From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of humanities.
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. Shortcut: Wikipedia:RD/H 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 earlier, or search Wikipedia as a whole. Search reference desk archives <inputbox> type=fulltext prefix=Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives break=yes width=40 searchbuttonlabel=Search archives </inputbox> Search Wikipedia main site <inputbox> type=search buttonlabel=Try exact match searchbuttonlabel=Search full text break=yes width=40 id=MP </inputbox> Please try searching the web using a Web search engine. 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 page: 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.

skip to bottom Choose a topic: Computing desk Entertainment desk Humanities desk Language desk Mathematics desk Science desk Miscellaneous desk Archives   See also: Help desk Village pump Help manual

Contents 1 August 30 1.1 Historical population continent statistics - these seem highly suspect to me 1.2 U.S. National Defense 1.3 Patent - General Question 1.4 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4.1 Historical basis 1.5 Medieval distillation of perfume 2 August 31 2.1 Proving file sharing in court 2.2 2010 census info 2.3 Drug Cartel organizational structure 2.4 GDP deflator question 2.5 Christian apologetics in the early 16th century 2.6 A Walk over water 2.7 Distribution of oil/aid money .... 2.8 Abbey of St. Juste 2.9 Isn't it Against Wikirules? 2.10 fishing 2.11 Flag colors 2.12 Dante and physics 2.13 Historical dominatixes 2.14 For Whom the Bell Tolls 3 September 2 3.1 Engstrom quote source? 3.2 What would Thomas Jefferson have said about Somalia? 3.3 Jews and automatic citizenship in Israel 3.4 Democracy 3.5 What is this story? 3.6 Religion vs. Science 3.7 Physical Exercises on Sabbath Day 3.8 Vagrancy Act 1824 (5 Geo. 4. c. 83) 3.9 Am I a character in a novel? 3.10 MLitt/MSc (Scotland) 3.11 Crest on UK royal proclamation 3.12 "Are you living in a computer simulation?" 3.13 Town and country parks from urban sprawl? 3.14 The Question Above... 4 September 3 4.1 A story from Sunday school, when I was a Christian 4.2 Capital punishment 4.3 Star Trek Voyager 4.4 Monarchy of the UK using pwoers unilaterally 4.5 Name of that amazing 'head dancing' seen in India 5 September 4 5.1 Absolute pitch 5.2 ʃ 5.3 Family Fable 5.4 Greatest disparity in standard of living between neighboring countries 5.5 Selective service system 5.6 Wysiwyg vs. Wysiwym 5.7 national anthem 5.8 If Google is owned by two Jews, why does it include links to antisemitic and racist websites?

August 30

Historical population continent statistics - these seem highly suspect to me

Asia 1800 - 649,000,000. Europe 1800 - 9,000,000. See the article Continent. I find it extremely hard to believe that THAT much of a disparity existed between Europe and Asia in 1800. Can we make sure that the article is relying on accurate statistics?--CokeIan (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that is way off. See page 6 (table 2) of this UN report for example.--Cam (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone should change it then if it is inaccurate, especially on a page like Continent which is probably viewed by a lot of people, it's getting 4000 views or more almost every day. Isn't it in the interest of Wikipedia to be accurate?--CokeIan (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been removed now. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes... by me. See Talk:Continent#Historical populations. Astronaut (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A good source on historical populations is here, under "Historical Statistics". (we have an article on Angus Maddison who compiled the data). I might have time to make the sums and add that, but not right now, so posting here in case anyone else feel compelled to do it. Jørgen (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

U.S. National Defense

Is it right that if someone sabotages or tries to sabotage commercial aircraft in U.S.A. it will be taken as breach of U.S. National Defense and State will react accordingly ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There's probably half a dozen agencies that would like to take a crack at you if you sabotaged a plane. Likely, whoever got you first would arest you, and then you'd be prosecuted under federal criminal law. --Jayron32 04:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking whether or not it would be treated as a "criminal" action or as a "war" action, it is not clear, at the moment. Terrorism (which sabotage of an airplane would probably fall under) is currently a murky category in the U.S. legal system, half way between criminal law and acts of war, and so you could either be sent to federal court to be tried like a common criminal, or you could be sent to Guantanamo Bay to be held as an Enemy combatant. This is even more in flux since the Obama administration has on the one hand been saying it is going to phase out this Bush blurriness, but has only phased it out in some places in a limited fashion.

If you're asking whether it matters that the aircraft is commercial and not, say, a military plane — I don't think it does, no, but it's an interesting question. Certainly hijacking a commercial plane can put you in jeopardy of being attacked by the military in retaliation, for example, not just the civilian police force. This is a notable difference; if you hijacked a car or sabotaged a train, I don't think military authorities would intervene unless the civilian forces were totally overwhelmed. Planes are treated differently though because of their ability to be used as weapons, etc. I don't know if this is specifically a post-9/11 thing or not. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If cars can't be used as weapons, why is there a crime called, "vehicular homicide"? Googlemeister (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Patent - General Question

If I have an idea then, should I check whether it had already been patented, before I start implementing it. If yes, what is the rationale behind this. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are only doing it for your own experimentation, say, in your basement, it doesn't matter much whether you do a Prior art search first. Most jurisdictions (but this is not legal advice!) have it so that if you are just researching or experimenting (in the U.S. you have to be doing it for "purely philosophical" purposes), you are not infringing on other people's patents. If you plan to use the patent in any kind of commercial context, though, you will need to check for prior art, because you could be infringing, and open yourself up to legal risk. Imagine you set up your business based on your great idea, and it turns out it is already patented. You've just set yourself up for a massive lawsuit from the patent holder, who will happily clean you out of whatever profits you were making and probably some more. That's a pretty strong rationale for checking the prior art first! If there is any doubt, one should check with a lawyer first, obviously. These terms, like "commercial" and "purely philosophical" and so forth have precise legal meanings in whatever jurisdiction you are talking about, and one should not assume one understands them without legal training. (I certainly don't!) --Mr.98 (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's already been done, why Reinvent the wheel? (article?) Dismas|^(talk) 12:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There can be good reasons to reinvent the wheel — because often that leads to innovating on the wheel. Edison for example had a large library attached to his workshop that contained probably thousands of patents by competitors. Reinventing the wheel often means finding a new or slightly different way to do something, or at least ending up with the deep understanding one would need to actually improve on things (as most inventions are not, in fact, bolts out of the blue). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't know where you live, and that will make a difference. I know for a fact that in the United States there are several software corporations that specifically tell their staff to not research patents for this purpose, because if the staff notices that their work infringes a patent and they proceed anyway, and get sued by the patent holder, then they could be found to have willfully infringed the patent, which means the infringer may pay triple damages to the patent holder plus their attorney's fees.[1] Personally I think this sounds like a risky legal stratagem that would not be advised by patent attorneys outside of the software area, but I am not a lawyer, so what do I know. As another aside, I'll ask whether you've attempted to search patents in the past to look for a particular invention. Many patents, lately at least, are impenetrable to understanding, what with having 96 claims, all phrased absolutely as broadly and generally as possible, in an effort to claim as much "territory" as possible. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is why corporations and researchers generally employ professional researchers to look at the prior art — people who understand both the law and the relevant field of study. Both are quite difficult things to investigate. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I know patent prevents someone else from doing what was patented. My question is, how one can say, like, I got this idea first so no one else can do this. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking about how to file a patent, generally speaking, you come up with the invention, you hire someone to investigate the prior art for you to see if it is already patented, then you usually hire someone who is experienced in writing up patents to work with you to write it up as an application, then you submit it to the patent office. It costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time, which is one of the reasons learning how to do a prior art search on your own, or hiring someone to do it for you, is pretty important. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually Mr98's original post isn't really correct. Patent, unlike copyright, requires no knowledge of the patent to be an infringement. And doing it in your basement, while nobody'd probably ever know enough to sue for it, is likely a violation. There's no general exception to patent law for personal or small-scale use. Shadowjams (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my post is correct. There is an exception, but it is very narrow. See Madey vs. Duke University. Basically if you are doing it in your basement "solely for amusement, to satisfy curiosity, or for strictly philosophical enquiry" (e.g., in no way for a business model), you are not infringing. It is narrow (as Madey makes clear) in the sense that just doing something for academic purposes does not count as "strictly philosophical enquiry." --Mr.98 (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I never learned about, or forgot, this exception in the little patent law I took. Thank you. I would point out that the experimental use exception is narrow and has become only more narrow since Madey, the case that your link's discussing, and that the statutory language contains no such exemption. The Solicitor General in an amicus brief to the Madey appeal actually wrote: it is "improbable that a 190-year-old, judge-made defense with little rooting in any statutory text could anticipate the challenges of the modern academic and research environment and adequately accommodate the competing policy concerns." I guess I'm not the only one surprised by the experimental use doctrine. There's an excellent law review article about it here Shadowjams (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Pledge of Allegiance

How often is this done in schools? Is it daily? I was astonished to read that American school children have to do such an Orwellian and militaristic thing in America, of all places. I would have thought it was completely against the USA culture of do-what-you-like, and something I would only have expected in the regimented culture of North Korea. Do not parents object to it as brain washing? Americans must be used to it and take it for granted, but in Europe not even the most right-wing government would propose doing it. I'm not sure if the Soviets had something similar. 92.29.119.94 (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we used to do it on Friday, when they would play The Call to the Colors on the loudspeaker. And each classroom had a flag mounted. I suspect it's not done as much today, but maybe Pledge of Allegiance will provide further info. Someone asked a similar question the other day, and the answer is the same: While public school teachers can be compelled to lead it, being state employees, the kids cannot be legally compelled to recite it, although peer pressure might influence their decision. And have you even read the pledge? It's a positive thing, expressing ideals that we continue to strive for even if we often fall short: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." I say it proudly. And so should you, if you're American. And if you're not American, you should be envious. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

... and justice for all. Bears thinking about, doesn't it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Also stated standalone as "equal justice under law". An ideal that we often fall short of, for sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a lot of issues with the Pledge. We can start with the problem that children who are too young to be able to understand the import of the oath, let alone pronounce "indivisible", are being asked by authority figures to swear it. Then again, I know what it means to pledge allegiance to the Queen. It means that if she turns up and tells me to make her a cup of tea, then I should do it, and if someone acting for the Crown asks me to do something, then I should do it. Similarly, I can pledge allegiance to the republic for which the US flag stands, because the officers of a republic can give instructions. But I don't know what it means to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth, or a red-and-white stripy design, since neither of these things is likely to be giving me instructions, and I sadly suspect it means nothing at all. Then there's the "under God" part, which is troubling in a secular environment like a school. Then there's "liberty and justice for all", which is a nice thought, but quite blatantly not a description of the United States at any point in its history. (I am actually a parent of a school-age child in the United States, so this isn't an abstract issue for me.) Marnanel (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact kids may not totally understand something yet, such as respect for their homeland, is no excuse not to teach it to them. The flag and the republic represent us. We are pledging allegiance to ourselves and to each other. The "under God" stuff apparently came from a misunderstanding of what Lincoln meant when he said "this nation under God..." which was more of a prayer than an assertion. I'm pretty much agnostic myself (as was Lincoln, supposedly), and I don't consider it a big deal, because you can define "God" in any way you want to. Meanwhile, if you think the American flag is just a stripy piece of cloth, you might want to go back to school yourself. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because I went to school in England, but yes, I think a "flag" may be a) a piece of cloth, b) a design, c) an identifying mark of an organisation or country. None of those are things which I understand pledging allegiance to. If you're saying that pledging allegiance to a flag is equivalent to pledging allegiance to the country for which it stands, a) then the pledge is tautologous and b) I have never in my life heard someone say "flag" when they meant "country". Marnanel (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The American flag means a lot more than what you think it does. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Marnanel. A flag is a graphic design that represents our government. Pledging to the flag itself is another one of those great mysteries. If a flag ever asked me to make good on that promise I'd tell it to mind it's own business of looking pretty in the wind, and it didn't like it I could replace it with a Jolly Roger for about $10. APL (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Marnanel, you talk about taking instructions from an officer or from the Queen. Aren't you confusing allegiance with obedience. One can take issue with one's country's laws and be very publicly at odds with one's own government, while still being totally loyal to one's country. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the origins of "under God" as a phrase, it was deliberately added to the Pledge in 1954, with Eisenhower signing it in so that "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." It was not meant as a neutral phrase, but one explicitly meant to be a "dedication" of Americans to a monotheistic God. Whether you think that is a good idea, or in line with the First Amendment, or whatever, is up to you, but don't soft-peddle its origins. It was a move in the period of high McCarthyism to contrast the US against the "atheistic" Soviet Union, a nice piece of Cold War propaganda pushed primarily by Catholic interest groups that has been recited by school children for over 50 years now. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we said the pledge once a week in high school. It was read over the loudspeaker while the students stood. Relatively few students actually said the pledge out loud along with the loudspeaker -- peer pressure actually worked against it. I guess it was uncool then; things may have changed. —Kevin Myers 12:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I graduated high school in '92 just to give you a benchmark. We said it every day at the Catholic grade school that I attended for the 8 years previous to high school. Dismas|^(talk) 12:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Being a private school, they could probably also compel the kids to say it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any of the schools that I attended (in the UK) had a flag or even a flag-pole, so it all sounds a bit odd to us Brits. Still, it would be a dull old world if we all did everything the same wouldn't it? Alansplodge (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Because in the United Kingdom the allegiance is to the crown not the flag which is why most public building in the UK dont have flags outside. Except for in American films showing Britain! MilborneOne (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In the UK we do not serve the government, the government serves us. 92.15.9.145 (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In the US, the government is us. That's the ideal, anyway. That's why our "monarch" is an elective office. It's a job, rather than some kind of divine right. So do British kids actually say a pledge to the Queen? Or is Milborne being metaphorical? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Never. You may owe allegiance to the Crown as a citizen, but it doesn't mean you have to stand up and recite it every day like the Nicene Creed. Marnanel (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't you mean subject, as opposed to citizen, or did you change that phraseology a few years back? Googlemeister (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, we've been citizens since 1981 - Subject is very different. Bizarrely, immigrants do swear loyalty to the Monarch, as part of taking citizenship, but for those born here it's just assumed - the idea of reciting something like that in public, particularly in normal discourse like any school day, is really quite creepy --Saalstin (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You think that to pledge allegiance to your home country is creepy? That's creepy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

It's the practice of being required to do so, and being required to do so every day, which is creepy. If it is appropriate, for instance on becoming a British citizen or on taking a seat in Parliament, there's no problem pledging allegiance - and once done, it is done forever (or unless revoked). But reciting a pledge of allegiance by rote, in a group, every day? Britons would ask "What's the point?" Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In American public schools, kids are not legally required to. Private schools obviously can set their own rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

But there is a strong element of 'coercion' if the whole class is being led in the recital of the pledge, is there not? See my favourite Supreme Court Justice, Anthony Kennedy, in Lee v. Weisman. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is why forcing kids to pray is not allowed in public schools. And I say again, teaching American kids patriotism is not a bad thing, even if they don't fully understand it yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Well, there are two different things in play - first off, public displays of just about anything is deemed quite impolite (although less so for youngers) - being overtly romantic, religious, political, anything in public is simply socially inappropriate, it makes us feel awkward, so expecting something to espouse something like that would be considered rude - just think, what if they didn't agree, or approve?. Secondly, we look with bemusement at American displays of patriotism - stadium sized flags, military jets flying over sporting events, a flagpole on every home (until a couple of years ago, we rarely even flew one on the legislature) - it's entirely unnecessary, and we'd feel that what matters is what you think, not what you do, and people who need to show off quite that much are probably compensating for something. (That's an broad sweep, there will be Brits who don't agree. And that's all before you get into the philosophical issue about 'pride' in the actions of people nothing to do with you, and an organisation like a country where, certainly as a child, you had no choice about whether or not you were a member) --Saalstin (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in trying to get kids to realize there are other values out there besides just what they want for themselves at a given moment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, and that's why we study.... history and philosophy, why we get involved in civic society, why we think and form our opinions by sifting information through an open mind, why we expose ourselves to different ways of living, life experiences, and perspectives here on this desk - and I don't see how trying to make kids chant a set creed at a piece of cloth is anything other than anathema to that... I mean it's one thing in church, where people choose to be there, but if kids are legally required to be educated... I mean, OP successfully started a debate, and I'm trying not to soapbox, but it really is the sort of thing no European politician would seriously suggest enacting if they wanted to win - Brits would shuffle around looking embarrassed, Germans would ban it as dangerously nationalistic, French would have a seminar on the logical implications of forcing people to pledge to be free to do what they wanted... :) --Saalstin (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to the Bug's proposed idea that USA and USA's government are one and the same, (or that that is an ideal we should be striving for.)

The USA government is just a group of people doing a job for us. Nothing more. No need to get religious about it. APL (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand his intent. The government is formed by the citizens of the USA, ostensibly to serve the will of the citizens of the USA. Therefore, the people are part of the government and vice-versa. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

We pledged some kind of allegiance to something when I was in cub scouts, but I've forgotten what it was. A fictional wolf, possibly. 213.122.54.123 (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"I promise to do my best, to do my duty to God and to the Queen..." but then you don't have to join the Cubs if you don't like it. Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

MilborneOne, can you seriously imagine a school in the UK asking kids to swear allegiance to the Crown? Because I can't. (I don't think I've ever sworn allegiance to the Queen, except possibly in Cub Scouts, although I have sworn allegiance to her husband.) Marnanel (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It sounds a noble ideal, but, being British, I would mentally cringe if I had to say it, or if I had to force kids to say it. I expect it is just routine in the USA because they have been saying it since early childhood. Dbfirs 13:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And to Americans, the idea of pledging allegiance to a monarch is cringeworthy. We pledge allegiance to our country and its ideals, not to a person. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I would cringe at any pledge of allegiance to a monarch, flag, country or whatever, especially if forced to do so. Dbfirs 17:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for another datapoint of OR- I'm American and I cringe at it. The pledge is not to the USA's ideals, but to its flag (huh?) and the republic itself. Staecker (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The flag and the republic represent those ideals. Although it was better when it was "MY flag" and left out the somewhat pretentious "under God" part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a famous image that sort of sums up what I, as an American, think of forcing the students to say the Pledge of Allegiance. This has nothing to do with instilling patriotism. Comet Tuttle (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Cute. Those kids all appear to be east Asian. Any idea where and when that photo was taken? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No they don't. And so what if they are Asian? Read Bellamy salute. Staecker (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Aha, that article explains the context. Just as the Nazis took a perfectly good symbol, the swastika, and made it an object of revulsion, so they did likewise with the Roman salute. Hand over heart is better anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Bugs: pledging allegiance to The Crown is not pledging allegiance to a monarch. Otherwise you'd have to take a new pledge if the monarch died. The Crown is a corporation that runs the country. The monarch is just a person. Marnanel (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes it is; "I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law." Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So you're pledging allegiance to some other entity, whereas in America we are pledging allegiance to the government, which is us. Maybe that's the difference. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Not so different; the Queen only governs through Parliament, which is us too. "The King and the land are one". Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom). 95.150.22.219 (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

National mysticism is the hazard in this kind of ritual. 213.122.54.123 (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(I am as guilty as anyone, but I think this discussion has moved away from Reference Desk territory.) Marnanel (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The question could have been zapped for being provocative. But I find the many answers here to be interesting and enlightening. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, perish the thought that anyone might post anything provocative. 87.112.130.90 (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The OP's original premise was ridiculous and ignorant, but I learned some things today, so it had some inadvertent value. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ignorant? Howso? This is a case where People from one country do a very unusual thing that is otherwise primarily seen in stereotypically strict dictatorships. The question is : Do they really do this, and why? Perfectly reasonable. I live here in USA and have asked the question many times.

Once again Bugs, you need to learn that some people are different than you, and that's OK. (Personally, I even think it's a good thing!) APL (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

When I was in high school I believe we had to recite it once a week, hand of our hearts, facing the flag. That was in the late 1990s. I certainly had to do it in elementary school, I believe every morning. Public school, all. I had no clue what the words meant, didn't care, and became immune to them through repetition anyway. "And to our republic for which it stands" never made any sense to me (I suppose I never thought about what "it" was supposed to be in the phrase). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"...And to the republic for Richard Stans", as one old joke goes. Kids often don't get what the words are of things they are asked to recite, and that's a failure on the teachers' side. We used to sing Christmas carols in school (even religious ones, in the public school) and for many years I wondered why "Silent Night" had a phrase about a "round young virgin". So, at what age did it finally click with you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

At school in Canada (or at least in Ontario) we heard the national anthem every morning, and since I went to a Catholic school we had a prayer every morning too, but we didn't have to actually sing or pray. Most people did; I didn't, and eventually I figured out I didn't even have to pretend to look like I was praying (this is the extent of my teenage rebelliousness). No one ever takes an oath to the Queen or anything else, except for politicians, new citizens, and I think we may have also done that in Scouts. Citizenship ceremonies take place on Flag Day, but that might be a coincidence, because Flag Day is not even a real holiday. (It's just a flag, after all.) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In my earliest school days, pledge was done every day. As for some comments earlier about monotheism, let us not forget that even Thanksgiving, per the original proclamation, was to give thanks to God. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanksgiving has nothing to do with the USA per se. It is pre-USA by a long margin, and certainly the Pilgrims do not and did not pretend to represent all Americans, nor is there any kind of requirement to actually celebrate it. (Not to mention it has been essentially secular for over a century.) It is not really comparable. More problematic are things like National Day of Prayer. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

When I was very early in school, age 6 or so, we did the pledge every morning, but later (age 13 on) we never did it. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Pledge of Allegiance has no force whatsoever. It doesn't obligate you to anything. Some people feel a wave of patriotism, as Bugs seems to, but many other people do not. It's a civic ritual, and all too easily abused, as in a recent Maryland case where a "troublemaker" child refused to stand for the pledge and was sent to the principal's office by her teacher. When, the following day, the child again refused to stand, the teacher summoned two school system police officers to remove the girl. The school system's own handbook says "You cannot be required to say a pledge, sing an anthem, or take part in patriotic exercises. No one will be permitted to intentionally embarrass you if you choose not to participate." Further, Maryland state law allows any child to be excused from the pledge, and the Supreme Court has held since 1943 (in wartime, no less) that children cannot be compelled to salute the flag.

Of course, if you're a 13-year-old, it takes a lot of grit to stand up to a fuming (albeit ill-informed) teacher, to say nothing of the cops.

I'm guessing that few people who think it's such a great idea to make small children parrot this stuff would quickly step forward to defend the individual rights underlying the refusal. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It was weird not saying the pledge in school. At least, I felt weird. No one really ever asked me, so I never told them my Biblical reasoning behind not pledging my allegiance to a government of mankind (which will be "crush[ed] (Daniel 2:44)"). And I live in Texas to boot! I remember a big fuss over being required to say the pledge at the outset of the Invasion of Iraq and being told I must get parental permission to not put my hand over my heart. I implicitly refused and nothing of came of it. My comrade in faith chose not to stand while the pledge was being said while my prerogative to stand respectfully. It is worth a note that I received a 'C' in that particular English class when I totally understood the material and a low rating in my classroom behavior. The teacher was an Army veteran. schyler (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We said it daily when I was in high school in the late 1980's. As a teacher, though, I've seen that it isn't a priority at most schools- the only school where I've been expected to lead it is a private fundamentalist Christian school. It does make me uncomfortable, but I am a state employee, so I'll lead it if I'm told to. I just moved into a new school building, and we don't even have flag-holders in our new classrooms, so I guess it's really not a priority. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I went to schools in rather liberal area, and occasionally they would start doing the pledge over the PA, then forget about doing it for a while. I agree that it certainly seems undemocratic, or just plain silly, to have children robotically recite a loyalty oath they can't understand every day, but most people never stop to think about all of the connotations of their cultural norms. A good example is the Christmas tree -- from a non-Christian's perspective, it sure seems odd to chop down a tree and drag it into your living room so it can drop needles all over your carpet and die, if not burn your house down, but most people have only warm and fuzzy feelings about it and would never think of it that way. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Particularly in the southern hemisphere, where Christmas comes at the height of summer, and allusions to snow, reindeers, sleighs, winter wonderlands, chestnuts roasting on open fires, and the like, are all completely out of place. But there you go, that's culture for you. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Historical basis

The OP could easily have phrased the question in a more neutral wording, but the question still stands, since at least in the Western world it is an unusual phenomenon. So I don't see how the question itself is "ridicoulous and ignorant". I think we need to get some history buffs on the field. How come the pledge of allegiance became common practice in schools in the US? --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Making a sub-section of this, to kinda bring us back on topic.

I don't have access to actual citations right now, but I seem to recall that the pledge was mostly just used on holidays and other historically significant days up until around the 1940s. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette ruled that students could not be compelled to recite the Pledge in 1943, right during World War II. America's own military and national power had grown tremendously since the Great Depression, which led to a bit of Nationalism. There was also a bit of anti-immigrant racism and fear which helped spur the "you're not as patriotic as me" sentiment among the dominant white class. The Red Scare during the 1950s cemented that, which is (IIRC) when many schools began doing daily recitals of the Pledge as part of their morning routine. Anyone who didn't participate was acting "unpatriotic," by those standards, and that could cause problems for that person in such a politically and racially tense period. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A search of the Google News Archives finds it was used on a regular basis in schools as early as World War I. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Probably should've clarified that. My point being, it didn't become a "daily" ritual until around the Red Scare. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Medieval distillation of perfume

Was it considered a crime to distill perfume (alcohol based) in Medieval times?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My first reaction is "no", but we'll need a lot more information than that to figure it out...why would it be a crime? When in the Middle Ages are you referring to? And where? I'm sure you must be referring to a specific incident. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you suspect it might have fallen under laws regulating the distillation of intoxicating liquors, I gather such laws first appeared long after the middle ages, and mostly to tax spirits, not to prohibit them.--Rallette (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

In particular I am referring to Charles V of France. In 1370 he received Hungary Water from the Queen of Hungary. Apparently he then started making this alcohol-based perfume himself with whatever ingredients. Did he make it illegal for others to make this type of perfume, since perhaps he desired to keep this new type (alcohol-based) perfume all to himself?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 10:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you read something that suggests he would have wanted to do that? I really doubt he would. For one thing it would be difficult for him to make something like that illegal, and he had better things to worry about anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Just guessing, as he loved fragrances and I thought maybe he would like to control Hungary Water and its derivitives.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Let us also recall that fragrances substituted for hygiene, so generally speaking it wouldn't make sense for distillation to be illegal (being, rather, essential!), although I would expect that there might be some sort of guilds that had exclusive rights which would minimally prevent non-guild members from distilling for sale. Guilds were the original oligopolies. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Following up on what you say, I came across this of guilds and this related to perfume distilling that may have controlled distilled perfume at least to some degree - especially for resale.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

August 31

Proving file sharing in court

(This is not a question for legal advice, in that I am not actually implementing anything below nor am I in any kind of legal jeopardy myself. I considered posting this at "Computing" but it is more a law question than a computing one.)

Let's say that the RIAA was going to sue somebody for downloading mp3s, as occasionally happens.

First: How do they prove that this actually happened? I mean, I get that they can prove that an IP address downloaded a song as part of a peer-to-peer network, because they can sit there and watch it happen pretty much in realtime as a peer. But how do they prove that the IP is the same as the person they are suing? Wouldn't it look identical from an IP perspective if the download it question happened from someone freeloading on an unsecured or hacked network?

Would they need to actually confiscate the hard drive and find the file on it? What if the file had been since "securely" deleted?

I am just curious about evidence procedures in this situation, I suppose, combined with liability (e.g. am I liable for something downloaded on an insecure or hacked network?). It seems like both of these could be quite difficult to prove, especially when combined with the fact that I don't think the police are actually beating down anyone's door to check their hard drives, no? --Mr.98 (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This was one of the problems with Capitol v. Thomas; Thomas claimed someone could have put the songs on her hard drive without her knowledge. (And apparently her hard drive was never actually used as evidence anyway.) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, a hacked network would be indistinguishable. Similarly a shared network too. Civil cases like this won't regularly involve seizures like that. Often the IP information's enough. People could lie but lying under oath or to federal officials are both felonies. Many run of the mill copyright infringements aren't, although they carry hefty (one might say obscene) statutory penalties. A review of 17 U.S.C. § 506 should explain some of those thresholds, but I don't think anyone here can offer any precise guidance beyond that. Shadowjams (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Worth remembering of course the standard of proof in civil cases is different from criminal cases. And there's generally no Presumption of innocence Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Legal differences matter, of course. But the original question references the RIAA, which is the Recording Industry Association of America, so I'm safe assuming U.S. law. That said, standard of proof in civil cases still is with the defendant, even in civil cases. It's merely a lesser standard. Shadowjams (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking in particular of advice that Bruce Schneier gave about wireless routers at one point, where he said that from a legal perspective, it probably made more sense not to secure them, because then if something dodgy happened on them (which might happen even if "secured"), you could always plausibly claim it wasn't you. I guess I'm surprised this isn't more common. Capitol v. Thomas was interesting, though I'm surprised more wasn't made of the evidentiary aspects. It seems to me like any good defense lawyer would focus on that angle of things, since it is the obvious weak point in the whole case. Once you let that go, it becomes unwinnable. It strikes me that a good Daubert hearing would make it easy to get a computer security expert who would say, "oh yeah, it's entirely possible that her computer was being used against her knowledge to do this." --Mr.98 (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 census info

When does the new census data come out? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

DR, you've been round here long enough to know that WP is an internationally based set up, and that it doesn't do to assume everyone here knows where you're from. Even so, it wouldn't necessarily be safe to assume you were talking about the census in your home country, wherever that is. Be a good editor and please tell us which census you're talking about. Thanks. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's [2] the answer. 81.131.52.4 (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha. Well, the U.S. does tend to do their census every 10 years.... and that might be a likely choice..... but you know, you could respond like that I guess. Thank you 81.131 for the pertinent answer. I might also add to Rosenbach that censuses give out aggregate data pretty soon, but full census results aren't available for about 70 years (that number might be wrong but it's in the right range) after their made, to protect for privacy. Shadowjams (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a little more complicated than that. The most important numbers for the United States Census's primary purpose, to equalize representation in the United States House of Representatives, must come out by December 31 of this year (2010) in order to allow state legislatures time to reapportion districts in time for the 2012 Congressional election cycle. Some states and cities, however, will hold elections next year (2011), and would like to have data that allow them to reapportion state legislatures, city councils and other multi-district bodies. The most important data are the number of people who can be classified as U.S. residents regardless of citizenship (excluding foreign diplomats, for example, but including those temporarily abroad on military duty). After that come data on race and ethnicity (such as Hispanic origin), in order to meet the requirements of the Voting Rights Acts and the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. For the 2000 census, those data were released in summary form fairly soon after the basic numbers. According to the U.S. Census website:

The first data released from the 2010 Census are the official national and state population count, which are used to apportion seats in the US House of Representatives. As mandated by the US Constitution, this data must be delivered to the President of the United States by the US Census Bureau on or before December 31, 2010.

Then over the next two or three years, there will be a slow flood of data, both geographically-focused, for example, households, household income, school attendance, age distribution and housing starts in Pittsburgh, Pa. and Alpine County, California, and topically-oriented, e.g. a Census Brief on the Asian-American population, poverty in America or the distribution of American Indian and Native American tribes. In 2013, the Census will issue a County and City Data Book that will summarize many of these data. Every year, the Census publishes the Statistical Abstract of the United States; although the 2011 edition will have few data from the 2010 census, future editions will contain more and more.

For more information and time schedules, see our article on the United States Census, 2010 and explore the site at http://www.census.gov, especially the press releases.

You should also be aware that, since the first British census was held after the Union of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801, a number of interesting censuses will be taken in 2011, such as those of the United Kingdom, Canada and the Republic of Ireland. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And Australia. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a side question - Shakescene used the wording "American Indian and Native American tribes". What's the difference? I thought the latter was just the more PC expression for the former. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he/she meant "American Indian and Alaska Native"? That appears to be, or have been a category in the US census, see Race and ethnicity in the United States Census. Jørgen (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I was being deliberately imprecise; the actual terminology gets quite cumbersome and loaded with political nuances (often changing from census to census). I prefer "American Indian" but I understand why others prefer "Native American". Cf. (I'm approximating from memory, and conflating questions from different censuses) "Black, Negro or African-American", "Latino/a or Hispanic Origin", and various other choices offered to census respondents in order to include as many of the intended group without giving offense. And if you want to start a (perfectly-legitimate) side-discussion of all those thorny issues, please start a new thread. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Drug Cartel organizational structure

I'm an HR guy, and after reading the Wikipedia articles about some of the biggest Mexican and Colombian drug cartels, I've become interested in learning more about how they organize their operations. The articles don't really go into any practical details other than to say that some use weak cells. Where can I find detailed information about how a given cartel was/is organized? Surely there must be some academic work out there on some of the more famous, and deconstructed, cartels like Pablo Escobar's? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What's "an HR guy" mean? TomorrowTime (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Presumably Human Resources Rojomoke (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Freakonomics has a chapter studying this from the other end, asking why do so many street-corner dealers live with their mothers if drugs are such a lucrative trade. Their answer (I'm going from memory) was that, as with many other Multi-level Marketing (MLM) structures, the direct seller's hope is not to make a killing in direct retail (especially, in this field, considering the risks and costs of theft, violence and imprisonment) but to rise higher on the pyramid where he can profit more safely from the work of others. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What interest can a HR guy (which I hope is a legitimate thing) has to do with organised crime ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he's just curious. Maybe there's a lesson to be learned from the way criminals operate that could be used in legitimate business - stuff like The Art of War and The Prince are used all the time in business courses to provide theories on strategy. Frankly, I don't care why he wants to know. Matt Deres (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Not on any of the many business courses I've been on. I think The Art of War and The Prince are just used as an excuse to write cheap trashy pulp business books. 92.29.124.214 (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

OP here. Organized crime, Jon Ascton, represents the extreme end of all HR. We are interested in motivating, retaining, developing, and - of course - at the end of the day controlling (though in a weak sense) employees. Criminal syndicates, the really big ones, do all of these things but with much, much higher stakes. If my company loses an engineer to a rival, we lose our investment in that person and perhaps a bit of our intellectual property. If a drug cartel loses a top member to a rival (or to the authorities), entire sections of their organization are compromised, families may be targeted, etc. Reading about Pablo Escobar and estimates that his syndicate made $60 million per day logically lead one to wonder how that was all controlled, how orders moved from top to bottom, etc. That's HR. 61.189.63.133 (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right. The Drug Trade is quite a phenomenon in itself, but strangely no businesses, legal or otherwise, in India reach that complexity and sophistication nor can I imagine any Indian HR guy reaching out for such bold solution i.e. trying to look at drug cartels for modeling. I even wonder if they dare to mention The Art of War in an Indian Business School class, such difference in minds has always intrigued me.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I expect that the drugs cartels and the Mafia do their "motivating, retaining, developing, and.... controlling" by simple Coercion. Do what the boss wants otherwise you are dead. They would evaluate their "employees" on the basis of loyalty rather than of merit or ability. If you are suspected of being disloyal or a threat to the boss's power, then you are dead too. This also occurs in some non-criminal organisations with career-death rather than real death. 92.15.30.251 (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

GDP deflator question

Sorry if this is a(-nother) stupid economics question, but I'm unclear about a property of the GDP deflator.

Suppose bread is £0.75 a loaf currently. Suppose taxes are increased purely for the purpose of subsidising bread, such that it now costs £0.33 a loaf, and this process is, in some sense, efficient (net cost to UK customers is the same). Would the GDP deflator change, and if so, how?--Leon (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry, I just had to jump in here, feet first!). In the UK there is no VAT on a loaf of bread, and as far as I know no tax! (Now to be serious): It is best to ask this question on the Mathemetical Reference page, but do change the example. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be VAT on bread to subsidise it from other taxes. Is Economics a branch of Mathematics, or a Science, or a Humanity, (or a Magic Art)? Dbfirs 20:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was/they were the Dismal Science. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe "Household Husbandry" of "Country Husbandry", but there is'nt a Reference page with that title. MacOfJesus (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Um...how is this a mathematics question? Because it uses numbers? Incidentally, what I had in mind was slightly increasing income taxes such as to subsidise bread.--Leon (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I felt that there might be people who are more familiar with the GDP on the Maths. desk. From past experiences of UK Government, the deficits were usually taken from Road funds. But, now it is possibly EEC law that govern this. MacOfJesus (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

GDP includes government spending, so increasing taxation to subsidise prices would have no net effect on GDP, and would not change the GDP deflator. Warofdreams talk 17:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Would that equally be true of the PPP (Purchase Power Parity) i.e. would it be unaffected?--Leon (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

PPP is generally misused, so be careful. If the wheat, etc and the baking and the sale are all within one economy, there is no need to use any exchange rate at all. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware that there is no need to do so. What I am trying to understand is a potential weakness of it as a tool for comparing two economies. If subsidising bread using taxes makes the PPP suggest a country is cheaper to live in i.e. some basket of goods appears to cost less, without the net cost to the resident being any different, that is a weakness of it as a measure. Unless I'm going wrong.--Leon (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

PPP makes no allowance for taxes or subsidies, so increasing taxation to subsidise prices would affect it. This could be mitigated by excluding subsidised goods and/or services from the basket considered for PPP purposes. For example, it would make little sense to use healthcare charges as an indicator of relative PPP, as subsidies vary so widely. Warofdreams talk 18:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In that case, why is it reasonable to use PPP at all? Tax rates vary quite significantly, meaning (ultimately) that disposable incomes needn't very closely correspond to GDP per capita. And excluding such goods means excluding huge swathes of consumer spending, such as healthcare, transport, etc.--Leon (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

PPP isn't intended to take into account disposable income. It's not only taxation, tariffs and subsidies, but also income levels are ignored. Advocates of using PPP sometimes suggest that these differences are relatively unimportant, or should be. Warofdreams talk 10:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

But it is intended to compare cost of living, right? If it doesn't account for tax rates and ensuing subsidies, I don't really see how it can work well. In any case, I've been looking for a detailed breakdown of how it is calculated for specific states-without success, can you help? Thanks.--Leon (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question. It seems that for most practical purposes, data from the United Nations International Comparison Programme [3] is used. According to their publications, they do attempt to include government expenditure in areas where this is known to be significant, such as education or health. Warofdreams talk 23:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Christian apologetics in the early 16th century

The article on Martin Luther states "In 1523, Luther advised kindness toward the Jews in That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew, but only with the aim of converting them to Christianity.[193] When his efforts at conversion failed, he grew increasingly bitter toward them".

Well, what did his conversion attempts consist of? What would he say? What would Jews say in response?--70.122.112.145 (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

His conversion attempts, according to That Jesus Christ was born a Jew, were that Jewish people should be treated friendly and instructed kindly through the Bible, and advocated dealing with them according to the law of Christian charity. We must receive them kindly and allow them to compete with us in earning a livelihood. That was in 1523. By 1543 in Concerning the Jews and their lies, he was instead advocating burning synagogues. What the response to his earlier attempts was, I really don't know. Marnanel (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't an active attempt at conversion. He didn't proselytize to them. He thought that by reforming the church (and society in general), the Jews would see how great Christianity was in it's proper, true form, and they would all convert on their own. I don't think there was any sort of actual dialogue between them, but their reaction was something like "yeah, right." We also have an article about Martin Luther and the Jews, if that is more helpful (heh, he thought the Jews tried to poison him with kosher food!). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's as Mordechai Becher says -- Mohammed and Martin Luther attempted to create religious philosophies that they felt would be so consistent and compatible with Judaism that Jews would flock to their new visions for service to God. Luther tried to get rid of paying indulgences ("the coin hits the coffer and the soul springs to heaven), etc. But Jews sensed that there was no gain to these novel forms of religion because they already had what they considered the true monotheism, and they noticed how Mohammed charged that the Jews altered the true word of God, even though the Jews had the Torah before Mohammed was even born. Then he misquotes passages from the Torah...and when the Jews rejected Luther (and Mohammed) it caused them to become rabid anti-Semites. Becher explains that this was a result of what he call the "rejected boyfriend hypothesis." For an exposition of this (in the context of Arab-Israeli relations, in which he specifically draws parallels to Luther), listen to this 1 hr lecture. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A Walk over water

Is there any historical evidence that Jesus did walk over water ? If yes how was it made possible ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

See Jesus walks on water. There is no historical evidence that Jesus and Peter walked on water as the Gospels claim, except for the stories passed down by his followers and recorded decades later in some books of the New Testament. Edison (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what sort of historical evidence you're looking for, other than the obvious: sources for an incident happening in the middle of a lake are going to be restricted to the accounts given by people in nearby boats, which is what the Gospels claim to be based upon, and I suppose people with telescopes on shore, which were in short supply in the first century. Marnanel (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There's very little historical evidence that anything before the year you were born actually happened. See Historical method. But yes, the historical evidence is that three Evangelists recorded the story in their books. --M@rēino 14:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't answer "if yes how was it made possible". Three possible answers: a) It didn't happen and the authors of the Gospels were making it up. b) It did happen, but there was an enormous sandbank, or the lake was unexpectedly frozen, or something like that, and this detail was completely forgotten when the story was written down. c) It was a miracle, which is both the explanation given in the text, and also not a surprising occurrence if the claims about Jesus elsewhere in the story are in fact correct. I can understand the reasoning of someone who believes the story is made up, but it seems an odd idea to me to start positing non-miraculous hypotheses with the assumption that this one part of the story was true, while assuming that the other parts about Jesus's identity were not true. Marnanel (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a very important point now to be mentioned : There was an Indian saint Ramakrishna Paramhansa. One day another Sadhu (Hindu holy man) came to see him. This chap said that has the ability to walk over water and offered to give a demo by crossing the river that had no bridge or boat etc. Ramakrishna was unimpressed, he asked him how many years has he spent to learn this art. The sadhu said he has spent twenty years in training hard to accomplish this feat. Ramakrishna repined him severely on the ground that he has wasted his life while one needs only 20 cents to hire a boatman to cross the river ! I have related this anecdote to show the philosophical state of mind of Indian saints. Such a spectacular feat (we'd give all we own to see a genuine miracle) looked a child's play to them. Does this mean that such feats were common in East ? Jon Ascton  (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it just means that Ramakrishna pointed out that the sadhu spent 20 years learning a very useless thing. It's far more practical to simply pay for a boat than spend 20 years learning one trick that won't be useful in everyday life. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Little Red Riding Hood is not evidence that wolves in European forests used to be easy to mistake for old ladies, and could talk. When children are told this story, they are supposed to notice the more relevant messages. 86.161.108.172 (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a matter of faith, and presented as such. King Canute demonstrated that he was not a god by this method,(not being able to achieve this), to show his subjects he was a human leader. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There are four first-person accounts of Jesus walking on water. No others. schyler (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll bite. The articles you linked to note that today's critical scholarship is that these are not even first-person accounts. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And it's not in Luke either. Buddy431 (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Saint John's says as much at the end of his Gospel: "There were many other things.....", and indicates clearly why and what he writes. It is clearly a matter of faith, not a Science Journal. MacOfJesus (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A Zen monk used to claim that a true master is one who can walk through water without getting his feet wet. His disciples had no guts to challenge him but were nevertheless dying to see a demo. After many years the occasion came that the whole party were to travel for a pilgrimage etc and a they all had to cross a stream of water by walking through it. The boss crossed causally and of course got his feet and legs all, wet. Now the disciples rose to debate that why his feet ain't dry. Then the Monk explained that "crossing without getting one's feet wet" is a metaphor. It simply means that a True Master can live through life without worldly attachments and should not be taken literally.
This anecdote (must be historical account actually) is stressed upon in Buddhist scriptures and often repeated in discourses. It seems that in East, where language is poetic, were more so in past, the only way to say that a person is above worldly attachments is by saying that so-and-so can "walk thru water without wetting his feet". When this news traveled to West ( I think Jesus did visit India, there is a stint of dharmic teachings in his learning, that's what angered the Jews and led to his crucifixion ) the phrase was misunderstood for its literally meaning but gained currency in folk-lore. The original authors simply meant that Jesus was a True Master, but those who were responsible for carrying the news later added imaginary descriptions to impress more and more people. Their main aim, unlike us the contemporary people who perhaps obsessed with factual detail, was more humane and spiritual upliftment. When they did this they didn't feel they are "lying" or cheating someone.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion and you are more than entitled to it. However, this is a reference desk, not show-and-tell time in elementary school. If you need references about Zen teachings, travels of Jesus, etc..., please ask. If all you want to show some idea that you came up with, please use one of the thousands of discussion forums available on the Internet. -- kainaw™ 16:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey man, this Zen-thing came to my attention only recently (after I had posted the Jesus question) It struck me that this might be the solution to the problem, so it was more than natural for me to mention it. Actually I have been constantly working on this problem after posting the question, more solutions may struck me, or you, or anyone so keep heart...Keep your cool, and read it - what I am asking is that how probable it is that this Zen anecdote traveled west and got misquoted and became Jesus walks on water myth ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Perhaps, Kainaw is put off 'casue it looks (to him) as if I am just trying to show off my knowledge, which I assure you is not the case. Perhaps I didn't phrase it properly which led him to conclude that what I am doing show-and-tell time in elementary school ! Of all the hypothesis given above by Marnanel, this part given by me, that it was a metaphor holds far more weight ! And to explain what I mean it was more that necessary to relate the Zen story. It was natural for me to wonder that what occurred to me why did not occur to Christian apologists who are trying to hard to explain this part which is most debatable. Or maybe someone reading this may know that what I am saying is already part of discussion (that's what RD is for) I hope Kainaw understands me now
  • This is not the way a Christian takes it. On reading the Gospels, this is not how the Gospel writers present it. Please read: Matthew 14, vers: 22-33, Mark 6, vs: 45-52, John 6, 16-21, also Jesus walks on water....MacOfJesus (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We are in search of objective truth here, Bernard, so there may be difference between what you and I think

What causes me to be "put off" is the pattern of a user asking a question, waiting for a few answers, and then handing out his theory that answers his own question. That happens a lot here. The questioner is purposely wasting everyone's time as he already has an answer. He isn't asking a question in good faith. He is asking the question with the sole intent of later shoving his answer out to try and convert others to his way of thinking. I am overly sensitive to it right now due to the sudden onslaught of idiocy that occurs at the beginning of every schoolyear. -- kainaw™ 12:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being so truthful and objective, I can see what you are seeing.I agree with you. I'd also like to request MacOf to say what he wants to say as there are no closed minds here, maybe I am terribly wrong afterall.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Thank you, Kainaw. I went through the Gospels and Commentaries for this and found what you found. And did not even sign their statement. Objective truth is what I'm after, too, but find closed minds. Really, it is of little importance if Jesus actually walked on water or not. What is important is the rest of it, which I shall not mention as there is no point here. Signed: MacOfJesus (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

To actually answer the original question, it is common knowlege that the Dead Sea has a high concerntration of salts and it is thus very easy to float on the surface, if there was for some reason a perticularly high concentration and with some balance it is plausible that he walked on the water with the water reaching just over knee level. Unlikley, but possible. Feel free to dispute this.

Distribution of oil/aid money ....

Some gifted or cursed countries have natural resources or nothing at all so their people do not work. How do their governments distribute oil money or foreign aid to their citizens? Is there an article on this interesting issue?

More specifically, how do Saudi Arabia and many other oil riches distribute money to their people? How did Nauru distribute phosphate money to their own people, well, a couple of decades ago? How do countries living on foreign donations distribute the money? -- Toytoy (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Foreign aid is handed out as food or blankets or whatever. Oil money doesn't belong to the government, it belogs to oil companies. The government taxes them and the workers get paid by them of course.--178.167.224.76 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Related, perhaps: Resource curse. --Sean 17:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Abbey of St. Juste

Does anyone have an idea where this abbey might be?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The French WP gives some tantalising hints; one of the sons of Philippe II de Savoie[4] (also Philippe) was "abbé de Saint-Juste à Suze". That could be Suze, Drôme[5], or La Suze-sur-Sarthe[6], or apparently it was the old French name for Susa[7] in Piedmont, Italy. None of these seem to have an abbey, but the articles are not very good. There is a Cathédrale Saint-Just-et-Saint-Pasteur[8] in Narbonne but it doesn't seem to have been a Carmalite abbey. Apparently, St Just and St Juste are variant French spellings of any of these saints[9]; below that is a list of towns called Saint-Just. Of course, there are two St Justs - St Just in Penwith and St Just in Roseland - both in Cornwall, but neither have an abbey. Sorry I can't find anything more at the moment. Alansplodge (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I was having the same trouble. Google seems to think that the only context in which this abbey is ever mentioned is in this specific reference to the invention/production of perfumed water. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22abbaye+st+juste%22+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= Could it be a self-propagating false reference? I couldn't find a St Juste (or Saint-Juste or Saint-Just) on the French wikipedia list of abbeys in France: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_abbayes_et_monastères. Also no results on the French Carmelite order website http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=juste+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.carm-fr.org%2F&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= Best, WikiJedits (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This bunch seem to make Carmelite water (Eau des Carmes) these days. Their history page says that the secret of making it was obtained by one Father Damien of the Discalced Carmelites of the rue Vaugirard in Paris. They set about producing it, and it became incredibly popular. This site also gives a Paris Carmelite religious order as the source. I can't find any reference to an abbey or convent named Saint-Just(e) in Paris, on the rue Vaugirard or elsewhere, although there was a Carmelite foundation of St Denis and there's currently a convent in Montmartre, but it seems likely that if the stuff did indeed originate in a French Carmelite community, it may well have been in Paris. Karenjc 18:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

In Latin, it's Aqua melissa magistralis, I read, while thumbing on Google through N. Chomel's Algemeen huishoudelijk-, natuur-, zedekundig-, en konst- woordenboek (Amsterdam 1778) p. 570, under "Eau de Carmes" (with recipes). So, girded with the Latin, I googled it in Pharmacopoea universalis; oder, Übersichtliche Zusammenstellung... (1840), p. 131, with lots of synonyms, beginning Aqua aromatica, Spiritus aromaticus, s[ive] Melissae magistralis officinalis, Alcohol, s[ive] Alcoolatum Melissae, s[ive] cum Melissa compositus, Aqua Melissae compositae s[ive] Carmelitana s[ive] Carmelitarum... Translation: "Aromatic water, aromatic spirit, or sovereign Melissa (balm) [water/spirit] from the still-room (officinalis); Alcohol or Alcohol-infused [water/spirit] of Melissa or compounded ("macerated"?) with Melissa; Compounded Carmelite Balm-water or Balm-water of the Carmelites". I'm translating magisterialis as "sovereign" as in "a sovereign remedy". Apparently the Carmelite connection is important, the "St-Juste" connection maybe less so.--Wetman (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this is great stuff!!!! Doug Coldwell ^talk 10:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it Against Wikirules?

This user User:Lihaas's user page has en-us-3 This user has an advanced understanding of American English.
en-us-0 This user does not understand American English and doesn't bloody well want to. at same time. There maybe other contradictions as well, for instance he claims to come from Lahore and Mumbai at same time. Other claims are also probably exaggerations. Is this all OK ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.129.74 (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything in Wikipedia:User page or Wikipedia:How to use your user space saying that what's in your user page has to be truthful. As long as it's not done with intent to deceive (as both contradictory statements are in plain view), I don't think this breaches any rules. Rojomoke (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And this should probably be asked at Wikipedia:Help Desk, not here. Rojomoke (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

fortunately or not, it is never against wikipedia policy to be an idiot. we should all bear that in mind. --Ludwigs2 18:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a tag that says: "I don't suffer fools gladly". & "Common Sense prevails always". "I have a sense of humour". & "Pull my leg at your peril". MacOfJesus (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There probably already is, and it presumably serves to label those who have no sense of humour, react badly to people disagreeing with them, and have a short temper. Or do these phrases not have this euphemistic sense where you live? 86.161.108.172 (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes they do. I was using a form of ironic sarcasim, but I am aware that the sense of humour is different. However, all this can be very off-putting to the newcomer. MacOfJesus (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

fishing

In the US, do you need a fishing license to fish in the ocean? Googlemeister (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

According to The Fish and Wildlife Services website, fishing in saltwater areas require a liscense issued by your state. For instance, in Texas, you must have a liscense from The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and follow all regulations set out by The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Get a fishing liscense from your state and follow all fishing season regulations and you are legal. schyler (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Does that include fishing from a boat, and how far from shore before a license would not be required? Googlemeister (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A license wouldn't be required in international waters; I'm not sure how far from shore that would be. --75.33.216.97 (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]}. Some places require a fishing license to bring fish to shore at that location and don't care whether you were 199 or 201 miles out to sea when you caught the fish. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere in that second link to the GMFMC it says that after more than five miles out you require a commercial liscense, maybe. 71.21.143.33 (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

In Florida you may fish without a license in either fresh or saltwater provided your feet are on land. This does include wade-fishing or fishing from a dock. However, certain species of fish (like Snook) require special "stamp" permits to keep. You must also obey any slot-restrictions in effect. The moment your feet are no longer on earth - be you in a canoe, kayak, inflatable boat, or any other sort of water craft - you need to be carrying a license. I apologize for offering unsourced statements, but I haven't time this morning. As a 22 year resident of Florida and diehard fisherman, please trust me! 61.189.63.133 (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Fishing liscences are issued by the individual states, and like every single question that contains the phrase "In the US, do you..." regarding legal issues, it will vary wildly from state to state. Remember that, for most internal legal issues, the states operate independantly, so the only way to know is to contact the Fish and Wildlife Agency (or equivalent) in the state where you intend to fish. --Jayron32 05:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess I was unaware that the individual states laid ownership claims to the ocean. Googlemeister (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, but presumably the boat you take too and from the ocean has to, you know, let you off on dry land somewhere. So you catch a fish in the open ocean. What are you going to do with it? If you keep it, you've got to take it back somewhere. Assuming you are taking it back to a U.S. state, that state's regulations will cover how you are liscenced to do so... --Jayron32 04:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

... so if you cook it and eat it on-board, are you free of all regulation? Dbfirs 08:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Flag colors

Why do so many countries use a red, white, and blue color scheme for their flag? Off the top of my head, I can think of America, England, France, Russia, and Holland, but I'm fairly sure that there are more. --75.33.216.97 (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Cuba, Liberia and Chile, Australia and New Zealand also come to mind... Googlemeister (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you think of how many countries there are (I think the Animaniacs count 180) and how many colors there are (hmm...12 or so, with primary, secondary and dark and light, and not including colors that do not seem statesmanlike, such as magenta), you can easily figure out how many permutations are possible and how it's not altogether strange that 5 or 10 countries use the same 3 colors. And it's at least somewhat likely that certain countries took the colors of other countries -- the US split from Britain, so maybe they used the same colors. I mean, come on...New Zealand's flag is a complete rip-off of Australia, unless it's the other way around, and both are rip-offs of the British flag. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Then why did France, Russia, Holland, Cuba, and Chile also choose those colors? If there are 12 colors, then there are 220 possible three-color combinations for 180 countries, so it's still strange that 6 countries (I'm counting America, England, Australia, New Zealand, and Liberia as 1 because they're all ultimately derived from the British flag) would share the same colors. --75.33.216.97 (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You're forgetting a whole plethora of Slavic countries which use a variation of the Russian tricolor of, you guessed it, red white and blue. There's Russia (of course), Slovakia, The Czech Republic, half of the ex-Yugoslav states... TomorrowTime (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You may be intrested in a question, similar to this, asked on this desk on 29th July, entitled: flag question, 1.1 MacOfJesus (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

[written while other answers were being given (an edit conflict), so forgive some duplication.] Believe it or not there are Wikipedia articles and lists on this subject. Briefly and very partially, there are a couple of coincidences which happened among influential nations who inspired other nations to mirror their colo[u]rs. When England (St George's Cross, red on white or silver) progressively united with Scotland (Saint Andrew's Cross, white/silver diagonal cross [saltire] on blue), various combinations of these two flags were used at sea and on land, resulting (after the 1801 Union with Ireland) in the present Union Jack. See commons:Flags based on British ensigns. ¶ One such flag is said to have inspired Peter the Great to use a white-blue-red design for an ancestor of the Flag of Russia (as used before and after the Soviet period), which in turn inspired Slavic nationalists resisting Turkish, Austro-Hungarian or Greek rule. See Pan-Slavic colors. ¶ Various flags of the United Colonies copied, either consciously or unconsciously, the colours of the British East India Company (a Union Jack in the corner with red and white stripes in the rest of the flag). These flags evolved into the present Star-spangled Banner. Because the United States were an example to others of a republic breaking free of an imperial monarchy, red, white and blue were adopted by several new countries, especially those with a historical tie to the U.S., such as Liberia, Cuba, Puerto Rico, The Philippines, and Panama. ¶ Many other countries are or were part of the British Empire, and when settled or conquered by Britain, adopted a flag with a Union Jack in the first quarter (like the East India Company's), e.g. Australia and New Zealand. While many independent former British possessions deliberately adopted their own colours (often historical colours, Pan-African colours or Pan-Arab colors), some of them kept a red-white-blue scheme, with or without the Union Jack. For a historically-unusual example, see Flag of Hawaii. ¶ In 1789, the French Tricolore (blue, white, red) was adopted, both as a flag and as a rosette, to symbolize the union of the French monarchy's traditional white with the blue and red which dominate the arms of the City of Paris. See Tricolour. This inspired a huge number of republican and anti-monarchist movements, both within and outside Europe. ¶ There's a separate history, with which I'm not very familiar, for the horizontal Dutch tricolour used today. I don't have time now to give the bibliographic references, but most general authorities on flags for laymen, e.g. those of Whitney Smith and Alfred Znamierowski, discuss this topic in some detail. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

See also Gallery of flags by similarity#Blue, red, and white —— Shakescene (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Dutch flag comes from Napolean, not a separate history. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not according to Flag of the Kingdom of the Netherlands it doesn't. Apparently, they used a horizontal tricolor of orange, white, and blue; the familial colors of the House of Orange, and over time the orange migrated to red. According to our article, the red-white-blue Dutch flag dates from at least the mid-17th century, with the earlier orange-white-blue flag dating from their independance from Spain. --Jayron32 05:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Lists of flags might be interesting, although not providing a direct answer.—Wavelength (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, on a completely unrelated but possibly interesting note, the Counts of Celje had a coat of arms design with a striking resemblance to the US flag. TomorrowTime (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And that other family, though there's no blue. Marnanel (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Flag of Norway was apparently coloured due to both emulating France, America and Britain and their freedoms, and as red was a Danish colour, and blue a Swedish one. Flag of Iceland was designed to evoke snow, mountains, and volcanoes. --Saalstin (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The article on Liberia says their flag design, among a number of things, was taken directly from the U.S. design. I don't see a mention of Republic of Texas here; the article doesn't say specifically where they got their flag, but it certainly looks like it was inspired by the U.S. flag. The article on Flag of Cuba suggests it was arrived at independently, although some of its symbolism is similar to the U.S. flag. Flags of Puerto Rico indicates that their design was taken directly from Cuba's design. There's also a Flag of the Philippines which indicates their design was inspired by Cuba's design. Flag of Panama says that an original proposed design was stylistically similar to the U.S. flag, but they eventually adopted a design which is not particularly similar to the U.S. flag other than the colors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Dante and physics

On the Dante's Inferno article, it says that Dante feels a change in gravity after passing through the center of the earth. Would someone (granted, an intelligent someone) from the 14th century know that much about something like that? Myth of the Flat Earth says they knew about a round Earth, but what about gravity? ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 22:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The concept of gravity is ancient; it's easy to see, I mean everything drops to the earth no matter how high or far you throw it. Newton did not discover gravity, he just figured out how it worked, mathematically. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, Newton argued that gravity could be considered a "force" that acted at a distance, and that the gravity we experience on Earth (insert apocryphal apple here) is the same thing that holds the solar system together more generally. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Though folks in antiquity (followers of Aristotle, at least) and the Middle Ages didn't think of gravity in the way we do. They thought that matter had a natural tendency to seek the center of the universe—that is, the center of the earth. C. S. Lewis, by the way, called that point in the Inferno—where Dante and Virgil have to climb down Satan to his waist, then up to his feet—"the first 'science-fiction effect' in literature". Deor (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

True, that. Which is not a horrible way to look at things, providing you only concern yourself with terrestrial phenomena. (And in fact, seeing gravity as a "falling" rather than a "pulling" is actually more in line with Einstein, if we want to be anachronistic.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, there's actually no gravity felt at the center of a spherically-symmetric mass... AnonMoos (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

::How was the "change in gravity" described by Dante, exactly? (You would feel weightless at the center of the earth). Wikiscient (talk) 10:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't feel anything. You'd be dead, given the temperature it's reputed to be down there. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I alluded to it above, Wikiscient. To effect their departure from Hell, Virgil (carrying Dante piggyback) climbs down the shaggy side of the gigantic Satan, who is embedded at Earth's center; but when he reaches Satan's middle, he has to turn himself around and start climbing up instead: "When we had come to where the thigh turns just on the thick of the haunch, my leader with labor and strain brought round his head to where his shanks had been and grappled on the hair like one who is climbing, so that I thought we were returning into Hell again." Afterward, when Dante asks why he's seeing Satan embedded feet-upward rather than right-side-up, as he saw him earler, Virgil explains: "You imagine that you are still on the other side of the center, where I caught hold on the hair of the evil worm that pierces the world. As long as I descended you were on that side; when I turned myself you passed the point to which all weights are drawn from every part." (Singleton translation) Deor (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Ah, ok, thank you for the context -- and I apologize for missing your post above, my bad.

And this does indicate at least the understanding that everything is pulled "down" toward the center of the Earth and rises "up" away from the center of the Earth. Now, if only they'd had an (apocryphal) apple down there! (Or, wait, maybe not a good idea... ;) Wikiscient (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Historical dominatixes

What is thee first known record of a Dominatrix, and are there known to have been any during Ancient Roman times or the 1920s?--99.251.239.89 (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The earlier reference in the OED is from 1967...the word certainly existed in Latin, but not in the sexual sense (and the non-sexual sense is much older in English, too). I'm sure the Romans knew of the concept though, they were pretty kinky. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The medieval legend of Xanthippe. Men need to feel firmly in "natural" control for the "reversed" role of a dominatrix to give a frisson of excitement. Matilda of Tuscany was admired as dominatrix in the broader sense, and pictured afterwards as riding astride, "like a man".--Wetman (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Xanthippe is a legendary nag, but a dominatrix? And if Matilda counts, Eleanor of Aquitaine probably counts too. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I had in mind a well-known Gothic brass Aquamanile of Xanthippe riding Aristotle horseback style; and dominatrix in the political sense, as applied to Matilda, I read recently in Beth L. Holman, "Exemplum and Imitatio: Countess Matilda and Lucrezia Pico della Mirandola at Polirone", The Art Bulletin 81.4 December 1999:637-664.-Wetman (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's his paramour Phyllis on top of Aristotle. Here. The story can be read here including some comment and reference to "The Wife of Bath's Tale". For 19th century, I'll throw in Venus in Furs and this illustration from 1895 by the great Aubrey Beardsley. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are some Phyllis and Aristotle pics: File:Aristotle and Phyllis.jpg , File:Lucas van Leyden Arisztotelész és Phyllis.jpg , File:Aristoteles and Phyllis.jpg . -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

99.251.239.89 -- probably your best bet in searching for historical antecedents would be the traditional flogging fetishism of British upper-class men (I believe there's a scene in Fanny Hill). Dominatrix-style illustrations (women in black catsuits or merry-widows and high-heels holding whips etc.) seem to have existed since at least the 1930's... AnonMoos (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Catullus implies that there was some BDSM style stuff going on in Rome in some of his satirical poetry. Of course, much of the activity in the writings of the Marquis de Sade involve women in a dominant position. Steewi (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

For Whom the Bell Tolls

I remember a quote from this book that went something like "French is the language of diplomacy; Spanish is the language of war". What was the exact quote? I don't have th book handy right nw, 76.229.235.27 (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor supposedly said "I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse" (a quote that's been circulated in a number of different versions)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The line from For Whom the Bell Tolls is:

What's the matter? he thought. From listening to him I am beginning to talk like Fernando. That language must be infectious. French, the language of diplomacy. Spanish, the language of bureaucracy.

Chapter 17. meltBanana 10:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 September 1

September 2

Engstrom quote source?

The Last Messiah by Peter Wessel Zapffe contains the following quote, which Zapffe attributes to a certain "Engstrom":

"One should not think, it is just confusing."

Which Engstrom does Zapffe refer to? And what is the source of the quote? -- noosphere 00:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, as you've no doubt seen, the exact quote doesn't pull up much, Google-wise. My suspicion is that it is Zapffe's translation from either Swedish or Norwegian. My wild guess in looking for Swedish quotes that seem similar (using Google Translate), and in which Engstrom's people seem to cite as a source of art and culture, would lead me to suspect that Albert Engström is the likely culprit. But this is just a very wild guess based on a lot of fairly fruitless Googling. You might try on the language desk, to see if anyone over there can search for similar phrases in Swedish or Norwegian. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What would Thomas Jefferson have said about Somalia?

If he came back as some kind of interactable ghost, of course.

Would he retract this? --Let Us Update Wikipedia:Dusty Articles 03:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the time honored tradition of taking quotations out of context. Jefferson was not arguing for Anarchy, which is basically what Somalia is today. See Jeffersonian democracy for Jefferson's actual political theories, which are far more complex and nuanced than can be explained by a simple, one-sentance quote. --Jayron32 04:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Somalia's an extremely interesting case, and I don't think the term "anarchy" fully captures the nuances of what is going on there. Yes, the legitimate (that is, internationally recognized) government only controls a small part of Mogidishu and a bit of the rest of the country. On the other hand, it's not like it's just riots and random acts of violence happening in the rest of the country. There are of course the "autonomous" regions of Somaliland and Puntland, which, as I understand, do a reasonable job governing themselves (especially Somaliland. Puntland seems to have more trouble controlling it's coast and such). Formerly, the Islamic Courts Union controlled much of the country, and while their control would not be considered fair or open by any standards, it was certainly not anarchy. Now, of course, Al-Shabaab is controlling much of the region formerly held by the ICU, and which our article describes as imposing a "harsh form of Sharia law". I'm not as familiar with the current situation, so I guess I can't really assess how firmly they actually "control" this region. Somalia's a fascinating study in nation building, and I urge anyone interested in the topic to look at some of the myriad of links that can be found in the main article.

As for what Thomas Jefferson would say, I have no idea. Buddy431 (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr Jefferson, what do you think about the situation in Somalia?

Where? I’m not familiar with the place.

DOR (HK) (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In Somalia, Jefferson might have seen some parallels to the Barbary states of his day -- African Muslim countries that were sources of pirates that preyed on international shipping. During Jefferson's term in office, the U.S. fought the First Barbary War against the Barbary states rather than pay the tribute the Africans demanded for protection of American ships. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, piracy in the Barbary states was more or less state sanctioned, as I understand, and the U.S. was paying tribute to a centralized state to not have pirates attack their ships. It was thus possible to put a stop to the tribute payments by attacking the government. In Somalia's case, it's not our government paying tribute, but rather individual merchants, to pirates who are not state sanctioned (it's basically an organized crime operation, as I understand). Considering that Jefferson largely tried to stay out of foreign affairs, I'm not sure that he would have wanted to (much less have had the power to) done anything about Somali based pirates. Buddy431 (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Jefferson would have altered his views on government particularily in response to the current Somali situation. Somalia is in a state of war, and it is hardly that scenario he wished for in the linked quote. Moreover, Jefferson's views on Somalia would probably have been tainted by the racist worldview that engulfed his surroundings. Thomas Jefferson#On_slavery gives some detail on the debate about Jefferson's (himself a slave owner) ambiguities towards slavery and Black people in general. --Soman (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Jews and automatic citizenship in Israel

Can a non-religious or atheist jew be granted automatic citizenship in Israel? ScienceApe (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you read Israeli nationality law? --Jayron32 04:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Can a non-Jew become a Jew if he wants to ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it happens often. See Conversion to Judaism. —D. Monack ^talk 02:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If you read the article Jayron points to, you'll find that not only do you not need to believe or practise Judaism, you don't even need to be Jewish to qualify under the Law of Return, for example, non-Jewish spouses. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

But according to the Jews for Jesus article, they are not granted automatic citizenship. Is this correct? ScienceApe (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes: "Those who believe in Jesus are, in fact, Christians."[10] --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Democracy

What are the ideals of democracy. What are the elements of demorcracy that help support the ideals of democracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christiedickens (talk • contribs) 06:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you read Democracy? The article at Wikipedia is useful for a general overview, however your teacher is likely looking for you to use a combination of reading comprehension and critical thinking skills to combine things they taught you in class with things you read from your textbook, so that you can formulate the answer yourself. It can be useful to read additional information, like the Wikipedia article on Democracy, however it should be entirely possible to answer a homework question like this using only the materials your teacher gave you. Indeed, it should be easier to do it that way, since textbooks and class lectures are likely to be focused in such a way as to provide a more direct answer to your teacher's question than a general overview like the Wikipedia article on Democracy. --Jayron32 06:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a homework question. It's that time of year. Shadowjams (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You can start by "Democracy is a government of the People, by the people and for the people....". Your teachers will love you for it !  Jon Ascton  (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

What is this story?

This has been driving me out of my mind. In elementary school (circa 1995) my class read an extract of a story, written by an African American author, set (I presume) in the 1950s or early 60s, about a young black boy living in a city in the northern United States. It was set during the winter. Apart from that, I remember only two concrete details: (1) the protagonist discovers a Transistor radio, sitting unguarded in a convertible or an unlocked car, and it becomes his most treasured possession; (2) the protagonist wears a pair of corduroy trousers, and I recall much discussion about the merits and drawbacks of corduroy. LANTZY^TALK 06:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

But not the merits and drawbacks of theft??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Does everything have to be a morality play? LANTZY^TALK 17:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Lantzy—you say, "Does everything have to be a morality play?" You were speaking about theft, were you not, when you referred to "a transistor radio, sitting unguarded in a convertible or an unlocked car"? If that is the case, then I think it is understandable that considerations of morality would come to mind. Bus stop (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Lantzy meant that interesting literature often involves heroes and protagonists who do unlawful things. Literature, even children's literature, has moved on quite a bit since the days when taies or Morality plays tended to need a clear-cut moral in the end (such as "Thou shalt not steal"). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's possible the author was being satirical, in making a big thing of corduroy pants while saying nothing about theft. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's vaguely the same approach as the antagonist in No Country for Old Men, who had no qualms about killing as long as he didn't get blood on his nifty shoes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In the recollections of the story as related to us above, we find out that we need to determine the merits and drawbacks of corduroy, but it doesn't occur to us to examine the rightness or wrongness of stealing. Bus stop (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of prolonging this unnecessarily: Lantzy, who regularly posts here and knows what helps us googleurs and what doesn't, gave two rather specific recollections. The corduroy reference actually didn't happen to help my search, the words "transistor radio" and "convertible" did. Had I read the story, I might have remembered the corduroy reference (because these are the kind of asides I love in literature). Had Lantzy said something like: "the book was about the morals of stealing" (I have no idea whether that's what the book is about, I suspect it's more complex than that, but even if ...), that wouldn't have helped my search a lot, as those keywords are too generic. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what is wrong with this picture? Bus stop (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That it was done in watercolors, and after the theft, it ran? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the picture painted is a little bizarre. But I guess memory is like that. One simply remembers what one remembers. Bus stop (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's the from the book version of J.T. [11] (originally a TV drama from 1969 [12]) by Jane Wagner (granted, she's not African American, but J.T. Gamble is). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Thanks! LANTZY^TALK 17:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Religion vs. Science

Are Religion and Science enemies of each other ? Does one's religion affect one's progress in science ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Go to the library today, find Rocks of Ages by Stephen Jay Gould, and read it. Seriously. When you have read it, come back and we'll discuss. --Jayron32 06:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins would probably tell you yes, although he did name Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins as examples of good scientists who were sincerely religious. You may find Templeton Prize interesting. Karenjc 07:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Even as an atheist, I would generally say no. The theory of evolution does not necessarily disprove the existence of God(s). However, the two do clash when someone challenges another to disprove the existence of God via science. Ethereal beings are not something that can be tested. If it can't be falsified through testing, then it is not based in the scientific world. Despite this, as others have point out above, there are numerous religious scientists. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

But all religions cannot be put in same bracket. We have Freud, Einstein, Karl Marx and numerous other Jews as great scientists which are difficult to count, perhaps we'd no science without Jews, but with an exception or two no muslims are scientists. why ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"no muslims are scientists" ^{[citation needed]}. Pfly (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Islam and science may be useful, if that's the OP's perception. Karenjc 08:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"In recent years, the lagging of the Muslim world in science is manifest in the disproportionately small amount of scientific output..." it appears to support the OP's perception, if we remember that he mentioned there are one or two exceptions, and make allowances for rhetoric. 213.122.14.112 (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Abdus Salam could be a prominent modern example, but Muslim rigorists are quick to deny that he's a "real" Muslim... AnonMoos (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure ? I can understand rigorists denying Salman Rushdie or Taslima Nasreen but why on earth would they deny a man like Abdus Salam ? He, I think, is Pakistan's(?) only hope  Jon Ascton  (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Because Abdus Salam was a Ahmadi or "Qadiani", a group which denies the finality of prophethood of Muhammad, so that a large number of Muslims consider them to be non-Muslim. There are many Wikipedia articles about this, starting with Persecution of Ahmadis... AnonMoos (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit all encompassing to say no muslim..., in fact many are. There are schools of thought within Islam that tend to be hostile to progress, but that's not a hostility to science per se

ALR (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? No Muslims are scientists? Take a look at this. A heap of modern sciences is based on stuff Muslims in the middle ages researched. Heck, you can even tell from the terminology - as a rule, stuff beginning with "al-" was first named by Muslims scientists. You know, like algebra, alchemy, alcohol, algorithm... TomorrowTime (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Semantic quibble, but none of those Muslims are scientists. They were scientists. 213.122.14.112 (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Jim Al-Khalili did a series for the BBC called "Science and Islam". Tell him there are no Muslim scientists!--TammyMoet (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Though he is an atheist. 213.122.14.112 (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You've listed two atheists and one agnostic or something. (Although the agnostic far outclasses the atheists as scientists, since they were only a sociologist and a psychologist, and were responsible for the unpleasantness of various socialist republics and Emma Eckstein's nose.) 213.122.14.112 (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It is worth noting that if Muslims lacked the ability or inclination to do any science, it would be pretty difficult for, say, Pakistan and Iran to pose the technological-based threats they currently seem to pose. Both countries, in any case, have voluminous scientific output, as does Turkey. What people are really disputing here is whether or not there are any "first rate" Muslim scientists as defined by the kinds of standards that relate to historical (20th century) Western science. It should be cautioned that this calculus might also make one believe that there are basically no scientists other than white males, a few white females, and a few Asian males. It is an approach that does not reflect the scientific discipline as a whole, but rather the way scientific accomplishments have been historically represented. It may represent the level of "innovation" among various groups at different points in our recent past — which have certainly changed quite a lot (for example, note the major shift in "important" scientific work from Europe to the United States following WWII) — but it hardly represents whether there are "scientists" in these groups. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with population genetics, and very little to do with religion directly, but many people notice things such as that it took Japan only around 80 years to go from its isolation being broken by Commodore Perry in 1853 to the work which won Hideki Yukawa his physics Nobel prize, while other societies which have had easier and more continuous access to the work of international scientists (if they were interested in it) have produced less impressive results over a rather longer period of time -- and when they finally did produce a world-class scientist (Abdus Salam), they spurned and scorned him in significant degree because his religious beliefs were "incorrect". It wouldn't be too far off to say that the last world-class Arab intellectual whose efforts were not confined solely to the literary and religious realms was Ibn Khaldun -- and the excuse of blaming all problems on those eeeevil Western colonialists and imperialists is starting to wear a little thin around about now... AnonMoos (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I've quoted this before - possibly at you - but Dawkins' opinion of it is: "Gould carried the art of bending over backwards to positively supine lengths in one of his less admired books, Rocks of Ages." 213.122.14.112 (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins said something negative about religion, or someone who doesn't despise religion? He smarmily disparaged a book that didn't insist that all religion is stupid, cannot exist in a mind that also does science, and directly causes killing? Stop the presses! Take notes! This is the evidence we've all be waiting for: guess we'll just have to give up this 'God' thing! All those people who claim to have religious faith while also carrying out science? They must just be lying, or don't realise they don't really believe in God, or have been fooled into thinking they are doing science. Dawkins has spoken! Seriously, that's like quoting Jack Chick's opinion of Harry Potter. 86.161.108.172 (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you're defensively hating an imaginary version of Dawkins. It's a popular hobby. Mr. 98's summation, below, of the controversy over "non-overlapping magesteria", is reasonable. I quoted Dawkins, a noted critic of Gould, to illustrate that Gould is not necessarily deeply insightful but may in fact just be an equivocating tit. Of course, it doesn't behove me to take a position on the matter myself. 213.122.41.114 (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It depends on your definitions of "religion" and "science." Plenty of learned and pretty intelligent people have come to different conclusions. Some people (Gould being a principle example on the scientist side) argue that they are Non-overlapping magisteria — that they don't conflict, because they describe different things. A lot of people (Dawkins on the atheist side, plenty of others on the religious side) say that they do conflict, because they do both present incompatible accounts of the world.

There's no one right answer on this, and the question has been asked pretty explicitly for a very long time now. I think we can safely say, though, that some formulations of science do conflict with some formulations of religion. Some scientists have found their work to be incompatible with some religious beliefs. And the converse is true as well — some scientists have found their work to be supportive of, or at least not in conflict with, religion.

There are strong political motivations for all sides in saying that there is or isn't a conflict, obviously. One should be suspicious of any answers that seem to present it as an easy question. It's not. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

We have a whole article on the Conflict thesis and nobody's mentioned it yet? Marnanel (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nor has anyone mentioned the previous discussion, a few months back, on exactly the same question - buried somewhere within the archives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

One factor is that many major religions require assent to an ancient book or body of writings considered authoritative. This is surely in direct conflict with the scientific principle of subjecting all assertions to objective tests. --rossb (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If only such holy books contained instructions to test everything and only hold on to the good! Marnanel (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Though it has its limits, the Catholic Church to a certain extent has been a supporter of science, and has even apologized for the whole Galileo affair. See Evolution and the Catholic Church. So, no, I think not. Also, Islam was pretty into math and astronomy for a while, too. Aaronite (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's great - it's Critical rationalism in a nutshell, or even evolution - but does it mean I can test and throw out the preceding instructions which are no good, such as "do not treat prophecies with contempt" and "pray continually"? If only this book came with a handy appendix explaining the Order of operations. 213.122.3.229 (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Or to make my point in a less smartarsed way: you seem to have it backwards. Let's assume that if a person believes certain things in an ancient document (let's say the Nicene Creed), then it's reasonable to call them a Christian. That doesn't mean they decided to become a Christian and are believing in the statements in the Nicene Creed against their better judgement. Rather, after considering the statements in the Creed, they believe them to be true, and necessarily in so doing have joined the category of Christians. There is nothing stopping themselves asking whether the statements in the Creed are true, and they may decide that they are, or that they are not, in which case they may also stop calling themselves a Christian. (Of course, this has nothing to do with the scientific method, since none of the statements in the Creed are experimentally falsifiable anyway. But there are other reasons to believe things than the scientific method.) Marnanel (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Marnanel makes a good point. Hebrews 11:1 defines faith rather succinctly:

Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld

– Hebrews 11:1

The key is "the evident demonstration of realities..." In other words it is very clear that this is the actual reality to the believer. schyler (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In plainer English, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (New International Version, Letter to the Hebrews 11:1. Or, in the Contemporary English Version, "Faith makes us sure of what we hope for and gives us proof of what we cannot see." Or, hey, Young's Literal Translation, "And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction," I think these are easier for most English-speakers to understand. What translation is yours? I'd usually assume King James when an English-speaker doesn't specify, and when the language is unnecessarily obscure, but that has "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.", so it isn't that. I'm especially curious given that your version introduces the idea of 'realities', and even 'demonstration of realities', absent from other translations. 86.161.108.172 (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Or as Cesare Baronio said, rather succinctly "The Bible tells us how to go to Heavan, not how the Heavans go". --Jayron32 04:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Physical Exercises on Sabbath Day

Did the ancient Jews do Physical exercises on Sabbath Day? What does the bible say about physical exercises on Sabbath Day? 99.245.73.51 (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• • The Gospels refer to this, in a number of ways. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"Maybe you should read your Bible."
"Any particular passage?"
"Oh, it's all good." LANTZY^TALK 17:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Old Testament is a poor source for information regarding what can and cannot be done on The Sabbath Day. This is because details of all laws are absent and Jews follow the Shulchan Aruch, which is based on rabbinic commentary of Talmudic law that relates to the particular biblical verses one is interested in. In case you're interested in physical exercise in particular, you can check out The Shabbos Home by Simcha Bunim Cohen. Unless you assert that rabbinic Judaism is a distortion of reality, in which case you wouldn't be too interested in Cohen's work. You can check Maimonides, but he pretty much is in agreement with the later view of someone like Cohen, despite the modern Conservative Jew's claims that Maimonides practiced what now takes the form of Conservative Judaism. I don't believe that Christian theology dictates that ancient Jews did what Orthodox Jews do today, but I'm not sure. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• • I can indeed go through the Gospels finding the references outlining the context, but is anyone interested enough to care? Or is someone asking in order to rubbish my effort, with a preconceived notion. Sorry, if this does not apply here. Then you must be an exeption! MacOfJesus (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The references, on this, from the Gospels, come in two different catagories: 1/ Travelling Preacher and his Disciples were hungry and ate corn on the Sabbath. 2/ Jesus curing/healing on the Sabbath, involving effort. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Over the Bible, there seems to be a very different approach to law before the Temple was destroyed as to after. (The Book of Ezra), Ezra. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I question if the ancient Jews would have done much exercise for exercise's sake. Sports were considered a pagan Greek thing to do; one of the complaints of the Maccabees was that the Jews had begun engaging in games such as discus throwing (according to II Maccabees, which Catholics consider part of the Bible). According to Saul Berman, the Mishnah specifically condemns mud wrestling on the sabbath. ([13]). On the other hand, Yisroel Chait, a prominent American Orthodox rabbi, writes (in making a point), "A person could exercise vigorously all Sabbath, lifting weights for hours on end, without violating the Biblical injunction regarding the Sabbath, while throwing a splinter of wood into a fire would involve a major violation." ([14]). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Mwalcoff's evidence from the time of the Maccabees is persuasive. The ancient Israelites would have spent their sabbaths much as their modern day equivalents do - praying too much, eating too much, studying too much and trying to sleep too much. No doubt, they'd have been chatting round their dinner tables about the shortcomings of their local priest and how much better the one in the next town was. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Vagrancy Act 1824 (5 Geo. 4. c. 83)

I am developing the draft of an article on the Littleport riots of 1816 here. I have a statement summarised from a none Wikipedia:RS: "General unrest and riots such as that at Littleport may have been a factor ^{[citation needed]} in the government passing the Vagrancy Act 1824". Can anyone help find a RS for that statement or help derive a similar statement along the same theme? --Senra (Talk) 13:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You forgot the wikilink prefix Ely and Littleport riots 1816--Aspro (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yups. Sorry. Fixed --Senra (Talk) 14:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say that that website is just padding their text out on pure flight of fancy. Eight years is a long time to-update exiting acts and vagrancy acts pre-date by over a century. Also, the update appears to be concerning the behaviours of individual vagrants. See in blue: behaving in a riotous or indecent manner. I would have thought, that had legislation been written up in response to the Littleport riots, then an Act like the Riotous Assemblies (Scotland) Act 1822 was more appropriate. Therefore, should anyone fail to find a lack of a RS, I will not be surprised. This comment should really go on the articles talk page but of course it does not exist yet.--Aspro (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have no problem with you creating the comment on the article talk page. All comments welcome. The article will go to main space when it is in better shape :) --Senra (Talk) 15:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Am I a character in a novel?

Am I a character in a novel? I ask because I have been reading a novel by Muriel Spark, in which a character discovers that she is a character in it. So I am wondering: if I were a character in a novel, how would I know? Wikiscient (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

See Cogito ergo sum. -- kainaw™ 17:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

To put it semi-scientifically... Since we can't ever know anything with absolute certainly, what does your best evidence indicate? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If the nature of being a character in a novel is in every way identical to being a character in real life, this has two consequences: firstly, there is no way to know whether the assertion is true or not, and secondly, there is no meaning to the assertion, so it doesn't matter. If, on the other hand, you are affected in some way by being a character in a novel - well, it's your idea (or Muriel's) so you'd know the precise details of how you are affected, and how to test for it; we wouldn't be able to tell you how. Solipsism is countered by this same argument. 213.122.3.229 (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Even the most omniscient narrator usually doesn't know every single detail of a character's life. How often do you just sit around doing nothing? Why would a novel include that information? Life is boring and full of pointless details. (Actually, in that case you could be a Stieg Larsson character...) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

We know no more about being a character in a novel than we know about other things that we know nothing about. A character in a novel is not a person at all. A character in a novel is a composite of cliches that one person—a writer—uses in communication with another person—a reader. Bus stop (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Go see Stranger than Fiction, which is about this. Staecker (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No. You are a life form in a physical universe. But you should still see Stranger than Fiction (2006 film) because it's spectacular. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I defy anyone to prove that you are anything other than a character in a novel. What difference does it make, in the long run? Edison (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Go with the best evidence you have. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If I am in fact only a character in a novel, then the novelist must be simultaneously both a genius and a moron. A genius because I would be one of the most well-developed characters ever created in a book, and a moron because the novelist would have bored the reader to death long before I turned 2 years old. Googlemeister (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses, folks! And please also see my follow-up question, below. (I was expecting perhaps more of a postmodernist critique to this one, though, actually, this being the Humanities desk and all. Eg. didn't someone mention the Fourth wall somewhere here recently...? I'm sure we would have gotten around to it eventually. Anyway, thanks again, question answered! :) Wikiscient (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if one was to become conscious that they are a character in a narrative, then certain notions/emotions would be rather difficult to express such as Alienation.Smallman12q (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

MLitt/MSc (Scotland)

In Scotland, how does the MLitt degree compare to the MSc? The article on the MLitt says that it's the equivalent of the English MA; what is the MSc equivalent to in the English system? The Jade Knight (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The MSc is the same as in the rest of the UK, so it is of roughly equivalent academic standard to the MLitt or English MA. Warofdreams talk 22:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

So what's the difference between the MLitt and MSc in Scotland? The Jade Knight (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As stated in the article, the MLitt is the equivalent of an English MA - it is awarded in arts, humanities and social science subjects. The MSc is awarded in science and engineering subjects. Warofdreams talk 09:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be true. For example, the University of Glasgow offers a great many taught degrees as either MLitt or MSc degrees (one example: You can get an MLitt in History, or an MSc in History). The Jade Knight (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's broadly true. Universities don't always stick strictly to these definitions, and some have particular traditions of awarding certain titles for otherwise unlikely topics - for example, the London School of Economics awards little other than BSc and MSc degrees, even for subjects which would be likely to receive a BA, MA or MLitt elsewhere. Warofdreams talk 23:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Crest on UK royal proclamation

Does anybody know what the crest used here is? Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 13:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a combination of the Edward crown, Tudor rose (England) and thistle (Scotland). It's a selection of symbolic elements, but I don't know that that particular combination has any distinctive name or special status... AnonMoos (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I can also see a leek (Wales) in there. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Are you living in a computer simulation?"

Here is the abstract from the paper "Are you living in a computer simulation?" by Nick Bostrom in Philosophical Quarterly (2003), Vol. 53, No. 211:

This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.

I haven't read it since it came out, but plan to have a look at it again soon as I think it may have some bearing on a question I asked earlier today. Specifically I believe it argues that if I were living in a computer simulation, I wouldn't know it. Does the paper make a sound and convincing argument for that case?

Although it is the protocol here to not give medical advice, I can speak from personal experience that delving into these kind of theories is not good for the psyche. I myself was (and it sometimes still happens) that I am on a TV show. Try to focus on what really matters in life. schyler (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Schyler, what do you mean ? Are you saying that you are under illusion that you are on a TV show while in reality you are not ? Or did you mean something else ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

While this is meant to be humorous (I think?), is it really good policy at a Reference desk to discourage the question-asker from asking the sort of question asked...? Wikiscient (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Who do you mean when you say "question-asker", Schyler, OP or me ? If you mean me - no, I am not at all being humorous. I am confused by what schyler has said... Jon Ascton  (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The entire point of such a question is to try and get at "what really matters in life." If you don't know whether reality is real or not, then what matters is not necessarily clear either. What you really mean is, "stop thinking about it, because it'll make your head hurt," which, while potentially true, is not philosophically satisifying. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the OP raising that aspect of the question, but it certainly seems to be the next step. I'll observe that "is reality real?" is not often a meaningful question. Anything which is functionally identical to reality (as we think of it), is reality. (And therefore, intriguingly, any crisis over the Purpose of life, which we would experience if we knew we were living in a simulation, also applies to life as we know it, and needs to be met with arguments.) There is some meaning to the question in this context, because if we are in a computer simulation, it might not be completely functionally identical to our conception of reality - in other words, there's a threat hanging over our heads that one day our simulation might be switched off by the operators. However, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I hope they would do the morally right thing, whatever that is. 213.122.41.114 (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Derealization is relevant and interesting, I think. 213.122.41.114 (talk) 06:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the appropriate answer to this question is mu. --Ludwigs2 23:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the interesting follow-up question is, if we are living in a computer simulation that exactly simulates real life, and we are simply programmes in the machine, does that change anything? Does that actually mean you should do anything different, or treat anything as less real? That doesn't mean "stop wondering", because it can be interesting to wonder, and enlightening to investigate. But it does mean, don't worry about the implications, because if the simulation is so good that you can't find unambiguous evidence for it, you are in exactly the same situation as if it were real. After all, the reality you experience is a creation of your mind out of the electrical signals your sense organs send: a decent simulation is exactly as real as 'real' can be. (And I see GC below me has some very strange reasoning) 86.161.108.172 (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No. If the universe were simulated, there would be evidence that the forces we experience were not as evenly distributed as we observe them. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, or perhaps not, but in either case we would accept that as a truth about out universe, not as evidence of a simulation. As Wittgenstein pointed out, the one thing you can never determine is whether a standard is accurate. The standard is what we measure everything else by; there is no way to measure a standard against itself. to determine whether the universe was simulated we would need some standard outside of the universe against which to measure it; merely having such a standard would demonstrate that the universe was a simulation, and without such we can't say anything at all. --Ludwigs2 02:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, there's a mathematical eqiuvalent of Wittgenstein's philosophy here, see Gödel's incompleteness theorems, the first states that all systems must contain statements which are taken as axiomatic, but which are unprovable by the system itself, and the second states that no system contains the tools to prove its own consistancy. We have to operate as though we can trust our interpretation of the world. We could all be living in the Matrix, but to assume so doesn't allow us to operate effectively within the world. In other words, we have to act as though the world is real; if it isn't, acting as though it isn't doesn't allow us to interact effectively with it anyways. --Jayron32 04:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It is highly plausible and intuitive that our experiences and perceptions could as easily occur in a "computer simulation" as in "reality," If it were "all fake," what could we do about it? Many years before Bostrom wrote about this one of my professors agreed this scenario of us existing in a computer simulation was plausible, but said "If I stop pretending that I work as a professor, then the pretend university will stop issuing pretend checks, and soon thereafter I will feel hungry due to the lack of pretend food." Edison (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the paper either, so cannot comment on it. But I'd say the phrase "computer simulation" is potentially misleading, as it implies something possible with today's computers, or future computers not that different from today's. A reality involving billions, at least, of "AIs", in a vast and complex environment, is so far beyond today's computers that to use the term "computer simulation" is to invite readers to consider this feat less significant than it would be. I have no problem with the notion that we live in a reality created by superior beings. But you might as well call such a belief "religious" as much as "simultation". Pfly (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

you might like to read Chaotic system 200.144.37.3 (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not ask Nick Bostrom to clarify? MacOfJesus (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest reading the paper first. Really! It's hilarious. And sound. :)
Now that I have re-read it myself, I see what it was I wanted to use in response to the initial respondents to my first question. But as I am the one asking that question, and have now found a sufficient answer to it, it no longer seems too necessary to actually use it there.
Thanks for all the responses to both questions! :) Cheers,Wikiscient (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In the TV series Star Trek: The Next Generation the holodeck had fictional characters who learned they were only characters in a detective story adventure of Captain Pickard, The Big Goodbye. One had the existential crisis of asking Pickard what would happen to him, his friends and his family when Pickard left the simulation; would they just suddenly not exist? Pickard told him he "did not know." In a college newspaper there was a comic strip which was set to end (in reality) at the end of the schoolyear. Various characters in the strip "started a protest" against the end of the strip, stating that they simply "refused to stop existing," and that they would just "go on as if nothing had happened." One character said "What do you mean 'comic strip?' Aren't we REAL?" and the other said "Sorry. I thought you knew." "Real world" fictional characters getting into a "work of fiction" or "fictional characters" coming into the "real world" have been common themes in fiction, especially of the science fiction/fantasy genre. Tron is one example, in which a "real person" gets stuck into a computer game. My favorite is "The Island of Doctor Death and other stories and other stories" (yes, that is the title of the book) by Gene Wolfe. In one story "The Island of Dr. Death," there a boy who reads lurid fiction to escape from a bleak and boring life and a character from a story comes into his world and tells him "If a story is written well enough, the characters can become real to the readers- like YOU." This gives the reader a certain jolt. Some fiction has dealt with a character becoming aware that he is in a simulation, as in by noticing some flaw in the rendering of some part of the "world." In such works there may be ways the character can affect the simulation that would not apply in a "real world" akin to the secret codes used by players of computer war games to gain some advantage (like unlimited ammunition in their weapon. I suppose that such hacking would seem like "magic" or "miracles" in a "real world." I see computer simulations like The Sims and am convinced that it should be possible in the future to have characters in a computer simulation "believe they are real" as surely as we do. "Are You Really Alive? A Sims 3 Existential Crisis" (you can google the title to find the essay) suggests that we all might be "meat sims." Edison (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Another story of this type is "Non Serviam" from A Perfect Vacuum by Stanisław Lem (well, it's not really a story, but a review of a nonexistant book, but all the same ...) ---Sluzzelin talk 14:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't know how well known this is in the Anglophone world (i.e., not sure if it was ever translated), but the sequels Koji Suzuki wrote to his bestselling Ring novel (yes, the one the movie was made after, with Sadako coming from the TV set and all) all had a different twist - while the first book was essentially a revenge-of-the-pissed-off-ghost story, the third novel goes on to discover that we are all living in a computer simulation, and Sadako is basically a glitch in the system, a virus. Also, regarding what Edison wrote higher up about stories, there's always the wonderful The Neverending Story TomorrowTime (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Town and country parks from urban sprawl?

At http://youtu.be/1Xhdy9zBEws#t=3m18s what is the label of the middle two segments of land utilization? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Could be "transporte". 92.15.11.118 (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The Question Above...

There is a question above about "What would have Thomas Jefferson said about Somalia ?". If that's a legitimate question for RD, I would like to know what would have Mahatma Gandhi said about 9-11 ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it's a legitimate question for the RD but nevertheless it seems obvious that Ghandi, as a pacifist, would abhor all terrorist violence including the 9/11 attacks. —D. Monack ^talk 02:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You are not aware of the fact that more that Pacifism, Gandhi was more concerned with his policy of never blaming Muslims for anything. One of his most famous quotes was :

it is wrong to say that Islam has employed force. No religion in this world has spread through the use of force. No Musalman, to my knowledge, has ever approved of compulsion.

This is what he said after some of the most atrocious anti-Hindu holocausts in India. There are numerous historical sources about Gandhi's strange attitude, you can start with this
No man, he would have blamed Wright Brothers for inventing the airplane instead !  Jon Ascton  (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

One could interpret that statement to mean that Ghandi carefully controlled what he said as to intentionally diffuse violence and avoid antagonizing or provoking people. He was well aware that mere speech could be an incitement to violence, so it does seem to fit within his philosophy to carefully choose one's statements so as to encourage nonviolence. --Jayron32 06:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That was the problem. This kind of attitude, you'd know if you read India's history, would anger muslims more ! They were working so hard to produce a gulf between Hindus and Muslims, so that they could have a Pakistan, and Gandhi was promoting Hindu-Muslim unity by "intentionally diffus(ing) violence and avoid antagonizing or provoking people" as you have pointed out. You are right, it should work in theory, but real life is a different deal  Jon Ascton  (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

First, kindly note it's Gandhi, not Ghandi. Secondly what question are you pointing at when you say "I doubt it's a legitimate question for the RD". The Thomas Jefferson-Somalia or Gandhi-9/11? Kindly make clear  Jon Ascton  (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Both, obviously. And don't correct others' spelling mistakes. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 04:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is that ? When you spell someone's proper name it is expected that spelling should be correct. Won't the reader feel irritated if I spell Washington as Bashington or Kennedy as Cannedy or something like that. Besides I am not touching the text D.Monack has entered, inspite of intense temptation to do so, though I implore him to reedit it. Thanks  Jon Ascton  (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither is appropriate. If you want to know more about Gandhi's philosophy, see Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi#Gandhi.27s_principles or Gandhism. The reference desk is not the place to ask about what dead political figures would think about modern events. --Jayron32 04:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, how did we do that without having an edit conflict? --Viennese Waltz ^talk 04:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I just say how curious it was that Jon Ascton mentioned the Wright brothers in connection with Gandhi. Why? Because Orville Wright and Mahatma Gandhi both died on 30 January 1948. Smart cookie, Jon. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Gandhi was a bitter opponent of technology and saw it as root of all evil. He also didn't think much of skyscrapers ( preferred people to live in shabby huts like the poor live ). By Wright Brothers I mean all guys who were more or less responsible by building things airplanes. I hope that helps  Jon Ascton  (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No doubt smart, but he probably reads the current day's calendar page everyday....like I do. :) (edit) I guess it is not January 30th today. I've had a long week.10draftsdeep (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

September 3

A story from Sunday school, when I was a Christian

One night, a wife goes to see her lover across the river. She discovered on her way home that she had forgotten her wallet. She begged the boatman to let her go home, but he refused. She had to take a more dangerous route home, across the bridge, on which she encountered a robber, who killed her. We were asked to rank the characters by guilt. (Everyone but me thought that the wife was the most guilty, and that was when I began to question my religion, but anyway...)

I heard the same story in another setting (with the same polling result, btw), so it seems to be a popular teaching device, but does anyone know where it comes from? Has anyone else heard the story? 67.243.7.245 (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard the exact story (but then I am not writing from US or Europe like you {I think} are), but I have heard several stories like this from religious mouths, sometimes even made to look like real-life incidents  Jon Ascton  (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I am curious as to the reasoning behind the people choosing the wife, was it because she was having an affair? I understand that adultery is a sin but I am 100% certain murder is one too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.165.2 (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The bare bones of this story are not dissimilar to the bare bones of the movie Psycho: Woman having a nooner, then steals a client's wad of money, goes to a motel, gets murdered in the shower. That taught her a lesson for sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the story comes from Bible, you are right it was a preacher's technique to start debate and filter out true believers so that he can make clear how to go about planning next lesson. I think Religion and Morality should be separated. If Christianity is on decline in West it is this reason - people can be no longer subjected to guilt by Sexual repression.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. What does this have to do with the question? Aaronite (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The story is made up to teach people a lesson - adultery is bad. I hope that helps Jon Ascton  (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have heard nothing remotely like this in any sunday school. It does not sound like it came from any Christian source. What is your point? Edison (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I heard something fairly similar in a seminar I was made to attend when I was jobless. The premise was similar and the question was essentially the same (it was, IIRC rank the people by true friendship to protagonist). I refused to answer, because it felt dumb being probed by such obvious psychological devices... In any way, I don't think it's from the Bible. TomorrowTime (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not remotely biblical. It's been used as a discussion tool in a lot of places, not just Christian. From a Christian context we were always encouraged to go with the answer that none was worse than the other, for traditional Christian doctrine is supposed to suggest that all sin is equally bad. Steewi (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]}. I don't think that's in any "traditional Christian doctrine" at all. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like an approximation to the Calvinist doctrine of Total depravity, in which all actions, even morally good actions, are wicked in God's sight unless done to the glory of God. I don't know whether you'd call Calvinism "traditional". Marnanel (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This kind of puzzle is sometimes called exercise in pragmatic ethics, or thought experiment in ethics, or moral dilemma, or, on Wikipedia, Ethical dilemma. We have a category thought experiments in ethics, but your example doesn't have its own article. Though I found several versions online, I found nothing on the origin of this particular exercise. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I was also told a very similar story, though it involved more characters; again, ranking the characters from bad to good was to reveal the listerner's personal ethics. But it seemed more of a parlour game than a sermon; the friends who told it to me were Japanese and not Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Y'all are right, the purpose of the story is not to push a particular ethic; it's to allow the class to discuss their own individual ethics. It's a good premise for that. It reminds me a little bit of this hypothesis: "Suppose you go back in time to 1938 and have a foolproof opportunity to kill Hitler. Do you do it?" One answer is, "No, because murder is a sin." Another answer is that, instead of worrying selfishly about your own personal "salvation", you assassinate Hitler and take your chances with God, on the grounds that you've prevented a "greater sin". The catch there is that you don't know what happens in the 1940s if you take Hitler out of the picture. It might even turn out worse than it did. But it's an interesting ethical question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't do it because you might create a grandfather paradox and destroy the entire space-time continuum! Googlemeister (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Point of order: this discussion belongs in the Europe: Twentieth Century forum. Paul (Stansifer) 16:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading that riddle in the novel The Pigman by Paul Zindel There is a river with a bridge over it, and a WIFE and her HUSBAND live in a house on one side. The WIFE has a LOVER who lives on the other side of the river, and the only way to get from one side of the river to the other is to walk across the bridge or to ask the BOATMAN to take you.

One day the HUSBAND tells his WIFE that he has to be gone all night to handle some business in a faraway town. The WIFE pleads with him to take her with him because she knows if she doesn't, she will be unfaithful to him. The HUSBAND absolutely refuses to take her because she will only be in the way of his important business.

So the HUSBAND goes alone. When he is gone, the WIFE goes over to the bridge and stays with her LOVER. The night passes, and dawn is almost up when the WIFE leaves because she must get back to her own home before her HUSBAND returns. She starts to cross the bridge but sees an ASSASSIN waiting for her on the other side, and she knows if she tries to cross, he will murder her. In terror, she runs up the side of the river and asks the BOATMAN to take her across the river, but he wants fifty cents. She has no money, so he refuses to take her.

The WIFE runs back to the LOVER's house and explains to him what the predicament is and asks him for fifty cents to pay the BOATMAN. The LOVER refuses, telling her it's her own fault for getting into the situation. As dawn comes up, the WIFE is nearly out of her mind and dashes across the bridge. When she comes face to face with the ASSASSIN, he takes a large knife and stabs her until she is dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.68.135 (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Absent from that story is who hired the assassin. The husband? In any case sounds like whoever it was should have hired a better one if said asssassin just waits on the other side of the bridge and the wife is able to recognise them as an assassin. And it's not like the wife even seems particularly smart if she still tried to cross the bridge (screw the husband, if an assassin is waiting on me on the other side of a bridge I ain't crossing and of course if it was the husband who hired the assassin, I wouldn't want to return to him). Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I love the reaction of the lover: "Hrmph, what do I care, go get your stupid ass killed, I ain't giving you no 50 cents." I'm betting this story was written solely for the purpose of inciting clandestine feminists into a revealing rage. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Assigning guilt. How Christian.--Wetman (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Was Paul Zindel a Christian? How do you know? Marnanel (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I think that is the story I heard as well. And yes, most people blame the wife because they find adultery the most repugnant. A recent poll of Americans by Time or Newsweek found something similar, I think, when they asked people to rank bad deeds. 67.243.7.245 (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't blame you for questioning your association with people who in this story would find most guilt with the wife. It seems almost like her entire fault is refusing to be treated like chattel. Kinder, Küche, Kirche and all that. TomorrowTime (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Capital punishment

What was the first modern country to abolish capital punishment? --75.33.216.97 (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Take your pick of "modern" from here. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that "modern" means countries that are still around. ----J4\/4 <talk> 12:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

For those who don't have time to read the linked article, it looks like Venezuela in 1863 and San Marino in 1865 although there hadn't been an execution there since 1468. Alansplodge (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no obvious cutoff for "modern," but the article gives a lot of nice dates from the late 19th through the 20th century, so hopefully the original poster can find whatever he or she had in mind in that list. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Far more interestingly . . . I wonder which will be the last. 194.223.35.225 (talk) (Gurumaister not logged in) —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC).

Depends on when people stop murdering each other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it depends on when states decide to behave in a humanitarian fashion by not killing their own citizens. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 05:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The citizens have the right to protect themselves permanently from murderers. Nonetheless, the death penalty is slowly disappearing in the U.S., which is the country that I assume the IP is hinting at. However, there are many other countries around the world where it will remain alive and well for the foreseeable future. Perhaps the IP also considers those countries to be inhumane. Or is he singling out the U.S. for some reason? P.S. With the death penalty non-existent in Europe, your humanitarianism has totally put an end to murder there, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, the OP didn't mention any country, you have imagined that he meant the USA. On your last "point" - abolition of the death penalty isn't about putting an end to murder, it's more about believing that it's wrong to kill, and the impossibility of compensating someone who was wrongfully executed. DuncanHill (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent against murder or not, that is not the point. The point is that it is a bloodthirsty violation of human rights for the state to take a human life. And by the way Bugs, your regulation tiresome sideswipe against IP editors was off beam in this case since the editor took the trouble to note that he has an account but was not logged in when he posted. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 08:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't think Baseball Bugs can be right as I strongly suspect that every country that has stopped using capital punishment still has murders. So it can't, logically be the absence of murder that drives the abolishion of capital punishment. He is also incorrect in thinking that I was hinting at the disappearance of the death penalty in the US either (or was that a reference to Viennese and I am mistaken?). I am British so the US doesn't hold any particular relevance for me. However, I like your logical and rational approach, Baseball Bugs. Viennese Waltz's response was spoiled for me by the inclusion of his/her own emotional opinion - tends to make you wonder about the validity of the rest of their argument. Gurumaister (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Gurumaister, my response was only to give my emotional opinion, I didn't make any attempt to answer the question. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 08:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Viennese, I believe your sarcasm detector might be malfunctioning. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek Voyager

In ST Voyager, what novel is the holosuite program that Captain Janeway partakes in based on please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's Jane Eyre. See "Persistence of Vision". ---Sluzzelin talk 15:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The corresponding article at MemoryAlpha doesn't say anything, though, so I suppose no official source ever confirmed this. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That article does say "The holonovel seems based on elements from Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre, Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca, and Henry James' The Turn of the Screw". ---Sluzzelin talk 16:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, I completely missed that. In an article that short. I have no idea how that happened. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

OP might be talking about the Fair Haven (Star Trek: Voyager) episode. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That episode was centred on the holodeck, but Captain Janeway's fantasy novel referred to by the OP spanned several episodes and was featured in the Persistence of Vision episode mentioned above. Dbfirs 23:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Monarchy of the UK using pwoers unilaterally

Has the monarch of the UK ever used his/her powers unilaterally since the act of union? The monarch can do stuff like appoint hte prime minister, disoolve parliament, call elections etc. Has this ever been done without the consent of parliament since 1707?--92.251.193.180 (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Not all that much in overt formal terms since the Scottish Militia Bill 1708. However, monarchs had a certain degree of influence on which politicians would receive the support of Parliament and so become Prime Ministers well into the 19th century -- and even today, if there was a Commons election with no clear victorious party, the Queen might possibly have a certain discretion as to which party leader to give the first opportunity to try to find a parliamentary majority... AnonMoos (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

See Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom. This says: "The last time the monarch unilaterally dissolved Parliament was in 1835, when Earl Grey resigned as prime minister; although he had a fully functioning cabinet capable of carrying on without him, William IV chose to force it out of office." Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright thanks a lot, OP--92.251.193.180 (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Name of that amazing 'head dancing' seen in India

Does anyone know the term for it? Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In Bharatanatyam it is called shiro bheda (head movements). I'm not that familiar with Indian dance. I do know that head gestures play an important part in other Indian classical dances as well, such as Odissi. Still, I think you're looking for something like this. (Gotta keep that atlas in motion) ---Sluzzelin talk 00:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out in that link, what makes the dance so effectful is the combination of head movements, neck movements (greeva bheda), and eye movements (drishti bheda). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

September 4

Absolute pitch

Hi again all. My music teacher last semester said that it's very likely that I have or could develop with some training the absolute pitch. (This is probably based on I have played piano for almost all my life, I speak a tonal language natively, and both my grandparents have it). I know what it is, but my question is how do I know if I have it, and how can I train or develop it? 99.13.222.181 (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, absolute pitch is genetic, not learned. If you have it, you can develop it; if you don't, you can't. All absolute pitch means, effectively, is that you can recall and reproduce pitch accurately from memory: in other words, if I say "Sing a C", you can produce the correct pitch on cue. easiest way to test if you have absolute pitch is to pick a note on the keyboard, hit it a few times and try to memorize it, and then come back to the keyboard the next day and try to sing the note again, testing it by hitting the same key afterward. If you get it right (or very close) then you likely have it. --Ludwigs2 00:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As always Wikipedia has an article or two about this... Absolute pitch#Nature_vs._nurture, Ear training--Aspro (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

ʃ

last question, I promise! In older English you see the long s. What are the rules about where ot use the long s? I need to use them in a project —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.222.181 (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It was used most places except after another long "s" or at the end of a word. By the way, I don't think you have a real long s character above; our article has "ſ"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The long s looks different in different fonts. While the glyph used above is Unicode U+0283 (Voiceless postalveolar fricative - not to be confused with U+01A9, Esh (letter), or U+222B, Integral symbol), it does have the same look (on my computer) as some of the more script style long s's - like the first one in the Long s article, whereas the actual long s glyph (U+017F) looks more like the one in the Paradiſe Loſt example on that page. (Personally, I prefer it with the Descender, but realize that would be more appropriately handled by changing the font.) -- 174.21.233.249 (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The "ʃ" that you use in the title is or is very similar to what we use in my Phonetics class for the French sound "ch", which is like the English sound "sh". The "ſ" proposed above looks more correct to me. Falconus^{p t c} 04:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The long s stops at the line and has no descender. It is generally used as the first of a pair of s's in a word, or as a single s. The small s started out as the form used at the end of a word. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Family Fable

There is a story of my family that I was always told and was wondering how I can do some (academic) research on the subject. It goes like this: Brigget Von Schyler was to be married in the morning. Alas, her fiance died in an unforeseen carriage wreck in which he drowned. Brigget was consoled by the [insert noble title] and taken into his castle to help with chores. Unbeknownst to Brigget the duke had actually had her fiance killed to take her as his mistress! Buisness being done, Fritz Carl Schyler Raadt is born. Being an illegitimate child, he soon immigrates to Montreal and then to Buffalo, New York in the late 19th century. Fritz's son's son's son's son is me.

Some facts are known, like Fritz was indeed raised at Orebygaard estate and did immigrate to Montreal. His mother was named Brigget. No one, however, knows who his father is.

The story takes yet another mysterious twist when Fritz's grandneice visited Lolland in the 1930's. Upon inspection of the castle she found that the "hall of portraits" was sealed off, unable to compare fritz's photograph with that of the noble-in-question.

Even more interesting, I have recently discovered from a comrade of mine who knows Danish that my last name (Raadt) can be translated 'Advisory Committee,' which seemingly comes from a committee which was convened to name this recently born illegitimate child, and naming him after the committee which was formed to name him.

Altogether quite interesting. I want to know how to get some more facts. Any help would be greatly appreciated! schyler (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

PS. I am posting a related question to translate a letter into Danish to mail to the Bed and Breakfast that now occupies the estate.

Your best bet is to consult Genealogy resources in the area where this is proposed to have happened (See Genealogy#Genealogical_research_process if you haven't already). Frequently the village churches recorded births, deaths, marriages and the like. As you have names of people, you can look them up, to confirm they existed and lived in the appropriate time period. Occasionally, the record will also indicate what people's jobs were, and where they were employed. As the events have to do with a nobleman, there may also be some indication of them in the local paper. Looking up church records and newspaper records may require you visiting the locality in person, though (although a few places have put records online). On this side of the Atlantic, you can double check ship manifests to ensure that Fritz actually immigrated when and from where he said he did, as opposed to making the story up to impress his wife/grandchildren. (Which happens surprisingly often.) (Also, while I wouldn't necessarily recommend pursuing it, I will note that as a direct male-line descendant of Fritz, it would be possible to confirm/disprove the identity of Fritz's father if you could locate a (legitimate) male-line descendant of the nobleman, and apply Genetic genealogy.) -- 174.21.233.249 (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Even more interesting, I have recently discovered from a comrade of mine who knows Danish that my last name (Raadt) can be translated 'Advisory Committee,' which seemingly comes from a committee which was convened to name this recently born illegitimate child, and naming him after the committee which was formed to name him." This sounds highly unlikely. In Danish it would be "Raad" or "Raadet", and I have never heard of a committee being formed to name illegimate children nor that such a committee would name the child after itself. Such a name would sound odd to Danes. I suspect "Raadt" is of Dutch origin, at least there seems to be a lot of people on Google from the Netherlands and South Africa of that name. You may also consider that the name of the ancestor may have been "Birgit" or "Birgitte" or something similar. "Brigget" is not a Danish or German name, in fact I am not sure it is a name at all. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You may also want to check out the Danish Wikipedia article on Orebygaard. It has a list of owners, showing the noble family in question would have to be Rosenørn-Lehn, of which the progenitor was Otto Ditlev Rosenørn-Lehn (1821-29) who was the foreign minister of Denmark for 21 years. Christian IX of Denmark, George I of Greece and Alexander III of Russia was present at his funeral. It is a nice story, but I must say that it often turns out that the truth is a lot more prosaic than the family legends. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Greatest disparity in standard of living between neighboring countries

I was just thinking about differences between San Diego and Tijuana. This made me wonder, which two neighboring countries have the greatest difference in standard of living? My hunch is to say North and South Korea have the greatest difference. Other than these two, what are some other prominent examples? Where would the difference between the US and Mexico rank? Do they have the greatest difference in the Western Hemisphere? (not a homework question, curious) Thanks, 24.62.245.13 (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Gini coefficient measures this. schyler (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. The Gini coefficient measures the income disparity within a country, it's not terribly useful in measuring differences in overall or average standard of living between two different countries. For example, by Gini coefficient, China and the U.S. have comparible values; that doesn't mean that China and the U.S. have the same standard of living, it means that they have a similar "spread" of standard of living within their borders. That is, the difference between the richest and poorest Americans is similar to the difference between the richest and poorest Chinese. What the OP would want to compare is something like GDP per capita or GDP (PPP) per capita. Perusing List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita and the map below will give better results. Using the CIA World Fact Book numbers from the List article, it looks like something like Zimbabwe ($100 per capita) vs. South Africa ($10,100) is a pretty stark difference; it represents a difference of over 100 fold, or 10,000% difference. Using the same set of data, the U.S. ($46,400) vs. Mexico ($13,500), or about a 3.5 fold (about 350%) difference isn't nearly as great. South Korea ($28,000) vs. North Korea ($1,900) is also pretty big at about 15 fold (1,500%).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 4 September 2010

Botswana ($13,100) > Zimbabwe actually gives a higher differential than South Africa > Zimbabwe - at least 130 times, using those figures. Some other interesting differences:

Libya $15,200 > Niger $700 (21.7 times)

Equatorial Guinea $36,600 > Cameroun $2,300 (15.9 times)

Kuwait $54,100 > Iraq $3,600 (15.0 times)

Israel $28,400 > West Bank / Gaza $2,900 (9.8 times)

Oman $23,900 > Yemen $2,500 (9.6 times)

Argentina $13,800 > Paraguay $4,100 (3.4 times)

Instructive ! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Selective service system

Will Barrack Obama remove the selective service system for good in the near future and if not, when will the selective service system be completely be removed and abolished? Is it close to being abolished at the moment? I heard that troops in Iraq were withdrawn so I think that's an indication that selective service system will be abolished. Am I right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.226.126 (talk)

I don't think the connection you're making between the Iraq withdrawal and the Selective Service System is necessarily valid - the USA has concluded many conflicts and undertaken many troop withdrawals since the inception of the system and hasn't removed it. I haven't seen anything to suggest there are any concrete plans to remove the system entirely - the general idea being that it's much easier to keep such a system ticking over without actually conscripting anyone, rather than having to create it again from scratch should conscription become urgently necessary in the future. ~ mazca ^talk 11:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

President Ford ended the selective service in 1975 (largely as a backlash to the Vietnam war), but it was reinstated in 1980 by President Carver (and retroactively applied to most of the people who had been exempt). See Selective Service System#History. So it's not unprecedented for it to be discontinued after a long, unpopular war. However, if I were a betting man (and I don't have a crystal ball, mind you), I wouldn't put money on it. The war in Iraq (unlike Vietnam) was fought by a volunteer army, and there hasn't been any backlash against a draft, because there hasn't been one. Buddy431 (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

But haven't people finally realized conscription is a bad thing and should be completely abolished? I mean Australia and the UK have abolished it. And Australia is a small country no where near the military power of the US and yet they've still abolished it. I don't get why tthe US having one of the strongest military in the world want to keep the selective service. Is there a valid reason for this? Could someone eexplain? And anyways I though US was a modern country that has moved on from conscription where as countries like singapore aren't modern so cconsciprtion hasn't been removed. How come it's been removed in Australia a small country but not in the US? Thanks guys ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.242.18 (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a big difference between actually conscripting people and simply keeping the system active in case of a possible need to conscript people in the future. I'm not sure I take your point that conscription is unambiguously "a bad thing and should be completely abolished" - the reason it's generally been abandoned in recent decades is because there hasn't been a particularly manpower-intensive, wide-ranging war being fought. In World War II, for example, the outcome may have been very different if the USA, Britain, etc had not chosen to implement it. I suspect the US government keeps the Selective Service System around so that, should a massive military problem occur and conscription become necessary again, it could be implemented with minimal difficulty. ~ mazca ^talk 13:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. But Britain has completely abolished it. So if Britain had any plans to bring it back or implement it wouldn't they have done something similar to the US with the selective service and all? They didn't. That's kind of what I'm asking. Britain has abolished it. That suggests people at least in Britain (and don't forget Australia) have moved on from the idea of a draft. Even if a war were to break out the draft wouldn't be reinstalled in Britain would it? So the US keeping it means a lot different. And my other question is more on this "moving on" business. I mean in the middle ages people were so religious they used to prosecute people who dared speak against the church. That's considered ridiculous nowadays. THat will never happen again. And as people become more educated other things like that are changing as well. Like rascism has stopped whereas it was common a few decades ago. Women are now considered equal to men. That kind of thing. WHat I'm asking is does this trend have any likely impact on the idea of conscription? It seems so. Slowly countries are removing the idea of national service and abolishing it by law. Like Spain. SO this means that even if a huge war started, since conscription is abolished by LAW, no one can be conscripted. Will this likely happen in the US? doesn't also the recent revolutions mean that a world war is impossible since people now think more before they act? And my other question was that the US has the biggest military in the world. THey'll be stronger than any other military in the world. So what's the need for having conscription. I can't think of an emergency that would require more than 20 million professional highly trained soldiers.

What makes you think Singapore isn't modern? It's one of the most developed countries in Asia Moreover both China and India have bigger militaries. :/ 76.230.146.8 (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Wysiwyg vs. Wysiwym

Having read the articles, I still don't get why someone will nowadays use the second one. A modern graphical tool for layout could, theoretically, have all options that a non-graphical tool has, and indeed even export the result in Latex. What is wrong about seeing what the output will be?--Quest09 (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

national anthem

I noticed that most national anthems are happy (duh) Are there any sad ones? By sad I don't mean violent because violent can well be jubilant (ie, in La Marseillaise, they sing happily about how their enemies blood will water their fields) Thanks. 76.230.146.8 (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear of one. Hatikvah isn't really a candidate, because as our article says: The harmony of Hatikvah is arranged modally and mostly follows a minor scale, which is often perceived as mournful in tone and is rarely encountered in national anthems. However, as the title "The Hope" and the words suggest, the import of the song is optimistic and the overall spirit uplifting. Marnanel (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Japanese Kimi ga yo is pretty slow and with prolonged vocals. I'm not sure if that counts as "sad", but there you have it. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case, the UK's God Save The Queen would be a candidate - it's not sad, just very boring (my opinion). I personally find Kimi Ga Yo to be a bit more interesting. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

National anthems are (as a rule) a pro-nation celebration of the nation's existence. You might find some different emotional tones (for instance the American national anthem is a bit whiny, IMO), but you're not going to find one that's sad - who'd choose a mournful anthem to celebrate their nation? Club music is danceable, rock music is loud, folk music is acoustic, and anthems are uplifting - that's the genre. --Ludwigs2 16:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If Google is owned by two Jews, why does it include links to antisemitic and racist websites?

This question may be a hoax, a request for criminal assistance, an attempt to create disputes, a request for legal or medical advice, or otherwise against Reference Desk guidelines. Please restrict responses to neutral, factual, sourced statements.

It seems a puzzle. Can anyone explain it?--SuperFeminineState (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)