Why was the Romanization of Western Europe - Spain, France and Italy, among others - so rapid and profound whereas Roman cultural influence in Northern Africa was negligible? --[[User:Belchman|Belchman]] ([[User talk:Belchman|talk]]) 11:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Why was the Romanization of Western Europe - Spain, France and Italy, among others - so rapid and profound whereas Roman cultural influence in Northern Africa was negligible? --[[User:Belchman|Belchman]] ([[User talk:Belchman|talk]]) 11:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
:Just some ideas: only a thin strip of territory near the coast was (and for a large part is) livable, the rest was desert so too much penetration was unpractical/unworthy. But mediterranean Africa has nevertheless a lot of Roman relics, and so do other apperently un-roman places like, for example, Bulgaria. For example, [[Bardo National Museum]] contains one of the most importan collection of Roman mosaics outside Italy. You have to cosider that Muslims invaded these places, leading to the creation of the [[Ottoman Empire]]. And they were probably not very favourable to an exaltation of Roman (both pagan and christian) culture. Also Spain was subjected to islamization but it was reconquered.--[[Special:Contributions/151.51.61.119|151.51.61.119]] ([[User talk:151.51.61.119|talk]]) 11:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
:Just some ideas: only a thin strip of territory near the coast was (and for a large part is) livable, the rest was desert so too much penetration was unpractical/unworthy. But mediterranean Africa has nevertheless a lot of Roman relics, and so do other apperently un-roman places like, for example, Bulgaria. For example, [[Bardo National Museum]] contains one of the most importan collection of Roman mosaics outside Italy. You have to cosider that Muslims invaded these places, leading to the creation of the [[Ottoman Empire]]. And they were probably not very favourable to an exaltation of Roman (both pagan and christian) culture. Also Spain was subjected to islamization but it was reconquered.--[[Special:Contributions/151.51.61.119|151.51.61.119]] ([[User talk:151.51.61.119|talk]]) 11:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
== Figures for the [[battle of chancellorsville]] (and in general) ==
The info box sums it up this way for the Battle of chancellorsville: Union: 133,000 or so, Confederate 60,000 or so. I have a couple questions:
1. A few other sources, including some of the articles on here, have figures that are slightly different for the Confederatcy (more like 56,000) to way different for the Union (more like 110,000.) I can understand different sources being a few thousand off, but not 20,000. Is our info box counting all forces available int he battle, but other sources only counting the corps which were actually involved in the fighting?
2. Could the difference be regular soldiers versus volunteers? That doesn't make much sense to me, becuase they all volunteered befor ethe draft. Or, were some of the volunteers actually just state militias that came dwont o help? That would explain a 20,000 difference.
3. How are counts kept, anyway? I presume it has to be someone who is registered with some military, be it state or federal. but, pre-Industrial Revultion, you could have a bunch of [Vikings attack, and hundreds of citizens in a town charge at them with anything that would hurt, and it might get written up as the "Defense of Whathisname" if important enough.
Thanks in advance.[[Special:Contributions/209.244.187.155|209.244.187.155]] ([[User talk:209.244.187.155|talk]]) 13:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Revisionasof13:32,6July2010
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.
Hi - I'm Australian, and helping edit a thesis for a friend; I see that when numbering figures and tables, if it's the first figure in chapter 1, say, it's Figure 1.1 - but what if it's the first figure in the Introduction? What's the convention?
Another question - the subheadings in each chapter: do they have sentence formatting or title formatting?
The convention depends entirely on which style guide you subscribe to. If it is a lengthy thesis, the university probably has specified somewhere what they want. If not, you just have to pick one and be consistent about implementing it. There are different style guides for different fields. Common ones for academic papers include The Chicago Manual of Style (and its simpler subset Turabian style), The MLA Style Manual, etc. Once you have the guide, you can look up each of these concerns quite straightforwardly (they have sections on figure numbering, subheadings, etc.) The most important thing, though, in the end, is consistency—most graders are not style sticklers, but it looks extremely unprofessional if these things are inconsistent. Note that of all style conventions, proper citation of sources is the most important (and will land you in the hottest water if done incorrectly)... --Mr.98 (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you use LaTeX, pick any of the styles that have been used before (plain "report" is the most common), and just let it do its thing. You can tweak it, but it's rarely worth it. If you don't use LaTeX, do ;-). But even Word should be able to generate numbers for figures and tables automatically and consistently. Another hint: The university library will usually hold at least one copy of every PhD thesis (and sometimes others) submitted. Check out a few recent ones from your friend's field to use as examples. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least at my university, the really crucial formatting standards were those for the title page, the signature page, the margins on each page, type size, line spacing, page numbering, and paper quality. University bureaucrats carefully checked all of these, and if anything was off, the thesis would be rejected automatically, even if everyone on the committee had approved the content. Committees are typically more concerned with the argument and, as Mr. 98 says, proper citation and acknowledgment of sources, than with the finer points of editorial style. (A hint to the wise: Be sure to cite members of your committee!) Marco polo (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are the one with the degree and the location, you would probably be better off asking someone who is in the know- I'm not sure how many people here would know about it. Good luck, anyway. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}}01:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Air Traffic Safety Authority for the jurisdiction (country, etc.) where you're interested in finding employment may state particular qualifications required for applicants (other than minimum age and degree-holding), such as: hours of experience, residency, board certification, even military service. (I have no personal knowledge of the above, just stating what seems plausible.) -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IF YOU ARE DOING ILLUSTIONS FOR A CHILDRENS BOOK ,HOW DO YOU COME UP WITH THE PRICE OF YOUR WORK? THIS IS MY FIRST TIME ILLUSTING A BOOK, HOW DO I CHARGE THE PUBLISHER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.178.185 (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2010
Firstly, please don't type in all caps on the Internet. It's considered to be shouting. As for the answer to your question, of course it depends on a lot of things you haven't told us yet. Did they ask you to illustrate a book, or are you writing a proposal to them to illustrate? Have you had a conversation with their art director yet? What country do you live in? What country is the publisher in? How long is the book? Do you have an agent? (The answer to that one is obviously no.) Have you considered getting an agent so you can be more sure you're being compensated fairly? There's a book called Children's Writer's & Illustrator's Market that it sounds like you might want to get — it is mostly aimed at writers, unfortunately, but it also in turn points to other resources like local children's book author/illustrator gatherings. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might find some guidance at Jacketflap, a networking site which "connects you to the work of more than 200,000 authors, illustrators, publishers and other creators of books for Children and Young Adults". BrainyBabe (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we fear a NWO?
Dear refdeskers. I realize this question might be a borderline discussion and/or troll fest initiator, but it's something that's been bugging me for some time. If the answers slide too deep into the territory of either of the above, I don't mind a collapse of the question.
Ok, here goes. Out of some bizarre sociological fascination with conspiracy theorists I have for some time made it a habit to occasionally pop over to some random CT page and read through it. In these browsings, I have very often found a strong aversion to a one world government, the so-called new world order development in our future. Problem is, for all the fear of the NWO, I have yet to find an actual reason to fear it. Every CT page seems to stop at the point where we should fear the NWO, and seem to take it for granted we already know why exactly it is we're fearing it. Well, I don't. Why should we fear a NWO? What exactly are the freely assumed bad sides of a world government that would outweigh the possible good sides? I can certainly see many things that could work much better under a world government than they do now. However, please note, I'm not endorsing one or other world view, I'm just curious and looking for information I hadn't been able to find so far. Our article on the NWO doesn't really answer my question, either. TomorrowTime (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read those several times along with (I believe) every other non-fiction book Orwell ever wrote, and even for a time considered writing my degree on Orwell. However, Orwell's novels are on totalitarianism. I fail to see the reason why a one world government should automatically equal totalitarianism. In fact, it's ecaxtly this sort of automatic correlation that people seem to draw between the two that I find baffling. How is a world government different from, say, a continental government like Australia? Or an island government like the UK or Japan? Or from any other government? Why is it automatically assumed it would be a totalitarian government? TomorrowTime (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ask yourself how benevolent an unregulated monopoly would be in the business world. Or for that matter, how well dictatorships work in the governmental world. That could give you a clue to the answer about New World Order. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all. Why would a world government be any more unregulated or dictatorial than, say, the US government? Checks and balances are overwhelmingly internal, which explains why we currently have both fairly free and fairly dictatorial regimes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say that I don't think either of these answers addresses the OP's question. The assumption that some sort of NWO would automatically be unregulated and totalitarian is what the OP seems to be questioning and so far the responses have been "it'd be totalitarian because it'd be totalitarian.. ok?". For sure, it might run into some issues because it'd be the only game in town, but that doesn't necesserily mean that it couldn't run fairly well with a good system of checks and balances. I think the argument that the only reason countries "work well" is because there is competition from other countries screams [citation needed] and that some countries seem to rather succcessfully remain unfree/totalitarion/incredibly messed up despite there being competition from other countries.
This actually happens to be a question I've mulled over a few times, thinking to myself "hey, if we had one government think how streamlined it could be...". Warning:OR My sister made the argument that with one world government you, the individual, would have less say in the decisions that were made because instead of being you and 30ish million people voting (I'm in Canada) it's you and 6ish billion other people. I called bullshit on this because as far as 'global' decisions go the average person has a less than 1 in 6 billion vote because certain organizations (hello G20) don't even contain the whole world so representation is already skewed and it would seem some sort of world order would just level the playing field. As a Canadian I like my vote counting with the 'big boys' but at the same time, it's a bit ridiculous for me to think that a NWO would be a crisis because people in LDCs would get a bigger vote...
Here is a reason to fear a world government. Assume it's dictatorial. Then it's bad. Alternatively, assume it's democratic. Then it will likely look after all its citizens equally. In other words, it will take steps to change an economic system where 300 million Americans and 450 million Western Europeans consume most of the worlds economic output, and 1 billion Chinese, Indians, and Africans each are left with the scraps, or nothing at all (all number roughly rounded ;-). Since nearly all of us are profiteers of the current economic system, we are likely to lose out. To misuse Jefferson, "Indeed I tremble for the West when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. So, we should fear the NWO because we realize that our current system is inherently unfair and we just happen to not be on the receiving side of the stick. Ok, I can live with that reply. It's odd, though - I never took your average NWO fearing conspiracy theorist to be as learned as to have read Immanuel Wallerstein and contemplated his World systems theory and the deep moral and social implications thereof. Somehow someone who rants about FEMA concentration camps just doesn't strike me as quite that far in their studies :) TomorrowTime (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fear of world government by (mostly) American cranks boils down to a perceived threat to American exceptionalism and U.S. global hegemony, in the minds of conspiracy theorists aided and abetted by perceived internal traitors who serve for them as scapegoats. This can often also be connected to a general xenophobia, and sometimes to a more specific anti-Semitism, depending on the claims made. (Incidentally, while U.S. hegemony may be increasingly shaky, I think the likely outcome is not world government but an ever more fractured world. Elites in Russia, India, Europe, and China distrust one another far too much for the unification of Eurasia to be conceivable in the next century, much less the whole world.) Marco polo (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Marco polo (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ludicrously idealistic and over-optimistic I may be, but there is surely a possibility that the combination of economic globalisation, shared recognition of global environmental interdependence, increased recognition of the value of science over superstition, and shared information through the internet and sites like this one, will actually start to relegate xenophobia and religious fundamentalism to the margins, and promote the achievement of benign forms of shared responsibility, if not actual global government. Always look on the bright side of life. :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of suspect as much with the conspiracies centered around the UN and its sinister role, but UN conspiracy theories and NWO conspiracy theories are not necessarily mutually inclusive of one another... TomorrowTime (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People always complain that government is unresponsive to their needs, even at the local level, but especially at the federal level. How does anyone here think that a globalized government would be an improvement? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 08:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The European Union and the old Hapsburg Empire both offer ample proof that large super-states are too cumbersome, far-flung, and cannot integrate its multi-nations, each with its own etnicities, religions, special interests, local econony, culture, language, etc. How could a world government possibly function effectively serving the needs of each citizen?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By coming to a recognition that people across the world have much more in common with each other than the trivial, superficial and minor factors like language, culture and "ethnicity" that serve, in some circumstances, to divide them. Maybe climate change or some other form of global environmental catastrophe would do it. Or an alien invasion. ;-) Come on now, people, let's get together...Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with NWO, IMO, boils down to basic human psychology. people (at a certain level of development, at any rate) are prone to ingroup/outgroup (us opposed to them) reasoning. 'us' is usually not well-defined, 'them' is never well-defined, but regardless it's a powerful psychological motivator based in the assertions that (a) people can be meaningfully cast into types systematically, and (b) these types will necessarily carry a moral component. one of the brilliant insights in Wallerstein's work, for instance, is that people will naturally associate race with economic deprivation, because not associating race and economic deprivation would imply that economic deprivation is caused by exploitation, and that worldview violates most people's preconceptions that their ingroup is morally good. The idea of world governance violates the heart and soul of 'us vs. them' reasoning, and is automatically interpreted (by people at that developmental level) as a trick by evil 'thems' to dominate 'us' by Machiavellian legal tactics.
in other words, no one is capable of understanding the value of world governance until they have developed past the need to identify themselves in terms of an outgroup, because as long as ingroups are defined in terms of disliked outgroups, any NWO will seem inherently threatening. It's basically the same reasoning as went into the American civil war and Jim Crow era - Southern whites could not accept federal governance, because southern whites defined themselves in terms of their superiority to blacks, and the federal government (by insisting on inter-racial equity) threatened their very identity as whites. --Ludwigs209:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way a single government would work because of the vast diversity in human beings. There would have to be a single capital, a single language, and a single political party. If all people were programmed as robots to think alike, then it would be feasible, otherwise rebellion and civil wars would break out everywhere.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's taking a very pessimistic view of people. People have far more things in common than what divides us. Humans have only differentiated from each other over the last 150,000 years or so, which is the blink of an eye in terms of the earth's development. There's no reason why there has to be a single "capital" - power can be diffused between different places, or even held within the www. There's certainly no reason why there would have to be a single language, and every reason why there should be multiple political groups serving different areas and "ethnicities" in different languages - but all within an all-encompassing consensual global framework. It just requires the gradual expansion of existing international treaties and organisations, while retaining much local control. And, of course, there would be local rebellions - just as there are fights on street corners now. Why on earth does it require people to think alike? This all goes back to the presumption that governments exist to control people, I suppose - which is certainly true of some, bad, governments, but not good ones. So, elect a good one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There are a lot of questionable responses in this thread, but this [Jeanne Boleyn's response] takes the cake. A single world government would not require a "single political party" or people to be "programmed as robots to think alike". Governments can and do function with multiple parties and diverse opinions. —KevinMyers13:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin Myers, you can say what you like about my opinion, but I challenge you to go out into the main street of your city/town/village/suburb and stop a random selection of people and ask them their views regarding the possibilty of a single, world government, and then gauge their reactions. Somehow I don't think the average person's response would be exactly orgasmic! And if you think a single government can function with multiple parties and diverse opinions, study the history of the Ottoman and Hapsburg Empires as well as the causes which led to World War I.As regards taking the cake, I prefer a chocolate layered cake with gollops of icing served with a trencherman's portion of French vanilla ice-cream.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of a single world order would have to answer the question that every individual should ask: "What's in it for me?" A lot of Americans have asked that about the U.N. and I expect a lot of Europeans continue to ask that about the E.U. Meanwhile, please note the motto Novus ordo seclorum on the back of your U.S. dollar bill. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's in it for me is a better life for my children and grandchildren, and for their peers, wherever they might be. Surely that's the only valid worthwhile goal for all of us? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be a gloom-and-doom Cassandra, but I need to point out that the flower-power hippie All You Need is Lovepipedream ended at Woodstock on 15 August 1969, the day troops were sent to Northern Ireland because of political/religious conflict. The let's get together generation then totally self-destructed at Altamont four months later.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is Britain sending troops to Northern Ireland in 1969 US-centric? Anyway, that hippie, love-and-peace, drug-fueled, and sexually-enhanced, counterculture was basically founded and inspired by both the British rock scene and the anti-Vietnam War American protesters, with the Beat generation having been the midwife.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, with harmony and understanding, sympathy and trust abounding, etc. What such pie-in-the-sky idealism fails to take into account is individual ambitions, both good and evil. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may be idealistic, but it also makes good sense for everyone for humanity to act in each others' collective interests. Isn't that what we're trying to do, in our own little way, on WP - that is, sharing knowledge, and expanding potential? So we can make a bigger pie, and have one slice each here on earth. That's my "ambition". :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The libertarian view is what is called "enlightened self-interest". People will be more willing to do something if they see what's in it for them. If you think every wikipedia editor is trying to share knowledge and expand potential, drop by WP:ANIorWP:AIV sometime and see how that's working out. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to point out the obvious, but as it stands world government is a de facto truth. it's no longer a question of whether we want to have a world political system, but rather a question of what kind of world political system we want to institute. currently we have a kind of international corporate oligarchy, where financial institutions can find an extensive degree of free reign by surfing between different national jurisdictions - e.g. companies gamble on dangerous processes that threaten the lives and livelihoods of tens of thousands in multiple countries (Bhopal, the gulf spill); Fast food industries encourage beef production in central america and south east asia, which leads to deforestation that contributes to global warming, and causes periodic toxic smogs that affect numerous countries as neophyte farmers burn off trees; US companies render entire third world nations dependent on their good will, or exercise significant impact on US legislation through lobbyists and campaign donations. These days if you fart in Bangladesh people complain about the stink in French Guiana; there's no getting around the fact that some kind of international structure will fall into place to deal with it. --Ludwigs221:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's because in popular fiction, the evil bad guys are always out to rule the world, and we've been conditioned to believe that any one entity who wants to control the world is automatically bad? Or maybe it's because the claimed efforts to bring a NWO are being carried out in secrecy, rather than out in the open? I don't know. This is really a question for psychologists. There was an article not too long about about the psychology of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, I'll see if I can dig it up. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if these directly answer your question, but these articles from Psychology Today[1] and Science News[2] might shed some light on the psychology of conspiracy theorists. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the reason they're carried out in secret is to avoid popular input. And there you have the core problem with the notion of a new world order, "philosopher kings", and all that sort of thing. Basically, it doesn't work. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why people believe in oddball conspiracies is really a different question than has been asked here, which is why many people instinctively fear the idea of a world government. The answer to the original question is actually quite simple, I think. Most people fear losing control of their destinies, and a world government, the ultimate Leviathan, would be so large that some people fear that they, as individuals or in small groups, would have no ability to influence it. No one likes to be governed without their own consent, so it's natural to fear the creation of a massive world state if you believe that your input would count for little in that government. Not everyone feels this way, of course, as the members of the World Federalist Movement would attest. —KevinMyers16:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would your "destiny" be, to any great degree, in the hands of any government, whether at local level, regional, national or global? The aim of good government - at whatever level - is to enable everyone to take steps towards achieving their destiny, isn't it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a good example of why a World Government could never work. If editors cannot reach a compromise at Talk:British Isles, how could people expect to work together towards a common goal within an enormous superstate where everybody is claiming a piece of the pie? By the way what kind of goal would entice the global citizens to work collectively towards achieving it? Happiness? Peace ? Power? Wealth? Or just the right to exist with a number, a state-provided job, an allocated apartment?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've hit it on the head when you bring up goals. You'll never get the world's population to agree on what the global goals should be. It's hard enough to get agreement on goals even in a small town, never mind world-wide. Globally, unless you can do away with the fundamental us-vs.-them mentality, it can't possibly work. How would this postulated global government fix the Islamic-states-vs.-Israel problem, for example, without one side or the other being the "loser"? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be that a lot of the people subscribing to conspiracy theories are favourable towards libertarianism[citation needed], and thus already are adverse towards government on national and federal levels? I am sure a world government would probably be their worst nightmare regardless of it being totalitarian or not. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So anyone not favourable to libertarianism does not place a high value on individual freedom? Sounds like a strawman to me. Anyway this is not the place to discuss the merits of libertarianism. I merely mentioned libertarianism because adherents to that ideology holds a particular adversity against government. I could have used adherents of anarchy (in any form) as an example that would be equally relevant. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The US government is NOT accountable to the people of other countries which is one of the main objections worldwide to US foreign policy and general hegemony. The US has historically acted in some pretty undemocratic ways towards other nations to which it is not accountable. This is fairly well documented. That is not to say that the U.S. is particularly evil, its just that when it acts in its own "national interests" these have sometimes tended to run counter to the interests of the people in non-US nations... --Jayron3204:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this sparked a big debate and there were some points that address my original question somewhat (the multiple systems theory, phobia of the pop-cultural evil overlord stereotype, aversion to government in general) but I can't say I'm fully satisfied with any of those. The debate also showed, in action, the knee-jerk assertion: world-government = totalitarianism expressed without much explanation, which is what I find baffling in the first place. Well, I suppose this is not really an answerable question. Ultimately, it seems to be a matter of faith - you either believe in conspiracy theories and with the territory comes a seemingly irrational fear of NWO, or you don't. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How, in your opinion, would a one-world government work? Would it be a loose confederation something along the lines of the U.N.? Or would it have the strength of a typical central government? How would it enforce its laws? What would those laws typically consist of? How would it handle complaints? Until you have answers to those kinds of questions, it's really hard to pin down whether it would be something to fear or not. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Users of Wikipedia are the global elite, which means we have a lot to lose if things change in a big way. If you believe in redistribution of wealth, power and resources; global environmental and labor laws; and on and on – call it socialism with a “fair trade” slant – then the only means of achieving it is for governments to be forced to comply. That means something above governments (more powerful, more authoritative), which isn’t the United Nations. Hence, achieving all those nice policy positions requires a global government with those policy goals.DOR (HK) (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is late in a discussion that is all but closed, but your comment actually opened my eyes - it makes a lot of sense. Yes, it is a fact that in envisioning a global government from the point of view of a person right now, it would probably have to be called something like socialism - if we ever get to it (which I doubt, at least in the near to medium future), we might call it something else, but right now the word socialism - with or without a qualifier - fits best. Given the negative connotation the word has in the US and a lot of the rest of the world, it makes sense therefore that many people would instinctively fear a global government. If nowhere else, one can observe on an almost weekly basis from questions being asked and answered right here on this board that a lot of people freely assume that socialism = totalitarianism. So this is, as I suspected, in a great deal also a question of cultural and educational background. It also has grounds in the observed reality, as while socialism in theory does not equal totalitarianism, it has proven in reality to be really vulnerable to it. Right now, there is no reason to assume that a global government would be any less susceptible to totalitarianism than were lesser governments that dabbled in applied socialism, even if some of those were less susceptible than others. Thanks for giving me this insight and some understanding of a matter that had bothered me for some time now. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think socialist nations are "more susceptible" to totalitarianism; more that totalitarianism comes about through people or political parties that use socialism as a carrot to make their power-changing demands look acceptable (ie. Hugo Chavez). Once they have a big enough stick, the "socialism" remains in name-only as a smokescreen. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite22:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Question on the Federal Reserve
From what I have read, the Federal Reserve controls the interest rates on financial products offered by banking institutions in order to promote a stable economy. During periods of inflation, the Fed raises interest rates. During periods of deflation, the Fed lowers them. All of this is done years in advance after extensive economic forecasting to ensure positive results. Assuming what I have written is correct, are financial institutions barred from offering their own interest rates? If so, why are we taught to comparison shop for different financial products if they're really all the same? If I'm completely wrong, please enlighten me. Any help is gladly appreciated. 66.176.245.57 (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, the federal Reserve controls what interest rate the United States uses for its transactions. Since banks do business with the United States, they will adjust their rates so they make money but remain competitive. But I'm far from an expert in this.—msh210℠06:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The Fed sets the rate for short-term loans from the Federal Reserve to banking institutions -- the "federal funds rate". From there, the free market determines interest rates. Banks set rates to other customers higher (so that they can make money) while not raising them too high (so as to remain competitive with other banks). So while the Fed may influence whether your interest rates hover around 4% or 8%, it's still up to you to determine the best rate that hovers around that average. Note also that interest rates are rarely the only item of significance when comparing financial products: fees, for example, are set entirely independent of the Fed. — Lomn13:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] The Federal Reserve has direct control over two interest rates: 1) the Federal funds rate (or Fed funds rate), or the rate at which banks can borrow from other banks' reserve accounts in the Federal Reserve System; and 2) the discount rate, or the rate at which banks can borrow from the Federal Reserve System itself. These rates in effect set the cost of money for commercial banks. In a sense they set a floor for the rates that banks charge their customers. The rate that commercial banks charge to customers will virtually always be higher than the Fed funds or discount rate, because the yield spread between the interest rate banks have to pay and the interest rate that they can charge their customers is most banks' main source of income and profit. Banks may compete against one another by offering slightly lower interest rates to attract borrowers, so it can make sense for borrowers to shop around, but those rates will virtually always be above the rate that the banks pay to borrow money from the Federal Reserve. Marco polo (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"years in advance... to ensure positive results." Ha! If only. While there's plenty of "extensive economic forecasting", the Fed isn't infallible and isn't always working that far ahead -- if, in fact, it's working ahead at all. Plenty of actions by the Fed appear reactionary. Of course, the actual decision process of the Fed is fairly obscure, so it can be hard to pin down exactly why they're doing what they're doing. Even if the chairman reports on why the Fed is taking a particular action, is it the whole reason? Is it the reason at all? The Fed is deliberately removed from most of the checks and balances of the federal system. — Lomn13:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, for example, in a stable economy, Community Bank B takes out a loan from its local Federal Reserve bank at a two percent interest rate. Community Bank B then loans out that money to various consumers at five percent interest in order to create a profit. However, in an economy ridden with inflation, the Fed ups its interest rates to six percent interest on its loans. Community Bank B, to make up the difference, ups its interest rates on its loans to nine percent; contracting the money supply. Am I correct in this? 66.176.245.57 (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To conceive of this properly, you should understand a crucial point: One of the most important classes of loans banks receive are overnight loans. Banks are required to have a minimum reserve every day. Chaotic everyday business being what it is, banks often have too little on hand "overnight," and are obliged to borrow for literally one day ("overnight"). The interest charged on such overnight loans is a crucial element of the cost of doing business. So part of your mental model should be "overnight loans," as opposed to simply "a bank borrows money and then lends it" -- banks MUST secure overnight loans frequently, and so have no discretion, say, to abstain from them for a while if they don't like the rates. 63.17.72.210 (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, 'years in advance' isn't far from the mark. In normal times, it takes 6-9 months for interest rate changes to take effect, so having a good forecast is vitally important. I would also point out that the actual decision process of the Fed is fairly well understood by those who follow it closely. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Special relationships between countries
Friends (human) do not feel the need to constantly tell each other that they have a special relationship. If it is indeed "special", it’s just something they both accept. They might sometimes tell each other how much they love them, or appreciate them, or miss/need/want them or whatever, but not "We have a special relationship" every time they see each other.
So, what is it about international relations between certain countries that does require this constant affirmation that their relationship is "special"? I’ve been hearing all my life about the "special relationship" and "special bond of friendship and cooperation", and similar gushing phraseology, between the United States and Australia. It came up again the other day when our new Prime Minister Julia Gillard phoned President Obama to say "G’day, mate; Kev's gone, I’m in charge now". That in itself was fine, but both leaders took the time and trouble to assert, for the 10,000th time, how special and close and warm and mutually supportive the bonds of unity and cooperation and friendship and amity are between "our two great countries". Why do they do this? Do they think we mere citizens all have short memories and need to be constantly reminded of it? Or do they perhaps not quite believe it, and feel the need to fake it till they make it? Or is it just one of these traditions whose origins are lost in the byzantine mists of arcane protocol? (Jack of Oz =) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Friends (human) do not feel the need to constantly tell each other that they have a special relationship." They certainly do if they are children, or young teenagers. ("You're one of my best friends, but she's my best best friend ever." "You hate me, don't you?") That is, immature people. Is there a lesson here? To me, there seem to be quite a lot of similarities between the relationship patterns of humans who have not yet fully matured, and high-level international politics. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had to laugh when I read this, since we Brits are always being told that there is a "special relationship" between ourselves and the USA. (And of course, we have an article on it - Special Relationship.) America must be something of a tart if she has so many special relationships going on, no? It seems to me that the ones who assure us that there is a special relationship between the US and UK are invariably British politicians who don't want to face up to the fact that Britain is no more important to the US as an ally than any other country. Tony Blair pretty much did all that was required of him during the Iraq war in a doomed attempt to demonstrate the closeness of the relationship. --Viennese Waltztalk 07:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's called politics. Or political "schmoozing". A couple of Wills stated well this notion of nations being friends or having special relationships:
"Nations do not have friends. They have interests." -- George Will
"The best friends the U.S. ever had were the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans." -- Will Rogers
In the UK, the degree of influence that we have with the US is a widely seen as a measure of successful foreign policy. Margaret Thatcher telling Bush the Elder not to "go wobbly" (and him obliging) was a success[3]; Gordon Brown chasing Barack Obama round a conference venue in the hope of a few words was a failure[4]. The news that David Cameron was going to tell Obama to tone-down the anti-British rhetoric over the BP leak did him no harm at all; what was actually said can only be guessed at. Few seem to care if we upset the rest of the European Union; some relish it. Good relations with the "old" Commonwealth (Canada, Australia, NZ) appear to be rather taken for granted I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from the perspective of an American who does not support U.S. global hegemony, I can say that we in the United States tend to hear about "special relationships" with the United Kingdom, Israel, Canada, Mexico, and Australia, in roughly that order. In my perception, "special relationship" seems to mean something like "Although you are a client state, we respect you." In the case of Israel, it is a little different, in my opinion. There, it means, "We will back you even if your actions harm our interests, because internal politics require us to do so." In the case of countries other than the United States, I think that the "special relationship" claim is politically important to each country's government, since, for the government to seem credible in the eyes of many of its citizens, it is important for the United States to reaffirm its "special relationship" with that government. Within the United States, there are constituencies with ties of affection to each of the "special relationship" countries, and parties and political figures within the United States angle for the support of those constituencies by affirming the "special relationship". Marco polo (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is sort of national neurosis in Canada; I remember reading a couple of weeks ago about how proud the Canadian Forces were that the US "let" them command the NATO forces in southern Afghanistan. I'm sure the US didn't put much thought into it, they are busy elsewhere and Canadian troops already happened to be there, but it always comes across as if Canada has a teenage crush on the US and is always trying to be noticed. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many tombs of Chinese emperors are still intact? It seems in the cases of Egyptian Pharaohs they tombs were robbed and looted within centuries of their death. There is a lot of talk about Egyptian tombs and the quest to find another intact one like the one of King Tut when in China their might be hundreds of tombs as richly stocked and intact tombs. I heard that Qin Shi Huangdi's tomb might be intact but are their older Chinese imperial tombs?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. what is economics?
a. "economics is the science dealing with what goods and services are produced, how they are produced, and for whom"
or
b. "economics is the study of the human attempt to fulfill infinite desire with finite resources"
c. "economics is the study of the exchange of goods and services in society"
2. what is an economy?
an economy is a system of pipes and funnels leading from one person's wallet to the other's refrigerator, thence their dining table, into their mouths, and, if you will believe it or not, all the way through the toilet system, past the waste processing plant, out into the ocean, where it is now outside the system of pipes and funnels. (outside the economy).
3. what are the basic problems of an economy?
how to allocate resources, how to produce goods and services, and through what mechanism (these days usually fiat currency and a price they will be exchanged at.)
4. more definitions of economics.
see b c, etc. you can also say "Economics is the study of wealth", in its broadest possible sense.
Can you tell me where I may find the subject of " Heroism " well treated of, besides the papers of Messrs. Carlyle and Emerson ? -- Orwell Asks (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Practice of intentionaly burning suburbs when anticipating attack ?
I am doing a research on a certain city in Europe. By 19th century its fortifications had become cumbersome to the locals and where eventualy torn down. Among the problems described is a rule that prevented use of masonry in suburbs outside the city walls. It doesn't explain the reasoning behind the rule, however troughout the course of history the suburbs had been torn down or burnt down (the last such instances were, respectively to make an esplanade and due to a scare anticipiating an attack) and a rule which enforces buildings to be made of less durable and less fireproof material (if no masonry is allowed it seems to leave only wood) would appear to be related to that. So was it common strategy to destroy suburbs ? If so what would happen to the population (in this case it is said that the walled part of the city had population of 15000, while the suburbs had a population of 65000, sheltering them in the town during an acctual attack seems a bit unrealistic) ~~Xil (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Thiers wall of Paris was surrounded by a so-called zone non aedificandi where no construction was permitted, which eventually became a slum after military interest in the city walls waned. The demolition of peacetime barracks and support facilities around permanent fortifications was a common measure in wartime to clear a field of fire for defenders. I don't have specific knowledge of practices concerning the populace in such areas; it might vary according to the ruthlessness of the individual state. Acroterion(talk)15:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure that they weren't using the masonry from the city walls to build the suburbs. Reusing already cut stones was a common procedure. Rmhermen (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wooden buildings outside the walls of fortresses would be pulled down when there was a threat of a siege in order to clear fields of fire. The last example of this I can think of is during the attack on Fort Eben-Emael on 10th May 1940, when many of the garrison where engaged in dismantling wooden office buildings outside the gates, when they should have been shooting the Germans who had landed on the roof. In the mid-19th Century, because of the increasing range of artillery, there was a move away from the old continuous bastioned-trace to the "Prussian System" of a ring of widely spaced Polygonal forts. This combined with the exponential growth of cities due to industrialisation and improved transport, meant that old laws about building in front of old fortifications quickly became obsolete. As you say, efforts to enforce these old laws caused all kinds of contradictions. Alansplodge (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which city you are referring to, but typically, through the early modern period, as suburbs around the city expanded, the old city walls would be abandoned or torn down, and a new set of walls would be built around the outer suburbs, bringing them within the city's defensive circuit. This happened several times in cities such as Paris and Berlin. There were interim periods when suburbs accreted outside the existing set of walls, but typically, the suburban population would have been able to take refuge within the walls in case of attack. The situation you describe, where the suburban population (and presumably area) was several times that of the city within the walls, suggests a point in time after the walls no longer had military value, as Alansplodge has explained. If walls had remained crucial for defense, then a new set of walls would have been constructed around at least the inner ring of those suburbs before they outgrew the walled city. Marco polo (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it has been already established that star forts were not huge hit in 19th century, however it was said that the suburbs were 10-times the size of the city by the end of 18th century and it seems they started to form much earlier and they were protected by wooden palisade untill 1808, so perhaps there were other reasons not to include them. I allready found out that they apparently didn't give a damn about what happaned to suburban population when they lost their homes. In any case I was hoping there is an article on this burning practice, I wonder if there may be other reasons for that ? ~~Xil (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Printing money
Calls for "austerity" seem to be mounting in many rich countries. The argument for austerity is that governments (and entire economies) will face a funding crisis if debt levels reach a point at which investors are no longer willing to lend those governments money. Now, this is probably true in the euro zone, since euro zone countries have in effect lost control of their currency, as I understand it, to the Eurosystem. However, what would prevent other countries from simply spending more than they receive in revenue? If this is possible, it would eliminate the need to borrow. If governments are concerned about preventing deflation and creating jobs, surely printing money and spending it would be a more effective means than borrowing and spending it, since government borrowing tends to crowd out private borrowing. Now, I understand that if a government were to begin printing unborrowed money, government bonds would plummet in value and interest on those bonds would spike. This could lead to a hyperinflationary scenario as government printing accelerated to keep pace with rising interest rates. However, what if, in one day, the government printed enough money to simply pay off the national debt? Of course, this would amount to a default, and the government would no longer be able to borrow money. But why should the government borrow money when it can print instead? Why shouldn't governments end commercial banks' monopoly on money creation, as it currently exists with fractional-reserve banking? Please understand that I am looking for thoughtful responses to my questions (if possible with references to published sources) and not looking to start a debate. Thank you. Marco polo (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Printing money does not create value, it just redistributes it. The value the government would get would come from decreased value of the currency everyone in their country is holding (due to inflation). There is really no difference between printing enough money to pay off the debt and taxing your people enough to pay off the debt - the value comes from the people in the end either way. That kind of inflation or tax would destroy the economy. --Tango (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Governments cannot print their way out of debt because, under the rules of Fiat currency a currency is basically tied to the GDP of the country that issues it (its not that simple, but roughly so). Money is basically a fraction of your countries GDP. If you print more money, you don't actually create more value, you just devalue the existing currency. Modern methods of "printing money" (which involve central banks playing around with interest rates rather than actual printed cash) operate much the same way; it doesn't actually generate additional value for the government, it only devalues currency already in the hands of people. Also remember that actual specie and paper money (which the government can literally print) is such a tiny fraction of money in circulation that actually firing up the presses to print more money has no practical effect on anything. Instead, what governments do is instruct their central banks to lower the interest rates on which they charge to loan money to comercial banks. When the central bank loans money to the commercial bank, it literally creates the money out of thin air. So, when it lowers the interest rates, the commercial banks borrow more money, this increasing the money supply. However, this money is not in the form of printed bills. Its all just entries on ledger sheets. Basically, it all exists in computer spreadsheets. --Jayron3216:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These responses are very helpful. I am familiar with the pieces of this puzzle, but I am not familiar with the connection that Tango and Jayron32 made, between the value of GDP and and the value of the money supply. How exactly are the two connected? In the case of the United States dollar, trillions of dollars are held by foreign central banks because of the dollar's reserve currency status. How are these amounts connected to US GDP? It seems to me that the value of money is ultimately its ability to purchase desired goods and services. The supply of goods and services is somewhat limited globally. Foreign credit has certainly increased the share of global goods and services that holders of dollars (mostly Americans) could command above the value of goods and services produced by Americans. This discrepancy is roughly captured by the long-term US current account deficit. A cutoff or reversal of that credit (which seems virtually inevitable in the long-run) will reduce Americans' ability to purchase goods and services, leading to a decline in the material standard of living. The question is how that cutoff happens. Is the cutoff (which by itself will shrink US GDP and living standards) accompanied by a cut in government spending (further shrinkage of GDP and living standards) and rise in the real tax burden (further shrinkage) such that the fiscal deficit becomes a fiscal surplus, needed to pay off the debt, assuming that it is repayable from a smaller economic base? This seems to be the course indicated by the advocates of austerity. (However, many analysts have pointed out that austerity in Greece will cause economic contraction that actually increases its debt as a share of GDP and ultimately decreases its chances of repayment.) What I am asking is, what if the government simply prints money to pay off the debt? This will still lead to a cutoff of credit and a drop in government spending in real terms, but it would not necessarily lead to an increase in the real tax burden, because the debt would already be paid off. Any real increase in taxes could go toward, say, the construction of green infrastructure, rather than toward debt service. Such a move would inevitably lead to a bout of inflation, if only from the drop in the value of the dollar, along with declining material living standards (which are arguably inevitable anyway), but the main effect of inflation is to redistribute wealth from the holders of debt and securities to debtors and holders of physical assets. Assuming the government intervenes to prevent a hyperinflationary spiral or to implement fiscal and/or currency reforms after hyperinflation, how would this "destroy the economy"? Wouldn't tangible assets and people's skills still have value and provide the basis for a livelihood, albeit at a reduced material living standard? Thanks again. Marco polo (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I said it was a simplification. What I should have said was that it was a gross oversimplification. The value of the U.S. dollar, vis-a-vis other currencies, is determined on the open market (specifically the FOREX or Foreign exchange market). Thus, like all aspects of free markets, there is some volatility, randomness, and unpredictability of it. Still, generally speaking the value of the dollar will be dependant on people's feelings towards it, which is mostly determined by the strength of the U.S. economy (actually, it is determined by people's feelings on the ability of the U.S. government to back the value of the dollar; which is largely determined by the strength of the economy). One measure of the strength of the economy is the GDP. So, roughly speaking, the dollar is backed by the U.S. economy itself; and making more dollars does not increase the size of the economy. It mearely increases the number of shares in that economy the dollar represents; more dollars means each dollar is worth less. There may be real good reasons to do this intentionally, but one of them is NOT to correct government debt problems. Invariably, debaseing ones currency has the result of making a government's financial situation worse rather than better. --Jayron3219:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make such a connection. The total value of the money supply is fixed (over very short periods of time), but I don't think that total value is equal to anything simple - there are loads of factors, of which GDP of the home country is one. --Tango (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the statements above about inflation are ideological, though we have been so propagandized on the subject that we now accept ideology as fact. Inflation may be good or bad -- there are arguments on both sides. It is absolutely NOT true that "There is really no difference between printing enough money to pay off the debt and taxing your people enough to pay off the debt" or that "Invariably, debaseing ones currency has the result of making a government's financial situation worse rather than better." In the former case, the nation's LENDERS (rich) would be hurt far more than DEBTORS (poor) by monetizing the debt through high inflation -- see the Populists for the pro-inflation argument; by contrast, higher taxes, due to the marginal value of each taxed dollar to different classes, would hurt those with little money far more than those with lots of money. In the latter case, the USA would benefit greatly right now by "debasing" its currency via having a weaker dollar (the international equivalent of inflation) insofar as the greatest long-term danger the USA faces is a runaway trade deficit; and as Galbraith has pointed out, "debasing" currency via inflation is a negligible problem if real wages remain constant. The high inflation of the Carter Administration resulted in only one six-month recession during his term; the lowest quintile of Americans suffered much more during Reagan's first term, with its extremely long recession designed to "break the back" of the inflation that so bothered Reagan's rich employers and masters. 63.17.72.210 (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Economists in Zimbabwe may disagree with you on the joys of inflation and the benefits of debasing one's own currency. As I states above, there may be very good reasons to debase ones currency, or to encourage inflation, getting out of debt isn't one of them. --Jayron3206:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The debate today is whether the next several years will be inflationary or deflationary. Since there is ample experience in managing inflation – balance the government’s books and jack up interest rates and, after a nasty recession, inflation disappears – and only negative examples of how to deal with deflation, the tendency is to err on the side of the devil we know: inflation. Besides, elected politicians hate to cut spending. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what rights the UK had in Canada, or, conversely, to what extent Canada was independent of the UK, when. The articles I've listed above do not explain this well. Does anyone know, please?—msh210℠15:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's very helpful, thanks, but only partially answers the question. It says — if I understand it correctly — that the UK (or whatever it was called then; the article calls it the British Empire; I don't want to get into that) had complete power to write laws for Canada and nullify any that Canada (or any of her subdivisions) wrote for herself, and explicitly did not allow Canada to write laws that were contrary to the UK's interests. That's helpful, as I said, but when did all that end? That article says "Much of Canada's independence arose from the development of new political arrangements, many of which have been absorbed into judicial decisions interpreting the constitution - with or without explicit recognition", but are there any details on when, e.g., the UK lost the right to veto Canada's laws? And on another note, was that (legislative dependence) the only dependence of Canada on the UK? (Not that it's not a big one.)—msh210℠15:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Canada was functionally independent from the UK from Dominion Day (July 1, 1867). Officially, the Canadian state was still subservient to the UK parliament, but in practice, Westminster did not involve itself in Canadian issues. The UK parliament had the power to do whatever it wanted with regard to Canada, but in practice, as with the entirety of British politics, pragmatics plays a greater role than stautory power. Just as Parliament has the power today to do whatever it wants (it could abolish the Monarchy, it could restore full power to the Monarchy, it could declare or nullify any act it wants), it is contrained by the social laws of practical politics and the constraints of good governance, it could have done anything it wanted in Canada even after 1867. However, excepting in the most rare circumstances, it did not. After the Statute of Westminster 1931, Canada (and the other dominions) were granted greater official autonomy, specifically in that the Canadian parliament was, after 1931, considered co-equal to the British parliament on most issues (excepting, IIRC, succession issues). --Jayron3216:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To continue on from Jayron, legal appeals to the Privy Council were ended in 1949 (although the last case didn't wrap up until 1960). The Canada Act 1982 ended the last of Canada's dependence on the UK. Rmhermen (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all. That was very helpful. (And, yes, I meant de jure.) So, although today Canadians celebrate the anniversary of their independence in 1867, their "real" independence (well, independence de jure, or on paper), only came on April 17, 1982. Did the typical Canadian at that time care? Did he notice? Or did he consider himself to have been living in a fully independent country until then also? (Goes to check Google News Archive to see if it made ten-inch headlines in the Toronto Sun....)—msh210℠16:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a big deal at the time, even the Queen was present, but the day is nothing special - we don't get a day off work on April 17, and no one thinks Canada became independent in 1982, if they are even aware that anything happened then (which is unlikely, but then most people probably don't know exactly what happened in 1867 either). (And if you're really wondering what the Toronto Sun wrote, remember that even now, they think that everything and anything that is wrong with Canada is Trudeau's fault.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Canada was not "functionally independent" as of 1867; it only had functional independence regarding internal matters. Most notably, when the UK went to war with Germany in 1914, Canada was automatically included. Similarly, when border disputes with the UShad to be worked out, it was Britain that represented Canada's interests (which meant that its representatives might actually put British interests first). Canada basically asserted its independence shortly after the war, notably by refusing to send troops to defend British interests in the 1922 Chanak crisis, and after one or two Imperial conferences had backed the idea, the result was the 1931 Statute of Westminster. To my mind Canada's real date of independence is in 1931, even though almost no one in Canada thinks of it that way. Even after that there still was no distinction between Canadian citizens and British subjects -- that came after WW2 -- but I think that was just because everyone was happy with it that way. --Anonymous (Canadian), 04:40 UTC, July 2, 2010.
No, not really. The PM never "dissolves Parliament" unilaterally; he needs the agreement of the GG, and the GG is the one who issues the comnmand, not the PM. If what you're saying is that the PM decides when Parliament will be dissolved, then for most practical purposes I'd agree with you. But ultimately it's the GG's decision, and this case shows that the PM does not always get his way. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The legal independance of all commonwealth contries is arguable if you take a strictly theoretical view of their nature. The creation of the colonies and their subsequent independance is owed entirely to statutes of the British parliament. The doctorine of Parliamentary sovereignty holds that parliament may not bind its succesor, that is, there is nothing that parliament can do that it cannot undo. For example, the statute of westminster says that the British parliament cannot make laws for the realms in the dominion. But there is no reason (at least theoretically) that they could not make a law as an exception to that rule, or indeed repeal the statute (or the constitutions of any of the countries for that matter). Independance is a less than absolute concept for commonwealth countries (even today, there are a few matters on which the parliaments don't have full control) so it is a bit artificial to try and pinpoint an exact moment of independance, at least in the same way they do in a place like the US.Jabberwalkee (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why Dominion Day is as good as any other day, since that was the day when Canada became de facto independent. Practically, I don't think that Parliament could rescind the later acts, especially the BNA of 1949 and the Canada Act of 1982 without it being perceived as an act of war or something very similar, by Canada and its allies. In other words, it could rescind them, but it would be functionally like rescinding the Treaty of Paris (1783); reclaiming sovereignty over Canada would be no less impossible than reclaiming sovereignty over the United States. Parliament has the theoretical power to pass any act it wishes, no matter how completely loony. That it does not simply reclaim Canada is no less surprising than any other random bad idea it could in theory pass, but does not. --Jayron3204:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that Canadians do not celebrate "Independence" on July 1; they celebrate Confederation, i.e. the joining of three colonies (the united Upper and Lower Canada, the future Ontario and Quebec; New Brunswick and Nova Scotia) into a single political entity, which became the Canada that exists today. Independence was a gradual process, and some argue that it hasn't fully been realized yet since the Queen still reigns as Head of State. The confusion is because of the nearness of July 1 and July 4 (the US Independence Day) which creates an assumption that the two neighbours celebrate the same events and share a common historical development, which is not the case at all. --Xuxl (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Thank you all for the info. The historical info provided by "Anonymous (Canadian)" (04:40 UTC, July 2, 2010) was especially enlightening.—msh210℠16:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting, in response to the question about Canadians caring in 1982, that the document has never been ratified mostly because of the province of Quebec's opposition to its implications that the nine other provinces would be able to overrule it on issues of language and culture. Although this issue has become largely dormant since the 1995 referendum, it remains a point of contention that a large block of the country does not recognize the Consitution as it is defined by the Canadian Supreme Courts.Heather Stein, M.A.; Dra. 17:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there was no requirement for all the provinces to ratify. The federal government did negotiate with the provinces and when 9 out of 10 agreed they felt that was sufficient (and the Supreme Court of Canada later confirmed this). This is not to say that Quebec does or does not have a legitimate grievance; that would be a political debate which would not belong here. I'm only talking about the legal requirements. By the way, to clarify another point that some are confused by, the Constitution Act, 1982, did not supersede the existing constitution of Canada; it was added to it, just as the Bill of Rights and later amendments were added to the US Constitution. --Anonymous, 05:22 UTC, July 4, 2010.
Controversial/interesting legal cases
I'm looking to kickstart my (UK) school's LawSoc with a quick talk/introduction. As an idea for a keynote speech (as opposed to other procedural notices), I thought a controversial case would be good. My first idea was a case of diminished responsibility or similar; something where you could say "Joe Bloggs killed his wife, and walked free". With diminished responsibility itself, such dichotomies between the accepted actions and sentence are rare, since this defence only reduces the crime to manslaughter (maximum term of life anyway). Do the refdeskers know any cases, like this one where defendants have done something very serious, and yet walked out the courtroom? 92.9.43.115 (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have an American law school degree. Lexis/Nexis contains British law. The list of international jurisdictions covered is amazing to me b/c I started with traditional books in a library. I assume WestLaw may do. When I want to highlight my skills, I choose a controversial area of law being shaped by the U.S. Supreme Court. Complexity is more important than controversity. For example, I wrote my writing sample on a limited aspect of the Establishment Clause. Besides commercial databases, accessing legal news sites may be helpful. You may already have done so. Appellate decisions receive much secondary research information.
Since I am not certain what subject matter your course comprises, the above is all I can offer. ADD: I can read an actual decision and learn the facts and holding. A fresh take or putting the case in broad context is helpful.75Janice (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)75Janice[reply]
If you want to stir up debate about something that will only get more legal attention in the coming years, bring up this controversial topic: is a psychopath less culpable for his crime because his brain is not "normal", a genetic condition that is not his fault? Read more here. —KevinMyers16:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the above suggestion is superb. When OJ Simpson was on trial, I had nothing to do so I watched the trial and read some of the books it generated. Fugue states were referred to in the commentary. During a fugue state someone can kill a person and not know it. I wrote a thesis on the insanity defense. The intersection of mental health and criminal law attracts much scholarly writing. 75Janice (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)75Janice[reply]
Here is an article mentioning the case of Kiranjit Ahluwalia and other women, from Sussex and elsewhere, whose murder convictions were overturned. Some more are listed here. Although as you say a manslaughter conviction was substituted, in many cases the final sentence was non-custodial. Sussexonian (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One interesting case is that of Staff Sergeant Willis Eugene Boshears, a US Army officer stationed in England, who was acquitted by an English court on 17 February 1961 of the murder of Jean Sylvia Constable. He admitted that he had strangled Miss Constable but his defence that he had been asleep and dreaming at the time. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What has changed in the American accent in that it sounds so different from recordings of people talking in the 1930's and 40's? It seems like the general change in cadence has been rather dramatic. TheFutureAwaits (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't changed much at all. There is no "American" accent. The classicAmerican accent is from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin. Everywhere else has a different accent. Plus, the age of the recordings changes the voice.--92.251.158.103 (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was also an affectation (not really an accent) which existed before the days of electronic amplification of speech. When people spoke before a crowd, they had to speak in a very specific and deliberate manner to be heard in a crowd. Besides speaking loudly, this means that people had to speak slowly, clearly, and enunciate in a certain way. During the time period when amplification, radio, and television were just becoming commonplace, the recordings of public speakers sound weird to modern ears (I think of FDR's "the only thing we have to fear" speech) because people were still speaking in that trained manner for speaking to audiences. That method of public speaking died out with the last generations to be born after the age of amplification, but for the early days (1930's and 1940's) there would be people who were "trained" to speak that way, and so the recordings of these people sound weird to modern ears. --Jayron3201:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with it. There is a selection bias, because obviously the people we remember with this accent are actors or famous people whose voices were more likely to be recorded, but they actually did have a different accent. Aside from FDR the one I think of most is Katharine Hepburn. They were from old wealthy New England families, and that's how those people spoke normally. Our Boston Brahmin and Boston Brahmin accent articles are not very useful, unfortunately, but this is a real thing. I'm sure we had a question about this recently, but I can't find it...if we could find that I think there are some other useful links to follow. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Hepburn nor FDR were from Brahmin families, nor did either speak with a Brahmin accent. The Hepburns were from Hartford, with familial connections to Maryland and Upstate New York. FDR was from old New York Dutch (from the Roosevelt side), the same group that produced presidents such as Martin Van Buren, of French Hugenot ancestry (the Delano family), though with some connection to Plymouth Colony. The Boston Brahmins are a specific insular group in Boston itself. There are many other such upper class groups, but they do not necessarily share a linguistic or cultural connection. --Jayron3203:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, I meant the Brahmin accent is one example of this. It is not an affected accent that people were trained to use for TV or radio. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither was what I was describing. What I was describing was a manner of speach that people were trained to do BEFORE TV or radio. There was a manner of speach that people used PRIOR TO TV or radio which carried over to the early days of TV or Radio. Public speaking necessitated it. --Jayron3203:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have listened to many recordings of ordinary people from the 1930's and 1940's who were recorded on good equipment, and who were just speaking normally, not trying to speak like a orator, and whose speech sounds quite different from people of the same socioeconomic level in the same towns today. Scholars have studied the same individuals over decades in some towns, as and have noted shifts in pronunciation, so it is not just a population shift of various ethnic groups. Right now there is a shift in typical midwestern speech such that "hog" is pronounced such that the vowel sounds more like the o in "cot" and less of an "aw" sound. In addition, rural speakers in the west or south had a much stronger "hick" accent in older recordings. Edison (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know from personal experience that recordings from the early 20th century sound quite different from modern speech, even within the same geographic regions. I always wondered if this was a consequence of the recording equipment of the time. Roosevelt has a definite affect compared to even speakers 10 years later (like Eisenhower as president). But I don't think that's the full story. So I agree with the OP, this issue isn't settled simply with assertions about accent. Shadowjams (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be the effect of mass communication? Most modern broadcasting is slanted toward the rather flat midwestern accent, with news caster english being the Cleveland dialect if I remember correctly. Over time, this mass broadcasting could have the effect of modulating out of existence regional dialects. Sort of like moving to a different region, over time your pronunciation begins to reflect more the people now around you and less the people in the area you came from. We now have 3 or 4 generations of people who have learned to speak as much by watching tv and movies as listening to their parents. This would theoretically tend to dilute a regional accent. Same principal but a much more drastic example is several monolithic languages such as English driving many of the worlds smaller languages to extinction. 76.22.140.195 (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
UK marriages, mid-80s
This is for a novel-in-progress. I read "Marriage Law" but it didn't help. I need to find out marriage laws in the UK in the mid-80s (and possibly in European countries as well, if what I'm asking about doesn't work in the UK). The four characters affected are a widowed father and his adoptive daughter and a widowed mother and her biological son. The son and daughter have fallen in love; the father and mother have fallen in love. Can both couples legally marry? Or only one couple? If both, does the order of the weddings matter - that is, if the mother and father married first, would that prevent the daughter and son from marrying? Thanks.Blewten (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the answer; but I cannot see anything in the circumstances you have described which would cause me to even suspect there was any problem or anything out of the ordinary. --ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there were a law prohibiting the marriage of step-siblings, e.g., then there would be a problem. The Citizen's Advice Bureau says "People who are step relations or in-laws may marry only in certain circumstances. For information about when step relations and in-laws can marry, you should consult an experienced adviser, for example, at a Citizens Advice Bureau." They might know about the 1980s. Try them, Blewten. --NilsTycho (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assume that UK law on prohibited degrees of relationship have not changed since the 1980s. (I can't find any evidence that they have.) In this case, the biological vs. adoptive status of the children is immaterial; the important factors will be the ages of the children, the degree to which they have lived together as a family, and the order in which the couples plan to marry. The law says "Step-relatives may marry provided they are at least 21 years of age. The younger of the couple must at no time before the age of 18 have lived in the same household as the older person. Neither must they have been treated as a child of the older person's family." If the four have never lived together as a family, either couple may marry, and if the children marry first it won't affect the parents' plans. But if the parents marry first, then the children become step-siblings and cannot marry until both are at least 21. If either of the children is under 18 at the time of the parents' marriage, or if they have all lived together as a family when at least one of the children is still under 18 (whether this is before or after after the parents' marriage) then the children will probably never be able to marry legally even after they both reach 21. See here for info. Karenjc08:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights apply to criminals?
Do the rights expressed in the non-binding Universal Declaration of Human Rights (wikisource) apply to criminals? Certain articles, such as 9, 10, and 11 seem to be written with criminals in mind. However articles 3 and 13 seem to grant "liberty" and "freedom of movement" to everybody. No articles explain a process by which a person may forfeit "the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration", and article 2 seems quite explicit about "everyone" being "entitled" to them "without distinction of any kind" and regardless of any "status". Is there a generally accepted explanation of how these rights should be applied to criminals? --NilsTycho (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Article 9 says: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." That implies that non-arbitrary detention is allowed. Article 30 says: "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." That implies that States are allowed to take action against people infringing the rights of others. Those two Articles are as close as the declaration seems to get to saying you are allowed to punish criminals by withdrawing their human rights, but it is surprisingly unclear, I agree. --Tango (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't catch your meaning. Do you mean that because the Declaration is non-binding, it therefore need not explicitly deal with corner cases? Or do you mean that because the Declaration is non-binding, it is not hypocritical to ratify the Declaration with one hand while restricting the rights of criminals with the other? I'm not really concerned with the fact that the Declaration is not legally binding, I'm curious as to the intention of the drafters. --NilsTycho (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moral rights for long-dead people?
In countries where moral rights such as attribution are perpetual, does this apply (in practice) only to relatively recently-dead individuals? For example, I know that France is one of these countries; could I somehow get in trouble if I published in France something written by Julius Cæsar or Napoleon Bonaparte without attributing them? I'd just curious; I have no way of publishing anything here in the USA, let alone in any other countries. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A... very legal question I wouldn't dare answer. I have no idea about foreign law. And the French love their moral rights (personal opinion). In the U.S., the most clear version of moral rights is the Visual Artists Rights Act. It's rather limited, but the more important U.S. based rights (in my opinion) are contained in commercial statutes, namely the Lanham Act, which, among other things, protects federally against misleading business practices, like saying you're Picasso (common law fraud might do that too...). Keep in mind too that "publishing" has very interesting definitions, and while the U.S. used to care a lot about whether and when something was published, it doesn't care in the same way now, for most purposes, but other countries do. The U.S. still cares about publication and notice and all of those other technicalities, but the implications are nuanced and rather random. For your question, whether or not something you do inside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States warrants the courts of another country to exercise domain over you is particularly complicated, something I wouldn't even begin to speculate on. Ask a lawyer for details, but if this is a history question, our moral rights article, copyright article, and the others I referenced above are very good places to start. Shadowjams (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no real need to ask a lawyer; as I said, I have no ability to violate these individuals' moral rights, so this isn't at all a request for legal advice. Nyttend (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright sometimes persists 50 to 100 years after the author's death. One can be sued for Defamation in the form of libel or slander of a deceased person, in both cases by any living heirs. The question "could I somehow get in trouble" is indeed a request for a legal opinion which the Ref. Desk. will not give. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"vamos chile mierda"
Where does that phrase come from? Chileans seem to use it a lot to describe their country in positive ways. I can't imagine how calling one's country "mierda" could be prideful. But their soccer supporters use it a lot, and that phrase was all over Twitter after the recent earthquake to urge Chileans to unite. I believe even El Pais of Spain used that phrase to start off an article about Chilean recovery efforts (or something else about foreign relations, I can't remember...). --hello, i'm a member | talk to me!02:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its a bit like saying "go Chile, for f**ck's sake". 'Mierda' in this context should not understood literally. Not sure were this particular expression stems from though. One could also say "Vamos Chile, carajo" ('Go Chile, damm it'). --Soman (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which of course brings up why being "pissed off" isn't the exact opposite as being "pissed on" in fact, they are closer to synonyms if you think about it... If I am pissed on, I am also usually pissed off... --Jayron3216:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware that this is a slang saying. Slang does not always obey common gramatical rules (such as words meaning what they actually mean, when taken in isolation), and translations of slangs are easy to make mistakes, specially when done in a literal way MBelgrano (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jokes also do not follow standard grammar rules, but are funnier when the teller pretends that they do for comedic effect. --Jayron3200:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never played it (and there is no mention of such a war in the article), but as far as I'm aware it's a lot like the Civilization and Total War games, so you can create all kinds of unhistorical scenarios. (In Civ I my Russians once conquered the world in the third millennium BC.) It's just a game. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a joke; the manual writers were trying to be ironic. For those who don't have the game — one feature included in the Age of Empires II expansion pack is the ability to play a game on a Texas map, and the expansion's miniature manual says something such as "Relive the classic Mayan and Korean skirmish over the Lone Star State". Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, the only mentions of this painting are in connection with an urban legend about the painting exhibiting paranormal activity. As part of the legend, the painting disappeared, and the museum curators claim they know nothing about it. I wouldn't be surprised if the painting never existed. --NilsTycho (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May be during the cold war years, when we were in the opposite sides. I believe Selig Harrison has written something about this (i am not sure)--Sodabottle (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding conflicts in North-Eastern India, there have been accusations of videshi hath ('foreign hand'), CIA involvement, etc.. For example regarding the role of Western missionaries in influencing militant groups. But even if that would be correct, it would not mean "disintegration of the Indian state as a single nation", just like the separation of Bangladesh did not mean the end of Pakistan as a single nation. --Soman (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a Cold War opponent of the US. It was officially neutral, basically the founders of the Non-Aligned Movement. That meant that sometimes it sidled up with the USSR to get what it wanted, sometimes to the US. Clever policy, to be sure—keep everybody feeling you could switch sides at any moment, and everybody plays pretty nice with you and puts up with a lot. (Cf. Joe Lieberman.) In practice they got more out of the USSR than they did out of the US at many points, which did strain things a bit. (See India – United States relations.) But they were never officially on the other side or officially considered as such. Which doesn't, of course, mean that the CIA or whomever didn't have all sorts of schemes in place—they had those even for allies, much less neutrals or enemies. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that India wasn't so much of an opponent of US, but certainly belonged to the other camp. The Bangladesh Liberation War for example, US and China backed Pakistan whilst Soviet Union backed India (and Bangladesh). The relationship has been pretty much coloured by the fact that Pakistan was (and largely remains) a US puppet state, tied up in schemes like CENTO. --Soman (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
US Postal Insurance vs. Delivery Confirmation
Not sure where to ask this, but this seemed the closest. I was at my local post office mailing a package. I asked to insure the package, which costs an additional fee. The postal worker then asked if I wanted Delivery Confirmation added for additional fee. And I got a bit confused. If I send a package by US Postal Service and I buy their insurance to cover the cost of the item, is purchasing delivery confirmation at an additional fee an unneeded expense? In my head, it seems logical that if someone didn't receive the package, USPS insurance would pay for it. If the recipient received the package, but claimed they hadn't, insurance would also pay me. I'm trying to think of a situation where delivery confirmation would be necessary if insurance is purchased. I think the local post office is trying to make an extra buck off an unsuspecting sucker. --70.167.58.6 (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assume you send a time-critical document, i.e. a contract termination notice or a legal brief. You may need to be able to prove that it reached the recipient on time. Also, some items may be irreplacable, no matter the cost. Think about a rare book or a family heirloom. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anything insured over a certain amount ($600 maybe) needs to be signed for when delivered anyway (so the postal worker I talked to said), so delivery confirmation would not be required in that situation. Googlemeister (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But this will not delete all the traces of your presence there. There is still the cached pages of search engines and web archiving services. Don't put anything online if you don't want to stay there forever.--Quest09 (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or at least don't make it publicly viewable. You can set up Facebook so it won't appear in search engines or on web archives. (Additionally, I'm pretty sure Facebook doesn't show up in archives.org because of its robots.txt settings.) --Mr.98 (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
robots.txt are only respected by respectable search engines. In general, do stick to the rule of not uploading anything that you don't want to be there forever. There's still the possibility that someone steals your pictures and upload them somewhere else. --Quest09 (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any statistics anywhere online, so I'm hoping someone else will be able to do a better job. What proportion of the world's university graduates speak English? (I'm flexible on what standard of English ability should be required.) Thanks. --Tango (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I don't think anyone would be able to answer that question in a satisfactory way. You could could number of people who take TOEFL tests or who graduate from English-medium education or obtain degrees in English language, but that would only be a fraction of the total English-speaking university graduates worldwide. --Soman (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are decent estimates of English speakers in the general population, why can't there be similar estimates for the graduate population? --Tango (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are fantastically shitty estimates of English speakers worldwide. See List of languages by total number of speakers and List of languages by number of native speakers. The history of the "total number of speakers" article contains older versions which give a better idea of what a complete clusterfuck the data is for questions like this. There really is very poor data on the number of speakers of languages worldwide. This is confounded by a) poor sampling methods b) poor defintions of what defines a distinct language (as opposed to multiple dialects of the same language) c) political reasons for inflating or depressing numbers of speakers of certain languages. There's just no really good data for this, and so for any subset of the data, there is likely to be even worse estimates. --Jayron3218:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought a smaller population would allow for better estimates. It is much easier to sample graduates than the general population. Of course, it requires someone to have actually done a study into it, but people do studies into much stranger things. --Tango (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to our Wikipedia articles, he had at least 3 grandchildren via his daughter Maria and Samuel L. Gouverneur. They are listed in that article, which can give you some extra names to search the geneology websites under. There would be no patrilineal descent from Monroe; he only had one son who died as a child. --Jayron3218:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite surprisingly, Ancestry.com seems to have no family tree with descendants of President James Madison. I don't understand this since people grasp at any ancestor who was in any way notable. Edison (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if a professional marries a client they are mutualy in love have they got rights not to be penalised
Ethically morally it is not allowed in England to have a personal sexual relationship with a client if you are a profesional social worker for example but what if you fall in love and get married have you got any human right to appeal being penalised eg/ losing your job or losing registration status and can you appeal if you are struck off. What then if the power balance is equal and the feeling is mutual and marriage is involved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.202 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're supposed to end the professional relationship if you wish to start a romantic and/or sexual one. As long as you end the professional relationship (by asking one of your colleagues to take over the case, usually) as soon as you realise you are falling in love and before you act on those feelings, then you should be fine. If you marry them while they are still your client, then you will almost certainly get into trouble. If the other person were particularly vulnerable then you might get into trouble if it seems you have taken advantage of them. Professional conduct is usually governed by a code of conduct within the profession rather than law, so if you want a precise answer for a specific case then you need to consult that code of conduct. The professional body will be able to provide advice - that is part of the job of professional bodies. --Tango (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the gist of the question is whether there is any existing human rights legislation that could be used to "trump" a dismissal for this type of professional misconduct, where someone is deemed to have broken their terms of employment by breaching the type of code of conduct Tango describes. We cannot give any specific legal advice or opinions on legal matters here, and I cannot find any links to similar cases you could look at for your own research. Some European human rights legislation has been interpreted successfully in various EU countries in test cases against a variety of domestic laws and practices. We have an article on the European Convention on Human Rights, parts of which have been used in such cases. But if this is an enquiry about someone's personal circumstances, rather than just a general request to know what the law says, you need to talk to a legal professional. Such a case would be complicated and high-profile, and would probably involve a challenge to existing UK law, so it is well outside the scope of the reference desk to provide an answer. Karenjc21:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the last part of your question, "what then if the power balance is equal?" By definition, the power balance between a professor and student, or employee and employer, is unequal. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)03:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merciful Death
Which is the English term to denote, in a context of warfare, the act of killing someone in order to prevent a more horrible death or suffering? For example, someone mortally injured in enemy territory and without chances of reaching a place to be healed, someone about to be captured and risking being tortured for a long time, or with knowledge that the enemy shouldn't get, or other such scenarios. An article that mentions this links to Euthanasia, but I'm sure it's a whole different thing MBelgrano (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Usually mispronounced, when misappropriated by sports commentators, as "koo de grah" rather than "koo de grahss".
Slightly more generally, we also refer to "putting someone out of their misery/suffering"; that might apply in a war context where a soldier comes across an enemy soldier who'd been horribly wounded by something the first soldier had nothing to do with, and decides the best thing is just to shoot him. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We also say "mercy killing". (I note that the last situation you describe, where the person must be killed to prevent the enemy learning something, is different: there you are sacrificing the person, if it's coherent with the person's morality that they should be killed.) 213.122.27.137 (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Mercy killing" usually refers to euthanasia, though. It could be used in the context of warfare, but it's not the primary usage. --Tango (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The killing of a wounded adversary who is no longer capable of offering resistance is covered in Third Geneva Convention . Would the hypothetical soldier kill his comrade in arms who was wounded equally severely, to prevent the "horrible suffering" or would he give him morphine and send him to a forward surgical station? In the case of Iman Darweesh Al Hams, a wounded 13 year old Palestinian girl, an Israeli officer, "Captain R.," allegedly fired an automatic weapon into the girl's body, emptying the magazine to "confirm the kill" as she lay wounded. The girl had been suspected of carrying weapons or explosives, which turned out to be textbooks. 17 bullets were found in her body. The army chief of staff, General Moshe Yaalon, said repeatedly that the officer acted properly. In a trial, the officer was found not guilty of illegal use of his weapon. Then R. was promoted to Major and paid 82,000 New Israeli Shekels as compensation for his defense expenses and time in jail . In general, a "mercy killing" to prevent "horrible suffering" is considered Homicide or at least Manslaughter in North America (not to be taken as legal advice). See also Jack Kevorkian. Edison (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I write this, by co-incidence, my mother is telling about the horrible past things ! Just before 1947 it was rumored that the village where her family then lived may fall on wrong side of the Radcliffe Line the departing British rulers were going to draw. It was decided by the elders that in that case girls will be put to death. An handicapped aunt was also supposed to meet the same fate ! In India such merciful death of women was very common. In some part whole groups of women would burn themselves lest they fall in hands of Islamic invaders. This was called Jauhar Jon Ascton (talk)05:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Significant Tornadoes 1680-1991 by Thomas P. Grazulisso expensive? I would think if the demand for the book was so high as to make the price that expensive, they would print more copies of the book...but that doesn't seem to have happened? Why would they choose not to reprint the book or somehow else make the price more affordable for those looking to buy it? In essence, what are the economics at work that make this book so expensive/high demand, but still not be reprinted?
Is there anywhere (in my searches I couldn't find anywhere) that I could find this book for under 100$?
It could be explained by there being a small number of people than really really really want the book. Remember, when we talk about "supply" and "demand" they aren't numbers, they are functions of price. A book that is out-of-print will have a pretty flat supply curve - people tend to decide to sell a book based on whether they still want it or not rather than what they can get for it. If the demand curve is also pretty flat (the same number of people want it regardless of how much you charge) then the two curves will meet at a very high price. A new print run will need to have a certain size in order to get the unit price below a certain point and there may not be enough people wanting the book for that to work. --Tango (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sellers of used copies of the book anticipate that demand for the book is high enough for an individual to pay the asking price. To reprint the book there would have to exist a suitably equipped publisher, an estimate by that publisher of the number of copies that can be sold, willingness to invest in the costs of printing and distribution and no unsettled copyright issues. The OP has already located a used copy of the book at a seller in California who asks just under $200. The OP can offer $100 and see what happens. The Ref. Desk will not survey used book sellers nor negotiate with them. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
=P Talk about assuming the above and beyond...I wasn't asking for the ref desk to survey/negotiate used book sellers, just to research online if there was anywhere I couldn't find that had the book for cheaper...don't worry, I don't need someone to do more than find it. Ks0stm(T•C•G)19:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Academic books are generally absurdly expensive, it's the Great Academic Publishing Scam. Publishers know research libraries need to keep current with the latest research, hence the high price of monographs and especially journals. They also have small print runs and are rarely remaindered, so you often find piss-taking valuations like those in the second hand market (the top price copy on amazon is always delusionally priced by optimistic booksellers). You could look on bookfinder.com or set up an rss feed from the appropriate ebay search, good luck. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 15:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tha Vanishing Hitchhiker
This seems to be a worldwide phenomenon as the wiki article goes. You hear a lot about it in Indian folklore, as I can vouch for. How is it really in west ? Has anyone any real firsthand experience ? Jon Ascton (talk)05:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here [6] you can find some information about it. That site has also a large collection of true stories of every kind (some of them very disturbing) sent by readers and listed by month: [7]. Also, if you want a more folkloristic/quaint western ghost similar to it, we have: White Lady (ghost). And what about Indian Vanishing Hitchhikers? Do you have any information about them? --151.51.61.119 (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Gibson himself says here in his blog, on 2 Feb 2003, that the phrase comes from his own text for Memory Palace, the surreal 1992 Barcelona performance show to which he contributed the text. He also says in the same place: "though I didn’t recognize it when the maker of the film first suggested it as a title". That suggests to me that it's an original coinage by him for Memory Palace (and not anything very significant to him) rather than an earlier stock phrase with which he was already familiar and which he would have recognised when it was suggested as the film title. Karenjc20:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Determination of the degree and line of the relationship by blood and by marriage
Would any person mind exemplifying me as to the determination of the degree and line of the relationship by blood and by marriage in accordance with the following provisions of the German Civil Code? These kinds of determination are nowhere to be seen in my country's civil code, the Civil and Commercial Code, and in those of the countries in the same region such as the Civil Code of Japan, etc., even though the German Civil Code has been their model. Thank you so much.
"Section 1589 (Relationship by blood).
(1) Persons one of whom is descended from the other are related lineally. Persons who are not related in direct line but who are descended from the same third person are related collaterally. The degree of relationship is determined by the number of intermediate births.
(2) (repealed)
Section 1590 (Relationship by marriage).
(1) The relatives of a spouse are related to the other spouse by marriage. The line and the degree of the relationship by marriage are determined according to the line and the degree of the intermediate relationship by blood.''
(2) Relationship by marriage continues even if the marriage by which it was created has been dissolved."
Section 1589 refers to family. My children, my grandchildren, my father, mother, gandparents, greatgrandparents are my linear relatives. There is a direct linear relationship (a direct bloodline).
My uncles, aunts, cousins (and their descendants) are my colateral relatives (an indirect bloodline). I share some ancestors with my coleteral relatives but we don't share all our ancestors. Example: my maternal grandparents are the ancestors of me and my aunt (my mother's sister). But I also have ancestors which she doesn't have. My father and his parents, etc (my parental ancestors).
The degree of relationship between myself and my coleteral relatives is determined by the births. The son of my aunt is my cousin. The son of the son of my grandfather's brother is also my cousin. But the first (son of my aunt) has a closer degree of relationship than the second (there are fewer "births/steps" between myself and the first than the second). This degree of relationship is important in marriages (I'm not allowed to marry my closest relatives) or inheritances (my closest relatives get more than my distant relatives if I die). Flamarande (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC) PS: I just hope you can follow my text. All of this is just my understanding of the matter and I'm not a lawyer.[reply]
Section 1590 obviously refers to the relatives of one's wife/husband (the spouse = "the intermidiate relationship by blood"). Example: Her brothers become my brothers-by-marriage, her nephews become my nephews-by-marriage, etc.
Interresting is the second law. The relation continues even if the marriage is dissolved. I'm speculating here but "dissolved" can mean divorce and/or death. Example: My wife has a under-age brother. He obviously becomes my brother-by-marriage. Their parents are dead and they don't have any other relatives. Some time later my wife dies (or divorces me first and then dies). I can (if I wish) become the legal guardian of her under-age brother because he is my relative-by-marriage (even if she divorced me before dying). Or another case: my wife and her brother have a lot of money. She dies (or she divorces me and then dies) and a few years later he also dies. I, as his nearest relative-by-marriage, am his heir and get all the money. Notice that I'm not a lawyer and my examples are just educated guesses. In particular, inheritances have their specific rules and laws. Flamarande (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, grandson-in-law. It's not even ambiguous, since the son of your son-in-law (which, at first glance, you might call your grandson-in-law) is also the son of your daughter (you hope!) so is just your grandson. --Tango (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And if the son of your son-in-law's not the son of your daughter, you'd probably call him a "step-grandson" rather than a "grandson-in-law". Buddy431 (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
university
what would a degree in the English Language or in Creative Writing actually involve? And how many points would a distinction in a BTEC introductory diploma be worth?
Do you mean UCAS points? The BTEC Introductory Diploma doesn't give you any UCAS points. It's a Level 1 qualification on the National Qualifications Framework (it's roughly equivalent to 4 GCSEs at D-F grades). UCAS points are usually for Level 3 qualifications (equivalent to A levels). --Tango (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the first question, looking around Wikipedia for a moment, it's unfortunate we don't have articles on different types of Bachelor of Arts degrees. Anyway, an "English degree" means a degree in "English literature", which means you read a lot of the Western canon and write about it. A degree in creative writing still involves a lot of reading, but as you'd expect there are a lot of fiction writing courses. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed degrees in English Language, which is a separate subject from English Literature (although many courses are available that combine elements of both). English Language degrees may include the study of linguistics, sociolinguistics, philology and lexicology, among other subjects. Here is the course structure of the English Language degree course at the University of Kent, for example. As for creative writing, this is certainly offered at degree level, although usually in conjunction with a literature element. The University of East Anglia has a well-known and prestigious creative writing department - the MA in Creative Writing was established there by Angus Wilson and Malcolm Bradbury - and at undergraduate level offers a BA in English Literature with Creative Writing which is probably a good example of its type - the course details are here. Karenjc14:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Freehold land - upwards and downwards
If I own some freehold land in the UK, then how far does that ownership extend upwards and downwards? Downwards to the centre of the earth - or more? Upwards to the edge of space, or to infinity and beyond? Can I charge aircraft and spacecraft a toll for flying through my airspace? Do I temporarily own all the planets, stars and galaxies above my land? Thanks 92.24.179.245 (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those are difficult questions to answer. Countries on the equator have tried to claim ownership of space at geostationary orbit (which very valuable), but haven't been able to enforce that claim so it didn't go very far. The Civil Aviation Act 1982 Section 76 says a aircraft flying over your property at a "reasonable height" doesn't count as trespass (so you can't charge for it). I can't find any clear explanation of who owns the region under your property, but mineral rights can certainly be owned by someone different from the owner of the surface rights. --Tango (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the United States: "Common law provided that the owners of real property owned that property from the center of the earth to the heavens. This rule has been eroded by modern legal restrictions such as land use regulation laws, environmental protection laws, and air navigation requirements. Even today, however, the owners of land may sell or lease air space parcels above their land." This is taken from Business Law by Henry Cheeseman; copyright 2010; page 755. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
In the Maximilien Robespierre article, it states: "Only Robespierre was guillotined face-up". What is the significance of this statement? In the historical context, were there certain reasons why a condemned might be executed facing up or facing down? What was the thinking at the time? I have no idea, although I can surmise. I am just wondering if there is any historical information about this type of scenario. My presumption is that facing up allows the condemned to watch the guillotine blade fall ... and, thus, heightens his anxiety or fear or "torture", if you will. But, that is only a supposition on my part. Would there be any reasons or protocol for which the authorities would force a "face up" execution? The "face down", I imagine, was the standard ... is that correct? For what reasons would authorities deviate from that standard? Thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Engineer? I don't understand what you are saying. Please clarify. Thanks. I can't imagine that the person in charge of the execution (the King, or Queen, or whoever) was particularly concerned with the condemned person having an "interesting" experience. 64.252.65.146 (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
It might be more painful, since the blade might not sever the spinal column right away, as it would do the other way (or at least as it was supposed to do...). He could have been laying there for awhile with a blade stuck in his neck. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, maybe it was just because Robespierre had already shot himself in the face, and if they put him face-down, his jaw might not have remained attached... Adam Bishop (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being executed face-up would be considered more frightening for the still-alive victim. Being able to see the blade waiting to come down is much more real than facing away from it. Steewi (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of a particular rule that might force it, other than the people's desire to punish someone they *really* didn't like. Steewi (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last week I saw two men near the Bank Of England ambling along in a relaxed manner with machine guns held close to their chests. While I guessed that they must be policemen, only when they walked past me could I see "Police" in quite small letters on their backs.
Is this routine nowadays? What might they have been doing? There were no bullion wagons to be seen. I feel outraged that the boys-in-black should be freely showing guns on the streets for no obvious reason. That is something, like identity cards and state CCTV, that we don't want in this isle. 92.15.0.171 (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's only routine for the police guarding certain buildings (Parliament, airports, nuclear facilities, etc.). I wasn't aware that the Bank of England was such a building, but it's possible. --Tango (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've regularly seen police in England carrying MP5s. In the U.S., most states permit citizens to get permits to carry guns, in some cases this isn't even necessary (you must check local laws). But in every U.S. states, even those with strict gun control, the police regularly carry handguns. I find it very strange that you find gun carrying so disruptive, and especially strange that you find it problematic by the police. Even in places with extreme gun control, like Chicago, the police carry guns without any suggestion of dissent. Shadowjams (talk) 06:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because we rarely see armed officers in the UK, the sight of a policeman with a gun instantly makes us think there's a serious problem. Police here rarely flaunt their weapons, and not long ago you could tell armed officers because they would be wearing a huge coat on a hot day to conceal their holster. It's a cultural thing. I understand that when there is a need for firearms, then something more accurate than a handgun is usually deployed - MP5s seem to be in favour. If they were in more-or-less plain clothes, it tends to suggest that they were on a non-routine operation. Alansplodge (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is probably a smaller ratio of gun-carrying people in the UK. I suppose that on average the UK criminals are not so quick to shoot upon the police (unlike their US counterparts). Notice also that nobody mentioned the United Kingdom National DNA Database suggesting that only a few have problems with that database (the largest of the world). But hey "we don't want any identidy cards". Flamarande (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Similar things could be said about identity cards and CCTV and (symbol of oppression X). The fact that people somewhere else got used to it is not really an argument. Just as well, since this isn't really the place to have an argument. 81.131.29.26 (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're all of a same mind here--this isn't the place for a gun debate. I find those notes interesting though. When I've been in England I've often noticed armed police, usually openly. Perhaps I have an eye for concealed weapons, of which I've seen some in London, but openly armed police are pretty common in Heathrow and around major attractions.
There's a certain irony, in the U.S. fully automatic weapons and sub-machine guns are extremely rare, even among police. I've never seen an MP5 in the civilian U.S., but I've seen it in England. Shadowjams (talk) 07:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They started marching around airports with machine guns some years ago. I think its horrible - as if Britain were some Latin junta. 92.15.12.165 (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you saw the MP5 but the article Right to keep and bear arms states that MP's are not allowed to UK civilians. I guess that the MP5 belonged to an English police officer. On the other hand I vaguely remember that the US Supreme court recently judged that according the Constitution the Right to keep and bear arms can't be suppressed or diminished by US cities and states. That speaks ill for the future but let's drop the matter. Flamarande (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the US will be a bloodbath quite soon since nothing has effectively changed (sarcasm?)... but yeah, let's drop that issue. I think you misunderstood my earlier comment. The people carrying sub machine guns (not really machine pistols) were clearly police, but they were quite frequent around certain places in downtown London, and in the airports. The point was about the frequency of firearm exposure. Even in extremely restricted areas of the U.S. police carry guns, and so regular people see them regularly. In most states of the U.S. people can carry guns under most instances, and a large proportion of Americans are at the least familiar with them. That was my point, as I stated above. Shadowjams (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Central London is the city where I'd expect to see armed police walking the streets, to be honest. When I lived in Barnsley, Yorkshire, I regularly saw them walking a particular street, which I found alarming (it was 20 years ago!). Then I found out they were guarding the home of Roy Mason, the Barnsley MP who became Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the height of the troubles. It became a little more comforting then. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What happens in the US, or what Americans think about it, is not really relevant to the questions asked: Is this routine nowadays? What might they have been doing? 92.15.12.165 (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my last post, I would say "yes" to the first question, and "anything from personal protection to anti-terrorism" to the second one. Not US: UK born, bred, resident. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It depends where one is. The main places that you'd expect to see armed patrols are within, and just outside, the Government Secure Zone, and around certain areas of what are terms Critical National Infrastructure in London. So it's a matter of routine on and around Whitehall, around certain key transport hubs, of which Heathrow is the most obvious and already noted and certain other buildings, including the Bank of England.
As to the point of whether we want it or not, we live in a democratic state and however flawed the electoral system might be it oes provide some form of legitimacy to any government that implements these policies and approaches. It is a matter of policy that no government can bind a future government so it is entirely reasonable for the current or future governments to rescind the decisions of a previous government. This is not really the place for a debate on government policy and direction.
If you wish to challenge the various acts that provide a legal basis for armed police then feel free to raise a suggestion at Yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk
Here's a vague and strange question: I heard that Disney can claim anything with its name on it to be an "artifact" and take it, even if I've purchased it. Does anything like this actually exist? ?EVAUNIT神になった人間
That's to do with copyright. If this is about the Disney name, as the OP says, then it would come under trademark law rather than copyright law, I expect. That doesn't make it any less ridiculous, though. --Tango (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's an IP question in general, though, and the concept applies just the same. They lose their rights to dictate what you do with their stuff once you buy it—just because it is their IP doesn't mean they own it anymore (and the fact that it is their IP specifically is relevant here, since that's the only thing that would plausibly extend to the whole brand). There are some exceptions to this with EULAs and etc. but as a general rule it is how commerce works in just about everything except the software domain. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it stems from a recent episode of Antiques Roadshow, which featured a large aerial photo of the park in Florida, during the 60s when it was still half way in the development phase. An ex Imagineer brought it in, said it had hung in their office for years, and when they were gonna throw it out he asked for and received it. The expert said they(Disney) could take it back if they wished and also put a price on it, but said it would be alot more if he had the repro rights on it, but disney still had those. 76.22.140.195 (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's very odd. If it is actually Disney property and they are "loaning" it to him, that's one thing. But if they've given it to him, it's his. Note that the physical ownership is entirely different from the question of who owns the reproduction rights (which is a copyright question distinctly). Obviously if you owned the reproduction rights it would be worth more than if you didn't—it's the difference between owning one photo and owning the ability to license more of the same photo out. But entirely separate from its worth as an antique in and of itself, and entirely separate from the issue of whether Disney could revoke his ownership rights. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disney is neurotically aggressive about protecting the image of its icons (a function of being a business that makes extremely large profits off of peddling entertainment to innocents). If, for instance, you were to purchase dolls of disney figures and place them in erotic poses in some bizarre art display, you would quickly have half a million disney lawyers crawling all over you, and they would most likely come armed with an assortment of legal pretext like the one you mentioned above to remove the figures from your possession and destroy the offensive material. It's unlikely they would come after anyone for non-offensive, non-copyright-violating uses, but they will deal harshly with anything that sullies their characters' reputations (and threatens their bottom line). --Ludwigs218:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A culture continuously changes, and the clothes that a particular person wears usually are related to the person's cultural norms. For example, I would not be at all surprised if baseball hats are no longer worn in 150 years in America for the same reasons that we no longer wear tophats or bonnets in America. The American culture has changed. (I'm using the US as an example; it changes everywhere, though not always at the same rate). Falconusptc23:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
High heels are going out of fashion- I see far fewer of them than I once did, and they are more and more reserved for formal occasions. I was just remarking the other day how nice it was that women didn't seem obligated to wear heels to work any more. Like bow ties, tailcoats, and, yes, corsets, I imagine that they'll stick around for a long time in formalwear. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)03:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I felt like sticking in gratings to stop women wearing stilettos into a hall and destroying the floor but was told it's against health and safety. Thankfully that seems very uncommon now. Dmcq (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asthe article itself says, "Reasons for wearing high-heels, which are almost exclusively aesthetic, include: they change the angle of the foot with respect to the lower leg, which accentuates the appearance of calves; they change the wearer's posture, requiring a more upright carriage and altering the gait in what is considered a seductive fashion; they make the wearer appear taller; they make the legs appear longer; they make the foot appear smaller..." etc. So long as those criteria are thought important (by women, or by men in assessing women's attractiveness), high heels will probably continue to be worn. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fisherqueen -- Ten or fifteen years ago at the university near where I live, it seemed like women almost never wore thin or spike heels around campus during the daytime (though they did wear kind of broad platforms), but they appear to have made a comeback in recent years... AnonMoos (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, bustles and corsets are not really compatible with the requirements of modern lifestyles, or the idea that a woman should quickly and seamlessly transition from wearing workout gear to wearing eveningwear. A Victorian woman in a corset and bustle had servants to do most of the housework, and never had to try to get into a car seat with corset and bustle on... AnonMoos (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could say the same thing about high heels, and the servants wore corsets too at least. Perhaps high heels came into fashion later than the other two, so are still around. 92.24.188.89 (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some lady's-maids wore corsets, but the ones whose jobs involved strenuous physical labor couldn't and didn't. During most of the 19th century, just doing the laundry was a very tedious and fatiguing task of "women's work" which was technically not too far removed from pounding clothes with rocks by the riverbank; and in a typical middle-class household, it was often an all-day job that had to be done once a week. In any case, high heels are a very temporary disability -- wearing high heels at 9 PM isn't incompatible with running a mile the next morning. And have you noticed how often modern women remove their uncomfortable shoes for a few minutes when it's convenient? By contrast, it's logistically impossible to remove one's corset for five minutes while temporarily relaxing in a public place (for that matter corsets can be difficult to get into or take off at all unless you have a servant standing by, another thing that's not very compatible with modern lifestyles). AnonMoos (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Infantry on U.S. navy ships
Does say, an Arleigh Burke destroyer or Ticonderoga cruiser usually carry marine corps personnel? If not, are there people aboard trained for boarding actions and other similar tasks?--178.167.197.71 (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I served on a Leahy class cruiser in the 1980s, and we did not carry marines onboard. The ship did have a security force (a secondary duty, mostly for some technical rates, such as Electronics Technicians and Fire Control Technicians). Prior to a cruise to the Persian Gulf we formed a Ship's Self-Defense Force which went to Little Creek for two weeks of training run by Marines. At no point were boarding techniques taught, but we were trained to repel boarders. -- 58.147.53.253 (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Once when we sailed in the Caribbean we embarked a Coast Guard detachment for boarding and inspecting boats. Ostensibly these were safety inspections, but the main motivation was drug interdiction. -- 58.147.52.160 (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
July 4
Small Claims Court Subpoena
I'm trying to sue someone in small claims court and the guy never accepts the subpoena. The police tried his office and his home and no one at either one accepted it. The court dismissed the case after trying to serve him 5x. He will also not sign for certified mail. This is in California if it makes a difference. Is there anything I can do? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.30.156 (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not legal advice,but in novels. a sweet looking girl says "Hey there, Aren't you Johnny Jones?" He says "Yup!" Then she hands him the subpoena and says "You're served." Or she makes it into a paper airplane and flies it so it hits him. "Served." Research what is the minimum standard for service of a subpoena in that jurisdiction. The person to-be-served should not be able to scoff at the entire legal system by refusing to receive a subpoena. Your IP address implies Virginia. Google Books has info for subpoena service Virginiaat[8], but you might wish to consult an attorney. Edison (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since we're quoting interesting ways of serving papers found in fiction: Search for the word Princeton in the text of [9].—msh210℠08:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The OP specifically said they were in California (it is just thre ISP which is in Virgina). The correct Google Books search should be subpoena service california which gets this search. If it was me, I would go back to my lawyer. Astronaut (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot provide legal advice. You should either consult a lawyer or the clerk of the court (who will usually help people in small claims court with procedural questions like this). --Tango (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys! I'm a high school student living in Korea, and I just took my English exam yesterday. There was one question whose answer I couldn't quite agree with, and I was wondering if any of you are willing to back me up. The actual answer (according to my English teacher) is (C), but I'm having a hard time persuading my teacher that the answer could be (D) as well as (C), and all I need is a solid reason to convince him to see my way. So here it is.
What is the purpose of this passage?
A couple of years ago, my mother took me along to a place where she volunteers in her free time. It's called Lunchbox Of Love, and they deliver meals to elderly people who can't afford to buy food for themselves. I really wanted to help, so I asked what I could do. They said they needed someone to deliver food to some seniors who lived on narrow streets. The car that usually made the deliveries was too big to go down those streets, but I could easily ride my bicycle down them. It was kind of hard to find their homes at first, but after a while I figured out where everybody lived. I even made a little map to help me get from place to place more quickly! If you're looking for a place to volunteer, I really recommend Lunchbox of Love. You don't just take food to the elderly people. You also make them smile, since they don't get a lot of visitors. They'd invite me inside, and we'd usually talk a little before I left. It was very nice because they reminded me of my grandparents, who passed away when young. I really liked visiting them.
(A) to urge
(B) to order
(C) to inform
(D) to persuade
(E) to congratulate
What I originally thought after I finished reading the passage, before looking at the multiple choices, was that there would be a choice that said to recommend. But a glance at the choices told me that there wasn't one. So I narrowed the choices down to two possible answers, (C) and (D). I was torn between the two choices, but I eventually picked (D), because it was closer to my initial guess, "to recommend". And the sentence "If you're looking for a place to volunteer, I really recommend Lunchbox of Love." stood out, and helped me get rid of my wavering doubts. Plus, I thought that if this passage was written to inform, the overall tone should be more objective. But this passage is clearly subjective, and the narrator tells us his personal experience from his own point of view, and is telling us how fulfilling and These assumptions lead me to choose (D), and was quite confident that I got it right, until the answers were revealed the day after the exam.
I understand my teacher's position that the purpose could be seen as "to inform". However, I still believe that the answer (D) is not incorrect because of the reasons stated above. I am posting this on Wikipedia in high hopes that many of you agree with me, and are willing to back me up on this. All you have to do is post your opinion below mine, with a few reasons why the choice (D) is also correct. Any contributions are welcome and appreciated. Guys, I really need to get this question right, I'm begging you. Thanks. Johnnyboi7 (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right. Whilst the purpose of the passage may be to inform the general public of what the "Lunchbox Of Love" does, the language used in the passage is quite emotive. The use of personal anecdotes with phrases such as "make them smile", "we'd usually talk a little", "reminded me of my grandparents" and "I really liked visiting" are typical of the information from charitable organisations looking to persuade people that there is more to volunteering with them than simply doing the job. That said, I also think the question is quite unfair. Answers A, C and D could all be considered the correct answer, and therefore there is no one correct answer.
It is worthwhile considering these three variations:
"The charity is called Lunchbox Of Love, and they deliver meals to elderly people who can't afford to buy food for themselves."
"The charity is called Lunchbox Of Love, and they deliver meals to elderly people who can't afford to buy food for themselves. They need someone to deliver food by bicycle to some seniors who lived on narrow streets. If you're looking for a place to volunteer, we really recommend Lunchbox of Love."
"A couple of years ago, my mother took me along to a place where she volunteers in her free time. It's called Lunchbox Of Love, and they deliver meals to elderly people who can't afford to buy food for themselves. I really wanted to help, so I asked what I could do. They said they needed someone to deliver food to some seniors who lived on narrow streets. The car that usually made the deliveries was too big to go down those streets, but I could easily ride my bicycle down them. It was kind of hard to find their homes at first, but after a while I figured out where everybody lived. I even made a little map to help me get from place to place more quickly! If you're looking for a place to volunteer, I really recommend Lunchbox of Love. You don't just take food to the elderly people. You also make them smile, since they don't get a lot of visitors. They'd invite me inside, and we'd usually talk a little before I left. It was very nice because they reminded me of my grandparents, who passed away when young. I really liked visiting them." Actually that's exactly the same as the original.
The first informs people about the charity. The second urges people to volunteer. The third, by adding the personal story, is much more persuasive. Astronaut (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a borderline case. It might be intended to persuade, but it's really a soft-sell. I'd be interested to know what the teacher's reasoning was. Maybe he thought several of them could be an answer, but that (C) was the "best" answer. Maybe the problem is the wording of the question. Instead of "What is THE purpose", it could say, "What is the MAIN purpose". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh I'm with you. Without the sentence that begins "If you're looking..." it's informative: with that sentence it's persuasion. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a mixed passage, but I don't think it's a concerted attempt to persuade (or to urge, which is another possibility). I do agree that "to inform" is a bit too general though. But 90% of it is them informing you about their experience, with some recommendations on the side. (Which is not quite the same thing as persuasion.) I vote with the teacher, I guess, but I also vote "this is not a very good passage to use for this purpose," because as the discussion above indicates, even native speakers are going to find areas to quibble over here, which makes it a poor multiple-choice answer (there is no unequivocally right answer). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, guys!! Anyone else who agrees with me, please sign your name below and a brief reason why. I'm kind of hoping to start a sort of a online petition....the more people the better!! Johnnyboi7 (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not really the place to start an online petition. If you believe your exam paper as been incorrectly marked, you might be able to appeal (you certainly can with GCSE exams here in the UK). The first place to go is probably the headmaster/principal at your school. Astronaut (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Sorry, but I'd go with 'inform' on this as well. Persuasive speech needs an overt goal, a thing you are trying to persuade people of, which this passage lacks. The problem, of course, lies with the phrase "If you're looking for a place to volunteer, I really recommend..." it is the only phrase in the passage that even remotely resembles persuasive speech - the remainder of the passage is closer to a fond reminiscence - but the phrase is a conditional that merely offers an option, not a persuasive statement (such as, say, "Volunteering at the LoL is an experience you will enjoy, so you should go down tomorrow..."). Keep in mind that it's perfectly possible to inform people about experiences you enjoy without it being an effort to persuade them to try it themselves. e.g.: I'm happy to tell you that I really like the taste of vanilla-bean ice cream, but my intention in saying that is not to persuade you to go eat some. --Ludwigs214:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and disagreements here
When I read the original paragraph, and the choices, I picked "to inform" without any hesitation (before seeing any of your text). I disagree strongly with the "persuade" answer.
The question is: "what is the purpose of the text." It means, when the author wrote down to write the text, to what end did he or she do so?
Now let us look at the possibilities. The author wrote this text to urge. Well, then they must have began or ended with an exhortation. "I am writing with pain in my heart and the hope that after reading my missive you will be on my side and tell your children ... ". No: not at all. To order: "John - I'm going to have to speak to you Friday afternoon, please come to my office". No. To inform: "We are having a special on Lettuce for $0.22" or "Unfortunately, the appeal was denied. We have no further options and have to drop the case, sorry." Yes: "A couple of years ago, my mother took me along to a place where she volunteers in her free time.... I really liked visiting them." That's the beginning and end of it. It's the ending that really gives it away: it's just a story about this nice place. To persuade: "Dear Fellow Neighbor, I am writing to make you aware of the great danger inherent in trans fatty acids and to urge you to look on the labeling for this pernicious toxin, choosing healthy alternatives when you can..." No. To congratulate: "Good job on that presentation! I could tell the clients were really impressed, congratulations on getting the contract." In conclusion, to me, it's obviously informative. It's the ending that really gives it away. 85.181.48.148 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you read it as primarily being about someone merely describing the joy of their experience, which is also how I initially saw it, then, yes, the "best" answer is probably "informing". But it's not THE answer. None of the four possibilities seemed to be totally on the mark. The problem is that the one posing the test question is being slippery, by asking what is THE answer rather than what is the BEST answer. But that's how things go sometimes. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pride and Prejudice
In Pride and Prejudice I came upon an odd statement "[Lydia's] letters of Kitty . . . were much too full of lines under the words to be made public." What does this mean. I first interpreted this to mean that the letters contained lewd content, but at the culture of the time I thought it was highly unlikely. Also how much were 1000 pounds back then, in today's pounds, euros, and USD. Thanks. --Larry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.163.6 (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correspondence, particularly from loved ones, in that period and in that environment, were often read aloud to other family members, or the letters handed around, or the contents divulged by the recipient. In this context, Lydia was underlining the parts of her letters that she didn't wish to have shared with anyone else . . . for Kitty's eyes only. I don't know how common the practice was, but by Austen's treatment of it I assume it would have been fairly well-recognised. It's revealed later on that Kitty was already aware of Lydia's plans to elope, while the rest of the family were clueless, so we can presume information like this formed part of the underlined sections of her letters. That's the only logical conclusion I can reach from the paragraph (I read the whole paragraph for further context). Maedin\talk16:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not sure, :) However, it seems unlikely to me that Austen would use such figurative language, and not in that style; not necessarily that she wouldn't, but having read the preceding and following paragraphs, it wouldn't suit the passage. Let's not forget that neither Kitty nor Lydia were particularly bright (Lydia definitely not), and to convey messages "between the lines" isn't really expected of them. A few chapters later, in Chapter 4 of Volume Three, we get "To Kitty, however, it does not seem so wholly unexpected." and two pages later, "Poor Kitty has anger for having concealed [Lydia and Wickham's] attachment; but as it was a matter of confidence one cannot wonder." Keeping in mind that Kitty and Lydia could only have communicated by letter, and that it's a little difficult to reveal who your lover is "between the lines" without the whole family also finding out, I think Austen is referring to outright admissions from Lydia, being underlined to highlight their secrecy. I don't offer it as fact, but as a likelihood, and I could easily be wrong. That she's referring to "reading between the lines" isn't implausible, either. Maedin\talk18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above would require that there was a convention that underlined words were private and not to be repeated to others - I've never heard of anything like that. 92.15.12.165 (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that's possible. Neither have I. But that doesn't mean it didn't. Another aspect that I think reinforces my position is how "too full of" has been used. This implies to me that, had there only been a few sentences underlined, then Kitty would have inked out, after reading, the bits which weren't for sharing. Instead the letters were so full of underlines, that she had to keep the whole of the letters private, for practical reasons. It wouldn't be quite so easy to quantify had Lydia just been writing between the lines. And again . . . Lydia was impetuous, dim, silly, ridiculous, obvious, coarse. Lydia did not engage in subtleties. I feel pretty sure that Austen never meant for us to think that Lydia laboured over letters, trying to say secretive things in roundabout ways; I can much better see her revealing all to her closest sister, and then dashing lines under everything she wouldn't want her mum to read. I don't know if you've read the whole paragraph, but the context helps a little. If you don't have the book, it's available on the web, Chapter XIX of Volume II. Maedin\talk19:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After lots of googling I couldn't find anything on an underlining practice. But I did find a book called Bits of ivory; narrative techniques in Jane Austen's fiction that concurs; see here and just search for Kitty, all mentions are relevant. Maedin\talk19:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not simple to convert historical money into modern money. There are various sites which attempt it one way or another: [10] but the difficulty is with the market basket: what is currently expensive was not necessarily expensive in the past, and what is currently cheap was not necessarily cheap, and many things were not available at all. Here's a page titled "the cost of living in Jane Austen's England" [11], which says £1000 is at least enough cash to keep a family of five and five servants very comfortable for a year. I'm not sure servants and phaetons feature on today's consumer price indexes. 81.131.38.168 (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further up that webpage it says that £250 per year is enough to keep a "gentleman", wife, three children and maid. So £250 then would be worth at least £25000 now, perhaps £50000. The maid's wages would be much less in real terms than what she would get now. 92.15.12.165 (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
can someone explain that to me? Does, like 25% of the population secretly want to show strangers their erect or semi-erect penis, but public decency laws prevent them, so on chatroulette they finally can? It seems, from chatroulette, that the number has to be way, way, up there. Or maybe pervy exhibitionists just swarmed on that service? (all, what, 170,000 of them worldwide?)
yes I want the psychological or sociological analysis. If you go to any other public part of th world where you are expected to chat face to face, no one shows you their hard cock instead. Is it a gay thing, where the cocks meet up and jointly masturbat or what? Who are all these people and whatdo they get out of going on vhatroulette and sitting their with their hard cocks out? Should I just try it myself, and see what happens (or what I get out of it)? I would prefer one of you tried it instead and reported here, (or you can link to someon else, like me, not inthw know who has tried it for his edification and blogged he result6. I'm really curious!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.48.148 (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently if you get too many complaints, you can be blocked for awhile. Kind of like what happens in wikipedia, and for somewhat similar reasons. Hard telling if it's a "gay thing" or not. One clue would be to find out what percent of those complaints amount to "Where's the rest of it?" ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the proper question is what population of people who regularly use chatroulette prefer this activity; it is not the "general population".
In any case, it's just technologically-enabled exhibitionism of the classic sort. Chatroulette obviously appeals to the exhibitionist subset, for fairly obvious reasons (anonymous, safe). See the article for description of psychological studies, etc. Nothing new to showing genitals (and it is not a "gay" thing specifically at all), but the technology has made it easier to do without negative consequences. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are females on Chatroulette, too. I don't know why one would assume that the "cocks out" activity is mostly homosexual or male bonding when there is an equally (more?) valid heterosexual explanation. Guys are quite convinced that their erections will attract females and so sit around stimulating themselves, waiting for females to turn up. In hopes that they will cam with them, maybe display their goods, too, or at the very least expecting the ladies to hang around long enough to admire, have a good look, see it in action, etc. I'm sure there is a strong element of simple exhibitionism, but it doesn't normally expect interaction or exhibitionism in return. Maedin\talk10:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually our exhibitionism article makes it clear that most "flashers" actually would like interaction if they could get it. I definitely think this behavior is classic exhibitionism but with the bar much, much lower than it had been. It's quite a different thing if being a "flasher" means you broadcast yourself (without your face) from the privacy of your home, rather than having to be that guy who runs around naked under a trenchcoat. I think what something like chatroulette probably shows is that many more guys are exhibitionists than one might normally assume, once you throw out the consequences. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind, there's really nothing sexual about this - it's more of a pecking order behavior (no pun intended). Male primates of certain species have similar behaviors, where they display their genitals to each other in lieu of actually combat for dominance. Basically it's a personal challenge to others: forcing people to look at your genitals either (a) makes them uncomfortable and embarrassed (a sign of weakness) or (b) makes them interested or excited (a sign of subservience). No question that the people who do it get a rise out of it, but it's more of a dominance issue than a sexual one (i.e. more at Alfred Adler than at Sigmund Freud). --Ludwigs217:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no real specific idea what the motivation is, but the same phenomenon is seen on Wikimedia Commons, where commons:Template:Nopenis was created in response to frequent uploads of low-quality cellphone-camera snaps. AnonMoos (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, reading the article in the first link, it says: "'Ancient lights' signs, or other signs and stone plaques... generally only amount to an assertion of a claim to light, with no legal effect as such. They may, however, in some cases, be important in historical terms and are, of course, a warning to the possible assertion of light, and if dates, etc are on the stone plaques they may establish the age of certain features." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am I correct in thinking that the UK police used to wear dark navy-blue uniforms, and now wear black instead? This article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/birmingham/10499030.stm suggests they've started to wear black shirts as well.
Why have the police chosen black clothing, with its associations with fascism and Darth Vader? Are they trying to make the public afraid of them (and hence dislike them also)? Wouldnt it make their jobs easier if they reverted to the navy-blue uniform with white shirt and tie, so that the public respected them instead? 92.15.12.165 (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The police as a whole haven't chosen black shirts, one or two constabularies have. As to why - the answers are in that article. Blue shirts were the norm until the 1980s for number 1 dress and the Met led the change to white shirts, although not all forces followed and some still wear light blue shirts (some in West-midlands wear yellow and PSNI wear green). For working dress, not all forces wear shirts - some wear black t-shirts, polo shirts or the zip up black shirts as mentioned in the article and as seen worn by bicycle and tactical police in some areas. As to whether a change in uniform would increase perceived respect - I would imagine that a multi-million pound change of uniform for all constabularies wouldn't be welcomed too much by the taxpayer. Nanonic (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What follows is pure OR, so take it as such. Uniform color has a lot to do with the perceived relationship between the officer and the citizen. Blue (along with tan) is a service color - it tends to imply that the officer is a civil servant doing a low-class but necessary job (that's why meter-maids and beat cops almost always have blue uniforms). Black is an authority color: you'll notice that 'elite' force uniforms (such as SWAT teams in the US), as well as riot control uniforms, are almost always black, sometimes even obscuring their faces with black masks. This is fairly cross-cultural: note that WWII SS uniforms were black whereas German regular army uniforms were navy blue. There has been a gradual and unfortunate shift in the US and Europe away from the 'civil servant' model of police to an 'authority figure' model of police, so you can expect to see shifts in uniform designed to make officers appear more authoritative and intimidating, which will mean a lot more black uniforms. c'est la vie. --Ludwigs217:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the traditional "midnight blue" traditionally used for British police uniforms was very nearly black to the naked eye, so maybe not worth getting too worked-up about. Comparing the UK police to the SS in any way is overstating the argument to my mind. Alansplodge (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him? If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future? If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers? If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him? If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has, filled with weaknesses? If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them? If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him? If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable? If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees? If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him? IF HE HAS SPOKEN, WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED?
The only part of this I don't understand is If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable?. What does this mean? --mboverload@22:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He must mean metaphorical blindness, which we still use today to describe unreasonable people. Blind faith, "how could you be so blind" by not recognizing something obvious, that sort of thing. It's used that way a lot in the Bible, Jeremiah 5:21 is probably the earliest use. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Bible uses this metaphor for unbelievers a lot, but a quick search of a concordance didn't reveal any instance of God being angry at the "blind". Rather the authors tend to take a patronising attitude towards them. "Let them be," as it says in the bit about the blind leading the blind. So that part of Shelley's otherwise satisfying rant doesn't seem to work very well. 213.122.24.47 (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shelley is not actually talking about God in this passage, but rather backhandedly berating religious zealots (you know, the kind of people who rant about how we should fear god, worry about our salvation, spend hours a day in fervid prayer, etc.). Zealots like that often angrily berate others for being blind to God's will - Shelley is saying "Why are you angry with people who don't experience God the way you do, when it was God himself who made them such that they do not experience Him?" the whole passage is basically Matthew 7:5 - "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." --Ludwigs207:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what I read it as saying: How could God hate unbelievers, since he gave them the capacity to be unbelieving? --Mr.98 (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
July 5
Wright-Moyeux map
I'm trying to correct an error on Wikimedia Commons. This photo supposedly shows the Wright-Moyeux map of 1599:
According to this book (Discovery of Australia, 1922), a map by Hakluyt published in 1598 includes a vague squiggle of the north coast of (something), apparently seen from afar by the Victoria but never visited. It would not surprise me at all if Wright had picked up on reports and rumors of that sort and engaged in a bit of 'proactive' cartography. the book author is highly skeptical of any european having visited Australia prior to its official discovery, so... --Ludwigs208:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite prepared to believe that, many years before the official discovery of the continent, Portuguese ships sailed down parts of the east coast and along the southern coast for quite some distance. But the map in question shows the remainder of the coastline, the exact opposite of the parts the Portuguese may have explored. I know of no theories that claim that that much of the west and north was known anywhere as early as 1599. There's no way it's a 1599 map. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This version of the Wright-Molyneux map (which I've just noticed is the second link provided by User:Bowlhover - sorry!) does not show Australia, apart from a short stretch which could represent part of the north-western coastline. It looks to me as though the version linked by User:Bowlhover could be a later edition, post-1600, updated to show the later discoveries around Australia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, consider: some people skateboard, doing tricks. To what end? It is not to get to work, or get home. It is not as a form of aerobic exercise. It is also not usually a "game" like basketball. Instead, teenagers do skateboard tricks to impress. Because it's cool. Sorry, but doing a performance in order to impress pretty much guarantees you are making art. And yes, that includes tight-rope walking in a circus. 84.153.200.147 (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My query is pertaining to this person's biography on Wikipedia. I've found 2 images of this person. First one is hosted on Hindi wikipedia but there is nothing mentioned about copyright. The user who uploaded the file has got her page protected so I cant post her a message inquiring about the same.
I am not sure if the other image that I've found is really of the same person. If it is of the same person then I can get it released under CC license. Also, tell me if I should upload the first image in the article.
IMO, the Hindi wikipedia image is not a good source since it has no copyright nor licence information. We are not in a position to know whether it is being stored and displayed in accordance with a licence or in breach of copyright. As to the second, clearly you need to ascertain whether it is the person in question. I'm not sure why you are configent you can get it released under a CC licence ... surely that would depend on the copyright holder, presumably the photographer. Do you know who the photographer is? --Tagishsimon(talk)14:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting question. The common penny at the time would have been the Indian Head cent, but the article on the Copperheads implies they used pennies with Liberty on them, which would have made them earlier versions. There are quite a few candidates if that is true. My guess, based on just what would probably have been in circulation at the time, is that the 1855 cent is possibly the one in question. On the other hand, I see other sources on the web (not necessarily better ones) that say it was the Indian Head that was used. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More poking around. Things still a bit unclear. This forum discussion has a number of replicas and alleged originals, some of which are Indian Head, some of which are 1855 cents. Unsurprisingly, I guess, it seems to have been somewhat inconsistent in practice which was used. Indian Heads would have been easier, but the appeal of using Liberty was probably high as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Queen Liz the First was around long before cloning had been invented, else history might have been different. Back to the OP's question, Juju implied but didn't explicitly state, that every British monarch since the Norman Conquest in 1066 A.D. has been a descendant of William I, known to his buddies as "the Conqueror". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of influential women, it's a little known fact that Queen Matilda embezzled a lot of the King's doubloons or razzbuckniks or whatever it was they were using for money then. William's last words were, "Matilda! Matilda! She took me money and ran to Venezuela!"[13] ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the most comprehensive and unbaised UK newspaper? I need one that I can downloada reader from to read on my laptop with wifi. Also where would I be able to download the reader/gadget thing Thanks, 76.229.149.185 (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which you feel to be "unbiased" is rather a matter of your own political alignment - none are free of a given political orientation, although in fairness the broadsheets tend to be less obviously partisan than, say the Express or the Daily Mail. The Times is somewhat right of (the British) centre, the Daily Telegraph probably a bit righter still. The Independent is a bit left of centre, The Guardian a bit lefter still. But they're all well written pretty comprehensive works of professional journalist of good standing and (bar the columnists, whose job is often to be antagonistic) the readerships of each could read the others without deflagrating. Each varies by what, and how, they distribute electronically. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk17:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I get both the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph, if possible. That way, they sort of cancel out :) Plus, you're not paying any money to Rupert Murdoch. But more seriously, any of the broadsheets will be okay as long as you know what their bias is and watch for it. The Guardian has an annoying tendency to report science and statistics without much of a feel for them: it almost seems like all their subeditors have dyscalculia. Seriously, they throw numbers and graphs around as if it doesn't matter what they actually are: I've seen them print the same graph 4 times on a single page without noticing, giving figures that are out by orders of magnitude, and even scattering numbers in an article without defining what they relate to. If that bothers you, avoid it. Out of all of them, the Telegraph seems to fit most actual news in. If you're reading the paper for news, and not opinions, I'd go with that and watch for a right-wing bias. 86.164.57.20 (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph also has the best cryptic crossword, so when you're tired of reading front page news about Tiger Woods getting a few scratches in a wee car accident, you can do something actually worthwhile and complete the cryptic. Maedin\talk20:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph has two cryptic crosswords now - the "ordinary" one, which is generally regarded as being at the easier end of the broadsheet spectrum, and the fairly-recently-introduced "Telegraph Toughie", which does what it says on the tin, though still being accessible to the average solver. As to whether either of these is "the best" - YMMVor[citation needed]. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think The Times would be you're best bet - unless their new paywall becomes a problem. I agree with the above, but I think The Telegraph is just too right-wing to be considered "unbiased". It's Tory in a retired-Colonel-from-Tunbridge-Wells sort of way. I would like to echo the sentiments of Finlay - as long as you know the bias, most people can zone it out. I have, at some point, regularly read all of them- so I am not passing dispersions on their news content. - Jarry1250[Humorous?Discuss.]18:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help identifying a figure in the Bible
"In the first place, I'm sort of an atheist. I like Jesus and all, but I don't care too much for most of the other stuff in the Bible. Take the Disciples, for instance. They annoy the hell out of me, if you want to know the truth. They were all right after Jesus was dead and all, but while He was alive, they were about as much use to Him as a hole in the head. All they did was keep letting Him down. I like almost anybody in the Bible better than the Disciples. If you want to know the truth, the guy I like best in the Bible, next to Jesus, was that lunatic and all, that lived in the tombs and kept cutting himself with stones. I like him ten times as much as the Disciples, that poor bastard." -Holden Caulfield, The Catcher in the Rye
Bold my emphasis. Does this passage relate to an actual figure in the bible, and if so, who? Avicennasis @ 19:59, 23 Tamuz 5770 / 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, definitely, he's the man in Gadarenes, living amongst the tombs, possessed by spirits. Our article on Legion (demon) is dire, but this is the demon(s) referred to. When Jesus "cast out" the spirits, the passage reads, "Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked." Accounts of the story in the books of Luke and Matthew don't include the cutting with stones, but the account in Mark does. Pretty sure he's never named, but the happy ending is that he returned home, "clothed and in his right mind". Read all about it (KJV is best) here, starts at verse 1: [14]Maedin\talk20:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most influential women in history
Who are considered to have been the most influential women in history? People always talk about Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon; but what about the females? Off hand, I would say Catherine the Great, Queen Isabella I of Spain, Elizabeth I.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, I am new to the web site and I am learning how it works but at this moment I need help.
I recevied this post: Eliakim; Who is this biblical figure? What is his role in the end of time?
(the one who posted wrote this about it) A certain prophet claims that Eliakim not Jesus will be the one who will open the 7 seals. I have been researching this and was hoping somebody could shed some light on this. Daniel spoke of this and the prophet claims that Eliakim has been mistaken for Jesus and this among other details are errant in doctrine because satan deliberately altered some phrasing in some key scriptures that has caused some false teaching. He believes that the only bible that should be used is the authorized King James version. He believes that every translation after that has been altered.
(This is what I have found thus far) Eliakim son of Hilkiah the palace administrator or Eliakim son of Josiah king, whose name was changed or the priest—Eliakim or Eliakim the father of Azor who is in the blood line of JESUS in Matthew or Eliakim the son of Meleain in the blood line of JESUS in the book of Luke......
Community has anyone ever heard of this and if you have can you give more details so I can contiue to search this out? Thank you --VMallory1 (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the Book of Revelation, the seals are opened by a figure called "the Lamb." While he isn't specifically named as Jesus, it's a reasonable assumption given the Christian context of the book. The Authorized King James Version Bible is very important in literary and religious history, but it is far from the best translation available- most Bible colleges, except those directly affiliated with the King James Only movement, don't permit King James as a text in Bible classes because it is not as accurate a translation of the available texts, and also because important manuscripts have been discovered since it was written. For what it's worth, anecdotally, when I was in Bible college the professors were recommending the New Revised Standard Version as the translation which best communicated the Hebrew, and Greek of the "originals" (bear in mind that when talking about the Bible, there are no "original" texts available, only copies, many of which vary from each other in some degree. That in itself becomes a very interesting area of study). If your friend thinks that the King James version of the Bible is the only one that should be read, and that all other bibles have been rewritten by Satan, then he belongs to a very fringe group of people in Christian thinking, and you do not need to accept his beliefs as your own unless you are interesting in joining him in that particular fringe group. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)21:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To add to my answer: Wikipedia does have an article on Eliakim. It isn't very long, but it includes a list of all the appearances of Eliakim in the Bible, so that you can review them for yourself and decide whether a writer of the early Christian church would more likely have been referring to Jesus or Eliakim when writing about "The Lamb." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)21:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was astonished to see that Raul Castro is a practicing Roman Catholic. Communism is an inherently atheist doctrine, which seems to preclude being a Catholic. I understand that Catholicism is important, historically and currently, in Cuba, but this is beyond my understanding. How can Raul claim to be both communist and Catholic? How can a priest legally provide him with the Eucharist?69.120.0.81 (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first Communist Society was the first Christians, holding all in common. The Monastic Monk could well fit this discription. However, the method as a society did not work. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A major difference between this and modern Communism is that the modern movement is based on Marx's philosophies, which included the rejection of religion. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why do you think that Raul Castro is a Catholic? I'd like to note that our article listed his religion as "None (Atheist)" until edit [16] and no source has been given for the change... Also, it looks like the user in question has already been warned for something similar ([17]) and has even been blocked for 48 hours ([18]). If no reliable sources support the claim that Raul Castro is a practicing Catholic (I would be surprised if there were any), then that edit would have to be reverted. Feel free to do it yourself it you only saw this claim here in Wikipedia. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Believers in the "Social Gospel" promulgated the writings of Karl Marx while purporting to be Christians. In the 1960's through 1990's many purportedly devout Christians were 'fellow travelers" of the communists, demonstrating for "justice," defined as a Marxist world. Edison (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Bible: "Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."
Oh no... we're not practicing theology here. Communism, at least the Russian variety, has an antagonistic relationship with organized religion. Of course, if you're wanting to control some land, that's been little reason to stop you, in most cases. Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
July 6
First (US) federal building named for a woman
Our article on Juliette Gordon Low mentions that she was the second woman to have a federal building named after her. I take this to mean US federal building and not world-wide. As it happens every time that I read something like this in one of our articles, I want to know what the first was. Why do we do this so often? Why make a claim about the second but not answer the obvious question about the first? So, what was the first US federal building to be named for a woman? I did some searching and quite a few pages mention Low. This one even claims that Low was the first. And if I do a search for first "federal building named after a woman" but then remove the name "Juliette" from the search, that's also the only link that comes back. Dismas|(talk)00:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for why we do this, in that particular article, it looks basically ripped off 100% from this source. So blame them for doing it, and us for blatantly copying! --Mr.98 (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What type of psychology disorder is this?
What type of psychological disorder is it when someone constantly needs to hook up with the opposite sex to feel good about themselves? I know a girl that constantly needs to hook up with different men to feel good about herself. She even makes it a competition and says "Lets see who can hook up with more people, me or you." Also, what causes this in someone? Is it lack of confidence? Is it because she has a poor relationship with her father? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Articles like Sexual addiction and Hypersexuality may be helpful for background reading, but if you or anyone close to you has concerns about their health, please seek qualified medical help from a trained professional, and do not seek out or accept advice from random strangers on teh intrawebs. --Jayron3205:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:.....People/history
I belong to a group and enter historical people and famous actors/actresses. My problem has been that the picture which I enter can be answered by the other person by placing the cursror on it or by clicking on Properties and seeing the name of the person in the picture. How can I use copy and paste and not have the name show up and give away the answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smooth cassius (talk • contribs) 06:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is usually done by renaming the picture - don't provide a link to Wikipedia, instead upload the picture on a different Internet picture storage service provider, but before you do, give the file a nonsense name, or if you feel frivolous, title it with the name of another historical person to see how many people fall for your deception (i.e., cheat by reading the file description :). Of course, since the advent of tineye.com, these sort of games on the Internet have lost some of their appeal. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Romanization of Western Europe
Why was the Romanization of Western Europe - Spain, France and Italy, among others - so rapid and profound whereas Roman cultural influence in Northern Africa was negligible? --Belchman (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just some ideas: only a thin strip of territory near the coast was (and for a large part is) livable, the rest was desert so too much penetration was unpractical/unworthy. But mediterranean Africa has nevertheless a lot of Roman relics, and so do other apperently un-roman places like, for example, Bulgaria. For example, Bardo National Museum contains one of the most importan collection of Roman mosaics outside Italy. You have to cosider that Muslims invaded these places, leading to the creation of the Ottoman Empire. And they were probably not very favourable to an exaltation of Roman (both pagan and christian) culture. Also Spain was subjected to islamization but it was reconquered.--151.51.61.119 (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The info box sums it up this way for the Battle of chancellorsville: Union: 133,000 or so, Confederate 60,000 or so. I have a couple questions:
1. A few other sources, including some of the articles on here, have figures that are slightly different for the Confederatcy (more like 56,000) to way different for the Union (more like 110,000.) I can understand different sources being a few thousand off, but not 20,000. Is our info box counting all forces available int he battle, but other sources only counting the corps which were actually involved in the fighting?
2. Could the difference be regular soldiers versus volunteers? That doesn't make much sense to me, becuase they all volunteered befor ethe draft. Or, were some of the volunteers actually just state militias that came dwont o help? That would explain a 20,000 difference.
3. How are counts kept, anyway? I presume it has to be someone who is registered with some military, be it state or federal. but, pre-Industrial Revultion, you could have a bunch of [Vikings attack, and hundreds of citizens in a town charge at them with anything that would hurt, and it might get written up as the "Defense of Whathisname" if important enough.
Uniform color has a lot to do with the perceived relationship between the officer and the citizen. Blue (along with tan) is a service color - it tends to imply that the officer is a civil servant doing a low-class but necessary job (that's why meter-maids and beat cops almost always have blue uniforms). Black is an authority color: you'll notice that 'elite' force uniforms (such as SWAT teams in the US), as well as riot control uniforms, are almost always black, sometimes even obscuring their faces with black masks. This is fairly cross-cultural: note that WWII SS uniforms were black whereas German regular army uniforms were navy blue. There has been a gradual and unfortunate shift in the US and Europe away from the 'civil servant' model of police to an 'authority figure' model of police, so you can expect to see shifts in uniform designed to make officers appear more authoritative and intimidating, which will mean a lot more black uniforms. c'est la vie. --Ludwigs2 17:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
