or sell services within your area of expertise, or consult for companies that need your area of expertise. Atom 16:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is the most depressing philosopher

I want to read something by a very depressing philosopher, perhaps someone known to be disillusioning in some way, and I'm not sure where to start. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks! Rallyander

Some people think Friedrich Nietzsche is depressing because he said "God is dead," but if (like me) you find that learning and thinking critically are enjoyable, perhaps the only truly depressing "philosopher" is the one who gives up to go watch TV instead. Dar-Ape 02:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I found Thomas Hobbes rather depressing. I read some of is work because of Calvin and Hobbes (just wondering, who is this Hobbes guy). It only took a few hours to decide he wasn't for me. --Kainaw ^(talk) 03:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Now how could the stuffed animal that pounces on Calvin be depressing ? StuRat 04:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC) :-)

I'm not sure if Goëthe qualifies as a philosopher, but one of the most depressing, yet touching stories I've ever read was his The Sorrows of Young Werther. If you ever thought it impossible for a BOOK to make you cry, try this one. Loomis 04:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Goethe would have objected to being considered a philosopher. By the way, there are no dots on the "e". You might spell "Göthe", but that spelling is not customary (also not in Germany). --Lambiam^Talk 08:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I find Søren Kierkegaard very depressing. Anchoress 04:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Rene Descartes - not because of what he says, but the way he says it. Rentwa 10:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What about Schopenhauer? AnonMoos 11:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Albert Camus is kind of a philosopher, right? He's really depressing. Adam Bishop 13:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

woo! Camus! — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

Martin Heidegger, especially his later (i.e. post-Nazi) work, is a major downer. Walter Benjamin was also pretty down in the dumps when the Nazis took power (and killed himself shortly after writing a lot of his major work). And let's not forget Theodor Adorno. --Fastfission 15:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If you'll head in the direction of political philosophy, try Hannah Arendt and The Origins of Totalitarianism. Durova 21:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Are Human Rights mandates or suggestions?

When I said that Human Rights are crap(Human Rights, above), I was under the impression that they are mandates, meaning that they must be in effect, no matter what is best for the society. However, due to the large number of Human Rights proponents, I wondered if maybe I had it wrong, and they are just suggestions which should be followed but can easily be broken with good reason. Please help me with this question. Thanks. --Life 03:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It is my opinion that human rights are a naturalistic fallacy. Human rights are said to be "rights" because they are good. However, there is no basis for the measurement of the goodness. Just consider something as silly as "the right to happiness". What if the thing that makes some individual truly happy is to rape and mutilate little children? Does that person deserve the right to happiness? The whole point is that the pursuit of human rights is based on a false assumption that there is such a thing as a human right. Never is it assumed that there may not be such a thing or proven that there is. --Kainaw ^(talk) 03:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the basics of what you are saying. However, the question I want answered(in the header, sorry :) ) is whether Human Rights are mandates or suggestions. If they were suggestions, then I believe they would agree with what you and I are saying(that a person who is made happy by mutilating children should not be allowed to); however, if they are mandates, then they are clearly bad for society. (As a side note, you seem to assume that it can be "proven" that human rights exist; However, in my experience, human rights only exist insofar as they are enforced.)

--Life 04:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The same is true of any right. I have a legal right not to be murdered in my bed, but the existence of that right doesn't actually prevent some maniac from murdering me. JackofOz 06:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You speak of human rights (or is that Human Rights?) as if they were some fixed set of rules. But they're just the rights humans have on the basis of being human and youcan fill that in whichever way you want. If they're enforced, they're called laws. Or are you talking about the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights? The UN doesn't have an actual (lasting) mandate anywhere, so they're suggestions. DirkvdM 08:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody answer this question directly: Generally, when people in the United States and other Western countries say that they support human rights, do they mean to say that Human Rights should be suggestions(that can be broken with a good reason) or do they mean to say that they should be mandates? Thank you. --Life 20:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

More than a mere suggestion, but less than absolute, I would say. When the human rights of individuals conflict, some compromise must be reached. For example, most people would say parents have the right to keep custody of their kids, but that right can be taken away if they are abusive, thus denying the kids right to be free of abuse. As a general principle, the one causing the conflict (in this case the abusive parents) forfeits their rights. StuRat 20:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd put it this way: if you throw someone you don't like into jail for three years without charge because you think he's committed a crime but you can't prove it, you'll likely get a bagful of mail from Amnesty International and perhaps some not-so-nice news stories in the free press. Carry on that behavior long enough, and toward enough people, and some people somewhere will probably hold public protests against you. You might encounter boycotts or sanctions and those folks at the Nobel committee might give the peace prize award to someone who's become a thorn in your side for saying you really shouldn't do that sort of thing. If you get too carried away the World Court might even bring you up on charges of crimes against humanity. Whether or not it goes nearly that far, a lot of people will hate you. Durova 21:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What I mean by mandate is what StuRat said: that Human Rights can only be broken from conflict with other human rights. What I mean by suggestion is that they can be broken with any good reason. For example, if someone uses the right to free speech to lauch a massive propaganda campaign with the objective of getting people to consume more tobacco and alcohol, then the government would lock him up or prevent him from doing that in some other way, because he is harming the populace. Under these definitions, are Human Rights mandates or suggestions?--Life 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"The Most Wondrous Book Of All" riddle

During my wanderings, I came across the riddle here: http://markzdanielewski.info/mzdriddle.html The author is Mark Z. Danielewski; his best known book is House of Leaves. Perhaps I am just being dense, but I dont understand what the answer to this riddle is and it's driving me up the wall. Would any fellow Wikipedians set me on the right path here? Is there an answer to this or is it some sort of viral marketing? 1001001 06:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It certainly sounds viralesque. Its a pretty good riddle though. It mentions three different books or magazines, which could be a hint towards viral marketing. However, if I was to take a guess I'd say something pink like "Life".Daniel.thorpe 00:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it has an answer. - Rainwarrior 05:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Children's book about talking to animals

There was this book that I read and loved as a kid, and which I'm curious to find out about. It involved these kids who went on a trip with their uncle around the world in his hot-air balloon, but the balloon was huge (with different rooms they could live in). Their uncle also had some kind of invention he used so they could talk to animals. They visited the Amazon, and the Australian Outback, and the Nile... all kinds of places. But I can't remember the title or the author, and it's bugging me.

The Fantastic Flying Journey by Gerald Durrell. WP has articles on the book and the author. ---Sluzzelin 10:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I didn't expect anyone to ever have heard of it.

Question concerning Islam and the Muslims

Are the words Islamist and Muslims interchangeable? If one is a Muslim can it be assumed that they are members of the Islamic religion? Conversely can one be a Islamic and not be a Muslim?

What is the root of the word Muslim?Dgrant634@cox.net 15:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)–±

No, the words Islamist and Muslim are definitely not interchangeable. Compare articles on Islamism, Islam, and Muslim. The words "Muslim" and "Islamic" aren't interchangeable either, since "Muslim" (follower of Islam) is also a noun and "Islamic" is not. The etymology of the word Muslim is explained on that page as well.---Sluzzelin 16:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You asked the same question a few days before: #Islamist/Muslim Distinction. --Lambiam^Talk 16:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OOOH, ooh, and 'islamist' and 'islamic' (not actually a word, but used in the west interchangably with muslim) aren't actualy the same thing. Please forgive the sloppy spelling, I'm a wasted-face anon. An islamic person is a muslim person, one who has faith in the oneness and principality of the God Allah (upper-case to denotate the link to the Abrahamc god), and an Islamist is a [neologism] who believes in the propagation of government which holds at its core 'Islamic' (broad view, often parred down depending on the flavor of islamist) values and morals. Not the same...whoot.--24.250.33.247 23:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

NJ

–Thank you in advance for your help...... I am looking for people that was born in new jersey, work there and still live there AND that belongs to the hall of fame. thanks... adriana

New Jersey you say Hmm!Theres this: [9]--Light current 19:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Shrinking Man

I think this is more a movie question than a science question, so here goes: When people shrink in movies, such as The Incredible Shrinking Man or Fantastic Voyage, do the moviemakers ever give consideration to the problem of mass? That is, if a 180 pound man shrinks to the size of a fly, does he still weigh 180 pounds? Obviously, this is not likely, but then, neither is shrinking to the size of a fly. Has any movie ever dealt with this problem? Ben

No. See Suspension of disbelief. —Daniel (‽) 19:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No they dont. THey assume the mass disappears.(wher to we are not told)--Light current 19:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael C. LaBarbera, professor in Organismal Biology, offers some thoughts on this topic in Biology of B-Movie Monsters. Eating, drinking and maintaining body temperature seem to pose a challenge to the Incredible Shrinking Man too. ---Sluzzelin 19:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Then there's the question of what happens to their atoms, are they now proportionally smaller, or is the person now composed of far fewer atoms, molecules, and cells. If so, wouldn't losing most of their brain cells cause a problem ? If the atoms are smaller, they would also need special small atoms to breathe, eat, and drink. StuRat 20:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. THat brings up the interesting? question of: how small ca you be and still not notice your atoms?--Light current 21:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Something like this was asked before. DirkvdM 05:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes things like that are often ignored. Also, sometimes in movies they forget that the velocity of a falling object does not depend on its mass, so shrunken people for instance fall down too slow, and giants too quickly...

See Fantastic Voyage for how Isaac Asimov dealt with problems of this sort in the novelisation of that film that the film itself had glossed over. ColinFine 19:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Several questions about various editions of Freud's Traumdeutung

I have a couple of questions on the various editions of Freud's Traumdeutung that may prove difficult to answer. As you probably know, Freud himself published several revised editions of the Traumdeutung over the years; however, both collected editions of his works (the Gesamtausgabe and the Studienausgabe) only contain the final edition.

• The first (and probably easiest) question is if there is a genetic edition of the Traumdeutung that gives a quick overview of the changes from one edition to the next.

• The second question is if the section on dreams of nakedness (I don't have an English translation of Freud, so I don't know if that's the exact term used in English - in German, it is "Nacktheitstraum", the section is a subsection of "Verlegenheitstraum") was already present in the first edition of the Traumdeutung - I have found conflicting statements on this, and as I said, the collected works are no help here since they only contain the final edition of the Traumdeutung.

• A third (only indirectly related) question deals with Derrida's work on Freud: in Purloiner of the truth, he makes some statements to the effect that according to Freud, all dreams are either based on the idea of killing the father or having sex with the mother (Derrida uses Freud's term Traumstoff in that context), but as usual, he does not quote anything directly from Freud. The two motives of killing the father and fucking the mother are prevalent enough in Freud, but I could not locate anything in Freud's works where he explicitly says that these are the only two basic motives for all dreams. Is there a place anywhere in Freud where he actually makes such a strong statement, or is this just a misquote/unfounded statement by Derrida? I wouldn't be at all surprised if Derrida deliberately bent his reading of Freud to fit his own line of argument, but it would be nice to know for sure.

Thanks in advance, Ferkelparade π 21:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Horentine

Please explain "Horentine" and how it relates to history. Purchased a religious statuette with the tag explaining it to be a "HOrentine COllection". Have researched online to no avail. Thankyou. mcrisg

Have another look, are you sure it does not say "Florentine"? MeltBanana 23:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Florentine--Light current 00:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought Florentine meant "made with spinach".  ;) User:Zoe|(talk) 21:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Only in culinary contexts. There's more to life than food, though. JackofOz 00:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought it meant "made by Florence Henderson". :-) StuRat 02:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I think corn was her specialty. JackofOz 07:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

September 3

Human Rights Again

Sorry for asking this yet again, but nobody answered my final question: Generally, when someone says that they support human rights, do they mean to say it should be the basis of all law(that human rights can only be violated in order to protect other human rights), or that it is a good supplement, but other laws can overrule it with a good reason? --Life 02:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We answered your question as well as we can, whether you were happy with the answer or not. We don't know what everybody thinks, we can only tell you what we think. You shouldn't repost as long as your old Q is still listed on this page. StuRat 03:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Heres the real deal, HR is the realm of the UN as they have a HR division that handels that for mankind. Everthing else is bogus PR for politicians. Note to fetus fans and animal lovers HR applies when you are born, not concieved, not when you are a bun in the oven, born. And animals dont have then either. Happy now? Good,-----Hobgoblin

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is just that: a declaration, just like the Declaration of Independence. As such they do not have the force of law. For instance, the proclamation that Life is an unalienable Right does not stop the United States from putting people to death. Individual countries may have laws or constitutional clauses guaranteeing human rights, such as the United States Bill of Rights. For more information I suggest the Human rights portal. --Lambiam^Talk 20:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Life, the thing is that in Britain we never had a written constitution. Most democratic countries did and it included some rights which were guaranteed. In Britain parliament could in theory pass any law it liked without bothering about peoples individual rights. For example, the right to free speech didnt have so much legal basis in Britain as in America. We have very strict libel laws which mean journalists/whistleblowers have to be much more careful in Britain. Arguably those very strong laws breach people's right to free speech and would not be possible in America.

The Human Rights Act in Britain is a way of bringing us into line with the US, European countries, etc, and have a list of rights all in one place. In a way, its a pity that Labour chose the European version rather than the American one, because some people hate Europe so much they are automatically prejudiced against it, whereas those same people would have no problem with exactley thesame text if it wasnt called European. Jameswilson 23:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Plus, although not anything like as strong or effective, don't forget the Bill of Rights 1689 --Mnemeson 23:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that, in all of the discussions about HR lately, it hasn't really come up that a big part of the reason to draft guidelines is the effort towards antidiscrimination, yeah? It was brought up that the UN's declaration of human rights was a direct answer to the holocaust. It seems we're still hashing out what we mean by the human in human rights, the same way that every American history teacher loves to talk about the fact that all men created equal around here were (back then) specifically white men with land. We're trying to get away from that sort of thing...and genocide based on religion or skin color or sexual orientation or class, etc. All of this utilitarianism is great and everything (how do you objectively quantify things like total good and total happiness within a population?), but does it talk about race at all? I'm off to read the article, I s'pose.--24.250.33.247 00:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Websites for political discussion

Could someone please recommend to me some websites for discussion of political topics (including utopian topics) that is not dominated by libertarian and/or pro-free-market opinions? It would be a big help, and I thank you in advance for your answers. EDIT: Also please make sure it is not dominated by pro-animal-rights or religious type people. Thanks!!! --Life 02:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Abovetopsecret.com (this is IMO a little out there, but I have found many a substantiated political discussion here) ChowderInopa 03:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo provides: Campaigns Wikia. I haven't yet looked in to it, though, so I don't know if it meets your criteria. I've also got my own political wiki, but that's in Dutch and in part based on a liberal/free market ideology. DirkvdM 05:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on Dirk's views, I'm guessing that would be the "donate a nuke to a poor terrorist" site. But, being in Dutch, it could very well say something even worse. StuRat 09:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's primarily Canadian, but I recommend rabble. Also here on WP: rabble.ca. Hardly any animal rights activists and libertarians. Anchoress 05:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're interested in US-oriented political discussions from an unashamedly liberal (in the US sense) perspsective, Daily Kos is one of the best known. --Robert Merkel 23:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I guess my description was a bit vague, but I am fairly authoritarian(EDIT: not extremely, but relatively extremely compared to most americans), and I was looking for a website favoring that.

For example:

-I believe in government-controlled industries and a government-controlled economy.

-I strongly oppose the hippie movement(except I agree with environmentalism)

-I am against freedom of religion

-I am generally in favor of freedom of speech, but compared to most americans I am "against" it

-I believe human rights in general should be "suggestions"

-I am against democracy, though I am not in favor of dictatorships nor totalitarian regimes

--Life 02:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

US Open Rescheduling

With all the recent rain at the US Open (Tennis) in Flushing Meadows, many matches have been postponed. Now, Im curious as to two things. First, do the tournament managers decide to squeeze all the missed matches into the next day, or what? Especially when there are multiple days of rain, this boggles me. Then, ticketing. If someone has tickets, to, say, the Finals (to be played on a Sunday), and the rain causes this day to be postponed, would the ticketholders automatically get into the match the next day, for instance the Monday or Tuesday? Or would they need to go through Red tape to replace their tickets?Thanks so much, ChowderInopa 02:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the rules of the tournament. Wimbledon, which is notorious for rain, has different refund levels - less than half an hour of play, and less than two hours of play (as I recall). Anything more than that and nothing back. They try to catch up as best as possible (this can be both easier and harder later on - on the one hand, more people have been knocked out, so there are more free courts to catch up on, on the other there are fewer days in which to do it, and they need rest time), and in the unusual event where the finals take place on a day after the tournament was supposed to end, it's free entry on a first-come, first-served basis. Whether or not Flushing Meadows use the same rules, I don't know I'm afraid. --Mnemeson 03:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Soul Kid #1 "We got more bounce in California"

"Bounce" by Soul Kid has in the last year become my favorite song. I have been looking EVERYWHERE for a music video of it, but cannot find it. Could anyone help me out? By the way, to make sure we are talking the same song, the catch phrase is: "We got more bounce in California, than all y'all combined!!!" Thank you so much, ChowderInopa 03:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

MOBILE PHONE MEMORY

Hi, I have a Sagem MYX6-2 and I would like to know if the phone can handle a 512MB or 1GB memory card. I have heard that if u use a 512MB or more it will "lag" the phone, am I right? I plan on storing music and pics on the phone. THANKS JON

The is the Reference Desk for questions on the topic of Humanities. A better place for this question might be the Computing, or Miscellaneous desks. —Daniel (‽) 08:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say Computing, although a case could be made for Science. Definitely not here, though. StuRat 08:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Movie title ?

I saw a made for TV movie (I think it was), maybe 5 years ago, where a small prop plane crashed, and the rescuers found it was loaded with cash and the passengers were all dead. They decided to keep the cash for themselves, but the money gradually turned them evil, killing off witnesses and each other. There was snow on the ground for most of the movie. Any idea what the title was ? StuRat 08:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like A Simple Plan, although probably isn't. The search-films-by-plot thing on IMDB might be useful here. -- the GREAT Gavini 08:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's it ! Thanks. StuRat 09:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Spanish film ?

I saw a short Spanish film in which two children are playing. The boy drops something on the girl's head and knocks her out. He runs home, thinking he's killed her. As the hours pass the community becomes more frantic and boy becomes more and more guilty until finally he eats some poisonous berries.

Then the girl returns with a bump on her head. The boy is begining to succumb to the berries and asks her 'Will you tell my mum I ate the berries?' and she says 'No!' Had me crying my eyes out! Anyone know its name? Rentwa 15:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is Adam's speech censored?

Why is it impossible to get the full transcript of Adam Yahiye Gadahn speech on 2nd Sep 2006? After all he spoke in English. Does not the west believe in Freedom of Speech? Or is it Freedom of Speech for me but not for my enemies. Ohanian 09:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is not for those who advocate murder/terrorism. Does he fall into that category ? StuRat 09:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Apparently he got to speak, so he wasn't censored. Maybe there was simply no one who actually recorded it and/or did the transcription. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The ideological platform

In short, the “Azzam” video reconfirms clearly, in an English language that academic translators won’t be able to distort, that al Qaeda’s movement worldwide and in the United States is seeking total annihilation or conversion of the enemy: American and other democracies.

That's why they want to censor it, to prevent English speaking people from hearing the undistorted version. Ohanian 09:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if it's being censored or not, but a lot of it is available for convenient viewing on the internet. I for one am grateful for a voice that appears to be able to speak in a rational manner. It is much easier to communicate and have productive dialog with individuals who compose themselves well, though what's really needed is a questions forum.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Art!

hey im wondering if you could please answer these two questions for me.?

How did art come about??

When did people begin making art?

it would be much appreciated if you could please try and answer them,,,thanks heaps luv xkaylax ←XXkaylaXx 09:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)→

Have you read the article on art? Or the history of art? They may be of help. Dismas|^(talk) 10:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Assuming you mean visual art: Pre-historic art offers some insights and references regarding the second question. As for your first question, it might be older than art history and also depends on what we define as 'art'. See cultural anthropology, art, and aesthetics for starters. ---Sluzzelin 10:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

thank you heaps

James Reeves' children's poems

I am trying to find out something about one of James Reeves' children's poems, but my search has come up with nothing. I do not even know to which poem it relates but here goes: I need to find out what creature in James Reeve's poem is found "...in mellow orchards rich and ripe..." and in which poem is it found.

Any help would be greatly apprecited!

Many thanks! Vic Laville Viclaville 11:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't find anything with that exact quote. The closest poems I found were:

"I turned and looked on heaven awhile, where now

The moor-faced sunset broadened with red light;

Threw high aloft a golden bough,

And seemed the desert of the night

Far down with mellow orchards to endow."

George Meredith, from The Orchard and the Heath

"What is yellow? pears are yellow,

Rich and ripe and mellow."

Christina Rossetti from What is Pink?

I found one mention of orchards in a poem by James Reeves:

"Rockets and Roman candles make

An orchard of the sky,

Where magic trees their petals shake

Upon each gazing eye."

James Reeves from Fireworks

---Sluzzelin 12:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Upon rereading your question, I guess it could be from Reeves's Prefabulous Animiles where he describes creatures such as the catipoce, the chickamingus, the hippocrumb and the snitterjipe. I couldn't find any of these poems online. Sorry. ---Sluzzelin 13:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it is the snitterjipe. apple-eater with luminous eyes, tickling whiskers ---Sluzzelin 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

1968 air lingus crash/shootdown?

I see Brits read wikinaut stuff too, goodie, anybody out there remember the Irish sea crash of a passenger plane that may have been accidently (or not) shot down near a m.o.d. missal base in 68. Come on chaps tell us what you think. The offical secrets act never thought of the the internet. Take a chance. Pay no mind to those nasty GCHQ/MI5 goons at your door. That incident seems to be oddly unreported in the historical records.14:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about Aer Lingus Flight 712. Here is what the Irish Department of Transport released to the press in 2002 regarding this incident. ---Sluzzelin 15:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Official Secrets Act covers all mediums of communication, but is only binding on those who are specifically subject to it and talking about material they have obtained "professionally". I have no idea why you're waving the name around as though you think it means something. Shimgray | talk | 23:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Blue Oyster Cult Lyrics

Could someone please update the BOC page and provide specific information and explanation about songs and lyrics. Many of the songs have lyrics which aren't immedietely decipherable seem to refer to events or myths of which I have little knowledge.For eg. on the interlinking of songs by phrases and sentences common to both like in 'transmaicon' and 'the red and the black' and the oftenly used address "ladies, fish and gentlemen" . PLease reply on these specific details immediately. What is the song "shooting Shark" about ? Thank You

Here is quite an interesting site offering song interpretations unfortunately it only has four examples of BOC lyric http://www.songfacts.com/search_fact.php?combinedartists=Blue+Oyster+Cult&-Search.x=9&-Search.y=4. BTW The Red and the Black is a book. MeltBanana 15:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

the chase

Hello , id like to ask someone if they could find a copy of the painting The Chase by Bernard Sumner. I would like to be able to print out a large copy of it so I could draw it myself . This painting was brought to my attention by reading a book called The Forest by a Mr. Rutherford, which is about the New forest's history , but the picture on the back cover is too small to be able to reproduce properly, as I cannot see the detail very well. I would really appreciate it if someone could help me with this. Thank you very much .

Kelly

I didn't know Bernard Sumner painted too (or is it a different Bernard Sumner?). At any rate I didn't find any artwork of his online. There's a painting by Richard Ansdell titled The Chase. Maybe this is the one you were looking for?---Sluzzelin 18:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is the Ditch family in Williamsburg history in the 1800's?

The Ditch family was a popular family in Williamsport in the 1800's. In fact they had their own schoolhouse west of the city. It is now a home. It is near the Baker Farm where many of the Ditch family lived and died.

SEVERAL OF THE DITCH FAMILY ARE BURIED IN A CORN FIELD ON THE BAKER FARM (I thought this was illegal) . The tombstones are piled on the farm near the cornfield. I have pictures of them.

Mr Baker took me to this stop several years ago, but has since died. He had records of the DITCH family and copies are now in the hands of a Ditch relative in North Carolina.

I have a copy of the members of the Ditch Family who are buried there.

Your report mentions nothing about the DITCH Family, yet they are in census reports of that time. As far as the first schoolhouse in Williamsburg, I question the validity of any other being first but the DITCH schouse.

How could the researchers write an article and leave out an important family, who wer responsible for building the trown of Williamsburg?

....Carl E, Ditch (Signature)

Dr, Carl E. DITCH [sweet, now i can stalk somebody]

Wikipedia's coverage of topics depends, to a large extent, on the whims of its contributors, including you. Not every individual who meets our eligibility criteria has an article. If members of the Ditch family are notable, you can add articles about them yourself (though these days you need to get an account to start an article). Be aware that for a topic to be covered on Wikipedia, it has to be, to some level, notable, and the information in the articles verifiable from external sources (books, newspaper articles, and so on). See WP:BIO for some guidance on who is and isn't an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a geneological database. --Robert Merkel 23:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Postmodernism and Logic

Can anyone tell me any people who have written about how logic fits into postmodernism. In particular, perhaps, can any of the four primary rules of logic (Contradictions, excluded middle, identity and inference) be considered as universal. --Kiltman67 18:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by postmodernism? I can't see how logic fits into architecture, although I can see how it may figure in literature or music.

Re universality, Buddhism explicitly contradicts the excluded middle - 'neither it is, nor it is not' is the normal meaning of the 'Middle Way' between extremes, although it's often interpreted as 'moderation in all things', which it also means (eg the Buddha rejecting asceticism prior to his Enlightenment, but didn't indulge his desires either). Rentwa 00:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant postmodernism in a philosophical sense. Thanks for telling me about the excluded middle, I wasn't aware that Buddhists would in effect refute the claim. I'm interested in the other three which would appear more difficult to refute and anybody who's written more widely on how logic fits into postmodern thought. --Kiltman67 18:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The basis of our occidental philosophy is taken down by discoveries in physics such as quantic laws, including contradiction (see Schrodinger's cat). All we can say is that philosophy has to evolve ; did a current, named "postmodernism", talk about that, I do not know. -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

basics of Iraqi insurgency, especially suicide bombings

Hello,

it seems some users dislike my use of "dummies" so I use "basics":)

More seriously : I've been reading through Wikipedia articles but I'm still in doubt. As I understand it the Iraqi insurgency is complicated : there are Sunni milita, supporters of Hussein, Shia militia, Al Qaeda,....

But who are these men (or women) who target civilians(possibly by suicide bombing)? And who do they target? I've heard stories of men driving a car full of explosives right into a group of playing young boys. Are the acts by Sunnis against Shia muslims or vice versa, or does it really happen that fundamentalists are willing to target civilians in their OWN group (and if so, why?)

Thanks.Evilbu 20:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Al Qaeda in Iraq group may very well be willing to target ANY Iraqi civilians, just as long as it makes the US look bad because "all those deaths of civilians occurred while it was under US occupation". They don't care what happens to Iraqis, and would be quite happy if a bloody civil war killed every last Iraqi. Now for the goals of the other insurgency groups:

• Sunnis: Gain control of Iraq, as under Saddam, and establish another military dictatorship. If that means killing every other Iraqi, that's fine.

• Secular Shiites: Gain control of Iraq, using the current government structure. If that means killing every other Iraqi, that's fine.

• Fundamentalist Shiites: Gain control of Iraq, and establish an Iran style theocracy. If that means killing every other Iraqi, that's fine.

• Kurds: Achieve independence. If that means killing every other Iraqi, that's fine.

StuRat 22:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I recall news reports of, for instance, a tennis coach getting shot and killed by fundamentalists because he was wearing shorts. Speaking broadly, the Kurds have fairly relaxed customs of religious observance, so the line may blur between ethnic fighting and religious killings. There is also the chance that certain suicide bombers specifically target one individual who collaborates with the occupation government and the deaths of other nearby civilians amount to (from the bomber's perspective) collateral damage. Durova 22:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I could be wrong but the story of the "madman suicide bomber" running his car bomb into a group of children didn't seem to target any specific person. StuRat, thanks for your overview, but where are the former Baathists in there?Evilbu 23:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Ba'athists are Sunni Muslims - 'want to regain their control' category --Mnemeson 23:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and they don't particularly seem to have the goal of putting Saddam back as the leader. I suspect that each faction has their own leader who they want to be the new dictator of Iraq. StuRat 02:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yay! So as soon as the civil war's over, the... err... civil war can begin. Sometimes, I think the only way Miss World will be able to get world peace is if she's a nuclear physicist, and persuades the sun to swallow us up ahead of schedule... --Mnemeson 02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

dictionary-thesaurus

How do I access the dictionary and thesaurus?

                              Fred DiDomenico

Remove from your shelf. Open to the letter that begins the word you desire. If you don't have one on your shelf, are you looking for dictionary.com ? --Mnemeson 23:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps the Wiktionary? --Maxamegalon2000 01:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest OneLook.com for a dictionary and Merriam-Webster for a thesaurus (although they have a dictionary, too). StuRat 01:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Is he talking about MS Word by any chance?--Light current 03:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Could be. In which case that annoying Clippy could be good for something. RTFM. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

September 4

there was a battle of world war 2 the was balanced??

It would help us if you stated your question a little more clearly. JackofOz 02:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

For example if a take the battle fo ww2, and look at the numbers of soldiers that were there, types of tanks, ships, and planes, what weapons the soldiers where using..... What batlle you should call that was balanced, (counting this and others aspects of the battle).

Nope. I still cant get it! 8-(--Light current 03:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think he wants to know 'Which individual battle in WW2 was the most evenly balanced, with each side posessing the same level of firepower and manpower?'. That said, I haven't a clue of the answer. --Mnemeson 03:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, is this that I was talking about.

Battle of the bulge ?--Light current 03:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Number of Humans Since the Beginning

I am looking for an approximate figure of the number of human beings who have lived since the beginning of time. Thank you. ƒˆ®´∫ˆ®∂†∑ø

This question has been asked here before. It was either 10 billion people have ever lived, or 10 billion people have died. I think that 10 billion is the total of everyone who has ever lived, including the 6 billion alive today. Viva La Vie Boheme!

It depends on how you define "human being", but it's definitely larger than 10 billion, probably about 100 billion. See [10] and [11]. —Keenan Pepper 06:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"36 billion" is in my head from somewhere, possibly Cecil Adams. —Tamfang 06:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the previous discussion on this, but one big question was what you consider to be 'living'. Very few fertilised eggs make it to birth. So if you exclude abortions and stillbirths that would make a huge difference. Also, the number of babies that didn't make it to their third year is probably greater than the number that did. This has been largely solved in most parts of the world (except much of Africa), resulting in the overpopulation we have now. DirkvdM 08:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Regions of the United States

Which 2 states make up the Pacific Northwest?

Which state has the largest population in the Pacific Region?

The Pacific Northwest is generally considered to be Oregon and Washington. I would imagine that California has the highest in the entire Pacific region. If you meant just the Pacific Northwest, I would have to say Washington, since it has Seattle, Spokane and Olympia. Though Oregon has Portland and Salem, that is probably not enough to out do Washington. A good idea, though would be to look at the articles of Oregon and Washington (state). Glad to be able to do you homework for you. Viva La Vie Boheme!

What? do these kids sleep thro the lessons or what?--Light current 04:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're not paying for them you do. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

BIRTHDAYS

Hi, can u recommend any sites where u can find birthdays of celebs or famous people! THANKS JON

• How about here on Wikipedia? Just type in their name (with capitalization) and hit 'Go'. If we know their birthday, it's usually in the first line of the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're interested in who was born on a particular day, September 4th say, you just type 'September 4' in the search box and hit 'Go'. Then scroll down to Births to see who was born on that day. ---Sluzzelin 10:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Mesopotamian "kids these days" tablet

In the past few years I remember seeing various mentions (e-mails, internet forum posts, and just random statements from people) of a supposed ancient clay tablet from some early Mesopotamian civilization (I think it's most often "Sumerian," but lots of people get those details confuse) that supposedly is a rant equivalent to the modern day "kids are worthless layabouts" speech. Reportedly it complains about how children didn't respect their parents and were all criminals and so on and so forth. Try as I might, however, I can't find any legitimate source. Does anyone know if this is real, or if it is one of the many wild internet stories that regularly circulate? Eteq 08:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like it's made up, to me. Writing was difficult enough back then, using clay tablets, that you wouldn't do it unless you had something more important to say. StuRat 09:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no difficulty believing this. The realization that civilization is going to go down the drains due to the undisciplined character of youths is a message of the utmost concern and importance, and no efforts must be spared to get it out. --Lambiam^Talk 09:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I wonder if it's related to something that went around in emails about 15 years ago. It was a polemic about worthless teenagers, with the punchline 'Who do you think wrote it? Not Nancy Reagan, not Jerry Falwell, but...' either Socrates or Aristotle, can't remember which. It was very funny, I wonder if it was apocryphal? Might have been Plato. Anchoress 10:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous apocryphal quotes of this kind floating around online. Some are attributed to Sumerian clay tablets, some to ancient Egyptian priests. Similarly, I found one pessimistic quote regarding youth on four different websites with four different alleged authors (Socrates(?), Plato, Aristotle, Hesiod). I'm sure there have always been people complaining about youth. But enlightened and educated people usually have more to say than just some unspecific rant. What about the famous quote "Youth is (truly?) wasted on the young"? Usually it's attributed to GBS, but I've seen Oscar Wilde given as its author too.---Sluzzelin 10:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Extended to 'Life is wasted on the living...' by a Ghost in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, also something like 'The denunciation of the morals of the young is a necessary part of the hygeine of the old' by Tacitus I think. Rentwa 11:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I like to have quotations ready for every occasion. —They give one's ideas so pat, and save one the trouble of finding expression adequate to one's feelings.

— Robert Burns, letter to Agnes McLehose, 14th January 1788 MeltBanana 15:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Stupid Roman Roads

Why on earth are there Roman Roads in Scotland??? (there are according to this webpage (which is a link from the wikipedia page on 'roman roads in scotland'): http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/map_romans_roads_in_britain.htm) Well i thought that the Romand never went into Scotland because of those nasty, un-civillized Scots, or Picks or whatever so why are their roads up there? I dont suppose there there because of trade as they wernt the freindliest people to eachover and if the scots just coppied the idea and building tekniques (oh no i cant remember how to spell!) then they wont be roman roads. Also the Roads are concentrated in the boarders and the glasgow, edingburgh area but theres a stretch near perth ( so obviously they havent just got a bit lost! ) And also again the map says something about the roman towns (or roman activitie in them) and there are lots in scotland.

thankyou...--84.69.73.1 10:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's strange. I know the Romans build Hadrian's wall to keep those Scots out. This is a map:[12] It's definitely more southern than cities like Glasgow.... Maybe they built those roads, but it the end they realized that they couldn't handle those tribes and gave up some of their ground? Evilbu 13:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Basically, yes.

"Although the Romans had failed to conquer Caledonia they attempted to maintain control through military outposts and built a few roads. They were eventually forced to withdraw, admitting that Rome was too distant to maintain any presence in such a strong nation."

History_of_Scotland#Roman_invasion

TheMadBaron 13:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Romans certainly pushed much further into Scotland than Hadrian's wall, there is the Antonine Wall which encompasses most of the other roads. Also historians don't usually think of Hadrian's wall as a barrier to stop anyone, more of a way to control trade. MeltBanana 14:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

See also Roman Britain#Occupation and retreat from southern Scotland. --Shantavira 14:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Communism/Nazism

On an Internet forum, I saw someone using a signature picture titled "Communist Prinny", and sporting a penguin with a Nazi armband saying "Nein, dood!". Now AFAIK communism and nazism are different things. Not only is communism a left-wing and nazism a right-wing ideology, but weren't they also direct enemies at some point? This makes me think that whoever drew the picture only knows that both of them are "those evil thingies in Europe" and got them mixed up. JIP | Talk 11:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The signature picture is borrowed from the video game Disgaea: Hour of Darkness. I agree that equaling communists to Nazis is careless. But you'd have to ask the creator Takehito Harada. ---Sluzzelin 12:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it is often said that they are two extremes actually touching each other (both representing totalitarianism and repression). (German Nazis and Soviet communists did fight bloody battles in the Second World War, but amazingly they had a non-agression pact before that)....Or maybe the creator was indeed ignorant....Evilbu 12:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It does show you how seriously people take communism nowadays though.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  14:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a good point. Yes, Hitler did actually have communists exterminated in concentration camps. However, for some reason, people always associate the two. Most people get dictatorship and communism confused and incorrectly use it interchangeably. You are, indeed, right. Nazis were direct enemies with communists, and Nazis are not communists. Viva La Vie Boheme!

Green Knight

In English literature, we can find the story of king Arthur and the Green Knight. The Green Knight was called such because he was all green. Can anyone tell me if it's true that his eyes were red? Therefore, he wasn'tentirely green. Thank you in advance for your answer.

There is no mention of red eyes in the poem.--Shantavira 18:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Democracy in America, by Alexis De Tocqueville

What is the signifance and relavancy of this writing?

To show you how to do your own homework. JIP | Talk 16:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

poetic meter

I am wondering how to determine the meter of a poem which contains lines with 1/2 of a foot. Does one call it the shorter meter (trimeter) which counts only the full feet or is it called the longer meter (tetrameter) which counts the partial foot? 207.155.33.174 17:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Jo Anne Bennett, [e-mail removed]

World War ll Symbols

my daughter and I are having a hard time finding any site about the symbols of world war two. She needs alot for a project. What are all the most important symbols ? Is there a place online to find them? Thanks a lot!Khen95 17:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean symbols as in graphics, logos etc. or do you mean metaphorical symbols? --Kiltman67 18:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We need symbols as in graphics, logos etc. Thanks

Well the obvious things are things like the Swastika. Another good one would be things like propaganda posters. --Kiltman67 18:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's Wikimedia's poster collection from World War II. ---Sluzzelin 19:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The building of Taj Mahal

The Taj Mahal was built in honor of the king's wife, but was the architect who built it "rewarded" by having his eyes pulled out and possibly his hands crushed, or was this a different building?

I don't know about the eyes and it all seems to be more legend than documented history. Having said that, check out Taj_mahal#Mutilation_of_the_craftsmen. ---Sluzzelin 20:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)