::Compare [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BerserkerTears Berserker Tears], for emotions other than joy and sadness...Okay, it's only a trope, I've no idea if this happens in real life. Although the article ''does'' have a (short) "real life" section. [[User:Vimescarrot|Vimescarrot]] ([[User talk:Vimescarrot|talk]]) 11:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
::Compare [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BerserkerTears Berserker Tears], for emotions other than joy and sadness...Okay, it's only a trope, I've no idea if this happens in real life. Although the article ''does'' have a (short) "real life" section. [[User:Vimescarrot|Vimescarrot]] ([[User talk:Vimescarrot|talk]]) 11:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I can't find it in a really short Goodle search, but I recall hearing on TV a theory that adults cry when happy, because it's a reminder of a special time in childhood when they really believed "fairy tales could come true" and that there would always be happy endings." Adulthood causes one to realize that isn't always true, so one sheds tears (as I do at times) at times one of those "happy endings" does occur. (Actually our whole family is that way :-) We often joke about wondering who will be the first to get choked up at, say, a wedding toast when we talk about how wonderfully happy we hope the couple will be, etc.)[[User:DTF955|Somebody or his brother]] ([[User talk:DTF955|talk]]) 13:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I can't find it in a really short Google search, but I recall hearing on TV a theory that adults cry when happy, because it's a reminder of a special time in childhood when they really believed "fairy tales could come true" and that there would always be happy endings." Adulthood causes one to realize that isn't always true, so one sheds tears (as I do at times) at times one of those "happy endings" does occur. (Actually our whole family is that way :-) We often joke about wondering who will be the first to get choked up at, say, a wedding toast when we talk about how wonderfully happy we hope the couple will be, etc.)[[User:DTF955|Somebody or his brother]] ([[User talk:DTF955|talk]]) 13:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
::::That's a good explanation. Grown men cried at the end of ''Field of Dreams'' - both on and off the screen. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 14:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
::::That's a good explanation. Grown men cried at the end of ''Field of Dreams'' - both on and off the screen. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 14:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Revisionasof14:13,10March2010
Welcome to the humanities section of the Wikipedia reference desk.
The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
Right up there at the top it says, "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." Discuss. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst that is true, this is not a request for legal advice, merely an invitation to do someone's homework; and DIR (HK) has already dealt with that. --Tagishsimon(talk)10:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It saddens me to see a person studying something to do with the law, who not only goes to anonymous people on the internet for basic information, but also insults them by using a run-on sentence. How long will it be now before we see such an undreamt of thing in an actual law? Oh, I see that's already covered @ Legal writing: Similarly, see Professor Fred Rodell's "Goodbye to Law Reviews," whose opening lines contain the classic statement of the problem: "There are two things wrong with almost all legal writing. One is its style. The other is its content." :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 14:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that could be a letout for a school smartass. The exam paper has the instruction "You must answer all questions", but one of the "questions" is "The Second World War was a good thing for the film industry. Discuss." -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Word War
Is it true that during WW1 the British had plans to tell the Germans on the battle field via loudspeakers, jokes so funny that it would incapacitate them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetterindi (talk • contribs) 09:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is no, but the Germans did seriously consider that the British sense of humour gave us a tactical advantage. Brits tend to make a joke out of a bad situation, which may make it more endurable. A German staff textbook published just after WWI includes a reprint of a Bruce Bairnsfather cartoon to illustrate the point. "Old Bill" is sitting in the ruins of a house and a younger soldier asks him what had made the large holes in the walls. Bill replies "mice". The textbook felt it necessary to state that it wasn't mice but shells that had made the holes, just in case any German officers didn't understand the gag. You're going to ask me for sources now aren't you? Alansplodge (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Make sure he's dead" (A British bren gunner near Osterbeek 1944 upon shooting a german out of a tree and seeing him run over by a tank) "They'll send a hearse next" (A british engineer in Arnhem 1944 after two SS attacks by commandeered vehicles, the first trucks, the second ambulances)--92.251.205.84 (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bestsellers lists
Is there a catalogue (publicly available online hopefully) of the New York Times bestseller lists? Similarly for the Amazon book rankings? I'd like something that can be cited in Wikipedia articles about books. (I don't want a URL of the current lists, which change every day.) Staecker (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did bother to look (not at Wikipedia though). I have a hard time trusting such a ridiculous looking webpage as http://www.hawes.com/no1_f_d.html. Any more RS than that? Like from NYT itself? (Also one which includes trade paperbacks?) How about Amazon? Staecker (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The War
Why did the Allies allow Germany to continue taking land when they knew exactly what he was planning because he's written it all in his book Mien Kamp? Why wasn't there preemptive action? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candercore1 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People often forget that Britain and France are democracies. In 1938, the idea of another world war was hugely unpopular. Chamberlain was doing the will of the people. Most were relieved that war had been apparently averted - very few thought he was making a mistake at the time[1].
Just a note for the OP, the book's title is Mein Kampf. Take special notice of the order of the vowels in "Mein". The german language puts the vowel that is heard/pronounced/etc second. So, "mein" sounds like the english word "mine" and if there was a word such as "mien" then it would sound like the english word "mean". Dismas|(talk)15:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dismas's rule is sort of true, from an English speaker's perspective, but only for the letter combinations ie and ei. Neither eu nor au in German is pronounced like the English u. Marco polo (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I thought that and it was originally typed with capitals E and G but then I changed it thinking that I was wrong. Arg. Dismas|(talk)20:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, lets not forget that Germany in the 1930s were scaring the s*** out of everyone. Everyone knew that a war with Germany would be absolutely catastrophic. Sure, it seems stupid in hindsight to give the Sudentenland to Hitler, but if you are faced with the option of either doing that, or going to World War II, suddenly the decision is much harder. It was still a dumb thing to do though, the European powers should have realized that they were going to WWII no matter what. But we have to remember that hindsight is 20/20, and it's a lot harder to play hardball when you're eyeball to eyeball with the Wehrmacht. Belisarius (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question does not have any root in the logic of ethics. If a killer shoots person #1 and person #2 in a crowd, and an armed bystander watches and does nothing, then that's morally and ethically wrong, most people would agree; but it does not make it "not just" for the armed bystander to attack the killer when the killer shoots person #3. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also note than Mein Kampf is not a book that can be read. It's so boring, incoherent, and badly written that it would need a very dedicated intelligence officer to actually plow through. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made it through about half, but, I agree, he was no brilliant author (which seems odd, since he was a good public speaker). StuRat (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Allies needed to reoccupy the Rhineland when Germany first started to remilitarized it in 1936. This would have been in accordance with the WWI treaty, and the Nazi party would have been disgraced for losing the Rhineland, and forced out of office. By the time Hitler started invading his neighbors, they were indeed a real threat, with no easy solution. StuRat (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One explanation is simply that the Allies had no choice. They didn't have the military power to stop Germany any sooner than they did. All the time they were appeasing Germany they were preparing for war. They knew perfectly well that it was very likely to end up with a big war, whatever they did. --Tango (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, I'd say they could have won early on, but couldn't later, as Germany was able to rearm far faster than them (England and France). Only the addition to the Allies of the US and, even moreso, the Soviet Union, pushed the balance of power in the Allies' favor. StuRat (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Winston Churchill, an authority on the subject, disagreed strongly with Tango's assertion that the Allies could not have stopped Germany sooner; he wrote at length about this in his six-volume work The Second World War. I read the 1-volume condensed version, which I recommend (and which I suspect StuRat may have read). See Hitler's quote in our Remilitarization of the Rhineland article: The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance.Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that that article quotes Hitler as having said that after the war (it says Heinz Guderian said it in an interview after the war, and then also Hitler later said it). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)02:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is interesting. While I don't have the source in question so can't verify it, I have gone ahead and removed the word "later". Anyone with a reliable source regarding Hitler's appearance at a seance are welcome to revert me! --Tango (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Hitler and Mein Kampf, one interesting point is that the English translations of the time abridged it, leaving out much of the "good parts." The USA was lucky to be led by FDR, fluent in German, who read the original and understood early on what a wild and crazy guy Hitler was.John Z (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that not a single member of British Military Intelligence could speak a word of German? No-one in France? No-one in any other country? Are you suggesting that the only person outside of German borders who could speak German was the US President? (Plus, if your assertion is correct, his unique ability to speak German would only have allowed him to be able to read the "good parts" - what sort of an advantage would that give him?) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)12:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly there were people in those countries who read German, but having someone tell you what they claim it says is not the same as reading it for yourself. If Chamberlain had read Mein Kampf in German, perhaps he would have agreed with Churchill and avoided making deals with Hitler. StuRat (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While that's true in a pure free market economy, the price of food is often regulated by governments, through the use of price supports and other mechanisms. There the price is more likely to be set based on what people can afford to pay or what they've historically paid. StuRat (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about livestock futures? Or just buying and selling of individual cows through sales from one farmer to another or possibly during a cattle auction? I took the OP's question to be referring to the latter. In which case, I would think it would vary depending on the genetics of the cow and what the local market for such an animal is. Dismas|(talk)23:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We had a similar question in the past. Markets are the answer. Within that market, the factors that generally matter for cattle are what variety they are, as in dairy cattleorbeef cattle, and their weight. Other factors can include grade, such as grass fed, veal, or other variations. Shadowjams (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deflation
I've read a bunch of articles lately that state that the crisis that Greece is going through right now has a very real risk of leading to deflation (this article most recently), but no one has explained to me why that is. I mean, Greece's currency is the euro, and what I've always been taught is that deflation is the opposite of inflation, i.e. a steady increase in the value of money. But the euro isn't going to deflate, it's backed by an entire continent. So how can there be deflation in Greece and not the rest of the Eurozone when they have the same currency?
Thinking this through, the explanation I've come up with myself is that locally in Greece what will happen is that you will suddenly be able to buy more and more stuff with the same amount of money (which is the definition of deflation, I guess). This will happen since general demand for stuff will decrease, and thus the prices of that stuff will decrease along with it, starting a deflationary spiral. But isn't the whole point of having a monetary union that the rest of the union will compensate and "fill in the gap", so to speak. If I'm a guy in Germany looking to buy grapes (or whatever Greece exports), wouldn't I make a killing buying from Greece instead of, say, France, because of the extremely low prices they're having? And wouldn't that increase in exports pretty much make up for the lack of demand and put a stop to the deflationary spiral? Can someone explain this to me?
(I should say, the reason I'm asking this question is mostly because I'm grouchy. When the politicians were selling us on the euro, one of their primary arguments was that since the whole continent was backing the currency it would be very stable, and things like deflation and hyperinflation wouldn't happen. I'm starting to suspect that I was lied to) Belisarius (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greece is likely to face deflation, but this deflation will have only a modest effect on consumer prices. There are two ways of defining deflation: 1) a drop in prices; and 2) a drop in the money supply, which in turn tends to lead to lower prices. There will most likely be a drop in the money supply, because government spending will have to drop relative to GDP, and GDP is likely to fall as well as the government's contribution to it falls. This is likely to lead to a drop in certain prices. The prices that are most likely to be affected are 1) the prices of labor in Greece and 2) the prices of real estate in Greece. As you say, tradable goods and services are unlikely to fall in price because a stable money supply and stable wages elsewhere in the euro zone will provide strong support for those prices. So Greeks are not likely to see the cost of food or fuel drop by much. An exception would be goods that are not produced much outside of Greece, such as perhaps retsina. The prices for domestic goods are likely to drop somewhat. The result of the falling price of Greek labor (largely as a consequence of rising unemployment) would be that Greek firms, or firms producing in Greece, will be able to gain market share by offering lower prices on exports. Also, Greek producers are likely to gain market share within Greece over producers from other parts of the euro zone for the same reason. That should slowly help the Greek economy to recover. The downside for most Greeks is that their income would be falling, but, apart from the cost of housing, their cost of living would not fall by much. This would result in a drop in the standard of living for many Greeks. This form of deflation has already happened in Latvia (see this blog post), which faced a serious financial crisis in 2008. (See 2008-2009 Latvian financial crisis.) Because its currency is pegged to the euro, it has had to confront the crisis in the same way that a country within the euro zone, such as Greece, would have to confront it. This is largely a matter of gaining competitiveness by forcing domestic prices down, a process that has also been called an internal devaluation. This term is used because the solution to the crisis before the introduction of the euro would probably have been a devaluation of the currency. The internal devaluation accomplishes much the same thing. Marco polo (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that arbitrage is a strong force against asymmetric price changes (both inflationary and deflationary) across the euro area. Still, we see (large) differences in both absolute prices and price changes today. Distance is still a factor (the chance of a Slovenian buying an X-box in the Netherlands is pretty slim, even if the price difference is €40[2][3], even though it's legal.) Probably less of a difference than if all countries still had their own currency, though those who believe independent monetary policy is important may even disagree on that. Politicians tend to exaggerate 'less of a difference' into 'complete and enduring stability.' That doesn't mean they technically lie, they're just doing their job.
This is the answer to your first question, and the politician's thing. Given the fact that price differences do exist, and they're larger for perishable (food) and non-tradeable (haircuts) goods than for things like an xbox, it's at least possible that Greece will go into deflation.
There's several factors that could contribute to deflation in Greece. The simplest economic explanation is when demand goes down (due to putting a halt to the extensive borrowing by their successively more spend-happy governments), ceteris paribus, prices will go down. Of course, things do change in the meantime, and this is where the Euro comes in. With independent monetary policy, a country's central bank could simply change the money supply to prevent deflation. With the euro, it's the question what independent market forces will do with the share of euros that is allocated in Greece at the moment. On a basic level, you would expect interest rates to go down in deflation (more people want to save, fewer people want to borrow) which would decrease the attractiveness of Greece vis-à-vis other countries to invest one's euros in, which would decrease the money supply, which makes things worse. Does this have a lot of effect on the rest of the euro area? I doubt it. User:Krator (tc) 19:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ecX2) I agree with you, mostly. While there could be periods of deflation, particularly in areas where prices were higher than most, I wouldn't expect a deflationary spiral, unless Greece is able to pull the whole EU down with it. However, certain sectors of the economy, like real estate, could suffer such a fate, as cheap homes in Greece can't easily be moved to other countries and sold, so an oversupply of houses could indeed lead to a deflationary spiral in the real estate market. There would still be a limit, however, as eventually people from other countries (such as retirees) might start moving to Greece to take advantage of the low prices, and thus prop up real estate values. You might also get foreign speculators who don't intend to live in Greece themselves, but think it likely that Greek real estate prices will recover, allowing them to make a tidy profit. Similarly, if Greek wages remain depressed, more Greeks and resident aliens may choose to work outside of Greece, and fewer people from outside Greece would go there to work, rebalancing the local oversupply of labor. StuRat (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that, even if many Greeks were to emigrate in search of work elsewhere in Europe, wages would be unlikely to rise much on average in Greece in the near term. The reason is that productivity levels in Greece are low. (See this report.) A firm that raised wages in Greece without first achieving productivity gains would quickly price itself out of the market. Firms producing in Greece are more likely to invest in productivity-enhancing equipment or software than they are to bid up wages in response to a hypothetical labor shortage. Marco polo (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I most certainly am. I've been going around mulling over the answers in my head, and it really has clarified things. This is why the refdesk rocks :) Belisarius (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Style of play from a chess computer opponent?
I do not play chess, but I often play Othello with humans and sometimes with the Othello software called WZebra. When playing WZebra, it is very noticible that the moves are made apparantly chaotically all over the board, often in what would normally be seen as unsafe positions, yet it nearly always wins. Human opponents, on the other hand, keep their pieces together more in a more ordered and less chaotic-looking way.
Playing all over the board is actually a good technique during the early game because it gives you influence over the entire board. If you watch some really good players, you'll probably find they do the same. There have been comments about different playing styles between computers and humans (see here for a particularly well known example). --Tango (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, for anyone who wants to beat a computer at chess at difficult settings, the way to do it is to use your strategic and positional knowledge, as this is impossible to program algorithmically. We just have absolutely no way to program inductive logic into a computer like fuzzy concepts of "openness" and such. So, the way to do it is to make small token sacrifices for position early on in the game, for example trading a bishop for a knight but leaving the computer with their rooks and knights completely locked in, effectively removing them from play for a while. The computer will always take the best move purely on points, it can never realize that a whole section of the board is really "closed" to them. Another example: unless a computer programmer EXPLICITLY programmed it into their program logic, they would never realize that in the endgame if they only have a bishop of one color, and all of your pieces are on the other color, then while that's true, the biship is effectively DEAD strategically. So, if you want to beat the computer, make offers such as making an exchange that seems great for the computer, but in fact leavse them in a very closed position: their bishop is on the wrong color; they can only move their pieces to a few different positions, and so on. One thing you can do if you're playing against a mobile phone or something else that can't look ahead that deep, is get the checkmate together "out of the blue" for example with two knights and two bishop, where until you make the checkmate none of them are "in position". A mobile phone's computer can't look ahead far enough to see that you can do it (for example repeatedly checking them or forking a very valuable piece with their knight). I have ALWAYS been able to beat ALL of my mobile phone chess games using strategies like the above. The most important thing is to remember HOW a computer thinks, which is with a look-ahead tree that is ONLY able to give a score to each position, based on things that have been EXPLICITLY programmed into it, which is 98% of the time just points for material, and maybe slight modifications for doubled pawns and so on.
Oh yeah one more thing: get them out of the opening book, since they will end up with a better position since they probably have a better database of opening book moves than you have memorized. Instead, make an early offer of your big pieces for their poor position, which they will take, and then exploit it fiercely along the lines I've mentioned. If you play right, then you will find yourself quickly having traded all your pieces, but the checkmate doesn't come together. So you start over: quickly trading in your pieces for position, and again, they evade the checkmate, so you have to start over. A few times doing this and you learn to realize how far ahead the computer looks, and then WHAM, you trade a few pieces for position, but htey don't SEE that, at all, and you just have them cornered. They play SO dumb with respect to position, you just have to make sure on a pure point basis they're always making the moves that get them "ahead". It's kind of like how these people who always try to save every last penny end up eating and having nothing but crap around their house. The computer is always trying to get every last point, down to always taking the bishop for their knight (ALWAYS), even though it ends up with nothing but crap in its fridge. 82.113.121.94 (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article by Kasparov [4] Briefly mentions that computers play "prejudice and doctrine", and suggests that humans that train against computers player better than those who grew up playing against other humans. APL (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Modern computer chess programs can beat even the world's best chess players. The kind of tricks you describe don't work any more. --Tango (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I said "at difficult settings", I was referring to everyday chess programs you or I or anyone here might download and use. They do work against these kinds of programs. 82.113.121.104 (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rybka, the current computer chess world champion, is available for download for anyone that wants it and will run effectively on a typical modern laptop. I think it costs money, but not an enormous amount. --Tango (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think good chess computer programs play as differently from people as good Othello programs. The reason is that something like Othello can be approached using a brute force strategy, where you simply look at all possible moves and outcomes, to a certain depth, and evaluate them based on a point system (more points for corners and secured adjacent edges, for example). This is possible because of the relatively few moves avaiable each turn in Othello. Chess, on the other hand, has too many moves available each turn for this approach to work well, so the chess program must adapt a method of thinking more like what a human uses, looking at board position more and relying on brute computing power less. StuRat (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Were the British situated in Gibraltar, able to prevent all movements of Axis ships between the Atlantic and the Meditteranean? Or could Axis ships get through, either by taking a chance on not gettting hit by a shell, or sneaking past undetected at night? Thanks 89.243.198.135 (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree its interesting, and I did read it and some of its links, but it unfortunately does not give any information relevant to the question. 89.240.63.162 (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section titled "Mediterranean U-boat Campaign: 1941 - 1944" does. This article agrees: of 62 U-boats that tried to sneak through, 9 were sunk, and 21 aborted either due to being damaged or because their commanders thought it was too risky. The rest got through, but were all eventually either sunk or scuttled in the Mediterranean. I infer from this that no German surface ships tried it. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Under the heading "Mediterranean U-boat Campaign: 1941 - 1944", the article states that the Germans sent 60 U-boats into the Mediterranean during that 3-year period. Of these, nine were sunk and ten were damaged. So some U-boats were able to get through the strait, but at a heavy risk. As for surface shipping, I agree with you that our article fails to address it. After doing some research on the web, I found this article and this one, both of which indicated that the British imposed a blockade on the Strait of Gibraltar. Their unbroken possession of Gibraltar would have enabled them to impose an effective blockade of the Mediterranean throughout the war. Certainly, they would have patrolled the straits at night. Even the primitive British radar of 1939 would have allowed them to detect an approaching ship, regardless of visibility. They would not just have shelled a ship attempting to enter the Mediterranean without making for the port of Gibraltar, they would have launched aerial bombers and would probably have sent a destroyer or other fast combat ship to pursue it. Marco polo (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, the Germans would just as easily have been able to 'enter' the Mediterranean from the shores of their ally, Italy, as well as from any Mediterranean port in any German-occupied country. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)02:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, in the movie they planned to pass through the strait while underwater; they only ran on the surface because they were detected and therefore wanted maximum speed. --Anonymous, 05:44 UTC, March 6, 2010.
Germans could certainly enter the Mediterranean from Italy or Vichy France, but they could not travel between the Mediterranean and any other sea, except perhaps the Black Sea. Marco polo (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)Of course, which is where their northern European shores came in handy. Considering Germany placed more emphasis on land and air forces and not so much on shipping, Gibraltar was not a huge priority for basically the entire war (and became progressively less so as the situation in the East worsened, and after the Italians surrendered). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)13:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Italian submarines also passed the opposite direction, and several operated in the Atlantic from a base in France (Bordeaux, from memory). Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ownership of Language
Is it true that some Americans call English "American" and instead of English classes they have "American classes"? Are there any other cases of this happening with other languages, for example people who speak French in Africa calling it "African" instead of French? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faller999 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No.
Occasionally we'll call the language "American" as a joke (Typically to parody over-zealous patriotism, but occasionally just to irritate British people.), but never in any serious context. APL (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yes, cases exist. The most famous example is Afrikaans, which developed from 17th century Dutch.
Actually the『español』/ "castellano" divide is much more varied and subtle than Kvasir states; the article he linked to does a good job of explaining. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm American and have never heard of any student taking "American classes". And yes, we do use the term "American" but like what's been said, it's usually just to rile the speakers of British English. Additionally, software when it has a language preference will often have a choice of either American or British English. Dismas|(talk)00:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from an ill-educated few, Americans do not refer to their language as "American" except to make a point, humorous or otherwise, as H.L. Mencken did when he titled his book The American Language. That said, I think most Americans do have a sense of ownership of the English language. Unlike some denizens of England, we do not claim exclusive ownership. We recognize that native speakers in other countries (including, for example, Australia) have an equally legitimate claim on our common language. While we call our language "English" and recognize that it originated in England before spreading to America some 400 years ago, I don't think that most Americans would agree that the present-day English "own" the language. Marco polo (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. We Brits sometimes call the language spoken by Americans "American" in order to insult Americans and say that you aren't speaking English properly. --Tango (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"American" as a language is only used as a joke, or as a juxtaposition with Commonwealth English. I've never heard of an actual language class called "American" as opposed to "English". Shadowjams (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction is made in French. As a book collector who has occasionally bought French editions of works, I have noticed that translations from British-English authors (e.g. Arthur C. Clarke) often carry on the verso something like "Traduit par l'Anglaise," whereas translations from American-English authors (e.g. Robert Heinlein) sometimes carry "Traduit par l'Americain." [Precise wording uncertain as I don't have any actual examples readily to hand - I might update later.] Personally I think this would be a useful distinction to introduce, as it might help to defuse arguments by ill-educated users of either variety that variations characteristic of the other are "wrong" (unless the two are being improperly mixed). No disrespect need be implied by acknowledging genuine differences. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of English who are just as capable of butchering the language as any American, and the arrogant comments by Colin Fine and Tango prove my point about the perverse desire of the English for exclusive rights to the English language. In fact, the English benefit from sharing their language with the Americans, since it would otherwise be just another rather unimportant European language of a former colonial power. Marco polo (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think comments by two editors "prove" anyone's point. As another Brit, I wouldn't take their opinions too seriously - any more seriously than I would take the views of anyone who thinks that Americans are more "important" than anyone else. ;-} Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Traduit de l'anglais is what I'd expect to see. — A French-speaker once asked me whether the book in my hands was "English or American". I said I didn't know. Later I noticed that the story called a vehicle's hood a bonnet. —Tamfang (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it would seem, or at least he wrote it down. My Webster's gives several definitions for the noun form of "American" and the last of them states it as a short form of "American English", which has a separate entry in the dictionary, a few entries down the page. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite know where to post this, but it belongs to 87.81s comment on the usage of l'Americain in French. The same specific usage exists in German, where you occasionally see『Aus dem Amerikanischen übersetzt』("translated from American"). [5] ---Sluzzelintalk02:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
March 6
Violence in Congress?
Did any US Senator or Congressman ever carry a gun onto the Senate or House floor? If so, did he ever shoot anyone? Did Senators or Congressmen ever get into a fist fight on the chamber floor or could they have been charged with assult for something they did in their official capacity in Congress? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough this google search with the phrase "fistfight in congress" turns up a wealth of information. The second linke titled " Ready to Rumble: Greatest Fistfights of the U.S. Congress " kicks up Wikipedia's spam filter, so I can't link it, but its a GREAT article that catalogues exactly what you are looking for. As far as shooting goes, Wikipedia has two articles on shooting incidents in the Capitol, both linked under United States Capitol shooting incident. --Jayron3205:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikipedia based in mainland China? I read the first few paragraphs of Wikipedia but it doesn't say. I'm just asking because that's where I've heard of these kinds of pointless censorship stories coming from before. 82.113.121.104 (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how you can say that "Wikipedia is not censored, however links to certain websites are forbidden". Isn't that akin to saying, "Wikipedia is not censored, however explicitly spelling out certain vulgar terms such as shit, fuck, cunt, and so on, is forbidden." That means you can ALLUDE to these terms, you just can't spell f-u-c-k. You can ALLUDE to a certain web site, you just can't spell h-t-t-p-:-/-/-w-w-w-.-t-h-e-s-i-t-e-.-c-o-m". Look at the above example that made me ask whether Wikiepdia is based in mainland China. The person said: "its a GREAT article that catalogues exactly what you are looking for". However, despite the fact that person WANTS to be able to mention what they're talking about, they CAN'T. It is forbidden to write the explicit mention, leaving the person unable to communicate what they want. Sorry, this is the definition of censorhip. 82.113.121.104 (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. Googling "fistfight in congress" and clicking the link titled "Ready to Rumble: Greatest Fistfights of the U.S. Congress" you will see that the article fits none of your criteria. Not being allowed to mention it, so that I have to vaguely allude to it, is pure censorship in its most unadulterated form: you are forbidden from saying it, so you allude to it. It is not "censorship" of spam sites or copyright violations, which could almost make sense. It is senseless, pure censorship with no justification. 82.113.121.88 (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is censored only in the sense that it is censored by US law. This is because Wikipedia's servers (the computers that store Wikipedia's database) are in Florida and thus those servers are subject to US law. (And, I guess, to Florida law as well.)
For example, we're not allowed to repeat copyrighted works verbatim unless we give credit, and then only for fair use. Similarly, we're not allowed to publish links to sites that do repeat copyrighted works verbatim. That's all that Jayron32 was saying. But there are many things that we, by consensus, have decided not to allow. See WP:NOT for examples. Therefore when we say the Wikipedia is not censored, we mean that Wikipedia is not censored as a group but we are severely self-censored in what we will allow others to publish through Wikipedia.
I've always been a bit worried that Wikipedia could be censored for real. Let's say Congress passed a law making it illegal to "cause others to view the American government with contempt" during the War on Terrorism. (Asimilar law was passed in WWI.) Would we be allowed to report fully on the Pentagon Papers during the injunction, when the NY Times was not? Sometimes I wish that Wikipedia's servers were spread all over the world, so that that action of any one government could not overturn Wikipedia's consensus. What if the Wikipedia servers happened to be located in China? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@82.113: The link you are talking about is on the site Associated Content. That entire site irrespective of content has been blocked since March 2008 as a spam site, in that anybody can post there and get paid to do so. It is therefore 100% under the rubric mentioned at WP:ELNEVER. This is a blocking a site, not particular content: it is not censorship. --ColinFine (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The caning of Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks in 1856 was an extremely notorious public incident at the time, and contributed to tensions between the U.S. north and south in the years preceding the Civil War. There's also a famous early illustration (ca. 1800) showing one Congressman attacking another with fireplace tongs, but I'm not sure what search keywords to use to turn it up... AnonMoos (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So. The bottom line in answering my first two questions as originally stated is no. The closest thing involving a firearm on the chamber floor was in 1850, when Senator Foote pointed a pistol at Senator Benton. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only asked if Senators or Congressmen themselves had ever carried or shot a gun on the chamber floor. The 1954 incident is about four visitors in the gallery firing guns. No Congressman shot back.
The answers to my questions are: (A) so far as "carry", there are too many legislators to count (especially in "the old days") that carried firearms as a matter of course and (B) so far as "shoot", no federal legislator ever shot a firearm while in Congress. The closest was Foote, who pointed a gun at Benton. I suppose that, if it happened today, Foote would be up on DC assult charges, suspended from his seat and, if convicted, tossed out of Congress. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, Senator Jim Webb may be packing heat at any given time, without apology. I wonder if there's a specific rule forbidding a Senator taking a loaded gun into the Senate chamber? —KevinMyers18:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And note that the long scale, formerly use by the British, is being phased out, so a billion is 1000 million to almost everyone, now. StuRat (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding the long scale is rarely used in English speaking countries but is still used in some European non English speaking countries Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Information on Instant Messenger Use
Can anyone suggest a group or organization that has tracked or estimated the total number of users of various instant messaging clients? I'd be particularly interested in comparable and recent data.NByz (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems Wikipedia has - there's a chart in our article Instant messaging with estimates for numbers of users, and it looks like a sourced chart. Maybe following the source links will help you? Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
History Channel Documentaries
The History channel (or the Hitler channel as it's become known because it shows nothing but world war two documentaries) shows a lot of old documentaries made in the 50s and 60s. My question is, are these documentaries still factually correct to this day? Have new things about the war been discovered that would discredit a documentary made in the 50s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agitable (talk • contribs) 11:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In some ways they may actually be better, as more of the people from the events were still alive to be interviewed. Over time, certain myths tend to develop, and lacking any first-hand witnesses left alive to counter them, they tend to spread. However, you do need to be aware of the politics of the time. For example, they might well minimize the contributions of the Soviet Union to defeating Nazi Germany, for fear of being called before called before the House Un-American Activities Committee.
On the other hand, news programs actually made during WW2 are likely to be pure propaganda. For example, they referred to the Germans and Japanese, in an offical news program, as "Huns" and "Nips". If they can't even avoid racial slurs like that, I'd have very little faith in the accuracy of any of the facts stated.
Now for the advantages of modern programs. In addition to being in color and having better special effects, they may also have access to some info that was unknown earlier on. This is particularly true when dealing with nuclear weapons and other military secrets, where all records were sealed for many decades. The collapse of the Soviet Union also brought about the release of many Soviet records which were formerly kept secret. So, I'd watch some of each, old and new, to get both perspectives on history. StuRat (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With due respect to the people who answered the OP, it should be mentioned that, in fact, the History Channel does NOT show "a lot" or even ANY documentaries made in the 1950s and 1960s. A contrary example would be most surprising. For one thing, you don't get ratings with old shows like that, which is why they end up on PBS only. 63.17.74.113 (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment directly, since I don't subscribe to that channel, but would suggest that the much lower cost of an older show might make it a good choice, especially when viewership is low, like late at night. Compare with how Nickelodeon airs new shows during the day and reruns of much older shows during Nick at Night. StuRat (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When exploring any type of Historical commentary, be it documentary (on any channel), book, periodical ... the trick is to keep in mind that "history" tends to be written with the author's adjendas and perspectives influencing the content, no matter how "non biased" they try to be. People write history and people always have a point of view. Although the personal interviews in the older documentaries might be more "accurate" because memory is fresher, studies have shown that everyone's memory tends to be selective on a sub-concious level. There's no doubt that they would be better detailed, but they'd likely have focused on what they NEEDED to learn about while the event was occuring, rather than the bigger picture. We remember what is important to ourselves as individuals. And although the newer documentaries may have information never seen before (and has more value as it fleshes out concepts not explored as deeply before), there is bound to be restriction somewhere that limits how much of that new information you are getting, which also effects how you understand what is being expressed. The trick is to learn what you can, sift out the obviously biased or incomplete information and then process it all yourself to give yourself your own ideas about what happened. And I do subscribe to the History channel, and they like to explore issues from a number of different perspectives, older and younger ... which is why it's my favourite channel to watch.
It's a complicated question - see Novel#History. As the article shows, the answer depends on how you define "novel", but it gives a number of examples starting from about 1,000 years ago. (Naturally, there are long written stories from muchearlier as well. And no one is able to date the earliest non-written stories.) Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it -- they're non-linguistic (i.e. not true writing), and the strong probability is that they were about people's immediate lives, not convoluted fictional narratives... AnonMoos (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would have to predate Satyricon, which by any definition is a novel. It would be hard to believe that novels are not as old as all lengthy transcribed literature. Why wouldn't they be? Nothing distinguishes transcribed verse from transcribed narrative except that the former might have been handed down generationally; but the fact of it being "traditional" doesn't preclude other transcription of "original" contemporary work, including prose. Certainly in the thousands of years of (now lost) Ancient Egyptian literature someone wrote someting that was an extended narrative unclassifiable as poetry. It's a "modern"-cultural bias, fostered by uneducated journalists and high school teachers and so on, that novels are a recent genre. Again: was Satyricon a once-in-a-millennium fluke? I don't think so. 63.17.74.113 (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I missed something while reading, but I can't get one thing. I know that Jesus' genealogy is traced back to David because he is the foretold Messiah. But firstly, unlike Jesus, David is the earthly king while Jesus repeatedly criticised the high classes of Jewish society (Pharisees, Sadducees) and its customs (Shabbat, etc). Besides, Jesus emphasizes that "Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me"Mt. 11:6 (i.e. one who would not regard Jesus as an earthly king to restore the independece of Jewish state) and essentially affirms his unearthly originMt. 12:48. Jesus also knew who would be actually responsible for his crucifixion, but is still regarded as being from the David line. Thoughts on why is that? Brand[t] 16:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the problem is. Jesus needs to be in David's line to fulfill various prophecies as the Messiah, but he certainly never used his lineage to try to claim any (earthly) power. Correct me if I'm wrong, but his lineage from David is never mentioned by Jesus or anybody else in the narratives of his life. Keeping his followers (and everybody else) in the dark about his lineage would be consistent with your reading of Mt 11:6. I think it makes a lot of sense to assume that none of those who would be responsible for the crucifixion knew about Jesus's lineage. Staecker (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the relevant place: Mt 22:41-46, particularly: "If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?". It looks like in that place Jesus says that the God can not be a human descendant, neglecting the genealogy once more. So the issue is why Jesus had not incarnated from a virgin without Davidian background to avoid being David's offspring by flesh and ultimately evade such complications? The only reason I assume is providential, that Davidian background was necessary to be successfully charged and crucified, but that's a bit odd. Brand[t] 18:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Staecker, Jesus was referred to as a "Son of David" various times. Matthew starts his Gospel, “A record of the origin of Jesus Christ, the son of David ..". He’s also referred to this way in Matthew 9:27 and Luke 18:39. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are vastly under-estimating the number of people who can claim Davidian background. with ruling elites, it is generally sufficient to be able to trace background to near relatives (bothers, sisters, first cousins) and over the course of a dozen generations there might literally be tens of thousands of people who can claim to be descendants of David. Add that the hebrew culture tended towards extended clan-type organization, and you can increase the numbers. it might have been difficult to find someone who couldn't trace some ancestry back to David if they tried hard enough. --Ludwigs218:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't see any contradiction. Suppose we are around 33BC and somebody wants to criticize the high class of his Jewish society: it works much better if he can boast a good pedigree including, in direct line, Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, David and Salomon (and God himself). It should put him on a sort of authoritative position (like saying: "Of course I know what is written, 'cause my father himself wrote it"). --pma19:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It looks like by Davidian reference Jesus proved his authority for Jews in particular, while universally that claim is useless. Brand[t] 20:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Christianity started out as a Jewish sect, and early Jewish Christians might have claimed that Jesus was descended from David to enhance the authority of Jesus among their fellow Jews. Marco polo (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Jesus also knew who would be actually responsible for his crucifixion" wrote the OP. Q: Oh, really? Who was? If you don't know, how can you say that Jesus knew? 63.17.74.113 (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When did fictional works about space travel first start to be written? It seems like a very new concept, the last 100 years ago at most. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventiant (talk • contribs) 19:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's necessary to clarify whether the question is about space travel or extraterrestrial travel. We now know that those are the same thing, but when Lucian of Samosata was writing about people going to the Moon, he assumed they'd have air to breathe all the way. Only once people had the concept of the vacuum of space could they write stories about traveling through it, as Verne did.
--Anonymous, 01:37 UTC, March 7, 2010.
And let's not forget Ol' big nose'sComical History of the States and Empires of the Moon, written in 1657. Methods of space travel suggested by Bergerac include smearing yourself with bone marrow, so the moon will pull you up. Obviously. FiggyBee (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oy... Jules Verne was really the first author who wrote anything remotely resembling science fiction space travel, and you're probably not going to find anything comparable after that until the 1940s or '50s, when the big scifi boom started. unless you consider topical bone marrow or glued on feathers to be scientifically credible, that is... --Ludwigs206:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And adding a few at random to Gandalf61's list, Percy Greg's Across the Zodiac 1880, Robert Cromie's A Plunge into Space 1890, John Jacob Astor IV's A Journey in Other Worlds 1894, Garrett P. Serviss's Edison's Conquest of Mars 1898 and A Columbus of Space 1910, George Griffith's A Honeymoon in Space 1901, Mark Wicks' To Mars via the Moon 1910, etc, etc.
Once the SF magazines took off (heh!) in the 1920's space travel stories came thick and fast. E. E. Smith began to produce his Skylark multi-novel series from 1928, the same year that the prolific Edmond Hamilton began publishing interstellar adventures; in Germany, Otto Willi Gail and Thea von Harbou were writing space-travel fiction around the same time. If I were to attempt any kind of comprehensiveness, this comment would run to several dozen more lines - in short, space travel stories (of varying scientific plausibility) were common from the late 19th century all the way through to the 1940s (and beyond, of course). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Lathe of Heaven is the best science fiction book about oneirology ever written. well, it might be the only one ever written, but it's still a damned good book. --Ludwigs206:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The trivial answer is "because it's against the law" - see Ladenschlussgesetz. According to our Sunday trading article, one major factor in the law's continued application is objection to reform from the retail trade unions, who (understandably) object to their members being forced to work longer hours. Tevildo (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the Ladenschlussgesetz says so (the authority for setting shop closing times was devolved to the Laender in 2006) - the basic reason is because the federal constitution refers back to the Weimar constitution of 1919 in declaring Sunday to be a day of rest and recuperation. The follow-on reason is because the churches don't want it, the shop workers don't want to work on Sundays, and neither do the small shop-owners want to open up then. -- Arwel Parry(talk)22:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially for the same reasons that Sunday shopping is illegal. I would add to the arguments mentioned above that workers want a day that they can spend with their families, and many Germans agree that guaranteeing a day for family and recreation is socially desirable. Marco polo (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sunday shopping in the USA used to be widely banned, as per Blue laws. Those laws were at the state or local level, so they varied a great deal from place to place, in terms of what kinds of businesses could or could not be open on Sunday. There's a subtle hint about this in a 1944 Woody Woodpecker cartoon called Ski for Two, in which Wally Walrus sees a calendar that says "October 3 - Only 70 shopping days until Christmas!" That "70" figure excludes Sundays and the Thanksgiving holiday. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Easter is not really a "holiday" in the US either, because it's on Sunday, which is already a "holiday" in a general sense. Many places in the US take Good Friday as a holiday, making a 3-day holiday weekend out of Easter. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is it would create unfair competition, if the Christian shopowners had to remain closed while the Jewish-owned stores remained open. I've never known Jewish shopowners to be too fanatical about closing on the Sabbath, at least not in Christian-dominated countries. It's possible they would in Israel. As a compromise in a largely Christian nation, the store owner himself might take the Sabbath off and expect his Christian employees (if any) to operate the store on Saturdays. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you try and use some common sense, please, rather than just asking a stream of questions without even thanking people for the comprehensive answers you've received so far?
Saturday shopping is illegal in Israel for precisely the same reason that Sunday shopping is illegal in predominantly Christian countries: to protect workers' rights and observe a religious day of rest. This should be obvious. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 11:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. For a start, Iceland doesn't owe America anything, as far as I know. It's the UK and the Netherlands that are trying to get money back. The main consequence of Iceland not paying back the money is that the UK and Netherlands may well veto Iceland's application to join the EU, which it needs in order to stabilise its economy. The use of military action to force a sovereign state to pay its debts is not usually permitted by international law. The one exception I can think of is payments required by a peace treaty (eg. war reparations) - if you don't comply with the conditions of the peace treaty then the peace is over and you can be attacked. The use of weapons of mass destruction wouldn't be allowed even then, of course. There are rules against indiscriminate killing of civilians. --Tango (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily the UK didn't "nuke 'em", or the U.S. would have been obliged to defend Iceland under our 1951 defense treaty with Iceland. Rmhermen (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They won't be any physical repercussions. No one will go to war even if Iceland said tomorrow "nope we ain't gonna pay it back ever." What will happen is Iceland won't be trusted again and no country will do dealings with them, so they'll lose out on international trade and such, and eventually shrivel and collapse unless their geothermic energy reserves are needed by other countries in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartender, bloodwine! (talk • contribs) 22:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said anything about the EU. I said "international community". That means all countries from all parts of the world. If America just invaded Iceland the rest of the world wouldn't allow it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartender, bloodwine! (talk • contribs) 22:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point was made earlier that Iceland owes no debts to the US, and since the US is not in the EU, it would have no justification to invade. If you're trying to argue that the US invades countries just to get oil, keep in mind that the whole problem with Saddam, starting in 1990, centered on his invasion of Kuwait, an act which threatened to mess with the world's oil supply. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the U.S. already did sort of "invade" Iceland back in 1941 -- but it had nothing to do with oil or debts... AnonMoos (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do have to agree a bit on the above. The US has a powerful military, and if they were to invade Iceland, it is extremely unlikely that anyone would do very much about it in a military sense. More likely to say some nasty things about the US at the UN, and to put some economic sanctions out there (although that might more resemble an economic suicide pact). Googlemeister (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing preventing it from joining European Union, even though it's not in Europe. America just doesn't want to; it would rather pay higher currency conversions to trade with Europe so that it can remain apart and purely American. Basically nationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartender, bloodwine! (talk • contribs) 22:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the EU's rules say only European countries can join. It doesn't define "European", but there is no way the USA would be considered European. As I recall, Morocco wanted to join and was rejected for not being European. I expect the EU would be open to negotiations involving free trade with the US, but probably not full EU membership (the US would end up with far too much control, since it is almost as big as the entire EU is now). It is irrelevant, though. The EU only comes into this since EU membership is the UK/Netherlands main bargaining chip. They each have a veto on Iceland joining and Iceland really wants to join, so Iceland has to do what the UK/Netherlands demand (they are negotiating over the details, like how quickly they need to pay back the money, but they won't be able to refuse to pay at all). --Tango (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to cultural differences between the U.S. and Europe and the political difficulties that would be involved with America joining the EU, the basic goal of the EU is for countries to join together so that as a whole they form a zone of quasi-"continental" scope (within which trade is free etc.) -- but the U.S. already has quasi-"continental" status all by itself... AnonMoos (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The true reason is that Russia is simply too big, has a very large population, and has too many problems. The same applies to Turkey (which also has a religious aspect). Flamarande (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the original question, as far as I know, Iceland does not legally owe anything to anybody for the banking crash. European customers elected to invest money with private banks in Iceland. Those banks went under, i.e. they declared bankruptcy. So far the free market worked - some people took a risk, and lost their money. The governments of the UK and the Netherlands then decided, on their own and quite possibly for good reasons, to bail out their citizens who had invested with the broken banks. Then they turned around, and, without any justification, started whining at the Icelandic state to reimburse them. Why should Iceland pay for the decisions of British and Dutch investors, or for the decisions of British and Dutch politicians? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that the Icelandic state (as well as the Dutch government) are involved is that bank accounts have a "guarantee" provided by the Central Bank. The Dutch Central Bank guarantees savings up to a monetary limit (that limit was adjusted during the banking crisis). The Icelandic Central Bank provided guarantees on savings held by customers of the IceSace bank. The Dutch Central Bank decided to pay customers in advance for the guarantee that was given by the Icelandic Central Bank, and handle the combined "claim" between the two governments. There are still several individual account holders trying to claim their money that was not "guaranteed" by the two Central Banks. These customers include some local government institutes (provinces and city governments) that kept their 'savings' on the IceSave accounts to benefit from the very high interest rates. See also the first paragraph under the reaction heading on the Icesave disputeRwos (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
what prophecies about the Messiah did Jesus fill?
1. Which prophecies about the Messiah did Jesus fulfill?
2. Are Jews today still actively, seriously and literally awaiting the Messiah -- ie they believe the Messiah will come, they are ready to see if anyone meets the description and fulfills all the prophecies, etc -- or did they stop doing that after the Jesus debacle?
I am completely astonished that Wikipedia does not have an article on this, but Jesus Christ as the Messiah redirects to Jesus in Christianity, which barely touches the subject. Clearly there is room for an article here.
Christians believe that Jesus fulfilled many prophecies about the Messiah - too many to list here. This page recounts some of them along with some counterarguments. They don't believe that he fulfilled all of them, but they believe he will return again, and the remainder will be fulfilled at that time. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand the antecedent of your word "they" when you say "they don't believe that he fulfilled". Who is they?
So what is the answer to my second question, about whether Jews are still totally actively awaiting a Messiah even after the Jesus debacle, or whether they are not really awaiting one actively... thank you. 82.113.106.88 (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why Jews reject Jesus was because he was a false prophet by Jewish standards -- he modified Mosaic Law in contrivance of the law itself, thereby subject to the death penalty. He is also not a descendant of the house of David. Moreover, he failed to fulfill the mission of the Messiah, and only through the contrived "he will return" assertion do Christians substantiate their claim -- Jews do not need to fall upon such an assertion, because they reject him being the Messiah the first time. So from a Jewish perspective, no, he has not fulfilled any of the requirements of the Messiah. And, yes, Judaism purports that the coming of Messiah is anticipated -- "speedily in our days" is the phraseology generally used. To be fair, though, there is a significant school of thought that portrays Jesus as an obedient Talmudic Jew and paints Paul as the one who used Jesus as a figurehead for his new spin on Judaism. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One prophesy about the Messiah that Jesus failed to fulfill was the ushering in of an age of peace. Oh yes, there was the peace dividend. Added, after striking through: I stand corrected. Bus stop (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment minimalizes the issue, Bus stop. He fulfilled no prophecies. By definition, a prophecy is irrational and completely objective when fulfilled. Being born in a certain city, suffering or other similar ambiguous claims certainly do not establish one as a Messiah. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)02:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a very interesting TV show, once, which argued that Jesus intentionally fulfilled several of the requirements for the messiah (which, of course, he would have been perfectly aware of in advance, since they were long-standing traditions in judaism) in order to put the Pharisees in a difficult position. Just from a political perspective, I wouldn't be surprised if he at least nominally fulfilled most of them. Oddly, part of the reason that the Jews didn't accept him as the messiah (if I understand correctly) is that for the Jews the messiah is an explicitly political/military figure who would (like Moses and David) lead the people out of bondage and into righteous independence. the fact that Jesus refused to place himself as a worldly leader soured him for Jews as much as it inspired Gentiles. --Ludwigs203:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how many of the criteria one meets for being the Messiah; a single disqualification would lead to disqualification. Jesus was not from the House of David. Although Matthew provides a genealogy for Jesus, it does so to Joseph, not Jesus. The Church provides three responses to this question, all of which are inadequate:
Joseph adopted Jesus -- this rebuttal is invalid because adoption does not continue a blood line. The adopted son of a kohen is not a kohen, the adopted son of a Levite is not a Levite and the adopted son of a king can not be king. Thus, the adopted son of Joseph is not descended from Judah and is not considered from the House of David according to Jewish law. The Messiah is a Jewish concept and laws pertaining to the Messiah would have to conform to Jewish standards.
The genealogy is really that of Mary -- this rebuttal is similarly invalid because Jewish rites are passed through patrilineal descent. The son of a daughter of a kohen is not a kohen unless the daughter's husband was a kohen, etc.
Jesus is a spiritual descendant of David -- Jesus is decidedly not a spiritual descendant of David. Jews, who follow the Mosaic Law as David did, read the texts that he wrote (Psalms) in the original language that he wrote it in (Hebrew) and hold sacred the Temple that David desired to build but that his son ended up building are more spiritually descended from David than Jesus and his followers were, and so this weak explanation is hardly sufficient grounds for establishing Jesus as a proper blood descendant of David.
You're getting into pretty solid WP:SOAP territory here. This isn't a place to debate the validity of Christian theology and doctrine. The question was "Which prophecies about the Messiah did Jesus fulfill?" Christians believe that Jesus did fulfill a lot of prophecies, Jews and Muslims (and everybody else) disagree to varying degrees. We don't need to try to argue for or against any of these cases. Staecker (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the OP's question is being answered. I do not believe there is a violation of wp:soap. I think if there is any issue, and I don't think there is any, that it would be one involving finding fault with the original question posed by the OP. But again, I don't find the question improper. Bus stop (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not soapboxing. One of the prophecies was that the Messiah would come from the House of David, right? (The king's lineage, not the baseball team.) So the question, in that context, is "Did He or didn't He?" ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are many well-known points of contention between Christianity and Judaism and I don't think I brought up one that was even mildly unrelated to the topic at hand. The OP certainly was focused on Jesus, the prophecies he may or may not have anything to do with and the Jewish version of the Messiah. If he did not, please correct me. I read and re-read my previous post multiple times to ensure it was a balanced approach towards the issue at hand articulated in a civil, cordial manner. The reality is that Judaism makes claims, Christianity makes claims and then each makes counterclaims against the claims of the other. Now, in the past I have crossed such a line, and perhaps that is why I have received such a comment as I have from Staecker, but I sense that my comment was in line with the query posted, and I thank Bus Stop and Baseball for their words of support. I will certainly use this opportunity to strengthen my Wikipedia sense of neutrality and stifle any urges to the contrary. But, yes, if the question was, "Which prophecies of the Messiah did Jesus fill?" A proper response is not just "none" from the perspective that maintains such, but the evidence to back up such a claim. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)14:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly not being uncivil DR, and I don't really think it's an issue of neutrality-- my reading of the question is: "In traditional Christian theology, which Messianic prophecies did Jesus fulfill?" If that's the question, then we can list them by chapter and verse from the Old Testament. If the question, as Bugs seems to suggest above (and others are implying), is "did Jesus actually fulfill these prophecies?", then I don't think the RD can meaningfully answer, except to say: "Christians think so, pretty much everybody else thinks not". To argue that one of the other of these camps is correct isn't productive. What if somebody asked if Muhammad was really God's true prophet? Or if The Buddha really achieved true enlightenment? Would we at the WP RD really answer "yes" or "no" to these (with or without providing "evidence" to back it up)? Staecker (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me it's a given, for the first question, that we're postulating that Jesus was the Messiah. That doesn't mean we're taking the position that He was the Messiah. It's more like, "IF He was the Messiah, THEN which prophecies did He fulfill?" ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, User:DRosenbach is being extremely uncivil, portraying the Jewish view of these matters as if it were incontravertible fact. The rest of us at least have the decency to prefix comments with "in Jewish belief" or some such. This is soapboxing at a great height. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RE: (2), see Jewish messianism. Haredi Jews today, particularly those of ChabadHassidism, actively and fervently anticipate the coming of the Messiah. While they are a minority by numbers in contemporary Israeli society, the cultural concept of the Messiah's coming (imminent or not) is expressed among secular Jews in colloquial references including popular music and humor. Not to be confused with Messianic Judaism, a term referring to "Jews for Jesus." -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the talk pages of: Paul of Tarsus & Paul of Tarsus and Judaism, where a lot of this is already aired. There are quite a lot of commentries on this and notes in modern Bibles regarding this. The Jerusalem Bible has good accounts of this, written before the Books of the Bible concerned, and extensive foot-notes.
Luke 24: 25-27, would be a good beginning.
Look up the terms Jesus used regarding Himself:
1. Son of Man.
2. The Messiah.
3. The Christ.
& "This text is being fufilled today even as you listen..."
& "My God, my God, why have you deserted Me.."
(I am not giving my opinion here. I can understand why Wikipedia have not an article page on this, as this issue would be very contravertial. See the new article page: Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience, and see my effort, in the talk page, to get the Manhattan Declaration's own list of people it wished to defend, in the article page!) {Post Script}.
One of the problems with this debate is that Jews declare, as a matter of doctrine, that Jesus is not the Messiah. Anybody who believes that he is is declared not to be Jew (a state of affairs that has been going on for two thousand years now).
What this also means is that, by definition, there has been no Jewish scholarship considering with an open mind the question of Jesus' fulfilment of prophecy. Anyone who concludes that Jesus might be the Messiah is thrown out of Judaism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DJ Clayworth, open-mindedness is a subjective thing. And are you sufficiently familiar with Jewish scholarship to know with assuredness that "there has been no Jewish scholarship considering with an open mind the question of Jesus' fulfilment of prophecy"?Bus stop (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually my point is that anyone who comes to the conclusion that Jesus is the Messiah is declared not to be Jewish, and thus there can be no Jewish scholarship declaring his Messiahship. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John Ankerberg quoted Dr. Stoner on the the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies by Jesus in a statistical way. If the state of Texas were covered with silver dollars 2 feet (61 centimeters) deep, and one marked with an X were added, then all were thoroughly stirred, and a blind man were asked to select one from the set, the odds of finding the X marked one would be one in 1017. The Christian writer then states that Jesus fulfilled 48 prophecies, with odds far less than finding the hypothetical x marked dollar. He takes this number as an indication that Jesus was likely the prophesied Messiah. I have seen some hyperbole from many different religions. In the first century, the Christians were just one more Jewish sect, and they were not so automatically deemed "not to be Jews" as was claimed above. The New Testament states Jesus' descent from David. Edison (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty with that analogy is that the US has not made anywhere near that number of silver dollars thoughout history. I estimate that only 1-2 billion were made. Googlemeister (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have kept my focus on the question asked, assuming that a student needs help. The work and evidence is immence here. Why allow yourselves to be waylaid. Are you not all caught up with your own pride, here? Please look at The Book of Job, and The Job comforters, and Job's words themselves: "I know that my Redeemer liveth...". The student does not need Job's comforters.
In relation to my answer further up the page, beginning: "Please see talk pages to...". "..Have kept my focus on the question asked..", "..assuming that a student needs help."...
Speculation: Take it from the shops perspective. There may be government regulations which mandate that businesses have to close down on certain holidays; it may be illegal to force people to work on those holidays. Different countries and jurisdictions have different laws which govern when employers can make their employees work. Shops are a business, and they may required to shut down like other businesses on certain mandated holidays. Not knowing how such laws work in Poland at all, but it may be a prohibition on working on holidays rather than shopping. --Jayron3222:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the OP is going to pose this question one-by-one until he gets all the European nations covered? :) Blue laws vary from place to place. For example, Illinois has (or at least used to have) a law prohibiting car dealerships from being open on Sunday. And if that's sounds discriminatory, it is - except it was the car dealerships themselves who lobbied for that law, so they would be guaranteed at least one day off per week. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This tourist site says there is no easy answer. SHOPPING IN POLAND Opening hours are very diverse and it is difficult to apply any rules. Most grocery stores open at 7 in the morning and are open until 7 pm from Monday to Friday, but there are many exceptions. The smaller shops close earlier on Saturday while on Sunday they do not open at all. There are also numerous supermarkets belonging to international chains that are often open seven days a week until late. Modern shopping malls are mushrooming in all major cities. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Ontario, Canada, they repealed what Americans called blue laws several years ago but left intact the portion prohibiting retailing on public holidays such as Canada Day and Canadian Thanksgiving. Certain establishments such as restaurants, gas stations and convenience stores are exempted, which means that on public holidays, some large drug stores will close off half the store so they can qualify as small shops for the day. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My question is: When did the headquarters move from Kasumigaseki Building to Haneda? I know when they moved from Haneda to Shiodome City Center. But I do not know the date when the headquarters moved to Haneda.
I'm interested in what percentage of the population of each country is "military or immediate family". If asked of an individual, the question would be "Have you, or at least one parent, sibling, spouse, or child, been in the military of your country for at least one year?" If I found the ideal piece of research on this, it would list every country, ranked by the percentage of its population who answered "yes" to the above question. Does anyone have any pointers? Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While this would be very difficult in a lot of places, in some areas it's easy. In Israel, the answer is nearly 100%, because of the obligatory military service laws. The only exception, IIRC, is Orthodox Jews, who won't have any family members in military service. On the other hand, in Costa Rica, the number is 0%, or close to it, because Costa Rica has no standing army. Steewi (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Steewi is referring to the complicated situation in Israel regarding Ultra Orthadox Jews and compulsury service in the IDF. They are certainly permitted to enlist, but they can defer their service while they're in Yeshiva, and essentially get out of service all together, I think. Buddy431 (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, it should be noted however, that a good number of the Ultras do voluntarily sign up, as they are often highly patriotic. 130.88.162.46 (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another point about Israel: Arab citizens are exempt from mandatory IDF service and few volunteer. They make up 20% of the country. —D. Monacktalk22:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you intend for this to be time-independent? Your great-grandfather was in WWII, so he and your gradfather count but not you father and yourself? Or do you mean currently/recently in service? Rmhermen (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Comet Tuttle, the stats I can find are all about the number of individuals in the armed forces, not families. An additional confounding factor in your question (as Rmhermen just pointed out) is that you also want statistics that apply over time - very difficult to pull together. Over the last 2-3 generations, many countries have significantly increased or decreased the size of their armed forces.
You might be able to rough calculate it for *current* service using these resources/rubric:
This yahoo answer suggests about 2 per cent of the total world population is currently in military service (or 6 per cent if you count reservists as well).
The world average fertility rate is about 2.5 births per woman, giving you an average family size of 4.5 people. So very very very roughly, 4.5 X 2% X 6.8 billion = 600 million people who are either currently in a military or have a family member currently in military service.
I need to find the name of some guy years ago who did experiments on dreams. He was also religious and tried to prove god existed or something with science. Eventually he went mad and died alone and destitute. That's all the information I have on him. Anyone able to supply a name for this mysterious fellow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seventhoughts2 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt Gödel was on QI last night; he tried to prove the existence of God by logic, and died because of intense paranoia about someone poisoning his food - his wife was hospitalised and thus couldn't test his food for him, so he refused to eat and starved to death. The article doesn't mention anything about researching dreams, though...And he didn't seem to be destitute, either. Maybe I'm completely wrong, heh. Vimescarrot (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what the last two comments are referring to but getting back to the original question, no, not for the entire US. Certain libraries and school districts may not allow certain books in their library or to be taught in their schools but that's all determined at a lower level of gov't and only affects certain areas. Dismas|(talk)13:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Joke warning): "The suicide instruction book, Final Exit has been banned by many librarians, not because they object to the content, but because nobody ever seems to return the book." :-) StuRat (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deer species in the Bambi translation
In the Austrian original edition, Bambi is a roe deer, and very impressed by the much larger red deer. (Writing about this is aided by the fact that German has entirely different, not overlapping terms for these two species). Is the species of Bambi specified in the English translation? What about the larger deer species Bambi is impressed by? --KnightMove (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised they would specify a species in a children's book like that. It really wouldn't work in the US, as here kids just call them all "deer". The best guess you could make would be based on the illustrations, but you might find that, in different editions, different illustrators choose to model their pics on different species, probably ones they are most familiar with. (This reminds me of how the Renaissance painters all painted Jesus and pals to look Italian.) As for being impressed by a larger deer, wasn't it just an adult male (a buck), which was much larger than either him (a fawn) or his mother (a doe), and also had those impressive antlers ? StuRat (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is explicitly not the case. Bambi is impressed (and, as a fawn, frightened) by the so much larger red deer. However, it is possible that this got lost in the translation. As I said, there is no clear German word for "deer". Instead, the term Hirsch may mean "any deer", "any red deer", "red deer stag" or "any deer stag", depending on context. In everyday speech, roe deers are not considered to be "Hirsche". Maybe the translator considered the term Hirsche to be male adults of the same (roe deer) species. This would be a major translation error... and if it remained unnoticed so far, this is almost sensational! --KnightMove (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it a translation error. Often they may make some intentional minor changes when translating a work, to make it fit better into the new culture, including, in this case, slightly altering the type of deer. StuRat (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article Bambi mentions he's a white-tailed deer in the Walt Disney movie. White-tailed deer are the most common deer species in the US, especially in the eastern portion. Note that in the US, at least, the Disney movie *is* Bambi - most people probably aren't even aware that it was based on a book, let alone a non-US book. I do not know what the situation is in the UK, Australia, etc. -- 174.21.235.250 (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
would someone modifying Mosaic Law today still be subject to the death penalty under it?
above, someone said of Jesus: "he modified Mosaic Law in contrivance of the law itself, thereby subject to the death penalty." If Jesus did that today instead of whenever he lived, would he still be subject to the death penalty under Mosaic law? Or has that part been abolished from it? 82.113.121.94 (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly clear what you're referring to, but the legal provisions of the Old Testament haven't been applied as a full autonomous legal code with enforceable criminal punishments since at least 63 B.C. (the date when the last independent Jewish state of ancient times came under Rome)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As AnonMoos has stated above, Jewish law is self-regulated (or perhaps, community-regulated). Since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE and the subsequent disbanding of the Sanhedrin roughly 300 years after that, there is no court authority to impose the death penalty. A false Messiah would be subject to the death penalty imposed on the zakein mamrei, (Deutoronomy 17:8-13) or someone who refutes the law as dictated by the Sanhedrin. That said, and as explained above, though, no one would actually kill the false Messiah today. In reality, it's no different than a Jewish person who violates any other law that is subject to the death penalty, such as desecrating the Sabbath or killing another person, who would also not be killed today because of lack of a unified judicial entity. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)15:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, isn't it the case nowadays that Jews take the view that Jewish law in general yields to legislation? For example, autopsies are normally not done with Jews, but if the legal system decides that a particular person needs to be autopsied, then it will be allowed. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It depends upon the violation being violated; the violation of desecrating a corpse is certainly not one punishable by death. Even though it would not normally be allowed (such as for fun, or for learning anatomy), if the police refuses to release the body without performing an autopsy in order to collect forensic evidence of some sort, rabbinic leniency may very well be applicable in such circumstance. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)17:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't limiting it to capital crimes, but just in general terms. I'm assuming it has to do with the "greater sin" concept. Like it might be a sin to desecrate a body by doing an autopsy, but defying the law, and hence encouraging instability in society, would be a greater sin. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this subject or at least a closely related subject is well addressed here (in archives) by DRosenbach (especially in his last post in that section, titled "Jewish law" of 19:47, 15 February 2010). Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deborah -- what is your purpose other than to mock Judaism? Certainly the author of such a letter either has such little understanding of Jewish law that he or she used a fundamentalist translation of the Hebrew text in error or used such a translation in an intended overextention so as to provide more humor for others who would read the letter and who similarly lack an understanding for Judaism. One can easily make fun of most anything given enough determination -- I hope you didn't take the letter in the way it was meant, either way the author meant it. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)17:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My purpose was to post a well-known satirical spoof that referred to biblical passages citing O.T. transgressions and their associated severe punishments. Aside from my use of small font, the link clearly came from Snopes.com with ample discussion included. And perhaps you meant to direct this remark to me on my talk page rather than in the body of this query's thread? -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What part of satire do you think is proper in debating a serious issue of religion? From the satire article, it is meant "to censure by means of ridicule, derision...ideally with the intent to bring about improvement." Does your post and associated link have anything constructive to do with either the OP's question or the responses given? Your use of satire serves to undermine the validity of things that many hundreds of thousands of people would be willing to give their lives for...yet in one post, you succeed in denigrating that ideal. Satire may be fine in some contexts, but the satirist whose work you linked to is ill-informed at best. Your intentions may have been to provide a laugh, but it and the person who would post it contribute to anti-religous sentiment and perhaps may even influence people who do not possess such a derision for religion to contemplate ascribing to such a philosophy. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)21:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you assume that money, like energy, never gets destroyed, but is simply transferred from person/company to person/company, then where is the money that savers paid into the Icelantic bank scheme Icesave now? 89.242.102.148 (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This gets very theoretical. Essentially wealth is whatever you think it is. Most people would agree that they are wealthier if they have certain things, like a house, car, clothes, a stockpile of food, etc. But there are many forms of wealth which are more highly subjective. For example, are you wealthier if you have a sports stadium near your house ? Well, that does mean more access to sports games, but probably also mean regular traffic congestion. So, real estate values may go up or down when they add a sports stadium nearby, depending on how most people view it.
Now, you're probably wondering how all this relates to money invested in a company, stocks, bonds, etc. There, the value is also highly variable, depending on how much people think those items are worth now, and will be worth in the future. The term "paper profits" is often used to describe the case where the perceived value of stock has gone up, meaning the stock price rises. Those don't become actual profits until a sale is made, however. The same logic applies to "paper losses".
It might be helpful to compare stock prices with a fad. Let's say you were a collector of Cabbage Patch Kids. If you had more than everyone else you knew, and they were also into the fad, they would think of you as being rich (and, if you sold them all then, you might have made a lot of money). However, once the fad ended, most people probably just thought you had a bunch of worthles crap. So, you still owned the exact same amount of "stuff", but it was now valued at a far lower level. StuRat (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply is correct and interesting and falsifies the parent's assumption that "money (...) never gets destroyed". However, does that account for all the money in this case? I don't know much about this case, but it seems plausible that Landsbanki used some of the deposited money to buy shares in ACME Industries at 40 Euros. As the bubble burst, they would have had to sell these again, at, say, 20 Euros. If the buyer happens to be the original seller, which is not impossible, then the money has been transferred in a pretty real sense. 94.208.148.111 (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A conspiracy theory : I think they were buying their stock themselves through shell companies. And hedge funds were shortselling/betting against them. So some of that money went to hedge funds / speculators who either bought puts on them or short sold them. Also both parties could be the same. For eg, i know my bank is going to crash, but i convince my partners that if only we took some of our depositor's money and propped up our share price by buying them ourselves through offshore shell companies, confidence would return and all would be saved. But since i know better that my company is beyond redemption and will ultimately go down no matter what, i sell my own personal shares (which i might be owning initially through some other shell companies) to my partners while they are trying to prop up the share price through the depositors' money. So effectively i transfer the depositors' money into my pocket. The truth will only come out if someone goes through all the transactions of Icesave's shares for at least a couple of years before the fall and try to match the buyers and sellers --Sodabottle (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either that, or their own value could fall just due to the perceived likelihood of future losses, based on the bad economy. StuRat (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Creating and destroying money
On reflection money can be created (eg plant an apple tree sapling costing £10, sell its apples for £20, so £10 created) or destroyed (eg buy an expensive vintage car, leave it outside in the rain to rust away - money destroyed).
I think the concept you're looking for here is economic value, rather than "money". As you can see from the mess surrounding that article (the see also list, for example), it's an incredibly complex idea that people can't quite pin down. Almost everything everyone does has some economic impact, so no, there is no such list anywhere. FiggyBee (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Figgy is on the right track here, and really when you get down to brass tacks, there's no solid notion of 'money' or 'economical value'. It all depends on what people are willing to do for what is on offer, and this may fluctuate like the wind. A cheeseburger may be worth $4.50 at noon, but when I've already eaten I'll give you a dollar just to take it away from me. Vranak (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a topic I've thought of often, particularly from the POV of increasing both national and global wealth. It seems we would do better in that regard if more effort went into creating wealth, and preventing it's destruction, while less went into moving existing wealth around.
A) Ways to create wealth:
1) Farming and herding.
2) Mining.
3) Manufacturing and construction.
4) Some services. This is interesting, since society moved from agricultural to manufacturing and now into the majority of people working in services. This can be bad for wealth creation, especially in more developed nations, as many services seem to involve moving existing wealth around, rather than creating new wealth. Advertising, marketing, and sales might be one example. Casino and lottery workers are another example, as are lawyers engaged in lawsuits. So, what services create wealth ? I'd put teaching right on top, as almost everyone considers themself wealthier when well educated, and they tend to make far more money over their lifetimes.
5) New technology. Most people would consider themselves wealthier with a modern cell phone than one of the first generation that looked like an army radio.
This might explain why the wealth of China in rapidly increasing, since they are still largely in a manufacturing economy, while we in the West have moved on to mostly services. India, on the other hand, while a provider of services, gets cash for them from other nations, while those other nations are often left with nothing of lasting value in exchange, thus increasing the wealth of India and decreasing the wealth of other nations (and hence just moving wealth around, on an international scale).
B) Ways to destroy wealth:
1) Fire (and thus fire departments help limit this destruction of wealth) and natural disasters, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc. Disaster preparedness helps limit this destruction.
2) Vandalism and theft. You might think that something is worth the same once it's stolen, but it frequently loses much of it's value. An extreme example is when copper piping is ripped out of a building and sold as scrap metal, for far less than the cost to replace the pipes. But, even a stolen car has far less value than it had, as it can't be sold for much without valid papers. Chop shops often take just a few components off the stolen car and sell them for far less than the original car was worth. So, just like the fire department, the police have the power to limit the destruction of wealth.
3) War, and in particular, "total war", where everything is bombed to the ground, destroys vast amounts of wealth. Soldiers can either cause this destruction or prevent it, depending on whether they are the aggressors or defenders.
4) Decomposition. This includes the rust example you gave, but also food that rots, plastic that gets brittle and breaks, etc. In some cases this wealth destruction is due to planned obsolescence, where the object is designed to fail before it otherwise would.
5) Going out of fashion. If people feel that an otherwise functional product, like their clothes, car, etc., is no longer of much value because it's "last year's model", this leads to the item being discarded (often for little or nothing) and being replaced by a new one.
I really think that nations which build products to last, and don't change the styles each year, will, in the long run, have far more wealth than those with a "disposable society". So, how do we get there ? Perhaps higher sales taxes on initial purchases and lower taxes on maintenance activities, might be one step forward, encouraging us to keep up the items we have. A nice enviromentally responsible way to increase the sales price is to require that the eventual disposal/recycling fees for a new product be paid up front. This both encourages them to keep their old items, and takes away the incentive for them to dump stuff in a swap or the woods, to avoid paying the disposal costs. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all money is created via the dual ledgers of lending institutions. This is an elementary fact of economics. When a bank makes a loan, the loaned money is created. Central banks encourage or discourage the creation of money by lowering or raising interest rates on the money they lend, which triggers increases in the interest rates of all lending. Higher interest rates increase the cost of money, so less money is borrowed, and therefore less is lent/created. 63.17.37.219 (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikisource's "Modern Money Mechanics" by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Modern_Money_Mechanics/Introduction#Who_Creates_Money.3F (to name a random source -- as stated, this is a rudimentary fact of economics, and is axiomatic): "The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks. As noted earlier, checkable liabilities of banks are money. These liabilities are customers' accounts. They increase when customers deposit currency and checks and when the proceeds of loans made by the banks are credited to borrowers' accounts. In the absence of legal reserve requirements, banks can build up deposits by increasing loans and investments so long as they keep enough currency on hand to redeem whatever amounts the holders of deposits want to convert into currency." The crucial part is "They increase ... when the proceeds of loans made by the banks are credited to borrowers' accounts." In other words, whenever a lending institution makes a loan, it increases (hence creates) "checkable liabilities [which] are money."63.17.58.123 (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give us more information about him please? I have a candidate found on Ancestry but need more information really. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More info needed!? You mean there's more than one Arthur Leslie Salmon born in 1865? A quick Google search reveals that Salmon was a poet and an author of British travel books. His Library of Congress Subject Headings entry gives his birth year of 1865 but not his year of death. —KevinMyers22:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If he had a book published in Britain then the British Library should have them on its database - freely accessable on the internet - and which might gave his birth and death years. Edit: I looked him up, did not see his date of death. He published many books, so you could estimate when he was still alive by the last publication date. Although there were many editions of his book about Cornwall, which may have been revised by other people after his death. 92.26.160.145 (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His name is probably unique enough that you could get his death certificate easily, after estimating when he died as suggested above. You might also be able to get his date of death from free geneological records perhaps, although I don't know much about that. 78.149.193.118 (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where does Riyadh get its water?
Looking at the article for Riyadh, I can't see anything that explains how a city of 6 million could exist in a desert. The article says that it was famous for its orchards in ye olden days, so I would assume there are substantial springs that can support irrigation, but there's no mention of this. 71.70.143.134 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Apparently from groundwater, but the supply from the aquifers is a diminishing resource (the same is true with Las Vegas, Nevada and Phoenix, Arizona in the U.S.). Here is the abstract of an article on the situation. Evidently the water needs some treatment to be usable. Antandrus (talk)19:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't know if I buy that. An aquifer under constant drainage for more than a thousand years is capable of supporting a population of 6 million for more than a couple months? Either I'm wildly underestimating the (water per human)/(capacity of an aquifer) ratio or the Riyadh aquifer extends under the entire Arabian penninsula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.143.134 (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that the sedimentary strata underlying Riyadh have been absorbing water for a lot longer than that. It doesn't have to rain a lot, on a highly porous surface (e.g. sand) to charge or recharge an aquifer, given sufficient time. If the surface is porous, water sinks in before it has a chance to evaporate -- and in hundreds of thousands of years, that's plenty of water. Unfortunately when you build a city not only are you draining it at an unsustainable rate, but you're covering the former porous surface with buildings and parking lots, further reducing recharge rate. There is often plenty of groundwater in the desert, though ironically they may be sucking it out faster than their oil. Antandrus (talk)00:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out they also get a fair portion of their water from desalination plants on the Persian Gulf -- see Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Saudi_Arabia#Water_resources for some more information. According to this abstract, Riyadh gets 35% of its water supply from its aquifers, the rest from desal. It's rather analogous to the situation in a place like Phoenix, which gets water from the Colorado River while simultaneously draining its groundwater. I suppose this could go on the science desk since it involves hydrology, but what the heck ... Antandrus (talk)02:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Historical Chinese gender imbalance
A recent Twitter post by Hans Rosling pointed out that China and India have a male:female ratio much higher than 1, and if you look at Gapminder[9] the Chinese trend starts almost exactly at the introduction of the one-child policy. But if you keep going back, the ratio was also quite high in 1950 - about 113 males for every 100 females. Is there any reason why this might be so? Especially since wars historically dropped the sex ratio due to the large number of males in the armed forces getting killed; and while the Nanking Massacre did result in a large number of female deaths, that was about 15 years earlier and as far as I can tell shouldn't have resulted in such a large imbalance in the first place. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 21:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was probably because the bride's family was expected to pay a dowry to the groom's family, making girls a financial liability. Unfortunately, this probably led to many poor families killing their female babies. StuRat (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er no... China, unlike India for example, is traditionally a bride price society. However the 'price' is clearly not enough to get around the cultural issues although it perhaps reduces the effect unlike in places like India were a bridal dowry was expected. Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At different times and in different cultures within China, different systems have been used. I'm not sure what practices were in place in the years before 1950, which would effect the sex ratio then. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed something quite similar a few weeks ago, you may want to search as many of the links would be of relevance. However the simple answer is for various cultural reasons there's a historical and ongoing preference for male children in China and a number of other countries Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here's one: [10]. A relevant quote is "A tradition of infanticide and abandonment, especially of females, existed in China before the foundation of the People's Republic in 1949". StuRat (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Chinese statistics, it is generally useful to identify poor data as the top reason why the numbers don't add up. In this case, it may well be that there was at various times (including today) a systematic under-registration of female births. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Etymology question: Ptah *ph₂tḗr
Ptah is described in ancient Egypt as the god who created the world (i.e. father of creation). Could there be any common etymology to PIE *ph₂tḗr meaning father? Si1965 (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(This would probably be better on the Langauge desk).
There could be. There could be a connection between any two words in different languages that happen to be similar. But in the absence of any linguistic or historical reason to think so, it is very unlikely. --ColinFine (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Si1965 -- To do such etymologies, you have to look at the earliest-attested or earliest-reconstructible form on each side, in the context of each language system as it existed at the time. "Th" in Indo-European was a single aspirated consonant sound, while "h" in Egyptian represented a separate consonant. Also, Egyptian etymologies are usually structured around abstract consonantal roots, while the "t" of the Indo-European form seems to be part of a -ter suffix which also occurred in the words for "mother" and "brother". When one pursues such points of analysis on each side, the two forms do not seem to grow more similar as we trace them back in time, so they do not seem to "meet in the middle". That's why such a proposed etymology is not listed in dictionaries and other standard reference works.. AnonMoos (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Single, Young African-American Moms and Fornication
Why many young African-American women are practicing fornication and raising their children by themselves? Why is this more common for African-American women than the White American women and Asian American women? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, I wouldn't use the word "fornication", in this context, as it implies a religious value judgment. The more neutral term would be "engaging in premarital sex". StuRat (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, as for why more black women are single mothers, I can think of several factors:
1) Higher death rate among black males than white males means the father is more likely to be dead.
2) Black men are more likely to be in the military, and thus absent while deployed (although this doesn't technically make the women single mothers).
The question seems to be soap boxing based on unwarranted assumptions. Lots more women have sex outside marriage than have babies. Sexual activity is common among black , white and hispanic teenagers and young adults, and cohabitation is common as well among young adults past college age. There is a thing called "birth control." One online source of unproven reliability says that as of 2002 68% of U.S. black women who had babies were unmarried,, down from a peak of 70.4% in 1994. Overall 33.8% of U.S. new mothers were unmarried in 2002. The illigitimacy rate among non-Hispanic whites was 22.9% in 2002. The Wikipedia article Legitimacy (law) offered few statistics, except that 40% of babies born in the the US in 2007 were outside wedlock, with no racial or ethnic breakdown. A book has graphs of U.S. black and white illegitimacy 1960-1999, which shows the black rate levelling off at just under 70% while the white rate was around 20% and still rising. Edison (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how any of the data you presented demonstrates that the OP is working under incorrect assumptions. A decline of 2.4% is probably statistically insignificant, and a ratio of ~3:1 of unmarried black:white births suggests that there IS a statistically significant correlation between race and unwed births. 71.70.143.134 (talk)
Go back and read the part about having sex may not produce pregnancy if birth control is used, particularly the pill. Thus pregnancy rates or "unwed births" do not necessarily equate to "fornication" rates. Edison (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sudhir Venkatesh has explored this topic (I think in "Off the Books", but I'm not exactly sure). He basically found that motherhood was considered a rite of passage for black teenage girls in poor neighborhoods, which is why it's so prevalent compared to similar non-black populations. 71.70.143.134 (talk)
Fair enough. I hadn't ruminated on the difference between "fornication" and "sex what gets you pregnant". The OP should probably define fornication, because otherwise I and people like me assume fornication means non-generative sex. I would bet that unprotected sex correlates with pregnancy, bu that is an empirical question which the OP is potentially asking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.143.134 (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unwanted pregnancy is prevalent among lower-income neighborhoods/cities/countries, regardless of race. It's just that in this country, minorities, particularly African-Americans and Hispanics, are the ones who are financially and socially disadvantaged more so than other ethnicities. So teenage and unwanted pregnancies are more prevalent among them, and therefore the stereotype is born that only black people and Latinos have kids outside of marriage and are unable to financially provide for their offspring. However, this is all just my personal observation, so don't ask me for references. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take it by "this country" you mean the US ? I also assume that's what the original poster meant, because of the use of the term "African-American". However, it would be better if we listed the nation in question explicitly, to avoid confusion. StuRat (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have read a published comparisons of attitudes of black and white teenage girls. A black teenage girl wanted to have a baby fathered by a popular high school athlete. White girls were into sex but planned to go to college and shunned any notion of bearing out of wedlock children. Edison (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, technically, the answer is that marriage other than between a man and a woman is not recognised at law, so a same-sex "marriage" is neither legal nor illegal; rather, it simply does not exist. I mean, if a minister or civil celebrant purported to marry two females in exactly the same way as they'd marry a man and a woman, then the two women would not be married, and the celebrant might well be in trouble with the law. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, same-sex "marriages" have been conducted for (at least) decades by liberal-minded ministers. Those "marriages" are what I would "spiritual" marriages, i.e. they made the participants feel good but they had no legal standing. And much of the brouhaha in the US about same-sex marriage could have been avoided if the civil union approach was pursued. But the gay community took the bold approach of demanding it be called "marriage". As I recall, even the right-leaning George Bush supported the idea of civil unions. "Marriage" is a hot-button term in that context. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit like saying all the civil rights fuss could have been avoided if the slaves accepted they had no human rights and just got on with picking the cotton. If a straight couple can marry and call it marriage and have it fully recognised everywhere, why not a gay couple? (This isn't the place for this discussion, so you'd better not respond. I just couldn't let your statement pass without comment.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the practical legal difference between marriage and civil union, other than words? Please note I am neither defending nor opposing same-sex "marriage". I personally don't think it matters. But many do care, at least in the US. Although it's obvious that (for the present, anyway), proponents of same-sex marriage have been making progress. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If the 2 things are essentially indistinguishable, what's the stumbling block in making them actually, legally indistinguishable? Until that happens, there's still just as yawning a gap, in principle, as there ever was. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(after EC with Jack)The difference, Bugs, is legal. Civil unions don't carry many of the rights that marriages do. In many places, Person A cannot be on Person B's insurance if they're in a civil union. Also, Person A cannot visit B in the hospital if there is a "family only" rule. If Person A dies, then Person B has very few (or none at all) options as to what they can get from A's estate. It's not just words, legally.
The "civil union approach" that I think many people have advocated, and which I personally think would be best, is for everyone (gay and straight) to be joined in a civil union which would be recognized by the gov't. Then, if you want and if you believe in such a thing, you can get married at the church of your choice. The marriage would have no legal meaning whatsoever. And yet the "sanctity of marriage" which the religious opponents of gay marriage cling to would be kept 'sacred'. Dismas|(talk)11:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There may be differences in partners' rights between marriage and civil partnerships in some jurisdictions, but there is practically no legal difference in the UK. Specifically regarding inheritance, section 71 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 says:
"Schedule 4 amends enactments relating to wills, administration of estates and family provision so that they apply in relation to civil partnerships as they apply in relation to marriage."
Civil partnership in the UK is a politician's fudge, allowing Labour, who introduced the Act, to say that they support the rights of same-sex partners while at the same time claiming that they have no plans to legalise "same-sex marriage". As FiggyBee says above, the difference between marriage and civil partnership in the UK is just in the labels, not the underlying rights, but the labels are important to some people on both sides of the debate. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is one person's bug is another person's feature. By introducing something called 'civil partnership' which was marriage in all but name, the proposal was much more acceptable to religious institutions. Introducing it as actual marriage would have attracted a great deal more opposition and delayed (if not derailed entirely) the passage of the Act. Same sex couples got access to the rights and duties and legal recognition previously only available to opposite sex couples, and got them far earlier. One of the rules of politics is not to make any needless enemies. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Liberal Judaism is the first religious organisation in the UK (or the world?) to produce a special liturgy for same-sex commitment ceremonies, and as the text notes at the beginning, it is expected that such a service will be preceded by the legal formality of civil partnership, which – as far as I know – offers almost identical legal rights as marriage, the only point to bear in mind being that some private contracts (eg. life insurance) may make specific reference to spouses or marriage partners, which would obviously make a difference. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢13:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same-sex marriage does not exist as a legal concept in the United Kingdom. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 created a new legal entity for two people of the same sex to gain rights and responsibilities like those of civil marriages. (See Civil partnership in the United Kingdom, and especially the talk pages of those two articles, which give interesting additional information, as is often the case.) Within the past couple of weeks, differences between civil partnerships and marriage have come into the public eye. Waheed Alli, Baron Alli introduced a bill into the House of Lords which passed on 2 March: Lords Hansard. Peter Tatchell, the human rights campaigner, has a section called Partnership on his website. He and others, including legal scholar Robert Wintemute and representatives of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and Liberty (UK), spoke at a recent Marriage Equality Day. Not least is an issue of religious freedom: the law barred religious establishments from conducting civil partnerships on their premises. And CPs are limited to same-sex couples: one opposite-sex couple has decided to challenge this [11]. NB the term "civil union" is not used in the UK. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) In the UK civil partnership and civil marriage clearly are legally equivalent - the opening sentence of Civil partnership in the United Kingdom says "Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage". In other jurisdictions your mileage may vary. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The debate in the House of Lords last week was instructive. I'll give just one example of a Lord Spiritual making a point which others reiterated. The Lord Bishop of Bradford said, if religious organisations want to conduct "civil partnership ceremonies within a religious context", why should they not be allowed to do so?
The fundamental difficulty that many churches and faiths will have with this argument is that we, like the Government and the courts, have been quite clear ever since civil partnerships were introduced, that they are not the same as marriages. It is true that they confer nearly all the same legal rights. <snip>At the moment, however, civil partnerships are not in substance or in form same-sex marriages. There are some countries that have already introduced the possibility of marriage between people of the same sex, and no doubt some of those sympathetic to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, favour that direction of travel. I do not, and neither do the majority of churches and faiths in this country. But if people want to argue for that, they are entitled to do so, and it is a debate that we can have. That debate ought to take place in the synods, the convocations, the councils and so on, and the churches as well. The point is simply that we should not muddle up a debate about civil partnerships with a debate on same-sex marriage.
The labels are different, but the legal rights and responsibilities are, for all practical purposes, the same. As I said, some folks on both sides of the debate choose to emphasise the difference in labels over the similarity in substance. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is the little matter of religious freedom, and the state forbidding religious organisations (liberal Jews, Quakers, Unitarians) from conducting civil partnerships on their premises or by their clergy. These bodies and individuals can conduct marriage ceremonies for opposite-sex couples, but not CPs for same-sex ones. CPs are allowed everywhere that civil marriages are (stately homes licensed for the purpose, etc.) but not in church. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about civil marriages, not civil partnerships. (And CPs on religious premises haven't been legalised yet - that won't happen until the bill passes all its stages in Parliament and then receives the Royal Assent). DuncanHill (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
? Well, obviously civil marriages take place outside religious premises, that's what the phrase means :/
And it's legalised inasumch as the House of Commons (if it hasn't already) will obviously be in favour, given that it doesn't contain the Bishops and is full of progressive-type people, unlike the Lords. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢19:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can one be arrested for being intoxicated on Cannabis within the confines of one's home in the United States? Note, the question deals only with intoxication and not possession.
Can one be arrested for being intoxicated on Cannabis within the confines of one's home in the State of Florida?
OK -- According to this, only possession, cultivation or sale of marijuana are punishable offenses in the state of Florida, and possession of paraphernalia is a misdemeanor. I don't think there can be a federal offense because it's a state issue. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)01:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have also read that the presence of Cannabis in the blood can also be considered "possession". Have any judicial rulings or appropriate statutes shed any light on the said matter? 76.110.192.228 (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might "be considered possession" by the truly overzealous law enforcement official, but has anyone ever been convicted of possession in the US (or elsewhere) merely for having it in their bloodstream? People can "be arrested" for many specious reasons which lead to dismissals, nonprosecutions, or acquitals. Edison (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly any driver can be pulled over for driving erratically, and could be subjected to intoxication tests. Driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. Within your home would be subject to a search warrant, and since intoxication is often a shared experience, all it would take is one blabbermouth telling someone who tells a cop, "Hey, this guy is growing cannabis in his house" or "This guy has quite a stash!" and then you're cooked. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The US Supreme Court cases Powell v. Texas and Robinson v. California are close but not exactly addressing the issue. In Robinson, the Court struck down a California law criminalizing drug addiction, mostly because, the Court said, drug addiction is a disease; while in Powell, the Court said it was OK to have arrested an alcoholic for being publicly intoxicated, because even if alcoholism is a disease, Powell had not been arrested for being diseased, but for being drunk in public in a particular circumstance. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do any records exist of a conviction of Cannabis possession based on evidence that proves you were "possessing Cannabis in your bloodstream" at the time of arrest? 76.110.192.228 (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried googling this particular hypothesis? I would think someone who's intoxicated would be charged with intoxication, as opposed to "possession", but I have no specific facts to back that up. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my understanding, intoxication of Cannabis isn't a crime unless it's in public. However, I've read that the presence of Marijuana in one's bloodstream may be used to justify possession; as you "posses it in your blood".
If you're high, then you're intoxicated, and just as with alcohol, they could presumably do tests to determine the cause and degree of intoxication. But they would have to have probable cause to arrest in the first place, I should think - like smelling pot on your breath or otherwise showing classic signs of being high. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is no way to test if someone is intoxicated from Marijuana. The only tests are to see if you have used Marijuana in the last couple of days or weeks. Funny, though, because US law doesn't normally make this distinction. — Ƶ§œš¹[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]01:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They would have to get a search warrant based on probable cause, and if they come in and catch you, you're busted. Alternatively, if the cops saw you smoking a joint out on your front porch, I suspect they would have the right to come bust down your door on the grounds that a crime was in progress. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you get caught. :) Actually, that's a flippant answer, though practially true. Becoming drunk at home is not a crime by itself, unless you're underage, let's say, because there is typically no law against adults drinking in private, as such; while public drinking can be illegal. However, possession and/or use of marijuana is illegal in lots of states, regardless of where it occurs. So, yes, any use of marijuana at home could be illegal, if possession itself is illegal. But they can't walk into your house without cause. So you're not fully safe at home, but you're more safe than in public. That would apply to any type of criminal venture, by the way. So the obvious course to follow is, "Don't do the crime unless you're willing to do the time." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This a homework question? If so, if you have to give it an attempt on your own before we'll help you. However, if you go to Wiktionary (or just google "dictionary" and click on any online dictionary) and look up the words, you'll surely find a useful definition for each.--Dpr (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can even use Google as a dictionary. Simply type "define:" (without the quotes) followed by the word that you want a definition for. Dismas|(talk)11:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A user from Paris took a photo of the site of the former Air France headquarters in Montparnasse - a blue MGEN building stands there.
Air France moved into a new headquarters in 1996. Was the old headquarters demolished? The building in the French news that was the old Air France headquarters looks different. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Atheory is precisely what you'll get if you ask a philosopher what truth is, since it's not possible to empirically determine an answer to the question "what is truth?" That is, if the philosopher doesn't just say that the question is ill-posed. PaulStansifer13:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You'd find any number of philosophers with a different take, Bugs. ;) The fact is that there are no "standard answers" in philosophy; any question with a "standard answer" is not philosophically interesting. FiggyBee (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably the source of the pseudo-philosophical line in Love and Death, "Subjectivity is objective". But I think I see what you're saying. You're talking about "relative" truth (i.e. what can be known to an individual), and I'm talking about "absolute" truth (i.e. what would be "known to God", or more generally, "the way the universe actually works"). ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the only things that humans can know are by way of human senses and experience, these questions of 'absolute truth' or 'in God's understanding' fall outside the scope of actual knowledge. Vranak (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the point I'm making. What we think is "the truth" today might be determined tomorrow to not be "the truth" after all. Or vice versa. Yet in such a circumstance, the "absolute truth" did not change - only our perception of it. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
is there a list anywhere of reasons to believe something?
Obviously one reason to believe something is if the belief corresponds to physical reality; then you can use it to model and make predictions, and so forth. However, I can think of at least two other great reasons to believe:
1. If you're being paid to do so. I would gladly believe something that did not strictly speaking correspond to physical reality, or model it, but for holding which believe I will receive millions of dollars.
2. Under duress of horrible torture. Obviously it is often a great reason to believe something if you are threatened with torture or death if you don't, as evidenced by The Inquisition. Likewise, I would probably choose to believe something inconsequential (for example, regarding God -- inconsequential because God doesn't affect any of my physical invironment, so it doesn't require changing my beliefs with respect to reality), rather than be horribly tortured.
My question now is other than the above two great reasons to believe something (being paid to; under duress if you don't) is there a list anywhere of other good reasons to believe something, ie other than the belief corresponding to physical reality, the actual state of affairs, or being the best possible model thereof. Thank you. 82.113.121.167 (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Belief is what you have when reason does not apply, or isn't sufficient to satisfy, or the subject matter cannot be tested empirically. Looking for "reasons to believe" seems an odd contradiction. Bielle (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(after ec) :::Bielle, I'm not sure I agree with your definition of belief. For example, scientists believe that the scientific method gives results which are accurate. They believe this because of their experience of the scientific method. Reason obviously applies here, and the subject matter is being tested empirically. So that's another reason to believe something: personal experience. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By what standard, though? The idea that time is not absolute is pretty hard for the average citizen to swallow. However, the scientific method can yield evidence to support it. And that's the crux of the matter. The scientific method does not necessarily yield "the absolute truth", it merely yields "the best explanation we have". That's what drives religionists crazy about science. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@TammyMoet. You and I are using language differently, it would seem. I would say that scientists "know" that the scientific method works because of the empirical evidence. If they are wrong, in whole or in part, then they will know something different at the next step, because of the evidence. Belief is not required; it is testable and falsifiable. Belief is neither. (Of course, "know" and "belief" are constantly used as synonyms in common speech, but that would not be appropriate here, I think.) Bielle (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can the OP provide a little feedback or further guidance? Are we (those who've responded so far) shedding any meaningful light on the question asked? Would you like to further focus the question if the responses so far are not targeted well enough? Bus stop (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is a difficult question in any case. the best breakdown I've seem (variations on this seem to appear in a number of sources) is as follows:
Functional/pragmatic - I believe X because it is useful or practical to believe X
Normative/conventional - I believe X because X is what people believe
Rhetorical/emotive - I believe X because X strikes me as 'right' or 'true'
Communicative/analytic - I believe X because the arguments in favor of X convince me
most philosophers prefer the last, of course, but most acknowledge that there is a mix of these reasons in most people's beliefs, and most note that there are pro-functional and dysfunctional aspects to each. --Ludwigs217:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mystery poem
I'm trying to remember a poem about spring and nature. It was written ages ago and it was sung in a film recently. I can't remember what it was called, something about spring and cows and nature coming back after winter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valikan (talk • contribs) 14:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have a question, considering it was the first hijacked plane they had no opportunity to know they were victims of a suicide mission. I want to know if, knowing where they were seated, is it possible that, i.e. 37G passenger never knew of the hijacking? --190.178.159.192 (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 9/11 Commission Report says that, according to telephone messages from a stewardess, at 8:41, about 27 minutes after the hijacking started, "passengers in coach were under the impression that there was a routine medical emergency in first class."[16] The plane crashed 5 minutes later. All the hijackers were in business class at the front of the plane. It's impossible to know what exactly happened in the last few minutes, but it seems for much of the time passengers at the back of the plane did not know about the hijack. For more information about the attacks, the commission report is an excellent source. --Normansmithy (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Swear words
This might seem like a silly question but why are people offended by swear words. I can understand offense being caused with say the N word, but what is offensive about say the F word or the C word? Mo ainm~Talk19:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are primarily offended because they sense that you are attempting to offend them. This would explain why use of minced oaths are sometimes taken just as personally and why use of the N word is not taken offensively when coming from a particular person or in a particular circumstance. Moreover, the use of an expletive indicates that the speaker may be past the point of thinking rationally, in that he or she is making off the cuff remarks and has lost objectivity. This means that the rational connection between the speakers has been lost, and this may be offensive to some, such as between spouses, roommates, etc. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)19:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) That's an interesting question. One aspect is that words from Latin sources are considered more formal and proper than others. Thus "piss" is considered obscene while "urinate" is not. Why should this be ? More educated and wealthier people tended to know Latin, and they looked down upon the language of the commoners. The word profanity can be literally taken to mean "common language". StuRat (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it is not the actual word but the tone in which it is used. For instance, in Ireland it wouldn't be unusual to hear somebody greet someone with how the F are you? Mo ainm~Talk19:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's inaccurate to say it's not the actual word, too; there are people who would be grossly offended to hear certain profanities even if they were lovingly pronounced. Have you read our Profanity article? (By the way, our Language reference desk might have regulars who have a better answer for you than the Humanities desk.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From a purely pragmatic standpoint it makes sense to reserve some words as 'off-limits' except under extreme circumstances. The prohibition on their casual use ensures that they won't lose their potency. Even the most proper people I know will curse, and not frown upon cursing, when something has seriously gone awry. For local reading material check out Profanity#Types of profanity. Vranak (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has to do with 'vulgarity' more broadly put. words like 'fuck' and 'piss' are largely recognized as vulgar, and they are objected to because they lower the level of conversation from sophisticated to crude. for instance, I've used the words analytically above, which few people will object to, but if I were to continue by saying "it's a fucking shame that people use those words", it would instantly change the conversational dynamic. Bourgeois society insists on high-minded manners; c'est la vie. --Ludwigs219:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, parts of it do, sometimes; but sometimes it's a way, even among the very rich and well-brought-up, to communicate that you're one with a group and are confident enough to share a profanity. A great sequence from The Bonfire of the Vanities quoting bourgeois Wall Street bond brokers, feverishly selling their bonds over the phone:
"Strip fever in the twenty-year! That's all these jerks keep talking about!"
"— a hundred million July-nineties at the buck —"
"— naked short —"
"Jesus Christ, what's going on?"
"I don't fucking believe this!"
"Holy fucking shit!" shouted the Yale men and the Harvard men and the Stanford men. "Ho-lee fuc-king shit."
These words and phrases are acknowledgments of our separateness. We are individuals. We use these aspects of language to puncture the space between us. But there is a tension. We want acknowledgment of a "no-man's-land" between us, but we know at any time we can puncture the boundaries of it at will. Any puncturing of it is at least a faux pas. But specific breaking of the unspoken boundary can be an invocation of a particularly unbalanced relationship, and it is by this means that we attempt to offend by the use of language. Bus stop (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Context makes a significant difference. When people are terrified, like being in a fire or a collapsing building, most anything is liable to come out of their mouth, and they're not going to be faulted for it. When used with friends with whom vulgarity is acceptable, it's considered normal. When used with strangers, or with someone who is known not to like it, it can be impolite at the very least. When directed at someone, it's most offensive, and used to be called "fighting words", a concept with some degree of legal standing, i.e. "verbal assault". Where I come from, vulgarity was seldom used, because it was connected with being uneducated, or even with being a low-life. Times have changed, though. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The N word isn't always offensive, I have a close friend and we constnatly make joking rascist remarks to each other. On the other hand htere are many people who would be extremely insulted by idiot and stupid. And you have an Irish name, but nobody I know woluld say how the fuck are you?--92.251.221.135 (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reference to a term for African Americans that was used freely from slave years up through the 1960s. If you really don't know what it is, a 30 second google search will show you, but I suspect you're just trolling a bit. stop it. --Ludwigs222:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PalaceGuard008 is a RD regular who lives in Australia [17] and I believe was born in China. I don't live there but expect the N word may come up on occassion and obviously on American TV, but is unlikely to be a part of regular discourse and it's entirely probable that a fair minority would have no idea what you're talking about particularly those who have no great interest in American culture or rap music, probably even more so among those who spent part of their early lives in Asian countries and not speaking English. Note that people may be aware of the word nigger and it's offensiveness without recognising that the N word usually refers to it. [18][19] may be of interest as perhaps on a related issue The Jackson Jive. I also came across [20] where I noticed "there have been no official complaints about these names" which living in NZ hardly surprises me.
In fact although not concerning words, the swastika perhaps another example which I was reminded of here, and it's use something which perhaps PalaceGuard008 (I recall someone can't remember if it was him) and definitely I (not often, but I distinctly recall at one temple in Malaysia with it was used albeit left facing IIRC) can attest to, with some of the people almost definitely having no idea about its potential for offence as mentioned in the article as well.
Point being, things have different meanings in different cultures, don't assume everyone is going to recognise something as being offesive just because it's widely offensive where you live, even in the internet age and with the ubiquity of American culture (particularly with people who may not have English as their native language).
Even if PG008 was trying to make a point, that's perhaps ill-advised but not and far more likely then trolling (although I still doubt it).
P.S. While I'm usually a strong advocate of searching for people asking fresh questions, when an issue comes up I think it's entirely resonable to ask 'what on earth are you talking about' if insufficient context was provided without bothering to search.
Thank you Nil Einne and Buddy431 and apologies for the confusion to all. As I noted in my post, I suspected this was a regional issue. While I am certainly aware of the word "nigger" and its usage in North America, the word does not have the same history or usage elsewhere in the world - as with Bernanrd McNally below, I would say it's simply not in the everyday vocabulary. I don't believe I've ever heard the word used in Australia to refer to an actual person, whether as a greeting or as a racist taunt. When I read the preceding posts, I was genuinely uncertain what commonly-used swear word started with "N" (couldn't think of any). I did have some suspicion that this might be the word after reading the post above mentioning racism, but was not sure. For one thing, I don't usually think of racist taunts as swear words. Hence the question. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The normal greeting in Ireland is: "Dia is Muire gut", and the response: "Dia is Muire is Parigh dutsa". Only if you know someone well can obsenities be used with impunity. But Irish society changes and what is OK in one County is not in another. A sense of humour is acceptabe in one County is absent in another. My Dublin friend has African parents and speaks with a pronounced Dublin acent, and we "pull oneanother's legs something awful", but dare anyone else do it! His name is Patrick, to booth. That "N-word" is a definite no-go area, no matter what the circumstances. When I first saw this entry I did not know what you meant by N-word, it is not in the vocabulary here, and I don't live in China!
A good place to find history about how swear words originated and why which words are swear words (i.e. "fuck" rather than "sex"), as well as their presence around the world, try the chapter on swearing in this book:
Bryson, Bill (1990-07). The Mother Tongue. William Morrow & Company, Inc. ISBN0-380-71543-0. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
We had to read the entirety of this book for a summer assignment, and it was very comprehensive on English, its origins, and its ties to other languages, including the chapter on swearing. Hope this helps. Ks0stm(T•C•G)15:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@MacOfJesus, you are talking about the Irish language, and I assume you wrote them phonetically, the Irish language greeting is Dia dhuit, which means God be with you and the response is usually Dia's Muire dhuit which is God and Mary be with you. The language is not spoken regularly outside of Gealtacht areas. (An area which use Irish as their first language)Mo ainm~Talk15:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For a deepre understanding of swearwords, may I recommend C U Next Tuesday: A Good Look at Bad Language(2005) by Ruth Wajnryb. The title, for those who might not understand at first glance, is a reference to the slang phrase spelling out cunt, still one of the strongest words in the English language. (Amazon.com also lists a book by her under the title of Expletive Deleted: A Good Look at Bad Language, presumably the same text.) BrainyBabe (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mo ainm, yes I was thinking of someone trying to read what I wrote. But even outside the Gealtacht areas basic greeting such as these are often used. However, have you noticed that it is a different logic in using the Gealic. One cannot think in English and speak in Irish. For instance, one in Gealic cannot say directly: "That is a clock". A great linguist said that all languages can be interchangable in word and thought. He was not aware of The Gealic.
I have some friends in New Zealand with whom I play online chess, and one of them enters the room saying "Hi homos". Is this a normal greeting in kiwiland, or is it as rude as it sounds ? StuRat (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fine line between being offensive and being jockluar. (Often the overhearer in not atuned with the relationships).
Mo ainm, I am of the opinion that I would love for more people to speak my native language. But to do this I must make it easy for them to speak it. Like all children learning a language, you learn to speak it first, then write it. Slean.
On the page that you linked, the fifth language in the list is Farsi. The seventh language in the list is Arabic. The eighth language is Urdu. Unfortunately, I don't have Arabic or Urdu fonts, so I can't copy and paste or type the statements onto this page. Marco polo (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Arabic says "idara Houston al-ta'alimiyya al-mustaqala", if that helps. I also don't seem to have Arabic fonts on this computer (but I can do it from home later if no one else gets to it). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Persian one (which is almost entirely Arabic-derived words) is Persian: مدارس مستقل منطقة اي هيوستون. I'm not so confident about the Urdu - it does have "independent school" transliterated directly, which is easy enough, but I don't know which word means "district". Adam Bishop (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That one says something different, the entirety of "Houston Independent School Disctrict" is transliterated. I wasn't sure what the first PDF you linked had, because it looked like it said "Boston" instead of "Houston", unless there is something about Urdu phonology that I don't understand (which is very possible). The second one definitely does say "Houston" though. Unfortunately if I try to paste it, it shows up in the wrong direction...I'll keep trying. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this is mostly it, Urdu: ﮨيﻮﺳﭩﻦ اﻧﮉﭘﻨﮉﻧﭧ اﺳﮑﻮل ڈﺳﭩﺮﮐﭧ - but the first letter of "Houston" has a weird diacritic and I can't get the second letter to connect properly. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also I should note that the first document you linked to does say "Houston", not "Boston". It has the same squiggle under the H, which I originally thought was a B, sorry. So apparently "Houston" can be spelled『ﮨيوﺳﭩﻦ』or "ﮨوﺳﭩﻦ". The first document either doesn't have the word "district", or it's an Urdu word I don't know. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for getting the Urdu :) - I e-mailed HISD asking for any other official names for the district in other languages. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I heard during a chat programme on BBC radio this morning someone saying that the population of Detroit has declined from two million to 800,000 and that trees grow in abandoned skyscrapers. The Detroit article contradicts the population assertion. But is there any truth about the trees growing off abandoned skyscrapers? Thanks 78.146.208.26 (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems highly implausible. For one thing, that would constitute a safety hazard that the city would have to deal with. Also, why would a skyscraper (which should have some value) be abandoned? I think someone's been watching Life After People: The Series. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing this from Detroit, and I can tell you that's BS. Detroit has lost quite a bit of population, but not quite that much. The 2 million figure is a bit over the maximum in the 1950's, while 800,000 is a very low estimate for Detroit today. Note that most of that population loss was people moving out to the suburbs. There are neighborhoods in Detroit which are largely abandoned (as there are in many cities), but the downtown area, where the skyscrapers are, is just fine. The biggest building is the Renaissance Center, and that article should tell you about it's current status. StuRat (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC story sounds a bit exaggerated. Detroit's population is now about 900,000, which is about half of its peak population of 1.8 million in the 1950s. There are no trees growing from prime downtown skyscrapers, but you can see sights like this in Detroit. Marco polo (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Life after people included a car plant in Detroit which has been abandoned for decades, since WW2. I can't recall the once-famous brand. Edison (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Postage Due
Any postal administration still use postage due stamps? These stamps seem to have died out during the 50s/60s? I'm tempted to send myself letters purposely with insufficient postage just to get these stamps. What is the common practice today? Return to sender or a cancel chop on the envelope? I'm in Canada btw, I'm not aware of any Canadian postage due stamps, ever. Thx. --Kvasir (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Use caution when accessing the link in the following comment. There have been no less than eleven reports against that site of viruses and malicious content [21]. Falconusptc04:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I googled ["postage due" canada]. According to this,[removed due to virus concern expressed above] postage-due stamps were issued in Canada during 1906-1978 or some such. It's unclear what happens nowadays when there is postage due. My guess is it's returned to sender, but I don't know. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK the postman/woman leaves a card saying (something like) "your item couldn't be delivered because it had insufficient postage." You then have to collect it from from the sorting office and pay an excess fee there (or else it's returned to sender). I suppose it's part of the drive to make postmen get through their rounds as quickly as possible, and also to avoid the need of their dealing with cash. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or you can affix regular postage stamps to the card they leave and send it back and they'll deliver your letter. --Tango (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Canada, they stamp the envelope as not having sufficient postage and return it to sender. If there is no return address, it is sent to the addressee and payment plus an administration fee must be made prior to delivery. All from the Canada Post website under "Postage requirements". -- Flyguy649talk04:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scott says that the last new postage due stamp in the USA was issued in 1985. Today, post offices have a rubber handstamp that reads "Postage Due ___"; if the mail has no return address, the postal worker will use this handstamp and write in the postage due. I sent myself a letter some years ago with insufficient postage, hoping to get a postage due stamp that I didn't have (I'm a collector), but the postal workers never noticed that there was insufficient postage. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scott also says that Canada issued forty different postage due stamps. Five different designs were issued between 1906 and 1978; values were always 1-10¢, except for the last set, which was 1-50¢. I own the 1¢ of the 1935 issue. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know that Royal Mail in the UK, and An Post in Ireland were still issuing postage due stamps until the late 80s, which you could certainly buy from the respective philatelic bureaux, though I can't recall seeing any actually being used! The last Irish series of postage due stamps was issued in 1986, then for about a year in 1990-1 they trialled three different lots of postage due labels, where the value is selected at the time the label is printed - there was a Frama machine at the GPO in Dublin, a Klussendorf one at the Head Post Office in Limerick, and a Bowes machine at the HPO Cork. From 1993 they used a completely different style of machine to produce the labels (I've got 32p and 50p examples in my collection), printed on yellowish labels - they've got a circular Baile Atha Cliath datestamp on the left (20.9.93) and on the right a squarish design with『éire』on the top, and surrounding the value "postage" on the top, "due" along the bottom, "postas" down the left, and "lehioc" down the right. In the UK the Royal Mail was using Frama machines to produce postage due labels in the 80s. -- Arwel Parry(talk)18:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
March 9
Marriage prospect of Nicholas II's children
Besides c (whose marriage prospects were Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich, Prince Carol of Romania, Edward, Prince of Wales, or Crown Prince Alexander of Serbia) did any of the other children of Nicholas II of Russia and Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix of Hesse)? Did they ever mention anything about their own children future marriages, especially Alexei and Anastasia? I don't think they would have been freely allowed to marriage Russian commoners.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a over the counter diet product that was recently banned because they found out it has a prescription drug in it. Would it be possible for me to still sell it and say "its for disposal only" or as a collectible item only and its not for human use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.39.243 (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a request for legal advice. Have you searched for this product in Google to see what a reliable source might have to say about it? Have you contacted the FDA or whoever banned it? As an example, I've sometimes had some discontinued medicines. But I'm not selling them. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a general thing, I think TreasuryTag's exactly right here - if something's been banned from sale, you probably can't sell it regardless of what purpose you state it's for. I can't imagine "I was only selling that bag of crack cocaine as a collectible" getting you very far in court! ~ mazcatalk09:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At a guess (and I've little to go on) I would start with British literature, becasue "grand" isn't a word I hear too much in the U.S.. Or, at the minimum, American but from around 1950 at the latest. I picture it as a word used more by a writer like Jane Austen. Also, you can presume the speaker is a mother, as "Daddy and I" is a phrase usually spoken by a mom. It need not be to a child, as there are times young women will call their fathers "Daddy," but usually the parents don't refer to themselves that way, so I would venture that it's a story with a child (or teenager) as one of the main characters. Perhaps you can try to surmise *what* the person is inviting his or her parents to, recalling that it might be far in that child's future (like their dream wedding.)
I have removed your email address to prevent spam abuse, and given your question a separate section and title. Yes, you can find the information you seek by typing "Moses" into the search box at the top of this page, or following this link: Moses. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they have set opening hours any more than "Christian shops in England" – they open when the owner decides to open, and close when the owner decides to close... ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 21:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might religiously observant Jewish shop keepers close during certain hours when other shops were open? Perhaps that is what the OP wanted. Edison (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that Germany, if I remember rightly, has regulations that keep many stores closed on Sunday. The question is probably whether observant Jewish shopkeepers are allowed to close on Saturday instead. Unfortunately I have no idea of the answer. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merchant Marine Vessels of Scotland and Great Britain
I have attempted looking on the British National Archive site and Scotland websites as well as many other ways to find the answer to my question. The years my great grandfather was a Scottish Merchant Marine the records were not kept for according to these sources. All I have is discharge papers from two tours on the ships CLYDESDALE and BISMARCK. I am trying to find out if the BISMARCK is a different one than the German ship of the same name as I read somewhere the English used it for training troops. However, my Grandfather's discharge papers from the Merchant Marines is dated 1883 and 1884. I assume he was with the British Merchant Marines although he was from Ayrshire, Scotland. I would like photo's of these ships and information on them during this time period of 1880-1887, particularly 1883-1884 as I know for sure he was on these two ships those two years on voyages to New York and Bilboa(I assume they meant Balboa,Spain although I am not sure about this either). He departed from Barrow once and Glasgow once. Any information will truly be appreciated as I have tried for several years to obtain further information to no avail.
Interesting question. If it is the German Bismark, there's an article about it and photo of it on the German wikipedia - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Bismarck - and a babelfish translation of the same. Another photo here. Sadly our Anglo-German relations article is paper thin; I well know the monarchical (sp?) links between the two countries, but I'm ashamed & surprised to say that I don't really know the temperature of Anglo-German relations in the 1880s, so don't know what to make of the suggestion that of merchant marines training on a German navel ship. --Tagishsimon(talk)23:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the tensions really started to heat up until a decade or more afterwards, when Germany built up its navy (see German Naval Laws, High Seas Fleet, Tirpitz Plan etc.), which was really kind of a stupid move in the grand strategic context (since for Germany, a large navy was more of a consideration of international prestige, while Britain was not self-sufficient in basic food production, so that the UK government was grimly determined to spend however much it took to match Germany dreadnought-for-dreadnought in order to stave off the threat of starvation of its population). If bulking up the German navy laid the groundwork for the "Entente Cordiale" and Britain coming in on the side of France in WWI, then Germany would have been a lot better off without the navy (which ended up at the bottom of Scapa Flow)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clydesdale is probably a 608 ton screw steamer built 1881 for Robert McKill & Co., Glasgow, wrecked 28/3/1890 off North Bishops Island, Wales, while outbound Glasgow to Bilbao with coal. Careful in your searches, all the photos i've found so far are of another Clydesdale, built 1862 for David Hutcheson & Co., and wrecked 13/1/1905 on Lady Rock, sometimes referred to as Clydesdale I.—eric10:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bram Stokers Dracula was lost and found in a barn in Pennsylvania
Hi, I am looking for a good accessable reference to that effect. I see no reason why such an interesting story would not be readily sourcable from reliable publications if it were true. It appears on the Bram Stoker article, not on the Dracula article, and reference is light and from old books only. Surely anything interesting about literature like that is well documented somehwere or it is suspicious. ~ R.T.G00:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The manuscript of the NYLibrary night doesn't return a hit for "paul allen" and the Amazon review isn't a reliable source. The Wall Street Journal is a respectable publication but it differs significantly with the current source that it does not claim it to be the original manuscript and differs in number of pages etc. That's probably a useable reference but I am still dubious. I will refer those argueing the worth of the story to this. If I see any UFOs I will let you know. That's what it sounds like to me. Thanks for finding that even though I am still slating it. ~ R.T.G00:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of the NYLibrary article has a sentence "and to Seattle to spend two days with the guarded manuscript (Microsoft billionaire Paul Allen is the owner)." I won't quibble with the amazon article not being n RS, but at least it shows the story has legs. The WSJ article is one of the sources referenced in the Bram Stoker, so I'm not easily able to understand the point you're trying to make. The other - Latham, Robert. Science Fiction & Fantasy Book Review Annual, Greenwood Publishing (1988) p. 67 - also appears highly kosher. But you believe what you want to believe; your prerogative. --Tagishsimon(talk)01:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this, this and perhaps this tells as much of the history of that manuscript as I could find, which isn't much. Perhaps only John McLaughlin and the anonymous seller know where it actually was found, or maybe only the anon knows. Often "discovered" works like this have had a dubious history and sellers are none too willing to explain how they came in possession of them. Several news reports mentioned a barn but located it variously in New England, Pennsylvania or Massachusetts. meltBanana13:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WWI photograph identifications
I've uploaded some photos to Commons, and need help identifying the subjects for better descriptions &categorisation, and eventual use in appropriate WP articles.
Trench mortars
trench mortars
Can anyone identify these trench mortars from WWI? (Captured by NZEF soldiers and displayed in London at the end of the war.) I suspect they are Minenwerfers, of varying calibres. Gwinva (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tanks
what tanks?
I also need help identifying these WWI tanks, seen here during a victory parade in London. Allied tanks? Or captured German ones? (The parade was made up of allied troops and their spoils of war, see plane below). Gwinva (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If I'm reading our article correctly, the two raised cabins on the front one show that it is a Mark V series tank. The rhomboidal shape of the second one indicates that it's another British tank, and the one in back looks like a French Renault FT-17; but my poor old eyes can't see enough to make positive IDs on those two. Deor (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I feel stupid. I uploaded the photo from the Flickr Commons page, but never read all the comments; the early ones were not promising, so I never bothered reading the rest. (I tend to ignore most internet comment sections since they are rarely as informed as the ref desks). Thanks for the confirmation. Gwinva (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just enjoyed the almost painfully beautiful film Miss Potter, in which the father of the author is depicted as being intelligent and sharp, and – more importantly – warm, and, when it really matters, understanding, progressive, tolerant, and even wise. He is able to listen to people, and to take their emotions and thoughts seriously, and he can overlook the narrow-mindedness born from the social codes of conduct of the mid-nineteenth century. How accurately is the film's description of Mr Potter? --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do they make money? Would their customers pay more money to them? If not, how do they pay for all these additional lights? -- Toytoy (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article you link to says, in the first paragraph: "Dekotora may be created by workers out of their work trucks for fun, or they may be designed by hobbyists for special events." It doesn't sound like they are intended to make money. --Tango (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Warrington & Co.
Can anyone help me track down Warrington & Co. of 23 Garrick Street, London? They were the publishers of this little guide, and other than the fact that—according to this list—they were engravers, I haven't been able to find any information about them. Said guide (as well as a later version of which I possess a printed copy) is undated, and although the on-line version is tentatively given the publishing year 1911, I am almost certain that it was printed in the first decade of the 20th century. But when exactly? (If the illegible handwritten note on the cover is to be paid any attention, it could be at least as early as 1903.) Waltham, The Duke of04:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to this snippet, the Warrington of the company name—in 1897, at least—was one Richard Silvester Warrington, and the business is described as "engravers (printer, die sinker and lithographer)". Their most notable publication seems to have been the annual British Imperial Calendar and Civil Service List (as advertised here). And if the footnote in the second snippet here goes with the text in the first snippet, they appear to have been publishing some version of your book as early as 1855, though early editions seem to be under the title The New Palace of Westminster. Deor (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a definition linked to an online english dictionary, in a post maybe a a week ago.
(The original poster posted after me about a week ago, so this link may have appeared several days afterward.)
I am curious which dictionary this was. I am not sure if this was on the humanities desk, or language desk, or possibly entertainment desk.174.3.110.108 (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When did the County of Neuchâtel changed into a Principality? The article says『With increasing power and prestige, Neuchâtel was raised to the level of a principality at the beginning of the seventeenth century.』But does any one have an exact year and date?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Compare Berserker Tears, for emotions other than joy and sadness...Okay, it's only a trope, I've no idea if this happens in real life. Although the article does have a (short) "real life" section. Vimescarrot (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find it in a really short Google search, but I recall hearing on TV a theory that adults cry when happy, because it's a reminder of a special time in childhood when they really believed "fairy tales could come true" and that there would always be happy endings." Adulthood causes one to realize that isn't always true, so one sheds tears (as I do at times) at times one of those "happy endings" does occur. (Actually our whole family is that way :-) We often joke about wondering who will be the first to get choked up at, say, a wedding toast when we talk about how wonderfully happy we hope the couple will be, etc.)Somebody or his brother (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
