Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities #eee #f5f5f5 #eee #aaa #aaa #aaa #00f #36b #000 #00f humanities Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities Humanities WP:RD/H

Welcome to the humanities reference desk.

Is there any way I can get a faster answer?

Yes, you can search first. Please do this.

Search the reference desk archive to see if your question has been asked and answered earlier.

<inputbox> bgcolor= type=fulltext prefix=Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives break=yes width=60 searchbuttonlabel=Search reference desk archives </inputbox>

Entering search terms in the box to the left may locate useful articles in Wikipedia.
Many questions can be immediately answered by a simple google search.

Yes, if you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere.
- The reference desk does not answer (and will probably remove) requests for medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor, dentist, veterinarian, or lawyer instead.
- The reference desk does not answer requests for Opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an Internet forum instead.

How do I word my question for the best results?

Include a meaningful title. Do not write "Question" or "Query", but write a few words that briefly tell the volunteers the subject of the question.
Include context. Include links to any information that might help to understand your question. Tell us what part of the world your question applies to.
Do not provide your contact information. E-mail or home addresses, or telephone numbers, will be removed. You must return to this page to get your answer.
Type ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end of your question. This signs your contribution so volunteers know who wrote what in the conversation.
If your question is homework, show that you have attempted an answer first, and we will try to help you past the stuck point. If you don't show an effort, you probably won't get help. The reference desk will not do your homework for you.

When will I get an answer?

It may take several days. Come back later and check this page for responses. Later posts may add more information. Please, post your question on only one section of the reference desk.

After reading the above, you may ... <inputbox> type=commenttitle hidden=yes page=Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities buttonlabel=ask a new question </inputbox>

How to answer a question

Main article: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

Be thorough. Provide as much of the answer as you are able to.
Be concise, but not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated.
Provide links when available, such as Wikilinks to related articles, or links to the information that you used to find your answer.
Be polite and assume good faith, especially with users new to Wikipedia.
Don't edit others' comments, except to fix formatting errors that interfere with readability.
Don't give any legal or medical advice. The reference desk cannot answer these types of questions.

Choose a topic:

March 7

All Nippon Airways headquarters

I know that All Nippon Airways used to occupy the Kasumigaseki Building and put its headquarters there, and that it now occupies Shiodome City Center, where its headquarters is. It also used to have its headquarters on the grounds of Haneda Airport.

My question is: When did the headquarters move from Kasumigaseki Building to Haneda? I know when they moved from Haneda to Shiodome City Center. But I do not know the date when the headquarters moved to Haneda.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Oda Mari answered my question WhisperToMe (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Immediate family in the military

I'm interested in what percentage of the population of each country is "military or immediate family". If asked of an individual, the question would be "Have you, or at least one parent, sibling, spouse, or child, been in the military of your country for at least one year?" If I found the ideal piece of research on this, it would list every country, ranked by the percentage of its population who answered "yes" to the above question. Does anyone have any pointers? Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

While this would be very difficult in a lot of places, in some areas it's easy. In Israel, the answer is nearly 100%, because of the obligatory military service laws. The only exception, IIRC, is Orthodox Jews, who won't have any family members in military service. On the other hand, in Costa Rica, the number is 0%, or close to it, because Costa Rica has no standing army. Steewi (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you asserting that there are no Orthodox Jews in the IDF, or that Orthodox Jews do not join the army in, say, France, the US or Australia? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that Steewi is referring to the complicated situation in Israel regarding Ultra Orthadox Jews and compulsury service in the IDF. They are certainly permitted to enlist, but they can defer their service while they're in Yeshiva, and essentially get out of service all together, I think. Buddy431 (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That is correct, it should be noted however, that a good number of the Ultras do voluntarily sign up, as they are often highly patriotic. 130.88.162.46 (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Another point about Israel: Arab citizens are exempt from mandatory IDF service and few volunteer. They make up 20% of the country. —D. Monack ^talk 22:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you intend for this to be time-independent? Your great-grandfather was in WWII, so he and your gradfather count but not you father and yourself? Or do you mean currently/recently in service? Rmhermen (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Comet Tuttle, the stats I can find are all about the number of individuals in the armed forces, not families. An additional confounding factor in your question (as Rmhermen just pointed out) is that you also want statistics that apply over time - very difficult to pull together. Over the last 2-3 generations, many countries have significantly increased or decreased the size of their armed forces.

You might be able to rough calculate it for *current* service using these resources/rubric:

This yahoo answer suggests about 2 per cent of the total World population is currently in military service (or 6 per cent if you count reservists as well).
The world average Fertility rate is about 2.5 births per woman, giving you an average family size of 4.5 people. So very very very roughly, 4.5 X 2% X 6.8 billion = 600 million people who are either currently in a military or have a family member currently in military service.

Resources to do this country by country: Military service, List of countries by number of troops, List of countries and territories by fertility rate, and List of countries by population. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A Google search using the technical term "military participation ratio" may help. —Kevin Myers 18:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Help identifying this person

I need to find the name of some guy years ago who did experiments on dreams. He was also religious and tried to prove god existed or something with science. Eventually he went mad and died alone and destitute. That's all the information I have on him. Anyone able to supply a name for this mysterious fellow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seventhoughts2 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Kurt Gödel was on QI last night; he tried to prove the existence of God by logic, and died because of intense paranoia about someone poisoning his food - his wife was hospitalised and thus couldn't test his food for him, so he refused to eat and starved to death. The article doesn't mention anything about researching dreams, though...And he didn't seem to be destitute, either. Maybe I'm completely wrong, heh. Vimescarrot (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So how did he get on QI then? I don't remember hearing Stephen Fry doing seances, and definitely not for special guests. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a composite of John William Dunne and Emanuel Swedenborg, from what I can tell.. AnonMoos (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

John Dee was a leading Renaissance chemist, physicist, astronomer and much besides, but blew it all away by trying to communicate with angels. Alansplodge (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't really match the last half of your question, but see Michael Persinger and his God helmet. I think that's who you're looking for. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Forbidden Books

Are there any books that are actually forbidden is the USA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chime444 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What about “Show Me!”? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

wow. absolutely. thank you for that excellent link. Does Wikipedia have an article about the current witch-hunt generally? 82.113.121.94 (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what the last two comments are referring to but getting back to the original question, no, not for the entire US. Certain libraries and school districts may not allow certain books in their library or to be taught in their schools but that's all determined at a lower level of gov't and only affects certain areas. Dismas|^(talk) 13:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I wl'd 18.70's book title, for those who have no idea. FiggyBee (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what "wl'd" means. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikilinked? :) Antandrus (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Tks. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Child pornography laws in the United States is probably the best article about this specific issue - see also Obscenity for a general discussion of US law in this area, and Censorship in the United States for material that's illegal for non-sexual reasons. Tevildo (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(Joke warning): "The suicide instruction book, Final Exit has been banned by many librarians, not because they object to the content, but because nobody ever seems to return the book." :-) StuRat (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Deer species in the Bambi translation

In the Austrian original edition, Bambi is a Roe deer, and very impressed by the much larger Red deer. (Writing about this is aided by the fact that German has entirely different, not overlapping terms for these two species). Is the species of Bambi specified in the English translation? What about the larger deer species Bambi is impressed by? --KnightMove (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised they would specify a species in a children's book like that. It really wouldn't work in the US, as here kids just call them all "deer". The best guess you could make would be based on the illustrations, but you might find that, in different editions, different illustrators choose to model their pics on different species, probably ones they are most familiar with. (This reminds me of how the Renaissance painters all painted Jesus and pals to look Italian.) As for being impressed by a larger deer, wasn't it just an adult male (a buck), which was much larger than either him (a fawn) or his mother (a doe), and also had those impressive antlers ? StuRat (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is explicitly not the case. Bambi is impressed (and, as a fawn, frightened) by the so much larger red deer. However, it is possible that this got lost in the translation. As I said, there is no clear German word for "deer". Instead, the term Hirsch may mean "any deer", "any red deer", "red deer stag" or "any deer stag", depending on context. In everyday speech, roe deers are not considered to be "Hirsche". Maybe the translator considered the term Hirsche to be male adults of the same (roe deer) species. This would be a major translation error... and if it remained unnoticed so far, this is almost sensational! --KnightMove (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a translation error. Often they may make some intentional minor changes when translating a work, to make it fit better into the new culture, including, in this case, slightly altering the type of deer. StuRat (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That's right - and in this case, it would have been perfectly the right thing to let Bambi be impressed by Elks. --KnightMove (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The article Bambi mentions he's a White-tailed deer in the Walt Disney movie. White-tailed deer are the most common deer species in the US, especially in the eastern portion. Note that in the US, at least, the Disney movie *is* Bambi - most people probably aren't even aware that it was based on a book, let alone a non-US book. I do not know what the situation is in the UK, Australia, etc. -- 174.21.235.250 (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know, even though it is not entirely correct - actually the deers in the movie merge aspects of White-tailed deer and Mule deer. See [1] --KnightMove (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There are no deers ~~in Australia, except maybe a few in zoos~~ that are native to Australia, but there is now a sizeable introduced population, enough for there to be an Australian Deer Association. Bambi was very popular here, as was The Deer Hunter ~~, but we have little experience of deer aside from that.~~ -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

would someone modifying Mosaic Law today still be subject to the death penalty under it?

above, someone said of Jesus: "he modified Mosaic Law in contrivance of the law itself, thereby subject to the death penalty." If Jesus did that today instead of whenever he lived, would he still be subject to the death penalty under Mosaic law? Or has that part been abolished from it? 82.113.121.94 (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly clear what you're referring to, but the legal provisions of the Old Testament haven't been applied as a full autonomous legal code with enforceable criminal punishments since at least 63 B.C. (the date when the last independent Jewish state of ancient times came under Rome)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As AnonMoos has stated above, Jewish law is self-regulated (or perhaps, community-regulated). Since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE and the subsequent disbanding of the Sanhedrin roughly 300 years after that, there is no court authority to impose the death penalty. A false Messiah would be subject to the death penalty imposed on the zakein mamrei, (Deutoronomy 17:8-13) or someone who refutes the law as dictated by the Sanhedrin. That said, and as explained above, though, no one would actually kill the false Messiah today. In reality, it's no different than a Jewish person who violates any other law that is subject to the death penalty, such as desecrating the Sabbath or killing another person, who would also not be killed today because of lack of a unified judicial entity. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, isn't it the case nowadays that Jews take the view that Jewish law in general yields to legislation? For example, autopsies are normally not done with Jews, but if the legal system decides that a particular person needs to be autopsied, then it will be allowed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It depends upon the violation being violated; the violation of desecrating a corpse is certainly not one punishable by death. Even though it would not normally be allowed (such as for fun, or for learning anatomy), if the police refuses to release the body without performing an autopsy in order to collect forensic evidence of some sort, rabbinic leniency may very well be applicable in such circumstance. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't limiting it to capital crimes, but just in general terms. I'm assuming it has to do with the "greater sin" concept. Like it might be a sin to desecrate a body by doing an autopsy, but defying the law, and hence encouraging instability in society, would be a greater sin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And did Dr. Laura ever answer that list of biblical punishments? -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this subject or at least a closely related subject is well addressed here (in archives) by DRosenbach (especially in his last post in that section, titled "Jewish law" of 19:47, 15 February 2010). Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Deborah -- what is your purpose other than to mock Judaism? Certainly the author of such a letter either has such little understanding of Jewish law that he or she used a fundamentalist translation of the Hebrew text in error or used such a translation in an intended overextention so as to provide more humor for others who would read the letter and who similarly lack an understanding for Judaism. One can easily make fun of most anything given enough determination -- I hope you didn't take the letter in the way it was meant, either way the author meant it. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

My purpose was to post a well-known satirical spoof that referred to biblical passages citing O.T. transgressions and their associated severe punishments. Aside from my use of small font, the link clearly came from Snopes.com with ample discussion included. And perhaps you meant to direct this remark to me on my talk page rather than in the body of this query's thread? -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What part of Satire do you think is proper in debating a serious issue of religion? From the satire article, it is meant "to censure by means of ridicule, derision...ideally with the intent to bring about improvement." Does your post and associated link have anything constructive to do with either the OP's question or the responses given? Your use of satire serves to undermine the validity of things that many hundreds of thousands of people would be willing to give their lives for...yet in one post, you succeed in denigrating that ideal. Satire may be fine in some contexts, but the satirist whose work you linked to is ill-informed at best. Your intentions may have been to provide a laugh, but it and the person who would post it contribute to anti-religous sentiment and perhaps may even influence people who do not possess such a derision for religion to contemplate ascribing to such a philosophy. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the Icesave money now?

If you assume that money, like energy, never gets destroyed, but is simply transferred from person/company to person/company, then where is the money that savers paid into the Icelantic bank scheme Icesave now? 89.242.102.148 (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(Just spent the last five minutes reverting the vandalism of someone called "Telvido" who erased this question.) 89.242.102.148 (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This gets very theoretical. Essentially wealth is whatever you think it is. Most people would agree that they are wealthier if they have certain things, like a house, car, clothes, a stockpile of food, etc. But there are many forms of wealth which are more highly subjective. For example, are you wealthier if you have a sports stadium near your house ? Well, that does mean more access to sports games, but probably also mean regular traffic congestion. So, real estate values may go up or down when they add a sports stadium nearby, depending on how most people view it.

Now, you're probably wondering how all this relates to money invested in a company, stocks, bonds, etc. There, the value is also highly variable, depending on how much people think those items are worth now, and will be worth in the future. The term "paper profits" is often used to describe the case where the perceived value of stock has gone up, meaning the stock price rises. Those don't become actual profits until a sale is made, however. The same logic applies to "paper losses".

It might be helpful to compare stock prices with a fad. Let's say you were a collector of Cabbage Patch Kids. If you had more than everyone else you knew, and they were also into the fad, they would think of you as being rich (and, if you sold them all then, you might have made a lot of money). However, once the fad ended, most people probably just thought you had a bunch of worthles crap. So, you still owned the exact same amount of "stuff", but it was now valued at a far lower level. StuRat (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your reply is correct and interesting and falsifies the parent's assumption that "money (...) never gets destroyed". However, does that account for all the money in this case? I don't know much about this case, but it seems plausible that Landsbanki used some of the deposited money to buy shares in ACME Industries at 40 Euros. As the bubble burst, they would have had to sell these again, at, say, 20 Euros. If the buyer happens to be the original seller, which is not impossible, then the money has been transferred in a pretty real sense. 94.208.148.111 (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the question about money or about value? —Tamfang (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Value. StuRat (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

“A lot of money goes to money-heaven,” shrugged Björgólfur Thor Björgólfsson, the London-based investor who co-owned 41% of Icesave’s parent bank, Landsbanki. “They have evaporated. It’s a common misunderstanding to ask; where did the money go.” [2] BrainyBabe (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A variant of the question is to ask what the Icesave money was invested in. Was it stocks and currencies that collapsed? 89.243.176.196 (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory : I think they were buying their stock themselves through shell companies. And hedge funds were shortselling/betting against them. So some of that money went to hedge funds / speculators who either bought puts on them or short sold them. Also both parties could be the same. For eg, i know my bank is going to crash, but i convince my partners that if only we took some of our depositor's money and propped up our share price by buying them ourselves through offshore shell companies, confidence would return and all would be saved. But since i know better that my company is beyond redemption and will ultimately go down no matter what, i sell my own personal shares (which i might be owning initially through some other shell companies) to my partners while they are trying to prop up the share price through the depositors' money. So effectively i transfer the depositors' money into my pocket. The truth will only come out if someone goes through all the transactions of Icesave's shares for at least a couple of years before the fall and try to match the buyers and sellers --Sodabottle (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So its a great mystery where the money went? I assume they lent the money to companies that could no longer pay their debt. 92.26.160.145 (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not, as I explained above. StuRat (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean that they bought stuff, such as shares in companies, that fell in value a lot? 78.149.193.118 (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Either that, or their own value could fall just due to the perceived likelihood of future losses, based on the bad economy. StuRat (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Creating and destroying money

On reflection money can be created (eg plant an apple tree sapling costing £10, sell its apples for £20, so £10 created) or destroyed (eg buy an expensive vintage car, leave it outside in the rain to rust away - money destroyed).

Is there an inclusive list anywhere of all the types of ways in which money can be created or destroyed please? 89.242.102.148 (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Money "destroyed" in what sense? That the car has lost its resale value? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in that example. 89.242.102.148 (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the concept you're looking for here is economic value, rather than "money". As you can see from the mess surrounding that article (the see also list, for example), it's an incredibly complex idea that people can't quite pin down. Almost everything everyone does has some economic impact, so no, there is no such list anywhere. FiggyBee (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Our Capital accumulation article is relevant but also doesn't seem to tackle the original question directly. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Figgy is on the right track here, and really when you get down to brass tacks, there's no solid notion of 'money' or 'economical value'. It all depends on what people are willing to do for what is on offer, and this may fluctuate like the wind. A cheeseburger may be worth $4.50 at noon, but when I've already eaten I'll give you a dollar just to take it away from me. Vranak (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a topic I've thought of often, particularly from the POV of increasing both national and global wealth. It seems we would do better in that regard if more effort went into creating wealth, and preventing it's destruction, while less went into moving existing wealth around.

A) Ways to create wealth:

1) Farming and herding.

2) Mining.

3) Manufacturing and construction.

4) Some services. This is interesting, since society moved from agricultural to manufacturing and now into the majority of people working in services. This can be bad for wealth creation, especially in more developed nations, as many services seem to involve moving existing wealth around, rather than creating new wealth. Advertising, marketing, and sales might be one example. Casino and lottery workers are another example, as are lawyers engaged in lawsuits. So, what services create wealth ? I'd put teaching right on top, as almost everyone considers themself wealthier when well educated, and they tend to make far more money over their lifetimes.

5) New technology. Most people would consider themselves wealthier with a modern cell phone than one of the first generation that looked like an army radio.

This might explain why the wealth of China in rapidly increasing, since they are still largely in a manufacturing economy, while we in the West have moved on to mostly services. India, on the other hand, while a provider of services, gets cash for them from other nations, while those other nations are often left with nothing of lasting value in exchange, thus increasing the wealth of India and decreasing the wealth of other nations (and hence just moving wealth around, on an international scale).

B) Ways to destroy wealth:

1) Fire (and thus fire departments help limit this destruction of wealth) and natural disasters, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc. Disaster preparedness helps limit this destruction.

2) Vandalism and theft. You might think that something is worth the same once it's stolen, but it frequently loses much of it's value. An extreme example is when copper piping is ripped out of a building and sold as scrap metal, for far less than the cost to replace the pipes. But, even a stolen car has far less value than it had, as it can't be sold for much without valid papers. Chop shops often take just a few components off the stolen car and sell them for far less than the original car was worth. So, just like the fire department, the police have the power to limit the destruction of wealth.

3) War, and in particular, "total war", where everything is bombed to the ground, destroys vast amounts of wealth. Soldiers can either cause this destruction or prevent it, depending on whether they are the aggressors or defenders.

4) Decomposition. This includes the rust example you gave, but also food that rots, plastic that gets brittle and breaks, etc. In some cases this wealth destruction is due to Planned obsolescence, where the object is designed to fail before it otherwise would.

5) Going out of fashion. If people feel that an otherwise functional product, like their clothes, car, etc., is no longer of much value because it's "last year's model", this leads to the item being discarded (often for little or nothing) and being replaced by a new one.

I really think that nations which build products to last, and don't change the styles each year, will, in the long run, have far more wealth than those with a "disposable society". So, how do we get there ? Perhaps higher sales taxes on initial purchases and lower taxes on maintenance activities, might be one step forward, encouraging us to keep up the items we have. A nice enviromentally responsible way to increase the sales price is to require that the eventual disposal/recycling fees for a new product be paid up front. This both encourages them to keep their old items, and takes away the incentive for them to dump stuff in a swap or the woods, to avoid paying the disposal costs. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Almost all money is created via the dual ledgers of lending institutions. This is an elementary fact of economics. When a bank makes a loan, the loaned money is created. Central banks encourage or discourage the creation of money by lowering or raising interest rates on the money they lend, which triggers increases in the interest rates of all lending. Higher interest rates increase the cost of money, so less money is borrowed, and therefore less is lent/created. 63.17.37.219 (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"When a bank makes a loan, the loaned money is created" ? Please explain. StuRat (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

See Money supply#Fractional-reserve banking. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

From Wikisource's "Modern Money Mechanics" by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Modern_Money_Mechanics/Introduction#Who_Creates_Money.3F (to name a random source -- as stated, this is a rudimentary fact of economics, and is axiomatic): "The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks. As noted earlier, checkable liabilities of banks are money. These liabilities are customers' accounts. They increase when customers deposit currency and checks and when the proceeds of loans made by the banks are credited to borrowers' accounts. In the absence of legal reserve requirements, banks can build up deposits by increasing loans and investments so long as they keep enough currency on hand to redeem whatever amounts the holders of deposits want to convert into currency." The crucial part is "They increase ... when the proceeds of loans made by the banks are credited to borrowers' accounts." In other words, whenever a lending institution makes a loan, it increases (hence creates) "checkable liabilities [which] are money."63.17.58.123 (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Leslie Salmon - Author

Arthur Leslie Salmon was born in 1865 but I cannot find the date/year that he died. Does anyone out there know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.24.12 (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've done an extensive google search and found nothing. Very strange. I suggest looking up his death certificate at city hall —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assembler45 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you give us more information about him please? I have a candidate found on Ancestry but need more information really. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

More info needed!? You mean there's more than one Arthur Leslie Salmon born in 1865? A quick Google search reveals that Salmon was a poet and an author of British travel books. His Library of Congress Subject Headings entry gives his birth year of 1865 but not his year of death. —Kevin Myers 22:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If he had a book published in Britain then the British Library should have them on its database - freely accessable on the internet - and which might gave his birth and death years. Edit: I looked him up, did not see his date of death. He published many books, so you could estimate when he was still alive by the last publication date. Although there were many editions of his book about Cornwall, which may have been revised by other people after his death. 92.26.160.145 (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

His name is probably unique enough that you could get his death certificate easily, after estimating when he died as suggested above. You might also be able to get his date of death from free geneological records perhaps, although I don't know much about that. 78.149.193.118 (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Where does Riyadh get its water?

Looking at the article for Riyadh, I can't see anything that explains how a city of 6 million could exist in a desert. The article says that it was famous for its orchards in ye olden days, so I would assume there are substantial springs that can support irrigation, but there's no mention of this. 71.70.143.134 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC).

Apparently from groundwater, but the supply from the aquifers is a diminishing resource (the same is true with Las Vegas, Nevada and Phoenix, Arizona in the U.S.). Here is the abstract of an article on the situation. Evidently the water needs some treatment to be usable. Antandrus (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know if I buy that. An aquifer under constant drainage for more than a thousand years is capable of supporting a population of 6 million for more than a couple months? Either I'm wildly underestimating the (water per human)/(capacity of an aquifer) ratio or the Riyadh aquifer extends under the entire Arabian penninsula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.143.134 (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember that the sedimentary strata underlying Riyadh have been absorbing water for a lot longer than that. It doesn't have to rain a lot, on a highly porous surface (e.g. sand) to charge or recharge an aquifer, given sufficient time. If the surface is porous, water sinks in before it has a chance to evaporate -- and in hundreds of thousands of years, that's plenty of water. Unfortunately when you build a city not only are you draining it at an unsustainable rate, but you're covering the former porous surface with buildings and parking lots, further reducing recharge rate. There is often plenty of groundwater in the desert, though ironically they may be sucking it out faster than their oil. Antandrus (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Turns out they also get a fair portion of their water from desalination plants on the Persian Gulf -- see Water supply and sanitation in Saudi Arabia#Water_resources for some more information. According to this abstract, Riyadh gets 35% of its water supply from its aquifers, the rest from desal. It's rather analogous to the situation in a place like Phoenix, which gets water from the Colorado River while simultaneously draining its groundwater. I suppose this could go on the science desk since it involves hydrology, but what the heck ... Antandrus (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Historical Chinese gender imbalance

A recent Twitter post by Hans Rosling pointed out that China and India have a male:female ratio much higher than 1, and if you look at Gapminder[3] the Chinese trend starts almost exactly at the introduction of the One-child policy. But if you keep going back, the ratio was also quite high in 1950 - about 113 males for every 100 females. Is there any reason why this might be so? Especially since wars historically dropped the sex ratio due to the large number of males in the armed forces getting killed; and while the Nanking Massacre did result in a large number of female deaths, that was about 15 years earlier and as far as I can tell shouldn't have resulted in such a large imbalance in the first place. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 21:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That was probably because the bride's family was expected to pay a Dowry to the groom's family, making girls a financial liability. Unfortunately, this probably led to many poor families killing their female babies. StuRat (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

China (and most Asian countries) are very misogynistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assembler45 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Er no... China, unlike India for example, is traditionally a Bride price society. However the 'price' is clearly not enough to get around the cultural issues although it perhaps reduces the effect unlike in places like India were a bridal dowry was expected. Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

At different times and in different cultures within China, different systems have been used. I'm not sure what practices were in place in the years before 1950, which would effect the sex ratio then. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

We discussed something quite similar a few weeks ago, you may want to search as many of the links would be of relevance. However the simple answer is for various cultural reasons there's a historical and ongoing preference for male children in China and a number of other countries Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see a cite, StuRat, for systematic killing of female babies in China. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, here's one: [4]. A relevant quote is "A tradition of infanticide and abandonment, especially of females, existed in China before the foundation of the People's Republic in 1949". StuRat (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

We have an article about this phenomenon: Missing women of Asia. Intelligentsium 23:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Chinese statistics, it is generally useful to identify poor data as the top reason why the numbers don't add up. In this case, it may well be that there was at various times (including today) a systematic under-registration of female births. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Etymology question: Ptah *ph₂tḗr

Ptah is described in ancient Egypt as the god who created the world (i.e. father of creation). Could there be any common etymology to PIE *ph₂tḗr meaning father? Si1965 (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(This would probably be better on the Langauge desk).

There could be. There could be a connection between any two words in different languages that happen to be similar. But in the absence of any linguistic or historical reason to think so, it is very unlikely. --ColinFine (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Si1965 -- To do such etymologies, you have to look at the earliest-attested or earliest-reconstructible form on each side, in the context of each language system as it existed at the time. "Th" in Indo-European was a single aspirated consonant sound, while "h" in Egyptian represented a separate consonant. Also, Egyptian etymologies are usually structured around abstract Consonantal roots, while the "t" of the Indo-European form seems to be part of a -ter suffix which also occurred in the words for "mother" and "brother". When one pursues such points of analysis on each side, the two forms do not seem to grow more similar as we trace them back in time, so they do not seem to "meet in the middle". That's why such a proposed etymology is not listed in dictionaries and other standard reference works.. AnonMoos (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting, thank you very much. Si1965 (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Music

Is there a specific word for someone who translates musical notation from one instrument to another? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghoulygone (talk • contribs) 22:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Arrangement is the general term, and someone who does it is an "arranger". See List of music arrangers. Tevildo (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Transcription may be the term you are looking for. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 23:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Single, Young African-American Moms and Fornication

Why many young African-American women are practicing fornication and raising their children by themselves? Why is this more common for African-American women than the White American women and Asian American women? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think they are? Please give sources for your tendentious claims. . --ColinFine (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I wouldn't use the word "fornication", in this context, as it implies a religious value judgment. The more neutral term would be "engaging in premarital sex". StuRat (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, as for why more black women are single mothers, I can think of several factors:

1) Higher death rate among black males than white males means the father is more likely to be dead.

2) Black men are more likely to be in the military, and thus absent while deployed (although this doesn't technically make the women single mothers).

3) Black men are more likely to be incarcerated.

4) There is less of a stigma in the black community for a mother raising a child alone, so more do. StuRat (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The question seems to be soap boxing based on unwarranted assumptions. Lots more women have sex outside marriage than have babies. Sexual activity is common among black , white and hispanic teenagers and young adults, and cohabitation is common as well among young adults past college age. There is a thing called "birth control." One online source of unproven reliability says that as of 2002 68% of U.S. black women who had babies were unmarried,, down from a peak of 70.4% in 1994. Overall 33.8% of U.S. new mothers were unmarried in 2002. The illigitimacy rate among non-Hispanic whites was 22.9% in 2002. The Wikipedia article Legitimacy (law) offered few statistics, except that 40% of babies born in the the US in 2007 were outside wedlock, with no racial or ethnic breakdown. A book has graphs of U.S. black and white illegitimacy 1960-1999, which shows the black rate levelling off at just under 70% while the white rate was around 20% and still rising. Edison (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how any of the data you presented demonstrates that the OP is working under incorrect assumptions. A decline of 2.4% is probably statistically insignificant, and a ratio of ~3:1 of unmarried black:white births suggests that there IS a statistically significant correlation between race and unwed births. 71.70.143.134 (talk)

Go back and read the part about having sex may not produce pregnancy if birth control is used, particularly the pill. Thus pregnancy rates or "unwed births" do not necessarily equate to "fornication" rates. Edison (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sudhir Venkatesh has explored this topic (I think in "Off the Books", but I'm not exactly sure). He basically found that motherhood was considered a rite of passage for black teenage girls in poor neighborhoods, which is why it's so prevalent compared to similar non-black populations. 71.70.143.134 (talk)

Fair enough. I hadn't ruminated on the difference between "fornication" and "sex what gets you pregnant". The OP should probably define fornication, because otherwise I and people like me assume fornication means non-generative sex. I would bet that unprotected sex correlates with pregnancy, bu that is an empirical question which the OP is potentially asking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.143.134 (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Unwanted pregnancy is prevalent among lower-income neighborhoods/cities/countries, regardless of race. It's just that in this country, minorities, particularly African-Americans and Hispanics, are the ones who are financially and socially disadvantaged more so than other ethnicities. So teenage and unwanted pregnancies are more prevalent among them, and therefore the stereotype is born that only black people and Latinos have kids outside of marriage and are unable to financially provide for their offspring. However, this is all just my personal observation, so don't ask me for references. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I take it by "this country" you mean the US ? I also assume that's what the original poster meant, because of the use of the term "African-American". However, it would be better if we listed the nation in question explicitly, to avoid confusion. StuRat (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read a published comparisons of attitudes of black and white teenage girls. A black teenage girl wanted to have a baby fathered by a popular high school athlete. White girls were into sex but planned to go to college and shunned any notion of bearing out of wedlock children. Edison (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Same Sex Marriage in the UK

Is same-sex marriage, specifically between females, legal in the UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assembler45 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not marriage, but same sex couples may form a Civil partnership which is practically identical in legal form if not in terminology. See Civil partnership in the United Kingdom. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose, technically, the answer is that marriage other than between a man and a woman is not recognised at law, so a same-sex "marriage" is neither legal nor illegal; rather, it simply does not exist. I mean, if a minister or civil celebrant purported to marry two females in exactly the same way as they'd marry a man and a woman, then the two women would not be married, and the celebrant might well be in trouble with the law. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In the US, same-sex "marriages" have been conducted for (at least) decades by liberal-minded ministers. Those "marriages" are what I would "spiritual" marriages, i.e. they made the participants feel good but they had no legal standing. And much of the brouhaha in the US about same-sex marriage could have been avoided if the civil union approach was pursued. But the gay community took the bold approach of demanding it be called "marriage". As I recall, even the right-leaning George Bush supported the idea of civil unions. "Marriage" is a hot-button term in that context. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit like saying all the civil rights fuss could have been avoided if the slaves accepted they had no human rights and just got on with picking the cotton. If a straight couple can marry and call it marriage and have it fully recognised everywhere, why not a gay couple? (This isn't the place for this discussion, so you'd better not respond. I just couldn't let your statement pass without comment.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the practical legal difference between marriage and civil union, other than words? Please note I am neither defending nor opposing same-sex "marriage". I personally don't think it matters. But many do care, at least in the US. Although it's obvious that (for the present, anyway), proponents of same-sex marriage have been making progress. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no difference other than words, but words are what counts. Separate is never equal; if it was, whither separation in the first place? FiggyBee (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. If the 2 things are essentially indistinguishable, what's the stumbling block in making them actually, legally indistinguishable? Until that happens, there's still just as yawning a gap, in principle, as there ever was. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(after EC with Jack)The difference, Bugs, is legal. Civil unions don't carry many of the rights that marriages do. In many places, Person A cannot be on Person B's insurance if they're in a civil union. Also, Person A cannot visit B in the hospital if there is a "family only" rule. If Person A dies, then Person B has very few (or none at all) options as to what they can get from A's estate. It's not just words, legally.

The "civil union approach" that I think many people have advocated, and which I personally think would be best, is for everyone (gay and straight) to be joined in a civil union which would be recognized by the gov't. Then, if you want and if you believe in such a thing, you can get married at the church of your choice. The marriage would have no legal meaning whatsoever. And yet the "sanctity of marriage" which the religious opponents of gay marriage cling to would be kept 'sacred'. Dismas|^(talk) 11:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There may be differences in partners' rights between marriage and civil partnerships in some jurisdictions, but there is practically no legal difference in the UK. Specifically regarding inheritance, section 71 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 says:

"Schedule 4 amends enactments relating to wills, administration of estates and family provision so that they apply in relation to civil partnerships as they apply in relation to marriage."

Civil partnership in the UK is a politician's fudge, allowing Labour, who introduced the Act, to say that they support the rights of same-sex partners while at the same time claiming that they have no plans to legalise "same-sex marriage". As FiggyBee says above, the difference between marriage and civil partnership in the UK is just in the labels, not the underlying rights, but the labels are important to some people on both sides of the debate. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What is one person's bug is another person's feature. By introducing something called 'civil partnership' which was marriage in all but name, the proposal was much more acceptable to religious institutions. Introducing it as actual marriage would have attracted a great deal more opposition and delayed (if not derailed entirely) the passage of the Act. Same sex couples got access to the rights and duties and legal recognition previously only available to opposite sex couples, and got them far earlier. One of the rules of politics is not to make any needless enemies. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What I'm seeing in the above thread is contradictory information/opinions on whether civil unions and marriages are legally equivalent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Judaism is the first religious organisation in the UK (or the world?) to produce a special liturgy for same-sex commitment ceremonies, and as the text notes at the beginning, it is expected that such a service will be preceded by the legal formality of civil partnership, which – as far as I know – offers almost identical legal rights as marriage, the only point to bear in mind being that some private contracts (eg. life insurance) may make specific reference to spouses or marriage partners, which would obviously make a difference. ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 13:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

┌��┘
Same-sex marriage does not exist as a legal concept in the United Kingdom. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 created a new legal entity for two people of the same sex to gain rights and responsibilities like those of civil marriages. (See Civil partnership in the United Kingdom, and especially the talk pages of those two articles, which give interesting additional information, as is often the case.) Within the past couple of weeks, differences between civil partnerships and marriage have come into the public eye. Waheed Alli, Baron Alli introduced a bill into the House of Lords which passed on 2 March: Lords Hansard. Peter Tatchell, the human rights campaigner, has a section called Partnership on his website. He and others, including legal scholar Robert Wintemute and representatives of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and Liberty (UK), spoke at a recent Marriage Equality Day. Not least is an issue of religious freedom: the law barred religious establishments from conducting civil partnerships on their premises. And CPs are limited to same-sex couples: one opposite-sex couple has decided to challenge this [5]. NB the term "civil union" is not used in the UK. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the UK civil partnership and civil marriage clearly are legally equivalent - the opening sentence of Civil partnership in the United Kingdom says "Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage". In other jurisdictions your mileage may vary. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The debate in the House of Lords last week was instructive. I'll give just one example of a Lord Spiritual making a point which others reiterated. The Lord Bishop of Bradford said, if religious organisations want to conduct "civil partnership ceremonies within a religious context", why should they not be allowed to do so?

The fundamental difficulty that many churches and faiths will have with this argument is that we, like the Government and the courts, have been quite clear ever since civil partnerships were introduced, that they are not the same as marriages. It is true that they confer nearly all the same legal rights. <snip>At the moment, however, civil partnerships are not in substance or in form same-sex marriages. There are some countries that have already introduced the possibility of marriage between people of the same sex, and no doubt some of those sympathetic to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, favour that direction of travel. I do not, and neither do the majority of churches and faiths in this country. But if people want to argue for that, they are entitled to do so, and it is a debate that we can have. That debate ought to take place in the synods, the convocations, the councils and so on, and the churches as well. The point is simply that we should not muddle up a debate about civil partnerships with a debate on same-sex marriage.

(2 Mar 2010 : Column 1429. 10:15 pm) So no, civil partnership is not the same as marriage. Similar, yes, but identical, no. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The labels are different, but the legal rights and responsibilities are, for all practical purposes, the same. As I said, some folks on both sides of the debate choose to emphasise the difference in labels over the similarity in substance. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There is the little matter of Religious freedom, and the state forbidding religious organisations (liberal Jews, Quakers, Unitarians) from conducting civil partnerships on their premises or by their clergy. These bodies and individuals can conduct marriage ceremonies for opposite-sex couples, but not CPs for same-sex ones. CPs are allowed everywhere that civil marriages are (stately homes licensed for the purpose, etc.) but not in church. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Civil marriage ceremonies can't be carried out in church, nor may they include religious elements. DuncanHill (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, carrying out civil partnership ceremonies on religious premises was legalised last week! ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 18:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about civil marriages, not civil partnerships. (And CPs on religious premises haven't been legalised yet - that won't happen until the bill passes all its stages in Parliament and then receives the Royal Assent). DuncanHill (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

? Well, obviously civil marriages take place outside religious premises, that's what the phrase means :/

And it's legalised inasumch as the House of Commons (if it hasn't already) will obviously be in favour, given that it doesn't contain the Bishops and is full of progressive-type people, unlike the Lords. ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 19:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak to current procedures, but the text of my civil marriage had distinctly religious overtones. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

March 8

Marijuana Intoxication

Two questions:

Can one be arrested for being intoxicated on Cannabis within the confines of one's home in the United States? Note, the question deals only with intoxication and not possession.

Can one be arrested for being intoxicated on Cannabis within the confines of one's home in the State of Florida?

Wikipedia and/or non-Wikipedia references would be appreciated. 76.110.192.228 (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking for legal advice? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not. This question is for personal knowledge. 76.110.192.228 (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

OK -- According to this, only possession, cultivation or sale of marijuana are punishable offenses in the state of Florida, and possession of paraphernalia is a misdemeanor. I don't think there can be a federal offense because it's a state issue. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have also read that the presence of Cannabis in the blood can also be considered "possession". Have any judicial rulings or appropriate statutes shed any light on the said matter? 76.110.192.228 (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It might "be considered possession" by the truly overzealous law enforcement official, but has anyone ever been convicted of possession in the US (or elsewhere) merely for having it in their bloodstream? People can "be arrested" for many specious reasons which lead to dismissals, nonprosecutions, or acquitals. Edison (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly any driver can be pulled over for driving erratically, and could be subjected to intoxication tests. Driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. Within your home would be subject to a search warrant, and since intoxication is often a shared experience, all it would take is one blabbermouth telling someone who tells a cop, "Hey, this guy is growing cannabis in his house" or "This guy has quite a stash!" and then you're cooked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the term is "internal possession" - may be worth googling. DuncanHill (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The US Supreme Court cases Powell v. Texas and Robinson v. California are close but not exactly addressing the issue. In Robinson, the Court struck down a California law criminalizing drug addiction, mostly because, the Court said, drug addiction is a disease; while in Powell, the Court said it was OK to have arrested an alcoholic for being publicly intoxicated, because even if alcoholism is a disease, Powell had not been arrested for being diseased, but for being drunk in public in a particular circumstance. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like they were drawing a civil-liberties-based distinction between personal failing and the potential endangerment of others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Do any records exist of a conviction of Cannabis possession based on evidence that proves you were "possessing Cannabis in your bloodstream" at the time of arrest? 76.110.192.228 (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried googling this particular hypothesis? I would think someone who's intoxicated would be charged with intoxication, as opposed to "possession", but I have no specific facts to back that up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Per my understanding, intoxication of Cannabis isn't a crime unless it's in public. However, I've read that the presence of Marijuana in one's bloodstream may be used to justify possession; as you "posses it in your blood".

I'll see what I can find on Google and I'll get back to any of the interested parties here. 76.110.192.228 (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I found this interesting little link. Does it hold any merit? 76.110.192.228 (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're high, then you're intoxicated, and just as with alcohol, they could presumably do tests to determine the cause and degree of intoxication. But they would have to have probable cause to arrest in the first place, I should think - like smelling pot on your breath or otherwise showing classic signs of being high. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is no way to test if someone is intoxicated from Marijuana. The only tests are to see if you have used Marijuana in the last couple of days or weeks. Funny, though, because US law doesn't normally make this distinction. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 01:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That scenario holds in non-public instances as well? You can't be intoxicated within the privacy of your own home? 76.110.192.228 (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

How would the police know? Unless someone tipped them off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Suppose someone did tip off the authorities. Would that scenario hold in private instances? 76.110.192.228 (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

They would have to get a search warrant based on probable cause, and if they come in and catch you, you're busted. Alternatively, if the cops saw you smoking a joint out on your front porch, I suspect they would have the right to come bust down your door on the grounds that a crime was in progress. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

So intoxication in private is a crime? 76.110.192.228 (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Only if you get caught. :) Actually, that's a flippant answer, though practially true. Becoming drunk at home is not a crime by itself, unless you're underage, let's say, because there is typically no law against adults drinking in private, as such; while public drinking can be illegal. However, possession and/or use of marijuana is illegal in lots of states, regardless of where it occurs. So, yes, any use of marijuana at home could be illegal, if possession itself is illegal. But they can't walk into your house without cause. So you're not fully safe at home, but you're more safe than in public. That would apply to any type of criminal venture, by the way. So the obvious course to follow is, "Don't do the crime unless you're willing to do the time." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. These are just my observations. I am not a lawyer. If you want a definitive answer, you should go see a lawyer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Bugs! 76.110.192.228 (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if I helped that much, but it's clear that it's certainly possible to be arrested for pot use at home, depending on the laws of the state. Probable is another question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This google search has some relevant links [6]. DuncanHill (talk) 11:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Novels, books and novella

Is there a difference between these terms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tworiversflow (talk • contribs) 09:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This a homework question? If so, if you have to give it an attempt on your own before we'll help you. However, if you go to Wiktionary (or just google "dictionary" and click on any online dictionary) and look up the words, you'll surely find a useful definition for each.--Dpr (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You can even use Google as a dictionary. Simply type "define:" (without the quotes) followed by the word that you want a definition for. Dismas|^(talk) 11:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I know. I just try to plug Wiktionary, our sister project, when I can :) --Dpr (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Former Air France headquarters in Montparnasse

A user from Paris took a photo of the site of the former Air France headquarters in Montparnasse - a blue MGEN building stands there.

Air France moved into a new headquarters in 1996. Was the old headquarters demolished? The building in the French news that was the old Air France headquarters looks different. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What is truth?

What is philosophy's standard answer to the question of what truth is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.167 (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Start with Truth#Theories of truth. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want theories I want the -- 82.113.121.167 (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you want, then? ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 13:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A theory is precisely what you'll get if you ask a philosopher what truth is, since it's not possible to empirically determine an answer to the question "what is truth?" That is, if the philosopher doesn't just say that the question is ill-posed. Paul Stansifer 13:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Read this [7] -Pollinosisss (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There are many sources of truth. [8], [9] are both experts in truth220.237.83.212 (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Truth is whatever reality is. The tricky part is determining just what that reality actually is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd find any number of philosophers with a different take, Bugs. ;) The fact is that there are no "standard answers" in philosophy; any question with a "standard answer" is not philosophically interesting. FiggyBee (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Kierkegaard, subjectivity is truth. That said, what is true for one person often works for another. Vranak (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's probably the source of the pseudo-philosophical line in Love and Death, "Subjectivity is objective". But I think I see what you're saying. You're talking about "relative" truth (i.e. what can be known to an individual), and I'm talking about "absolute" truth (i.e. what would be "known to God", or more generally, "the way the universe actually works"). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As the only things that humans can know are by way of human senses and experience, these questions of 'absolute truth' or 'in God's understanding' fall outside the scope of actual knowledge. Vranak (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is the point I'm making. What we think is "the truth" today might be determined tomorrow to not be "the truth" after all. Or vice versa. Yet in such a circumstance, the "absolute truth" did not change - only our perception of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Beauty. DuncanHill (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm... So what about the term, "the ugly truth"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The question "what is philosophy's standard answer to [fill in the blank]" is senseless because there is no such thing as monolithic "philosophy," nor is there a "standard" answer to anything within any philophical school (because invariably there are disagreements about the definitions of the rudimentary terms). But, for starters, within what's often called Philosophy of language, stemming from Frege, Russell, etc., statements are said to have (or to lack) a Truth value, which (if there is one) is "true" or "false". Essentially, the parts of speech in the statement are formalized and plugged into a symbolic logic system whose rules are based on accumulated consensus after years or decades of evaluating the papers that have contributed to the field. Look up Frege and Bertrand Russell for an introduction. 63.17.37.219 (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

is there a list anywhere of reasons to believe something?

Obviously one reason to believe something is if the belief corresponds to physical reality; then you can use it to model and make predictions, and so forth. However, I can think of at least two other great reasons to believe: 1. If you're being paid to do so. I would gladly believe something that did not strictly speaking correspond to physical reality, or model it, but for holding which believe I will receive millions of dollars.

2. Under duress of horrible torture. Obviously it is often a great reason to believe something if you are threatened with torture or death if you don't, as evidenced by The Inquisition. Likewise, I would probably choose to believe something inconsequential (for example, regarding God -- inconsequential because God doesn't affect any of my physical invironment, so it doesn't require changing my beliefs with respect to reality), rather than be horribly tortured.

My question now is other than the above two great reasons to believe something (being paid to; under duress if you don't) is there a list anywhere of other good reasons to believe something, ie other than the belief corresponding to physical reality, the actual state of affairs, or being the best possible model thereof. Thank you. 82.113.121.167 (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Those two items do not represent belief, they represent "pretending to believe". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I second that. Kingsfold (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Belief is what you have when reason does not apply, or isn't sufficient to satisfy, or the subject matter cannot be tested empirically. Looking for "reasons to believe" seems an odd contradiction. Bielle (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because something cannot be tested empirically doesn't mean that "reason" is completely out of the question. —Akrabbim^talk 16:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The OP might or might not be leading up to the question of whether there are "reasons" to believe in a specific religion, or religion in general. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You guys are so totally, dearly wrong on a basic level, that it boggles the mind. 84.153.218.146 (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks and try giving some reasons for why the answers given are wrong. You are being incredibly unhelpful. —Akrabbim^talk 16:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Since he left-justified it, it's a little hard to tell who (if anyone) the IP is actually talking to. And since he has so far just the one entry, I wouldn't pay it no never-mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) :::Bielle, I'm not sure I agree with your definition of belief. For example, scientists believe that the scientific method gives results which are accurate. They believe this because of their experience of the scientific method. Reason obviously applies here, and the subject matter is being tested empirically. So that's another reason to believe something: personal experience. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

One should believe something if and only if its falsehood would be more extraordinary than its truth. --Tango (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

By what standard, though? The idea that time is not absolute is pretty hard for the average citizen to swallow. However, the scientific method can yield evidence to support it. And that's the crux of the matter. The scientific method does not necessarily yield "the absolute truth", it merely yields "the best explanation we have". That's what drives religionists crazy about science. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

@TammyMoet. You and I are using language differently, it would seem. I would say that scientists "know" that the scientific method works because of the empirical evidence. If they are wrong, in whole or in part, then they will know something different at the next step, because of the evidence. Belief is not required; it is testable and falsifiable. Belief is neither. (Of course, "know" and "belief" are constantly used as synonyms in common speech, but that would not be appropriate here, I think.) Bielle (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Can the OP provide a little feedback or further guidance? Are we (those who've responded so far) shedding any meaningful light on the question asked? Would you like to further focus the question if the responses so far are not targeted well enough? Bus stop (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is a difficult question in any case. the best breakdown I've seem (variations on this seem to appear in a number of sources) is as follows:

Functional/pragmatic - I believe X because it is useful or practical to believe X
Normative/conventional - I believe X because X is what people believe
Rhetorical/emotive - I believe X because X strikes me as 'right' or 'true'
Communicative/analytic - I believe X because the arguments in favor of X convince me

most philosophers prefer the last, of course, but most acknowledge that there is a mix of these reasons in most people's beliefs, and most note that there are pro-functional and dysfunctional aspects to each. --Ludwigs2 17:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

How would you know if you "believed" something or didn't? Is there a difference between two mental states, of "believing" and "thinking you believe"? What evidence is appropriate to jusify holding a "belief"? Are evidence from outside, evidence from logic, thinking, memory, and other inside things, equivalent in weight? Is there a reason to believe that isn't one of those two, such as an "I just know"? If there is, then how can others verify whether to believe based on your "other means of knowing", and would it make sense that there can be things one believes that others cannot or should not? Who is the "I" in the statement "I believe that" and which is the "I" that is entitled to make a claim of that kind? Do different parts of you believe different contradictory things, and if so is there a single you that believes things which contradict? What is the relationship between belief and truth?

All these and many many more await you :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mystery poem

I'm trying to remember a poem about spring and nature. It was written ages ago and it was sung in a film recently. I can't remember what it was called, something about spring and cows and nature coming back after winter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valikan (talk • contribs) 14:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like "Sumer is icumen in" to me. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

AA Flight 11 passengers.

Hi, I have a question, considering it was the first hijacked plane they had no opportunity to know they were victims of a suicide mission. I want to know if, knowing where they were seated, is it possible that, i.e. 37G passenger never knew of the hijacking? --190.178.159.192 (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The 9/11 Commission Report says that, according to telephone messages from a stewardess, at 8:41, about 27 minutes after the hijacking started, "passengers in coach were under the impression that there was a routine medical emergency in first class."[10] The plane crashed 5 minutes later. All the hijackers were in business class at the front of the plane. It's impossible to know what exactly happened in the last few minutes, but it seems for much of the time passengers at the back of the plane did not know about the hijack. For more information about the attacks, the commission report is an excellent source. --Normansmithy (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Swear words

This might seem like a silly question but why are people offended by swear words. I can understand offense being caused with say the N word, but what is offensive about say the F word or the C word? Mo ainm~Talk 19:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think they are primarily offended because they sense that you are attempting to offend them. This would explain why use of Minced oaths are sometimes taken just as personally and why use of the N word is not taken offensively when coming from a particular person or in a particular circumstance. Moreover, the use of an expletive indicates that the speaker may be past the point of thinking rationally, in that he or she is making off the cuff remarks and has lost objectivity. This means that the rational connection between the speakers has been lost, and this may be offensive to some, such as between spouses, roommates, etc. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) That's an interesting question. One aspect is that words from Latin sources are considered more formal and proper than others. Thus "piss" is considered obscene while "urinate" is not. Why should this be ? More educated and wealthier people tended to know Latin, and they looked down upon the language of the commoners. The word Profanity can be literally taken to mean "common language". StuRat (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

So it is not the actual word but the tone in which it is used. For instance, in Ireland it wouldn't be unusual to hear somebody greet someone with how the F are you? Mo ainm~Talk 19:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's inaccurate to say it's not the actual word, too; there are people who would be grossly offended to hear certain profanities even if they were lovingly pronounced. Have you read our Profanity article? (By the way, our Language reference desk might have regulars who have a better answer for you than the Humanities desk.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

From a purely pragmatic standpoint it makes sense to reserve some words as 'off-limits' except under extreme circumstances. The prohibition on their casual use ensures that they won't lose their potency. Even the most proper people I know will curse, and not frown upon cursing, when something has seriously gone awry. For local reading material check out Profanity#Types of profanity. Vranak (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this has to do with 'vulgarity' more broadly put. words like 'fuck' and 'piss' are largely recognized as vulgar, and they are objected to because they lower the level of conversation from sophisticated to crude. for instance, I've used the words analytically above, which few people will object to, but if I were to continue by saying "it's a fucking shame that people use those words", it would instantly change the conversational dynamic. Bourgeois society insists on high-minded manners; c'est la vie. --Ludwigs2 19:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, parts of it do, sometimes; but sometimes it's a way, even among the very rich and well-brought-up, to communicate that you're one with a group and are confident enough to share a profanity. A great sequence from The Bonfire of the Vanities quoting bourgeois Wall Street bond brokers, feverishly selling their bonds over the phone:

"Strip fever in the twenty-year! That's all these jerks keep talking about!"

"— a hundred million July-nineties at the buck —"

"— naked short —"

"Jesus Christ, what's going on?"

"I don't fucking believe this!"

"Holy fucking shit!" shouted the Yale men and the Harvard men and the Stanford men. "Ho-lee fuc-king shit."

Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

These words and phrases are acknowledgments of our separateness. We are individuals. We use these aspects of language to puncture the space between us. But there is a tension. We want acknowledgment of a "no-man's-land" between us, but we know at any time we can puncture the boundaries of it at will. Any puncturing of it is at least a Faux pas. But specific breaking of the unspoken boundary can be an invocation of a particularly unbalanced relationship, and it is by this means that we attempt to offend by the use of language. Bus stop (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Context makes a significant difference. When people are terrified, like being in a fire or a collapsing building, most anything is liable to come out of their mouth, and they're not going to be faulted for it. When used with friends with whom vulgarity is acceptable, it's considered normal. When used with strangers, or with someone who is known not to like it, it can be impolite at the very least. When directed at someone, it's most offensive, and used to be called "fighting words", a concept with some degree of legal standing, i.e. "verbal assault". Where I come from, vulgarity was seldom used, because it was connected with being uneducated, or even with being a low-life. Times have changed, though. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The N word isn't always offensive, I have a close friend and we constnatly make joking rascist remarks to each other. On the other hand htere are many people who would be extremely insulted by idiot and stupid. And you have an Irish name, but nobody I know woluld say how the fuck are you?--92.251.221.135 (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A non-US person here (presume that's relevant) - what is the N word being discussed here? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a reference to a term for African Americans that was used freely from slave years up through the 1960s. If you really don't know what it is, a 30 second google search will show you, but I suspect you're just trolling a bit. stop it. --Ludwigs2 22:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's Nigger (Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED anybody?) And before we go assume bad faith, could we at least do some rudimentry checking? From Palace Guard's user and talk pages, he certainly appears to not live in North America (China, perhaps?), where the "N-word" isn't exactly used in common discourse. Buddy431 (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

PalaceGuard008 is a RD regular who lives in Australia [11] and I believe was born in China. I don't live there but expect the N word may come up on occassion and obviously on American TV, but is unlikely to be a part of regular discourse and it's entirely probable that a fair minority would have no idea what you're talking about particularly those who have no great interest in American culture or rap music, probably even more so among those who spent part of their early lives in Asian countries and not speaking English. Note that people may be aware of the word nigger and it's offensiveness without recognising that the N word usually refers to it. [12] [13] may be of interest as perhaps on a related issue The Jackson Jive. I also came across [14] where I noticed "there have been no official complaints about these names" which living in NZ hardly surprises me.

In fact although not concerning words, the Swastika perhaps another example which I was reminded of here, and it's use something which perhaps PalaceGuard008 (I recall someone can't remember if it was him) and definitely I (not often, but I distinctly recall at one temple in Malaysia with it was used albeit left facing IIRC) can attest to, with some of the people almost definitely having no idea about its potential for offence as mentioned in the article as well.

Point being, things have different meanings in different cultures, don't assume everyone is going to recognise something as being offesive just because it's widely offensive where you live, even in the internet age and with the ubiquity of American culture (particularly with people who may not have English as their native language).

Even if PG008 was trying to make a point, that's perhaps ill-advised but not and far more likely then trolling (although I still doubt it).

P.S. While I'm usually a strong advocate of searching for people asking fresh questions, when an issue comes up I think it's entirely resonable to ask 'what on earth are you talking about' if insufficient context was provided without bothering to search.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Nil Einne and Buddy431 and apologies for the confusion to all. As I noted in my post, I suspected this was a regional issue. While I am certainly aware of the word "nigger" and its usage in North America, the word does not have the same history or usage elsewhere in the world - as with Bernanrd McNally below, I would say it's simply not in the everyday vocabulary. I don't believe I've ever heard the word used in Australia to refer to an actual person, whether as a greeting or as a racist taunt. When I read the preceding posts, I was genuinely uncertain what commonly-used swear word started with "N" (couldn't think of any). I did have some suspicion that this might be the word after reading the post above mentioning racism, but was not sure. For one thing, I don't usually think of racist taunts as swear words. Hence the question. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The normal greeting in Ireland is: "Dia is Muire gut", and the response: "Dia is Muire is Parigh dutsa". Only if you know someone well can obsenities be used with impunity. But Irish society changes and what is OK in one County is not in another. A sense of humour is acceptabe in one County is absent in another. My Dublin friend has African parents and speaks with a pronounced Dublin acent, and we "pull oneanother's legs something awful", but dare anyone else do it! His name is Patrick, to booth. That "N-word" is a definite no-go area, no matter what the circumstances. When I first saw this entry I did not know what you meant by N-word, it is not in the vocabulary here, and I don't live in China!

MacOfJesus (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

A good place to find history about how swear words originated and why which words are swear words (i.e. "fuck" rather than "sex"), as well as their presence around the world, try the chapter on swearing in this book:

Bryson, Bill (1990-07). The Mother Tongue. William Morrow & Company, Inc. . ISBN 0-380-71543-0.

We had to read the entirety of this book for a summer assignment, and it was very comprehensive on English, its origins, and its ties to other languages, including the chapter on swearing. Hope this helps. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

@MacOfJesus, you are talking about the Irish language, and I assume you wrote them phonetically, the Irish language greeting is Dia dhuit, which means God be with you and the response is usually Dia's Muire dhuit which is God and Mary be with you. The language is not spoken regularly outside of Gealtacht areas. (An area which use Irish as their first language)Mo ainm~Talk 15:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

For a deepre understanding of swearwords, may I recommend C U Next Tuesday: A Good Look at Bad Language(2005) by Ruth Wajnryb. The title, for those who might not understand at first glance, is a reference to the slang phrase spelling out Cunt, still one of the strongest words in the English language. (Amazon.com also lists a book by her under the title of Expletive Deleted: A Good Look at Bad Language, presumably the same text.) BrainyBabe (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Mo ainm, yes I was thinking of someone trying to read what I wrote. But even outside the Gealtacht areas basic greeting such as these are often used. However, have you noticed that it is a different logic in using the Gealic. One cannot think in English and speak in Irish. For instance, one in Gealic cannot say directly: "That is a clock". A great linguist said that all languages can be interchangable in word and thought. He was not aware of The Gealic.

MacOfJesus (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have some friends in New Zealand with whom I play online chess, and one of them enters the room saying "Hi homos". Is this a normal greeting in kiwiland, or is it as rude as it sounds ? StuRat (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a fine line between being offensive and being jockluar. (Often the overhearer in not atuned with the relationships).

Mo ainm, I am of the opinion that I would love for more people to speak my native language. But to do this I must make it easy for them to speak it. Like all children learning a language, you learn to speak it first, then write it. Slean.

MacOfJesus (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Name question

In regards to: http://www.houstonisd.org/HISDConnectEnglish/Images/PDF/howmaywehelpyou.pdf

I'm trying to get the name of the Houston Independent School District in Arabic and Urdu from this text, but I cannot directly copy and paste from the document. What are the names of the district in Arabic and Urdu? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you try the Language Desk. StuRat (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

On the page that you linked, the fifth language in the list is Farsi. The seventh language in the list is Arabic. The eighth language is Urdu. Unfortunately, I don't have Arabic or Urdu fonts, so I can't copy and paste or type the statements onto this page. Marco polo (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Arabic says "idara Houston al-ta'alimiyya al-mustaqala", if that helps. I also don't seem to have Arabic fonts on this computer (but I can do it from home later if no one else gets to it). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Aha, I do have Arabic fonts, it says Arabic: إدارة هيوستون التعليمية المستقلة ‎. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Persian one (which is almost entirely Arabic-derived words) is Persian: مدارس مستقل منطقة اي هيوستون . I'm not so confident about the Urdu - it does have "independent school" transliterated directly, which is easy enough, but I don't know which word means "district". Adam Bishop (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for getting the Arabic and Persian characters from it :) - I asked because I'm adding additional translations to the commons category commons:Category:Houston Independent School District - The only language it needs now is Urdu. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Urdu name is in Page 12 of 19 of the document http://www.houstonisd.org/Multilingual/Home/Bilingual%20&%20ESL%20Programs/Program%20Guidelines%20Docs/NotificationofEnrollment.pdf - Would someone mind posting the actual text to this page? Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That one says something different, the entirety of "Houston Independent School Disctrict" is transliterated. I wasn't sure what the first PDF you linked had, because it looked like it said "Boston" instead of "Houston", unless there is something about Urdu phonology that I don't understand (which is very possible). The second one definitely does say "Houston" though. Unfortunately if I try to paste it, it shows up in the wrong direction...I'll keep trying. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, this is mostly it, Urdu: ﮨيﻮﺳﭩﻦ اﻧﮉﭘﻨﮉﻧﭧ اﺳﮑﻮل ڈﺳﭩﺮﮐﭧ - but the first letter of "Houston" has a weird diacritic and I can't get the second letter to connect properly. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, got it, Urdu: ﮨيوﺳﭩﻦ اﻧﮉﭘﻨﮉﻧﭧ اﺳﮑﻮل ڈﺳﭩﺮﮐﭧ . Adam Bishop (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Also I should note that the first document you linked to does say "Houston", not "Boston". It has the same squiggle under the H, which I originally thought was a B, sorry. So apparently "Houston" can be spelled "ﮨيوﺳﭩﻦ" or "ﮨوﺳﭩﻦ". The first document either doesn't have the word "district", or it's an Urdu word I don't know. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for getting the Urdu :) - I e-mailed HISD asking for any other official names for the district in other languages. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Detroit

I heard during a chat programme on BBC radio this morning someone saying that the population of Detroit has declined from two million to 800,000 and that trees grow in abandoned skyscrapers. The Detroit article contradicts the population assertion. But is there any truth about the trees growing off abandoned skyscrapers? Thanks 78.146.208.26 (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems highly implausible. For one thing, that would constitute a safety hazard that the city would have to deal with. Also, why would a skyscraper (which should have some value) be abandoned? I think someone's been watching Life After People: The Series. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm writing this from Detroit, and I can tell you that's BS. Detroit has lost quite a bit of population, but not quite that much. The 2 million figure is a bit over the maximum in the 1950's, while 800,000 is a very low estimate for Detroit today. Note that most of that population loss was people moving out to the suburbs. There are neighborhoods in Detroit which are largely abandoned (as there are in many cities), but the downtown area, where the skyscrapers are, is just fine. The biggest building is the Renaissance Center, and that article should tell you about it's current status. StuRat (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The BBC story sounds a bit exaggerated. Detroit's population is now about 900,000, which is about half of its peak population of 1.8 million in the 1950s. There are no trees growing from prime downtown skyscrapers, but you can see sights like this in Detroit. Marco polo (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Life after people included a car plant in Detroit which has been abandoned for decades, since WW2. I can't recall the once-famous brand. Edison (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Fisher Body Plant or the Packard plant or the Studebaker plant or the Ford Piquette plant. Detroitblog, Buildings of Detroit and Forgotten Detroit have good info on buildings and decay in Detroit. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to gainsay StuRat, but as someone who grew up in Detroit (the city, not the suburbs) and returns frequently, "just fine" is as "just fine" does. A recent | New York Times article mentioned 200 abandoned buildings in downtown Detroit--and those are just the ones listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The article focused on the Michigan Central Station, where I worked in the early 1970s. It's possible hat there could be a tree or two on the roof or near a glassless window somewhere in the 18-story tower, but unlikely. I don't know whether today you'd consider a 230-foot building a skyscraper, but the MCS was the tallest building in Michigan until the Penobscot Building, more than twice its height, went up in 1923. --- OtherDave (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

For instances: the 30-story Book-Cadillac, the tallest hotel in the world when it opened, sat empty and open to vandals for twenty years until just reopening, the 38-story Book Building is now completely empty. The 14-story Lafayette Building was just razed and is noted as having trees growing on it. See also Category:Abandoned buildings in Detroit, Michigan. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Postage Due

Any postal administration still use Postage due stamps? These stamps seem to have died out during the 50s/60s? I'm tempted to send myself letters purposely with insufficient postage just to get these stamps. What is the common practice today? Return to sender or a cancel chop on the envelope? I'm in Canada btw, I'm not aware of any Canadian postage due stamps, ever. Thx. --Kvasir (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Use caution when accessing the link in the following comment. There have been no less than eleven reports against that site of viruses and malicious content [15]. Falconus^{p t c} 04:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I googled ["postage due" canada]. According to this,[removed due to virus concern expressed above] postage-due stamps were issued in Canada during 1906-1978 or some such. It's unclear what happens nowadays when there is postage due. My guess is it's returned to sender, but I don't know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In the UK the postman/woman leaves a card saying (something like) "your item couldn't be delivered because it had insufficient postage." You then have to collect it from from the sorting office and pay an excess fee there (or else it's returned to sender). I suppose it's part of the drive to make postmen get through their rounds as quickly as possible, and also to avoid the need of their dealing with cash. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Or you can affix regular postage stamps to the card they leave and send it back and they'll deliver your letter. --Tango (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In Canada, they stamp the envelope as not having sufficient postage and return it to sender. If there is no return address, it is sent to the addressee and payment plus an administration fee must be made prior to delivery. All from the Canada Post website under "Postage requirements". -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --Kvasir (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Scott says that the last new postage due stamp in the USA was issued in 1985. Today, post offices have a rubber handstamp that reads "Postage Due ___"; if the mail has no return address, the postal worker will use this handstamp and write in the postage due. I sent myself a letter some years ago with insufficient postage, hoping to get a postage due stamp that I didn't have (I'm a collector), but the postal workers never noticed that there was insufficient postage. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Scott also says that Canada issued forty different postage due stamps. Five different designs were issued between 1906 and 1978; values were always 1-10¢, except for the last set, which was 1-50¢. I own the 1¢ of the 1935 issue. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Good to hear from another philatelist. --Kvasir (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that Royal Mail in the UK, and An Post in Ireland were still issuing postage due stamps until the late 80s, which you could certainly buy from the respective philatelic bureaux, though I can't recall seeing any actually being used! The last Irish series of postage due stamps was issued in 1986, then for about a year in 1990-1 they trialled three different lots of postage due labels, where the value is selected at the time the label is printed - there was a Frama machine at the GPO in Dublin, a Klussendorf one at the Head Post Office in Limerick, and a Bowes machine at the HPO Cork. From 1993 they used a completely different style of machine to produce the labels (I've got 32p and 50p examples in my collection), printed on yellowish labels - they've got a circular Baile Atha Cliath datestamp on the left (20.9.93) and on the right a squarish design with "éire" on the top, and surrounding the value "postage" on the top, "due" along the bottom, "postas" down the left, and "lehioc" down the right. In the UK the Royal Mail was using Frama machines to produce postage due labels in the 80s. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 March 9

March 10

Bram Stokers Dracula was lost and found in a barn in Pennsylvania

Hi, I am looking for a good accessable reference to that effect. I see no reason why such an interesting story would not be readily sourcable from reliable publications if it were true. It appears on the Bram Stoker article, not on the Dracula article, and reference is light and from old books only. Surely anything interesting about literature like that is well documented somehwere or it is suspicious. ~ R.T.G 00:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: I am querying the barn or how the manuscript got there not its contents or anything. ~ R.T.G 00:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal reference - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122514491757273633.html - and the whole story seem quite credible to me. WSJ is considered a Reliable Source around these parts. It sounds as though it is a draft, one of several Stoker worked on. It's not that improbable that a draft might get lost and turn up years later. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

See also http://www.amazon.com/review/R1GOUL90T3ZWII and http://www.nypl.org/audiovideo/evening-dracula which also mention the Paul Allen manuscript. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The manuscript of the NYLibrary night doesn't return a hit for "paul allen" and the Amazon review isn't a reliable source. The Wall Street Journal is a respectable publication but it differs significantly with the current source that it does not claim it to be the original manuscript and differs in number of pages etc. That's probably a useable reference but I am still dubious. I will refer those argueing the worth of the story to this. If I see any UFOs I will let you know. That's what it sounds like to me. Thanks for finding that even though I am still slating it. ~ R.T.G 00:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the NYLibrary article has a sentence "and to Seattle to spend two days with the guarded manuscript (Microsoft billionaire Paul Allen is the owner)." I won't quibble with the amazon article not being n RS, but at least it shows the story has legs. The WSJ article is one of the sources referenced in the Bram Stoker, so I'm not easily able to understand the point you're trying to make. The other - Latham, Robert. Science Fiction & Fantasy Book Review Annual, Greenwood Publishing (1988) p. 67 - also appears highly kosher. But you believe what you want to believe; your prerogative. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

this, this and perhaps this tells as much of the history of that manuscript as I could find, which isn't much. Perhaps only John McLaughlin and the anonymous seller know where it actually was found, or maybe only the anon knows. Often "discovered" works like this have had a dubious history and sellers are none too willing to explain how they came in possession of them. Several news reports mentioned a barn but located it variously in New England, Pennsylvania or Massachusetts. meltBanana 13:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to argue with the Wall Street Journal and also one other ref from the BBC, which doesn't mention the barn, but with them all differing on particulars and Christies not showing the listing in their old lots... and the fact that almost all other publications haven't touched it... it must be the twiglet zone. ~ R.T.G 01:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WWI photograph identifications

I've uploaded some photos to Commons, and need help identifying the subjects for better descriptions &categorisation, and eventual use in appropriate WP articles.

Trench mortars

trench mortars

Can anyone identify these trench mortars from WWI? (Captured by NZEF soldiers and displayed in London at the end of the war.) I suspect they are Minenwerfers, of varying calibres. Gwinva (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The ones in the back pointing to the ground look to me like 25 cm Minenwerfer. The one in front seems to be a Skoda 75 mm Model 15 mountain gun, used for anti-tank defense. But I am not an expert on WWI artillery. --Dodo19 (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Tanks

what tanks?

I also need help identifying these WWI tanks, seen here during a victory parade in London. Allied tanks? Or captured German ones? (The parade was made up of allied troops and their spoils of war, see plane below). Gwinva (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the British Mark V (from the photo in the article anyway). The Germans didn't have a whole lot of tanks in World War I. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If I'm reading our article correctly, the two raised cabins on the front one show that it is a Mark V series tank. The rhomboidal shape of the second one indicates that it's another British tank, and the one in back looks like a French Renault FT-17; but my poor old eyes can't see enough to make positive IDs on those two. Deor (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In this flickr discussion about this very photograph, one person is "reliably informed" that the front one is a Mark V male and the middle one a Mark V* female. Does this mean they can mate and make little baby mark v's? Another participant thinks the one in back is a Medium Mark A Whippet. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ayup, the one at the back is indeed a Whipet - very distinctive hull. Skinny87 (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Now I feel stupid. I uploaded the photo from the Flickr Commons page, but never read all the comments; the early ones were not promising, so I never bothered reading the rest. (I tend to ignore most internet comment sections since they are rarely as informed as the ref desks). Thanks for the confirmation. Gwinva (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You realize of course we'll have to charge you three times the standard RD rate. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How about just double - my first question remains unanswered; in addition, I'd like to claim my member's discount. Gwinva (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Tanks - Front is I think a Mk IV male, followed by a Mk. IV female (but both could be Mk V) with a Whippet at the back." suggests User:Monstrelet at MILHIST, so we don't quite have consensus. Gwinva (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The front tank has a rear turret (like the Mark V here) that I don't see on the Mark IV's.[16][17]. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

German planes

captured planes

These are captured German planes. Any guesses? Gwinva (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The foreground plane is rather the worse for wear, but the shape of the tail parts appears to resemble that of a Pfalz D.XII more than any other of the German fighters listed at List of military aircraft of Germany#Before 1919. Deor (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"Planes - front an Albatross DIII Second A Pfalz DIII (I think, hard to tell from this angle)." suggests User:Monstrelet at MILHIST. Gwinva (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Father of Beatrix Potter

I just enjoyed the almost painfully beautiful film Miss Potter, in which the father of the author is depicted as being intelligent and sharp, and – more importantly – warm, and, when it really matters, understanding, progressive, tolerant, and even wise. He is able to listen to people, and to take their emotions and thoughts seriously, and he can overlook the narrow-mindedness born from the social codes of conduct of the mid-nineteenth century. How accurately is the film's description of Mr Potter? --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Dekotora

Dekotora

Dekotora

How do they make money? Would their customers pay more money to them? If not, how do they pay for all these additional lights? -- Toytoy (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The article you link to says, in the first paragraph: "Dekotora may be created by workers out of their work trucks for fun, or they may be designed by hobbyists for special events." It doesn't sound like they are intended to make money. --Tango (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Warrington & Co.

Can anyone help me track down Warrington & Co. of 23 Garrick Street, London? They were the publishers of this little guide, and other than the fact that—according to this list—they were engravers, I haven't been able to find any information about them. Said guide (as well as a later version of which I possess a printed copy) is undated, and although the on-line version is tentatively given the publishing year 1911, I am almost certain that it was printed in the first decade of the 20th century. But when exactly? (If the illegible handwritten note on the cover is to be paid any attention, it could be at least as early as 1903.) Waltham, The Duke of 04:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I can point you to some more Warrington & Co publications at the Internet Archive, fwiw. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

According to this snippet, the Warrington of the company name—in 1897, at least—was one Richard Silvester Warrington, and the business is described as "engravers (printer, die sinker and lithographer)". Their most notable publication seems to have been the annual British Imperial Calendar and Civil Service List (as advertised here). And if the footnote in the second snippet here goes with the text in the first snippet, they appear to have been publishing some version of your book as early as 1855, though early editions seem to be under the title The New Palace of Westminster. Deor (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

A by the way - according to the London Times of 18 Jan 1900 23 Garrick Street was badly damaged by fire At about helf-past 5 o;clock yesterday morning the premises of Messrs. Warrington and Co., engravers at 23, Garrick Street, Covent-garden, W.C. were discovered to be on fire. The building is a large one of five floors it goes on to say that premises were burnt out and probable cause was entered by burglars. MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Just another note - in the 1891 Census of Lewisham, London Richard Warrington is described as a Printer & Stationer aged 69 (born 1822 in London), he appears to have died in 1899 aged 77. Also he appears to have married Martha Sarah Swears in Kingston, Surrey in 1849. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Fit For Performance

Are there any roller skates or Inline skates fit for performance?174.3.110.108 (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Your link seems to have answered your question in the positive. Was there something else you wanted to know? Bielle (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, no, to be sure, I am almost absolutely certain that these are only for ice skates (including figure skates and hockey skates).174.3.110.108 (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Online Dictionary

There was a definition linked to an online english dictionary, in a post maybe a a week ago.

(The original poster posted after me about a week ago, so this link may have appeared several days afterward.)

I am curious which dictionary this was. I am not sure if this was on the humanities desk, or language desk, or possibly entertainment desk.174.3.110.108 (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This question was also asked on the Language Desk and has drawn some answers there. --Anonymous, 22:27 UTC, March 10, 2010.

Principality of Neuchâtel

When did the County of Neuchâtel changed into a Principality? The article says "With increasing power and prestige, Neuchâtel was raised to the level of a principality at the beginning of the seventeenth century." But does any one have an exact year and date?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

From searching the French Wikipedia, I found that Henri II d'Orléans, Duke of Longueville (6 April 1595 – 11 May 1663) was also Prince of Neuchâtel. Henri d'Orléans (1568-1595) was Count of Neuchâtel. That gives a range of 1595-1663. I'm looking for more. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 07:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Eureka! 1648 or 1643. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 07:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Why people cry when they are happy

I never cry when I'm happy. I smile or laugh. I only cry when I'm sad. Why do some people cry? I can't really understand them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.120.162 (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Crying:

"To cry is to shed tears as a response to an emotional state in humans."

Being happy is an emotional state. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Compare Berserker Tears, for emotions other than joy and sadness...Okay, it's only a trope, I've no idea if this happens in real life. Although the article does have a (short) "real life" section. Vimescarrot (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't find it in a really short Google search, but I recall hearing on TV a theory that adults cry when happy, because it's a reminder of a special time in childhood when they really believed "fairy tales could come true" and that there would always be happy endings." Adulthood causes one to realize that isn't always true, so one sheds tears (as I do at times) at times one of those "happy endings" does occur. (Actually our whole family is that way :-) We often joke about wondering who will be the first to get choked up at, say, a wedding toast when we talk about how wonderfully happy we hope the couple will be, etc.)Somebody or his brother (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a good explanation. Grown men cried at the end of Field of Dreams - both on and off the screen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

People cry for all sorts of reasons other than sadness. People cry out of relief - say they've been worrying about a loved one and found out they are ok, they cry because of joy (they're watching their child stand up infront of people and take the vow of marriage - see DTF955 above, they cry because they're frustrated. It's pretty normal to cry at anytime where your emotions are highly-charged/on edge. Crying is an outward expression of intense feelings - that feeling can be for a number of different reasons. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tears of anger and/or frustration are very common in small children and not-so-small adults. It is not just strong emotions in themselves but also an inability to find another. socially acceptable, outlet for them that often results in tears. Bielle (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC) outlet for them.

Tears of gratitude come to my eyes embarrassingly often.--Wetman (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

See this post from the Science desk archive: Emotional Crying. Jay (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do people cry when they are sad? We don't really know (there are plenty of guesses, though)... --Tango (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Canada's role in producing energy for the world

Is there a website about Canada's role in producing energy for the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.7 (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This page from the US Department of Energy has quite a lot of information. --Normansmithy (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a Canadian website here: http://www.energy.ca/users/folder.asp --Kvasir (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In the data section of the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, you will find authoritative and detailed information on national and world-wide energy. [[18]] DOR (HK) (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Reason for the POETICS list protest of Billy Collins's appointment?

Articles on the Poet Laureate Consultant in Poetry to the Library of Congress and POETICS list both state that members of the list protested the appointment of Billy Collins to Poet Laureate, but neither offers a suggestion of their reason for doing so. I've tried to follow all the citation links, but none seem to readily offer an explanation for the protest. Does anyone know (and/or have a good reference we can add to the articles)? JamesLucas (" " / +) 15:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

These two posts kind of sum it up, popular, easy to understand, mediocre, quite possibly politically conservative, oh and actually makes money, poets hate that.

Let none presume the hallow'd way to tread,

by other than the noblest motives led.

If for a sordid gain or glitt'ring fame,

To please, without instrucing, be your aim,

To lower means your grov'ling thoughts confine,

Unworthy of an art, that's all divine.

Calliope: The Heroick Muse - Catherine Trotter Cockburn

meltBanana 02:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that digging. JamesLucas (" " / +) 18:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

becoming millionaire

what is the easy way to be become millionaire? --Houndhog (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

become a billionaire and give most of it away--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not a very good question for us. If we knew, why are we not all millionaires? One way to become a technical millionaire or billionaire is to buy some currency from Zimbabwe. I bet you could buy a ZIM$1,000,000,000 for very little on ebay. For a more serious answer, the majority of millionaires either inherited their $, or they started their own business. Few who are working at a salaried position will end up with millions. Googlemeister (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you missed your chance at Zimbabwe money. See Zimbabwe#Economy. --Anonymous, 22:31 UTC, March 10, 2010.

Some bankers and footballers are employees who become millionaires. 78.151.126.97 (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, though the majority of both those employment opportunities have only a fairly low % involved actually becoming millionaires. Googlemeister (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Gearing. Borrow a lot of money to buy an asset(s). Do something (which could be just waiting several years) so that the asset rises in sale price by a million currency units, and then you are a net millionaire. Becoming a gross millionaire is easier - simply borrow a million currency units. And the easist way to borrow a lot of money is to buy property (British english) or real estate (American english), since the property gives security for the loan and hence lenders are more willing to lend. People usually start borrowing smaller amounts, get a capital gain, then use their capital gains plus any savings as the deposit on increasingly larger borrowings. 78.151.126.97 (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a Wikipedia page about this: Get-rich-quick scheme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Normansmithy (talk • contribs) 17:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the easiest... but however most unlikely way to become one is by winning a Lottery. This method avoids the legal hassle of inheritance or dealing with wills... and the time and risk of investing large sums of money. But as they say, "you can't win if you don't play". 10draftsdeep (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

looking at your user name, I'd suggest finding yourself a nice, rich widow and becoming a boy-toy. the world's oldest get-rich-quick scheme... --Ludwigs2 20:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"She may very well pass for 43, in the dusk with the light behind her." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Whomever says "You can't win if you don't play" is an idiot. You are not required to purchase a lottery ticket to win the lottery. You merely need to be in possession of a winning lottery ticket. Many people win money from the lottery without playing. Purchasing a ticket does not increase your odds of winning any significant amount. -- kainaw ™ 13:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Gearing is a good answer, but it is important to point out that it can result in you losing $1m in exactly the same way. Since you don't have $1m to lose, you would be bankrupt. Generally and loosely speaking, your return is going to be proportional to your risk - if you want a really high return (relative to your starting capital) then you need to take really high risks. Gearing is the simplest way of doing that. --Tango (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can go bankrupt, then you escape your debts. So your net worth, after being bankrupt, can only be zero at its lowest, but unlimited in the other direction. If you have little or no assets thjen you can afford to take extremely high risks. When you have something to lose, then you have to be more cautious. 78.146.0.232 (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Declaring bankruptcy doesn't just reset everything. You usually have to pay as much as you can for the next few years and basically can't borrow any money - that includes things like using electricity and then paying for it at the end of the month. You have to either get someone to stand as guarantor for everything or pay for it in advance. Even after your bankruptcy is discharged you will have a terrible credit rating for many years, if not the rest of your life. Bankruptcy involves losing a lot, it doesn't doesn't involve losing everything. --Tango (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Googlemeister's assertion that it's hard to become a millionaire working a salaried position. My grandparents were millionaires upon retirement (granted, that's two people's income). They both got college degrees and worked good, but not extremely high paying jobs, invested wisely (and to some extent, got lucky in how they invested), and lived well within their means. I suspect that my dad, an engineer, will be a millionaire when he retires: he's always saved a large portion of his income and invests it prudently. Depending on what field I go into, it's quite possible that I'll become a millionaire too (especially with a moderate amount of inflation that will likely occur over my working years). So I'd say the best answer is: Get a university degree (at least 4 years, perhaps a graduate degree as well at some point) in a field with relatively high paying jobs (technical fields especially, but I'm sure there are others), and save a good portion of your income by investing it in a smart manner. Buddy431 (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. If you include people's pension pots (which you certainly should - they are assets) then a lot of people have very high assets when they retire (which they spend during their retirement, of course). Buying a house and slowly paying off the mortgage is one of the best ways of investing in addition to your pension fund - the interest is often tax deductible, you don't have to pay rent and house prices typically increase a decent rate over decades. --Tango (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Compound interest + Time —D. Monack ^talk 22:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of householders (who are merely employees in average jobs) in Britain are at least the equivalent of dollar millionaires due to houses being expensive, particularly in London. 89.243.212.29 (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That's only really true of older householders. You need to have either paid off your mortgage or have bought your house when it was much cheaper for it to contribute a large amount to your net worth. Unless you have a really high income (or were already wealthy) you can't pay off a large mortgage very quickly, so either of those requires you to be at least middle-aged. Also, the value of the house you live in often isn't counted as part of your net worth for the purposes of the definition of millionaire - see Millionaire#Net worth vs. financial assets. --Tango (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The OP did not specify a time limit, and asked "what is the easy way to become a millionaire". Obviously, it is easier to become a millionaire over 50 years than it is by four o'clock next tuesday. 78.149.193.118 (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It would help a lot to become an accountant and get management qualifications. 78.146.52.206 (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Lords of Toron

Toron was a fief of Galilee, itself an important fief of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Lords of Toron, successive Humphreys of Toron, were one of the most distinguished families of that time. But who were they, and from whom did they descend? According to Wikipedia's article on Humphrey I, the founder of the dynasty was related to the House of Hauteville. But this claim isn't sourced. Has anyone heard about this? Is there any source that supports what the article says?

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trybald (talk • contribs) 17:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Humphrey I is one of the many obscure nobodies who jumped on the crusade bandwagon after the First Crusade (Barisan of Ibelin and Hugh of Jaffa are similarly obscure examples). The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy linked in our article says nothing about his origins, nor does Du Cange's Familles d'Outremer, nor the Lignages d'Outremer. I don't know where our article got that info, except that it was taken from the French Wikipedia article, which itself has a "citation needed" note. It's easy to assume that he was an Italian Norman based on his name, but I'll have to dig further to see if anyone actually says where he came from. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely possible he's a Hauteville, based on what I am getting from following threads from the Hauteville family article. Lots of late 11th century and early 12th century Hauteville's participated in the crusades. Bohemond I of Antioch was a Hauteville (male-line grandson of Tancred of Hauteville), and he was perhaps one of the most important military leaders of the First Crusade. Several of his Hauteville cousins were also prominent crusaders, Herman of Hauteville, his half-first-cousin, died at the Siege of Antioch, for example. Our article on Serlo II of Hauteville has redlinks for his sons, so its possible this line may show up producing our Humphrey of Toron. I mean, Tancred had an astounding number of children and grandchildren; Humphrey of Toron would have been of an age to be one of Tancred's grandchildren; if his connection to the Hautevilles is older than Tancred, it looks like this rather prolific family could include him quite easily. --Jayron32 03:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

But it's also possible that Humphrey's descendents wanted to give their ancestor a more noble origin, and chose Tancred without any basis, especially since the link (at least according to Wikipedia) was not made until the 15th century. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

William of Tyre and Fulcher of Chartes don't mention it, there's nothing in collections of charters (Regesta Regni Hierosolimitorum, Cartulary of the Holy Sepulchre), and no modern histories say anything either, particularly Jonathan Riley-Smith's "The First Crusaders, 1095-1131". Alan Murray's "Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Dynastic History" might be a good place to look, but it is out of the library at the moment. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Prince Ernst August of Hanover

Why does a court in Germany have jurisdiction over an incident that occurred in Kenya? [19] Woogee (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Section 7 [of the German penal code]. Application to other types of conduct abroad

(1) The German criminal law is applicable to crimes committed abroad against a German if such conduct is punishable by the law of the place where it occurred, or if no criminal law enforcement existed at the place where the crime was committed.

(2) The German criminal law is likewise applicable to crimes committed abroad if such conduct is punishable by the law of the place where it occurred, or if no criminal law enforcement existed at the place where the crime was committed, and if the perpetrator:

1. was a German at the time of the crime or acquired German citizenship thereafter, or

2. was a foreigner at the time of the crime, was apprehended within Germany and, although the extradition statute would permit extradition for the type of offense involved, was not extradited either because a request for extradition was never made, or was refused, or because extradition is not feasible. [20] (my emphasis)

Ernst August was German at the time of the crime, and the act was punishable under Kenyan law, so the German penal code authorizes prosecution in Germany. - Nunh-huh 19:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Woogee (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean this Ernst August, the father. The one wikified in the question was born in 1983, his son. --Kvasir (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right. I linked to the article linked on Current events. I think I'll double check that. Woogee (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

in what part, as a percentage, was world war 2 caused by an unjust peace agreement following world war 1?

if you were to express it as a percentage, then in what part was world war 2 caused by an unjust peace agreement following world war 1? thank you. 82.113.121.89 (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an impossible quantification. obviously, the destitution caused in Germany by the terms of the WWI peace agreement was a major factor in the fall of German democracy and the rise to power of the Nazis, but (1) the peace agreement was only unjust in its magnitude, not in its intent and (2) the militant, expansionist, xenophobic mindset expressed in the Nazi party existed prior to WWI (Germany had had a strong nationalist movement for decades), and was only legitimized by the unjustness of the treaty. these kinds of moral/emotive judgements are impossible to quantify meaningfully. --Ludwigs2 19:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that the answer to this question could vary wildly. If you were set it as homework, it is a question designed not to have just an answer of "50%" but an explanation of the importance of the Treaty of Versailles, other factors, and an overall conclusion. Chaosandwalls (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's a homework question, it is a poor one. As others have said, you can't quantify this. Causal factors in history interact in such a way that it is really impossible to assign a percentage value to any one of them. Even if you could, it would be a subjective judgment without any means of empirical assessment. If I were given this question as homework, I would state that it is impossible to quantify the relative importance of this causal factor and then go on to explain how important this was as a causal factor and what competing causal factors may also have contributed. I would just point out that it was far from inevitable that the Versailles Treaty should have led to World War II. If only one or two historical details had changed, it might not have. For example, if Adolf Hitler had been killed in World War I, the Nazi Party might never have taken the form that it did or have attracted such wide appeal. Or, if a man other than Heinrich Brüning were chancellor and were able to develop effective policies in response to the Depression that addressed lower-middle and working class concerns, he could have undermined both the Communists and the Nazis, saved Weimar democracy, and averted the war in Europe. Finally, the question completely ignores the role of Japan, which, once again, is hard to quantify. Arguably, World War II really began with the Mukden Incident in 1931, which had nothing to do with the Versailles Treaty. Marco polo (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The question implies that the End Agreement to 1 was 100% unjust, and the cause of the 2nd was as a result to what %? The question is therefore loaded. If this question was put by a History Teacher, you could ask for it to be reworded. Not implying the first premise to te true or false, I would say the question is 100% true. I think the questioner is asking for a desertation, though.

1. The splitting of the country.

2. The bill to pay was draconian.

MacOfJesus (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Asking for a desertation? I don't think he wants anyone to desert him. Did you mean 'dissertation'? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did, well spotted! I find it better to write with pen and paper, sorry for the mis-spell!

MacOfJesus (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Percentage of what? Wars either happen or they don't. The war wasn't going to half happen and half not if you halved the causes. Either the causes (all of them, in their entirety) are sufficient to cause a war or they aren't. In this case, they were. I think the closest we could get to a real quantifiable measure of how the unjustness of the treaties caused the war would be to ask how large the reparations bill (which is the main quantity in the treaties that can be varied continuously) could have got without causing the war. That is a meaningful question, but not one we can actually answer (we could guess, but that's all). --Tango (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Does the question refer specifically to the war in Europe? The war in the Pacific was not caused by Versailles and would probably have proceeded anyhow (I don't think Britain's distraction with the war in Europe was Japan's decisive reason for attacking south east Asia, and the Sino-Japanese war was already underway before Germany annexed Austria and the Sudetenland). --Normansmithy (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If you date the European war to the invasion of Czechslovakia in 1938, then the Asian war began in September 1931. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I need some knowledge of Pearl Harbor attack

thread moved here from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_portal

there was 6 japanese carriers, hiru, shokaku, zukaku, akagi, kaga and soryu. Information i am missing is how far those carriers were from pearl harbor? And how did defensive 48 aircrafts did act, were they on carriers and never did fly or were they assisting attacks?

ive been collecting some information of carriers, from single net page only: format: (carriers name: attack wave number, name of aircraft(number of that aircraft)

IJN AKAGI: 1st wave: zero(9), "Kate"(15),"Kate"Torpedo"(12) 2nd wave: zero(9), "Val"(19)

IJN KAGA 1st wave: zero(9), "Kate"(14),"Kate"Torpedo"(12) 2nd wave: zero(9), "Val"(26)

IJN SORYU 1st wave: zero(8), "Kate"(10),"Kate"Torpedo"(8) 2nd wave: zero(9), "Val"(17)

IJN HIRYU 1st wave: zero(6), "Kate"(10),"Kate"Torpedo"(8) 2nd wave: zero(8), "Val"(17)

IJN SHOKAKU 1st wave: zero(6), "Val" (26) 2nd wave: "kate"(27)

IJN ZUKAGU 1st wave: zero(5), "val"(25) 2nd wave: "kate"(27)

can somebody confirm these aircrafts in their right places, and which their objectives where? those defensive combat aircrafts seems not be in carriers so where they were? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.64.4.197 (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

We have what appears to be a comprehensive article on the Order of battle of the Attack on Pearl Harbor. Does that cover all that you're looking for? — Lomn 20:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Pulp-like novels

I'm looking for adventure novels written by Americans in about the 1900s-1930s, that were not serialized, but have similar themes to novels that were originally serialized in pulp magazines, as well as the same cheap, adventurey sort of feel. I'm writing a paper trying to determine the effects of serialization on the way books are written, so ideally I want a few pairs of books: one serialized, one not, that are as similar as possible in other ways (setting, time period, etc.) This is the list of pulp novels I'm considering:

-The Curse of Capistrano (Zorro), 1919/1924
-Tarzan of the Apes, 1912/1914 (already purchased)
-The Man of Bronze (Doc Savage), 1932/3
-The Living Shadow (The Shadow), 1931
-Bar-20 (Hopalong Cassidy) 1907 (also purchased already)

So any suggestions of books that are similar to one above, or just other books that meet the criteria in my first sentence above, would be welcome.
Thanks.
208.252.2.254 (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

All of the Tarzan books would qualify. The Mucker (novel), also by Edgar Rice Burroughs, was serialized. Woogee (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. The "Tarzan of the Apes" article says it was "published in the pulp magazine All-Story Magazine. . . .the first book edition was published in 1914," from which I jumped to the conclusion that it was published in installments rather than all at once; was that incorrect? 74.105.132.151 (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Good question. It isn't clear, is it? Woogee (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the large majority of US 'genre' novels of this era and quality were serialised in magazines (mostly pulp, sometimes slick) before publication in book form: that was the default publishing model, since it maximised the author's cash flow and income. (It wasn't just downmarket works, either; remember that most of Dickens' and Conan Doyle's novels were also serialised first.) Identifying any that weren't would probably be quite laborious, unless by some lucky chance someone has already done it and published the research. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Damn, time for a new project idea then. Thanks anyway. 74.105.132.151 (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Anthony Hope's books The Prisoner of Zenda and Rupert of Hentzau also fit the bill, but are English rather than American. Steewi (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You may want to check out Gladiator by Philip Wylie. First published in 1930 as a hardback book and was hugely influential to later pulps and superhero comics (including Superman). 64.235.97.146 (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

George Fielding Elliot wrote (by his estimate) 2 million words of published pulp fiction, both novels and pulp magazines, starting in 1926, before switching to mostly nonfiction military. Federal Bullets, 1936, was a crime novel. See also his novels "The eagles of death" (1930); "The purple legion : a G-man thriller" (1936); "The navy spy murders" (1937). I don't think these were serialized, but I expect some of his detective stories, horror stories, science fiction and western stories were. His pulp magazine writings are harder to find online than thee books, but one Western magazine "Western trails" Vol 14 no. 1 1933 shows up at Google Book search [21] with something by Eliot. "Alias Mr. Death: the Complete Series" By D. L. Champion, George Fielding Eliot, Harold Ward, is available from an on demand printer. It has a 9 part series from "Thrilling detective " magazine and more stories(1932-1939) which supposedly inspired "The Phantom" detective series. Edison (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Warren Buffett

Has Buffett been basically managing other people's money for free? Ignoring his relatively modest compensations, wouldn't he have earned much more if his company had been run as a kind of closed end funds?

It's not for free - he has benefited from the capital he got when he initially sold shares in his company. He might well have made more money had he run it as a mutual/hedge fund rather than a company, I don't know. --Tango (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Because Buffett doesn't have the simple-minded view that money is merely cash-in-pocket, he hasn't acted to try to maximize cash-in-pocket. He could have, I suppose, but consider that A-class shares of Berkshire Hathaway sell for about $100,000 per share, and Buffett is the single largest shareholder (some 38% of outstanding stock, as of 2005), well, that gets you some idea of what he is worth. The very modest $100,000 (and no stock options or other compensation) salary he is paid as CEO thereof is quite enough to provide him with a very nice standard of living, especially when coupled with his other investment income, and any money he has made from other sources, (fees for speaking engagements and the like). Consider that he pays himself the cash equivalent of a single share in his company per year, and yeah, it does seem like he is essentially working for free; except in absolute terms his salary is just fine, and he recognizes that raiding his own company by paying himself an exorbitant multi-million dollar salary (as would be industry standard for someone of his position and power) would actually hurt his net worth in the long run. --Jayron32 02:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just thinking, closed-end funds take 1-2% of assets each year. Imagine Reason (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

His initial investments were in fact organized as private partnerships. It wasn't until he took over Berkshire (a struggling textile company) that his investment became "public." (He maintained a large share of the ownership personally, of course!) A smart man like Buffet knows that making money in the corporate world is all about getting higher return than your cost of capital. That means always maximizing your return, and minimizing your cost of capital. Access to public markets provided an invaluable source of capital. If you'd like to know more about his early investments, I suggest Alice Schroeder's "Snowball" from last year.NByz (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it true then, that although Warren Buffett is one of the world's richest men in capital, his actual yearly income is nothing special? 78.146.52.206 (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

His salary is not special, but his income, made up mostly by profits from his significant ownership of Berkshire Hathaway, is. 67.243.7.245 (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Since Berkshire Hathaway does not pay a dividend, it's not obvious that he has an income from the company's profits. He could have capital gains from selling shares, but I don't know if he sells routinely. -- Coneslayer (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This question suggests that the OP doesn't understand what Berkshire is, or what the difference is between a conglomerate and a mutual fund. Even the most conservative mutual fund has a fair amount of turnover (selling of positions to buy other positions) every month. Berkshire, theoretically, could continue without ever selling anything, but merely investing the "float" from its insurance businesses and borrowing when necessary to handle short-term cashflow problems. Moreover, mutual funds never have controlling interests in companies, while Berkshire has controlling interests in something like 70 companies. Buffett does not "manage people's money"; he allocates capital derived (mostly) from the management of others (he is famously "hands-off" in relation to the owners and managers of the companies Berkshire owns). As for the hypothetical case of being a mutual fund manager and making a small commission, that amount -- even on the full market cap of Berkshire -- would be vastly smaller on an annualized basis than the actual appreciation of Buffett's Berkshire shares in the long run. Finally, Buffett has "wealth," not (except tokenly) "income." He frequently points out that his tax rates (excluding capital gains) are lower than his secretary's, a fact he employs to support higher estate taxes on the very wealthy. 63.17.60.8 (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sexual content in Lolita

Does the book Lolita contain any graphic or detailed descriptions of sexual activities, or are they only referenced during the narrative? If it does contain descriptions, approximately how detailed and frequent are they? No Spoilers please, just general answers.--99.251.239.89 (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No graphic or detailed descriptions. Deor (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been at least a decade since I read it but I think Lolita at one point mentions how sore she is. And if I'm remembering correctly, that's about as graphic as it gets. Dismas|^(talk) 12:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's not particularly graphic, especially in comparison to the stuff that gets published or televised now without comment, but I recall that there were passages that were expressed rather frankly. Since Dismas has already mentioned Lolita's soreness, I suppose it's not a spoiler on my part to mention that she's not a virgin at the time, to Humbert Humbert's surprise. But no, there's no details about the sexual acts themselves. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

March 11

Star Trek: TNG episode "The Inner Light" refers to a Japanese folk story?

In the episode, Picard experiences an entire lifetime, virtually but firsthand. I've heard that this is something of a retelling of a Japanese folk story - something about a man who falls asleep beneath a tree with a similar experience; he awakes to find an ant colony strikingly similar to his memory of his dream. I cannot figure out the name of this tale (it could be a story for preschoolers, for all I know) but I'd enjoy reading it. Any ideas what the name is/how to find it? Thanks! Sopwith (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The first Google hit on "The Inner Light" japanese ants was our article The Dream of Akinosuke. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oo. It's always the last place you look. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopwith (talk • contribs) 00:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The first place I looked was our article The Inner Light (Star Trek: The Next Generation), but I later found it was removed in this edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

One of my favourite episodes. Anyway, I proposed the deleted section be reinstated. Astronaut (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the probability that the Icelandic debt repayment referendum could lead to war?

I'm not completely familiar with the Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010. But 3.8 billion euros sounds like a lot of money. Could refusal to repay a debt lead to war? ScienceApe (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No way. 3.8 billion Euros is not that much in the scheme of things, for one (compared to the GDP of most European countries it is a tiny thing), and in any case the more likely result would just be lots of negotiations, maybe sanctions, maybe various economic means of punishment/redress. But war? It's not important enough, the money is not large enough, Iceland is not threatening enough, and defaulting on a national debt can lead to numerous things other than war that are easier for everyone involved. (And how would war get the money back?) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly two of the countries involved were earlier protagonists in the Cod Wars, which saw some warning shots and mild sort-of-accidental fender-bending between ships, but in the present circumstances anything more than harsh diplomatic exchanges and some tit-for-tat legislation is vanishingly unlikely. Of course, no-one in the governments of the parties concerned will mention the W-word even to rule it out, because to do so would itself be diplomatically unacceptable. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no chance of war. Iceland could lose access to the international credit market for a time, and the EU or individual European countries might conceivably restrict trade with Iceland, but that is about as serious as it would get. Marco polo (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a chance -- invading to take that money would cost the invading country far more than it would recover. To give you an idea of how much a war costs, consider that 3.8 billion euros would cover a week and a half of the US occupation of Iraq. I can't find a number for the cost of the Falklands war, but I expect it would be even higher. --Carnildo (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The UK could run into some additional troubles if they tried: Defense of Iceland: Agreement Between the United States and the Republic of Iceland, May 5, 1951 75.41.110.200 (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Broader question: What are the implications for the EU if Iceland absolutely will not pay. Yes, sanctions against them, as stated farther up. But what about implications to the EU overall? If any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Since Iceland is not a member of the EU, it is not obliged by anything to pay up, nor can it suffer any consequences for not doing so. On the other hand, the EU would like to see Iceland as a full member some time in the future and is likely to avoid making moves which might increase already high levels of euroscepticism among Icelanders. So the EU is likely to see this problem as a bilateral dispute between UK and Iceland, and stay out of it altogether. However, should Iceland choose to pursue full EU membership, this is certainly going to be a major stumbling block for them as individual countries have the ability to block candidates' negotiations (in spite the fact that the European Commission often insists that bilateral issues should be kept separated from negotiations and the enlargement process). On the other hand, if Iceland rejects the idea of ever joining EU, it would enable the EU to take more action and sanctions are very likely (as the EU would have more to lose for not doing anything). As for war breaking out, chances are absolutely zero. The US would probably do nothing to defend Iceland anyway (as NATO agreement is pretty unclear what would happen in case two member countries went to war), which would leave Iceland unable to do anything to defend itself, as they have no standing army of their own. But the question is why on Earth would the British public support such a move, and what would the British do with it once they had it? The whole thing would be pretty idiotic. Timbouctou (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You're talking warfare, but I was thinking more of the economic implications - a possible domino effect if a country won't pay its bills, affecting other countries' ability to pay their bills, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A few billion Euros will neither break nor make major European states like the UK or the Netherlands. It looks like they are bickering around the 3-4 billion mark now. The UK and the Netherlands have a combined population of around 75 million, i.e. you are talking about 50 Euro/inhabitant. On the other side, Iceland has a population of 300000 (about as much as a mid-size town) - the sum is nearly half of its annual GDP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not really an EU issue, although as already stated it does influence the decision about membership. The implications of any country reneging on it's financial implications are much the same regardless of who they are. Implications for their credit rating, hence ability to raise funds in the future, loss of confidence in their economic model so a disincentive to invest in the country on a commercial basis as there may be doubts about the reliability of the government with respect to commercial activities and obligations.

There is nothing to prevent the UK and the Netherlands to put in place some form of trade instrument to achieve a restitution effect, although there is a general view in both economies that barriers to trade are generally a bad thing (tm) and reduced trade barriers are inherently more value generating.

ALR (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There are some good points above, but elaborating on Timbouctou's comment there's the obvious question of why anyone would want to go to war. It's not as if Iceland has an abudance of natural resources which the Netherlands or the UK could claim for restitution. Sure the could enslave the populance or less extreme set up a puppet government which demands high taxes and sends most of it to the UK and the Netherlands but that isn't exactly an easy thing to do in this day and age and liable to be even more controversial then the war itself. Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In any remotely realistic context, Iceland has no military power, while Britain already has the upper hand (with the Iceland bank assets held in Britain and a veto power over further loans to Iceland), so effective means and motive for war are lacking. AnonMoos (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How to deal with Bullies

What is the psychology of bullies and how does one deal with them effectively? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.89.50.196 (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any background you can share--are you a parent? A teacher? etc.--达伟 (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Bullies pick on those who are vulnerable or unable to defend themselves. Your options include; become cool so that the bully won't pick on you or risk scorn from those around him who consider you a friend, join a group even a group of nerds will do because strength in numbers, or become physically stronger than the bully and simply show them through physical contact that you can inflict considerable damage to them if they bother you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fire2010 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So bullies only respect force? --95.89.50.196 (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with respect. But basically yes, bullies will back off from situations they can't win. The whole point of bulling is to intimidate and win, if the opponent is stronger there's no chance of winning and therefore no point. Someone who continues to "bully" when faced with that isn't a bully, they're a jackass and possibly mentally unstable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fire2010 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Bullying and School bullying may not be the most complete of articles, but they do cite a couple of studies and offer some external links relevant to the question. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a complicated topic and one on which a lot of research has been done. While I'm sure anecdotal experience is sometimes valuable here (if we could verify it was from experience and not just derived from television, as I suspect a lot of it is), I think it probably should be avoided... --Mr.98 (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

we had a thread on this just recently at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 February 24#Bully_.3D_gang_with_one_person_in_it.3F. From my view, the best way to handle a bully is to make him public. Bullies thrive by being private - they isolate their victims and bully them privately, and then pretend to be nice decent upright people in public. stand up and call them bullies and liars in public, tell teachers, seek out other people who have been bullied and get them to band together, carry signs with the bully's name, sign a petition. The more the bully has to face public criticism for his/her actions, them more freaked out s/he will get. yeah, you'll take some lumps for it as the bully tries to beat you back into private silence, but... --Ludwigs2 16:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed exactly the same behaviour myself - "Bullies thrive by being private - they isolate their victims and bully them privately, and then pretend to be nice decent upright people in public." Why do they bully people in private like that? Whats the point of doing that? Is it manipulation - they want the victim to be either fearful or angry with them in front of other people? If it is, why is that? Are they prima donnas or attention seekers? 78.146.0.232 (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You should really write a book about this, Ludwigs2, or at least write an essay or paper. It would help a lot of people. I'd particularly like to read the sources of where you got this from. 78.146.0.232 (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

lol - I probably should write a book, but the question is whether it would end up as self-help or philosophy. File:V= most of these ideas come from political science reading. For instance, the notion of enforced privacy comes up a lot is feminist and ethnic studies. You'll see books like "Public Man, Private Woman", or some of the books by people like Cornell West, which go into great detail about how women and minorities are dominated by being forced into privacy, while white males achieve power by being given privileged access to public life. It's why, for instance, blacks were forced to sit at the back of the bus under Jim Crow laws, and why women are forced to wear veils in traditional Muslim regimes. Then you'll get people like Foucault (and a different set of feminist/ethnicist scholars) talking about dominance through isolation and surveillance. it's the 'strip club' effect, where putting someone under a spotlight and effectively stripping them of all privacy reduces them to a dominated cipher. You'll also get some of the later Marxists (Poulantzes for a good example) who talk about how political power is secured in a democracy by hyper-individuating everyone: Keep people locked in as isolated, independent, disconnected individuals, and they are incapable of wielding any political power (since political power is a function of collective action). This is basically all a bully does, a kind of microcosm of dysfunctional politics: he forces people into his private world where he has control over the situation, and tries to blind them from seeing that there's any world outside of his influence that they can turn to. That's why bullies hate snitches more than anything, because snitches force the bully into a bigger world where the bully is the one being isolated and observed.

really, the best advice I can give on the matter is to remember that a bully might beat you up, but can only control you to the extent that you allow yourself to be absorbed in his world. treat a bully like a head-cold - something unpleasant and unavoidable, to be ignored while present and forgotten when gone, or laughed about with friends - and the bully will cease to have any real power over your life. build the world you want to live in, don't accept the bully's world as a given. That takes a lot of practice, though... --Ludwigs2 21:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

On reflection I think its more a matter of secrecy rather than in private. They want to enjoy hurting the victim without getting in trouble themselves, so it has to be kept away from people with power who disaprove of bullying or people who may "rat" to such people and be believed. In my experience adult bullying is linked to people who are incompetant at their job or have some other secret to hide and find it easier or prefer to stage-manage things rather than do a good job: they reward and like loyal people "us" who support the impression the bully is trying to give to those in power (eg by lip-service etc), and they isolate disparage and discredit "them" who they think will not do that. (I think they try to lower the victim's self-eateem enough so that they will not complain). If they think that someone that they cannot manipulate has power over them, then they suck up to them and try to manipulate the impression they get. 78.147.136.183 (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, bullies can also be encountered in adult life, whether in a family, social or professional context. I nearly resigned twice from my last job because a newly appointed supervisor began bullying me (and others) and our similarly new manager refused to take action despite my (and others') complaints. In the end both were effectively dismissed at the request of our client/host management for other (though not totally unrelated) reasons. In properly run organisations, there should be a grievance procedure to turn to, although in the case described it was blocked by the very individuals concerned. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How do you deal with bullies? By peaceful protest. As Ludwig said, make sure everyone knows what they're doing, but don't return cruelty with cruelty. It's hard, you'll suffer for it, but peaceful protest is the best way to turn people against the bully. Of course, that's a long-term system. Short term, you may still get beat up/harrassed and have trouble getting people on your side. In a school-environment, you also have to be careful your own protests aren't seen as harassing the bully, or the whole thing will backfire badly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me I read someplace that Gandhi conceded that passive resistance would not have worked against the Nazis. Sometimes the method used in Romania becomes necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In practical terms it would be helpful to keep a diary where you record what the bully said or did, and when and where they did this, and who was present. You could secretly record or video the bully on a mobile phone, although I expect most of the time they do not do anything bad so you would be lucky to catch them in the act. Organisations should have clear anti-bullying policies, a Code of conduct for staff, and a designated independant and impartial person to whom complaints can be made without fear of reprisal. 78.146.52.206 (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Difference between straight male and female's reactions to homosexual people who have crush on them

How would the straight guy feel toward a homosexual male who has a crush on him? The same goes for women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.120.162 (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it depends entirely upon the indiviidual. The reactions will range from smiling acceptance of a compliment to rage, and everything in between. Bielle (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The typical straight male might well wonder what's wrong with himself, that a gay male would find him attractive. How likely is that scenario, though? How many straight males are attracted to lesbians, for example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How likely? Very likely. What visually distinguishes a lesbian from a straight woman? Or a straight male from a gay male? Leaving aside totally inaccurate stereotypes of how different people dress and behave, the answer is - nothing. Some of the lesbians I've known are forever fending off advances from men. A straight man could easily be attracted to a lesbian without knowing she's a lesbian. A gay man could easily be attracted to another man without knowing whether he's straight, gay or indifferent. Some of the sexiest men on the planet are, unfortunately, irredeemably straight, but that doesn't stop gay men from being attracted to them. And these days, it's much more likely that a man would feel somewhat chuffed that another person finds him attractive, regardless of the sex of that other person. Doesn't mean he's going to jump into bed with the guy, but equally he wouldn't get all defensive and uptight about it. It is, after all, a compliment, and not some sort of threat. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

To a "traditional" straight man, being attractive to a gay man could raise questions in his mind about his own masculinity. However, attractiveness is hard to figure. I always thought Rosie O'Donnell was kinda cute, although I would have had 0 chance with her. Meanwhile, I never have been able to figure out what's supposed to be so hot about Paris Hilton. Meanwhile, Rosie supposedly had a thing for Tom Cruise, a guy with such broad appeal that even lesbians find him cute, evidently. It can be complicated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

One wonders how typical straight man might be defined in this context? Attraction is in itself a one way relationship, although as individuals we may attempt to stimulate an attraction from another we have no clarity around how that effort might stimulate attraction in others.

The root of the question seems to be more oriented towards how one might react to being found attractive by another from outside the expected frame of reference.

It might be useful to consider that one might identify another as attractive without being attracted to, inasmuch as the characteristics are recognised but do not stimulate the response. In any case the range of behaviours amongst ostensibly gay men is extremely wide, in the same way that the range of behaviours in ostensibly straight men is also wide. To an extent it also depends on how the attraction is evidenced, a comment is a very different thing to a physical expression of the emotion and even that ranges from benign to explicitly sexual, some of which are acceptable, some aren't.

Reflecting on the comments above, and my own view, it doesn't bother me, I'm flattered and somewhat bemused that anyone finds me attractive. I have friends who are lesbian and I find extremely attractive, we have a bit of a laugh, flirt, tease one another but recognise that it's unlikely to go beyond that. Of course I've had comments from people who saw that and didn't realise my friends sexuality about what the rest of my night might have been like. I'm also quite comfortable with a little flirting with gay friends, and again it's recognised that it'll be no more than that. Of course I've not always been that comfortable.

ALR (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The full range occurs in both situations. I've had good reactions and bad (I'm male). Contrary to some people's expectations, the same reactions can be seen in a woman's reactions to a lesbian crush on them. The bad feelings seem to be primarily a bit of disgust, because they can't help picturing the possibility. Some people are fearful that something might happen, or that the other will force themselve on them, or insecurity over their loss of masculinity/femininity. Of fear of being associated, or that someone thought they were gay. Steewi (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

For the extreme reaction, see The Jenny Jones Show#The_.22Same_Sex_Crushes.22_controversy and Gay panic defense... AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's usually insecure straight male would feel threatened by romantic crush from gay male. Straight male celebrities generally welcome a gay male fan base, for example. --Kvasir (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How hard would it be to say "I'm flattered, really, but I like the girls." I heard a female trainer at a health club say this to a guy who was a new member. Couldn't a straight guy just as easily say it to another guy who seemed to be hitting on him?" And contrariwise, Mutatis mutandis for all possible juxtapositions of preference? Edison (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not that hard, really, but reality implies that some people find it quite difficult. Steewi (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be difficult if one was not flattered, as that answer would be insincere-to-dishonest. More to the point, still polite, would be something like, "I'm into women. Thanks anyway." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering why a straight man who might be flattered by the attentions of a woman, would be something-other-than-flattered by the attentions of another man. He might not be interested in doing anything about it in any case - because he's married or in a relationship, for example. But that doesn't stop the sense of pleasure in knowing that someone else finds him attractive and sexy. Why would he alter his feelings depending on the sex of the other person? If the other person simply said "I like you and want to be your friend", that would be entirely acceptable no matter what the other's sex was. But if the proposal (possibly unspoken) is something rather more intimate than that, the man still has control over the situation, and can choose to either let it happen, or not. I don't get why a sense of offence, or worse, self-doubt, would enter into it. Unless one really did come from an antediluvian school of morality. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Cultural conditioning, stigma, fear of the unknown all kinds of reasons.

Couple that with the societal mixed messages over homosexuality and it could be quite intimidating for an individual. Lots of homoerotic banter and behaviour is permissible as long as it's perceived as banter. There is some form of arbitrary line where it becomes less generally acceptable.

I imagine it's all wrapped up in the slightly victorian attitudes in some western societies to sexuality in general.

ALR (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The extreme case would be that talk show guest who was told by his homosexual neighbor that he had a crush on him, and he ended up shooting him. In general, it's not got to do with "morality"; it's got to do with, "if a gay finds me attractive, I must be gay myself". Which is a rather narcissistic, brainless, George Costanza-like conclusion, but that's show biz. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following this. First up, you said that the typical straight male might well wonder what's wrong with himself, that a gay male would find him attractive. Now, you're saying it's a narcissistic, brainless, George Costanza-like conclusion. Does the typical male frequently jump to such weird conclusions, or only in relation to homoerotic matters? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I admit I'm not being very complimentary to the apparent intelligence level of my stereotypical straight male brethren, and it wouldn't be the first time. :) Realistically, gays don't generally hit on straights; at least where I come from they don't. So it's more of a theoretical issue than a real issue. Which is probably why Seinfeld made fun of it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that we've digressed from the original question. The original answer, the somewhat weaselly-sounding , "It depends on the individual", is in fact about the best answer there is, barring a citation on the matter, which I'm not seeing here. So let me pose a somewhat better theory than my original comment: Some folks are simply flattered by attention, so they could be pleased regardless of its source. Others are thinking more in terms of opportunities to get laid, so the attention of an opposite-sex person would be of interest, while the attention of a same-sex person would not. (Or vice-versa if the subject is gay rather than straight). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've moved my response because it just didn't flow where it "should" have been placed.I think Jack's question is actually more answerable, so I'll try to focus on that. I think there are two related things at play. First, I think a lot of people (of either orientation) seem to think they possess a kind of "gaydar" - they can spot one of "them" at a glance. So, when a straight guy gets propositioned by a gay male, there's probably a feeling of shock where they are forced to consider why they're setting off someone else's "gaydar". The second, related, issue comes from the point that men of either orientation are out to attract something in particular. Even if you're in a committed relationship it is, as you say, nice to know people find you attractive. Part of why we flirt is to elicit that very response. But to a narrow-minded straight male, attracting a homosexual indicates that his "lure" is seriously out of whack - it would be like blowing a duck call and catching a fish. Both these things would cause the narrow one to question his sexuality, which is often a complicated and extremely emotional jumble of conflicting drives. Now place this naturally confused individual in a backdrop of hypocritical puritanism and gay-bashing and I think it's easy enough to see why even a nominally non-homophobic male can get in a bad place. Hopefully, as we work at improving the backdrop, it will become less and less of an issue and make things less volatile all around. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Agent 64, that makes a lot of sense when you put it that way. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ave Caesar, morituri te salutant

Comparing the article above and this page.

Which one's right? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably not ours. It might be good to ask Haploidavey (talk<dot-separator> contribs), who has been working on our Gladiator article for while. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My conclusion is, accordingly, that there is no evidence whatever for the much-quoted salute of the gladiators. The only two ancient references, those in Suetonius and in Dio, refer not to gladiators but to naumachiarii, men condemned to die, and even these references are to one specific episode, the circumstances of which indicate that the supposed salute was not even a regular salute of the naumachiarii. Leon, HJ. (1939) "Morituri Te Salutamus." Transactions of the American Philological Association, 70, 46-50. [22].

—eric 06:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm working on this article and have a follow-up question (not being a linguist):

Suetonius states "Morituri te salutant". Cassius cites it as "οἱ ἀπολούμενοί σε ἀσπαζόμεθα". The difference in ~~tense~~person is noted in the literature. Can someone who knows Latin and Ancient Greek dissect the 7 words in these expressions word by word for me, and indicate the roots, the prefixes/suffixes indicating their tenses/person, and the names for the applicable tenses? Basically a linguistic dissection of their native meanings. Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Question corrected - see below. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what difference in tense you're talking about. The Latin and Greek expressions mean the same thing, "we who are about to die salute you."

morituri--nominative masculine plural, future participle active, from the verb morior, 'die'

te--accusative singular form of the personal pronoun tu, 'you'

salutant--3rd person plural, present indicative active, from the verb saluto, 'greet, salute, pay one's respects to'

οἱ--nominative masculine plural of the definite article ὁ, 'the'

ἀπολούμενοί--nominative masculine plural, future participle middle, from the verb ἀπόλλῡμι, 'destroy utterly'; in the middle voice, this verb means 'perish, die'.

σε--accusative singular form of the personal pronoun σύ, 'you'

ἀσπαζόμεθα--1st person plural, present indicative middle/passive, from the verb ἀσπάζομαι, 'greet, salute, welcome kindly'. This verb is Deponent, which means that the middle/passive voice has the meaning of the active voice.

I hope that's helpful. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you were talking about a difference in person, not tense. The Latin verb salutant is 3rd person plural, the Greek verb ἀσπαζόμεθα is 1st person plural. I suppose it's better to translate the Latin as "they who are about to die salute you," then. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (and yes, I meant "person" not "tense"). Two last quickies -

"They" or "those"? "Those" probably works better in English but is it equally accurate?
What would the plural of "naumachia" be?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "those" is equally accurate. The plural of naumachia is naumachiae. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all, I think I have my answers for this article now. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Operation Helmand Spider and relation to Operation Moshtarak

I keep seeing Dept. of Defense media and news sources referring to troops engaged in Operation Helmand Spider in Helmand Province. The sources are not clear as to the relation between the 2 operations. Is it related at all to Operation Moshtarak, e.g. a component of it? Thanks. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 06:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

was Iraq an unprovoked attack like Pearl Harbor?

Was Iraq an unprovoked attack like Pearl Harbor? If so, would Iraq have been justified in nuking two large American cities until America capitulated? 82.113.121.95 (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speculation, not an appropriate ref desk question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, though, if Iraq actually had had nukes to nuke us with, then our reason for invading would have been proven. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The first part of the question is not so speculative. Answering it is tricky - just ask Tony Blair about the Dodgy Dossier. And I'd encourage you to ask yourself if Pearl Harbor was 100% unprovoked? --Dweller (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Iraq invasion was not unprovoked. It had been building to that point for a long time, and Saddam knew it was coming unless he was a total idiot. Hence it was not a sneak attack like Pearl Harbor, which was more like 9/11. Also, the reason given for invading was that Iraq was alleged to be a nuclear threat, so if Iraq had nuked us, that would have proven that we were justified to invade, i.e. that our claims about them having nukes were true. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. The Dodgy Dossier was based on a claim of biological weapons, not nuclear. And I'm sure that the Japanese didn't believe the Pearl Harbor attack was 100% unprovoked. If you're going to read history, you need to clear your mind of preconceptions and bias. One man's provocation is another man's irrelevance. --Dweller (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you (BB) have the wording wrong. The alleged reason was that Iraq was developing WMDs (including nuclear weapons). Or, to be more cynical, it was alleged that Iraq was developing WMDs to have a reason to invade. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether the invadee can see it coming is not very relevant to the question of provocation, imho. —Tamfang (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Our article Events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor outlines a number of points that would have been considered provocations by the Japanese at that time. --Dweller (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There are three historical questions here. 1. Was Pearl Harbor totally unprovoked? (Depends who you ask.) 2. Was the Iraq War totally unprovoked? (Depends who you ask.) 3. Did Pearl Harbor justify the U.S. using atomic weapons on Japan? (Depends who you ask.) Note that in the latter question, the usual justification for the atomic bombs is not Pearl Harbor (though it sometimes comes up), but instead concerns about ending the war promptly. (Which is itself not necessarily factually true, or even if it was, agreed to be morally justified.) There could be another question: 3a. If the answer to 3 is "yes," would it then have justified Iraq using nuclear weapons? (Which is a tricky leap.) All three of these are interesting questions but ones on which even very excellent historians would and will disagree. Not a one of them has an objective, neutral answer forthcoming—all of them are about fuzzy definitions ("provoked", "[morally] justified") and subtle historical nuance (what is enough of a provocation to justify war?). I'm not sure the Ref Desk is going to do better than the historians on this one—this is just going to be a debate. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If anybody cares, my personal takes on the three are 1. not "totally" (but that doesn't justify it), 2. not "totally" (but that doesn't justify it), 3. no (but that doesn't mean I think the atomic bombs were totally unjustified/immoral), 3a. I'm not sure that we can talk about nuclear weapons pre-Hiroshima and post-Hiroshima in the same moral terms (there is a city-bombing taboo now that is quite different than it was in 1945, and so using a nuke today must have a much, much higher threshold than it did back then). A classic fence-sitting historian if ever there was one! --Mr.98 (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The question is a prime example of trolling and I can't believe people are actually discussing this. User:Baseball Bug should have ended the discussion when they orginally objected to it. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the troll, sorry. I see a provocative question, but I don't think it's trolling. If the poster came back and goaded people on with silly comments, then yes, but the question is not itself inherently trollish, even if it is controversial. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the removal. I don't see speculation here. I see one factual question, and one question about its implications. Both are valid questions, if controversial. If it slides into endless debate we should can it, but it's not an invalid question. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The question is meaningless as it depends on your definition of "provocation" - the word is so ambiguous and especially so in a historical context, that it doesn't mean much out of a propagandist context. Was Argentina "provoked" into invading Falklands? Was Germany "provoked" into invading Poland? It all depends on whose story you are reading. Pearl Harbor will be labelled as "unprovoked" by Americans, but it could just as easily be described as "pre-emptive" in Japan. The same thing could be said for Iraq. In order to avoid such issues, historians usually distinguish reasons and causes for wars, with the former meaning event that served as an excuse for starting a war and the latter events that led up to the rising tensions and what belligerents stood to gain from it. Contrary to nationalist ideologies (which are pretty much the same all over the world), very few wars were triggered simply by an isolated incident - but almost all of them were started becase one of the parties involved wanted to declare war (because of public opinion and/or the government's viewpoint). Public opinion is more often than not riled up by claiming that the nation is being "provoked". For the same reason, belligerents who occupy a previously foreign territory always claim that they are "liberating it", regardless of what the legal status of the territory is or what the local population thinks of this (you could rarely hear about Argentinians saying that they wished to "occupy" the Falklands or George Bush saying that the US is going into Iraq to "occupy it" - which is also a word describing an ideological construct, just from a different perspective). So labelling something as being provoked or unprovoked is just marketing speak in the business of selling war to the public. Provocation is whatever the person holding a gun wants it to be. Timbouctou (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well-stated. I had been thinking about 1939 earlier. I'm sure Hitler would have argued that he "had to" invade Poland, for any number of reasons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: There's a meta discussion of this question taking place on the talk page. Buddy431 (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The best I can come up with is that the Bush War was unreasonable, unnecessary, unjustified, irrational, perverse, illegal, unpardonable, groundless, inexcusable, unwarranted, unprovoked, out of all proportion, needless, pointless, excessive, and, most damning of all, avoidable. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Normative Economics

Where can I find the views of how to achieve economic goals on the website of NDP, Conservative Party and Liberal Party of Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.183 (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand the difficulty in finding this sort of information. The optimal strategy for most political parties is to speak in generalities about economic goals. By making a lot of positive statements and avoiding anything controversial, they provoke a lot of "Oh, that makes sense, this party must be right." and avoid alienating people with specific views along the left-right spectrum. The NDP.ca and conservative.ca sites each have a "Plan" section, although only the NDP site mentions any specifics; it includes several populist statements and few figures. A good way to find out how the parties differ is through the debates. Good debate moderators will try to make the candidates reveal in their responses, how their policies differ by juxtaposing them against an other party. If anyone knows of a good independent and unbiased blog or website that organizes the various parties statements and policies by area of economic concern, I'd be very happy to know about it too!NByz (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.ndp.ca/platform

http://www.conservative.ca/?section_id=5317§ion_copy_id=106960&language_id=0

These seem to be the best descriptions on the websites.NByz (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Don

Is there a specific way to earn the Spanish/Portuguese title of Don? And who is it that decides this?I've read the Wikipedia article but it doesn't explain the current day process or exact requirements. Thank for any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.111.102.76 (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a title, like Duke or King or something like that, its a style, the equivalent of the english term "Sir". Basically, a more formal style than "Mr." Its usage depends on whether or not its being used in Italian, Portuguese, or Spanish usage. According to the article, Don (honorific), the most restrictive usage appears to be in Spain, where it is reserved for those of royal extraction, what the French used to call Prince du Sang. Portugal followed a similar practice, but the monarch could also grant it as an honorific to certain individuals. This is moot today, since both Portugal and Brazil are today republics, and the term in those countries now only applies to the clergy. In Italy, apparently, the title of "Don" was afforded to any non-ruling member of the nobility. Again, however, since of these only Spain is a monarchy, the style is only used in an official capacity in that country. --Jayron32 04:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Letters in Spain are usually addressed formally as (for example) Señor Don Felipe Gomez, etc. The title Don is still used by older people for professionals of some social importance such as a doctor or a priest. "I have just seen my doctor, Don Alvaro." The first name only being used. Richard Avery (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Strait of Gibraltar compared with English Channel in WW2

If the British could stop Axis ships from entering or leaving the Meditteranean by having big guns on Gibraltar, then why could not the English Channel be blocked from Dover in the same way? The Strait of Gibralter is 8 miles wide, the channel is 21 miles wide. 78.146.0.232 (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In effect, the British blocked both seaways, although not only by guns, but also by aircraft and warships. It's harder for the Channel as it is wider, and the opposite coast was in the enemy's hand. Land-based guns and aircraft stationed near Calais can make the Channel much more dangerous for British warships and aircraft. But the Channel Dash was remarkable as probably the only time an axis force passed the Channel - and that by some of the fastest and best-equipped warships of the Germans, with heavy air cover and both surprise and luck on their side. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It is not as if the Axis were cruising through the channel with warships frequently. The British had more important things to worry about. And it is not like they did not have any coastal batteries at Dover. Googlemeister (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Then of course there's the problem that the Mediteranean is a "dead end" and so can be effectively blockaded at one point; while La Manche is open at both ends, and the western end is considerably wider than at its eastern. Sure, you could stop ships at Dover, but German ships in the Atlantic could approach from the Land's End side much easier. --Jayron32 04:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The only big guns at Dover capable of reaching the far side at the time of the Channel Dash (14-inch guns named "Winnie" and "Pooh") were set-up for shore bombardment rather than shooting at fast warships. Consequently they only made some big splashes when it really mattered. As a result, two better equipped 15-inch guns were installed ("Clem" and "Jane"), but the horse had already bolted. See the Cross-Channel guns in the Second World War article. Alansplodge (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Financing high risk business through options etc?

If there was a business project which had a 75% of losing all the money invested in it, but a 25% chance of returning ten times as much money, then would it in principle be possible to finance it using modern financial techniques or instruments? Thanks 78.146.0.232 (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that this is the type of thing you'd want to finance by pure equity (meaning an "ownership interest" be it corporate stocks, a partnership agreement or a VC type ownership agreement) since any debt financing would probably be pretty costly. Once/If it reached the "ten times" scenario, then you could "cash out" some of that equity by taking on debt and paying out the original owners a little bit, leading to a more typical capital structure (assuming it was still a self-sustaining business at the point). In real life, many tech startups are like this. They tend to be initially financed by Venture Capital or Angel investors who demand either a big equity stake or a big convertible debt stake to offset the higher risk. I'm not sure how stock options would come into play here except they tend to be offered to interest and encourage skilled employees to come on board and give it their best.NByz (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I should mention that the typical life cycle of a startup company in a high risk field is:

1)Venture Capital/Angel investor/Private individual or partnership until proof of concept

2)Public markets (IPO) or sale to a larger organization after the concept has been proven but before a distribution network or the necessary infrastructure is in place and (also it's usually good to get some debt in the capital structure at this point if there is an opportunity for profit in the near term as interest payments are deductible)

3) Secondary offerings and public debt markets (bonds) as the company gains scale. NByz (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And, not to keep going here, but the expected return of this investment (E(r)) is 250% (10*.25+0*.75). It will be possible to finance any project that has an expected return of greater than the cost of capital at that particular level of risk. It's hard to say exactly what the cost of capital the market will bear for a project like this. The cost of capital for various levels of risk increases at a higher than linear rate (people are Risk averse), and it will vary based on market conditions (risk costs/pays a lot when things look bad like during a financial crisis). It will also depend on the time frame (a 10 times return in 10 years is only 25.9% annualized). Sorry for all the technical stuff, I've just been doing a lot of finance work lately.NByz (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, although it did not seem technical to me. 78.146.0.232 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

March 12

Has there ever been an actual, verifiable (or even strongly suspected) case...

...of a country purposefully bombing its own cities/attacking its own citizens in some manner, then blaming it on a foreign power - as a means to rile the People up into a sense of patriotic outrage and serve as an excuse to go to war? I've heard loads of conspiracy theories but in all of history, has it ever actually happened for real? I'm not thinking of any one event in particular here, just for what it's worth and I'm not trying to advance any conspiracy theories myself. Just interested in finding out more about it. Is there a given name for this type of ploy? --95.148.106.148 (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

See USS Maine (ACR-1). The ship sank in Havana Harbor in 1898; the cause of its sinking is still entirely unknown. It was likely not purposefully sunk, however the sinking was blamed on the Spanish by the U.S. government, and used as a pretext for the Spanish American War, which went somewhat disasterously for the Spanish. While it is proposed (but unlikely) that the Americans sunk their own ship, it is more likely that they knew it wasn't the Spanish that sunk it, but let the rest of the country believe that it was to drum up support for the coming war. --Jayron32 04:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And then there was the Mukden Incident, which was the bombing of a section of Japanese-owned railway in Manchuria that the empire used as pretext to invade. It wasn't proven to be the Japanese, but the possibility of conspiracy is accepted as much stronger than that of the attack on the Maine. —Akrabbim^talk 04:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

see Category:False flag operations.—eric 05:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Gleiwitz incident fits the bill. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Another famous example advocated by 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that 9/11 was a False flag operation. --Kvasir (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Similar people make a similar claim about Pearl Harbor. They claim that the U.S. government had full knowledge that Japan was going to attack, but felt that the attack would bolster support for entering the war. In the case of Pearl Harbor, they aren't claiming that the U.S. bombed their own ships. They are claiming that the U.S. knowingly let it happen. The funny thing is that there are conspiracy theorists on the opposite side that claim the Japanese government had full knowledge of the planned bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but felt they would bolster waning Japanese support for the war. It seems that every devastating event is prime ground for conspiracy theorists to pick through the evidence, throw away anything that makes sense, and use what is left to make up claims about conspiracy. -- kainaw ™ 06:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There was an incident in Croatia in 1993 in which an artillery attack on the city of Šibenik was apparently staged by the Croatians, but this was done for show before a TV crew and did not (directly) cause any serious damage. See here.--Rallette (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In the article on Operation Himmler there is mention that several Germans was killed by German undercover units (although probably unintentional), in the succesful attempt at creating a legitimate cause for the attack on Poland. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a pretext to the U.S. accelerating the Vietnam War, although that was not a case of the U.S. bombing itself, but was more like the Maine. There's a connection between Pearl Harbor and 9/11, in that opponents of the U.S. entry into World War II and the acceleration of the "War on Terror", respectively, made claims that the U.S. "let it happen" or even "made it happen"; namely, right-wing, isolationist Republicans, and left-wing conspiracy theorists, respectively. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Other suspected cases:

The Russian apartment bombings are strongly suspected of being caused by the Russian government to justify the Chechen war.
The Strategy of tension in Italy saw right-wing groups conduct terrorist bombings and blame them on left wing organisations (who also carried out terrorist acts such as the murder of Aldo Moro); many people suspect that the US government, Greek right-wing junta, and possibly Italian governments were involved.
Many people suspect that the Turkish government was responsible for the Taksim Square massacre.
Reichstag fire. --Normansmithy (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Also see Agent provocateur. StuRat (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Styles of authority or power

Some people or organisations treat people according to written or unwritten codes of conduct, laws etc. Others treat people according to the personal relationship they have with them, and laws or codes of conduct are disregarded or may not exist.

The latter would be called authoritarianism. But what would the former be called, in fields such as sociology, psychology, management, politics, and so on? Thanks 78.146.52.206 (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll probably find what you're after at Leadership#Leadership_styles.

ALR (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but none of the four types described there correspond to the former type above. 78.146.52.206 (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, personally I'd disagree with your characterisation of the latter point as authoritarian.

In leadership theory you'd consider relationships, explicit regulation, implicit regulation and archetypes within the organisation. You'd also consider a number of spectra; power distance, comfort with ambiguity, masculinity/ femininity.

Your question appears to hinge around the explicit/ implicit regulation issue and power distance. An authoritarian style would tend towards explicit regulation and high power distance ie a hierarchical structure. A style that works more with implicit regulation and low power distance would tend towards a more participative.

Without context for your question that's about as much as we can say for the moment.

ALR (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

See also Guanxi for an example of one type of power system (and two closely related analogues: Wasta, Blat).--达伟 (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, a fictional example could be a Traffic warden or traffic cop who tends to give out parking fines to people she does not like, while letting her friends relatives or men she fancies off. Another traffic cop does things by the rules and disregards any relationships, even fining her friends relatives and boyfriend if need be.

So the contrast is taking action or making decisions (including doing nothing) on the basis of attending to the rules or codes of conduct and disregarding the personal relationship; or doing so on the basis of the personal relationship and disregarding rules and codes of conduct. 78.147.136.183 (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That's clearer. I think what you're getting at is more around how one approaches the regulation applied to the authority relationship. There is some work around how closely individuals adhere to the regulations around their role, and wheat level of pragmatism is applied. There are two aspects to what you describe; situating the application and consistency around the application. In the example you're talking about the pragmatism is applied to the relationship, not the situation.

I don't recall seeing anything formal, although there is bound to be something as the whole issue of power relationships is quite a big area of psychological study. What you're essentially getting at is Nepotism.

ALR (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What I was asking about was the non-nepotism (as you call it) case. Anyway, I'm not sure nepotism would be the best word for the fictional scenario I described. 84.13.30.185 (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The former could be legalistic or Impartial or principled or simply Just or Fair. Or to use a slightly old-fashioned word Untouchable, in the sense of The Untouchables. I'm not sure that the latter is Authoritarian; Authoritarianism implies ruthless enforcement of rules and controlling leadership, but if someone is letting their friends get away with murder then they're not being authoritarian, they're being Biased, Arbitrary, or Corrupt.--Normansmithy (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think many people treat people in a personal way due to ignorance. I can imagine myself in their shoes and see that to them, it is a throughly good thing to be biased (although that is not a word they would use) to your friends and relations since they are good people, while people you dislike are bad people. They have the idea that you should judge (their impression of) the whole person rather than just their behaviour. (Unfortunately their judgement of others is overwhelmed by their personal liking or disliking and the Halo effect, and popular stereotypes and other folk-psychology).

As the OP, the real aim of this question is to find a vocabulary I can use to try to gently persuade such people that they must instead be objective and rule-based in their judgements. They do not see themselves as corrupt, they see themselves as good honest people, and may believe they have superior judgement to others. Telling them they are corrupt is just going to alienate them and not be believed. What vocabluary or form of words could I use? 78.149.193.118 (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Paying mortgage off early

I pay a certain amount every month on my mortgage (which includes insurance as well). I was wondering what that math is that would let me calculate the impact of me paying extra (I think I can pay extra towards principal directly) on my monthly payments, and on the number of payments (years) I will be paying off my mortgage.

Basically I was looking for a way to confirm either:

If I pay $50 more a month I will only pay for 29, instead of 30 years
If I pay $50 more a month, my monthly payment will be X less a year.

Thanks! Chris M. (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you pay back interst and capital, the formula from Present value is the following:

where payments are made at the end of each month, Loan is the outstanding amount you borrowed, i is the current annual interest rate from your contract, n is the number of years left, X is your annual repayment and

Using the current interest rate, you can set up the equation and then see what happens to n when X goes up by 12x$50 (I don't understand your second bullet). There will be all sorts of other funny fees/charges/stipulations which should be in your contract. This exercise will be much easier if you do it on a spreadsheet - you can use one line for each future cashflow and see what happens when things change. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Second bullet was a question of mine. I pay a certain amount that is interest every month. I would think if my principal were lower I would have less interest accumlated and then have to pay less. But then again, I clearly don't know how this works (hence the question). I'll try to work out a spreadsheet for you. Chris M. (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding was that you pay a fix amount each month: a portion of that goes to paying interest and a portion goes to paying off the principal you borrowed. But the monthly payment doesn't change over time. Is that right? If that is right, then the interest portion decreases over time but the principal portion increases over time so that total payment stays the same. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are right because I guess I've paid the same amount for 6 months. But I tried out your math above. I tried to calculate the principal with my rate and years and payment, with this in excel (C2 is year payment, B2 is interest, D2 is years left):

=C2*((1-POWER((1+B2),(-1)*D2))/POWER(B2,12))

What I got was a loan amount of 7.1621E+18. What did I do wrong? Chris M. (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I was counting escrow before, When I fix it to only count yearly principal and interest, I get 5.4E+18. Chris M. (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear - you need the second equation to work out the

. So if i is 5%, then

, which is 4.889...%. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

So in your formula where it says

POWER(B2,12)

it should say

(12*((1+B2)^(1/12)-1))

. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Most lenders will do these calculations for you, if you either go for a visit or phone them. they will take the guesswork out of all this. Some lenders have online calculators that will do the work too. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way the answer to the second one is "If I pay $50 more a month, my monthly payment will be $50 more". DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As for whether paying your mortgage off early makes financial sense, that depends on what other interest rates you're paying. Since the interest rate on a home mortgage is usually the lowest interest rate anyone pays, it makes more sense to pay off higher interest rate loans, such as credit cards, first. Only after all those are payed off would increasing your mortgage payment be in your financial interest. StuRat (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think it prudent not only to eliminate all higher-interest debt before considering accelerated mortgage repayment, but also to amass enough savings to be able to cover one's expenses, including minimum mortgage payments, for at least a year. In this economic environment, you never know when you might face an extended period of unemployment. Marco polo (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you Google "mortgage calculator prepayment" there are many calculators that will figure this out for you. Another thing I really recommend if at all possible is to refinance into a 15 year loan, which costs more per month, of course, but it saves an enormous amount of money over time. 74.212.140.226 (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to consider the tax implications of paying down your mortgage early. In the United States, mortgage interest is (usually) deductible on your income taxes. See IRS Publication 936: Home Mortgage Interest Deduction. —D. Monack ^talk 01:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I paid off my mortgage early in the past, but now I think that was a mistake. What I should have done is to have used my spare cash (and the equity I had in my house) to buy more houses for Buy to let. If I had done that I would have been much wealthier than I am now, due to rises in house prices since then. As someone is going to point out, if house prices were to fall then you would be much worse off. 78.149.193.118 (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Dehra Dun

Dehra Dun, India. There are several Tibetan refugee communities in the Dehra Dun area. In addition, there is the main monastery of the head of the Kargyu lineage. Finally, there are 3-4 Tibetan Residential Centers to provide Tibetan children a place to live while they are studying in Class I through Class XII. I believe that all of these items should be mentioned under the Wikipedia topic "Dehra Dun."

Phillips Kindy, Jr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.167.245 (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you think that this information belongs in our article, and particularly if you can cite sources for the information, then you should add it to the article. Marco polo (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

AMERICAN GRAND FATHER/BRITISH FATHER!

Hi Both my parents died by the time I was 15,and I have no other relatives alive today.I am trying to research my American grand father,and would like to obtain a copy of his birth certificate. HOW WOULD I DO THIS? I am living in London and i am a British citizen,my father was also born in Britain.

If i can obtain a copy of my fathers Birth certificate,with my Grand father noted on ths certificate,I presume with his name,and if noted his state of U.S. birth,I might then be able to contact that U.S. state office for a copy of my grand fathers birth certificate.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Fluter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

First, you need to know your grandfather's name and place of birth. It is likely far easier to know his name and location of death. Death records are public records, so if you know where his death is recorded, you can simply ask for it. From there, you can search obituaries for further information that will (hopefully) lead to his place of birth. Then, you can ask for his birth certificate. -- kainaw ™ 16:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The General Register Office on ~~London~~ Southport holds copies of birth certificates for England and Wales; the General Register Office for Scotland in Edinburgh holds them for Scotland and the General Register Office (Northern Ireland) (which goes by the delicious acronym GRONI) in Belfast holds them for Northern Ireland. All are well used to providing genealogical information, including providing copies of certificates. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You will not need a copy of you father's birth certificate in order to get your grandfather's. There is no central U.S. birth registry or even necessarily any statewide one. You may need to request the information from the county or town he was born in, depending on the local system the information may not be publically available at all. And birth records are not uniformly complete. In some places they do not exist for pre-1920. Sites like this one can help with the procedures. Rmhermen (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Father's BC may show grandfather's date and place of birth, which would help. —Tamfang (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry.com is a subscription website which allows quick searches of millions of records of birth, death, marriage, military service, and immigration, It has a great many family trees already assembled by genealogists. There are also bulletin boards where queries can be made. It might save you a lot of random poking through records. Old U.S. census records through 1930 are also online there. They also have UK records, including birth records showing mother's maiden name and presumably father's name. Edison (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry is a pay site: the initial searches are free, but then if you want to see anything you have to pay for the information. I'd make two suggestions, based on the fact you are based in London: the first is that your local library should have free access to Ancestry, so make a visit there. The other is to visit the National Archives in Kew [23]. Their really helpful (if increasingly overworked!) staff will be able to point you in the right direction. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Does Russia Railways observe daylight saving time? Need clarify.

Russia observes daylight saving time. Moscow is 3 hours ahead of GMT in winter and 4 hours ahead in summer. According to various sources on the web, Russia Railways use a single time zone, Moscow time, across the country. Does it mean Russian trains switch time zone twice a year every spring and autumn? How does the railway system do this during the daylight saving switch? Besides, for the international train K19 (China's code) / 019 (Russia's code) from Beijing to Moscow, since China does not observe daylight saving time, if Russia Railways does, does it mean the train spend one more hour in summer than in winter for the same trip from Beijing to Moscow? And it is weird, but according to the timetable at http://www.citsusa.com/train.htm , train K19/019 leaves Manzhouli in China at 07:01 Beijing time, and arrive Zabaikalsk in Russia at 02:26 Moscow time, if it was in summer, the train would leave at 23:01 GMT and arrive at 22:26 GMT, how can a train arrives before its departure? How does daylight saving apply to Russian railway system, need clarify. Thanks! Python eggs (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The times on that timetable really don't make sense. I suspect that they contain typos or calculation errors. I would look for a timetable from the Russian or Chinese railway authority. As for daylight savings time in Russia, see our article European Summer Time. Marco polo (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am only interested in how daylight saving affect the railway system. If they follow the daylight saving time, how they switch between daylight saving and non-daylight saving in March/September. Python eggs (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to think that the railway system shifts to summer time differently from any other institution in Russia. The article I linked explains exactly when the change to summer time takes place in Russia. Barring any evidence to the contrary (and I can't find any), the change takes place at the same time on the railways. Marco polo (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Menstrual extraction

Is it legal? If so, up to how long after fertilization of an egg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.188.14 (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Menstrual extraction#Legality has a little information on the subject. --Tango (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Knee/leg movement; vibrating

Okay, trying again! This time without interfering with the above poster and wrecking the reference page... :) Dear Wikipedians... I, and many with me, can place the knee/leg at an angle to my thigh, and with a certain bit of circumstance produce a very vibrating knee. I guess it more jumps than vibrates. There is something happening, and I can't find the English term for it. =) Does Wikipedia have an article about the skiddy jumping sort of movement? Cramp-like, really. 77.18.1.69 (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OP here. Okay I am dumbstruck. If someone can find out why I am apparently writing with a tiny font, I'd be much obliged. 77.18.1.69 (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The previous section was missing a "". Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I know exactly what you are asking. I'm interested in this as well. --Kvasir (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Does Restless legs syndrome describe it? Astronaut (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No, RLS does not generally involve "vibration" so much as repeated need to move the leg every little bit. It sounds more like some sort of muscular tremor. Edison (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If i understand the OP's question correctly, I think he means that there's vibration that can be felt from underneath the kneecap when shifting leg and thigh at a certain angle. It feels like a creaking door hinge. --Kvasir (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sewing machine leg meltBanana 05:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic answer from MeltBanana. I conclude that if there is an article on Wikipedia about it, it does not go under the name of "Elvis syndrome" or "Sewing machine leg", nor is it mentioned in the Calf muscle article. 77.18.77.254 (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

March 13

Is Microsoft a Monopoly?

hi there, I want to know on what basis did the U.S. Court of Appeal conclude that Microsoft was a monopoly? What was Microsoft's market share of Intel-compatible PC operating systems? Of all operating systems, including Apple computers? What evidence did the court cite in claiming that Microsoft changed above-competitive prices? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.139 (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Our article, Microsoft Windows says: "As of October 2009, Windows had approximately 91% of the market share of the client operating systems for usage on the Internet." I think "client operating systems for usage on the Internet" includes Macs, but not servers, mainframes and special purpose computers. I don't think there is a set market share that constitutes a monopoly in law, but rather you have a monopoly if you are able to use monopolistic practises (whether or not you actually do use them). --Tango (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to United States v. Microsoft? Because our article says that the Judge did find that Microsoft was a monopoly, and that they had unfairly used their market share to promote their other software (I think Internet explorer was the chief issue). An appeal did significantly reduce the remedies, but didn't change the findings of fact (that is, the appeals court still held them to be a monopoly). If you're referring to a different case, then I don't know. Buddy431 (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be agreeing with the OP... the OP said "was a monopoly" not "wasn't". --Tango (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Does the OP mean "Is Microsoft a monopoly in fact?" or "Is Microsoft a monopoly under the law?" When it comes to economics, the law doesn't always coincide with reality. As far as the economic reality is concerned, it is unclear whether Microsoft is a monopoly (and many economists believe it is not). Market share isn't relevant -- what matters is market power. Given that Apple, Linux, and others exist as potential competitors, it is not possible for Microsoft to price monopolistically (in fact, Apple likely prices more like a monopoly than does Microsoft). Wikiant (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I see on re-reading the question that 76.64 mostly wants to know about the case itself. Here's the Findings of fact from the case. I have not read it, so cannot answer your questions, but it looks like this contains the relevant information. Buddy431 (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The answer to the OP's 4th question would require thousands of words. Here is a partial answer to his first 3 questions, from the 1999 case cited above: "Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.
Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.
... Microsoft possesses a dominant, persistent, and increasing share of the worldwide market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. Every year for the last decade, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems has stood above ninety percent. For the last couple of years the figure has been at least ninety-five percent, and analysts project that the share will climb even higher over the next few years. Even if Apple's Mac OS were included in the relevant market, Microsoft's share would still stand well above eighty percent."
Here's 750 words of "evidence" -- if it's unforgivably too long, feel free to edit:
"... just as Microsoft's large market share creates incentives for ISVs to develop applications first and foremost for Windows, the small or non-existent market share of an aspiring competitor makes it prohibitively expensive for the aspirant to develop its PC operating system into an acceptable substitute for Windows. ... The cost to a would-be entrant of inducing ISVs to write applications for its operating system exceeds the cost that Microsoft itself has faced in inducing ISVs to write applications for its operating system products, for Microsoft never confronted a highly penetrated market dominated by a single competitor. ... The experiences of IBM and Apple, Microsoft's most significant operating system rivals in the mid- and late 1990s, confirm the strength of the applications barrier to entry. ....The inability of Apple to compete effectively with Windows provides another example of the applications barrier to entry in operation. Although Apple's Mac OS supports more than 12,000 applications, even an inventory of that magnitude is not sufficient to enable Apple to present a significant percentage of users with a viable substitute for Windows. ... The experience of the Linux operating system, ... similarly fails to refute the existence of an applications barrier to entry. ... That Microsoft's market share and the applications barrier to entry together endow the company with monopoly power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is directly evidenced by the sustained absence of realistic commercial alternatives to Microsoft's PC operating-system products. ....OEMs are the most important direct customers for operating systems for Intel- compatible PCs. .... Without significant exception, all OEMs pre-install Windows on the vast majority of PCs that they sell, and they uniformly are of a mind that there exists no commercially viable alternative to which they could switch in response to a substantial and sustained price increase or its equivalent by Microsoft. ... Microsoft did not consider the prices of other Intel-compatible PC operating systems when it set the price of Windows 98.... The license for one of Microsoft's operating system products prohibits the user from transferring the operating system to another machine, so there is no legal secondary market in Microsoft operating systems. This means that any consumer who buys a new Intel-compatible PC and wants Windows must buy a new copy of the operating system. ... while consumers might one day turn to network computers, or Linux, or a combination of middleware and some other operating system, as an alternative to Windows, the fact remains that they are not doing so today. Nor are consumers likely to do so in appreciable numbers any time in the next few years. Unless and until that day arrives, no significant percentage of consumers will be able to abandon Windows without incurring substantial costs. Microsoft can therefore set the price of Windows substantially higher than that which would be charged in a competitive market ... without losing so much business as to make the action unprofitable. ...Microsoft's actual pricing behavior is consistent with the proposition that the firm enjoys monopoly power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. The company's decision not to consider the prices of other vendors' Intel-compatible PC operating systems when setting the price of Windows 98, for example, is probative of monopoly power. ... Another indication of monopoly power is the fact that Microsoft raised the price that it charged OEMs for Windows 95, with trivial exceptions, to the same level as the price it charged for Windows 98 just prior to releasing the newer product. ...Finally, it is indicative of monopoly power that Microsoft felt that it had substantial discretion in setting the price of its Windows 98 upgrade product .... A Microsoft study from November 1997 reveals that the company could have charged $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98 — there is no reason to believe that the $49 price would have been unprofitable — but the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing price. Microsoft thus opted for the higher price. ... Given the size and stability of its market share, Microsoft stands to reap almost all of the future rewards if there are yet more consumers of Intel-compatible PC operating systems. ...Furthermore, Microsoft expends a significant portion of its monopoly power, which could otherwise be spent maximizing price, on imposing burdensome restrictions on its customers — and in inducing them to behave in ways — that augment and prolong that monopoly power. ...Microsoft's monopoly power is also evidenced by the fact that, over the course of several years, Microsoft took actions that could only have been advantageous if they operated to reinforce monopoly power. ...." 63.17.60.8 (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it only me?

Usually, whenever I come across someone I know, I and the other person simultaneously say "How are you?". It's really embarrassing and weird. One person should say that while the other person is listening, but that just doesn't happen for me. I don't think something like this happens so often for other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.129.94 (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It happens very frequently for me. In the past, relative social rank would probably determine who spoke first, but we don't really have that kind of etiquette any more (I'm speaking for Britain and its colonies, I suppose, I don't know too much about etiquette elsewhere). --Tango (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I avoid simultaneous pleasantries by swearing at people I meet, instead. That method works in most places, but in New York City I run the risk of simultaneous unpleasantries. :-) StuRat (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Seinfeld once proposed getting around that by simply saying "Acknowledge" whenever you run into someone you know, especially in an office setting.←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A smile and nod achieves the same goal without requiring a major change in etiquette. --Tango (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The same similar thing happens to me when you are walking towards someone else going the opposite way in the street, and both you and the other person try and move the same way to try and get out of their way, it can be mega embarrassing! Chevymontecarlo. 09:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Another difficult situation is when you ask someone how they are and you end up getting a complete medical history. It ought to be compulsory to say "fine thanks" unless you've just been run over by a bus. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

How can there be a tie if you need 60 votes?

Firstly, excuse my ignorance of the American political system.

My understanding is that for a bill to be enacted it must be approved by at least 60 senators. As there are 100 senators, this means that quite a bit more than half the senate must approve of a bill for it to be enacted. I also understand that the Vice President can cast a vote if there is a tie. However, how can there be a 50-50 tie if you need 60% of the senate to approve anyway?--220.253.247.165 (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding is wrong. 60 votes are only needed for certain procedural votes, like imposing cloture to end a Filibuster in the Senate. Normal passage only requires a simple majority, so if 100 Senators vote, and the vote is 50-50, the Vice President of the US acting a president of the Senate, can cast the tiebreaking vote. Dick Cheney did this on occasion. If fewer Senators vote, the number for a majority decreases. Edison (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a lot of information about the evolution of the US filibuster. In general, a simple majority of the senate is all that is needed to do most things, but the rules allow for unlimited debate, so a small group of senators can just keep talking forever in order to stall a bill. Things have changed these days (for example, no one actually filibusters anymore, they just threaten it), and the 60% of senators needed to vote for cloture (to stop the filibuster) has become more important than the 50% needed to actually pass the bill. The modern party power dynamic in the US is probably responsible for this sudden change. Paul Stansifer 16:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

山楂酪

Does anybody know what 山楂酪 is? Its a Chinese fruity snack similar to fruit leather. What is it made from and anybody know anything else--172.191.130.40 (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like hawthorn Fruit snack. 酪 here means it's like cheese-rubbery kinda of texture. I'm guessing it's a fruit roll-up. --Kvasir (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you (original poster) have a link or some document for context?--达伟 (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

King of Leon (in Spain, not the band)

In the article Kingdom of Leon it says that title King of Leon was the more superior title and that modern Kings of Spain are crowned Kings of Leon in public ceremonies. If this is true, how come in the full title of Isabella II of Spain, by the grace of God Queen (King) of Castille, León..., and the modern day full style of Juan Carlos I of Spain, His (Her) Catholic Majesty, the King of Spain, King of Castile, of León..., Leon always comes after Castile. Don't tell me the obvious about how Castile the center of power and Leon wasn't; I already know those reasons. Does anybody know?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Castile was originally a vassal state of Leon, so Leon would technically be superior even after Castile became a kingdom (though as you say, in practise this wasn't really true). I don't know why Leon comes after Castile now though. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Modern kings of Spain are not crowned at all. In fact, no King or Queen of Spain has been crowned as such. The last coronation ceremony performed in what is now Spain was the coronation of King John I of Castile. I have no idea what the Kingdom of Leon article is trying to say regarding "coronations". Surtsicna (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

writer completing studies abroad

It's understood Willie Morris traveled by sea to get to the United Kingdom so he can complete his studies at Oxford University. After he graduated, he returned to the United States of America, also by sea. But what I'm trying to find out is which Oceanliner did he travel aboard?24.90.204.234 (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibility of a Spanish default

Given this graphic, can someone please explain to me why there is more worry in the financial world concerning a default by Spain on its debt than there is for the UK? Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The - slightly flippant - answer is that financial analysts base their predictions on more than just those two numbers. I don't know the details, and no doubt someone who does will be along in a minute, but there's obviously something else about the Spanish economy which is pushing the wrong buttons at the moment. FiggyBee (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

there was a real "worry" about the idea of a default by Greece (I don't know why you mention Spain instead) but this was an orchestrated worry. I am not going to name names, but if you want more information you can leave an email address here in an altered form (so you don't get automatically spammed) and if you want I can give you more information. 82.113.121.167 (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of the crisis, although I understand Italy, Spain, and Portugal are considered a high risk after the Greeks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories: | Wikipedia help forums | Wikipedia resources for researchers

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

March 7

All Nippon Airways headquarters

Immediate family in the military

Help identifying this person

Forbidden Books

Deer species in the Bambi translation

would someone modifying Mosaic Law today still be subject to the death penalty under it?

Where is the Icesave money now?

Creating and destroying money

Arthur Leslie Salmon - Author

Where does Riyadh get its water?

Historical Chinese gender imbalance

Etymology question: Ptah *ph₂tḗr

Music

Single, Young African-American Moms and Fornication

Same Sex Marriage in the UK

March 8

Marijuana Intoxication

Novels, books and novella

Former Air France headquarters in Montparnasse

What is truth?

is there a list anywhere of reasons to believe something?

Mystery poem

AA Flight 11 passengers.

Swear words

Name question

Detroit

Postage Due

March 10

Bram Stokers Dracula was lost and found in a barn in Pennsylvania

WWI photograph identifications

Trench mortars

Tanks

German planes

The Father of Beatrix Potter

Dekotora

Warrington & Co.

Fit For Performance

Online Dictionary

Principality of Neuchâtel

Why people cry when they are happy

Canada's role in producing energy for the world

Reason for the POETICS list protest of Billy Collins's appointment?

becoming millionaire

Lords of Toron

Prince Ernst August of Hanover

in what part, as a percentage, was world war 2 caused by an unjust peace agreement following world war 1?

I need some knowledge of Pearl Harbor attack

Pulp-like novels

Warren Buffett

Sexual content in Lolita

March 11

Star Trek: TNG episode "The Inner Light" refers to a Japanese folk story?

What's the probability that the Icelandic debt repayment referendum could lead to war?

How to deal with Bullies

Difference between straight male and female's reactions to homosexual people who have crush on them

Ave Caesar, morituri te salutant

Operation Helmand Spider and relation to Operation Moshtarak

was Iraq an unprovoked attack like Pearl Harbor?

Normative Economics

Spanish Don

Strait of Gibraltar compared with English Channel in WW2

Financing high risk business through options etc?

March 12

Has there ever been an actual, verifiable (or even strongly suspected) case...

Styles of authority or power

Paying mortgage off early

Dehra Dun

AMERICAN GRAND FATHER/BRITISH FATHER!

Does Russia Railways observe daylight saving time? Need clarify.

Menstrual extraction

Knee/leg movement; vibrating

March 13

Is Microsoft a Monopoly?

Is it only me?

How can there be a tie if you need 60 votes?

山楂酪