Revision as of 13:54, 18 October 2006

Reference Desk

October 6

Attributive Monism & Pantheism

Is there a relation between the two ? And to what extent is attributive monism actual --Hhnnrr 00:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC) ?

Something is either actual or it isn't. I can't see how it could be a matter of degree. JackofOz 01:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but if you asked me "to what extent is the danger of drowning in a bath actual" and I replied 100% you might get the wrong impression even though it is literally true. BTW the Monism#Monism, Pantheism, and Panentheismdescribes the relationship between Monism and Pantheism. -- Chris Q 14:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume either there is such a thing as "attributive monism", or there is no such thing. If it exists, it's 100% actual, but if it doesn't, it's 0% actual. JackofOz 21:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Help about the UN!

With 191 member states and a bureaucracy built over 60 years, but with waning support, is the United Nations still a viable organization? --Longhornsg 01:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it ever was. Look at its track record for starters. Most of their missions are too late or don't accomplish anything, as in Sudan, Rwanda, and North Korea. The fact that each nation in theory has the same voting power (excluding the veto powers) means that Luxembourg (population of 465,000) has the same votes (one) as India (1,103,371,000 people). Does that make sense? I don't think so.

Most of the time the UN just debats things but doesn't come to a resolution as in the case of the Israel - Hezbollah war this past summer. In fact, I remember reading that the US of A doesn't even pay their membership dues anymore. Most countries just use the UN as a political forum to attack each other. --The Dark Side 02:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Support is only waning from those who disagree with whatever decision the organization has just made. One year the U.S. can call it a hopeless bureacracy while Venezuela issues statements of praise, and the next year the opposite can happen. Over the whole history of the UN, I believe Indonesia is the only country that has ever voluntarily withdrawn (and they were back a year later.) If it was really faltering, we'd already have a rival organization in Caracas or Khartoum. As for the missions it undertakes, they are generally successful, in my opinion. The failures (eg, Srebrenica) get all the news, while the thousands (if not millions) of lives and several nations saved aren't boisterously trumpeted as successes. Although many Americans hate it, I, at least, actually see it as reasonably successful and still viable (and much better at resolving conflict, than, say the Arab League or the Non-Aligned Movement.) After all, Seoul, Monrovia, and so on might not exist without it, and maybe neither would the U.S. and (former) U.S.S.R. Picaroon9288 02:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The UN is a damn site better than the League of Nations and kicked ass in the Korean War. The veto power given to the World War II victors is getting kind of stale, like if the 13 original US states of 220 years ago could veto any legislation at the federal level or any Supreme Court rulings. The US has right wingers who have wanted us out of the UN for 50 years. They fear One World government, where Cuba or Somalia has the same vote as the U.S. and a majority of itty bitty dictatorships or puppet states could vote to take away our wealth and give it to third world countries. The world economic system is currently accomplishing that, as witness how much of the U.S debt is held by China, and how many jobs in the U.S are held by Mexicans or Indians (via telecommuting). The U.N is still presently the best alternative to naked aggression and might makes right, via collective security. Edison 04:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You guys seem to think the UN is only about military intervention. That would be the US, not the UN. :) The UN is about loads of things, mostly creating international cooperation with (among other things) the goal of preventing armed conflicts from starting in the first place.

About all members having the same voting right, that indeed makes no sense for an actual government (such as in the UK with its counties and the US with its states), but this is not (yet!) a government. It's a cooperation between indxependent nations. If the US want more voting right they should split up into separate countries (a move I would truly applaud for its improved democracy among other things). DirkvdM 19:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to imply that it was only about military intervention; UNICEF (apparently) works pretty well also. Then again, how many UNICEF missions would you estimate have gone to their warzones/faminezones without weapons? Zero, methinks! (Oh, and I second that thing about breaking my country up. I'd applaud it too.) Picaroon9288 20:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As the greatest empire, regarding international impact, ever known to mankind, history teaches us that the country quite possibly will break up by itself sooner or later... All great empires before it has collapsed... 惑乱 分からん 00:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The worst part about the UN is how it refuses to act until it's too late, as in the Rwanda genocide. In the case of the Iraq Oil for Food program, the UN seemed mainly interested in enriching it's officials (like Kofi Annan's son) by violating the agreement. StuRat 01:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Rwanda is probably UN's biggest failure in modern time. The appearance of the Bosnian camps also was a failure... 惑乱 分からん 10:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling Rwanda a UN "failure" is one hell of an understatement, considering its magnitude (800,000 dead) and relative preventability of it, in comparison to certain other far less bloody, far more complex and far less clear-cut instances of the failure of a third-party to prevent a tragedy from occuring, where some of the figures involved were indeed charged by some to be war criminals. Some would go so far as to charge Kofi Anan as a war criminal for his deliberate inaction, if only the political sensibilities of the powers-that-be were any different. Loomis 12:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I once heard someone call the Israeli-Palestinian issue the "UN's baby". It's one of the first things they were involved in, and they have passed many resolutions on it. Rwanda, Congo, Darfur are more neglected children.

I think (but who am I :)) the main problem is that the UN not only needs to decide on doing something, it needs people to execute an order, and therefore a country sending troops. I think many politicians see a UN mission in a dangerous region like a game you can only lose. Ask a random Belgian about the Rwanda genocide. The first thing he might say is "10 Belgians soldiers got killed there?", ask him how many Rwandans died and he probably won't know. So (but again that's what I think) that that is why many nations either send no troops, or troops with a pretty worthless mandate. Evilbu 14:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, they would have had to take offensive action, and perhaps kill a few thousand people to save the lives of hundreds of thousands. This is not something the UN seems ever willing to do. StuRat 19:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That is changing in the Congo, though, where the guy in charge of the UN forces (a Dutchman - forgot his name) has decided to not wait for orders and go head to head with any destructive forces, at the same time giving them an option of amnesty (a stick without a carrot, but not too spiky a stick either). The UN aren't too happy about it, but they're not stopping him either. Probably to see if his approach will be more successfull. Like I said so many times before, the UN is a worldwide social experiment. How can you expect it to work instantly? And in historical terms a century is pretty instant for such a major change to take place. Those who think peace through worldwide cooperation could work (maybe even in our lifetimes!?) might be dreamers, but those who are not willing to try it are cowards who don't care about their offspring. DirkvdM 06:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

So just how many centuries (and Rwandas and Darfurs) should we give the UN before we give up on them and put our trust in something like NATO, which has actually shown the ability to act, as in the former Yugoslavia ? StuRat 00:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Shhhh, Stu! NATO's operation in the former Yugoslavia was against international law! It was WRONG! And Slobidan should still be in power, albeit under the most strenuous of UN sanctions. What better way to let a dictator stall for eternity while his people suffer?

Ok, here's a compromise: How about we let the UN last until WWIII, the same way we let the League of Nations last until WWII. Seems fair. No? Loomis 02:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The idea of the UN is that it is neutral. Several languages. They've got their own stamp. Their (I can't believe I just wrote that:( )headquarters is technically not in the USA.... NATO was established to counter the USSR. It doesn't even try to appear neutral. And are you all that happy about NATO bombing Serbia? Milosevic was a dictator and he was ousted after the war. If you are saying NATO helped doing that, then that can only be interpreted as saying their "collective punishment" was a good strategy. Leskovac might prove that.Evilbu 21:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Being neutral on genocide is not a good thing. Since the UN is unable and unwilling to do anything to prevent genocide (except pass resolutions and weak sanctions), an organization that will do what it takes is needed. And yes, war can be called "collective punishment". When the citizens of a country decide that conquering their neighbors and engaging in genocide is a good plan, then nothing short of the collective punishment of war will likely convince them otherwise. If you think UN sanctions would have stopped Serbia, or the Rwandan genocide, or the Cambodian genocide of Pol Pot, you are utterly wrong. StuRat 00:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

NATO is the old way. That has been tried for centuries (milennia, millions of years?). It obviously doesn't work to stop wars, because they are still being waged. If we have any desire to stop wars, then complete international cooperation has to be the only way (a world dictatorship would not last long enough). And the UN is the only working example of that at the moment. Given the milennia (or whatever) that the old way has had its chance, half a century is a bit short to call this off, isn't it? And the Congo example shows the UN is flexible enough to learn from its mistakes. DirkvdM 06:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

" obviously doesn't work to stop wars, because they are still being waged". You're forgetting that NATO is only a regional alliance. NATO is great example of effective international cooperation, for, unlike the UN, to my knowledge there has never been any war between NATO members. A conflict in say, Darfur or Rwanda is way outside of NATO's self-proclaimed mandate, but well within the UN's. Loomis 09:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, because NATO is smaller and more regional, as you say, they are more efficient, but less "fair" and therefore less accepted as a neutral power that can intervene. By the way, while NATO members don't go to war with each other... Imia/Kirdak was pretty close.Evilbu 11:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What's that ? StuRat 03:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

name of a music

what is the name of a music that in the music video of this music, there is bow wow, and another boy and that call lingerie womans to dance, and they see they dancing.

I will certainly watch for it.Edison 04:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to the rapper "Bow Wow"? 惑乱 分からん 07:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

yes, they are going to school and after they leave the car of their mom, they go to many places of the city (but not to school) to have fun, so when they see lingerie store, they think about writing on papers, to lingirie girls to come to a studio to see they see the girls dancing in lingerie. I think that the music is remix of another music.

Actually, I prefer Bow Wow Wow... ;) 惑乱 分からん 00:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually Ido know which you mean but I don't think it was Bow Wow but a remake of an old song. the song+artists are:

Max Graham Vs. Yes - Owner of a lonely heart. Graendal 17:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (PS: you are right that didnt is bow wow??? I have to see this music movie again again.) yes its bow wow, i saw the video again.

Musical Coincidence?

Is it just me or does the song When A Man Loves A Woman by Percy Sledge have a uncanny similarity with A Whiter Shade of Pale by Procol Harum? The bass in When... kind of matches up with the piano in Whiter... RENTASTRAWBERRY röck

It's not just you. Both songs are in D major and are played at the same tempo, so they sound similar. Your sig is waaaay too long, btw - try to keep it to one line. See WP:SIG. Natgoo 10:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The similarity in chord progression is noted here. Unless you wrote that line, there's someone else out there who too noticed this.  --Lambiam 13:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Knife Law in California

Hello,

I am 17 years old and I live in Sunnyvale, California. My friend (18) gave me a CRKT folding knife with a 3.5" blade. It is not a switchblade - I'm pretty sure those are illegal anywhere in CA.

The knife has a belt clip. My friend told me that the knife is not considered a concealed weapon as long as the clip is hanging out of my pocket (i.e. looking at my pocket, you can only see the belt clip of the knife — the knife itself is concealed).

As much as I'd like to carry the blade for self-defense, I would like to know: a) is it really considered unconcealed if the belt clip is showing? b) is it legal for me to carry the knife as a minor?

I would appreciate any responses. Thanks, K. --24.6.242.154 05:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not give legal advice. That said, you could contact the local police and ask them - what weapons are legally carryable, and by whom, are a topic of considerable interest to them and it's consequently an area of law on which they're likely to be expert.

Beyond that, might I gently suggest to you that whatever the legality of carrying your knife, it's a very bad idea. Even ignoring my personal belief that the general carriage of weapons makes a community more prone to violence, knives are not particularly useful self-defence weapons. From what I've read, pepper spray is a much more effective self-defence weapon. It may not be quite as manly as carrying around that big knife, but if your purpose is really self-defence rather than intimidation or impressing your buddies, I'd go with the spray, not least for the reason that because it's not likely to kill or maim your attacker you're not likely to hesitate when using it. --Robert Merkel 07:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Also see karate.--Shantavira 08:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In California, there are a wide range of places where it is illegal to carry a blade longer than 2.5". All schools at every level, for example. Government buildings of various sorts. Don't bother with a knife for self defense unless you've been trained at using it. There's the no rules in a knife fight scenario, too (see Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid for a practical demonstration.) --jpgordon 14:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Using a knife as selfdefense can make the situation unnecessarily escalete. If you are worried about your security try avoiding dangerous places or other forms of preventive measures. In many states, if you kill someone despise of having the chance to run, you can end up some years in prison.

And if a person gets killed or seriously wounded in the process, and you get caught (because of witnesses, surveillance, DNA or whatever) I think you'd have to prove that the measures were necessary for your own safety. (I.e. you were at risk to be murdered, raped or something to that extent.) I think that would be hard to prove in court, generally. 惑乱 分からん 17:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore: is Sunnyvale so a dangerous place? Have you ever thought of other selfdefense methods? (spray, special shoes, carry-on alarm)

If it's a typo for Sunnydale, California, you'd better carry a stake. ;) 惑乱 分からん 20:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As a professional chef and an escrima student, I'll tell you right now that the idea of self-defense with a knife, in untrained hands, is moot from the get go. Ask any chef apprentice or house wife how many times they have cut themselves in the kitchen before 'knife awareness' starts to develop. It took me about 3 months of cutting 10 litre buckets of chicken stock veg, and 25 pounds of frozen squid tubes, 6 days a week, before the various scars on my hand healed up fully. Relating this to my escrima training, I can't count the many times I have fell on, or struck myself, my own rattan stick, which is representation for an actual machete or knife. Under the best of circumstances and controlled environment, such as a kitchen, you're going to cut yourself. Placed in a chaotic situation such as a knife fight on the street, and you're as likely to have your own knife stick into your gut. Take Robert Merkel advice and either use pepper spray, or don't place yourself into those situations in the first place.--Ctdahl 13:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of all the above, be sure and show your knife to your friends, and let them handle it. Having an extra set of fingerprints or two on it will be useful.

Just make sure you don't hand it to them sharp-end first.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Indigenous people of the Aleutians Islands

Is there a conflict concering fishing rights in the Bering Straits by indigenous (Inuit?) people who do not recogonize this international border that is causing friction throught a U.S. and Republic of Russia treaty?

I'm not sure about friction or a treaty, but the indigenous people of the Aleutian Islands are the Aleuts. Marco polo 15:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The biggest city in the Aleutian Islands is Unalaska, so that article might mention fishing rights. StuRat 01:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

actually the indigenous people there indeed do not recognise the borders but they are according to the common international fishing treaty's (almost exactly like the EU's one) they have their own fishing right to completely self-supply and have some surplus for trading. the area inbetween the two countries after their Economic Exclusive Zone and Territorial Waters are free to be used by any country.

Beastie Boy's music

The beastie boys are my favorite group ever but, alas, they have a finite amount of songs. If I like the Beastie boys, what other groups do you think i should try out?

Which of their songs are your favorites? 惑乱 分からん 09:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

well, I can suggest trying www.pandora.com for some intel about their exact style and some similar groups and the songs. its a pretty useful thingy and best of all its free.Graendal 09:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Another useful site is this one. Type "beastie boys" into the box and you get a bunch of similar artists. --Richardrj 10:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I second Wakuran's question above, depending on which songs you like, i might recommend anything from Galliano over Red Snapper (band) to Motörhead. You might like to check out early Red Hot Chilli Peppers (and maybe also early Faith No More) stuff, they sometimes come pretty close to the Beastie Boy's blend of Rap, funk sounds and heavy guitars. Oh, and for a quick laugh, have a look at Lords of the Rhymes - they do a pretty good job of sounding like the Beastie Boys, and their lyrics are hilarious -- Ferkelparade π 09:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I highly recommend Rip Slyme. I'm a huge BBoys fan too, and although I'll be the first to admit that in general Japanese music is lacking a lot (mainly originality), Rip Slyme is great. They're a little bit too much like the BBoys at times, but they're fun, the music is really well written, and they actually write themselves, something that is way too rare over here. Their best of album Good Job! (グッジョブ！, gudjobu) is a good place to start.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  11:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What is it about the Beastie Boys that you enjoy? If you can explain what sort of style it is that you enjoy then more bands/artists may be applicable.--droptone 22:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Try Live plasma. Much more cooler site than the one given above. CG 04:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the fact that it puts Neil Young as the closest match for the Beastie Boys makes it a lot less cooler than the ones given above. They're just trying to get people to link through to amazon.com.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you may be right, but I like the design. CG 08:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Poem by W B Yeats

The subject of the poem is or are Yeats' critics. He compared them to fleas on a dog.

See Wikiquote: To A Poet, Who Would Have Me Praise Certain Bad Poets, Imitators Of His And Mine

You say, as I have often given tongue

In praise of what another's said or sung,

'Twere politic to do the like by these;

But was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

This it? ---Sluzzelin 11:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Which one is Sima Zhao

I found this picture. Obviously it's an illustration from a Qing Dynasty edition of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Can somebody tell which one of the two depicted persons are Sima Zhao, and which the other guy might be? Thanks, Sarazyn • TALK • DE 15:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sima Zhao is the guy sitting and pointing to the young boy. He was known as an usurper of imperial power. The boy is probably Cao Mao, or possibly Cao Huan, two emperors of the Wei dynasty. Both emperors reigned as boys or teenagers, and both were puppets of the Sima family. See the Sima Zhao article. Yeu Ninje 10:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sanitation and hygiene throughout history

Lets just narrow this down to Europe for simplicity's sake.

When did people start regularly showering? Brushing their teeth? Wearing something like deoderants? I think a read some where that in the Middle Ages only the elite did these things regularly (though I don't know whether it was daily like today) but the commoners could go weeks or months without a shower. When did it all become common for everyone? The 18th century would be my totally random guess.

Also, what about the toilet? The most I now is that in the 19th or 18th centuries people went to an outhouse to their business. I wonder where they got rid of their rubbish? In a river, I bet. I think I read once that people threw their crap (literally) out the window and the people below could get in on the head if they weren't careful. I don't know whether there's any truth to that. Pyro19 17:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a large topic. I wrote a doctoral dissertation on a small part of this topic (the introduction of modern water supply and sewerage systems). I know less about other parts of this topic, but I will give it a shot.

On personal cleanliness, some of your questions will be answered by ], which also discusses the development of toilets.

Going back in history, medieval Europeans typically did not bathe much. As you say, they often went weeks or months without bathing. When Europeans were exploring the world in the 16th century, other peoples often found them filthy and stinky.

Incidentally, this was not true of people in other parts of the world, nor was it true of ancient Romans and Greeks. See Public bathing. My understanding is that public baths developed a reputation for sexual vice in the late Middle Ages at a time when bourgeois standards of propriety—which encompassed sexual continence but not yet personal cleanliness—began dominate European urban culture. The result was the shutting down of public baths. The necessity of hauling water by hand from wells and then heating it with expensive firewood in order to produce a warm bath made bathing a luxury that few could afford to indulge often. Since it was not socially expected, few did.

This began to change in the mid-1800s among the bourgeoisie. Much of the rise in hygiene can be tied to the rapid and substantial growth in urban population, which led to an increase in overflowing outhouses, chamber pots being tossed into the gutters or ditches that ran along streets and served as open sewers, except that they only “flowed” in a heavy rainstorm. When rainstorms washed the gutters, they washed them into rivers, except where solid waste caused blockages to form, behind which pools of sewage would form. The result was the spread of cholera. Under the prevailing miasma theory of disease (or under our own germ theory, for that matter) the city’s stinking gutters and fecal pools demanded a response.

Educated people reacted to the spread of disease in part by bathing more often, which they thought would help to prevent contagion by reducing miasmas. Urban water supply systems were built both to supply homes and to wash out miasma-producing gutters. However blockages continued to plague open gutters, which collected trash as well as sewage.

One response was to build sewers. Sewers had been built in Roman times, but they came into widespread use in Europe only after the mid-1800s. Another response was to push for the use of toilets connected to sewers, and bathtubs connected to the new municipal water supplies. A third response was to introduce municipal garbage collection, which kept streets clear of obstacles blocking the way to the new storm sewers.

Showers are an even more recent development. The first modern showers were installed in Prussian army barracks in 1879. They began a slow spread into private houses, but did not really replace baths until the 1900s. In fact, in the United Kingdom, showers remained somewhat unusual until the 1970s or 1980s. Before this, people took baths to clean themselves.

Before the spread of toilets, outhouses, sometimes placed over pit latrines, were a common place for relief, although chamber pots might be used indoors and tossed out windows into gutters. In rural areas, the contents of chamber pots or latrine pots might be tossed onto dungheaps, which were allowed to compost and used as fertilizer.

As for household waste, there wasn’t much of it until the 1900s. Food wastes were generally collected by farmers and butchers and composted, fed to pigs or chickens, or rendered into soap, tallow, glue, or other useful products. Rags were used and reused for quilting, patching, and cleaning. What was left might be collected by rag and bone men.

Marco polo 19:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

After edit conflict:

I don't see the connection between hygiene and deodorants. Showering probably started with the invention of the waterfall. :) When people moved to cities that was lost and it was only recently reinvented. However, if you mean bathing, then it started with the invention of the river (and living next to it) but that was lost again wit the rise of cities leading to a lack of clean rivers. People probably still bathed, though less frequently and in bathtubs. Aas the article says, the Romans were fanatic bathers and I believe it was something for all (even the only place where people were 'the same'), but I'm not sure about that. Teeth brushing became really necessary when people started eating refined sugar and that was only a few centuries ago and even then only for the rich. But the rotten teeth that resulted from that were an indication of wealth, so it became fashionable to blacken one's teeth (sort of like having a white skin or ling fingernails were an indication of wealth - until the poor started working in factories and the rich started going on holiday in southern Europe, which turned that around). That said, people have always and everywhere chewed sticks to clean their teeth. The right kinds of sticks then formed brushes at the end. DirkvdM 19:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

So when dignitaries met at the Palace of Versailles in the 17th century can we assume it smelled pretty bad? Or did people wash themselves for such functions? - Pyro19 19:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Rank had it priviledge, and the priviledged were truly rank under the perfume.Edison 21:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If you like excrement being thrown out of windows or defecated directly out of the window, I can only recommend Jabberwocky (film) by Monty Python. About Versailles, I heard that even the king barely washed himself. They used lots of perfumes to cover that up. I've also heard stories about the wigs being meant only to cover up the horrible mess that was their real hair, and "comfort stops" behind a staircase :| ...Evilbu 23:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I heard that Versailles had no washrooms. Gross. - Pyro19 23:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

To be picky, I must remark that Jabberwocky was no Monty Python film, although Pythonians Terry Gilliam and Michael Palin were involved in it. 惑乱 分からん 00:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, even today in France and Germany a daily shower is not necessarily the norm. These are densely populated countries with limited water resources, so when I was there the American custom of daily showering was considered wasteful. Durova 02:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Really? I'm originally from Israel and everyone showers daily there even though the country is very small and lacks much water. Hmm, maybe the difference in climate is the reason. - Pyro19 03:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's different in Israel due to close cultural ties to the U.S.? The feedback I got from French and German people was that it was considered an inappropriate waste of water. I spoke fluent German so language wasn't an issue. It was actually rather embarrassing for both of us when my German hostess complained after I showered four days in a row. Durova 06:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Could also have been the length of the shower. A one minute washdown is quite enough if yo do it every day. And water temperature also matters. Having a ten minute shower every day with really hot water is indeed extrremely wasteful. Some people even shower twice per day. A morning shower makes no sense unless it is a quicky with cold water to wake you up or if you've had some sort of exercise in bed ... :) DirkvdM 07:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Showering daily is only a very recent North American tradition as well. But not having a full bath every day doesn't mean not washing; it's been a long tradition to wash the bits that get dirty more quickly with a soapy washcloth. Anchoress 07:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

To Pyro19: I am German and I do shower every day as probably do most Germans. However, if someone is not the kind of guy who sweats a lot, I doubt that one would notice or even smell if he showered only every other day. Remember that our climate here in Northern Europe is much colder than you have it down in Israel. As far as I'm concerned, I only sweat at all when doing sports, on very few midsummer days or when on summer vacation in the South. Simon A. 21:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Analyzing Piano Pieces

Hi everyone,

My first question: I'm wondering if anyone knows where to find some compositions that are harmonical and/or structural analyzed, eg: the first three notes are part of the I chord, the right hand plays a broken F Major chord, etc.

Some website/book/resource that has the above would be very helpful.

Specifically, I'm looking for some analysis of the following pieces:

Bach's Prelude and Fugue No. 9 in E Major, book 1

Beethoven Pathetique Sonata, 1st and 2nd movement

Chopin Nocturne in E minor, Op. 72 No. 1

Debussy's Clair de Lune

Bartok's Roumanian Folk Dance Suite

My second question: Does anyone know of any books/references that help with harmonic and structural analysis? Such as those for an piano theory analysis exam.

Thanks in advance! Alex Ng 23:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

there is a seemingly endless number of books analysing pieces of music. look on amazon, or better, use musicroom.com (it's a Uk company i think but then once you've found good books you can buy them somewhere else) or sheetmusicplus.com --81.111.18.84 20:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

October 7

types of espresso drinks

There is a type of espresso drink made by the usual method, but the barrista yanks the receiving cup off the machine halfway through the normal volume of flow. Frequently this would be ordered as a double, probably to provide adequate volume (the normal volume of a single). I think the intent is to have a better-tasting result, based on the idea that the first part of the flow tastes better than the latter. Does anyone know what this is called? I used to get requests for it 25 years ago when I worked in a cafe'. Thanks for your help!

71.236.231.238 00:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

See Ristretto.

Thank you very much!

Average age of goverments, based on goverment form

Think I read something about how long different goverment forms survives on average, but didn't manage to find back to it. I'm wondering how long do different goverment forms survive on average? That is how old is the average democracy, autocracy, monarchy, junta, etc, when it's changed to a different goverment type? And more genereally: are some goverment forms more "stable" than others? And by how much? I think maybe democracies are most stable, but I dont have the numbers.

Wondering because if:
1) democracies are more stable than others, and new goverments are just as likely to be democratic as something else.
2) democracies never or almost never go to war against each other
3) democracies never or almost never suffer famine

Then:
1) someday every country will be democratic
2) we will have world peace
3) and no hunger

By calculating creation/upheaval of democracies it would then be possible to calculate apporximatly when world peace will happen. So when do we have world peace I guess is my real question? :) --Kristod 01:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You think the U.S. has no hunger?! Clarityfiend 02:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You're damn right. Compare tables for starvation rates in the United States and in other countries. —

Hunger in the sence of famine. --Kristod 10:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

X (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)10:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Democracies go to war with eachother. The Kargil War was between democratically elected governments, I believe. Plus, those ancient Greek city-states had elected governments that fought eachother, If I recall correctly. And I'd bet that, on average, juntas have the shortest lifespan, with Burma (and yes, I called it Burma) being an exception. Picaroon9288 02:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There is also the case of the War of 1812, between the more-or-less democratically elected governments of the US and the UK, or the cases in which the United States overthrew or helped overthrow democratic governments, as in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, and in Chile in 1973. Marco polo 00:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon and Israel are both democracies. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

World Peace? Next week sometime, I think. White Guard 03:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Israel and Lebanon are both democracies, but as far I understand it, the war was against Hezbollah, not Lebanon. I don't think any Lebanese soldier participated in the fighting.Evilbu 15:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah is an official, legal, democratically-elected participant in the democratically-elected government of Lebanon. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There's an article on Democratic peace theory... AnonMoos 14:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that-even if the theory that democratic countries never go to war with each other is true- there could still be war. Think of Spain, France (with Corsica).. and yes : Belgium. Who says everyone within that country is happy with its structure?Evilbu 15:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Civil war? 惑乱 分からん 15:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There must be a long list of democratic countries that have experienced famine and gone to war (the US was of course the first example given, but it is by no means the only one). But you seem to assume that 'once a democracy always a democracy'. Now democracies probably have a pretty strong staying power, but don't let that lull you into too strong a feeling of safety. Don't forget Hitler came to power by democratic means. In a democracy, if the people want war and denial of basic rights they will have it. Just look at what is happening right now. They think the state will only misuse its powers against other people. That's what they thought in Germany in the 1930's too. When they realised they had given away too many of their rights it was too late. DirkvdM 07:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this astute observation, Dirk. I think that all three of Kristod's assumptions about democracy are doubtful, including especially the assumption that democracies are stable. In fact, historically, democracies in general have been very unstable. When democracies fail to contain public unrest, or when they hamper military or other elites in the pursuit of some agenda, they tend to fall, often in coups. Marco polo 00:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Historically, the least-stable form of government is a junta or other power-sharing dictatorship, while the most stable are kingdoms and other hereditary governments. Elective democracies tend to fall somewhere in the middle of things. --Serie 23:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification
I do not believe "world peace" will happen soon or even at all. The question was maybe a bit to controversial to get a reasonable answer (but did encourage debate...). I do not either believe that democracies are "unstoppable", contrarily, they change quite often (Thailand coup), but some of the oldest continuous governments are democracies (US, UK). And I think the numbers would be quite interesting. For the hunger and the war, ok that is quite controversial. Let's just say it would happen to a lesser degree:

• Compare hunger in communist China with the more democratic India, for instance Amartya Sen has written some books on this.
• Wars between democracies so far are few and mostly borderline cases. List of possible exceptions to democratic peace theory for a full discussion.
• Civil war is of course possible in democracies to, but again there is less large scale violent conflict and genocide in democratic countries (Russian gulags and Pol Pot come to mind)

I'd like any sources to the statistics of what percentage of new governments are democracies, and how long they on average last versus other forms of governments. I think maybe it would be possible to calculate a rough estimate on the eventual democracy/non-democracy ratio. This would be quite unscientific, even if these number were possible to find, they would still change with time and technology (for instance monarchies dominated the world 200 years ago, but not any more). --Kristod 08:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The numbers on democracies v non-democracies change on the basis of broad-brush ideological factors, and so are difficult to draw inferences from. Over the 20th century, the ratio of democracies changed as follows: the breakup of European empires (up); the Great Depression and the rise of Fascism (down); the end of African and Asian colonialism (up); the gradual establishment of one-party states in those newly free colonies (down); and the fall of the Berlin Wall and the End of History (up). So we can't calculate an eventual democracy ratio without predicting big future changes like that, which is very difficult indeed. Freedom House has a historical database of which countries are 'free', though I have severe problems with their POV. Hornplease 10:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Vaughan

What style of jazz did Sarah Vaughan do? Keep the answer simple i.e. 'swing'.

This sounds like homework. John Riemann Soong 01:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I really doubt some teacher asked of her students "what style of jazz did Sarah Vaughan do?" This may be related to a musical biography of Sarah Vaughan, but I don't believe it is a homework assignment in itself. Hyenaste  01:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Why else would a simple answer be wanted? What use would that be? I could envision this as part of a fill in the blank question. John Riemann Soong 02:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, dont be so cynical, if you're goin to be like that about things just about everything on here could be homework. Its perfectly reasonable for someone to wonder what sort of style of jazz a song is, and if that song is by Sarah Vaughan so be it. We do not need a backstory. And anyway the rule is we dont do peoples homework for them, i.e. if posted with homework we dont do it, not that we dont help people with homework, i.e. if they have done all they can, then used wikipedia as a resource, then come to the refdesk if the article is not adequate, then we do help. Philc _TC 20:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the OP seeks a short phrase to describe her taste in music? Even if it was a fill-in-the-blank question, the no homework policy is intended to discourage users from asking lengthly homework questions, like Describe the impact of Sarah Vaughan's vocal style on the jazz movements of the 1950's. How do modern artists also affect their respective genres of music? rather than fill-in-the-blank trivia. Hyenaste  03:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

IT IS NOT HOMEWORK. I just can't seem to find out what kind of style she does (if it was homework, it would already be due).

Death penalty

I always hear that there are prisoners who are murders.Criminals who murders another person goes straight to the death penalty or has life in prison. How does that work? How does one decide if it should be life in prison or death? For example a man explained and admitted/caught that he killed a man like he was getting a glass of milk from the frigde, like it no big deal and he gets life in prison.

Depends on the nature of the offence and the laws of that particular country. Suggest you read Misplaced Pages's article on the death penalty.--Shantavira 08:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

French distrust

Where does the distrust of the French in the US and UK come from? — X (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)10:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• French perfidy - Nunh-huh 10:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• There are articles on Francophobia and anti-French sentiment in the United States... AnonMoos 14:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The most recent incident was when the French campaigned for Israel to stop their fight against terrorists (Hezbollah) in Lebanon, with the promise of a robust UN peacekeeping force in it's place. Then, they only initially volunteered a pathetic token force as their own contribution. From the US, it would appear that they are working in support of Hezbollah. StuRat 19:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Before that it was the French opposing the unilateral invasion of Iraq. Damn these French, always trying to prevent wars! DJ Clayworth 21:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

And before that, there was Philippe Pétain, opposing any war between France and Germany. You're right! Damn those French for always trying to prevent wars! Loomis 23:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a long, long history of rivalry, warfare and mutual mistrust between the UK and France, which really only came to an end in the early part of the last century, when Germany began to be preceived as the greater threat. The rapid collapse of French resistance in 1940 and the subsequent hostility between the Vichy authorities and the British government created a new mood of resentment. This was compounded after the war by General de Gaulle's distrust of the 'special relationship' between the UK and the US, which caused him to veto British entry into the European Union. White Guard 23:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

He also called for Quebec independence from Canada. On Canadian soil. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ssssshhhh .... Canada is not the US. Better run before a bunch of Canadians jump on your neck. DirkvdM 07:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, Zoe is right. DeGaulle was a prick when he came up here to Montréal. "Vive La France, Vive Le Québec, Vive Le Québec LIBRE!!!!" Oh shut up Chuck. Leave your brown French nose where it belongs. Loomis 01:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the question again. It's about the UK and the US, not Canada. DirkvdM 06:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It also, if I'm not incorrect, seems to involve France a bit too, n'est ce pas? :) Loomis 09:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oui, la perception des Francais dans les États Unis et le Royaume Uni. Pas dans Canada. (Excuse my French.) DirkvdM 06:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, excuse my French but "You've got no fucking idea what you're talking about"! :-) Ok sorry, I just couldn't help it. I'm not sure if it's the same in Europe, but in NA when someone is about to swear, they often preface it by saying: "Excuse my French". I've never really understood how that's originated. En tous cas, Zoe a introduit le Canada et le Québec. Je pense que j'ai eu le droit de repondre. Loomis 06:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That was a follow-on to There is a long, long history of rivalry, warfare and mutual mistrust between the UK and France. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There is not much of a problem with distrusting the french in the UK, though some of their mannerisms and things cause an above normal level of people to think they're assholes, I think when push came to shove, people would trust them. Philc _TC 20:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the UK and France, people seem to have forgotten about the Auld Alliance which ran for about 2 and half centuries. Bwithh 22:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This reminds me of a funny story I once heard. At one point the French requested of the British if they would allow them to erect a statue of Charles deGaulle somewhere in London, with his the words "Vive la France!", for which he was so proud of saying, written under it. The Brits were perfectly ok with it, but requested that they in turn be permitted to erect a statue of Sir Winston Churchill somewhere in Paris, with his famous "We Shall Never Surrender!" quote written underneath. For some inexplicable reason, the whole plan was shelved. Loomis 21:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Answer these questions

• 1.Name of Muslim women belongs to Iran recently visited space.
• 2.Name of person recently won the noble prize in Physics belongs to America
• 4.Next Hockey Cricket and Footbal world cups will held in which countries
• 5.Name of first noble prize winner form Asia
• 7.Name of Thai General who took over the powers in Thailand
• 8.Name the Planet recently discovered which replaced Pluto
• 9.Name Richest person of world
• 10.The powerful candidate for next UN secretary general belongs to China name
• 11.When National security council was established in Pakistan
• 12.Macmohan line is boundry between.........and ...........
• 13.International litracy day is celebrated on............
• 14.Name the Chinese Ambassader to UN
• 15............ is called land of rivers
• 16.Who is Pakistan's Ambassader to UN

thanks

This would appear to be a quiz. Do your own homework! (Try searching at Misplaced Pages and Google etc. for a start...) By the way, which were questions 3 and 6? 惑乱 分からん 10:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, some thoughts, but check the answers.
1.Name of Muslim women belongs to Iran recently visited space.

Anousheh Ansari

2.Name of person recently won the Nobel prize in Physics belongs to America

John Mather and George Smoot

4.Next Hockey Cricket and Football world cups will held in which countries

perhaps someone who cares will answer

5.Name of first Nobel prize winner from Asia

probably Rabindranath Tagore in 1913

The first Asian scientist to win the Nobel prize was Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman, 1930

7.Name of Thai General who took over the powers in Thailand

Sondhi Boonyaratkalin

8.Name the Planet recently discovered which replaced Pluto

nothing replaced Pluto; Pluto became a dwarf planet, and so did Ceres and Eris. Of these, only Eris was recently discovered (2005).

9.Name Richest person of world

William Gates III, according to Forbe's Magazine

10.The powerful candidate for next UN secretary general belongs to China name

Ban Ki Moon is the Secruity Council's nominee; he is Korean, not Chinese. China had pushed hard for an Asian; tradition dictates that the Secretary General not be from any of the five veto-holding security council members, so a Chinese candidate would be unlikely.

11.When National security council was established in Pakistan

National Security Council of Pakistan 2004

12.Macmohan line is boundry between.........and ...........

India and China

13.International literacy day is celebrated on............

8 September

14.Name the Chinese Ambassador to UN

Yingfan Wang?, Liu Zhenmin?

15............ is called land of rivers

India, but so are other places, historical and present: Nairi, Jotbath, Kerala....

16.Who is Pakistan's Ambassador to UN

Munir Akram?

- Nunh-huh 10:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The next IIHF Ice Hockey World Championship will be held in Russia in 2007, if that's what you mean... but by grouping it with cricket and football, perhaps you mean field hockey, in which case our Hockey World Cup article doesn't say. It's not until 2010 so maybe they haven't picked a country yet. The 2010 FIFA World Cup will be in South Africa, and the next Cricket World Cup will be in 2007 in "the West Indies" in general, not one specific country. Adam Bishop 15:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

About france

1. Which Place in France is Known as little Venice?
2. The players of french football team wear a little emblem on their Jersey,What is it?
3. Who decreed that January 1 shud be the start of the new year?

Please sign your questions, with ~~~~.

1. Don't know
2. France national football team
3. Gregorian calendar (what's that got to do with France?)

--ColinFine 12:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Despite popular belief Gregory didn't decree that January 1 was the beginning of the new year in 1582. I think Nunh=huh is right that whoever asked the question is looking for Napoleon, but as a point of reference Julius Caesar did declare January 1 to be New Year's Day back in 45 BC, just after he conquered Gaul. --70.72.19.133 14:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Colmar; 2. the Coq Gaulois (Gallic rooster); 3: well, most recently, Napoleon I when he abolished the Revolutionary Calendar, which had a year that started in September. - Nunh-huh 12:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Search

Several years ago Good Housekeeping published an article on what one should read to be considered "well read." It gave book titled to be read over 10 or so years. Can you help me with the article?

No, but I bet someone on the Good Housekeeping Messageboards can. Try posting your question there. Anchoress 19:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, please do not rely on Good Housekeeping or any other such source to determine for you what it is to be 'well-read'. This is not a recipe, for goodness sake. To be truly 'well-read' is to be beyond any such guidance or manipulation. White Guard 23:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good grief, there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that what being "well-read" means is determined by others, or in accepting guidance from them towards the goal of becoming well-read one's self. - Nunh-huh 23:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not Good Housekeeping is a source of enlightenment or not, here's a list of must-read literature I picked up many years ago:

• Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
• The Aenid
• Age of Reason
• Alice's adventures in Wonderland and Through the Lookingglass
• All quiet on the Western Front
• The American
• Andersonville
• Animal Farm
• Anna Karenina
• Arrowsmith
• Babbit
• Bell Jar
• Beowolf
• The Bible
• Big Sky
• Billy Budd
• Brave New World
• Brothers Karamozov
• Caine Mutiny
• Call of the Wild
• Candide
• Canterbury Tales
• The Castle
• Catch-22
• Catcher in the Rye
• The Chosen
• Complete Stories of Edgar Allen Poe
• Color Purple
• A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
• Count of Monte Cristo
• Crime and Punishment
• Cry, the Beloved Country
• Daisy Miller
• Darkness at Noon
• David Copperfield
• Death Comes for the Archbishop
• A Death in the Family
• The Dollmaker
• Don Quixote De La Mancha
• Dracula
• Dune
• Emma
• Ethan Fromme
• Fahrenheit 451
• A Farewell to Arms
• Farewell to Manzanar
• Fathers and Sons
• The Fixer
• Flowers for Algernon (David & Lisa)
• For Whom the Bell Tolls
• Frankenstein
• French Lieutenant's Woman
• Germinal
• Giant
• Giants in the Earth
• Go Tell it on the Mountain
• Gone with the Wind
• Good Earth
• Grapes of Wrath
• Great Expectations
• Great Gatsby
• Great Short Works of Joseph Conrad
• Geeen Mansions
• Grendel
• Gulliver's Travels
• Heart is a Lonely Hunter
• Hiroshima
• Hobbit
• House of Seven Gables
• Hunchback of Notre Dame
• I Heard the Owl Call My Name
• I Never Promised You a Rose Garden
• The Iliad
• In this Sign
• Invisible Man
• Ivanhoe
• Jane Eyre
• The Jungle
• Jungle Books
• Kidnapped
• The King Must Die
• Kristen Lavransdatter
• Last of the Mohicans
• Little Women
• Look Homeward Angel
• Lord Jim
• Lord of the Flies
• Lord of the Rings (toke a spliff or two)
• Madame Bovary
• Magic Mountain
• Main Street
• Mayor of Casterbridge
• Metamorphosis
• Mill on the Floss
• Les Miserables
• Moby Dick
• Moll of Flanders
• Le Morte D'Arthur
• Mutiny on the Bounty
• My Antonia
• Native Son
• The Natural
• Nausea
• 1984
• Nectar in a Sieve
• Northwest Passage
• The Odyssey
• Of Human Bondage
• Of Mice and Men
• Old Man and the Sea
• Oliver Twist
• On the Beach
• The Once and Future King
• One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
• One Hundred Years of Solitude
• The Oxbow Incident
• Painted Bird
• Pearl
• Le Pere Goriot
• The Picture of Dorian Grey
• Pilgrim's Progress
• The Plague
• Portrait of a Lady
• Portraid of the Artist as a Young Man
• Power and the Glory
• Pride and Predjudice
• Quo Vadis
• Rabbit Run
• Rebecca
• The Red and the Black
• Red Badge of Courage
• Red Pony
• Return of the Native
• Robinson Crusoe
• Roll of Thunder, Hear my Cry
• Saturday Night Fever
• Scarlet Letter
• Separate Piece
• Shane
• Sherlock Holmes, the Complete Stories
• Siddartha
• Silas Marner
• Sister Carrie
• Slaughterhouse-Five
• Song of Roland
• Sons and Lovers
• Sound and the Fury
• Star Wars
• Stranger
• Sun Also Rises
• Tale of Two Cities
• Three Musketeers
• Time Machine
• The Tin Drum
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• To The Lighthouse
• Tom Jones
• Treasure Island
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn
• Turn of the Screw
• 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
• U.S.A.
• Ugly American
• Uncle Tom's Cabin
• Vanity Fair
• Walkabout
• War and Peace
• Wind, Sand, and Stars
• Winesburg, Ohio
• Women in Love
• Wuthering Heights
• The Yearling
• You Can't Go Home Again
• Zorba the Greek

Ah, yes; the perfect list for the aspiring autodidact of today. It must have taken so much time and effort to compile; I'm impressed. Now, get going. Questions will be asked. White Guard 01:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Geez, that was a huge list. I've only read about a fifth of them. 192.168.1.1 8:55PM, 7 Rocktober 2006 (PST)

Have you read Star Wars? What was it like?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't even heard of most of those titles. And Star Wars is a must read? That has to be a joke. Of course that is all matter of taste and anyone who would take this list seriously and starts reading all the books should think about getting a mind of their own. That said, I do recommend reading 'Brave new world' and '1984' in tandem. It's a great comparison. DirkvdM 07:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, all the above are novels it seems. What about some works of science? 'The origin of species' is a classic. DirkvdM 07:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all are works of fiction: the list comes from the local public library system here, and is a list of all those works of literature you should have read in school but didn't. That's why it doesn't contain any non-fiction or scientific works. I do have a list of recommended books on the history of science somewhere, I think. (Oh, and yeah, I slipped a couple ringers in there too... I wouldn't seriously ask anyone to read The Aenid. It was late when I typed it, and I'd been sipping a nice single-malt Scotch.) -- 192.168.1.1 9:45, 8 Rocktober 2006 (PST)

Why not the Aeneid? I personally think it should be required reading for any educated person. At least more so than most of the books on this list. It was extremely influential (especially among poets) and will add greatly to one's appreciation of later literature — Dante's Divine Comedy in particular, another work that is conspicuous in its absence from this list. --dm 05:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oil Painting by Alexandre Jacobs

When I search for Alexandre Jacobs, the result is Marius Jacobs. I am searching for the painter. I am wondering what an oil painting by him would be worth.

Leslie

Any work of art is worth only what someone is prepared to pay for it. Since your Alexandre Jacobs seems not to be well known, it would be best to take the painting along to specialist.--Shantavira 18:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Name this song & artist

I'm trying to remember the artist in this song. It has a male singer during the chorus singing in a somewhat high-pitched voice to start something along the lines of "hold me close love, its all me, its all me... gotta ask yourself one question, where are you now?"... Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 18:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC) isn't that the song with which James blunt broke through?dont remember the exact name Graendal 17:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be Wisemen (song). High-pitched voice, hah. Hornplease 10:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nostalgia Collection

I posted this on miscel. earlier but didn't get what I wanted. I am looking for an audio or video file containing famous quotes or scenes from history, movies, and/or television. For example an audio file with "No, I am your father," "To infinity and beyond," and "E.T. phone home." I just want the most famous scenes from the most famous movies and TV shows all in one place. Or perhaps small clips of famous music. Thanks! Reywas92 20:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of New Artist Stub 'Lee Woods' Artmaid 20:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Artmaid

I've returned from holiday to find my first contribution to Misplaced Pages deleted by User 'SiGarb'. The article was about Plymouth born (UK) artist Lee Woods and the reason cited by 'SiGarb' was the absence of any reference to a critical review in a national newspaper of this artist which, it seems, would alone justify inclusion in Misplaced Pages.

I have a background as a lecturer in art history at undergraduate and post-graduate level, with a particular interest in artists of the 20th century, specifically those from the South West of England area; (St.Ives school, Newlyn School etc). Lee Woods is generally acknowledged as one of the most significant 'popular' artists currently hailing from this area of the UK and is one of the founder members of the new 'folk-art revival' movement which has been sweeping the UK since the early 1990's. I avoided the inclusion of such primary research (which I intend to include in a book I'm having published next year), however, all of the remaining information contained in the article is already very much in the public domain. The widespread nature of Lee's 'genetic zoo' series for example can be verified simply by searching the terms 'lee woods' and 'genetic zoo' together in google, or any other search engine. Prints and posters of his work are on sale from Vladivostock to Vancouver! As for the only other piece of information which might be percieved to be 'contentious' and need substantiation (the mass media coverage of the first genetic zoo exhibtion) one only need do a simple search of the reuters and associated press database for the date given in the article to verify the plethora of articles that this exhibition generated across the world.

The whole point of artists like Lee Woods and other members of the 'folk art revival' is that they are often self-taught, POPULAR artists, who paint and sell direct to their public and therefore frequently do not register on the established, public-subsidied art radar! They would not be the original, cult, folk-artists that they are if they received 'high-art' critique in national newspapers!

My Question is, how is wikipedia ever going to become an authoritative source of information if the submissions of interested academics like myself are so easily and speedily deleted by people of unquantifiable background knowledge, apparently limited ability to research and who are able to invoke/ invent apparently arbitrary and -in my opinion -ill-informed inclusion criteria? I have tried to contact the user 'SiGarb' in order to put these questions but he/she has chosen not to give a valid email address. How can this article be re-instated? If it can't be, I see absolutely no point wasting my time making future contributions. Yours Artmaid 20:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Artmaid

The reference desk is the wrong place to deal with this sort of issue. Try Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. —Keenan Pepper 21:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I agree that the speedy deletion was out of order, and I can make the deleted text available to you if you'd like. —Keenan Pepper 22:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, ArtMaid. I suspect the problem was that you were not around to argue the case. I have several times proposed articles for deletion, even on subjects I am not knowledgeable on, on the basis that the article as it stood did not give sufficient reasons to continue to exist. I'm not sure that deletion has resulted even once - what it has done is stimulated discussion and, hopefully, caused the articles to be improved. People do not usually reveal email addresses on Misplaced Pages: the way to contact SiGarb is by posting on his talk page User talk:SiGarb. --ColinFine 17:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Conjoined twin autobiography

Has a member of an unseparated pair of conjoined twins ever published an autobiography (or diary or journal or whatever)? —Keenan Pepper 22:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you count A Few particulars concerning Chang-Eng, the united Siamese brothers : published under their own direction., New York : J.M. Elliott, 1838? - Nunh-huh 22:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC) - And Daisy and Violet Hilton wrote an autobiography in 1942. - Nunh-huh 22:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If the Germans had won WWII and the Final Solution had been completed

Do you think there would now be peace in the Middle East and worldwide, in terms of Islamic terrorism? Just playing devil's advocate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.142.31 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No. What effect would a German conquest of Europe and elimination of the European Jewry have on Sunni vs Shiite violence? Moderate Sunni vs Islamist Sunni violence? Muslim vs Christian violence? It would have no effect on such things. And all of these conflicts have created Islamic terrorism; therefore, the world would still have Islamic terrorism, even if there was no Israel. Picaroon9288 00:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Nazis would then move on to killing all the Muslims. They had no objection to killing off anyone who gave them trouble (even if only in their fevered minds). StuRat 03:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

But would they really turn on their good friend, the Grand Mufti? (Actually, I expect so.) Picaroon9288 03:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No big deal. So many Native American tribes were eliminated from this planet. Life goes on. Nothing is the end of the world. -- Toytoy 03:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure to the Native American tribes that were "eliminated", there certainly was an "end of the world". I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that statement.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If Hitler made it, in a few years, people would visit Berlin as if nothing had ever happend. They would not be unlike people who visit today's New York, Boston, Los Angeles ... . History is written by the winner. -- Toytoy 03:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

True. It depends on whether you think that Hitler and those who followed after him would have continued to be as ruthless as they had been during the war, and after his death reflect on the atrocities that had been committed during his reign. Free society is not an inevitable precipitate.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

World peace in terms of terrorism (islamic or otherwise)? Terrorism is negligible compared to the destructive power of wars. Don't believe the hype. DirkvdM 07:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism has been practiced since the 19th century by dissident groups too weak to field an army to achive their aims. The Germans called the European Resistance movements terrorism. It is not purely a muslim invention or phenomenon, and while it was used by jews in the formation of Israel before they had an army, it wasnt invented by them either. So if you imagine a history as radically different as one in which Germany won WWII, you can spin any story you want about which group that might be today's terrorists in an alternate universe. alteripse 14:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I have to agree with Alteripse, I would like to point out that guerilla warfare is a form of terrorism and has been and still is one of the more ffective techniques. Graendal 17:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The term "terrorism" has always been extremely difficult to define. Many, like alterprise, assert that the Irgun was a terrorist organization. To me, I define "terrorism" as the gratuitous killing of innocent civilians. I just can't equate the Irgun's retaliations against Arab attacks and its attack on the British "military, police and civil headquarters" at the King David Hotel, with the attacks on the entirely civilian WTC on 9/11. Note that I'm not quite sure if I'd regard the attack on the Pentagon as "terrorism", as the Pentagon, being the headquarters of the US military, is a bona fide military target. An attack on a bona fide military target is to me an act of war, not of terrorism. Loomis 22:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The person who asked this question seems to assume that the root cause of unrest in the Middle East and Islamist terrorism is the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. If this were all or most of the cause, the questioner might be right that the Middle East would be at peace. But I would suggest that a leading cause of unrest and Islamism in the Middle East is the effort by western nations, and particularly the US and the UK, to control the region's oil and oil wealth, which has required repeated military intervention, sometimes with Israel serving as a US surrogate. Now, let's suppose that Hitler had conquered the Soviet Union and forced the UK to surrender and pledge neutrality or join the Axis. His next move would likely have been to take over the countries under French, British, or Italian influence or control that then covered most of North Africa and the Middle East, in order to secure their oil supply. He would probably also move to bring Iran under his control. This would have put Germany into conflict with Muslim (and perhaps Islamist) resistance and into conflict with the US and his erstwhile ally Japan. Or suppose that Hitler had somehow subdued the US as well. Germany would still face conflict with the Islamists and Arab and Iranian nationalists, as well as Japan, which would want to break the German stranglehold on oil supplies. It is hard to imagine Hitler agreeing to share Middle Eastern oil with Japan freely. Although he agreed to partition Poland with the Soviets, this was tactical and not a long-term commitment. Marco polo 00:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Another point: To be successful with the Final Solution, meaning eliminating all Jews, Hitler would have had to conquer most of the Muslim world, at least from Morocco eastward into Persia, a region of the world where thousands of Jews lived. How would Islamic Salafists and other fundamentalists have reacted to Christian/pagan/infidel Nazis conquering the Muslim world? Not with flowers and kisses. dm 05:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

He could have just asked,most of the Muslim countries would destroy their own Jews for him.There was no need for him to conquer any of Muslim countries,because they hate Jews more then he did.

Um, yes. Sure. Good to know that even after the Holocaust, casual racism is still cool. EamonnPKeane 21:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

October 8

Phone Q

On my cell phone, there is an option for a 2 second hard pause and a 5 second soft...what do these mean? Thanks, ChowderInopa 00:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A pause tells your phone to wait when dialling a stored number, rather than sending off all of the numbers in one continuous stream. It's useful for dialling phone extensions, or for navigating phone trees if there's something you usually do frequently. For instance, you can store a friend's work number as 123-4567p#890 (where the p is a 5 second soft pause) and you'll dial their main switchboard (123-4567), wait for the automated system to pick up and say "Hello, welcome to XYZ Corp. If you know the extension of the party you wish to call, press pound now.", then press pound and dial your friend's extension (890). Normally, a hard pause requires you to press a button to continue, whereas a soft pause just waits the number of seconds indicated and then goes ahead. --ByeByeBaby 04:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Thank you for calling the Last National Bank. Warning, our menu system has just been changed..."

"Beep !"

"You have selected to donate all your assets held with the bank to St. Periwinkle's Home for Wayward Hedgehogs. That transfer is now complete. Thank you. Have a nice day." :-) StuRat 22:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Your Characterization of the Oxford Philosopher J.L. Austin's work

I believe that your characterizations of Austin's How To Do Things With Words is very misleading. All of the terms which Austin introduced are germane only because Austin projected extant speech situations and all possible (especially educational) speech situations in How To Do Things With Words. If you formulated your posting in consideration of Professor Searle's publications you err. Parliaments, Congresional functions, concerted and cooperative endeavors (note the well-organized intelligence work on the Normandy Invasion.. he was fluent in nine languages ...if I remember correctly too)

I went cover to cover on Collegiate dictionaries and lived with the O.E.D itself when I did my graduate paper on How To Do Things With Words.

Austin wasn't throwing the baby out with the bathwater when he featured the much vaunted Illocutionary Act.

I do not wish to wedge my comprehension of How To Do Things With Words here. Suffice it to say Austin craced the crib of the reality of speech in the world. Searle shows no appreciation of the universality of How To Do Things With Words.

I look forward to any questions or probes on this from your quite valuable and much honored work at Misplaced Pages. Oh I did get copyright usage clearance on How To Do Things With Words.. (many years ago when doing the graduate research thesis work on this.

Robert J. Myers, (street address removed to prevent mail bombs) thank you for the time here.

It is not quite clear what "your characterizations" refers to and in what way they are deemed misleading. There are references to How To Do Things With Words in our articles Carlo Penco, Illocutionary act, J. L. Austin, Jacques Derrida, Logical argument, Meaning (linguistics), Performative, Performativity, Philosophy of language, Pragmatics, and Speech act. Is it claimed somewhere that Austin introduced germane terms (germane to what?) for the wrong reasons, or that he performed ejection on infants in state of ablution? Could you be more specific?  --Lambiam 05:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There is only one article on Misplaced Pages that includes the word "germane" and a reference to J L Austin: Analytic Philosophy#Ordinary language philosophy. Note the cleanup tag.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Myers, you are addressing your comments to Wikipedians at large (or rather, those who look at the Reference Desk), most of whom have probably never looked at J. L. Austin, much less contributed to it. Please improve the article yourself, or if you think discussion is required, a posting to the article's talk page Talk:J. L. Austin will engage the people who are most interested in the topic. --ColinFine 17:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No age limit for drinking alcohol in Australia

Is it true that there is NO AGE LIMIT to consuming alcohol in Australia.

I was told that there are alcohol laws in Australia but they only talk about buying/selling alcohol and road laws. Anyone of any age can consume any amount of alcohol provided they are not doing it on public land.

Is it true? If so I'm flying down to down under for a very alcoholic holiday.

No it is not. The age limit for legal drinking in Austalia is 18. See Legal drinking age. You might, however, want to book a trip to Armenia, Azerbaijan, China, Nigeria, Portugal, Soviet Georgia, Thailand or Vietnam. See here--thunderboltz 07:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Georgia? You're assuming he has a time machine? DirkvdM 07:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't he? Too bad then. In present day Georgia, you can drink, but not buy alcohol legally. --thunderboltz 08:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Na. Na. Na. You are wrong. Minors can legally drink alcohol in Australia. To paraphase:

Laws Relating to Minors

There are several provisions in the Liquor Licensing Act which protect minors, primarily in Part 7. The Licensing Court can take disciplinary action against a licensee who breaches the Act and can fine or reprimand the licensee, change the licence conditions, suspend or revoke the licence.

Under section 107 of the Act, a licensee is guilty of an offence if they employ a minor to sell, supply, or to serve liquor on the premises, unless the minor is a child of the licensee or responsible person and is aged 16 years or more, who is resident on the premises, otherwise licensing authority approval is required.

Where can a minor legally drink alcohol?*

1. At their own home or someone else's - regardless of whether an adult legal guardian or spouse is present.

2. In public places that are neither licensed premises, regulated premises nor dry areas (e.g. a family barbecue in a public area such as a park) provided they are in the company of an adult legal guardian or spouse.

Where can a minor NOT legally drink alcohol?*

1. In regulated premises including licensed premises (e.g. a restaurant, hotel, premises with a limited licence or reception centre) - a minor may be present at these venues (before midnight, or before 9.00 p.m. at premises with an entertainment venue licence), but may not buy or drink alcohol.

2. In a public place unless in the company of an adult legal guardian or spouse.

In summary, minors:

• can consume alcohol provided it is not in a public place or regulated premises
• can consume alcohol in a public place under the supervision of an adult legal guardian or spouse provided that it is not a dry area, regulated premises or in or near to prescribed entertainment such as a dance
• can generally be on licensed premises before midnight (before 9.00 p.m. in an entertainment venue) but cannot obtain or consume alcohol
• are not allowed in areas of licensed premises declared out of bounds to minors, or in gaming areas
• are not allowed on licensed premises between the hours of midnight and 5.00 a.m. unless in a designated dining area, a bedroom or an area approved for minors

Examples:

1. If at the clubrooms, a football coach gives the team some beers to celebrate a win, and some of the team are under 18, that is an offence (supplying liquor to a minor in regulated premises, section 110 & 114 of the Act). However, it would not be illegal for the coach to invite the team to his home for drinks.

2. At a wedding reception held in a licensed restaurant, a hotel, a wedding reception centre or public hall, it is illegal if a minor drinks a toast containing alcohol to the bride and groom (selling/supplying alcohol to minors, sections 110 & 114 of the Act).

URL: http://www.dassa.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=124

URL: http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/main1.cfm?categoryid=3&topicid=252&infopageid=517

URL: http://www.health.vic.gov.au/drugs/alcohol/youth/law.htm

If you go through the expense of flying to Australia, don't waste your time there being drunk all the time. Like the people who visit Amsterdam, are stoned all the time and can't remember a thing of the city or its people. Being drunk or stoned can be nice, but visiting another coutry and broadening your horizons will in ht eend be much more rewarding. DirkvdM 07:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are American kids, you may think that "Cool! Aussie kids can legally drink alcohol in the comfort of their own home. They must be living in paradise." Please think again. The reality is quite different.

If you drink alcohol in your home without your parent's permission, you will get a whack from your dad for stealing his alcohol. If you insists on your legal right to drink, he will tell you to do it outside his property.

If you are outside your home, you have two problems.

1. If you drink on public land, the police will arrest you.

2. Eh? You do not have any alcohol. And it is illegal for anyone to sell alcohol to minors.

So you go to your friend's house right? Opps, same problem. Your friend's parents will NOT let your drink their alcohol. So you sit there in your friend's house while your friend is drinking alcohol but you can't. Your friend's parent will not give you alcohol for fear of "Giving alcohol to a minor". They are happy to provide their own children with alcohol, just not to you. Ohanian 10:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The situation is much the same in the UK. We have an age limit for drinking alcohol - of five years ]. In practice I was lucky to get more than a sip of sherry at Christmas and then only when I was about 12 years old! -- Chris Q 12:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is it called mizuhiki (water pulling)? history? process?

I know that mizuhiki is the Japanese art of knot tying using several strands of wire-like paper that has been covered with tiny ribbons of metallic foil & that it is used widely for decorating gifts. What I don't understand is why it is called literally "water pulling". Does this have to do with the process by which the paper strands are made? Is it describing the process of tying the knots using the material or is it just arbitrary? The last possibility seems unlikely in light of words like "origami" (literally 'folding paper') & "kirigami" (literally 'cutting paper'). I would also like to know more about the history of mizuhiki & the process by which the strands are made. Please help me answer these questions. Thanks.

jaWiki isn't very helpful on this. It basically says that mizuhiki originated as a type of gift in the days of Ononoimoko, but not where the actual name comes from. Try asking the jaWiki users on chatsubo.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  17:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Metallic blue ribbon may look like water. StuRat 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think they had that in the 7th century CE!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

women having sex

when women have sex, I assume their breasts become enlarged. What I want to know is that whether their nipples also enlarge? I also would like to know whether breasts harden while in erection or remain soft. Since I am 23 years and no experience in touching a women, I am interested in asking this. Thankyou

You will be disappointed to learn that there's no significant change in breast size regardless of level of excitement. In the nipples, you may expect a change, generally a hardening and constriction rather than enlargement, analagous to "gooseflesh" in the rest of the skin - the same change that occurs in response to a cold environment. Men's nipples do pretty much the same thing, so it shouldn't be that far outside your realm of experience. - Nunh-huh 09:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you were thinking of the pupil... ;) The clitoris gets somewhat of an erection though... 惑乱 分からん 11:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

for some reason, our sexual arousal article has "increase in breast size". that article may be in need of some fact-checking. dab (ᛏ) 14:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a pity that personal research is banned... ;) —Daniel (‽) 14:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You'd need to have performed enough field research for sufficient statistical data. Could you honestly claim that? ;) 惑乱 分からん 15:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

As a 14-year-old male, I'd have to say... no. ;) —Daniel (‽) 17:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

In studies they use heat vision to see that blood flow increases to the chest and pelvis during arousal (as well as the lips, face and neck). I would assume the increase in blood flow would cause a small increase in size. Though the change would probably be less that what is normally experienced during the course of a menstrual cycle and definitely much less that the changes that the breasts go through during pregnancy. Nowimnthing 18:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the size of a womens breasts do increase when they aroused but the degree in which they grow differs per individual case and how far they are aroused. in some cases they may swell up by approx. 25%. oh and I could claim that wakuran. as a 17-year old male with a lot of holidays :) though actual measuring didn't really occur to me at those times . I get my intel from a book i once read about breasts.(NO NOT THE PLAYBOY BUT AN ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC ONE! *mumbles* damn those boilogy teachers*mumbles*) it is even possible for women to climax through only touching the breasts in the right way. but every women has their own thrills.Graendal 08:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What scientific book would that be? Can you link to any other sources? Boilogy sounds like fun too, but I don't see what that has to do with boobs.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Biology hereabouts also has the subject of the human body, as for the book it was simply called breasts and in it there were lots of close-ups, explanations etc. etc. the book was in dutch though. and through personal experience I can confirm the growth and climax of the breasts. Graendal 15:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Germany military achievements

I used to be quite impressed with Germany conquering all of Europe (and then even having the 'spares' to fight in Africa). Later I learned that they didn't quite conquer all of Europe. And last week I did some more reading and I now get the impression they didn't achieve much at all. Here's how I understand it now:

• Vichy (southern France), Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and Finland were allies (of sorts - not entirely fair on the Finns).
• Turkey, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Ireland and Sweden were neutral
• Austria welcomed the German armies
• Czechia was prettty much handed to the Germans by the international community (not too sure about that one)
• Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium thought they could remain neutral, didn't mobilise and were therefore easy conquests (also because they're small countries)
• The invasion of the USSR was a complete disaster
• The UK was never even invaded

Which leaves Northern France, which had an outdated defence system, Poland and Yugoslavia, which didn't have much of an army (and Poland was simultaneously attacked by the USSR) and Greece. I am no longer impressed. Actually, it looks rather pathetic for a country that acted like it could conquer half the world. Am I missing something? DirkvdM 11:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the Blitzkrieg tactics were quite shocking at that time. It seems Hitler more and more got into a state of hubris, but after the failure of the USSR invasion, and US joining the allies, things turned bad for the Nazis rather quickly... 惑乱 分からん 11:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That only makes it worse. They ignored the 'gentlemanlike' custom of 'properly' announcing when you attack someone, which gave them an important edge. And still they didn't conquer much - just four countries, none of which put up much of a fight. DirkvdM 14:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

DirkVDM, I thought of this too when discussing the movie "Der Untergang". In fact, you could even add some more elements to that, weakening their accomplishments :

- they conquered a lot while they were still respecting an agreement with the USSR. Note that in a sense they conquered some parts of Europe "together" with the USSR. There are pictures of Soviet and German soldiers happily chatting. - they had a pretty big population! - they had a huge ally in the East : Japan (and Japan sort of had Thailand as an ally as well). While Japan is quite far away, Japan didn't keep lots of USA soldiers busy.~ Evilbu 14:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

About the German and USSR soldiers happily chatting, I read a short story by a USSR soldier that ever now and then they would stop fighting to have a 'smoking break', sitting donw close to each other. Maybe that is what you saw on those photographs. I'm pretty sure the two armies never fought side by side. They just happened to both attack Poland. DirkvdM 07:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, although they perhaps didn't conquer much, at least they had huge parts of Europe under their command... 惑乱 分からん 15:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dirk, you simply decided to ignore the fact that the German army attacked with fewer troops and fewer tanks two of the (then) Superpowers (the large British empire and France and all its colonies) and crushed them in northern France (and they were prepared and ready for the Germans). You also simply added Vichy as an ally of the Axis, but in fact it was simply a puppet regime under German rule like the puppet-goverments in Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands, etc (besides handing all the French Jews over to the Germans they did almost nothing). The invasion of the Soviet Union ended in a complete disaster, but the initial achievements were considerable (more than a 1 million Russian POW's at the end of the 1st year, and the German armies were mere 50 (even closer?) KMs from Moskou). You have forgotten that almost all of the German European allies were mostly useless (except the Finns, but these were very few) and that the Japanese were simply too far away to help the Germans, and vice-versa.

Let me put the whole issue in another perspective: How incompetent were the Allies, that it took them 6 full years to crush the Axis powers (and they had to ally themselves with Stalin to pull it off) ?

They could decode almost all the German orders sent through the Enigma machine (read:Cryptanalysis of the Enigma, and in the case of the Japanase it was somthing quite simlar (read JN-25. They controlled almost all the Sea trade (despite the best efforts of the German U-boots), with all the resulting war material, and supplies lines (like Petrol and Gas, but also Coal and Iron) and were from the start heavily supported by the USA (despite all initial claims of "neutrality"). They had simply a better technology than the Germans (better Radar, Sonar, planes, the first computers, and they were even making the A-bomb). The "big" German population was around 60 millions (I am not very sure of this figure and am ignorant of the Japanese numbers) while their opponents had how many? 400 million (adding the USA and the USSR), perhaps even more? You are also ignoring that Hitler in order to help the incompetent Mussolini and his secondrate Italian troops from another trashing (the 1st being North Africa), this time from the Greeks, had to quickly invade Yugoslavia and Greece and the Germans did it in only two months despite all British and Greek opposition. Put all the Allied countries (counting the population, and please notice the war production figures) next to your list and then ask something smart. Notice that everything seems very predictable, simple, and easy to an amateur, but solely in hindsight. Flamarande 17:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, reading about Vichy started me thinking. It seems they had a government that was of the same mind as the nazis. This is where the word collaboration came from. Of course, this is why the Germans didn't need to push through in France. The French themselves were doing their job for them. And about the UK, like I said, they never conquered that. They didn't even try. And they won some battles in the USSR, but lost all that in the same year, with the campaign never conquering any of its major goals (Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow), so that wasn't much of a military success. Quite the opposite. The goal of war is to conquer and hold, so you can reap the harvest of your investment. That their allies weren't much of a help is not relevant to what I meant. They never conquered those countries. The only serious opponents they conquered were Northern France and, to a lesser extent, Greece (who put up a bit of a fight because they had help from the Brits).

You do seem to have a good point concerning the achievements of the Allies. But as I understand it, the principal goal of the military conquests was economic, through the Arbeitseinsatz. This assured that they could manufacture loads of weapons on the spot (in stead of importing them from across the Atlantic). And they were pretty good at inventing new technology too, such as the V1 and 2 and the nuclear bomb, although they never managed to finish it. (The USSR used Germans to develop it further, just like the US used a German to develop their space rockets.)

The Germans also invented the Blitzkrieg, thus totally changing the way wars were fought. Part of the lack of success of the allies lay in the supply lines becoming too long, a problem the Germans also suffered from. The distance from Stalingrad (the furthest the Germans came) to Berlin is about 2500 km. The USSR army covered that distance in less than a year. That is roughly 10 km per day on average. Pretty fast for an advancing army. The Germans had done it in stages, but did the last push in less time. Come to think if it, the achievements in terms of speed were pretty impressive on both sides, considering they had to invent this type of warfare as they went. The western Allies were doing a worse job of it, though.

But my point is that the Germans didn't do all that much impressive stuff militarily, espcially considering they had all these advantages. Such as not even needign to conquer many countries because they had no desire to fight them and even partly fought at their side. It seems the lack of opposition to the Germans was caused at least partly because nazism and similar ideologies were pretty popular at the time, probably largely as a reaction to the rise of socialism and especially communism. That is also why the pope never really condemned the Germans. He didn't like Hitler, but he hated the commies even more and Hitler was helping him in that respect. Another case of one extreme leading to the opposite extreme. DirkvdM 19:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what happens when you have an idiot at the helm, somebody who thinks he's right all the time, considers dissent to be traitorous, and won't admit he can make mistakes. Wait a sec... Clarityfiend 19:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me you're not serious, Clarity, please. Right or left, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, if you actually believe there's shred of reality in that comparison, well, you've basically just destroyed all that remains of your reputation. Loomis 21:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

He didn't make any comparison at all. If, despite that, you see a similarity to someone else, then therre must be some truth in it. :) DirkvdM 07:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The first part seems to me to be a fairly accurate description of Bush. And yes, I do believe there is a "shred of reality" there. The two have the serious character flaws I listed in common. I forgot to mention his willingness to distort the truth for his own ends (dozens of Nobel laureates have condemned the Bush administration's politicization of science; the WMD's; Saddam's "connection" to al-Quaida). Show me where I'm wrong.

Although, come to think of it, he's so incompetent, he's more like Mussolini than Hitler. Clarityfiend 00:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I know many (most!) people here who aren't fans of Bush, and I respect their views. At the very worst, from what I've heard here so far, Bush may be an incompetent moron. Or worse, that he's a greedy oilman who ran for president only to enrich his family (and friends') fortune. I find these accusations ridiculous, but I'm offended by none of them.

But none of them would EVER compare Bush to Hitler, as you have. Bush=Hitler has got to be the most disgusting comment I've ever heard here on Misplaced Pages, EVER. I've lost family to Hitler. Bush, even if you consider him an idiot (which is your prerogative), is no Hitler. Your comment is disgusting. Please don't backtrack and compare him "more to Mussolini". Even Bush=Mussolini is a disgusting remark. It's ok not to like Bush, but remember, it wasn't ok not to like Hitler or Mussolini! Your comments are disgusting to myself and the memory of the family that I lost.

Have you lost family to Bush's gas chambers? Have any of your family been cooked in any of Bush's ovens? Be a man and apologize. Loomis 04:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I was not trying to equate Bush with Hitler. That would be stupid. If I gave you that impression, certainly I apologize. I was merely pointing out that they share certain personality flaws. If I had noted that Charlie Chaplin had the same moustache, would that mean that I think the comedian and the dictator were equally bad? Please do not put words in my mouth. Clarityfiend 05:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"I was not trying to equate Bush with Hitler. That would be stupid. If I gave you that impression, certainly I apologize". Apology accepted. I'm not one to hold grudges. :-) Loomis 09:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, you're not suggesting no-one lost their families to Bush? In Iraq alone over 100 000 dead. Surely, they had family? DirkvdM 07:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Given: if A then B; if B then C

Correct conclusion: if A then C

Faulty conclusion: if C then A

Bush's conclusion: if C then D Clarityfiend 17:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Every premature death is a tragedy of equal proportion. Yet not every premature death is the result of the same degree of inhumanity. As I've said below, yes, innocent civilians are dying in Iraq due to the war (yet mostly by anti-US insurgents). Would the same number of innocent civilians be killed without the war? Hard to say, but probably less. I believe that during Saddam's reign at least a good half a million or more were killed (my figures may be wrong, I'm not sure if that takes into account the Iranians, the Kuwaitis and/or the Kurds). In any case, as I said below with regards to Clinton in Serbia as well, Bush never wished these folks to die. As moronic as you believe he is, do you actually believe that he's actually evil enough to wish the death of innocent Iraqis? Hitler not only wished the Jews of Europe to be killed, but he METICULOUSLY PLANNED FOR IT. Loomis 14:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well all those countries that are allies, they're not goin to invade them just to prove a point to you are they, plus they reached stalingrad on the USSR campaign, given the huge expanse of russia, thats a loooong way. I mean the area they invaded was about the size of sweden, and the casualties they inflicted were horrendous, the article says somwhere around 2million people were killed in stalingrad, and the axis only suffered 750,000 people killed or wounded. So i think it is fair to say a lot of those casualties were russian. And since you pointed out a lot of these invasion were submissive or walkthroughs, what are the germans meant to do? Demand they fight in order for the germans to be looked back on as having invaded europe. The countries military might is not only reflected in the countries it managed to forcefully invade, but in any which the country weilds any power due to military might (i.e. its allies were allies because they thought germany would win, because of its huge armies, and the countries that didnt resist, in order to minimise casualties, due to the inevitable loss, thos are all victories because of the countries military might. ) Philc _TC 20:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dirk, read Machiavelli. The object is to avoid combat, whenever possible, to preserve your fighting force, by conquering with treaties and intimidation. Any country which tried to fight all the other countries in the world would be guaranteed to fail, so a more subtle approach to world conquest is needed. One exception was when only the US had atomic bombs. It could have conquered the world, had it been sufficiently evil, in that short period. StuRat 22:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, I'm not saying they should have waged more war (that would be silly). All I mean is that I got the impression the military achievement wasn't as great as I thought it was and was now wondering if I got that right. DirkvdM 07:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

About the ability of the US to conquer the world with nuclear bombs. The two it dropped on Japan was pretty much it and no facilities to make many more fast. Mass production would have been out of the question. DirkvdM 07:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The US had 4 years until the Soviets got the bomb (by espionage from the US). This was more than enough time to mass produce enough bombs to defeat them, then move on to the rest of the world, if this had been the US goal. StuRat 00:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, consider that the economy of Germany was in ruins, and it suffered from massive reparation payments and hyperinflation prior to the Nazi era. They also had restrictions on the size of their military placed on them by the WW1 victors. Given these limitations, it's amazing they could conquer anything. StuRat 22:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, starting at the very latest, on August 2nd, 1934, the date Hitler became "Fuhrer", until September 1, 1939, the day WWII broke out, Hitler had just over 5 years to violate the Treaty of Versailles. Thanks to the gullibility and blindness of guys like MacDonald, Baldwin and Chamberlain, and despite the rantings of some pudgy, drunk back-bencher MP from Kent, some war-mongering, WWI has-been fool, Hitler managed to make good use of those 5 years to rebuild the German military to the point where it was just about able to conquer Europe, and in doing so, take the lives of 50 million. Loomis 23:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of my point is that they didn't conquer all of Europe. And, as StuRat pointed out, they couldn't have. DirkvdM 07:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of the above contributors might actually benefit from doing a spot of reading on the subject, instead of speculating in such an endless and uninformed fashion. In 1939 Germany went to war with Poland and France, whose combined military force was at least twice the size of her own army. If the French had gone on the offensive Hitler could conceivably have found himself in serious trouble, having only five or six divisions in the west to face almost one hundred in the French army, with the addition later in the year of ten British divisions. The Poles-who incidentally were not attacked simultaneously by the Soviet Union-put up a strong fight, but were overwhelmed by the Nazi Blitzkrieg, most of their air force being destroyed on the ground in the initial days. The Norwegian campaign was a considerable gamble on the German side, because of the overwhelming Allied naval superiority, but one that nontheless paid off. The greatest gamble of all was the attack in the west, because the French army was still considered to be the best of its day and because-unlike the Poles-they could more than match the Germans in both armour and air power. The problem was the French were locked into a defensive mentality, and failed to anticipate the audacity of the German battle plan, which allowed them to slice across the north of the country in an advance to the sea. The French armour was also used in penny packages, rather than concentrated in the German fashion. The speed of the German advance, and the success in overwhelming all opposition, was an astonishing contrast to the campaign of 1914. France was forced to agree to an early armistice, while badly mauled British forces were forced off the continent. Incidentally, the Germans did not just conquer northern France but were well on the way to overwhelming the whole country by the time the armistice was signed. The conquest of Yugoslavia and Greece were also rapid and overwhelming, so much so that even Stalin was badly unsettled. But the greatest successes of the Wermacht came in the early months of the war against Russia. In terms of numbers alone the Soviets were superior in every military department, but by the end of September 1941 the Germans had won several huge enveloping battles that no other nation on earth could have survived. Those who are interested may care to examine the Battle of Kiev, in which the Germans took over 600,000 prisoners alone. The problem for Hitler was that, unlike his other opponents, Russia had both the space to absorb the impact of the Blitzkrieg and, more important, the reserves to make good its terrible losses. Even so, by the close of 1941, Germany and its allies controlled virtually all of continental Europe; quite an achievment for a power that in 1933 had only a 100000 man army, no aircraft and no tanks.

To conclude on a different point, I do not quite understand the intention of some of the last contributor's remarks, obviously directed at Winston Churchill. I assume some irony was intended?White Guard 01:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You assume correctly. I'm obviously a GREAT fan of Sir Winnie, the "old fool". I'd only hope more would learn from his "foolishness" today. I'm sure many regard me as a "fool" for my beliefs, but I'll stick to'em. What interests me about you, WHITE guard, is your unabashed pride concerning the military achievements of Nazi Germany. Curious. Loomis 01:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification: I share your folly. To rush to my defence, I take no pride whatsoever in German military achievments. I do take some pride-if that's the right word-in achieving historical accuracy, and some of the remarks above are hopelessly ill-informed. And please do not try to read the wrong message into my nom de guerre. I admire the work of Mikhail Bulgakov. Beyond that I will not go. White Guard 01:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough! Don't bother rushing to your defence. My inference was likely offensive enough! Just watch my posts. I tend to be a bit of a hot-head. But when I'm wrong, I'm wrong. And I admit that my inference was quite wrong here. I apologize for that.

But you've got me interested. You say that you share my folly. I'm just curious as to what exactly you mean by that. All the best. Loomis 03:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I really do admire Winston Churchill-the old fool. White Guard 04:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, White Guard. About France, I didn't know the Germans faced such superior forces there. I suppose their succes indeed resulted largely from the unanounced (!) Blitzkrieg and other innovations in warfare (did you mean that they used more bombs in stead of bullets?). So it was more cunning than brute force (or rather the combination). But the invasion of the USSR wasn't much of a military success. Like I said, the goal of an invasion is to keep what you gain, and they didn't do that, so ultimaltely it was a failure (and an obvious and therefore stupid one, so they weren't so clever there, but I believe that was specifically Hitler's doing).

So I have to adapt my assumptions a bit. France was stronger than I thought and only became a partial ally when they were losing (although I already said that that was one of the bigger achievements). And Norway wasn't as easy either because of the international forces there (much like with Greece). And Germany wasn't as powerful as one might think based on its size. But other than that what I said still stands, or doesn't it? I mean, are my assumptions about the various countries correct? DirkvdM 08:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg (Lightning War) was a strategy developed by the Germans, allowing them to use limited resources to maximum effect. It means using air, artillery tanks and infantry in close support and to maximum effect, with attacks focused at a particular point-Schwerepunkt, in German. Holes are then punched through enemy defences, and units left to the rear of the attack enveloped and destroyed. It relies upon mobility as the key element, by-passing and avoiding heavily defended positions. Tanks, moreover, are deployed in heavy concentrations, rather than widely spread as a secondary support for the infantry. Have a look at the page on Blitzkrieg for further information on the subject. The point is that most armies in 1939-40, particularly the French, were looking for a repeat of 1914, and were thus completely unable to deal with German tactics. In attacking France the Wehrmacht advanced through the Belgian Ardennes, thought to be impassible to tanks, then concentrated their attacks on Sedan before advancing westwrds to the sea, cutting off the BEF and northern French forces from the main French army in the south. The invasion of the USSR was a short-term success but a long term failure for the reasons I have given: the Russians had both reserves of space and reserves of manpower which no other country had, and Blitzkrieg was never intended for 'long-haul' warfare. However, this should not deflect from the simple fact that by the autumn of 1941 the country was on its knees; and if it had not been for Zukhov and the Siberian divisions it may very well have gone under. The conquest of Norway was in fact far easier than might have been anticipated; and that of Greece was a 'walk-over', despite the British presence. Germany was immensley powerful in 1939; and few armies today would be willing to take on the range of tasks faced by the Wehrmacht between 1939 and 1941. As far as your assessments of the various countries is concerned you are partly wrong in both detail and interpretation. The neutral countries certainly hoped not to be attacked, but they were still fully mobilised. Austria strictly speaking only 'welcomed' the Germans after her government, diplomatically isolated, was forced to give way to Hitler's demands under threat of force. The Sudetenland was handed to the Germans by the 'international community', as you put it, but not the rest of the Czech territory. After Hitler occupied Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939 the British extended a diplomatic guarantee to Poland, hoping to arrest further German expansion. Northern France should not be separated from Vichy France. The whole of France was defeated by the Germans. Poland was not 'attacked' by the Soviet Union until 17 September, by which time most of its army had been destroyed by the Germans. On paper the Yugoslavs had an impressive army, as did the Greeks. Both were destroyed in a matter of days. And as I have suggested above you may wish to look at the details of the Battle of Kiev to get some insight to German successes in the east. White Guard 00:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Germans were clever in obtaining Austria and Czechoslovakia without fighting. They obtained the Skoda Arms works in Czechoslovakia along with soldiers from the surrendered countries, thereby multiplying their military capabilities. Much of their army was conscripts and volunteers from the conquered countries. The last SS soldiers defending Berlin were foreign. The beaches assaulted on D-Day were defended by non-German troops in some cases. Russia had as allies their brutal winter weather and the vast geography of the country, along with a philosophy that did not shirk at losing lives to hold ground as in Stalingrad. Hitler's maniacal "Victory or Deat-No Retreat" orders and his strategic brainstorms handicapped the professional generals of the Wehrmacht. The Russians could relocate factories to the far East out of reach of German bombers. At the same time, they were at peace with Japan (until the American A bombs came along)so they did not have to fight both Axis superpowers. If Hitler could have waited , say 5 years to launch the war, he would have had a navy to fight with Instead of pocket battleships and subs, he would have the carriers and battleships which were in the pipeline. But he might have also faced US atomic bombing. There were probably several reasons he felt he had to to go to war before the nation was fully prepared. I am sure he would have been brutal (like 19th century Europe was: read how Belgium treated the Congo) in using slave labor in former European colonies to ship raw materials to plants for war preparations.Edison 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure five years would be enough time to build a navy to challenge the USN. According to Kriegsmarine, he had only one full and five auxiliary carriers under construction. That was far less than the Japanese, and they got whupped. Clarityfiend 18:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

USN? DirkvdM 07:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Afaik, the Netherlands were barely mobilised (or is that just an excuse we are told here in the Netherlands?)and Denmark didn't have much of an army to speak of. And all those wannabe neutral countries in the North West are small countries (Norway has a small population). Still, the combination of these and all the other conquered countries adds up, I suppose. But the big fish were the UK (not conquered), Spain (neutral), Italy (ally), Turkey (neutral), France and especially the USSR. Concerning the USSR 'if only' and 'they came close' just don't count. They never consolidated what they conquered. And France surrendered when they were only halfway. Whether this was because of the enormous military blow the French recieved or the willingness to collaborate (or a combination, more likely) I don't know.

So, if I may add that up, the greatest military nazi achievements were diplomacy (of sorts - although that was nothing new), the speed at which Northern France was conquered (which was totally new) and the sum of all the other conquered countries (and holding them). Is that about right? DirkvdM 07:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Halfway with no Allied armies in the rest of France to speak off. And 'if only' and 'they came close' just don't count. Sure, Right.

The greatest military achievement of Nazi Germany was the new use of tanks and airplanes. The effective combination of everything: Infantry, Tanks (concentrated in their own Tank divisons), Artilary, and Air force. It changed the whole concept of war; as before (not always, but almost all the time) armies tried to engage each other and to "slug it out". With the arrival of the machinegun and massive artilary these tactics were completly outdated, but fiercely clung on by traditional old generals during WWI (of both sides). Despite some battles which showed their potential Tanks were mostly dispersed, and supported the Infantry.

It was the same in the Naval warfare: the arrival of the submarine undermined the value of the battleship, the old warhorse of the Sea.

Heinz Guderian and Erwin Rommel (who had studied the books written by British generals, and developed many aspects of the Blitzkrieg, always defending the potential of the Tank gainst the Old Guard) and other fine young Geman generals offered a complete novel way of fighting. Never engage a heavily entrenched army, attack the soft spot, break through the enemy lines, and surround them cutting their supply lines. They must surrender eventually because they will lack their vital supplies. They might counter-attack, but then they will have to leave their entrenchments, and will engage you on your chosen ground. Avoid hard Urban combat as Tanks will always be vulnerable to properly equipped Infantry. City = enormous Trench. Tanks no longer suported the Infantry, it was the other way around: Infantry supported the Tanks. All these tactics were tried and refined by German officers in the Spanish civil war. Hitler liked his new Generals and this whole concept; it was bold, effective, and quick. Initially the allies (with all their traditonal generals and their whole "these traditional tacticts which served us soo well in the WWI" attitude were easy opponents. But they did something which Hitler did not: They learned and adapted themselves quickly. (copying the Germans, but also developing their own tactics). In the end Hitler was too obsessed in conquering and entrenching his troops inside of cities like Stalingrad and Leningrad; these were not the tactics of the Blitzkrieg anymore. He also micromanaged way too many things (he was the only person who could send some Tank divisions to reinforce Rommel at the 1st day of Normandy, but he was sleeping and noone had the guts to wake him...the rest is history.) and didn't allowed his generals to follow their own plans. Eisenhower and Churhill were the opposite: they choose their generals and told them the big target but then they gave them a relativly loose leash.

Dirk, this was really a great achievement. You seem to be obsessed with the whole issue of territory and always return to the same conclusion: They could not hold large territories . What do you want? The Nazis lost the World War II! Of course they did't held their conquests. You are ignoring the massive opposition and most importantly: the shere speed of the conquests. A couple of weeks for the whole of France. You can't compare this with the conquest of Gaul by Ceasar (widely recognized as a military strategist of the highest caliber). Ceasar took years to achieve it. Flamarande 14:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Like Flamarande I too am perplexed by Dirk's continuing contention, which seems to be that Nazi Germany lost the war, so it 'could not have amounted to much'. The point is that large-scale wars of conquest have been generally unsuccessful throughout modern history, where they have involved nation states, unlike the ancient wars against tribal regions. Consider Napoleon: he too subdued much of Europe but he too ultimately failed. So should we conclude that Napoleon 'did not amount to much'? And as far as consolidation is concerned, where today is the Roman Empire? Quite frankly this whole line of argument is becoming absurd. White Guard 00:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

All I was saying is that the notion I had most of my life that Germany conquered all of Europe (with some help from the Italians) was completely wrong. Compared to that, what they conquered isn't much, whic is not to say they didn't achieve anything. I just wanted to check if I got it straight about what they did achieve. I suppose I should have worded my remarks a little differntly. DirkvdM 07:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Btw, another misconception I used to have is that the German defeat was largely due to Operation Overlord (and that that was a US thing). Only later did I learn that the eastern front was at least as important if not more important and only last week did I read that Operation Bagration was the biggest military campaign mankind has ever ammassed. I had never even heard of it! DirkvdM 07:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case you might want to have a closer look at the whole campaign on the Eastern front and, in partcular, the Battle of Kursk, to date still the largest tank battle in all of history. It may be an uncomfortable idea for British and American people, but even before Overlord the Germans were in full-scale retreat in the east. To put things in perspective, in the spring of 1943, just before the Kursk operation, the Germans deployed close on 200 hundred divisions in Russia. To this you have to add another 30 or so provided by their various allies. In contrast the British and Americans were faced in Tunisia-the only point of contact with the Axis at the time-roughly 25 German and Italian divisions. Try to find a map of German occupied Europe on the eve of the Battle of Stalingrad in the late summer of 1942. That would probably give you the best idea of the German 'achievment'. Incidentally, the Italians were less of a help and more of a hindrance.White Guard 23:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Jean Stretchers

In the 1950's there was a tool used to place inside wet, laundered jeans that kept the jeans from stretching and formed a crease down the jeans leg as they dried on the form. Are these still available anywhere?

Googling "pants stretcher" provides many links like this. --hydnjo talk 15:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

World War One

Why was the "race for the sea" inconclusive in the First World War?

--Dabc 14:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Race to the Sea explains it pretty well. Neither side was able to outflank the other side and gain an offensive advantage. Hence, stalemate. --jpgordon 15:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Does anyone know what the balance of power was like at the time, on the western front? --Dabc 17:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Balance of power is a political term. By late 1914 the balance of forces was roughly equal, in terms of the number of divisions deployed-hence the stalemate. White Guard 00:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

law

Hi i am looking for information on supreme law in the united kingdom and i am having a bit of trouble with finding anything. I was just wondering whether you could give me some information on supreme law and whether the government is the supreme law maker? Thankyou very much and i hope to hear from you soon!!

That's an ENORMOUS question! For starters I'd check out the articles on the UK Constitution, Constitutional convention, and A.V. Dicey. That should give you a good start. Once you're done, feel free to come back and ask any more particular questions you may have. Loomis 15:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

In Britain, Parliament is considered of ultimate sovereignty. It is the only body capable of enacting laws. Governments - made up of the largest party in terms of seats in Parliament - propose legislation, but it must be ratified by Parliament. There is no written British constitution which specifically lays this out, but the uncodified constitution is made up of convention, common & statute law and "works of authority." See the Constitution of the United Kingdom and Parliamentary sovereignty articles. This is a very complex topic, and I'd personally suggest a standard Government & Politics textbook like Coxall & Robbins "Contemporary British Politics," or "Politics UK" by Jones, Kavanagh, Moran & Norton. JF Mephisto 16:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Not forgetting that there's no such thing as "United Kingdom law". There's English law (including Wales), Scots law, and Northern Ireland law. European Union law takes precedence over local laws, but normally has to be incorporated into local law (usually by means of Statutory Instruments) in order to take effect. Most laws are passed by the UK Parliament, but the Scottish Parliament can also pass laws, as indeed can the General Synod of the Church of England for church-related matters. From next year the Welsh National Assembly will be able to pass laws, subject to veto by the UK Parliament. -- Arwel (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I have to disagree with Mephisto on some of the subtleties of his/her take on UK Constitutional Law, this very topic was discussed just recently here on September 22, so I won't go over it all once again. Although I would suggest looking it over, it was an interesting discussion.

However, I feel that I must take issue with Arwel's comment that "there's no such thing as "United Kingdom law"". There certainly is! Though many powers have been or soon will be devolved to the Parliaments of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, the Parliament at Westminster in London is certainly more than a parliament for England alone. First off, it's made up of representatives from not only England, but from all of the UK. The Scots, the Welsh, and the Northern Irish all send MPs to London. But more importantly, the UK Parliament routinely passes laws that affect all of the United Kingdom, not simply England. Laws that come to mind would be laws concerning British citizenship, laws involving British monetary and fiscal policy, laws concerning international affairs, etc... Yes, certain powers involving more local matters are being devolved unto the respective Parliaments of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, but the UK is still one sovereign unitary state, with only one "sovereign" Parliament, in London. Loomis 20:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What specifically is your disagreement with my take on the UK Constitution (I think it would be misleading to refer to "constitutional law", as the British constitution isn't made up simply of law but also convention and works of authority)? I think it's pretty pertinent, as the person above is requesting help and it would be advisable to make it as unmuddled as possible. "Contemporary British Politics: Third Edition," Coxall & Robbins, 1998, states that the main characteristics of the UK Constitution are unitary government (a state that despite some constituent country powers is fundamentally unitary and not federal) and parliamentary sovereignty (the idea that Parliament's powers are fundamentally unlimited and supreme). It states that the main sources of the uncodified constitution are common and statute law, convention, the law and custom of Parliament, works of authority and more recently European Union law. Are you in disagreement with the broad thrust of this description of the UK Constitution, and, if so, in what way? JF Mephisto 23:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My disagreement with you was very subtle compared to my disagreement with Arwell. By that I mean that I think that s/he was REALLY wrong, compared to some subtle disagreements I may have with you. I agree with everything you've said above, except the part that Common and Statute Law form part of the UK Constitution. There are basically three "levels" of law in any Constitutional Democracy: Constitutional Law, "Regular" Law, and Regulatory or Administrative Law. The third is irrelevant to this discussion so I'll ignore it. What we're left with is 1) Constitutional Law and 2) "Regular" (i.e. Statute and Common) Law.

My main point of disagreement is the characterization of "Constitutional law" as being derived from "Statute and Common Law". Rather, with regards to "Statute Law", UK "Constitutional Law" is that very "Over-Arching" principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty. After all, what is it that gives those buildings at Westminster permission to pass Statutory Law? In the US, Article I of the Constitution grants that law unto Congress. Likewise, in the UK, that law is "granted" by the unwritten law of the UK Constitution. In other words, while I see ordinary "Statute Law" as "Regular Law", that over-arching principle that gives Parliament its sovereign authority to pass such law in the first place is what I'd call "Constitutional Law".

Likewise, I can't see UK Constitutional Law as being derived in any way from "Common Law". Rather, with regards to "Common Law" there is that "Over-Arching" principle of Stare Decisis. After all, what is it that compels the courts to pay any respect at all to precedent? I'd say that Stare Decisis is a major component of UK Constitutional Law. The Common Law, on the other hand, like Statute Law, is, to me, subordinate to that "Over-Arching" Constitutional principle of Stare Decisis.

In sum, the way I'd put it is that UK Constitutional Law is composed (amongst other things) of Parliamentary Sovereignty and Stare Decisis. These are the "Over-Arching", "Unwritten" principles of UK Constitutional Law. Statute and Common Law are merely the "regular" law that is permitted by the Supreme, Constitutional Law of the UK. Loomis 01:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Err, just throwing it in, but there's also all this.Hornplease 10:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Is neopaganism really a religion?

I wonder if so-called neopagans really ascribe to a religion per se or just take part in ancient rituals (or what they believe are ancient rituals) because they think they are cool. I mean, do they really believe in the existence of Odin, or whatever, the same way Christians believe (or are supposed to believe) in God and Jesus or Zoroastrians believe in Ahura Mazda? -- Mwalcoff 15:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought believing in the efficacy of those rituals means it counts as religion, in the generally accepted use of the term. Most definitions of religion are quite broad.--Shantavira 17:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Do all Christians believe in god the same way? Do some of them think of an old man with a beard, do others think in more general terms, "god is love"? I think it would depend on the pagan. Everyone has different beliefs. Nowimnthing 18:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Some neopagans probably do just think it is cool, certainly half the Goths wearing pentagrams just see it as a fashion accessory, the same as those who wear crosses and crucifixes. On the other hand some definitely do believe in it as a religion. God calls to many people in different ways. David Frawley has an interesting section on neopagans in his book "How I became a Hindu". -- Chris Q 07:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ban of veil in UK Jack Straw's remarks about the veil

Why is so much row created on the ban of veils in Britain? It is against the practice of religious freedom. It clearly goes against the principles of Democracy. The females from the west are allowed to bare all in the sun in places like Dubai & Middle East, they are allowed even to wear skirts in workplaces. There is racism in the west against the browns & blacks. Is it double standards?? Whats the purpose behind lobbying against the use of veil?

Veils are not barred in the United Kingdom. I don't know where you got that impression from. A Cabinet minister, Jack Straw, simply stated that he did not like women wearing the full face veil in his constituency office, and that he thought that the full face veil was a visible sign of seperation and not helpful towards harmonious commnunity relations. Other members of the Cabinet, such as John Prescott, disagreed. Furthermore, requesting the removal of a face veil is not racism - the portion of the Muslim community that wear the full face veil do not constitute a race (and most British Muslims do not wear full face veils). The purpose of opposing the use of a full face veil is because it is considered necessary in most cultures to see the facial expressions of the person one is talking to, and to oppose visible signs of seperation. JF Mephisto 16:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it is considered necessary in most cultures to see the facial expressions of the person one is talking to, and to oppose visible signs of seperation is obvious.Places like Dubai & others are progressing and accepting the western culture and insane ways of life. The tolerance is there for every culture to sustain. The same thing is not followed in the west. There is abuse of freedom in the west. Many students from the arab world & east face diifficulties in european universties including racist remarks. While the east tolerates all acts of sexual freedom & vulgarity of the west. There is no mutual reciprocity in that respect.

I think Jack Straw's statement is unfortunate, because some people will assume that his opinion somehow represents official policy - as in the original title of this item. Nobody has said whether Muslim women are allowed to wear the veil - one minister has said that he prefers that people who come to consult him do not hide their faces.

I think your comments about 'reciprocity' are misguided. Everywhere, some people mistruct and mistreat strangers, some people do not tolerate strangers' ways, and some strangers are not willing to respect local sensibilities.

Please sign your postings with ~~~~.--ColinFine 18:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the veil is that it makes identification impossible. For example, there have been cases in the US where these women wanted their driver's license (the primary form of identification in the US) photos to be taken wearing a veil, which would make it absolutely useless for identification. To accept this would mean to give up on being able to identify anyone, which would cause a massive security hole. Male terrorists have been known to dress as veiled women to bypass security. StuRat 22:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Check your facts, , "females from the west" have to cover their hair in many Moslem countries, let alone "baring all" sunbathing. Perhaps you refer to what goes on behind a wall in a Western enclave? Moslems are allowed to build mosques in the west, but Christian churches are forbidden in many moslem countries. No reciprocity asa Pope Benedicat has demanded.Edison 17:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

plodweaver

Question moved to language desk

Question about the movie Bend it like Beckham

Does anybody know what neighbourhood of London the movie took place in? Anchoress 20:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if anybody knows how to fix titles and redirects, the BiLB entries on WP are totally f****d up. Anchoress 20:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hounslow, I believe. Natgoo 22:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Woo Hoo, thank you! Anchoress 00:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice movie, by the way. DirkvdM 08:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Question about Germany

·I know that Hitler,Goebels,Himmler,Romel,Gering and other killed them selves.My question is:What is the highest Nazi offical that didnt commit suicide?I doubt that it was Albert Speer,because he was just a minister,but it might be him?

Thank you very much

My best guess would be Adolph Eichmann. Also, quite a few were executed at Nuremberg, so among those may be someone who outranked Eichmann, but I doubt it. Loomis 20:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I would go with Wilhelm Canaris. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both very much.Eichmann was in the rank of Colonel and Canaris was Admiral,so it was probably Canaris.

I dont want to be boring,but just another question,because it seems like you know quite a lot about this subject:So if we take out those who commited suicide and those who got killed(like Eichmann,Ribentrop,Canaris...) who was the highest official that died in a natural way? (I believe that there were many,but I wonder who was the highest...I thought it was Hess,but he killed him self in the prison,so it wasnt him.)

Don't worry about being boring, these are important questions. By highest Nazi official I assumed you meant most prominent. Of course an admiral outranks a colonel, but I was going with most prominent and influential over highest ranking (I'm embarrassed to even say it by I've never even heard of Canaris). As for the next question, I'd say Josef Mengele, who drowned accidentally in 1979. He's certainly, once again, the most "prominent" Nazi (though I'm not sure of his actual "rank") to die in a (somewhat) natural way (neither homicide nor suicide). Loomis 21:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Karl Donitz was officially president of Germany at the time of the Nazi surrender; he served 10 years in prison and died in 1980. Rudolf Hess was number 2 in the Nazi party before fleeing to England; he died in prison in 1987. Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop was hanged in 1946, as were Alfred Rosenberg and Julius Streicher. Hans Lammers, Hitler's chief of staff, died in 1962. Hans Frank and Wilhelm Frick, Nazi chiefs in Poland and Bohemia & Moravia, respectively, were hanged. So-called Justice Minister Franz Schlegelberger lived until 1970. Economics Minister Walther Funk lived until 1960. -- Mwalcoff 21:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Great,thats about it.As for Mengele,he died in kind of natural way,but not quite.Hess would be number one choice,but he commited suicide in 1987(or he was killed,as his family claims). But,anyway,it surely is Karl Dönitz,I cant believe that I forgot him as a leader,thats probably because he wasnt so prominent as others mentioned,but it was surely him.

So having listed almost all top Nazis,it seems like none of them escaped one or another form of punishment(being killed,suicide,prison sentence,or strange deaths like Mengele and Hess).

Correct me if Im wrong,but it seems like thats the case??

Anyway,once again,thank you very much,searching for all of this would take me days,so thanks to everyone.

Doenitz wasn't a Nazi, and many of the other military officials might not have been either. They just happened to be in the military while the Nazis were in power (although of course they must have supported them, otherwise they wouldn't have remained so long, but Doenitz was never a party member). Adam Bishop 22:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'd say it was a pleasure, but that would sound kind of weird.:) Still, it's a fascinating topic and a great question to ask.

I'd just like to add a comment though. To me, Hitler's suicide (and the suicides of all the rest) were the furthest thing from the punishment they deserved. To me, I see Hitler's suicide as one of the gravest of injustices. Unlike Eichmann, who got what he deserved, (that being seeing scores of Holocaust survivors recount his attrocities in front of his face, and in front of the world,) Hitler never faced that sort of justice. He never faced the shame of the world. He died at a time and in a method of his own choosing, without ever having to face his accusers. To me, that's one of the worst injustices of WWII. Loomis 22:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't justice but to call injustice? I see Hitler's suicide as a proof of his utter cowardice and irresponsability (of not having the balls of facing the consequences of his orders and actions). Flamarande 19:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A good reason not to join the army. You can never know what idiot you might have to serve. DirkvdM 08:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As if in real wartime you have any reasonable choice, but to join the army. It is called a draft you know? Flamarande 16:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If you live in a country that might do that, you might think about emigrating. Ok, not usuallly a reasonable ooption. :) DirkvdM 07:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hitler should have been subjected to an incredibly long and boring trial like Saddam's. Edison 17:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Saddams' trial in which two of his laywers were murdered, the first judge resigned, and the second judge was removed by the "American puppets" because he was "too nice" to the accused? The Nuremberg trials were more or less fair, but Saddam's trial is a bloody nightmare. Flamarande 17:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Saddams trial is a poor excuse for USA to get him killed(or as they call it "executed",like its not the same thing).No wonder that death penatly still exsits only in USA,China,Muslim countries and Lukashenkos Belorus.Another pathetic excuse for a trial was Milosevic trial,which ended in his death after four years of trial,as a result of Hagues refuse to let him get the medical care.Another example is Vojisav Seselj,who is at Hague tribunal for more then 3 and a half years,but the trail didnt started just yet!?!

If I could make a comment about Mengele - he has become very well-known outside of Germany, but he was in no way AT ALL a prominent or important Nazi. He was just one camp doctor out of hundreds. He was also only one of hundreds of thousands of men and women who actively and willingly contributed to the Nazi killing and torture machine.

I think this is important to say because so many of us forget (or have never been taught) that hundreds of thousands of people actively and willingly worked to create the horrors of the Holocaust. It's nice to think that only a few like Mengele were really 'bad people', but in reality Mengele's cruelty and evil were not unusual. There were hundreds of camps - hundreds. Each had on average a dozen or more doctors. Each doctor had assistants. Each camp had hundreds of guards. They were almost ALL were as cruel as Mengele in their own way. Anybody who wasn't cruel was sent to do other work, plain and simple.

We know so much about Mengele not because he did things that other doctors didn't or because he was more cruel than the others; we know about him because he worked at Auschwitz. Auschwitz was an enormous work camp, and many of its inmates survived to tell their stories. The same (or equally cruel) horrors went on at Sobibor, Mathausen, Chelmno, and a hundred other camps, but few if any victims from those camps survived to testify.

Mengele was evil and deserved to be convicted, but he wasn't an extremely unusual exception to the rule. Thinking that he was unusually cruel might make people feel better about the human condition, but it isn't fair to the victims of the other torturers and killers. There were myriads of men and women who acted as cruelly as he did. Charlene.fic 23:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A good point. but also note that this is not specifically a German treat. If you look at what happened then from our world it looks incrdible, but if people grow up in a surrounding that considers certain things acceptable then they will find that normal and will in turn find worse things acceptable, which others will interprete as that being normal, so they will start finding even worse things aceptable, etc, in a potentially never ending downward spiral. The atrocities of nazi germany didn't come falling vrom the sky. It developed over decades, with the humiliation of WWI being probably the biggest incentive. But the big lesson is that this can happen anywhere anytime. And some of it is happening right now, with human rights being officially abolished. Bit by bit. Step by step. Give Bush cum sui enough time and you'll be surprised at what we will find acceptable or even normal 30 years from now. DirkvdM 07:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I never studied the issue (concentration camps and the anhilation of the Jews during WWII) to a very high degree, but I think I know the basics of it. You write that there were hundreds of camps, yet in the Wiki-article List of concentration camps of Nazi Germany they are only 47 (I know that even 1 was 1 too many). Could you please explain me this big diffrence? Where you exagerating? Is the list lacking any camp? Do you want to correct your statement? Flamarande 12:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes,just look at Guatanamo and the torture of Iraqi and Afganistani people.But,to be honest,it is a German treat,because if you look at the World War I,you will find that Germany also did the worst crimes in it,to.So many thousands civilians got killed just because they were not German.Now its usualy to say it was Hasburg Monarhy,while in fact,all the crimes were commited by Germans...Same Germans that upgraded their cruelty (mixed with the revange for the 1918 defeat) 20 years later.

Of course, we all know that the Germans are by nature cruel, inhuman, and absolutly war-like. The Germans are different from everbody else. The Germans are guilty of starting WWI and they were the only ones who commited serious warcrimes during that war, also. Are you for real or something? All the main protagonists of WWI are guilty of starting it and commited Warcrimes. Both sides used Gas during WWI. At end as Germany had quit the fighting and was negotiating the terms of its defeat the Allies kept their Naval blockade while the German ppl was starving. Isn't that also a Warcrime? The rise of Hitler was immensly facilitated by the harsh terms of the treaty of Versallies and shows us "how do we prepare the next war".

How about the millions that were killed by order of Stalin in the Great Purge? The Armenian Genocide ordered by the Turkish goverment, the Belgian atrocities in the Congo Free State, the millions that were killed in the The Killing Fields by Khmer Rouge by order of Pol Pot, Japanese Warcrimes during WWII like the Rape of Nanking, the Indians which were slaughtered by the American troops at the Wounded Knee Massacre? The recent Rwandan Genocide? Everyone of us is capable of participating in a Warcrime (of every nation, in all armies, from any culture, and following any religion whatsoever); it only depends on the right circumstances, and most importantly, on our leaders. Flamarande 12:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)PS: please, SIGN YOUR STATEMENTS

Whatever,all I know is about Germans and my country...They killed more then 500.000. civilians(incuding only woman and children,not man),just in my country 1914-1918.

Off course they started World War I when they attacked my country.They were pretty bad warriors though,since they lost on Kolubara,Cer and Suvobor and their General Oskar Potjorek got expeled from the Army.So they lost couple of battle from such a tiny country as mine. But in 1915,they came back,this time with Bulgarians and they won.Since our army was forced to flee to Greece,there was no one defending civilians...They hanged,burned and butchedred more then 500.000. just in 1915-1918 time.

Now dont get me started on WW2,when they killed more then 7000 school boys in Kragujevac,IN JUST ONE DAY,as a revange for the killing of 35 Germans.German Army alone cleaned my country of Jews.Before WW2 there was about 50.000. Jews here.After it there was no more then 1000.Not to mention great WW2 concentration camps like BANJICA,JAJCI and so on and so on...

Talking about the 1999. agression and more then 1000. civilians killed,off course Germany was part of that,to.Who can explain this to the parents of 3 year old Milica Rakic,that was killed in her home while being in a bathroom? Who can explain to them that it is not a war crime?

There is not a single country that did so many war crimes during last 100 years as Germany.

XXXXXXX 13:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Look I won't start a fight over "which is the more evil nation in the last 100 years". Hitler with his Nazi regime and the German ppl under their command was without a doubt the most shameful chapter of Human history. But what you are forgetting is the same combination with another country whatsoever would produce similar results. Somebody like Hitler + a fanatical party + a desperate country = a big nightmare. Like Serbia (your comments seem to indicate that you are a Serb, but we can dig in the history of any nation whatsoever. You only have to dig deep enough) do you really want to start a discussion about Serbian Warcrimes? Begin with the Chetniks, then carry on to the the more recent (1990's) Serbian concentration camps and Serbian Gang rapes of female prisoners? How about the Srebrenica Massacre or the Battle of Vukovar? I certainly won't open this Pandora's box, it's not that I am personaly guilty of anything, but I am simply way too wise to fall in that obvious trap. Every nation is guilty of something. Flamarande 15:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Chetniks?? Are you kidding me?? Harry Truman,president of USA awarded Draza Mihalovic,the Cetniks leader the golden cross in 1948...TIME magazine had CHETNIKS on their first page as the FIRST EUROPE FREEDOM FIGHTERS...Hollywood movie from 1942. called CHETNIKS was about the fight of Chetniks against Germans and Communists...Cetniks never commited no crimes,and they were not even accused of doing so(except for Communist false charges)...My Grandfather was a Chetnik,and Im extremly proud of it,we are going to the RAVNA GORA every May 13. to comemorate the first uprising in Europe against Germans(13.May 1941)...There are over 100.000. people on it every year,celebrating Chetnik values...Not to mention that Serbian officials are comemorating it to...You can only be jelaous because no other country ever had such a brave and upstanding soldiers like Chetniks were.

Never commited any warcrimes? Never ever? How about the Bleiburg massacre (something I found in 1 min)? Ask you grand-father what he really did if he caught an unarmed and/or surrendering Ustasha or German. Did he give him a fair trail perchance? Flamarande 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As for Battle of Vukovar,how can you even list that as a war crime,40 officiers were killed,thats the whole crime,everyone else died in the battle...You can only say that you wish we didnt win,but thats it,we win and now we are considered guilty for it?!?

"We"? Did I say that? Unlike too many ppl I believe that only the ppl responsable for a crime (those who gave the orders) should be prosecuted in a fair trail in a proper court of law and only if found guilty punished in accordance of their crime. BTW, I didn't write any of these articles. And you don't like if someone uses Vulovar against the Serbs but you find it fair to blame the "modern" Germans for WWII, a war which just ended in 1945! Nothing is forgotten, and nothing is ever forgiven, and we must blame the children for the crimes of the parents,hey? Actually I believe that we should remeber the crimes but not use them against ppl who didn't commit them (and most of Germans today were born after WWII). Flamarande 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As for Srebrenica,there are no excuses,but thats the only time in history that crimes were commited by someone from my country(but when you talk about Srebrenica,you should forget this:KRAVICE;BRATUNAC;MULJARE and other villages whose people were burned down...more then 2500 people died in the Christamas Day 1992. killed by Muslim forces...Srebrenica was a revenge for 4 years of torture and killings done by Muslims)

The only time? Right, do you really want me to search for more articles? BTW: If the someone rapes my sister it is somehow allright if I rape his sister in return? An eye for an eye and all that? Is that true Justice? Flamarande 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

One more thing,from 8000 people killed in Srebrenica,NONE were woman,NONE were kids below the age of 16(and those are Hague War Crimes Tribunal numbers...)

So if someone is a male civilian over 16 he is a valid military target? Are you male? How old are you? (don't answer these questions, they are rethorical and I only made them to show that following that logic you (or your nearest male relative) would have been killed. Flamarande 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So,how can you even compare that,to what Germans have done...Germans bombed my city 3 times in last century: 1915,1941 and 1999...Every time they killd bunch of civilians...Not to mention all the other crimes in WWI and WWII(and Im talking just about in my country commited by Germans)...How can you even compare that,to Srebrenica,which was a few days event(and like I said A REVENGE,not that it is a good excuse,but its explanation....1914,1915,1916,1917,1918,1941,1942,1943,1944,1945,1999...for all those years of German crime,there is no excuse or no possible explanation...Only that its just the way they do it...German way)

 XXXXXXX 20:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHA you know so little that it is funnny....BLEIBURG WAS A CRIME COMMITED BY COMMUNIST CROATS ON USTASHA CROATS....Theres no mentioning of Serbs there,how can there be,WHEN MORE THEN 700.000. SERBS CIVILIANS DIED IN JASENOVAC(the biggest concentration camp in Balkans ever).

As for other issues,Im not into arguing,Im just stating that fact that "modern germany"(as you called it) is resposable for the 1999. war crimes,even thought it was Shreder who made those moves.

And your question hehe ,i can ask my grandfather if it will make you happy,but I dont see your point,do you want to say that he would have been wrong if he killed the captured German????????????????????(Mind you,Chetniks were operating strictly in their own homeland)How it is wrong to kill someone who came to you country and is killing your people every day??? How is it wrong,THEY CAME HERE,SO HOW IS IT WRONG TO KILL THEM WHEN THEY ARE AGRESSIORS....Even when they are captured XXXXXXX 14:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And the Germans have kept their nose clean since 1945 (despite your innuendo of 1990's - I honestly don't know what you are talking about. The bombings of Nato? It was a legal military action in order to stop the local war, and as in all wars the innocents are sometimes killed - simply stating a fact). I am not excusing the Germans and blaming somebody (e.g. the Serbs) else here. I am just saying that every nations military have commited Warcrimes at some point. War is Hell! Soldiers and officers will be exposed to extremely severe circumstances (like seing your comrades blown to bits in front of your eyes, or finding a fellow soldier's tortured and mutilated corpse left by the enemy). You will slowly be brutalized and in order to cope and to survive you will adapt yourself. You will turn into a hardened killer and if you are not restrained by your officers you will avenge yourself and your comrades on the nearest "enemy" civilian population (and God helps them if the officers order it). In all wars civilians have been caught by explosions, murdered, raped, and tortured. We can and we must understand how this happens in order to prevent as far as possible and not cry out: "The other guys are all a bunch of violent warcriminals. My own ppl is completly innocent off all charges. We NEVER ever hurt an innocent.". We must establish laws preventing this and enforce them as best as possible (especialy our own side) so that hopefully at next time (in the next war) the soldiers and their officers think twice. Flamarande 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you,but one thing you said is off the mark: Nato agression wasnt "legal military action",because it wasnt aproved by the Security Councel of UN(because Russia was against it). So,it wasnt just a bombing,it was an AGRESSION...It wasnt ment to stop the "local war",because it cant be a local war when it is happening in just one country...It was ment to help the Albanian terrorist to get independence of Kosovo...Nato and Al Qaida really did helped them a lot on their way...

So,you cant possibly say that Germans "kept their nose clean",because not in thousend years will 1999. agression be forgotten.By supporting Muslim terrorists on Kosovo(which is part of Serbia),and by bombing INNOCENT CHILDREN("every war has civilians dying" hahaha TELL THAT TO THE PARENTS OF 3 YEARS OLD MILICA RAKIC THAT GERMAN BOMBS KILLED IN HER HOUSE),so by doing that,Germany bombed my City and my Country for the third time in just one century,without declaring a war(similiar like in 1941). No other country did so much wrong to us and killed so many of us like Germany.

But as for other thing you said,as for preventing monsters like Franz Josif,Hitler,Shreder or Clinton to come to power ever again,I agree.

"We must establish laws preventing this and enforce them as best as possible (especialy our own side) so that hopefully at next time (in the next war) the soldiers and their officers think twice."

XXXXXXX 09:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone recently likened Bush to Hitler, which I believe was a grotesque analogy. But that whole argument was cleared up, and I bear no ill will. Now I'm no Democrat (capital "D"), and obviously no big fan of Clinton, but to mention his name in the same breath as Hitler is equally grotesque. Mentioning the phrase "monsters like Franz Josif, Hitler, Shreder or Clinton" is equally deplorable to equating Bush with Hitler. Though I may disagree with his politics, and though I believe he possesses some serious character flaws, Clinton is ultimately a good man, with only, ultimately, the best of intentions. To equate him in any way to Hitler is disgusting. Yes, innocent civilians were killed in Serbia, and now Iraq. Yet neither Clinton in Serbia, nor Bush in Iraq actually wished the death of any innocent civilian. Hitler not only wished the death of innocent civilians, but meticulously ARRANGED FOR IT. Equating Clinton with Hitler is equally deplorable to equating Bush with Hitler. Though I expect, nay, DEMAND an apology for that remark, I doubt I'll get one. Loomis 14:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I will apologise when I hear you apologising for Nato agression,for over 2000 dead civilians,for over 80 dead kids,for 78 days and nights of bombing of innocent people,for THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND(300.000) Serbs that were forced to live Kosovo since Nato Bombing in 1999.,for over 2000 Serb churches burned since 1999. on Kosovo(Let me just mention that some of those churches are as old as 1000 years...Long before USA,UK or Germany as we know it even existed)....When you apologise for that I will apologise for what I said...

One more thing,I dont know where you got that about Bush.I HAVE NEVER SAID SOMETHING LIKE THAT,how can you possibly compare Bush to Clinton???? Clinton was helping Muslim terrorists,he was(alongside Shreder) their biggest helper in Kosovo,he supported their crimes over innocent people,he supported their fight for independence(Independence of Kosovo,which was a serbian land since the beggining of time)!!! I wonder why he didnt support Chechenia Muslim terrorists...Because it was Russia,not Serbia huh....He supported people that made more then 300.000. Serbs leave Kosovo,terrorist animals that burned down more then 2000 churches...

On the other side,Bush is fighting the terrorism...While Clinton and Al Qaida were fighting side by side in Kosovo,Bush is doing everything he can to stop the Muslim beastes all over the world.You cant compare Clinton who bombed EUROPIAN CHRISTIAN country to support muslim terrorists,with Bush who is doing everything he can to stop them(same terrorists that Clintons administration supported so much). If it was up to Clinton,if he was still in office,Kosovo would have been independent already,and Saddam and Talibans would have been in power to this day....

XXXXXXX 14:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Have I just been accused of being anti-Bush? That's a first! How bizarre! It's also a clear indication that you have no clue what I'm talking about and that it would be fruitless to further respond. Loomis 00:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Im glad that you saw that being Anti-Bush is nonsense,and is as same as being Pro-Terror.Im glad I helped you in realizing that. XXXXXXX 11:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so, so much XXXXXXX! I really don't know how to repay you. I'd just like to express my infinite gratitude in finally convincing me to be pro-Bush. I've been a Democrat my entire life, but you've finally helped me to see the light. I'm tearing up my Democratic Party membership as we speak! I think I may actually become a Republican! And all due to you! Nobody here, as intelligent as they may be, has ever been able to convince me that Bush is not the awful moron that I always thought him to be. But you have. You definitely have an incredible talent for expressing a truth that so far no one else has been able to. I'm eternally grateful to you. A million thanks. You've truly enlightened me, and I'm overwhelmed with gratitude. Huh? What the hell? Can anyone explain this one to me?  :--) Loomis 00:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Help linking an article

Today I found the article about the Kanawha County textbook controversy. It's quite interesting, but I'm disappointed to see that it isn't really mentioned in any other article (see its What links here). Which articles could this be mentioned in, or at least listed under "See also"? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

About great tragedies(in both war and peace)

After getting such a great resposes to the other question,i got another one,because I was thinking about this for some time:

Is the Hiroshima bombing the event that took most human lives at the time?My english isnt the best,so I apologise for that,but I think you understand me:Was there any other event that killed more people(I mean in the whole world history,not just WW2).

Thank you

Are you limiting to events that took place in one instant or events that could have taken many years, suich as Black Death? --Kainaw 22:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well,I was aiming on events that took place in one day(not neceserly one instant,for example 9/11 attacks would be the example,but it happend in one day time).

That's a hard question to answer as I'm not sure. While an estimated 80,000 Japanese died instantly in Hiroshima, I wouldn't at all be surprised if there was a particular day during WWII where more than that were killed, whether they were executed at concentration camps or killed on the battlefield. Remember that 50 million died in WWII. A vast majority of those towards the end.

I'm not an expert on the subject but I believe that in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, more people actually died after the fact from radiation and what not. RENTASTRAWBERRY röck 01:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course you never mentioned natural catastrophes. The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake killed approximately 230,000. Though I'm not sure what portion of that were killed on the actual day of the Tsunami. Loomis 22:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Almost all of them. StuRat 23:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure Stu? I was figuring that a good portion of the deaths were due to the inevitable diseases that spread in the water supply due to decaying corpses etc. (Sorry to be so gruesome). Loomis 00:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

no they weren't. Diseases were kept well in check by a massive international response. Rmhermen 00:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

More people died in the one-day conventional firebombing of Tokyo in World War II than died at Hiroshima. Rmhermen 00:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Death toll article also lists the Sack of Baghdad in 1258 with over 90,000 casualties in one day. Rmhermen 00:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

830,000 died in the Shaanxi earthquake of 1556. Most probably died on the day of the quake. Nobody's quite sure how many people died in the 1976 Tangshan earthquake; I've seen estimates that top one million, all on the same day, but the official toll is just over 240,000. Charlene.fic 23:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Flaming and regular

In my marching band here are many people who help us with our steps and technique etc. The two men who help with the color guard are homosexual. One of them is really "flaming" i.e. he says stuff like "girlfriend" and likes to snap his fingers a lot. The other man, however, you wouldn't think about it twice if you met him. He acts just like any other man out there. I was wondering why some homosexual men are "regular" and others are really open about their sexual preference. schyler 22:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not a person is 'flaming' often has very little to do with their sexual preference. Some gay guys, and some straight guys like to act in a very camp manner. Others, both gay and straight, do not. You may want to read Metrosexual for information on the way many men act. --Mnemeson 22:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You do not prefer to sleep with men or women, 'regular' is subjective; it is only YOUR opinion that you define what is 'regular' and what is not, and he is not a Flamer; it is in YOUR EYES that you see him as a flamer.100110100 01:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, not really. "Regular" isn't really subjective; it means "conforming to a standard or pattern", and surely you'd agree that people who act in a "flaming" manner do not "conform to the standard" behavior pattern for a male in our society. I think that "regular" is an accurate, if somewhat potentially offensive, way to describe non-"flaming" people. -Elmer Clark 05:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ja, really. 'Regular' is what you've been socialized to think; everyone has been socialized differently. Also, and especially, some cultures do not see see don't see that behavior as flaming, as irregular, if they even have the term. It is VERY offensive. Please shut up, to put it bluntly. Just do it.100110100 07:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to bite! What if this is a high school student, or someone with English as a second language? In any case it sounds like they don't know very many gay people closely, so I wouldn't blame them for being a little insensitive with terminology. It seemed like an innocent question to me. --Grace 09:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I realize it's offensive, but only because of social stigma against being considered "abnormal," not because it's untrue - very few people, I would imagine, have more experience with "flaming" (there must be a better word for this) people than with "non-flaming," so much so as to make it seem like the "general pattern" for people in society. It really confuses me that "abnormality" has become such an undesirable trait... -Elmer Clark 22:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It might help you to think of it as a personality difference. You probably know some people who are quiet and shy and others who are outgoing and friendly - these are all normal variations in personality, and most people, shy or outgoing, would probably say that they can't control the way they behave. Likewise, some gay men behave the way you describe, and others don't, just because they're different people. It's an individual thing - homosexuality isn't like a disease, where everyone with the same disease will have the same symptoms. --Grace 06:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality is not a disease.100110100 07:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I said. "Homosexuality isn't like a disease": ie. it is not a disease. --Grace 09:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your ANSWER Grace, about it being a personality trait. That makes sense. On another note, if you aren't going to even try and answer the qustion, don't even press the edit button. schyler 14:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, your question was based on false precedents, or IGNORANCE, in the first place.100110100 01:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

October 9

Are There Any Misplaced Pages Articles That Discuss The Mistranlastion Of Homosexuality In The Bible?

Danke schön.100110100 00:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your question. "Homosexuality" is never actually mentioned in the Bible per se. All that is discussed is "a man laying with a man as with a woman" being an "abomination". As to what that means, your guess is as good as mine. Loomis 01:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

When you asked this on the Miscellaneous desk earlier, you were pointed towards The Bible and homosexuality, I'm sure if we have any more they'll be linked to from there. --Mnemeson 01:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Saying "mistranslation" would probably be labeled as POV or OR. Obviously, God is against the behaviour, not the person. God would not condemn someone for something that they could not change. BenC7 05:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have heard that homosexuality has been mistranslated, so condemned so.100110100 10:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, if the word "homosexuality" appears in any Bible, it's a mistranslation, as there is no such word in the original texts. - Outerlimits 11:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Some (not myself, but some, mostly those opposed to homosexuality) would say that sexual orientation is something a person can change, although this seems to go against most of the scientific inquiry into the subject as well as many individual non-heterosexuals' accounts (especially those who have had others try to change their orientation). CameoAppearance 07:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see why it's always the homos that have to be the test subject and asked if they can change their orientation. Heteros are oblivious to it too.100110100 10:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

When will they ever learn? Forcing "normality" on people didn't work with left-handers. If they believe it's just a question of choice, have they ever wondered why people throughout history would choose to be subject to vilification, discrimination, violence and even murder, if it were in their power to choose something safer? Could a straight person choose to be gay? Could a straight man choose from tomorrow onwards to get involuntary erections at the sight of other men's naked bodies, when previously they had no such effect? Hardly. Why would it be any different the other way around? JackofOz 07:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure Jack. But nice to see some spirit in you! In any case, it's quite known according to the Bible that King David "lay with another man". It's also quite known that Onan, son of Judah, was killed by God on the spot for "spilling his seed". Many interpret that as meaning that masturbation is a sin, punishable by instant death from God. Well, let me just say, if that were true, none of us, including Ben, (I like you Ben, but be honest with yourself!) would be alive today to have this discussion! That's not to say I'm not a religious person who takes the Bible seriously, and who fears God. It's just to say that I, just like anyone else, am mystified by certain of its otherwise "apparent" meanings. Loomis 09:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult to mistranslate the words. It's also fairly hard to change their interpretation, but that won't stop anyone trying. It's not particularly clear from the Bible that King David "lay with another man". What's debated is whether the description of his love for Jonathan exceeding the love between a man a woman means that they had a gay relationship or not. Onan was not punished for spilling his seed. If you read the text (Gen 38:8 and 9), you can see he's punished for the reason why he spilled his seed. I've never heard any preacher of any religion claim that masturbation is a sin "punishable by instant death from God", but I'm sure there's some right-winger out there that could fulfil this shortcoming. --Dweller 09:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course the story of Onan has been used regularly as a "Biblical" prohibition on masturbation. That other interpretations differ is irrelevant; all that matters is that the Bible provide the raw material from which justification for one's own beliefs can be fashioned. It has ever been thus. - Outerlimits 11:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

All I know about Onan is that was the name of Dorothy Parker's pet bird. She called him that because he had a habit of spilling his seed. JackofOz 12:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the best thing I've heard today! To the original poster, I believe godlovesfags.com used to be a good resource for this sort of thing - theories about whether the Bible really condemns homosexuality or not. Ah, here we go: this might be what you're looking for. I have to admit, though, as far as I'm concerned it's all a bit like arguing over how many reindeer Santa has. :) --Grace 13:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. Santa has exactly 9 reindeer. The Bible says so! And they can all dance on top of a pin. - Outerlimits 16:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

About BenC7's "Obviously, God is against the behaviour". No one owns God's agenda. You may infer, from someone's acts and fate, that it was punishable : it is your opinion.

As we say Gnu's not Unix, whe could say God only does. When we see someone doing something, he does it in the hands of God. As we say that God's name is ineffable, God's thoughts are unthinkable. -- DLL 16:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, all of this is beside the point. The question is about mistranslation in the Bible. My first observation is that the Bible was written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Strictly speaking, there is no translation in the Bible at all. ;-)

Now, what our questioner probably means is that he or she believes that some English version of the Bible uses the word "homosexual" and that this is a mistranslation of the original. (correct me if that is not the question.)

The word is used by the following translations in 1 Cor. 6:9 -- Contempory English Version, English Standard, Good News Translation, God's Word, International Standard Version, New American Bible, New American Standard Version, New International Version, New King James Bible, the Living Bible and the New Living Bible. In 1 Timothy 1:10, Contempory English Version, English Standard, God's Word, International Standard Version, New American Bible, New American Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, the Living Bible and the New Living Bible use it. God's Word also uses it in Jude 7.

The next question, then, is: Do these translations mistranslate the passages? In 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, The greek words come from the root = ἀρσενοκοῖτ-. The definition of the word in Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker's lexicon is "a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast." (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3rd ed., (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 135.) This translation, then is correct in substance. (although "male homosexuality") would be a better translation. The Jude passage is more generally immorality.

Since the term is correctly translated, then, no article is likely to address the mistranslation, since there is none. --CTSWyneken 20:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you said 'the Jude passage is more generally immorality.'???!!!! I'm confused; what do you mean?100110100 10:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If you think "pederast" and "homosexual" are synonyms, perhaps your opinions about mistranslation are best ignored. "ἀρσενοκοίτης" means "malefucker". What that might mean in terms used today is ambiguous. But it's certainly not precisely identical with "homosexual", either. - Outerlimits 03:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, to those who might not know, the fairly clear implication of "homosexual" is that

the person has clear romantic feelings for people of the same sex. Note that the clear distinctions between homosexuals and heterosexuals did not exist in ancient Rome; people would lie with men and women, regardless of their own sex -- it was not considered taboo. The only major limit was perhaps in regards to having sex with children, which was considered immoral.

The point here is that translators are virtually unanimous in translating the word as homosexual, the lexica support the translation and so to claim a mistranslation here is simply to be out of the mainstream of scholarship. In Misplaced Pages terms, it is a minor POV to charge all these translators with mistranslation. You cannot change that by simply disparging that opinion or mine.

How do they come to choose what seems a more generic term? Whether it is to your tastes or not, English translations tend to proceed euphemistically (as when Paul opposes the circumcision party, and he says they might as well finish the job and cut it off completely, the translators do no get as graphic as the New Testament Greek does). Also, until very recent times, homosexuality was defined by Christian Churches as sexual relations between persons of the same sex. In this case, it is clear that 1 Corinithians and 1 Timothy condemn the Graeco-Roman practice of sexual relations between men. Thus the translation. You are free to choose how you wish to label it, but there is little ambiguity here. Paul claims that God forbids homosexual relations in the same breath as he condemns heterosexual relations outside of marriage. That is all I am trying to say. --CTSWyneken 21:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hence we have the distinction; at that time in particular, when a man lay with another man, it was not part of a romantic relationship: it was for the experience of being with another man. Inasmuch as the passage about Onan can be looked, then, in both ways, so can this: one could argue, then, that the Bible says nothing against homosexual marriage -- the teachings of Jesus could imply that such freedom may be reasonable (because he would have probably treated them in much the same way as he treated the tax collectors and prostitute)s; it wouldn't be a matter of "free love" that it was back then. I don't know for certain just how much everyone is clear on this fact -- you all might be, but sometimes I don't get that same feeling from hearing the "general public" or some politicians. E Liquere 03:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The old Testament sources (in Hebrew) that refer to this subject prohibit as "abomination" homosexual intercourse, not homosexuality or gay love. As with Onan, the translation of the words is unambiguous. --Dweller 07:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I never said that the "common" interpretation of the story of Onan was the correct one. In fact, from my studies, what I believe, (and after all, it's all a matter of opinion,) is that God killed Onan not for "masturbating", as he wasn't "masturbating" at all! What he was doing was practicing what we would call coitus interruptus; that is, he "withdrew" before ejaculation in order to intentionally not get his levirate wife pregnant. Thus his sin wasn't in "masturbating", but rather in disobeying God's commandment to "go forth and multiply". Basically, he was killed because he had no interest in having children with his wife, not because he "literally" spilled his seed.

When you think about it, spilling seed is an inevitable act that the most pious of believers cannot avoid. How many million sperm cells is it that are produced by one ejaculation? I forget. But it's millions. And the best one can hope for is that one (or perhaps a few, in the case of twins, triplets, etc. but certainly not millions!) manages to fertilize an egg. As for the rest...only God knows what happens to them. And then there are infirtile couples, like the pious Abraham and Sarah, who, up until she was told by God that she would have a son at the ripe old age of ninety-something, was barren. Of course she had plenty of sex with Abraham beforehand, otherwise how would she know she was barren? Yet sex between infirtile couples is obviously not a sin either, as Abraham wasn't singled out for death for all the "seed" he spilled in his 100+ year lifetime (that's a whole lotta seed!). Similarly, heterosexual couples aren't forbidden from having sex once the female goes through menopause and is no longer able to bear children. Still, (hopefully in a good relationship!) a lot of seed spilling is going on!

To get back to my original point, (and again, this is purely my take on it,) Onan wasn't killed by God at all for masturbation. He was killed by God because he deliberately chose to disobey God's commandment to "be fruitful and multiply". Now, what does "multiply" mean? Once you have a couple of kids, have you fulfilled your obligation to (at least try to) "multiply"? I think so. I think it's perfectly fine to call enough enough, and begin to use birth control. And what about before? What if you're young and you have every intention of having kids, but you just don't feel ready yet? I think birth control is ok there too. Ok I went on about it enough, and that wasn't even the original question! Just a clarification of my "Onan" remark. Now it's Jack's turn to pick on me for my lack of concision and focus. :) Loomis 22:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Thank you all for the awesome insight. So I have a new question. What is the significance of the story of David and Johnathan? Why did the writer include it if homosexuality is bad?100110100 10:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

David and Jonathon had a deep friendship; that does not mean that they were having a homosexual relationship. There is nothing in Scripture to imply anything of the sort. BenC7 06:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I strongly believe they did. See David and Jonathon.100110100 00:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The link is red. BenC7 00:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a typo; see David and Jonathan. Ziggurat 00:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The romantic section of that article has dubious factual accuracy in places and is argumentitive. BenC7 00:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that the Bible is anti-homosexual. But it's also pro-slavery, pro-genocide, and encouraged parents to murder their kids if they thought God wanted them to, so I would look for a higher moral authority than what people thought (and wrote down) thousands of years ago. StuRat 12:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Bible is against homosexual behaviour. I don't know where you get pro-slavery from; God set a rule in effect that anyone who had slaves was to free them after 7 years, and if the slave wished to remain with their master, then the master was to take an awl and drive it through the slave's earlobe into their front door. I don't know that there would have been many slaves wishing to pick that.
As for pro-genocide, most killing was done in the context of war, and many times the Israelites were severely outnumbered and outpowered.
As for the Bible "encouraging parents to murder their children if they thought God wanted them to", I assume you are referring to Abraham and Isaac. God prevented Abraham from sacrificing his son: Just as he was about to do it, an angel appeared and said, "Abraham! Do not lay a hand on the boy, or do anything to him". It was a demonstration of what God would later do in sending his Son to be the sacrifice for our sins. BenC7 00:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Representations of left as back and right as forward

Why is it so ubiquitous to have left represented as 'towards the back/backwards' and right as 'towards the front/forwards' in human (well, Western, at any rate) culture? I'm guessing it has some connection to the fact that most of us are right-handed, but I don't know if this is actually the case. CameoAppearance 06:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly something to do with the fact that most Western languages are read from left to right, too — left is the start/origin, and right is the finish/destination. -- Vardion 06:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of that. Can you give any examples? All I can think of is the backhand in tennis, which for trighthanded players indeed refers to the left side. But for left handed players it refers to the right side, so even there it doesn't hold true. And in writing one starts at the left, so that is actually the front. DirkvdM 08:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The first example that comes to mind is browser buttons: 'back' is a left-facing arrow, and 'forward' is a right-facing arrow. CameoAppearance 09:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the browser buttons, where is it represented in that way? Thinking of politics, other words are 'progressive' (forward) for left, and 'conservative' (holding back) for right. --Mnemeson 10:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of things, VCRs, tape recorders ; the layout of "before" and "after" pictures; breadcrumb trails in web-site navigation and even the layout of days in the week in calendars. It is also used in graphs (so a rising stock-market has a line that slants from bottom-left to top-right) and the layout of controls on dialogue boxes and physical control panels (where you have to perform operations in order the first ones are normally on the left or above later ones). -- Chris Q 10:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say in regards to tape direction that, relative to the listener or viewer (should the viewer or listener be looking at the tape deck), see that as the direction that the tape was moving. I think that's the case anyway -- maybe it really is the opposite way (tape moves left as it plays). E Liquere 03:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh - I'd never really thought of them that way. It's probably writing-related - 'cause we go from left to right, we consider that as time progresses you move towards the right side of the page. Also in calendars, it could just be a simple writing thing - anything written in for the days will go left->right, so if the days went right->left, you'd be constantly changing the direction you were moving your eyes in. --Mnemeson 10:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it has to do with the direction of writing/reading. My understanding is that the metaphor is reversed in languages which read from right to left — i.e. left and right have different associations in Israel where Hebrew is predominant. (I think I recall reading this in something by George Lakoff but I don't remember offhand) Up and down have pretty concrete reasons for being the metaphors than they are (you can actually stack things to have more of them; it is one of the most basic spacio-temporal metaphors for this reason) but there is no reason that left/right have to mean forward/back and I'm pretty sure they don't mean that for all people. --Fastfission 15:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Social Class and Voting Behaviour

How significant a factor is social class when addressing long-term voting behaviour?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.86.166 (talk • contribs)

Quite significant, I would say.--Shantavira 11:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In which country? --Dweller 11:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Solihull, presumably.--Shantavira 11:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, in the United Kingdom, how important is social class when addressing the issue of long-term voting behaviour? I guess I should've made that clearer

I'm not British, but generally it's very significant. People tend (not always, but generally) to vote for whomever they believe represent their own interests the most, i.e. poor people will vote for candidates stressing welfare, etc, and rich people will vote for candidates who support lower texas for...rich people. If you're hoping someone will write your essay for you, you're out of luck (see the top of the page), but feel free to ask more specific questions. -Elmer Clark 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's absolutely significant, but not utterly predictive. A simple reading of, say, 1980s politics would have poorer classes voting Labour, wealthier voting Conservative and the middle split between the two big players and the mess that was the Liberal Party and the SDP. Today, it's more confusing because Labour has headed rightwards, the Liberal Democrats are stronger and in some respects very left wing and smaller parties are attracting more support. Your question is especially hard to answer because the United Kingdom includes devolved political processes in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. And anyway, the picture I paint is too simplistic. People seem to vote for people as much as policies, so a right winger like Margaret Thatcher attracted much support from natural Labour voters, because she was perceived as a strong leader etc. So, like I say, it's important, but it's not a crystal ball. By the way, you might like to add a section to your essay on John Major's classless society(!) --Dweller 07:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Depends on how long-term the behaviour you want to identify is, as well. Do you mean intergenerational? Hornplease 10:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Dweller, can I ask how or why its a significant factor? It befuddles me

Typically, in the UK, social class and wealth used to be strongly connected. Therefore, lower class families were naturally attracted to socialist policies that they considered would redistribute wealth and be good for them. The opposite was true of wealthier families. Simple (and simplistic) as that. --Dweller 10:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sahara Desert turned to glass

I read something a while ago in a novel or comic book with some kind of post-apocalyptic setting, that mentioned the Sahara Desert having turned into a vast sheet of glass as a result of (perhaps) nuclear war. I think that the characters in the book referred to Africa only occasionally, and with a sort of shudder, like "let's not think about what happened to Africa". This image is all that sticks in my mind, and I'd like to know where I got it from. Does it sound familiar to anyone? --Grace 09:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

although I don't know it i must comment on it! GREAT ! africa, in glass? t may actually be a possibility but not from a nuclear war though (sand would vaporise when hit by nukes and besides, who wants to hit sand?, and if they would aim for the major cities then the climate changes would actually make Africa most likely one of the most fertile places on earth(or what remains of earth after the first anti-matter weapons are used :) )(btw. the anti-matterweapons have reached usable stage. one short anti-matters blast and it's goodbye California and hello moon, im moving in with you.

• Nuclear weapons can turn sand into glass (see trinitite) but I don't know if any way to turn the entire Sahara desert into glass without having an immense arsenal (larger than than all nations ever have ever had) and being very wasteful about it. --Fastfission 15:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible suggestions, though none of them mention Africa: Washington State University has a Nuclear Holocausts Bibliography mentioning a novel by Adrian Blair, titled Cosmic Conquest, in which "a third of America has been fused into a desert of glass by chain reactions which resulted from a nuclear war of unknown origins". Another title featured on the same site is Triumph by Philip Wylie, where "Park Avenue is a river of molten glass". ---Sluzzelin 12:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

On further reflection, I think maybe it was Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle. Anyone confirm this? --Grace 13:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The site of the first American atomic test (the trinity test) was at Alomogordo, New Mexico. The sand was fused into glass which was first called atomsite and later this was changed to trinitite. Most of this glass has already been scavanged by tourists to the site. You can read more about this here. ---Filll 20:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but I was more curious about the book, or I would have asked at the Science help desk. Is it Philip K. Dick? --Grace 20:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Michealangelo

I can't seem to find where Michealangelo painted himself in the Sistine Chapel do you have any idea?? Thank you - Sunni

See Sistine_Chapel#Christ_Giving_the_Keys_to_St._Peter. Fifth from the right edge (wearing a black cap), according to the article on WP.---Sluzzelin 16:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a self-portrait of Perugino. The self-portrait of Michelangelo is in "The Last Judgement"; his is said to be the face on the flayed skin shown in this detail. A second self-portrait in the same fresco is said to be the figure in the lower left hand corner, looking encouragingly at those rising from their graves. - Nunh-huh 16:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Your best reference for Michelangelo studies would be Howard Hibbard's text Michelangelo (New York: Westview Press, 1974). It is highly acessible. On page 249, the late Professor Hibbard disucsses the Last Judgement Fresco of the Sistene Chapel. Just below Christ on the right, Saint Bartholomew holds some flayed skin that bears the distroted face of Michelangelo. Bartholomen's feast day is associated with the chapel's construction.

Dr. Hibbard's book does not discuss a second self-potrait in the Last Judgement Fresco.

I heard a recent paper last April at the International Undergraduate Symposium in Art History in Portland, Oregon, where a gentleman argued that the depiction of Noah in the earlier Drunkedness of Noah scene on the Sistene Ceiling was also a veiled self-potrait. You may e-mail me at if you would like to obtain the paper. ">midnight_coffee</

On citizenship and guilt

If a person spies against his own country, it is called treason. If against another country, it is called espionage. Both are severely punished. But may it mean that a person without citizenship can be a spy without fear of being accused? I need information on as many countries' laws as it is possible, but especially about the native land of mine, Russia. --194.85.123.55 17:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I don't know about specific countries, but your logic is a it off. Look at it this way: If a person spies against a country, it is either treason (perhaps) if it is his own country, or espionage if it some other country. There's really only two choices: the country you are a citizen of, or not. --jpgordon 17:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In other words, a person without citizenship can still be punished for espionage. They would probably be punished by the country they spied on. I'm not a lawyer, though. --Grace 20:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he means a stateless person. The logic still applies, though. Hornplease 10:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Russian laws don't make a distinction between foreigners and stateless persons. --Ghirla 11:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be my guess that a stateless person could be punished even more severely, because with no legal ties to any given country they could be seen as able to give information on any country to any country without the guilt of treachery. Russia Moore 04:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Relieving A Superior Of Their Command

Under what circumstances is a subordinate allowed to relieve a superior of their command in the army/navy/air force of which you have sufficient knowledge to answer this question? --Username132 (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If requesting medical or legal advice, please consider asking a doctor or lawyer instead. In this case, consult a specialist in military law. I claim no specialized knowledge of this field, but The UCMJ offers the death penalty for refusal to obey lawful orders. http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/solis.html discusses the legal background of UCMJ in this regard. One who decides a superior's orders are unlawful and relieves him of command is likely to face a real shitstorm, and may not find many friends in the command structure, since officers order soldiers to face certain death sometimes, and unquestioning obedience makes their work easier. No military likes free spirits, barracks lawyers, or rebels. See Caine Mutiny. Getting a superior relieved because he is cowardly or batshit crazy probably requires the behavior being witnessed by his fellow officers of equal or higher rank and/or by a qualified psychiatrist. As to unlafwul orders, there is supposed to be at least one case of a German soldier refusing to shoot civilians on the grounds that it would violate the rules of war during WWII, and the Nazis doing nothing more to him than transferring him, because they did not want an open airing of their genocide and a conflict between the SS and the Wehrmacht. Refusal to carry out illegal orders is a lesser step than arresting a commanding officer, i.e. mutiny. Requesting orders in writing is the next step below refusal to carry out the orders, because it takes away deniability: the higher ups can't blame "a few bad apples". It will not win any friends either. Edison 18:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have knowledge enough of only one service to answer that question: Starfleet. The chief medical officer of a ship can relieve anyone on the ship (including superiors) of duty if the CMO believes they are medically unfit. For more, see the Chief medical officer article at Memory Alpha. Chuck 20:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Gun Control in the US

Even with a toll of nine dead in three violent school shootings in one week, the United States is unwilling to consider restrictions on guns openly bought and sold across the country. Only a few lonely voices have called for controls to be placed on easily available personal weapons – which can include very powerful semi-automatic pistols and rifles.Instead, a Wisconsin lawmaker has proposed arming teachers and school staff in response to the violence. What’s depressing is how little people are pushing for gun control today. What is the cost of freedom? Impatience for desires and sheer lack of education? What is the heights of creativity? Is freedom being overdone??

At what age is it legal to possess guns in the US?

You can "own" a gun at birth. However, owning a gun and being able to walk around with one is a completely different issue. As for the main questioner, Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. You don't really want someone picking through your rather weak argument. That will do nothing more than start a flame war in which nobody will change anyone else's opinion. --Kainaw 19:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So you decided to kick this flame war off by insulting his point did you? Philc _TC 22:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop beating around the bush & accept facts. Its just like a Karate instructor is teaching his pupils to use the skills he has acquired only for self-defense purposes. Its like Spiderman being instructed by his father to learn to use the power only when required. Owning & possessing are two different issues even in legal terms. No child is taught how to use a gun at young age unless he has some pshychic parents. .

There are plenty of such pshychic parents in the USA then, judjing from the news. And I don't why, but I am more afraid of someone with a gun than of someone with knowledge and skill in Karate. Try to defend yourself, or running away, from one and then from the other. There is a BIG diffrence between the two (I am not going to use Spiderman as an argument). Flamarande 21:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you guys talking about psychotic parents? or psychic parents? or something else? JackofOz 01:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I've seen numerous cases where a well armed populace actually has lower crime rates than those where guns are not as prevalent. All the stats that I've seen though have been U.S.-centric. They use the idea that if a criminal knows that most everyone they see is not defenseless, then they'll be less likely to carry out a crime.

Secondly, Spider-man was brought up by his Uncle Ben and Aunt May, not his father. Dismas| 04:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Peter Parker's parents Richard and Mary Parker were agents for CIA, so Ben and May had to raise him after they died on a mission (if you're interested =S) 惑乱 分からん 07:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you examine the crime rates and figures of Japan. Way lower than the US, and the average Japanese doesn't have a gun. It would be interresting to compare the figures of violent crimes commited with guns in the European Union and in the USA (same population number and more or less same culture). Flamarande 12:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You can do the comparisons in the U.S. - which will avoid much of the cultural bias. I focus on violent crime by city here. Then, you need to find a somewhat reliable table of gun ownership. That is where I hit a snag. Does anyone have reliable rates of gun ownership city-by-city? --Kainaw 13:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In any case, the Reference Desk is not the place for a philosophical discussion of this nature - the original poster never asked a question. Our article on gun politics nicely sums up the arguments used by both sides. — QuantumEleven 13:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that the shooter in the Amish case seemed to be completely normal until the day he flipped out, so nothing short of a total gun ban would have kept a gun out of his hands. StuRat 23:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn Troll! I don't care if you call yourself venus, please SIGN UP so we can know who you are! I can't believe I'm agreeing with this troll, but, I'll say it again: Amendment II of the US constitution should be repealed. Guns should be banned outright. Loomis 06:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, if there was some system of government in the U.S. in which the people could elect people to some sort of, say, a Congress that has the capability of amending the Constitution to do such a thing as repeal the second amendment... No, that would be silly. Never mind. --Kainaw 13:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Kainaw, your remark was obviously sarcasm, but I still don't get it. Are you referring to the democratic deficit argument about the US system? Or, perhaps, are you implying that I don't understand how constitutional amendments are enacted in the US? I'm confused. Loomis 23:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I use every chance I get to make comments about Congress. The U.S. press puts as much effort as possible into telling us that the President makes all the laws, makes the budget, sets taxes, everything. I figure that if a few people mentioned Congress now and then, it is possible (but not probable) that a few people would realize that if you want laws to change, you need to focus on who you are voting into Congress at least as much as you worry about who's goofing off in the Oval Office. --Kainaw 20:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In the US guns have obtained a similar status to cigarettes, the majority know they're bloody stupid things to have, and the source of a lot of suffering of people, but it would be political suicide to try and ban them, because so many people have them, even a lot of those that know their stupid. One of the many failings of democracy, if you aggrevate enough minorities, soon you have aggrevated enough majorities, even if you are doing the right thing, you are forced to do the wrong thing. Philc _TC 18:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Not even a total gun ban would have kept a gun out of his hands if he really wanted one (just look at the UK), and even if he didn't have access to a gun, he would just have used a knife instead (again, just look at the UK). People who have no intention of coming out alive (as with the nutball in the Amish case) have nothing to lose and thus have no problem breaking any law in order to get themselves into that situation in the first place. --Aaron 18:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Knives are much less effective weapons. You might be able to kill one or two people with a knife at a time, but you can't kill dozens, as they will run away or subdue the attacker. Someone with an assault rifle can kill dozens easily. StuRat 00:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not entirely true. You can shoot dozens of people, but not kill them easily. There are many places in your body that I can make a tiny bullet hole go through without killing you. There are very few places that I put a 2-3 inch blade in and not cause a critical injury. That is why it is very unwise to pull a gun on a person holding a knife unless you are sure you can shoot him multiple times before he reaches you. If you really want to, you can look into use of automatic weapons. I was given a 3-day suspension in high school for laughing when I heard about an idiot that unloaded an AK-47 on a playground. He injured 3 children and a teacher. Not killed - injured. 30-40 rounds (depending on the magazine) and he hit 4 people. He would have done much better with a knife. --Kainaw 02:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I should have pointed out that I've been shot twice with .22 rounds. It hurts and it can be deadly, but a gun is far from a guaranteed kill. --Kainaw 03:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that any single shot may very well not kill, but an assault rifle gives you the ability to put hundreds of bullets into dozens of people. If the shooter takes the time to shoot up the fallen (in vital areas), they can kill almost all of them. StuRat 16:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Kainaw, I'm assuming you were shot while in the service, and so you were likely armed yourself. I've got nothing against the military or the police being armed with guns. But we're talking about civilians having guns. If you were, say, an unarmed civilian, or even worse, a young schoolboy having been shot but not killed by a .22, had the shooter decided to finish the job, would you have any chance in hell of stopping him? Loomis 23:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The "guns dont kill people, people kill people" argument is so critically flawed it angers me when anyone uses it. If a guy walked into a bank with a knife and tried to hold it up, theyd just sit behind their window and laugh at him. Theres no way you could command people with any other weapon the way you can with a gun. Eg, columbine, if they had tried stabbing kids, as soon as they got one kid they would have been overpowered, its not hard to overpower people armed with knives if you have a numerical advatage, however, you can charge as many people as you like at a guy with an uzi, but you'll have to wait till he runs out of bullets to get a chance. So yeh guns dont kill people, people kill people mostly with guns. Philc _TC 18:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea, "nukes don't kill people, people kill people"...so let's pass a "right to bear nukes" Amendment and give everyone an unlimited supply of nuclear weapons. :-) StuRat 22:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Philc, so, what you are saying is that if a few guys got on an airplane with box cutters and tried to hijack the aircraft, the people would just laugh at them because they aren't carrying guns. Right? --Kainaw 00:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No but if two guys went for it with stanely knives (I think thats what you mean by box cutters) it wouldnt take long for the other 200 hundred people on the plane to kick the shit into them. Sure they might take a few lives, and thats why they're not allowed on planes, but theyd wouldnt manage to convince all of the passengers that it is so hopeless that is not worth fighting back, leaving them free to hijack the plane, which is quite easy with a gun. 172.201.152.4 13:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right Kainaw. The terrorists on 9/11 managed to hijack four planes. Wait a sec...make that three planes...apparently in one of them they indeed were rushed by a few brave souls, and were stopped from taking control of the plane. Unfortunately it was too late to save the plane and its passengers, but not too late to save the White House. Too bad for the terrorists though. All they had were box cutters, but not even one handgun...even a .22. Loomis 00:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats just a poor effort. Im sorry, but in a die/die situation, how pathetic do you have to be to sit there and do nothing. This will seem desperately inflammatory to some, so I apologize in advance. But seriously, they should have done something. 172.201.152.4 13:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't find it inflammatory, just rather ignorant of the facts. You're looking at it with the benefit of hindsight. The passengers on the three highjacked planes had no idea that it was a "die/die" situation. Nobody knew what was going on. Up to that point all they knew was that teh planes were hijacked, but as of that date, nobody had ever heard of highjacked planes going on suicide missions. They must have just felt it was a "regular" hijack, and that the plane would just land somewhere with the hijackers making a list of demands, just as every other hijacking had gone previously in theit memory. It was only with the benefit of knowledge (through cellphones) that the passengers were aware of what the "real" mission was all about, and that it was indeed a die/die situation, and so they acted with that knowledge. Loomis 00:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What is cultural diversity?

I understand that the term cultural diversity is tricky to quantify. And I am not seeking a definition of it in terms of quantification(e.g.no of language spoken on earth). Rather, if we focus on a more micro scale, say, a type of media(film, broadcasting, magazine etc.) in a certain place, how can we decide whether this medium is characterized by diversity or not? In this regard of cultural diversity, what should its definition include other than the "coexistence of different views" ? I would be greatful. Thank you. Paul 02:12 10th oct, 2006 (UTC)

Well, speaking of media (which is an odd way of measuring cultural diversity IMO), there are several ways IMO. First, I don't think cultural diversity is just the coexistence of different views; I think at the very least it's the coexistence of different views, values and beliefs. Using that definition, a medium (let's say magazines) that either a) caters to a variety of views, values and beliefs; b) acknowledges the existence of different views, values and beliefs; or maybe even c) is consumed by demographics representing different views, values and beliefs. This is just a partial answer, BTW. Hopefully others have more insight. Anchoress 20:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Representation is one possibility. There's quite a bit of research on representation of different groups in various media (someone will count the gay and lesbian characters on sitcoms, for example, or the number of photographs of black people in a particular newspaper). Or you could ask, what is the "dominant culture" in your medium, and how is it portrayed relative to other cultures? How often do, say, Australian people appear as major characters in Hollywood movies, and when they appear, what stereotypes are used? This sounds like a Media Studies essay question - if you're not clear about the definition of "cultural diversity", why don't you ask your teacher what they are looking for? --Grace 21:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you guys. You are right. Its something like an essay question. Actually its a presentation topic, and that's why the lecturer wouldn't say anything because he thinks that he should leave everything to us. What you are suggesting seems to be a textual analysis approach to me. But I am just not sure whether having many people from different culture represented in a medium equate a culturally diversed medium. If that's the case, can I argue that the hollywood film industry is diversed since different movies from different cultures but not only those from hollywood are played, and in those movies people from different culture are represented. Paul 12:36, 11 october 2006 (UTC)

Upcoming movie

Went to the theater and saw a trailer, Some Sin City looking movie about Spartans. The trailer mention it was inspired by some book by Frank Miller. I can't find any information on this movie, and I dont remember its name. I've been looking through upcoming movie lists but still nothing. Can anyone help? - Tutmosis 18:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Its called "300" and the comic of Frank Miller is loosly based upon the story of Leonidas I, king of Sparta and the battle of Thermopylae. Heres is the official site . Flamarande 19:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

We have an article about it at 300 (film). Adam Bishop 19:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you guys! - Tutmosis 19:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The teaser trailer is available; and it is bloody amazing. Flamarande 21:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The origins of Frere Jacques

In trying to flesh out the Misplaced Pages article on the nursery rhyme "Frere Jacques", I have run into a few stumbling blocks.

1. What is the real reference (such as authorship) of "La Cle du Caveau a l'usage de tous les Chansonniers francais, Paris, 1811" ?

2. I ran across the following potential discussion that might have relevance to the origin of "Frere Jacques":

The Theory of Hungarian Music, Edward Kilenyi, Musical Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Jan., 1919), pp. 20-39

available from JSTOR:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0027-4631(191901)5%3A1%3C20%3ATTOHM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H

Supposedly at least part of the tune Fra Jacopino is similar to Chanson de Lambert (1650) and another tune (a Hungarian folk tune?). Anyone have access to JSTOR to check this lead out? I will caution you that I am not sure about the rules for use of JSTOR; hopefully this usage is allowed.

Alternatively, anyone know much about Hungarian folk tunes?

• If you leave your e-mail address on my talk page I'll just send you the article from JSTOR. I doubt JSTOR cares much about one-time sharing of their articles (in any case the article in question is in the public domain so they wouldn't have any real legal case — it'd just be a terms of use issue). --Fastfission 03:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Why a particular order in google?

I was just looking for news items on the Amish school shooting. I googled "Charles Carl Roberts" and searched News, and the two top items (at present) are both blog entries. How would that happen? Anchoress 21:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the Google search algorithm thinks those are the two most relevant news results for your search terms. How Google determines relevance is a mystery, and a highly-guarded trade secret. --Serie 23:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out our article on PageRank to get a general idea of how Google works. The specifics are trade secrets but the basics are known. (Actually, coming back to that question a few hours later, I realize I misread it — I have no idea if PageRank is used for news stories at all.) --Fastfission 00:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies guys. It's just surprising to me because the news section of google has always seemed very rarified; what passes for a 'news' site seemed to be judged by a very high standard. It's the first time I've ever seen a blog in the list at all, much less so high up in the ranking. Anchoress 01:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've always wondered where they get some of the news sources for Google News. One of the top sources (at least when I click on Google News) is a weekly newspaper in east-central Alberta that serves a town of 300 people. I live in Alberta and I've never heard of the town, let alone the newspaper.

I just googled for "school killing", and the Westfield Weekly News right now brings up more stories for me than the Globe and Mail, the Vancouver Province, the Calgary Herald, the Montreal Gazette, and the Ottawa Citizen combined. Charlene.fic 01:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Female mystics and musicians, AD 600 to 1600?

Were there any types of female mystics or musicians in any world culture in the middle ages or renaissance? I can think of many examples that were male, but were there any female traditions or co-ed traditions? Also I'm curious what kinds of costumes these personas would have worn, if we have any illustrations or recreations.--Sonjaaa 23:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Here's one to get you started: Hildegard von Bingen. The category links at the bottom should prove useful. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Teresa of Ávila. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Our article Mysticism further mentions Andal (ஆண்டாள்) (8th century), Mirabai (मीराबाई) (1498-1547), Lalleshwari (लल्लेश्वरी) (1320–1392), Angela of Foligno (c.1248-1309), and Margery Kempe (c.1373-1438).  --Lambiam 07:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• And, of course, Joan of Arc claimed to talk with God, although he apparently turned down her urgent request for asbestos bloomers. :-) StuRat 23:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

October 10

Top 22 Terrorists

On National Public Radio today I heard them say that on October 10, 2001, George Bush released a list of the 22 (maybe it was 20 as that would be more of a round number) most wanted terrorists. This made me a bit curious. How many of those that were named have actually been caught or killed? Dismas| 03:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's the list. I'm sure a quick Google news search will establish which have been caught or killed so far. Ziggurat 03:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

United States Civil War

Does anyone know how many people purchased exemptions from war service from the United States government during the Civil War? 68.7.88.112 03:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Age of Sexual Consent

I am trying to find out what the age of sexual consent was, for the state of Alabama, in September of 2000. This is my first time using this website, so my apologies to everyone if I'm going about this incorrectly. Thank you for your time. Have a great day!! 03:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Try www.ageofconsent.com. Dismas| 04:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have asked a lawyer about www.ageofconsent.com, and he cautioned me that he would not trust it completely. So I would be careful before relying on it.

Check here it is the current Alabama code on statutory rape, but it looks like the last update was in 2000, so it seems it has not changed since then.

Basically if one person is 16 or older and has intercourse with someone who is

1. under 16 but above 12 and
2. more than 2 years younger

it is second degree rape, a class B Felony

If the first person were over 16 and the second person under 12, then it is first degree rape, a class A felony.

Of course IANAL Nowimnthing 20:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The prevelance of female pedophiles?

I'm always seeing reports of male pedophilia in newspapers, on news websites and on TV. I've never heard of even one female pedophile. Has there ever been a case of a woman being charged with child sexual abuse? Pesapluvo 03:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The one thing that I notice as a constant in these affairs is that the news media will invariably paint the younger party as being 'victimized', 'taken advantage of', 'tricked', 'coerced' or the like. Now, I'm not advocating pedophilia by any stretch of the imagination, but this sort of pejorative, one-sided language really does nothing to help the affair. Demonizing a pedophile doesn't help them, and it doesn't help society. Judge not lest the be judged, and all that crap. <end sermon> Chris 17:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/nyregion/10teacher.html --Nelson Ricardo 03:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but the boys were 13 and 17, not quite pre-pubescent, so I don't believe that quite counts as pedophilia. Pesapluvo 04:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that's not the only case; I recall hearing about a couple others, but only vaguely. Still, "pedophiles" are rarely looked at as being women as well, I would suppose largely for the same reasons that you don't hear about a "dirty old perverted woman". (A dirty old man? Hell, that's a catchphrase!) E Liquere 04:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I can remember (but not cite) several cases where a man and woman (or even a teenage boy and girl) were charged together in molesting pre-pubescent children. But in those cases it's always possible one of the couple was acting out of loyalty to the other (or under threat) rather than out of a desire to molest. --Allen 04:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As to the ages, male pedophiles are often referred to as pedophiles when they prey on 13 year olds. Maybe there is a distinction between the term as far as journalists are concerned vs. lawyers. Dismas| 04:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think among psychiatrists, the reference is mainly to attraction, (not real acting out, such as molestation) and the preferred term for attraction to pubescent adolescents is ephebophilia, whereas pedophilia is reserved for attraction to pre-pubescent children. 惑乱 分からん 07:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

But we all know how much actual meaning and legal meaning differ sometimes... Philc _TC 17:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean with actual meaning? 惑乱 分からん 18:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

And psychiatrist are not particularly known to engage in legal language.  --Lambiam 21:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A lawmaker might very well declare anyone having sex with anyone under 18 or even 21 to be a pedophile, for some political advantage ("his opponent is on the side of pedophiles !") but that has nothing to do with science. StuRat 23:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a whole rant about this a while back about how I found Dominique Swain in the remake of Lolita quite hot. I'll spare you any repetition. In any case, my main point is that I'd only consider one a pedophile if they're attracted to pre-pubescent children. Once a person is "post-pubescent", that person is, sexually speaking, an adult. It's true that in the early stages of "post-pubescence", the person's mind may be too young to make mature decisions regarding sexual matters, and therefore laws forbidding sex with "post-pubescents" are rational. Yet, I wouldn't describe any person who is attracted to another sexually mature person as a "pedophile". "Pedophilia" is the truly sick attraction to "pre-pubescent" children. Loomis 06:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

One way to rank "sexual perversions" is if they can result in children or not, since some religious fanatics insist that only sex for reproductive purposes is moral. This would make homosexuality and sex acts other than vaginal intercourse immoral (as well as sex with women past menopause and with the infertile). This view would not make sex with teenagers after puberty immoral, which is why Mormons and many states allowed teenagers (once married) to have sex. Sex with children before the age of puberty can't immediately result in children, although, if the relationship continues past the age of puberty, then children could result. So, using this wacky religious standard, sex with children under the age of puberty isn't quite as bad as other sex acts which can't ever lead to pregnancy. StuRat 23:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the original question, I suspect that female pedophilia is more widespread than we think, it's just not reported, as nobody thinks any harm was done to the "victim", especially if it's a boy. They can't get pregnant, and don't have a broken hymen as a result, and we don't generally consider a boy to be harmed psychologically by having consensual sex, no matter what the age of the woman is. Thus, only a venereal disease would be considered "harm", by many. Female offenders regularly get much lighter sentences, as a result. StuRat 00:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

hester prynne

the page concerning Hester Prynne, the main character in the novel The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, needs much revision. The information that is there is a vast misrepresentation (the phrase "one night stand" is used), and the length of the article isn't close to what it would take to correctly show the complexity of the character Hester Prynne.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Misplaced Pages is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Misplaced Pages community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Dismas| 05:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Plow episode of Simpsons

Does anyone know what opera is Maria Callas singing in in Homer's second commercial from the Simpsons episode "Mr Plow"?

hmm, it would be the third commerical right? In the first one he does the "My name is Mr. Plow", in the second he raps "I'm Mr Plow and I'm here to say..." The third is done by an ad agency, but I don't remember the song. This doesn't list it either. Nowimnthing 15:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait... the third commercial started out with the snowglobe from Citizen Kane, maybe one of the songs from it? , didn't see Callas though. Nowimnthing 15:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are sure it is Callas, you may be able to figure it out by litening to the clips here: Nowimnthing 15:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I recall it as being the aria from Bellini's Norma, but it's been a while. Natgoo 08:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

By "the aria", do you mean Casta diva? JackofOz 09:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I think so. Natgoo 09:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Was Rudolf Hess murdered?

He got arrested,Nazis then declared him insane,he spent more then 45 years in jail,watching his country being burned almost to ashes...

And finaly,after all these years,in 1987 he got a real chance to get free,and they say he killed him self?!? His family claims that he was killed,and you have to admit that it is a little strange that 93 years old man commit suicide,just before he is to be relased.I mean,being 93,he probably wouldnt live more then 10-15 years maximum.Plus he was about to get freed...So,my question is,from the medical,or simple logical stand,is there any possibilty that a man in his condition commit murder?

Thank you XXXXXXX 09:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• 45 years in prison does a lot of damage to someone's mental health. It's entirely possible he commited suicide. Whether he was actually murdered, I can't say. I have no proof either way. - 131.211.210.13 10:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you never watched The Shawshank Redemption? --Dweller 10:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

XXXXXXXX, please read the Rudolf Hess article. You have his life story seriously confused. While he sat out the rest of the war in a British prison, disowned by his former Nazi friend who called him insane as a matter of public policy, rather than admit anything. He then got returned to Germany after the war and got to watch Germany rebuilt into one of the world's leading economies while imprisoned there. Rmhermen 16:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Like dweller insinuated, it may have been his deepest horror to return to the outside world...

Still,he was trying to get free for about 47 years,and then when he was just about to get it,he commited suicide? As for Shawshank,that guy that hanged him self,had no family or anything,but Hess had both children,greatchildren and a home. Plus,he was 93,like i said before,he could hardly live more then 10-15 years,so why kill him self at that age? XXXXXXX 20:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the point of the question. "e spent more then 45 years in jail, watching his country being burned almost to ashes". What country are you talking about? Germany thrived in the post-war period. In an economical sense, Germany actually won the war, in the sense that Germany replaced the UK as the strongest economic power in Europe. Is there perhaps some other vision of Germany that yourself and Hess see as having "burned almost to ashes"? Loomis 05:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I rather suspect there is. I recently watched a British TV documentary on Hess at the Nurember Trials. If I say 'more nuts than a fruit cake' I assume people will understand. As for the murder theory, self-respecting neo-Nazis were probably falling over themselves to dispose of the Führer of the Fourth Reich, rather than have the world face the embarrassing reality. White Guard 05:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hahahaha ,Loomis,when is said burned to ashes,I ment on the year 1945. His Nazi goverment was burn to ashes,so to speak,so I ment if he was going to kill himself,he would have probably done it in 1945,rather then in 1987 — Preceding unsigned comment added by XXXXXXX (talk • contribs)

Postwar, he considered himself the heir to Hitler and Fuhrer of the Fourth Reich. If he'd been sane, by the time he hit 90+ he would have realised that any life he'd have outside would be pretty sad and meaningless. But there's substantial evidence that he was insane and sadly there is a strong connection between people with mental health problems and suicide and looking for rhyme and reason isn't necessarily going to bear fruit. --Dweller 09:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If he did indeed commit suicide, I imagine that the motivation for it would have been fear of the public's attitude towards him. A former Nazi walking about in the open during the 1990s? I doubt he would last a week before being murdered. Pesapluvo 02:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Albert Speer lived well into 1980s and he was never even close to getting killed.As a matter a fact he became somewhat of a celeb.

And Dweller,I dont think that Hess really considered himself the new Fuhrer,I think it were German Neo Nazis who considered him to be the new Fuhrer(because there is not a single written document by himself that is saying how he felt after World War 2).So,we can only speculate if he considered himself a Fuhrer,but I really doubt it,not even his son mentions it in a very long writing about his father. XXXXXXX 11:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the BBC documentary this week, Hess did write about being the new Fuhrer. I guess you'd need to argue with their researcher, rather than me. --Dweller 11:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont argue,its possible,I just wanted to say that its not avalible on the internet,or at least not on languages that I understand,thats all...I would be very greatfull if you or anyone else can provide me the links to those writings,because I would really like to see it.Thanks anyway. XXXXXXX 12:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

gandhian ideology

tell me something about gandhian ideology

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see Gandhism. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title. --Shantavira 13:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, a search on "ghandian ideology" turns up nothing. Perhaps the user did search. It's often hard to find things (either on Misplaced Pages, or on the internet at large) if you don't know the right words to search for. Chuck 21:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Gandhian ideology" does turn up a number of links (many of them not very relevant) and Gandhism appears in the middle of the first page. It would have helped if Misplaced Pages search could suggest alternate spellings like google :) Tintin (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

movie review

review of lage raho munnabhai

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see Lage Raho Munnabhai. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title. --Shantavira 13:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

are car prices increasing or decreasing

I just want to know whether car and other prices like that of SUVs are increasing year by year or decreasing year by year. This is for a research conducted by me. Can anyone talso tell about how many percent has the car prices increased/decreased in the last 6 years from 2001 to 2006.

My research: Whether cost of living inching upward or downward. Already I have found that computer products pricing are decreasing and food prices are increasing. Thankyou

Which country are you referring too? It could depend on where you live (although I think the costs for living generally has increased...) 惑乱 分からん 15:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

over the average prices do increase though there is no real percentage to go by but inflation is the closest thing around. Inflation is used in economics as to how much prices rose. I suggest looking up your country's balance for the second question, as for the first question; the prices of cars have actually been quite still(not considering inflation) with a slight increase, but when considering inflation they actually have dropped minorly (from european continental view). as a comment to your research: Computer prices have indeed been decreasing but that is because the hausse is gone which drove them up like a soapbubble which then bursted(stock exchange market). food prices are actually the most influenced area by inflation. that would be my suck-thumb(first idea, made up on the spot,derived from dutch proverb) explanation. Graendal 19:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Taken in mind that the power of general computers have been exponentially increasing quite rapidly, the prices have indeed decreased quite rapidly in actual money value... 惑乱 分からん 11:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Vestica Veca

Kako se u originalu, na engleskom, zvala glavni junak crtanog filma koji je prikazivan u Jugoslaviji tamo pocetkom sedamdesetih? dragnik@milnet.co.yu

Maybe try asking your question at the Croation language Misplaced Pages (Hrvatski). (At least, I suppose that's written in Croation...) Philbert 16:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

When written in the Latin alphabet, it'd seem Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian is nearly identical... 惑乱 分からん 17:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Lol lol There is no "Bosnian" language,it is called SERBIAN language...And it was asked in Serbian...

Well, at least there's a Misplaced Pages article about Bosnian language. Not interested in any further arguments, here. 惑乱 分からん 20:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

From those "2.7million speakers" I doubt that more then few thousend know they speek "Bosnian"...

A ti,sto te uopste koji kurac zanima Vestica Veca hehehe XXXXXXX 20:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What, exactly, does this mean? | AndonicO 12:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

XM, Sirius, and MTV

In USA,

• 1) Does XM and sirius broadcast full new songs or do they broadcast only one minute clips of songs?
• 2) Does MTV full new songs or do they broadcast only one minute clips of songs?
• 3) Does local FM channels full new songs or do they broadcast only one minute clips of songs?

I heard that some media in USA only show clips of songs. What media is it?

MTV Nordic airs full videos, anyway, probably the US version, too... 惑乱 分からん 14:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

All of the above broadcast the full song, unless it has been edited for content (MTV/ FM radio) or length (some 30 minute epic ballad). The only places that play song snippets are places that are trying to get you to buy the song like amazon.com. Nowimnthing 15:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To be more complete, I guess you do see just a clip of some videos on certain shows like those on MTV that count down the top 10 or whatever videos. Nowimnthing 20:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

sherman's march to the sea

trying to find what plantation's were raided during march to sea it would be the southern group that would have been the raiders "name of family would have been the huston plantation.

any help would be greatly appreciated. thank you

bob jones

See Sherman's March to the Sea. But Misplaced Pages does not get that specific. Try a local historical society for the county where the plantation was. The County Court Clerk for the county could direct you to the local historical society if there is one. Sherman burned many of the county courthouses as well in 1864, so many older records were destroyed. Good luck.Edison 23:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Maki Maki language

Where is maki maki spoken? I see that maki is one type of Japanese egg roll, and also Maki-maki is the name of the deity on Rapa Nui (Easter Island). Does anyone know where maki maki is spoken? --Filll 17:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no language known as "maki maki" according to Ethnologue.com, the most thorough catalog of languages I know. Marco polo 18:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The bigger question is, when will there be a Maki Maki Wikiwiki?Edison 13:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that maki maki is related to "taki taki" a slang term for Sranan, one of the languages in Suriname? --Filll 14:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Political science/ Micheal Manning I.E.M.P model

How is Ideology,economic,millitary,and political simmular and how different.

I suspect that you mean the sociologist Michael Mann, not Manning. Certainly Mann is the originator of the IEMP model of social power. But your question is far too broad for me to answer here, without writing a whole essay. Try reading the first chapter of Mann's Sources of Social Power, volume 1. Cheers, Sam Clark 16:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

political sicence/federalisum

what are the pros and cons of federalisum.

Thank you shentell o'neal

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see Federalism. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title. --ColinFine 19:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I would consider whether you are referring to Federalism in the United States as conceived by the framers of the Constitution. This issue is discussed in the Federalist Papers, written by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Urban commercial interests favored the proposed constitution while agrarian rural states feared a strong central government. The debates in the state conventions that ratified the Constitution are illuminating. Present day federalism is addressed by analyzing Supreme Court decisions dealing with the Interstate Commerce Clause and federalism from the New Deal. Chief Justice Rehnquist refined this area of law considerably. There aren't easy pro and cons from my understanding. So much depends on where you live, what the time period is, what your social status is, etc.--jhussock 10/14/06 7:00 p.m. UTC

How do I see the answer to my question?

On or about October 2, 2006, I asked here in what key did Victoria originally write his motet O Magnum Mysterium? Several days later I returned and edited the question as suggested above in the hopes of getting closer to an answer. The instructions above clearly state it might take seven days to get an answer. Here I am, on day eight from the original post, and just a few days from the suggested edit, and the question seems to have been deleted, moved, or floated off the top of the list. Should I have expected that? If so, it might have been made more clear. What I should like to know is, can I still see the response, and if so, how? Thank you very much. BillWhite 18:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer my own question, on October 10 October, 2006, HappyCamper made a "massive archival of the humanities reference desk, leaving ~4-5 days of questions". The archived material can still be viewed in the History. BillWhite 18:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Reference desk archive (or the "Archive" link at the top of this page). Specifically, your question is at Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk_archive/Humanities/2006_October_2#In_what_key_did_Victoria_originally_write_his_.22O_Magnum_Mysterium.22.3F. Unfortunately, it looks like the discussion ended with only one outsider comment, which often happens when no one with specific knowedge of the topic is around. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could ask to jeff.covey (at) pobox.com who published the piece in mutopiaproject.org. --193.56.241.75 06:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Medieval Christian heretics?

Are there any offshoots of Christianity or any other European religion between AD 600 and 1600 that believed in anything like:

• Spiritual authority comes from within, as opposed to from the church hierarchy or from an outside God (or basically God comes from within each of us)
• Women's rights
• Sexual liberalism
• There is no "sin" or punishment, we must learn from our mistakes and take our own responsibilities and gain wisdom after our own experimentation or experiences, but still pacifist and basic values like "don't hurt others"
• Music or merrymaking or altered states of consciousness

--Sonjaaa 18:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There were certainly groups, including many of the early Protestants toward the end of your period, who believed in the first item in your list. Earlier groups who believed in that first item included the Hussites, Lollards, and probably the Cathars. The Cathars also allowed women to assume roles of religious leadership. As for sexual liberalism and altered states of consciousness, I can't find evidence of groups during your period that believed in those. Marco polo 18:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Try also Paulicians, Bogomils, Cathars, Waldensians, Brethren of the Free Spirit...they were medieval heresies, although they probably didn't believe any or all of the things you listed. It's a start, and you may find more sects by following the links and categories from there. It's unfortunate that we don't have a specific medieval heresy article. There were some 17th century groups in England that may have believed some of those things, if I remember correctly, like the Levellers and the Diggers, which are a little out of your time range, but their roots are in the middle ages. Adam Bishop 18:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't leave out the Gnostics.Edison 23:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Beguines were mostly a women's spiritual movement within Christianity during the high middle ages. They didn't practice sexual liberation or the other points specified, though. Hildegard of Bingen was an abbess, mystic, and composer - almost the earliest composer known by name in Western music (she was not a Beguine). Also in terms of music, look up the fourteenth century Ars Nova movement. Neither Bingen nor the Ars Nova movement were ever deemed heretical, but the Beguines went through a period of persecution during the fourteenth century before being rehabilitated. Durova 06:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Alliteratively speaking, one might say that Bingen didn't Begin the Beguines. :) JackofOz 09:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A traditional name for such practices justified in quasi-religious terms was Antinomianism. The old Catholic Encyclopedia has an article from one traditional point of view... AnonMoos 09:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Also have a look at the Anabaptists.Hornplease 10:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The fourth one is the one you are least likely to find represented. The concept of 'sin' (though not necessarily punishment) is fairly fundamental to Christianity. Universalism may give you some clues there. DJ Clayworth 17:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Concept of playboy/playgirl

What exactly is the whole idea/purpose behind a playboy/playgirl? How creative is that?

The idea/purpose? It hasn't changed, even though both are commonly called "players" or "playaz" now. How creative? It isn't. There has never been creativity to it. Read Shakespeare and you'll see the same player schemes were being used then that are being used today. --Kainaw 20:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How does one differentiate beteween shakespeare's playboy and the present trend of Hugh Hefner's? His business is dwindling! Why is the playboy mag of the US being promoted to an excessive extent? What are the vital stats associated with readership?

The magazine is suffering because nobody needs to buy a magazine when the Internet offers porn for free. That has little to do with the lifestyle of a playboy. Also, it is not Hugh Hefner's business. His daughter took over the company long ago. See Playboy. --Kainaw 20:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the same vehemently "anti-porn" troll who's been trying to make some sort of point for the last few weeks. I still don't get the point. Porn is a cheap thrill. Too cheap for me. But in a free country with freedom of expression, I feel it must be tolerated. The alternative, what I keep calling "sexual repression" is exponentially worse. Loomis 05:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably, I don't think the problem is porn itself. Banning it seems as pointless as banning alcohol. The market would only go underground. Also, it's unclear whether the question was about the magazines or the lifestyle... 惑乱 分からん 10:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I just realized I haven't answered the question. To be frank, the whole "idea/purpose" behind Playboy/Playgirl is to offer photographs of nude women/men, to sexually titilate its readership. But Playboy/Playgirl is actually a relatively tasteful version of pornography. Remember that many of the greatest artists throughout history were known for their renditions of the naked human body. In this sense, I would qualify "Playboy" (though I'm not as familiar with "playgirl") as the mere 20th century version (not that I'm comparing them in quality) of the works of Michelangelo.

If you're talking about harder porn, well, the "idea/purpose" behind it is quite frankly to give its readership/viewership inspiration for masturbation. It's that simple. Now what in particular is your REAL question? Loomis 05:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Prior to Hugh Hefner's foray into publishing, open sexuality was associated with radical left politics. Hefner's magazine associated it with the traditionally lax mores of prosperous men, which made it more palatable to middle America. Durova 05:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop the nonsenese loomis. Accept the fact that u may be a porn-addict too.Porn is the creation of sick minds, out of lack of preoccupation of the mind ,wavered minds conceive some nonsense that deprives all romance in any sort of relationship, lack of family values.

I think you've totally misunderstood my argument. I've got nothing against Gary Sinise, though I believe you've misspelled his name. In fact I believe Sinise is an excellent actor, so I'm definitely not "non-senese". In fact, I suppose you'd be accurate in calling me, according to your spelling, rather "pro-senese". Loomis 00:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, do me a favour and PLEASE get yourself a girlfriend/boyfriend! Perhaps that might mitigate to a great degree your obvious sexual frustration. Loomis 00:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You dont have to indicate that i am sexually freustrated. I will go after a gal only when desired. Thats none of your business. But, my stance is firm and Porn is the manifestation of sick minds

• but at least we porn lovers can spell (hotclaws**== 18:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC))

WWII : First soldiers on German soil, first Russian soldier in Korea

Hello,

I have been searching through the internet but I'm not able to find this.

1.What was the first time an allied soldier (USSR of from the West?) set foot on German soil during the Second War? Where did he cross the border (or she, you never know) It must have been of major psychological importance, because for the first time, German troops were not fighting to hold on to their conquered territory anymore, but to protect their own country. Now this question might be difficult (do you consider Austria a part of Germany etc....).

2. When did the first USSR soldier set foot on Korean soil? Is it correct to say that all of present day North Korea was "liberated" by the Soviets between the start of Operation August Storm and the end of the second World War?

Thank you very much, Evilbu 21:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Aachen says that was the first German city invaded, October 1944. "Sept. 11 (1944) Invasion of Germany" is found at http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/adaccess/wwtwo-timeline.html with no details. The first allied soldier on German soil in WW II was probably a prisoner of war, a spy or a traitor somewhat earlier. Edison 23:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. The first Allied troops to enter German territory in WWII were the French during the abortive Saar Offensive of September 1939. Soviet troops entered northern Korea in September 1945. It was taken from the Japanese, who had occupied the peninsula since 1910. Whether it was 'liberated' or not is another matter altogether.White Guard 00:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Depends on what you call Germany. East Prussia is no longer part of Germany, but it was before the war, and I suppose that's what counts. This was conquered by the USSR in Operation Bagration. Neither article says when they first set foot there, but the maps suggest it was on 19 August at the latest. But it was probably in late July.

Btw, I don't think anyone bothered to keep track of who entered Germany first. It was such a major push to get to Berlin and secure as much territory as fast as possible that that detail was probably pretty irrelevant.

An interresting anecdote here is that my mother, who lived in Heerlen, near the German border, was surpised to see the US army arrive from the East, from Germany. Don't know the date for that, though. DirkvdM 08:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Operation Bagration did not get to Eastern Prussia. Unless both maps I have are wrong the offensive stopped a little short of the borders. AFAIK the Soviet forces entered Eastern Prussia only in January 1945. -- Grafikm 13:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages maps show the southeastern point included in the territory covered. DirkvdM 08:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, are you telling me that the USSR didn't have to fight one bit for its control over North Korea, that they gained control AFTER the end of the war?Evilbu 08:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless you don't count the elimination of the whole Quantung Army... -- Grafikm 13:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

President of the United States election

Could someone explain to a poor ignorant Briton what happens (in the US) when someone elected to one position then gets elected to a more senior position? (e.g., a senator/representative/state governor being elected president or vice-president.) Would the original position be kept? Can someone be simultaneously a senator and president? And, if they cease to hold the original office, would there be a by-election to fill the vacancy?

Thanks, Sam Korn 21:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they can't be both. They take on the role of the new office. Quite often, though not as a rule, the person will resign from the first position in order to concentrate on the election of the new position. They often use the reasoning that it's better for the people they represent that they resign from their original post since their full concentration wouldn't necessarily be on their old job. Whether that's true or if they're just trying to get those voters to think that the person is dedicated and such is up to you to decide. And as far as the coverage of the old job, I'm not sure. Dismas| 21:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As for senate vacancies, they are filled according to state law, either by special election or gubernatorial appointment, usually depending on the time remaining in the term. This is in accordance with the 17th amendment to the Constitution: "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct." (Prior to this amendment, passed in 1913, senators were chosen by the state legislatures). House vacancies are always filled by special election. Temporary appointments are not possible for a vacant House seat. - Nunh-huh 22:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Is it therefore just convention that the former office is renounced, or is there a constitutional requirement somewhere? Thanks, Sam Korn 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just convention. StuRat 22:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is an explicit Constitutional requirement, but the dogma of separation of powers would guarantee that it would never be possible for a person to serve in more than one of the three branches of government at one time. - Nunh-huh 22:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

At which point in time? When running, it's convention, and by no means universally observed (e.g. Kerry retains his Senate seat because he didn't resign it to run for President). Once elected or appointed to an office however, Article 1 section 6 kicks on - "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." --Mnemeson 22:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

When Senators run for President, most often they do it in a year when they are not up for re-election, They can do this because they are elected to a 6 year term. So a Senator elected this year could safely run for president in 2008, but in 2012 he would have to choose in most cases. Joe Liberman's state allowed him to run for both offices simultaneously (Vice President and Senator) in 2000, so he did not have to make the hard choice Barry Goldwater did in 1964, when he abandoned a safe senate seat to run a quixotic race for President.Edison 23:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Article One of the United States Constitution, Section 6, states, no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office. Does that apply to this question? Or does "office under the United States" mean something else? --jpgordon 00:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspect something else; in context, it's related to ensuring that legislators not personally profit by appointing themselves to office. It's the separation of powers that guarantees no senator/presidents. Though of course there's no telling how any of these words mightspecifically be interpreted/distorted/construed by a judge if it came before him... but though the means by which the decision would be made is in question, the decision, I think, is not. - Nunh-huh 12:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Short answer... members of Congress may not hold any other office. In 1960, when Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson became President and Vice President, they resigned their Senatorial seats. That's the legal part.

All the rest of the previous answers have been dealing with politics and customs. Elections take place in November; terms of office begin the following January. By resigning his Senatorial seat immediately after being elected President, the candidate allows the Governor of his home state to appoint a temporary replacement. This replacement will have seniority over incoming freshman Senators, which is a slight advantage to the home state.

Kennedy's Senate term extended beyond January, 1961, so his seat was not up for election in November, 1960. Johnson's seat was up. So he ran for both Vice President and re-election as Senator. Having won the Vice Presidency, he resigned the Senate seat. Had he lost (he did win Senatorial re-election), he, like Kennedy, would have remained in the Senate. B00P 18:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

social order

how can social order be maintain?

Surely you meant, how can pecking order be maintain?

Through whatever means possible. --The Dark Side 00:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair or foul. White Guard 00:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Social order is maintained through government, luck, and skill. You might consider clarifying your question. It is almost as vague as "What is the meaning of life?" --AstoVidatu 00:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Social order is more than a matter of government. It involves the acceptance by society as a whole of a set of norms and of a power structure. A power structure and government are not sufficient without societal acceptance, as we can see in Iraq. The acceptance need not be heartfelt or enthusiastic, it can be based on fear, but it must be in place for social order to exist. Marco polo 01:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Social order is maintain by Social cohesion. Social cohesion is form when everyone (or most people) is looking after everyone else's interest. If group A (muslims) does not look after the interest of group B (infidels) or vice versa then there is a lack of social cohesion. This implies the existances of common values (or shared values) and common behavior norms. If one group wants to behave the way of X while another group wants to behave the way of Y and X & Y are incompatible, then you have an ideological conflict. Social cohesian is maintain by having a common/shared (non-violent) method of resolving such conflicts that all members of the society will accept it's decision. The actual method is irrelevant, what is importance is for all members of the society to accept the legitimacy of the method (in other words a common dispute resolution method). 202.168.50.40 01:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this argument. Marco polo 19:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the essentially sociological answers above, you could have a look at political philosophy. Cheers, Sam Clark 22:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

October 11

Tony Toni Tone

A freind of mine is a big fan of Tony Toni Tone and wants to get a copy of what he believes is their first album. There is a song and in this song is a line something like "just like chocolate she's so sweet" He thought that was the name of the song. I've been looking and cannot find on any of the albums including Who, their first album any song with that title. By any chance would anybody there know what song includes the line "just like chocolate she's so sweet" and which album that song first appeared in? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely,

                                             Andrew J. LaTeer

It's from a song called "Baby Doll" which can be found on this album. --Richardrj 04:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Louisiana purchase benefit?

When an American citizen applies for dual citizenship in France, normally there are rules including having lived in France for five years. I heard if you were born in one of the states in the Louisiana Purchase, this is waived. Is this true, and where exactly does it say this?

I would strongly doubt that. In any case, actual French influence or control over most of the area was rather minimal... AnonMoos 09:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Our article on French nationality law says that the five year waiting period can be waived for "citizens of French speaking countries", so I can see where this comes from. However, a citizen of the United States is unlikely to be judged to be from a French-speaking country, and even if you could convince them to take Louisiana itself, not the USA, as your "country", I doubt there are enough French-speakers left there to convince them. (And the other Louisiana Purchase states would be even less likely — like AnonMoos says, there wasn't much influence there).

I believe the citizenship laws have been tightened somewhat in recent times, so I suppose it could once have been possible. I doubt they'd have deliberately opened the door to people from the Louisiana Purchase, but I guess they could have accidentaly created the possibility — if they had laws to assist French people returning home from the former colonies (eg the pieds-noirs), some people may have figured that Louisiana should logically count too, even if the law was actually intended for the colonies that obtained independence in the mid 20th century. Just speculation, of course. -- Vardion 09:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Poison gas in WW2

Why was it not used on the same scale as WWI? I mean to say in combat against the Allies, not in the Final Solution. --The Dark Side 01:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Chemical warfare, the Germans were afraid of retaliation. Hitler was gassed in World War I, so that may have influenced his decision. Also, WWII was much more fluid than WWI; waiting for the wind to blow in the right direction works better in the trenches. Clarityfiend 03:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmmm...Hitler was gassed in WWI...might have influenced his decisions...you may be onto something there! Loomis 05:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

While we may never understand Hitler, it's quite clear he did have emotions. For example, he was a vegetarian and felt it cruel to animals to eat meat. Although he commited despicable acts against those he felt were sub-humans, there's no reason to assume he wouldn't have felt less willing to use gas on those he felt were humans because of his experience Nil Einne 11:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a vague recollection that it was used by the Nazis on the Eastern front. Anyone got any sources? --Dweller 07:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I could find was this and it was a ship of the Allies carrying lethal gas who got hit by the Luftwaffe. Gas was used in the German extermination camps, but apparently not in battle. Flamarande 10:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Seriously (as opposed to my above post), I doubt that Hitler avoided something "out of fear of retaliation". It just doesn't go with his mentality. Perhaps there's a better explanation for it. For example, Hitler seemed to have the choice of having his scientists pursue either nuclear technology, or rocket technology (although he had enough scientists to explore both, so it still confounds me). In any case he seemed to strongly favour pursuing rocket technology, and was really on his way to developing missiles that could reach England from the continent (in fact I believe some early ones actually did). As for nuclear technology, thank God he was such an anti-semite that he actually seemed to have dismissed the whole idea as "Jewish Science", (after all, it was all ultimately based on Einstein's work,) not worthy of being explored. As to the original question, why he didn't use poison gas in warfare, he probably had his reasons. It was mentioned that he may have used it on the Eastern front. But, say, in the Battle of Britain, perhaps he felt it wasn't a proper way to conduct warfare against a fellow Aryan people. I don't really know. It's tough to get into the mind of a madman. Loomis 13:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that Hitler did pursue nuclear weapons and rocket technology and jet aircraft and decryption and radar studies and other technical areas and made huge advances in all of these. After all, when the war ended they were pursuing a rocket that would be capable of reaching the US. They had produced the world's first jet aircraft. They had tapped the submarine cable between the UK and the US and decrypted the traffic on the cable. They had serious radar capabilities. They had refined a large amount of uranium, some of which probably found its way into the bombs used against Japan by the US when it was confiscated by the allies. They were taking advantage of the heavy water facility in Norway, until Allied actions destroyed it. The head of the German atomic program, Werner Heisenberg had stated that the only way to make an atomic bomb was to turn the entire country into a chemical plant, and when he toured the US and saw the extent of the effort, he noted that the US had turned the entire country into a chemical plant to produce an atomic bomb. There are some reports that Heisenberg had overestimated the amount of fissionable material by orders of magnitude that was required, but I personally find this hard to believe. This just does not sound reasonable to me. I think that it was a fairly close call. I think that either Germany or Japan might have managed to produce an atomic bomb before the US, if the timing of various events was just slightly different. --Filll 15:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither Germany or Japan had the will or could afford the resources required to build an atomic bomb. Take a look at the Manhattan Project. "At one point Oak Ridge plants were consuming 1/7th of all the electrical power being produced in the USA." Also, Oak Ridge became "the fifth largest city" in Tennessee, and it wasn't the only facility. In the middle of a war, only the US was rich enough. Plus it didn't help that the Nazis drove away a lot of their leading scientists before the war started. Clarityfiend 16:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The article says Heisenberg calculated it would take 130 tons of uranium. Clarityfiend 16:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Being a physicist, I know what Heisenberg's capabilities were. It is very hard to believe that Heisenberg would have made such a large mistake, but of course it is still possible even for someone of Heisenberg's talents. I do agree that it took a substantial effort to produce the bombs that the US did. However, some of the production details and techniques remain classified and it is a bit difficult to make the blanket statement that it would have been impossible for Japan or Germany to do it. Germany had a head start, in some ways. Germany had some incredibly gifted scientists involved in the project. The scientists involved in the Manhattan Project were doing it under the impression that Germany might be able to produce an atomic weapon first. The Allies did not act as though they were certain that Germany or Japan could not produce at atomic bomb during the war, including multiple attacks on the heavy water facility and other facilities controlled by the Nazis, and capturing uranium being shipped to Japan from Germany in May of 1945 on the submarine Unterseeboot 234 (U-234). In spite of speculation, I would be surprised if the details about this cargo had been declassified; it is not public knowledge how much of the uranium was unprocessed and how much of it was processed.--Filll 18:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget Heisenberg's (unsubstantiated) claim that he deliberately sabotaged the Nazi bomb program. Also, I didn't say that it was impossible, just that the Axis powers had too many other competing demands on their resources. Clarityfiend 20:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The claim that the Germans or Japanese couldn't have afforded to build a nuclear weapon is misguided. The US had two largely separate programs to make fissile material; the uranium enrichment process and the plutonium production and extraction process. If the US had abandoned uranium enrichment and concentrated on plutonium, they could have got the job done for a fraction of the cost. it was just that the imperative for getting a weapon as soon as possible was so great that both technologies were pursued, essentially regardless of cost.

Alternatively, it was captured Germans who built the Soviet Union's centrifuge uranium enrichment technology in the immediate postwar period. If they had done the same for Nazi Germany, the Nazis could probably have gotten the bomb that way at a reasonably affordable cost. --Robert Merkel 01:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, according to our article on Nerve agents, Hitler totally avoided it "out of fear of retaliation". Long story short, (there's a good quote in the history section), Hitler knew that the Allies had far greater ability to produce both mustard gas and nerve agents (like Sarin) in large part because of their greater access to petroleum. What he didn't know was that the Allies didn't know how to make the more toxic nerve agents -- the details had been released in technical journals and patents before the war, but the Allies hadn't noticed, and in fact the Nazis could have used them, if not with impunity (surely the Allies would have figured it out after the gases were used in combat), then at least to advantage. --ByeByeBaby 16:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've also read books that have called the gas mask schemes in countries such as the UK the "greatest victory of WWII". He knew that the countries were already highly prepared, and so much of the effectiveness of gas (the fear and the mass casualties) would be massively reduced. Laïka 17:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

To summarize the above, Hitler did a "cost/benefit analysis", and saw that escalating to chemical weapons wouldn't give him any advantage, as the Allies would have used them as soon as he did. The effect on the morale of his troops and civilian populations might have suffered from gas attacks, as well. As for the Nazis getting the bomb, Hitler correctly figured out that the war would be over before an atomic bomb could be developed by Germany, so those resources would be best used elsewhere. Hitler was generally an idiot in military matters, but managed to get those two decisions right. StuRat 23:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised it wasn't considered for the Battle of Stalingrad. Clarityfiend 23:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Not only way posion gas used by the Japanese biological agents were also released. To this day there are several court cases pending in Japan, Chineese citizens who have been harmed by left over canisters are suing to recoop the cost of the life long after effects of their exposure. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Unit_731 http://en.wikipedia.org/Changde_chemical_weapon_attack http://campcatatonia.org/article/1351/poison-gas-island

As for why it wasn't used in the same way, on the same scale and with the same openess, Also the 1925 Geneva Protocol Prohibited the use of "asphyxiating gas, or any other kind of gas, liquids, substances or similar materials" it was signed by 16 countries. Japan like the US signed but did not ratify till the 70's. On a related note there has been some allegations that the US used chemical weapons in some of the island hoping campaigns. I haven't researched those claims though.

economics

what are the constraints to monetary policy implementation in less developed economies

Generally, the constraints are that nobody has any. --Aaron 18:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Our article on monetary policy has a small section on developing countries. You might also get some clues from International Monetary Fund. Beyond that, a textbook on the subject might be helpful. Marco polo 20:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Those are good suggestions, but I'd go with the textbook that was assigned for the course. Loomis 21:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A little expansion on what Aaron said. Money makes money. That's how capitalism works. If left unchecked, it will make the rich richer and the poor (at least by comparison) poorer. Nationally, socialism provides some compensation in more civilised countries (finding the right mix between the two is a major political tightrope walk). Internationally, rich countries tend to give poor countries little more than breadcrumbs. Some nice example of what would happen if they would make that more substantial are Ireland, Portugal and Greece. For the free market to work properly it has to be completely open (the first goal of the EU) and all sides need to have somewhat equal starting positions. The latter is done in the EU and jus see what happened to the economies of those three countries. Of course the rich countries have to bleed a bit in the beginning, but after a while they will also start to profit from the increased wealth of those trade partners. Another major factor is political stability and the EU is using economically open borders as a carrot (in stead of a stick) to change the stabuility of countries outside the EU (eg in the Middle East). It's a bit complicated, with many sorts of agreements, bu European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument#European Neighbourhood Policy gives a bit of an overview and European Union Association Agreement is more specifically about what I mean. DirkvdM 07:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Dirk's response is about development and trade policy, not about monetary policy, or the regulation of a nation's currency and money supply. If you look at the article on money supply, you will see that it is something very different from wealth. With regard to monetary policy in developing economies, I am not qualified to say much. This is a very specialized topic that is not well covered in Misplaced Pages. I can say that central bankers in developing countries (who determine monetary policy, albeit under heavy pressure from the IMF in developing countries) face some particular challenges, particularly their dependence on foreign investors, who may flee and cause the currency to plummet and interest rates to soar whenever there is the least shift away from risk in global financial markets. Also, much financial activity takes place outside the formal economy, which makes it more difficult for developing-country central bankers to control liquidity and the supply of credit. And with that, I have reached my limit on this topic, which is outside my area of expertise, and suggest that you turn to a reliable textbook. Marco polo 16:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't lack of money a major constraint to monetary policy implementation? DirkvdM 08:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

name this swedish film

I'm trying to recall the name of this Swedish film I saw a while back. An elderly man narrates the story to a girl, perhaps she is imaginary. The story is of a married couple with a young daughter where the wife has an affair with the husband's best friend, about the passion of the affair and the tragedies of the aftermath. Spoiler: the husband eventually commits suicide. He tries to get the daughter to join him, but she backs out in the end.

I thought maybe Liv Ullman played the girl and Max von Sydow played the elderly man, but I couldn't find a movie matching that description in their filmographies. Can you help me? Ziggurism

• The Passion of Anna, perhaps? --jpgordon 18:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Trolösa (Faithless). But that has Erland Josephson and not Max von Sydow, and Liv Ullman is the director. The confusion is understandable though, since they're all Bergman veterans, and Bergman himself was the screenwriter. --BluePlatypus 04:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. Thanks blue

Sir Joshua Reynolds

Hello I have A picture that is titled " The Strawberry Girl" and signed by Sir Joshua Reynoldi. At least it looks like an "i" at the end. The closest I can come to it is Sir Joshua Reynolds. I am very curious about the picture, any info I can get would be greatly appreciated.

Is this the picture? DJ Clayworth 17:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Was the Weimar Republic doomed from the start?

please discuss, im interested in German history, and would like to know if the Weimar Republic was as intensely disorganized as people perceive it to be

The Weimar Republic was doomed because it didn't do it's own homework. DJ Clayworth 17:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well what are you on about? Im only interested, you big bully. Anyway, you ent much of a librarian if you dont help, and its not homework its independant study, and im allowed to use resources

Have a look at WP's articles on Weimar Republic and Dolchstosslegende for starters. This is a huge topic, and I don't know how you can measure the intensity of the WR's disorganization objectively in order to compare it with people's (including historians') perceptions. Moreover, even if DJ Clayworth's advice sounded a bit harsh , there's no need for personal attacks.---Sluzzelin 19:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Can i just say if he hadnt discredited the legitimacy of my question, i wouldn't have been so angry

The Weimar Republic may have had its weaknesses, and perhaps it should have been improved upon or even replaced. Nonetheless I can't see any of its flaws as playing any significant role in paving the way to the Third Reich. If it was flawed, but if the people were steadfastly dedicated to a free and democratic society, they would just keep trying and trying again until they finally came up with something that worked. The French are a great example (though I can't believe I'm actually about to pay the French a compliment!) Since the revolution they went through four failed constitutions, (as well as the restoration of the monarchy, Napoléon's system, the Vichy Regime etc.) but they kept at it until 1958 when they finally developed the Fifth Republic, which seems to have finally proven to stand the test of time (though I have heard some talk of a "Sixth Republic", but I'm not sure at all how serious it is). In any case, if the Weimar Republic was flawed, a society dedicated to anything similar to the French concepts of Liberté, Égalité, Fratérnité would simply try and try again until they come up with something that works. Yet given the circumstances, and the mentality, bitterness and distress of the German people at the time, even if 1930's Germany had a constitution tailored perfectly to its needs and as rock solid in its durability as the US Constitution, I doubt Hitler would have all that much trouble navigating his way through it and still winding up Führer, with all the circumstances that it entailed. Loomis 20:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence for how weak the German commitment to democracy was at the time can be found when the Nazi's burnt down the Reichstag building, and blamed it on the communists. Rather than meet somewhere else, the Reichstag just disbanded. StuRat 22:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

DJ's response justified him calling him a bully, there is no indication that this is homework, and hes not even asking as to do it for him. Philc _TC 21:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Philc, I appreciate it

I too agree that DJ made a mistake in assuming that the questioner was asking for us to do his/her homework. To me this didn't at all seem like a homework question. However, as I've said so, so, SO! many times, we all make mistakes, and some of us, (your's truly is MOST guilty of it!) are hot-headed reactionaries, who jump to conclusions before getting the full story. So while you're right, "anonymous questioner" (please get an account and sign your posts!) that DJ made a mistake, I've made similar mistakes too many times to count. DJ should be forgiven for this one, just like the rest of us, s/he's only human. Please. When it comes to minor stuff like this, I say forgive and forget. Loomis 22:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Such mistakes should be avoided by committing to the principle that "do your own homework" is never an appropriate response on this page. It's not helpful, and it's rude. It's certainly an inappropriate response at any reference desk, even a metaphorical one. - Nunh-huh 22:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha! Loomis! I know what your talking about!! But yeh I'm sure DJ is forgiven by all parties, but generally that response is pretty unuseful. All is well though. Philc _TC 22:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

When I see obvious homework questions, I try my best to be as subtle, and (hopefully) witty about it. I don't think I've ever uttered the phrase: "Do your own homework!" Rather, check out my response a bit higher up to a questioner who was asking an oh-so-obvious homework question under the heading "economics". Loomis 23:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Can i just say if he hadnt discredited the legitimacy of my question, i wouldn't have been so angry" — the question is perfectly legitimate, but when it is clear you haven't bothered to read any of the relevant articles first, and are just fishing for a thesis, we perceive that as being pretty rude. We are people who like to help but we don't have infinite amounts of time either. If you can't be bothered to articulate a question which shows you have already consulted the most easily accessible resources (type in "Weimar Republic" in the Search box at your left and hit "Go") I don't think you can expect anyone else to be terribly interested in taking the time to help you answer it. I'm always happy to help but I won't write your essay or your thesis for you. --Fastfission 00:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission, I have read the article, and there isn't any heading called weaknesses, thus i went to the reference desk, and im not expecting anybody to do my article for me, rather get help on how to navigate WIkipedia, get some information for my essay and cite the source as wikipedia, simple

This is a big question and one that is not that simple to answer, as there are so many imponderables involved. The first and most important point to consider is that German democracy was born out of defeat, and was always tarnished by this association. To make matters worse economic and political problems brought the young republic close to collapse, with the steady growth in political extermism-both on the right and the left-up to 1923, the year the French occupied the Ruhr when Germany defaulted on reparation payments. However, from the beginning of 1924 things began to change. The Dawes Plan stabilised the question of reparations, inflation was brought to and end, and German economic recovery fueled by American loans. Weimar now enterd a period of political calmness, noted by the growth in political moderation and in the decline of parties like the Nazis and the Communists, unremittingly hostile to the settlement of 1919. The apogee of this period came with the formation of Hermann Müller's Grand Coalition, following the Reichstag elections of 1928, in which the Nazis won only 12 seats. If things had gone like this on the Republic may very well have stabilised, and Adolf Hitler may have become no more than a footnote in history. It was not to be. In 1929 Wall Street crashed and the German economy crashed with it. American loans dried up and unemployment rose to the millions. In the Reichstag elections of September 1930 the Nazis, hitherto little more than a lunatic fringe, rose from 12 to 107 seats. In the summer of 1932 they became the largest party, by which time there were more political groups opposed to Weimar than those in support. The rest is history. As one British historian put it "In France the Republic is the form of government that divides people least; in Germany it is the form that divides them most" White Guard 00:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems I owe the questioner an apology here. Sorry. We get a lot of homework questions and "discuss" quite frequently indicates that it is one. Anyway. I'm glad you got some good answers. DJ Clayworth 21:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Apology accepted, and I'm sorry too for being such a bad sport and over-reacting

Swadesh lists

I was wondering about the existence of printable versions of the swadesh lists found in both Misplaced Pages and in Wiktionary. Thanks.

Should I take it that the old "cut-and-paste-to-Word/Excel" method doesn't work for some reason? Loomis 21:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In what sense isn't it printable? Control-P should do the trick, shouldn't it? There is also a 'printable version' link to the left of each article. If you want only the list itself, just copy it to an application that gives you the print options you like. DirkvdM 07:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The font for the printable version is too big.

For a too big font, most browsers, as Internet Explorer or Firefox, offer a "print preview" where you can reduce the size of the page. Does that help ?

Personnally, I would have that list of mere short words in columns. Copy in a word processor and choose 'columns (five or six should do).

But maybe we have tools here to do the job . I'm looking at help pages. -- DLL 21:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Almost done - see Talk:Swadesh list. -- DLL 23:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Convicted pedophile"

My question is law related, but you'll be glad to know that it's not legal advice. Newspapers and opinion columnists sometimes refer to an individual as a "convicted pedophile". My instinct is that this is wrong, because pedophilia is not a crime per se in most jurisdictions. One can be a convicted child sex offender or something of the sort, but feeling attracted to children isn't a crime in itself as long as one doesn't possess illegal porn or abuse children. Am I right? Is there ever any grounds for using the phrase "convicted pedophile"? Also, while I'm on the subject, a friend tells me that in the UK "pedophile" means someone with a foot fetish, whereas the other kind is spelled "paedophile" and pronounced with a long E. Can anyone from the UK confirm this? --Grace 20:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. The term should be "convicted sex offender". If you want to be more specific, I believe "convicted pederast", would be a far better description than "convicted pedophile" is. However it would still be an imperfect one, as for some reason the definition of pederasty seems to be restricted only to sexual relations between men and young boys. Still I think it would be a more appropriate term, as it's a description one who's actually performed a sexual offence related to children, rather than a pedophile, who is, as your correct in saying, merely one who has sexual desires for children, without necessarily acting on them or harming children in any way. Loomis 20:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Because a sex offender can be someone who assaulted an adult, it should be "convicted child sex offender". This came up in an argument on the Patriot Act article. A man was convicted of 100 counts of possessing child pornography and on trial on one count of child sexual abuse (awaiting trial for two others). So, what do you call him. Unfortunately, the main person in the argument was an idiot and I hadn't learned my lesson at that time: "Never argue with an idiot. They will lower you to their level and win by experience every time." --Kainaw 20:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's important to specify that the offences were against children as distinct from adults, you might use the term "convicted child sex offender". But in general, a person convicted of sex offences is correctly called a "convicted sex offender", regardless of the age of the victim. JackofOz 21:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but do you agree with myself and the questioner that the term pedophile in "convicted pedophile" is something of a misnomer? Loomis 21:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the original meaning of "pedophile" did not imply anything taboo or illegal, but I think it has come to mean anyone who commits any sexual offence against any young person. "Pederast" is becoming outdated; and as you point out, its technical meaning was restricted to goings on between men and boys, so it had no application where women and/or girls were involved. It could not be used as a generic term, whereas "pedophile" can. That's my take on the matter. JackofOz 23:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Note that the term "child sex offender" could mean a child who has committed a sexual offense. There are also many cases where two people under the age of 18 have sex, and in many jurisdictions they are both "children guilty of sexual offenses against children". StuRat 22:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How lawyerly of you, Stu, to offer such imaginative semantic interpretations of the phrase "child sex offender". :) I suppose, in a twisted grammatical sense, you can stretch it even further. A "child sex offender" can be someone who acts offensively toward the idea of "child sex". For example, if I were to see two children having sex, and if I were to berate them for it, that would make me a "child sex offender", no? Ok...so that one's a bit of a stretch. Time for bed. :-) Loomis 22:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think this discussion is particularly relevant to the continued discussions about the PNVD in the Netherlands. The suffix -philia means "a liking of". Liking children doesn't neccesarily result in sexual abuse. They should only be punished if the act out their fantasies. The leader of that party admits to abuse because it's too long ago for him to be prosecuted, but appears not all the party members actually did anything illegal. There should definitely be a distinction made between pedophile and sex offender. Sorry for ranting. - Mgm| 10:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• That's not a rant in my book. I agree with what you say, except it's a question of where the law draws the line. It's one thing to say "Oh, I only look at pictures of naked young boys/girls, but I would never touch them physically", but can the law, or politicians, afford to take such risks? Once upon a time, the mere possession of pedophilic pictures was not illegal, just as pictures of somebody murdering somebody is still not illegal afaik, while the act itself is. But times have changed, the churches' dirty work has been exposed, and the law now takes a much dimmer view in many places of pictures of sexualised children. There is a not unreasonable view that a salacious interest in such material could well lead to sexual activity, so better to nip it in the bud. I wouldn't want to be the government spokesman who had to answer to the parent of an abused child, for allowing people to own pedophilic material on the basis that "there's no harm in just having pictures". JackofOz 12:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• The danger in the US is that anyone who attempts to develop a pic of their kid in the tub gets arrested and must register as a "child sex offender", leaving those who actually kidnap and rape children hidden in a massive pool of "child sex offenders". Thus, for fear of being labeled "pro-child sex offender", the politicians make the situation far more dangerous for kids. StuRat 16:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A pedophile is also a manifestation of mental sickness. When there are signs of abuse in the family history, this tendency develops as a consequence of lack of proper upbringing & an appropriate mindset or as a consequence of lack of education and high exposure to pornographic material.

"The Reference desk is not a soapbox". --ColinFine 23:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer the final part of your question: yes, here in the UK the usual spelling is "paedophile", with the first syllable pronounced with a long E. (It's pronounced like that here even when the American spelling is used, actually.) However, the volume of American media in Britain means that the US spelling is pretty much universally understood to mean the same thing. Anyone saying "I'm a pedophile" when they meant "I'm a foot fetishist" would be in for a very rough time indeed. Loganberry (Talk) 23:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Edexcel

Is there any way in which A-Level students can obtain past papers and mark schemes from the Edexcel - Uk exam board - website. I rele need too look at some tests for my revision and seeing as our teacher only has a couple, was wondering if any of you guys knew how to access some old tests. Thanks! Ahadland 21:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the particular topic of the past papers you're looking for? Loomis 22:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Its for a GCE (AS (Advanced Subsidiary)) course in english literature

here is an index of all Edexcel subjects, under each is a list of all of the courses in that subject, on each course there are past papers, mark schemes, examiner reports, unit tests, specifications, and various other documents of use. Hope this helps. Philc _TC 23:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

October 12

Islamic Naval Technology

Did the islamic nations during the late 15th and early 16th centuries have ships that could cross the Atlantic?

The north Atlantic is notoriously stormy, and most of the seacoasts bordering on Islamic nations were in the Mediterranean and Indian oceans. They had ships that could probably have made a crossing in certain circumstances, but they didn't really have a habit of building ships that were reliably well-adapted to Atlantic conditions. AnonMoos 02:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, hmm. I'm not sure you can say that Columbus's caravels were significantly better than the contemporary Arabic designs though. It wasn't until after Columbus that ships were designed which could do the crossing safely and reliably. Columbus is probably as good a spot as any in history to mark where European shipbuilding surpassed Arabic. The Europeans were certainly inferior in 1400 and superior by 1600. --BluePlatypus 04:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, disagree. The advances in ship building which would allow consistent inter-continental travel had already happened by the time Columbus set sail. The major obstacle to be overcome was not stormy North Atlantic weather, but distance, and uncertainty. Mediterranean sailors had earlier been introduced to the lateen sail from Arab dhows, they found improvements in hull, rudder and keel in nothern square rigged cogs. Columbus' fleet were barques, square rigged fore and main masts (increased sail area and reduced crew requirement), lateen mizen (manuverability for exploring costal waters).EricR 07:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the Ottoman Empire was planning such an undertaking—American would be named Vilayet Antilia. EricR 03:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What kind of navy did Morocco have? And southern Spanish Moors? They had to be able to communicate across the Mediterranean, could their ships have made it across the Atlantic? They were galleys, though, not sailing ships, weren't they? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Morocco and Moorish Spain were part of the Ottoman Empire and so any naval forces based in Morocco would be subject to orders from Constantinople. The Ottoman Empire's naval policy, though, appears to have been directed at protecting Muslim trading vessels in the Mediterranean from pirate attack, and occasionally fighting rival naval forces from Europe, eg: Battle of Lepanto. It's probable that Arab vessels could have reached North America, except for one obstacle: they had no motive. Remember that European ships were not looking for America, neither the Europeans nor the Arabs knew that America existed. The Europeans were looking for a quick route to Japan, to boost spice trading. The Ottoman Empire had no motive for crossing the Atlantic, as Arab trading routes already reached India and the Far East with no need to sail out into the unknown waters of the Atlantic. So in a nutshell, yes Arab vessels could probably have reached America, but they would have had absolutely no motive for doing so. This sounds suspiciously like research for a piece of alternative history in which the New World is colonised by Muslims... am I right? Rusty2005 12:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Communication aided by seeing a face

Does anyone know of any studies done that show that communication is easier if one can see the other person's face? Many thanks, --86.142.195.245 06:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know of any specific studies, but it's clearly through. When you see someone's face, you can see their eyes and facial expression which often tells more about what they mean than words themselves. You also see this a lot in discussions on Misplaced Pages. Without talking to someone face to face, it's easy to misinterpret what someone means. -Mgm| 10:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Here's a case in point. If I could see Mgm's face, I might have some hope of interpreting what he meant by "it's clearly through". Without those non-verbal cues, I must sadly admit defeat.  :-)
• Neuro-linguistic programming and related modalities utilise knowledge of facial gestures, eye movements and non-verbal auditory cues to study what goes on when people are communicating with each other. To the extent of their visual and auditory acuity, people innately detect and respond to these non-verbal behaviours, in many cases without realising they're doing so. JackofOz 12:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "Neuro-linguistic Programming" is the name of a specific New-Age type group or organization, and actual neuro-linguists feel that what they do has extremely little in common with the doctrines of the "NLP" group. AnonMoos 15:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE REFERENCE DESK

If you haven't been paying attention to Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk, you may not know that a few users are close to finishing a proposal (with a bot, now in testing and very close to completion) which, if approved by consensus, will be a major change for the Reference Desk.

Please read the preamble here, and I would appreciate if you signed your name after the preamble outlining how you feel about what we are thinking.

This notice has been temporarily announced on all of the current desks.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

For convenience, I propose any reactions to this anouncement be limited to Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#PROPOSED_CHANGES_TO_THE_REFERENCE_DESK. DirkvdM 07:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Caps key stuck?--martianlostinspace 13:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does the word "Nazi" appear so often in this reference desk?

Can't find a single day without that word.

Just a couple guesses...

1. They were a group that made a significant (to put it lightly) impact on the world.
2. People reel at the shear numbers of people that were killed for no reason other than their god or what they looked like.
3. Even given the above point, people still to this day believe that the Final Solution is the best solution.
4. The expansion of the Third Reich into other lands was something that hadn't been seen to that scale in, I'm guessing here since I suck at history, hundreds of years.

But that's just of the top of my head... Dismas| 09:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In the Western world, the Swastika and portraits of Hitler have become the most powerful icons epitomizing modern evil and tyranny. In Germany, it is illegal to publicly display the Swastika, Prince Harry created a scandal when wearing a Pseudo-Nazi uniform to a party, and so forth. Taboos are attractive to all sorts of people, be it out of curiosity, for provocation's sake, or to morally disqualify another person's point of view. See Godwin's Law too, for the last example.---Sluzzelin 11:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Just try searching this page for 'communis', 'liber', 'democra' or 'iraq'. This is the humanities ref desk, so there are bound to be many questions about politics. Especially the ones that people have questions anout. :) DirkvdM 09:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If it weren't for a few historic events that could have gone either way such as Einstein's exile in the US and that the bombing of Pearl Harbor brought the US into WWII, we'd all probably be speaking German now (presuming we weren't found to be within an 'undesireable' class of people). That historic near miss, probably to a greater extent than the US's major losses in Vietnam, creates cognitive dissonance for superpowers such as the US and Europe which we deal with in various ways such as defining Nazis as inhuman (when in fact most were political opportunists or just people who didn't think too much about the larger effects of decisions they and their government make--not unlike the citizens in most countries today). I think the vast amount of alternate histories focused on 'what if the Nazis won?' and efforts to paint Nazi's as 'inhumanly evil' are ways that we attempt to resolve this cognitive dissonance. The Man In the High Castle is my personal favorite. Antonrojo 13:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

North Korea's legal system

Besides North Korea what governments have legal systems that are based on pre-World War II German legal system that allowed and even accommodated the formation and existence of a dictatorship? Adaptron 09:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know much about the NK legal system and the article doesn't help very much. But as far as I can tell, their dictatorship as was Germany's didn't actually have that much to do with the legal system. Didn't Hitler largely dismantle the courts anyway and make up his own ones? Which is not to say legal systems can't be used to help dictatorships of course. In Singapore for example which is a dictatorship of sorts (although obviously not of the NK or Germany kind), the courts have been extensively used to hinder opposition politicians Nil Einne 11:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The main point here is the lack of checks and balances which modern legal/political systems incorporate. Dictatorship for any purpose is still dictatorship although a benevolent dictatorship with the goal of making everyone rich could possibly have merit except to those who's religion perhaps forbids wealth. Adaptron 11:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Germany's legal system today is essentially the same as it was pre-war. Hitler's coming to power had nothing to do with the court system - it had to do with the weak Weimar constitution and parliamentary system. The same legal system is used in most North European countries. The political show-trials of Nazi Germany, like those lead by the notorious Roland Freisler, were conducted in a completely seperate court system called the Volksgerichtshof (People's Court), which Hitler set up once he'd gained total power. (Exersise for the reader: Why did Hitler need to set up a new court system if the old one was easily corruptible?) The US court system would not have stopped Hitler. What would have stopped him is that the US constitution is not as easy to change as the Weimar one, but more importantly, does not have its state-of-emergency laws. The Weimar constitution did not accomodate dictatorship. It just didn't do enough to stop it. Anyway, this is all a moot point when it comes to the DPRK - it was created as a dictatorship from the start. --BluePlatypus 22:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And I highly doubt that North Korea's legal system has any resemblence to the German legal system past or present. --BluePlatypus 22:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You might want to check various references such as the CIA Fact Book before reaching such erroneous conclusions. Nothing starts from scratch. Everything starts with a model. Pre-WWII German legal system was that model for the DPRK legal system in place today which served in no capacity to stop the formation of the DPRK. Even China has become wary of ulterior motives the law might allow hence its demand that UN sanctions against NK can not be used as a pretext for invasion or war - an opportunity either not provided by the historical German legal system or not taken advantage of by any opposition. 71.100.6.152 17:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Next war-time use of NUCLEAR weapons most likely to happen

I know it´s horrible, but some friends and I have been discussing the probable next use of nuclear weapons in a war-time context, can anyone say the MOST LIKELY (by military strategy experts etc.) CONSIDERED possibility of the next nuclear strike in history? We are arguing about: 1) North Korea on South Korea, 2) USA on North Korea, 3) Iran on Israel, 4) Pakistan on India, 5) India on Pakistan. (I think nº 4, although perhaps nº 1). Is it one of these or are others considered distinct possibilities and which are they please? --Joel--

I would go on USA against some other target using small tactical "bunker busting" weapons on the grounds of war against terror -- Chris Q 12:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Planners consider many different scenarios including alien occupied rocks from outer space but while so doing look very hard for alternatives WMD such as massive numbers of plasma jet type cluster bombs (billions) to eliminate an invading army such as the million man NK army long before it can cross the DMZ. 71.100.6.152 12:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is completely speculative, but the US has already declared its intention to use "tactical" nuclear weapons "if necessary". I agree with Chris Q that the US is the most likely origin of the next use of nukes. As for the likely destination, Iran comes to mind. Another scenario is that the US gives tactical nukes to Israel, who deploy them against Iran in "preemptive self-defense". I don't see India or Pakistan using nukes against each other because each knows that it would receive a response in kind. I also don't see North Korea attacking South Korea. South Korea is one of NK's main sources of support at this point. I don't think that that NK would fire except in the event of US military aggression, and in that event, I think the most likely target would be Japan. Marco polo 14:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You are forgetting that North Korea has already stated its Casus Belli is any further sanctions and "rilements" by the US. North Korea is either blowing smoke or is actually stupid enough to take any military or other action except to back off doing the things that caused the sanctions to be put on them in the first place. If North Korea uses a nuclear weapon for any reason including defense of its illicit operation as a major illegal drug producer and exporter, counterfeiter and God knows what other crimes then the US might not be the only country that will turn North Korea into glass. 71.100.6.152 16:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a scenario I see:

1) Inspections of all ships leaving North Korea are put in place (either by the UN or a non-UN coalition of the US, Japan, etc.) to prevent North Korea from selling nuclear weapons to anyone who is willing to pay (as they have done with all their other weapons systems). StuRat 19:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

2) North Korea calls this an act of war and declares war on South Korea in return (technically, North Korea remains at war with South Korea, the US, and much of the world since the Korean War). Since they have a substantial military advantage in conventional weapons and troops, especially considering the US deployment in Iraq, this means they will soon defeat South Korea and capture the tens of thousands of American troops there. StuRat 19:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is pure speculation. Their advantage lies in numbers but what about technology and simple experience? You are also forgetting that America would surely send reinforcements (imposing the draft, thereby recruting soldiers by the millions) and the possiblity of its allies fearfull of a strong North Korea also sending military aid. Many of them might disagree with the current administration but forced to choose between the US and North Korea they will choose the first one. Flamarande 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, any statement about what may happen in the future, is, of course, speculation. North Korean troops are so close to the capital of South Korea that the war would be largely over before the US could institute a draft, train new troops, and deploy them. Unless, of course, nuclear weapons were used. StuRat 21:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And the SKtroops and the UStroops are completly unready for the loss of Seoul (they can't be ready for something everyone can predict) and must give it up if they lose that city. Somehow they have forgotten all the lessons of the last Korean War (in which Seoul was captured by the NKtroops). Since is the capture or destruction of Seoul vital for a Korean campaign? It's certainly a major step, but the troops in SK are there to mantain viable landing points (like the Pusan Perimeter) for the arriving reinforcements . Flamarande 21:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The US just considers use of nuclear weapons against NK to be preferable to the destruction or capture of Seoul. In war, killing millions of enemy civilians to save millions of allied civilians is justified. StuRat 21:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, because at the last time NK captured Seoul the Americans imediatly retaliated with Nuclear weapons (or they will do it now because they have grown dummer). Sorry, but recent history shows exactly the opposite: the loss of Seoul is expected, everyone is ready for it, and the war will continue. I really hope that you are not part of the American security council. Flamarande 21:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

General Douglas MacArthur wanted to do just that, and was fired by President Harry Truman, to prevent a wider war with China. In retrospect, that would have avoided the current situation, since China lacked nuclear weapons at the time. Under the current crisis, there is no reason to think that China would support NK militarily. StuRat 21:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that MacArtuhr was bit senile at that point and that Truman was right. There is no reason to think that China will ever agree with a preemptive Nuclear strike against NK. If China is willing to go to war with the US because of the current Nk is difficult to answer though. Flamarande 08:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Many people agreed with MacArthur at the time. In retrospect, it appears that he may have been right. StuRat 20:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Right in wanting to risk entering a war with China? Flamarande 21:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and in being at least willing to use the threat of nuclear weapons to get the Chinese to stop supporting NK (then, not now). StuRat 19:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

3) Rather than let this happen, the US is willing to use nuclear weapons against North Korea. Perhaps only one, to demonstrate their willingness, at first. StuRat 19:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Speculation (see Nr2) and not supported by facts. The US had a somewhat similar scenario in Vietnam (prisoners and all) and they didn't use the Nuclear weapons either. Flamarande 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any similarity with Vietnam. The US just withdrew and let the North have the South. I don't see that happening in Korea, unless South Korea gets some truly idiotic politicians who ask the US to leave. StuRat 21:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The similarity is that even if the US is defeated in Korea by conventional warfare (something I doubt) they would not retaliate with Nuclear weapons (they were defeated in Vietnam and still they didn't use the Nukes). Flamarande 08:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You keep lumping "defeat" all into one category. Voluntarily withdrawing is in no way comparable to having all your troops (tens of thousands) captured by the enemy. The first is acceptable in the minds of the US public, while the second is so unacceptable as to justify using nuclear weapons, in the minds of the US public. Vietnam was also a proxy war between the Soviet Union backing the North and the US backing the South, with the risk that any escalation could change the cold war into a hot war. The current crisis is not a superpower conflict, as nobody is going to come to NK's aid. StuRat 20:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

4) North Korea then reacts by firing a nuclear weapon at Japan or South Korea on a short range missile. StuRat 19:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Speculation (see Nr2). If this happened the entire world would turn against North Korea. Flamarande 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is now, except for probably Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and a few other nuts. North Korea doesn't care what the world thinks. StuRat 21:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

NK doens't care what the world thinks, agreed. It does care if most of the world declares and then wages war against it. Flamarande 08:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The UN won't even declare war against a country it could easily defeat, like Rwanda or Sudan, to prevent the genocides in those countries. So, it sure isn't going to declare war on a country with strong conventional forces and nuclear weapons. NK has nothing to worry about from anyone other than the US and maybe China. StuRat 21:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It may shook you, but the UN is completly dependent on the national goverments and does not posses any troops of its own. As noone is willing to send troops to save African ppl (because the life of one white trooper is worthier than 10000 black Africans in the minds of jaded population who will vote accordingly). The Un is mostly a gathering place where every nation can say its peace of mind and the real power is in the hand of the security council.

5) The US then responds with the total nuclear annihilation of North Korea, using high altitude detonations to limit fallout risks to neighboring nations. StuRat 19:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Speculation (see Nr2 and Nr4). What for? You can bomb a country into the stone-age whithout using Nuclear weapons. Flamarande 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Not quickly enough to destroy their missile launch capability. Also, NK has sophisticated antiaircraft defenses, so only missiles could be used against them. This would dramatically reduce the portion of the US arsenal that could be used against NK. StuRat 21:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The only way I see around this is if China and South Korea actually put total economic sanctions on North Korea, now, instead of propping up the economy, which might finally convince North Korea to give up it's nuclear weapons. StuRat 15:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

All past sanctions couldn't convince them until now, and now they would change their minds because of what? Their ppl is starving and the whole country is (as far as we know) allready a "wasteland", and the regime hasn't changed its mind. Where is the allmighty diffrence? Flamarande 17:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The diff is that both China and South Korea were actively working against the sanctions, which made them totally ineffective. StuRat 21:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

So the ppl will starve even faster and the NK will use this in their propaganda. You can imagine the rest... China and South Korea will eventually donate food again for "pure humanitarian reasons". Flamarande 08:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if inspections of ships are put in place, and as long as no neighbors (China or South Korea) go and buy the donated food back from NK, then they can't get cash from selling it to buy more weapons. They will then be forced to either let the starving eat the food or destroy it (so they can use their starving citizens for propaganda). StuRat 21:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps another way out is if China invades North Korea and installs a puppet regime. While most of the world would normally object to this, eliminating the extreme danger posed by the current North Korean dictatorship would ensure that there would be very little criticism, and no punitive actions, taken against China. Perhaps they could promise Kim Jung Il that he won't be executed as long as he doesn't use nuclear weapons against China. StuRat 15:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would China invade North Korea? What would they gain? As long as North Korea doesn't use the nuclear Bomb noone is going to invade it. Flamarande 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If North Korea keeps it's nuclear weapons, then Japan and South Korea will need nuclear weapons to defend themselves. Once they have nuclear weapons, Taiwan (which China hates with a passion) will likely get them, too, as will perhaps most of Asia. The net result of this is to greatly reduce China's status as the sole nuclear power in Eastern Asia and ultimately poses a substantial threat to China. Unlike conventional weapons, even a small country, like Taiwan, can pose a significant military threat once armed with nuclear weapons. StuRat 20:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That exactly is why these two (small) countries are allied with the US, so that the US Nuclear weapons defend them from any Nuclear aggression. That's the whole point of alliances, they don't need any Nbombs they only need to keep the alliance with the USA. That's why the big ones are keen to keep the lid on Nuclear profiliration. They don't want to oppress the other countries, they fear that a small country really uses a nuclear bomb against them or against an ally. Flamarande 21:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Once North Korea has nuclear weapons that can reach the US, then the US nuclear deterrent against NK attacking South Korea or Japan will no longer be credible. Why would Japan believe the US would nuke NK if they were attacked, knowing that the US would risk a nuclear attack if they did. StuRat 21:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

So if someone uses the NBomb against your ally, you (the US) won't do a thing, because you are too afraid that they use the Nbombs against you? Sorry, that's nonsense. You will use your weapons or you will lose all your allies (and believe me you want to keep them, to have their strengh at your side). Have you ever studied the Cold War? Soviet Nuclear weapons could reach American soil anytime and that didn't stop the US from protecting Western Europe. You might say much about the USA but they aren't cowards. Flamarande 21:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The US positioned nuclear weapons in Europe, so Europe could defend itself, rather than rely on US ICBMs to defend them (even so, both the UK and France developed nuclear weapons, apparently not trusting the US to defend it). That's another option, placing US nukes in Japan and South Korea, but China wouldn't like that, either. Hence it is in their interest to wipe out NK before it's able to put nuclear weapons on a missile. StuRat 21:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Something noone (not even the Chinese) knows for sure if they allready have done it or not, and I think noone wants to risk it to find it out..

The first step to end the nuke crisis is to disarm the US. Then the world can lobby effectively for disarmament.There have to be effective rationale behind this big brother attitude.

The only way to disarm the US is to take back Pearl Harbor. 71.100.6.152 16:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The last two comments are simply narrow-minded. No nation allready possesing the Nuclear bomb is going to disarm them. No nation is going to invade (or bomb the crap out of them) them unless they use it. Ergo, they won't use it. Mutual Assured Destruction, the great reason for peace. Flamarande 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be MAD in the case of North Korea, at least not at this point. They don't have the speed, the stockpile, nor the delivery system to strike back if someone did nuke them -- if they did it first, they'd at most get one city damaged before everyone falls on them. It would more than likely be stupid to nuke them though, especially considering the possible environmental impact to the whole peninsula, as well as the political/moral issues with killing innocent civilians. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is narrowminded. There is a serious problem with the Attitude. The US invaded Irag on grounds of it possessing weapons of Mass destruction. And today it has become a mess. The US is not shouldering its responsibility of having wrecked that havoc. Will The US challenge the stance of N Korea? Will it keep sending troops trying to impose its foolish freedom & democracy? Why is it not giving freedom to every country to enter the Nuke Zone?

Let every country acquire that power & then sign the Mutual Assured Destruction for peace & harmony!

Unfortunately North Korea is not rational. Why? North Korea has the same buried in concrete mindset that Germany did prior to the end of World War II. North Korea sees itself in the same stubborn way as Germany did before it was defeated militarily. It is a mindset that only North Korea can change without suffering military defeat. The only option the rest of the World has depends upon what North Korea does. 71.100.6.152 17:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I really like that everyone is such a specialist about the NKregime. Do you base all your conclusions on something other than than the TV? Because if you have some real info and not mere speculation you might consider joining the CIA. Face it, we don't know almost nothing about the NKregime and all our conclusions about it are mere speculations and nothing else. The WOMD excuse was a lie from the start for the public (i.e. the American ppl). It wasn't the real reason. Flamarande 19:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

(I sigh and I wonder how I get into these arguments. Then I remember that I like politics (mainly international) ). You want the truth? You really want the real truth? It is most likely that Nothing is going to happen! So the NK has the Bomb, right?

Congratulations, they have the Bomb. Nobody is going to invade them now. Why? Because if someone does invade NK they might use the Bomb, and noone is willing to take that chance. Not the US , China, or Russia, etc.

The US wouldn't invade, no, but they might very well drop bombs, that doesn't require nearly the resources of an invasion and occupation force. China might invade, as they have the troops to get the job done and are close enough to have the element of surprise on their side (US satellites would show troops gathering on the border, but would likely keep silent). Russia has nothing to do with this crisis. StuRat 21:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a question of resources, it is a matter of retaliation. If the US bombs NK they would surely retaliate, propably with nukes, and their missiles have a wide range. Ergo, the Us won't risk it. China could surprise NK but would they be quick enough to prevent the launch of the missiles? I somehow doubt that the Chinese are willing to take that chance. Flamarande 09:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that NK can even put a nuke on a short range missile yet, much less on a long range missile capable of hitting the US. Also, their one long range missile test failed and it appears that their one nuclear weapons test may have failed, too. So, the risk to the US is minimal now, but will be severe in a few years. StuRat 20:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with you there, their nuclear capacities (number of nukes) and the range of their missiles is an icognito. They just might be a overblown paper tiger. But I doubt that anyone is willing to take that chance. Flamarande 21:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

They have the bomb. Congratulations. They most likely won't use it on someone. Why? Because if they use it against someone the chances are way too high that all major countries (i.e. those who also have the bomb) will retaliate against them. Even if somehow they don't (and if that happens they would lose an enormous amount of Face - something which really matters in politics and worth preserving at all costs) retaliate against you, you will not gain absolutly nothing except fearful hatred from everyone. Use the bomb on a country and then conquer it. You have gained a nuclear wasteland, now please hold it. Good luck.

NK has the bomb. Congratulations. Can they eat it? Will the bomb turn their entire shi*ty country into something better? Oh, they can threaten to use it and some countries will supply some food to the NK ppl but they won't supply plenty of food. Just enough to satisfy the regime. Just enough to prolong the agony of the NKppl. Just enough to keep the peace.

NK has the bomb. Congratulations. Can they sell it? Oh, There are many countries and organizations interrested in buying them. But can NK really risk to sell them? If they sell to the wrong buyer, this buyer might use a Bomb. If they use them, who do think is going to suffer the inevitable retaliatons? The buyer, sure, but also the NK. The Taliban regime was not truly guilty for the two towers, the Al-quaeda was, but boy did they also get a beating. Kadaffi learnt that leason, do you think the NK's are dummer than Kadaffi?

Nk has the bomb. Congratulations. The old Soviet Union and Communism also had the bomb. Did the bomb save either them on the long run? No, it didn't, did it? Economics and agriculture, simple as that. The NKppl will endure the current regime until someone of the same regime reforms the system from the inside like Gorbachew. Or their own military make a coup, which is about the same but a bit more risky. Noone from the outside is going to anything at all. Perhaps offer some bribes, give some food, and give some well-meaning or threatnining statements. Everybody is just going to wait paitiently for the inevitable: either the regime changes from the inside, the military makes a coup, or the NKppl starves to death. Noone is too concerned with the last and simply don't care much either way as there is nothing they can do about it. If NK uses the Bomb it will be wiped out of the map and that will be the end of it. If they don't use it, noone is going to bother them at all. So let us learn something from history for a change, and treat the NK like we did the old Soviet Union. Don't get frightnend because a lying politician tells you the world is going to end tomorrow. Tha lying politician wants to frighten you, so that you vote for him, is that truly so hard to understand?

How stupid do you think the NKregime really is? Do you really believe that they are completly mad or something? If they were, the NK military would have made a coup allready. Noone rational wants to die. Do you believe this is somehow diffrent in NK? Are they different from everybody else? Don't they fear Death, perhaps? Don't they love their children, wifes, and family? Do they really want to turn their own country into a Nuclear wasteland? That's why MAD worked, works, and will work in the forseable future.

The members of the regime don't wanna die and the military there don't wanna die also. If someone mad enough to use the bomb reaches to power the frightened military will seriously consider making a coup because they don't wanna die in the Nuclear Holocaust. The regime knows this and the military knows this also. They know it exactly because of WWII and rest assured they don't want to repeat the mistakes of Hitler and his regime. Why? Because they don't wanna die like Hitler and his henchmen, that's why. They don't want to follow someone into certain death.

The NK has the bomb, so what? There are more countries who have the Bomb and noone is (relativly) too frightened.

Only a completly mad person would use the bomb today. That, or a truly desperate one, like desperate because "another country has invaded "my" country and as I am going to die anyway, I will take many with me." So noone is going to force them into a tight spot with no exits, noone is going to invade them. And even if everything fails and someone really unleashes the Nuclear holocaust, relax, there is nothing we can do about it now. If you really want to ensure the survival of humanity as a whole, then keep your nerve, give a fair chance to the other side, vote for the wiser candidate, support a future world goverment, and support the expansion of Humanity into space (all the eggs in one basket, etc). If you really believe in something "above" then you might pray for peace, but as I don't believe that HE exists, I won't vouch for the results, LOL. We have lived with the Bomb since 1945 and I fear we will live with it in the forseable future. Flamarande 19:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC) As always this is mainly an educated guess, and if it turns out that I was mistaken you can collect my radioactive ashes and say to my remains: "Sadly, you were wrong."

If we allow countries governed by crazies to get and keep nukes, like NK and Iran, it's just a matter of time before they use them. Better to risk a small war now than to wait until they have thousands of ICBMs and can each destroy the world. StuRat 22:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Most likely it will be a country with nuclear arms that has a history of aggression. The US seems like an obvious choice, but somehow I don't think they will go that far because it will make the US look too bad and the effect will be too limited to be worth it. People may think that the US don't give a shit about what the world thinks about them, but that is not entriely true. It does hold true for a rogue state like Israel, though. So that's my best bet. DirkvdM 09:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Risk a Nuclear war to prevent a Nuclear war. Righ, sure. I hope the politicians in the USA show the sense they had during the Cold War. Stu, you are simply grasping at straws: you begin with one mighty argument (e.g. The war will be over if the Nk's capture Seoul, and as it is s close to the border...) and I explain why you are wrong (the US and Sktropops lost Seoul during the Korean War and still they kept on fighting) . Instead of accepting it, you grasp another argument and I demonstrate again that you are wrong. You are ignoring the following fact: Noone is willing to risk a full-scale Nuclear War. Therefore they will threaten and will impose whatever sanctions they like. Noone is going to invade Nk and risk taking a Nuke in retaliation. Noone is going to bomb NK, first because the necessary info on the targets is probably too meager and noone is willing to risk taking a Nuke in return. Everybody is just going to sit tight, do their best to contain NK, and patiently wait for an eventual internal change. It worked during the Cold War and the stakes were far higher. Why wouldn't it work now? Because the NK's are "completly crazy and have an allmighty Deathwish?" That's the same crap we were told about the Communists in the Soviet Union and China 1980's. "The Communists don't care if they die by the millions, they don't believe in God so they aren't afraid to go to Hell." Guess what? The NK's are ppl too, and they also want to live. Flamarande 09:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Having a small war to prevent a much larger war is a frequently used method, most recently employed against Serbia. Had they been unchallenged in Bosnia and Kosovo, they would have gone on to conquer the rest of the former Yugoslavia, then moved on to Albania and the other Balkan states. StuRat 20:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You are avoiding the point. Noone is willing to risk a full-scale Nuclear War. Serbia doesn't (and didn't) have any Nuclear weapons so your comparision is moot (and you knew it). Would NATO have intervened if Serbia had had Nuclear weapons? I somehow doubt it. Flamarande 21:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's my point exactly. A war now would NOT be a full scale nuclear war, as NK doesn't seem yet to be capable of properly detonating a nuclear device or of putting one in a missle. The longer we wait, however, the more likely a full scale nuclear war becomes, if NK is allowed to continue to develop nuclear weapons and missile technology, and sell both the devices and the technology to the highest bidder. StuRat 18:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I will support Dirvd opinions. The US supports Israel to an excessive extent.

Of course you will. Especially the absolutely absurd, ridiculous notion of Israel being a "rogue state". In what sense is Israel a "rogue state"? How does Israel pose a threat to anyone? If Israel were a "true" rogue state, why wouldn't it take it's overwhelmingly sophisticated army and vast arsenal of nukes to expand its territory and invade and conquer every one of neighbours? Why? Because Israel has no expansionist ambitions. That's why. Loomis 08:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you live in some parallel world where Israel is not expansionist and poses no threat to anyone? DirkvdM 07:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

They only invade Palestine or their neighbors when they are threatened by terrorism or military action from those places. They also leave as soon as they believe the threat to be reduced. That's not expansionism, that's self-defense. StuRat 18:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Those other places tend to disagree, which is why they attack in the first place. It's a feud. And feuds tend to be hard to end because either side will look at a differnt point in history as a reference to what is the 'normal situation' that needs to be restored. DirkvdM 05:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

How about nuking Mexico? Seriously, this is pie-in-the-sky. Hasbro 12:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Legal tender status of Jersey coinage in the UK

After being presented with a Jersey coin whilst doing my shopping (in mainland UK) this afternoon, and requesting it was switched, the sales assistant assured me it was legal tender in the UK. I know that's not the case, and the Sterling Area article confirms this. However, since the Jersey pound is not a separate currency, just a re-issue of coins denominated in pound sterling, for what reason, exactly, is it not legal tender in the UK (in a similar way to French-designed Euro coins are exactly the same currency and accepted exactly the same as German-designed Euro coins)? What would a good comeback have been?! Many thanks, _└/_talk 12:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A good comeback? How about take back this filthy foreign lucre, bignose. As far as I know Channel Isles, Gibraltar even Scottish notes are not legal tender in England due to differing tax systems The main problem is that shops accumulate these coins and they need to be exchanged like all other foreign currencies which costs a small percentage. The best way for the shops to not loose money is to diffuse the coins amongst the populous where the plebs will either take them out of circulation themselves or at least put them in somebody else's slot machines. MeltBanana 15:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that's the best way not to lose money. But the best way not to loose money...glue it all together ? :-) StuRat 15:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Gah I'm such a pleb I've already corrected defuse and diffuse but I am a homophonaphobe. MeltBanana 15:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Among the populous what? --ColinFine 23:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Homophobia"

I realize that this question is partially a linguistic one, but as it pertains to a larger degree about sociology, psychology and sexuality, I feel it's more appropriate to ask it here.

I've always had an issue with the term "homophobia" as basically meaning "gay-bashing" or "bigotry towards homosexuals", for two reasons. First, etymologically speaking, it's a rather terrible misnomer. "Homo" is Greek for "sameness", and "phobia" is Greek for fear, therefore, the term "homophobia" would seem to apply to some sort of "fear of sameness", and not at all to bigotry. The other reason I don't like it is because it sort of "sanitizes" this kind of bigotry, by referring to it as a "phobia". A "phobia" is a psychological condition of sorts, and as it almost never refers to a rational fear, but rather to an irrational one, has little to do with hatred. For example, while an claustrophobic may have an irrational "fear" about using an elevator (lift), s/he has no particular hatred towards elevators, and in most cases, would most likely wish s/he didn't have that fear. "Homophobia", as used in the English language just doesn't seem to be any sort of "phobia" at all, in the proper sense of the word.

In any case, just as they say "you can't fight city hall", you can't fight against a term that's been adopted by millions of English speakers, no matter how nonsensical it may seem from an etymological perspective.

My question, therefore is this: Should one, who, while not being bigoted, prejudiced, disrepectful, discriminatory towards, or unnaccepting of homosexuals, and while bearing no ill-will towards or hatred of homosexuls, yet who, nonetheless, can't help but be utterly revolted at the very idea of sexual intimacy between two males, be described as a homophobe? If not, what would be the proper term for that?

I'd be grateful for any possible views as to how to answer this question, as well as any related comments concerning the term "homophobia". Thanks! Loomis 13:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The only way to change meaning of a word in the U.S. is through mass media. For example, "metrosexual" is a common word now - not because anyone knows the definition of the root origins of the word. They just saw it on South Park and adopted it as the cool word of the day. So, if you want a definition of a person who is happy to hang around with gay men, but disgusted by gay sex, you have to get your new word into the media. However, it has to be a cool word. If it is stupid, like "manorexic" (a male anorexic), you'll be lucky to get a sound bite on late night CNN. For me, the word I'd like to change is "child" in phrases like "child sexual abuse". It refers to teenagers as well as children. I feel teenage sexual abuse, teenage pornography, and all of that should be marked as "teen", not "child". I am simply not much offended by an 18 year old boy having sex with a 17 year old girl. I am highly offended if he has sex with a 7 year old girl. Both are "child" sexual abuse. --Kainaw 13:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There are other examples of -phobias used for a dislike, rather than a fear, let alone a clinical disorder. Phobia#Terms_indicating_prejudice_or_class_discrimination lists some of them. I can't think of a word that distiniguishes the aesthetically based sexual revulsion you described. If it doesn't have to fit a discomfort toward gay sex specifically, sexually repressed or prude might fit the category.---Sluzzelin 14:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The word "homophobia" goes well with the absurd "gay panic defense", where heterosexuals are supposedly so terrified of homosexuals that they react as if their life is in danger, so that, in their diseased minds, they attack the homosexual out of self-defense. Also, other fears of living things, like clowns or cats, could result in the person attacking what they perceive as a danger. However, you're correct in saying that many people dislike homosexuality but don't take any action based on this dislike. Thus, the term differs from others, like "racist", which do not imply that any action was taken against the race in question. StuRat 15:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that "homophobia" is an imprecise term. I do think that it can refer to personal revulsion, even when that revulsion is not accompanied by harmful or discriminatory actions. I think that it is analogous to "racism." That said, I agree with Loomis that the term is an etymological misnomer. However, it is the word generally in use to express a broad range of meanings. Marco polo 16:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%, Kainaw, about the fact that we're in desperate need of a distinction between sexually immature pre-pubescent children, and sexually mature (albeit not necessarily psychologically mature) post-pubescent minors. I've tried to argue that point at least a couple of times here at the RefDesk. It's not that I approve of adults having sexual relations with adolescents, and I definitely disapprove of "teen porn", it's just that I don't find it "sick" for a heterosexual adult male, for example, to be sexually attracted to a 17 year old girl. And if the adult male in question is within a certain age range of the minor, say two or three years, I really don't see all that much inappropriate for a 20-21 year year old guy having a sexual relationship with his 17 year old girlfriend. On the other hand, sexual attraction towards pre-pubescent children is clearly sick.

But this kind of nicely dovetails with my problem with the word "homophobia". Aside from the etymological problem, much more importantly it only leads to the lumping together of otherwise decent guys/girls having the same feelings about homosexuality as those expressed above (ok, I'll quit with the pretense, me!) with all those bigots and gay bashers. The two just aren't the same. It just came to me, but perhaps great example is the fact that I, along with, I would imagine, most other people, just find the image of my parents having sex with each other as completely revolting! Of course I love them no less for it, I'd just rather not think about it! And of course I'd be a total hypocrite for disapproving of it, as otherwise, had they not had a sexual relationship, I'd never exist!

Similarly, labelling all adults who are sexually attracted to minors as "pedophiles', and if they act upon their feelings, as "child sex offenders", regardless of the age of the minor, in the same way unfairly lumps together those truly sick individuals who are attracted to and abuse children, with those other rather healthy individuals who are attracted to sexually mature adult minors.

Let me be clear though, I definitely would not approve of a 32 year old man having sex with a girl half his age. That would be, to say the very least, extremely improper. All I'm saying is that whatever sexual attraction he may have for her, it's a far cry from pedophilia.

As for Kainaw's suggestion that I attempt to coin a term for a decent, accepting person who is nonetheless revolted by the idea of homosexual sex between men, I originally felt that the idea of little-old-me actually accomplishing something like that was astronomically tiny to none. But then I thought about how much wiki is growing day by day into more and more of an institution in pop-culture (I've happened upon no less than half a dozen articles about it in various newspapers, magazines, etc.) that I figured, what the hell? Might as well give it a try. What do I have to lose? Just imagine the thought of little-old-me coining a term that has the potential to one day make it into standard English lexicon!

The problem is, I can't really think of a more proper term to differentiate gay-bashing bigots from regular guys who are just really turned off by the very idea of homosexual intimacy.

What I can say is that the "phobia" part of the term should be replaced by the far more approprite "mis", derived from the Greek misos, meaning "hatred", as in the terms misogyny, misandry and misanthropy. It's the homosexuality part that's giving me trouble. I can't seem to think of a preferably monosyllabic, greek derived word for homosexuality. But I haven't checked a dictionary yet, so I might get lucky and find something suitable. Any suggestions? Lets make it a group effort. That way one day we can all have our tiny little spot in the history of the English language!

But still, I'm not deluded. It's probably just a pipe dream. Thanks to everyone so far, but I'd appreciate as many thoughts as possible on any aspect being discussed here. Loomis 18:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Checked the dictionary. How does "misomophile" sound? Catchy? Mark my words, people! One day you'll find that word in the Oxford English Dictionary! Yeah right...who'm I kidding... :-) Loomis 21:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably not quite euphonious enough to catch on, but best of luck. Btw, is "astronomically tiny" at all related to "microscopically huge"?  :) JackofOz 23:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Since it is probably difficult to redefine a word - how did "gay" get redefined? - you can make up a word to define a person who is not afraid of gays, does not hate gays, does not mind interacting with gays, but has a disgust towards gay sex. Something like phallanalphobia. --Kainaw 21:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You may appreciate this article: Here to Stay. The Jade Knight 05:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Marketing

1) What are the major differences of environmental scanning under domestic marketing and international marketing?

Read the top of the page and you will see Do your own homework. At the very least, reword the question and don't put the number in front. --Kainaw 15:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll get on it right away. How many words are required and what's the deadline? Loomis 08:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Flag Desecration Act

My college professor said that there is another way to accomplish the banning of flag desecration by one of the branches of government other than Congress. What is this act and what branch of government can do this? Kari Ruf

I won't be an ass and ask you "Which country's congress are you talking about"? The Congress of the Philippines, The Congress of the Republic of Peru, The National Congress of Brazil, The National Congress of Ecuador, The Congress of the United States? Obviously you're referring to the US Congress. But try to remember that we're not all Americans here.

I suppose, it maaaay be possible for the President, (the executive branch,) pursuant to his power granted by Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", may possibly, in conjunction with title 4, Chapter 1, §3 (Use of flag for advertising purposes; mutilation of flag) of the United States Flag Code, issue an "executive order" banning the desecration of the flag. But that's just a spur-of-the-moment-wild guess. I really don't know a whole lot about the intricacies of the US constition. But please, as a special favour, come back to me and tell me what your professor thinks of that guess. Loomis 23:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Loomis 23:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My guess would be the Judicial branch to declare the act of desecrating the flag unconstitutional, even though that would be unconstitutional in itself. Still, that's probably the easiest way to go about that. Pckeffer

I think you've misunderstood the question, Pckeffer. The Supreme Court has already struck down the portion of the law that bans the desecration of the flag, as being a violation of the First Ammendment. It's now legal to burn the American flag. What I believe the questioner was asking was how some branch other than the legislative can constitutionally reinstate a law banning the desecration of the flag. But then again, I could be the one that misunderstood the question. Loomis 01:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The effects of an executive order are limited to the executive branch of the government or where otherwise authorized by Congress. The president can ban flag-burning in government buildings, but he can't ban flag-burning by individuals. I'm sure your professor is referring to the idea of the Supreme Court reversing its previous decision and allowing the ban on flag-burning. -- Mwalcoff 01:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

(Groan) Awwww, don't tell me it was a trick question and I that overthought it! Of course the Supreme Court can reverse its previous position. But that just seemed too obvious. If that's the answer your professor was looking for, well, then, that was a pretty nasty trick s/he pulled. :-) Loomis 01:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Now wait a sec, that doesn't seem right either. Yes, it's true that the US Supreme Court can reverse its decisions, and yes, it's true that the US courts have the power of judicial review. But that only seems to allow them to strike-down unconstitutional law. Once the law is stricken down, it's gone forever. While they can reverse their decision by striking down a law as unconstitutional after having previously upheld it as constitutional, (as they had done by upholding separate but equal legislation in Plessy v. Ferguson, and then reversing that decision by striking down the "separate-but-equal" principle in similar legislation, in Brown v. Board of Education) I can't see how they can do the opposite. I'm pretty sure they can't "un-strike-down" law they had previously stricken down. I believe what would be required would be for congress to re-enact the previously stricken down legislation, have it challenged in court, and this time have the court decide that they hold it to be constitutional. But that would require action by Congress, which is out of the question according to your professor.

Mwalcoff, you said "he effects of an executive order are limited to the executive branch of the government or where otherwise authorized by Congress". Well Congress apparently authorized restrictions on mutilation of the flag in the United States Flag Code I cited above. But I admit, that doesn't seem right either, as it would seem to allow the President to issue an executive order which has been determined by the courts to be in violation of the Bill of Rights. I'm stumped. But please Kari! I'm really curious, and I'd really appreciate it if you came back to me with your prof's "REAL" answer! Loomis 04:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

When the courts "strike down" a law, it doesn't go anywhere. It stays on the books, unenforceable, until it's repealed. Alabama's state constitution still says blacks and whites must go to separate schools. The flag code has never been repealed. If I were to be arrested for burning a flag, it's likely the court would throw out the case right away. But it's theoretically possible that the court could ignore precedent and convict me, and the Supreme Court could rule against me on my appeal.

You are right that executive orders, like all laws, must not violate the Constitution. In addition, the Constitution limits just how much authority Congress can grant the president. So if Congress were to pass a statute to permit the president to ban flag-burning everywhere, that statute would be unconstitutional. As I said before, the president could issue an order regarding protocol for handling the flag on government property, but he couldn't issue an order telling a private citizen what he or she can do with the flag in his or her house. -- Mwalcoff 05:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I'm no US Constitutional Law expert. I seem to have been applying my understanding of Canadian Constitutional Law and the Canadian variation of Judicial Review to that of the US. There appear to be some subtle differences. In Canada, when a law is struck down as unconstitutional, it is deemed to be "of no force or effect". I hadn't realized that the same was not true with American Judicial Review. In Canada, a law that is deemed by the courts to be "of no force or effect" is pretty much dead. Should a lower court encounter the law, it's not a mere matter of following precedent, which is so often ignored or worked around, but far more powerfully, it becomes a matter of of enforcing a law that the Supreme Court of Canada has deemed to be "of no force or effect". Therefore, no court can legally reconsider the constitutionality of the law. The law is dead. Apparently, unlike the US Supreme Court, while the Supreme Court of Canada may have the power to "kill" a law, it apparently does not have the power to bring it back to life. Loomis 08:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Holiday

What is the Day of the Race, which falls on October 12th 2006?

"Día de la Raza" seems to be a Latin American equivalent of Columbus Day. From the Columbus Day talk page:

"According to Spanish Misplaced Pages, this date is official at least in 4 Hispanic American countries:

Uruguay,as "Día de las Américas", since 1915.

Venezuela, as "Día de la Raza" from 1921 to 2002, when President Hugo Chávez change :the name to "Día de la Resistencia Indígena".

Chile, as "Dia de la Raza" from 1923 to 2000. President Ricardo Lagos renamed it as "Día del Descubrimiento de Dos Mundos".

Mexico, since 1928 as "Día de la Raza"." ---Sluzzelin 16:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Universities in Vermont

Hi guys, can anyone tell me about universities and/or colleges or technical schools in Vermont?...and make special emphasis on the 'hyspanic friendly' ones?. and also,about possible scholarships for non-residents and non-sport players?. (specifically for computer software engineering, but it can be for anything) before american wikipedians start hating me for asking about scholarships in their country, I have to say I'm just wondering. --Cosmic girl 16:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Scan the articles in Category:Universities and colleges in Vermont and its subcategories...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I live not far from Vermont, and while I don't know about specific scholarships, I have some sense of the geographic and academic landscape. Vermont is a small and mostly rural state. It has long, cold, and snowy winters, which are great if you like to ski, but maybe not so great otherwise. Because it is a small state, most of its colleges and universities are small. Many probably do not have computer software engineering programs. The largest college or university is certainly the University of Vermont, located in Vermont's largest city, Burlington, which has a population of about 39,000. On the other hand, a well-endowed college such as Middlebury College, may have more money for scholarships. As for "Hispanic-friendly," if that is important to you, I wonder why you would choose Vermont. Vermont has the lowest Hispanic population of any state, numbering fewer than 7,000 total. It has the second-lowest percentage of Hispanics of any state. You could probably fit every Hispanic student in any of the state's colleges or universities in a single room. Vermont has a reputation for being liberal and progressive, so you probably won't find too much outright prejudice as a Hispanic person. On the other hand, you will not have many fellow Hispanic students. Marco polo 18:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I live in Vermont, work for a technology company which is the state's largest private employer, and my wife just graduated from UVM last year. With that said, I don't think that you'd have any issue at all finding a college or university that has a software engineering degree program. Middlebury College is probably the least likely to have one though as it's more of a liberal arts college from what I gather. I haven't spent much time talking with anyone who went to Middlebury, so that's why I'm a bit shakey on that one. I would say your best bets are UVM, Vermont Technical College, or Champlain College. All three work closely with IBM to educate employees. In fact, if you were to get even just an entry level job with IBM, they would basically send you to school for whatever you want in the software field. That's what I'll be doing and I know many other people who have gone to school "on IBM's dime". So that might aleviate your concerns about getting a scholarship. That way all you have to do is get a job!  :-) Oh, and don't worry about having a harder time getting a job because you aren't a U.S. citizen. There are many employees that I work with who aren't U.S. citizens. As well as some who have become naturalized citizens while working there. As Marco polo said though, Vermont is one of the least diverse states in the country as far as ethnicity is concerned. There isn't a lot of bias or prejudice though, especially in the Burlington area. I could go on, but I won't here unless you have further questions since I think I covered what you asked about. If you want to talk more about Vermont, I'd be happy to try and answer any questions you may have. Just leave a message on my talk page. Dismas| 22:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

thank u guys. =)--Cosmic girl 00:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

TV sets

When I was a kid, TV's were part of a big piece of furniture. What happened?66.213.33.2 17:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? That they're less stylish now, or smaller, or something? The trend is towards making them blend in with the rest of the room, rather than standing out as a huge box in the middle of it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me expand on my question: Until about 1970, a TV was part of a piece of wood (or fake wood) furniture. It was a long console, with legs. On the console were speakers and big knobs. I don't think any such TV is for sale today. What happened to the idea of the TV as a piece of furniture? 66.213.33.2 18:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Furntiure styles have changed, sheek silver objects are fashionable, fake wood is not. And you can put tvs in tv cabinets, which I think may be what you are reffering too, as I have never seen a wooden TV. TVs still have speakers, but technology outdated the need for knobs etc. So just because the wold has moved since the 70s doesnt mean that a televisions status has changed. Philc _TC 18:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm know I'm really showing my age here, but Phil, I don't think you have the same image of "wooden TVs" as the questioner does. They aren't the type you can put into a cabinet, but were actually, stand-alone pieces of furniture. It's hard to describe. Just think of a coffee table, standing on four legs, only somewhat higher and with a somewhat smaller surface. Underneath, there would be a TV screen. I'll try to find a pic for you. (Sorry Marco...I hadn't scrolled down to realize that you said basically the same thing). Loomis 00:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think TV's were ever considered furniture. They probably needed the room for all the clunky parts. Clarityfiend 20:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

TVs certainly were considered furniture. I remember exactly the object that the person asking the question is talking about. It was was not a TV cabinet. The TV screen was encased in a wooden frame and could not be separated from that frame without using tools. Perhaps I am the only person posting here born before 1970. Lol. My guess is that when they were first introduced in the late 1940s and 1950s, TVs were unfamiliar objects. Marketers wanted people to feel comfortable putting them in living rooms. Before TVs existed, living rooms were formal rooms where the family kept their best furniture. Sometimes living rooms were used only for company on special occasions. For the TV to fit into that environment, it had to look like the other elements of that environment: formal, wooden furniture. Since the 1960s, the concept of the living room has changed, and the TV has become a familiar object. Therefore, it no longer needs wooden casing. In fact, the wooden casing would look out of place in a modern living room, where wood has largely given way to metal, plastic, and synthetic fabrics. Marco polo 20:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Prior to TVs, radios and phonographs were also sometimes built-in to a large piece of wooden furniture. The problem with this, as I see it, is that the electrical device is likely to need replacement before the furniture. This means either the furniture must be thrown out, or continue to be used as furniture, even though the electrical device inside is either broken or obsolete. So, all in all, it seems to make more sense to purchase electronic devices and furniture separately. Another issue is the weight, which can be so great as to require a moving crew, while the separate items could be moved (with some difficulty) by the consumer. StuRat 20:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

True, StuRat, the manufactures of these beautifully antiquated devices recognized the potentially fatal techno-flaw that the electrical devices within the "wooden box" would wear out before the structure itself. However, some brilliant mind in their marketing division was also savvy enough to realize the lucrative benefits of breaking apart the mechanism, only to remarket the pieces into two seperate, but necessary purchases (the television + the entertainment unit/stand/etc.) Unfortunately, for the original inquirer and the remaining handful who miss the old style television sets (myself included), I regret to inform you, that although many of the morphing newer technologies that have surfaced on the market (cellphones with mp3/blah/blah/camera/blah/blah) there is nothing to support a reintro retro-style consolidation of the those two (tv + furniture)items again. But you must admit,it isn't necessarily a bad thing if you're into minimalistic design...and, it's got to be more environmentally friendly...i mean, at least now when a TV goes bad, the plastic parts that enclose the electronic equip. can be recycled, right?

Also, the ratio of prices has changed. It used to be that the TV costed so much, and wooden furniture was so cheap, that encasing a TV in wood would only increase the price by 10%. Now, however, TVs are so cheap and furniture is so expensive that you might triple the cost of a TV by encasing it in a nice wooden cabinet. StuRat 20:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a good example of a television of the past that was designed as a piece of furniture. It's also a good example of the inevitable fate of such television sets.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is it still called a "set" when it is one appliance with one on-off switch, one power cord, and one case? I do not have a microwave set, a radio set, or a computer set. 1942 was about the last year (in the U.S) that people bought a shortwave/FM radio to pick up the sound and a separate video receiver, constituting a "set." If you hate TV and refuse to allow one in your house, I suppose you own the null set: ${\displaystyle \emptyset \subseteq A}$.Edison 13:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

And if you take the innards out of your TV, do you have an empty set ? StuRat 20:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Soviet recognition of Irish Republic

According to some Misplaced Pages articles British Isles (terminology), Irish Republic and Imperial Crown of Russia, Lenin's Russia was the only country to recognize the Irish republic. However i cant find any other sources mentioning this. Only answers.com mentions it and it cites wikipedia. can anyone find a source or should these sections be deleted? Ken 18:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, answers.com is essentially a mirror of Misplaced Pages, so Misplaced Pages is still the only place you've found this putative fact. - Nunh-huh 19:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Bowyer Bell's "The Secret Army: The IRA" mentions (footnote #11, p38, 3rd ed) "The only result of the diplomatic campaign was recognition by Soviet Russia, felt to be a mixed blessing by many of the more pious members of Sinn Féin.". But O'Connor in "Communists, Russia, and the IRA, 1920-1923" (The Historical Journal, 46, 1, 2003, p115-131) says that a recognition treaty was drafted, but "While the Russians were keen on a treaty in 1920, President Éamon de Valera hesitated, apprehensive about the impact on the bigger prize of winning recognition from the USA. When he finally decided to send McCartan to Moscow, the Soviets had gone cold on ties with the republic, for fear of jeopardizing trade negotiations with Britain.". (McCartan being their envoy to Russia). So it seems it didn't actually happen in the end. --BluePlatypus 23:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but looking at the Irish Republic article, it's not quite wrong either - as it seems to base its claim on the fact that they loaned money to Russia. The O'Conner article does confirm that much. I guess you could consider that an informal kind of recognition. But it should at least be clarified. --BluePlatypus 16:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Irish Republic didn’t come along until at least 1937, maybe 49. In 1921, all they had was Irish Free State. martianlostinspace 13:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the article, Your mixing up the Irish Republic and the Republic of Ireland Ken 22:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Developing Nuclear Weapons

1. I'm wondering why a country needs to develop nuclear weapons over 50 years after their first use. Couldn't they have stolen the relevant designs in this time? What could be so complicated about developing a nuclear weapon? In a movie I saw, the radioactive material was blown down to critical mass using a coating of regular explosive - isn't that how it's done?

2. If nuclear power was more widely adopted, how long would it take to deplete the earth's supply of suitable material? In the event of a failure to develop other sources of energy before the depletion of fossil fuels, would countries turn to dismanteling their weapons for more radioactive ore?

3. How likely is North Korea likely to launch missiles at the US and if it does, what other countries are likely to suffer casualties? Should I be worried or will the politicians take care of it? Wont missile defense systems destroy any undesirable missiles on route? --Username132 (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Not very, largely because North Korea would be obliterated by the US counter-strike (the US some 10,000 nuclear weapons). Other than North Korea, the closest countries (China, South Korea, and Japan) would suffer the most from fallout. StuRat 19:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes but is the fact that both parties would suffer enough to stop it from happening? And when I asked about other casualties, I meant would other countries become involved (e.g. UK)? --Username132 (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly Japan and South Korea would also be attacked by North Korea. China might also attack North Korea and set up a puppet regime there. StuRat 20:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You want your bomb to definately not be in danger of exploding under normal conditions, and to definately explode when recquired. This recquires more than just coating it with explosives, you have to understand the physics of it in order to be sure it will work etc. Modern Hydrothermic Nuclear weapons use standard atomic weapons to force hydrigen isotopes (probably dueterium and tritium) together which creates a far far larger explosion (in the region of tens of thousands times larger than hiroshima). This is more complex than coating a lump of uranium in nitroglycerene or something.

Also there are the political reasons, if you show that you have the capability to build and develop your own, its shows a far more advanced military, than one that can just steal and copy plans, as it means they also have the capability to develop further weapons, possibly leading to an arms race. And testing them is necesary to prove you have them. E.g. if Zimbabwe just announced it had nuclear weapons, people would just say prove it. Philc _TC 18:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

PS, why do people insist on posting above replies that were there before theirs (sturat) Philc _TC 19:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In this case I had an edit conflict, so put my comment where I originally wrote it to go. In many other cases, I have a short answer, so put that in front of some long, rambling answer or non-answer (since, after reading all that, the reader will likely have forgotten the original question). StuRat 20:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are really worried of a Nuclear War you might consider moving to Antartica, as that place is propably not a entry in the targetlist's (you will have to worry about freezing to death and skincancer though). You can also build a Nuclear bomb shelter in your backyard and practice Duck and cover alot, to give yourself a better chance of survival. Either way, the politicians won't save you from Nuclear missiles allready airborne ("Should I be worried or will the politicians take care of it?"). LOL Flamarande 20:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping the politicians would take care of it before the missiles get airborne... --Username132 (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well to give my best answers 1) Mostly fissionable material. Exact schematics are probably hard to come by, but it's quite possible the DPRK could have aquired them at some point in the past when they were on better terms with China or the USSR. 2) Not nearly long enough. It would also be a desperate measure, since it's exponentially more expensive to refine fissionable material to a weapon-grade level than a power-plant level. 3) North Korea probably can't hit the mainland US at the moment. South Korea and Japan aren't so lucky. But the whole nuke issue and missile defenses is rather moot. Practically all of South Korea, with a dense population of 50 million is within range of conventional artillery from the North Korean border. A border which is completely stacked with camoflaged and fortified artillery, some of which may have chemical or biological shells. An attack from either side, nukes or no, is still likely to generate casualties numbered in millions even if the conflict is quickly resolved. When two people are holding guns to eachother's heads, does it really matter if it's a .45 or 'just' a 9mm? --BluePlatypus 22:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd strongly disagree with your answer too 2, firstly I fail to see how there can be an exponential increase, with only to data points (weapons grade and power plant grade) also nuclear power is more than enough considering how much uranium there is in the world, and that we need a couple of kilos every year to put a coal power station that burns millions of tonnes (and for the record, produces more radioactive waste, in the form of carbon isotope emmissions) Nuclear power is the only viable solution to our energy needs, and cracking fusion will once and for all solve our needs considering 98% of the universe is made up of nuclear fission fuel. Philc _TC 22:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I didn't mean 'exponentially' in the strict mathematical sense, there are a lot more than just two data points. (Duh.) What I'm talking about is that the amount of refinement required does not increase linearly with the required concentration of the heavy isotope. The 90% level you need for a bomb does not require 30x the work it takes to get the 3% level you need for a power plant. (At least double that, I think) As for the rest of your answer, maybe you need to go back and read closer. (I'm not saying that we're going to run out of fissionable material soon.) But the universe sure as hell isn't 98% fissionable material. --BluePlatypus 23:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Gutted, what a gay typo, I meant fusion, I have changed it, 98% of the universe is hydrogen and helium, which is fusionable. Philc _TC 17:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles you should read: nuclear weapon, nuclear weapon design, nuclear proliferation, nuclear power. --Robert Merkel 01:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

HM Prison Service

I was wondering if criminals in the UK are used to perform unpaid labour? If not, would this not enable some self-suffiency of the prison system so we wouldn't be forced to keep releasing criminals early and giving such short sentences for horrendous crimes? --Username132 (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear who you mean by the 'we' who are 'forced to keep releasing criminals early and giving such short sentences for horrendous crimes'. The US and UK, just for instance, have some of the highest incarceration rates in the world. And 'used to perform unpaid labour' is a pretty obvious euphemism for 'slavery'. Cheers, Sam Clark 19:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Laws against involuntary servitude do not apply to convicts according the the US constitution. 71.100.6.152 22:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. According to s.1 of the 13th Ammendment, (the one that finally banned slavery) involuntary servitude is prohibited "...except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted..." Just curious though, what does "HM" mean in this context? Loomis 00:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"HM" in this context means "Her Majesty's...". --Canley 01:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The US Constitution is not the last word in the definition of slavery. The fact that the 13th amendment excludes convicts from its prohibition of forced labour doesn't mean that such labour is not slavery. And even if it did, that wouldn't apply anywhere else in the world. Cheers, Sam Clark 10:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There are several problems such a system would create:

1) What do you do to prisoners who refuse to comply ?

2) This free source of labor undercuts the workers who were currently doing the job. For example, if you use prisoners to build roads, then whoever was being used to build roads loses their job.

3) This introduces corruption by leaving prison wardens in charge of a valuable resource (free labor), frequently with little oversight to prevent them from selling it to the highest bidder and pocketing the cash.

4) The cost of imprisonment is currently a limitation on the number of prisoners that can be kept incarcerated (as you had noted). Without this limit politicians wanting to seem "tough on crime" are likely to pass mandatory life imprisonment for minor crimes, like possession of tiny quantities of marijuana or parents with a pic of their kid in the bathtub. StuRat 19:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re question 1) see Cool Hand Luke and the rhetorical statement "What we got here--is a failure to COMMUNICATE." The resulting consequences would motivate the recalcitrant prisoner to comply.Edison 04:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

See The Shawshank Redemption for an example of number three. Anchoress 13:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Barking dogs

Why do dogs bark at and chase bicycles? Is it canine neurosis oe what? 71.100.6.152 22:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's more than likely caused by the fact that they're hunters and something that moves quickly could be thought of as prey. Dismas| 22:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

But barking at prey seems counter intuative. Barking at an enemy yes but not at prey. 71.100.6.152 23:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I notice a great variation in the responses of the dogs that I meet as I cycle along the canal towpath in the morning. Some are highly exciteable (and usually held firmly by their owners until I have passed); others are completely uninterested, and don't even look up from whatever they are sniffing. I tend to assume that the 'barkers' are distressed; but I don't actually know. --ColinFine 23:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that this is the answer, but as a point of comparison, my dog barks at people she likes. The more she likes a person, the more she barks at her/him. Unfortunately, rather than being flattered, most of the objects of her affection feel threatened. Anchoress 23:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Some dogs are instinctive herders, and a bike may seem like a large ungulate in need of direction.Edison 23:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't take this harshly, Anchoress, but your dog is weird. :-) Seriously, it may not be about hunting prey, but rather protecting the dog's territory and "pack" (its master and his/her family). Dogs very often bark when the postman comes, as they see him/her as a stranger "invading" its territory and "threatening its pack". Perhaps they continue chasing and barking in a sort of "go away and don't come back!" sort of way. But I'm no animal psychologist, so my guess is probably way out in left-field. Loomis 00:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty with protecting the pack against territory invasion is that I know dogs that bark while behind a privacy fence at just the sound of a bicycle riding down the road and in many cases if you stop riding and get off the bicycle and stnd your ground the dog with stop baking and maybe even lie down. Its only when you try to move that the dog will getup and start barking again. Could dogs simply be control freaks? 71.100.6.152 08:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No harm no foul, lol. Seriously, she is weird. She also submissive pees for lesbians. Anchoress 00:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Your dog is not only weird but probably gay. 71.100.6.152 08:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"in many cases if you stop riding and get off the bicycle and stnd your ground the dog with stop baking" Dog biscuits?Edison 13:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Having some along might help with a timely escape. On the other hand... hummm... maybe the dog is more interested in making you part of his/her pack. In any event several hits with a sprayer filed with HN3 may permanently discourage chasing in only a few days. 71.100.6.152 17:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

On a trip around the block to test a new odometer I passed a house with a large Germany Sheppard in the yard. There was an elderly lady on the front stoop. The dog looked up when it heard the noise from the sensor being misaligned but went back to sniffing the ground. On the second pass I was busy monitoring the display but heard the lady make a comment to the dog. It apparently may have been headed for me. Consequently I now assume that whatever a dog does is merely a reflection of the mind set of its owner. Owners who do not regard other people as dog food don't let there dogs bark at and chase other people and the dog knows better than to do it. 71.100.6.152 12:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

2 Questions

1) I'm looking for information on class structure during Elizabethan times. I would appreciate any sources for information, but not straight answers. The http://en.wikipedia.org/Elizabethan article seems to lack any sort of similar information.

2) Out of curiosity, does anyone happen to know of any seemingly meaningless or effectless laws involving immigration into the United States, such as 'no spitting on the sidewalk in Lincoln Nebraska'?

P.S. I know I suck at html, so sue me.

I don't get the connection between an ordinance against spitting in Lincoln, Nebraska, and immigration. I'm probably missing something. Loomis 00:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The questioner wants to know if there are any immigration laws that we (in modern times) think are silly. If you lived in Lincoln 200 years ago and everyone was spitting their tobacco juice on the dirt sidewalk making the town a sticky and muddy mess, you wouldn't think the law was silly at all. --Kainaw 00:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I'm with Loomis on this. What does that have to do with immigration? Is the OP talking about newly arrived immigrants being subject to deportation if they spit on the sidewalk in Lincoln Nebraska? Why would a law prohibiting public expectoration not apply to the general populace, not just immigrants? Or are there different sanctions against native-born people? What am I missing here? JackofOz 02:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the questioner typed immigration when he meant legislation. Kainaw provided the correct answer (which is quite interesting!). Hyenaste  02:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I kinda doubt that. That would turn "laws involving immigration into the United States" into "laws involving legislation into the US", which has no meaning for me. No, the writer seems to have a very good command of English, and has worded his question carefully. I think I understand it now. A law about immigration to the USA that happened to include a provision prohibiting spitting on a Nebraska sidewalk would indeed be a meaningless and ineffective law. He's asking if we know of any examples of such crazy laws. I know a few crazy laws, but none of them are laws about immigration to the US. JackofOz 02:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Or possibly he meant stupid laws concerning immigration, then provided an example of an unrelated stupid law for clarification. Hyenaste  02:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's probably it. Unfortunately I can't think of any. Loomis 04:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will attempt and fail to tackle the question on Elizabethan class structure. Here is what you do: Go to your local public library and get a recent annotated copy of the works of Shakespeare, with a chapter or two of academic discussion in the front of the book, or a book on the times of Shakespeare or the Elizabethan period. Skim the academic discussion until you get to the part about class. See what your book has to say about it. That's a start. But, more importantly, check its references to other sources, which should be listed in the bibliography in the back. Those sources will offer more detailed information on class in that period. You may find some of the sources in your local public library, but you might have to go to a university library. If you are in the United States, public universities (state universities) will usually give you access to their collection, but not borrowing privileges. But they do have copy machines. Marco polo 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hyenaste is correct, but I don't want Shakespeare's fictional, bourgeois terms of class relations. Something more realistic instead.

October 13

flute music term?

What is the musical term to describe when an instrument like a flute flickers alternating between two notes very fast as a musical effect?--Sonjaaa 03:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

A trill. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

On many instrument a trill can be achieved by movement of valves or keys, or simply by movement of the lips and variation of the air pressure (lip trill).Edison 04:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget, there are a few random alternations that no-one really uses these days - like mondents. The general name for things like this are ornaments. Normally they write tr with a big wavy line.--martianlostinspace 13:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget, there are a few random alternations that no-one really uses these days - like mondents. The general name for things like this are ornaments. Normally they write tr with a big wavy line.--martianlostinspace 13:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

mordent, not 'mondent' - and that's something different. - coolsnak3

What is Marriage?

I have a question. What is Marriage?

According to the article on Marriage, it says that

A marriage is a relationship between or among individuals, usually recognized by civil authority and/or bound by the religious beliefs of the participants.

But it is ridiculus because it means that I'm married to own my sister! I have a relationship with my sister (the relationship is that she is my sister). My relationship with my sister is recognised by the civil authority (The authority recognised her as my sister).

So I must be married to my sister! What about my boss? I must be married to my boss too! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.168.50.40 (talk • contribs) .

That first sentence isn't meant to be a definition, just a true statement that characterizes marriage. Read a little further and you'll see there's a whole section on "Definitions". —Keenan Pepper 05:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The article says marriage is a relationship, not any relationship. -- Mwalcoff 05:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If the first sentense is not meant to be a definition then it should clearly state:

In a marriage, there exists a relationship between or among individuals, usually recognized by civil authority and/or bound by the religious beliefs of the participants.

In the 'cat' article, the first sentence doesn't have to be a water-tight definition of cats, just a description that tells you roughly what they are. If I say 'A cat is a land mammal with 4 legs' that doesn't mean a dog is a cat. Skittle 13:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

We are dealing with the art of understatements and must not. It should be clearly said something discriminating in an encyclopedia (if a child asks, where is the true answer ?), things like :

• Marriage is ... to help and love one another and to bear and raise children together if they are desired.
• A cat is ... furry and kept in houses to avoid mice or for company. -- DLL 19:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh the romantics. Marriage is a legal deal and little else. Marriage is mainly a legal contract. Both interrested sides of the deal (the spouse and the wife) proclaim (and/or sign a proper document) their agreement (aka Marriage vows) to enter a life-long relationship (you can justly compare to a fusion of two firms). This is witnessed by the guests (in particular the bestman and the best ...) and properly registered by an official of the goverment (and/or religious representative). The financial questions are settled. If later the parties decide to split up (divorce - which is a recission of contract), the jointly gained assets (the kids and/or the properties) are sometimes subject to fierce legal battles (compare it to legal battles between two firms). Divorces are an ugly affair with one side blaming the other (naturallly, as it was a breach of contract). Flamarande 21:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Any study on early marriage will reveal that marriage has existed long before such legal ramifications; originally, marriage was a social thing, not a legal one. The Jade Knight 05:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but those social constructs usually had similar roles in those societies to the social construct we call "law" does today. --Robert Merkel 00:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

For a fairly exhaustive list of definitions type "define:marriage" at the Google web prompt. 71.100.6.152 12:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've Seen Art History, But Where's Fashion History (Or Maybe Costume History?) And Literature History?

Danke.100110100 07:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be missing coverage of non-Western fashion history, but we do have History of Western fashion and History of literature. --Allen 12:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but, what I meant is that there's Art History, but not Fashion History or Literature History. There is Art History in university, but not Fashion History or Literature History; in other words, you can take Art History, but not Fashion History or Literature History. For example, I'm taking Art History 101 and Art History 102 concurrently, but I haven't found any junior Fashion History or Literature History courses, or (in other words) 100level Fashion History or LIterature History courses.100110100 00:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You aren't looking very hard if you can't find any Literature History courses; for instance, looking at this random course list, we see ENGL 112 - English Literature in Historical Perspective, ENGL 320 - Old English Language and Literature, ENGL 340 - Early Modern Literature and Culture: 17th Century Texts, and so on. The vast majority of the courses offered by an English department are describable as "history of literature", whether considering a certain historic period, a certain type of literature, a certain element or style, or a certain region. Often, history of literature courses are also offered as advanced options in foreign language programs, such as FRANC 326 - Littérature française du XVIIIe siècle (French literature of the 18th century). As far as fashion history goes, this may be covered a little bit in the art department, or the drama department (for costuming purposes), but it's mostly centred at institutions that specialize in the practical designing arts, such as Parsons The New School for Design, which has a department dedicated to the History of Decorative Arts. --ByeByeBaby 03:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Another thought: Hitorical costumers do tend to try to make costumes accurate. I'm pretty sure that most schools with fashion or costuming courses would offer something on the subject. Also, Humanities courses tend to cover History/Events, Philosophy, Architecture, Arts, and Literature. Each subject is shown in relation to the other subjects. A Humanities course usually gives not a definite literature history, but it does discuss some development of the art. Russia Moore 04:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Minimum wage

Isn't it pretty evident that when congress increases its own salary but refuses to increase the minimum wage if only to increase it to cover inflation that the congress is dominated by republicans? 71.100.6.152 07:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Which country are you talking about? 09:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like the USA to me. 20:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Republicans claim that the richest people in America are all Democrats. Yet even though Republicans lobbied to establish that corporations be regarded as individuals they do not include corporations in this list. If they did Republican owner(stock holder)/management dominated corporations would far exceed in wealth, either in terms of income or in terms of assets, what Democrats represent. 71.100.6.152 09:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Reunification

If Korea were to opt for reunification instead of war how would the differences in their economic, social, political and legal systems be resolved? 71.100.6.152 07:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Which, of course, is not to say those are the only two options. Just in case someone wondered. :) DirkvdM 09:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no single answer to this. It would depend entirely on the circumstances under which unification took place and would probably involve some negotiation. If the North Korean government just collapsed, South Korea would develop policies for extending its existing systems into North Korea. If there were a military coup in North Korea, and the new military government wanted unification, the terms would be negotiated. There is, of course, a precedent for this in German reunification. Marco polo 16:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Since it does not appear that the former Soviet Union sucked North Korea dry as it did East Germany do you think reunification would not have as great an economic impact on South Korea (and consequuently the US) as it did (and still does) on West Germany? 71.100.6.152 18:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't the Soviet Union that destroyed the prosperity of East Germany, it was communism, which has had the same effect on North Korea. It's economy is 1/24th the size of South Korea and would be a severe economic drain. StuRat 20:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't communists wake up and realize that they can have even more advantages with free enterprize and taxes? 71.100.6.152 23:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of them have (in Russia and China, for example). NK remains one of the few places with rigid communism and almost no free market activity. StuRat 05:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Because free enterprise would involve a degree of freedom (of movement, ownership, etc.) that the control freaks in North Korea find frightening and threatening. Also, North Korea's elites are comfortable with things as they are. Why take a risky step? Marco polo 00:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be a bazillion times worse. At least East Germany could feed itself. And West Germany could afford the costs of reunification better than South Korea. Clarityfiend 01:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So then peaceful reunification is out of the question? 71.100.6.152 07:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Much would depend upon how threatened China would feel by such a step. Without Beijing's support, North Korea would collapse. It should also be realised that the costs of reunification would be significantly defrayed by the reduction in military expenses that the two Koreas have in facing each other. B00P 09:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Then can anyone list the differences in common ground which prevent peaceful reunification? 71.100.6.152 11:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• South Korean gov cares about it's people, whereas NK doesn't care if they all starve, as long as it stays in power. StuRat 18:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If the NK gov cares only about staying in power and not about people is there any way to use staying in power as leverage by the rest of the world to obtain disarmament and peaceful reunification or will such effort only result in escalation of arms to prevent peaceful reunification or at least reunification of a form that is acceptable by the World? 71.100.6.152 12:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how they stay in power after reunification. They seem to be paranoid about a US attack. While a US attack is possible, it would be in response to what they are doing. If they hadn't built nukes, the US would have continued to completely ignore them, much as was the case in Cuba, after they gave up their Soviet-provided nukes. A peace treaty bringing the Korean War to a formal end and having everyone promise not to attack NK might help, but I'm not sure that would be enough to convince NK to give up it's nukes. StuRat 18:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have thought of a possible deal among the various parties that would defuse the Korean crisis. As usual, the stumbling block would be the U.S., or at least its current leadership. My assumption is that China backs North Korea mainly because it is a pawn in a power conflict with the U.S. and because it serves as a buffer between Chinese and U.S. forces. What if the U.S. and China agreed to withdraw from the Korean peninsula simultaneously while South Korea committed itself to neutrality and to non-nuclear status? China would agree to shift its support for the North Korean regime to support for the reintegration of the Koreas. China would also agree to provide North Korea's top leadership with a comfortable retirement in China to get them to go along. In return, South Korea would commit to neutrality, to managing reunification in a way (also agreed upon with China) that would create livelihoods for North Koreans in North Korea and minimize the refugee flow. This would have to include an amnesty and income support for North Korean officials not offered a golden Chinese exile. South Korea would agree to take possession of and eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons infrastructure. The United States would agree to withdraw its troops from the Korean peninsula and to end military ties with reunited Korea. Everybody would gain: China and the U.S. would both gain from defusing a dangerous crisis and from ending a nonproductive waste of resources on needlessly supporting their pawns. The U.S. would gain by being able to redeploy military resources where they are needed to defend more urgent U.S. interests. China would gain from the removal of the U.S. threat close by and from the economic expansion of a near neighbor. South Korea would gain tremendously, both politically and in the opening up of ground for an investment boom and the harnessing of cheap labor that would vastly increase Korean economic competitiveness. North Korea's leadership would gain a peaceful and secure retirement. While they would lose power, China would make it clear that they had no choice about that. North Korea's people would gain rising living standards. Even Japan would gain from the removal of a dangerous threat on its doorstep. What stands in the way, in my view, is that the current leadership in the U.S. are committed to a mission of world domination and are violently opposed to what they would see as a loss of "imperial territory." They would never voluntarily agree to a withdrawal from South Korea. But a change of leadership in the U.S. might make such a deal possible. Marco polo 00:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your wrong there, the US would very much like to pull it's troops out of SK, especially as they are needed elsewhere. They only remain because the US (and South Korea, when they are thinking soundly) believes that those troops are the only thing preventing North Korea from invading. Not because the US troops there could themselves repel an invasion, but because such an attack on US troops would force the US to go to war. As for your solution, China would likely lose by having to absorb millions of NK refugees, who would like to escape now, but are prevented from doing so by the NK regime. Same for SK and Japan. The NK leaders would not accept the offer unless they were given a similar sized population that they could terrorize and control, this power is their main goal. The US would definitely win in your plan, however, by removing a grave threat, allowing US troops to be redeployed, and opening up a new market in NK. StuRat 13:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

StuRat, I don't think that I am demonstrably wrong. I think that we disagree. I don't think that the Bush administration wants to pull its troops out of anywhere or do anything that would entail a rollback of the American empire. As for the refugee problem, it could be prevented by a careful transition plan. I wasn't suggesting that the top NK leadership would voluntarily agree to a golden exile, though probably some of the leadership could be bought off, by both China and South Korea, enough to make the position of recalcitrants tenuous. I was saying that China could make it clear to the recalcitrants, as their options diminished, that the alternative to a golden exile would be worse. But the US is not yet ready to get out of the way. By the way, I live in the US and have been watching its operations from the inside for many years. Marco polo 22:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

monuments

what are the ways to protect the famous monuments?

Of which country? Each has their own laws and procedures. Dismas| 11:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like India. Skittle 13:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Containing the Taliban might help protect monuments in Afghanistan, if there are any left. --Allen 12:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The laws that exist in each country are tools. You might check with a local lawyer. If the laws are not sufficient, then it is a political matter. If you can organize enough citizens, preferably influential ones, in support of preservation, then the government will tend to do what is necessary. Marco polo 16:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Protect them from what ? Terrorists ? Tourists ? Acid rain ? Flooding ? StuRat 19:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

And what kinds of monuments? Statues, buildings, nature reserves? In general, wealth means you can sustain something that is not potentially economically useful (anymore). DirkvdM 08:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Some cities and towns (such as St Andrews, Scotland) have organizations run either privately or by the government dedicated to preservation: http://www.standrewspreservationtrust.co.uk/ Russia Moore 04:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Brazil

What is the percent of money that Brazil vests in the economies of foreign countries? I need to know the specific countries and how much is invested in each country's economy. Also, what parts of Brazil's economy is vested abroad? Why are these parts vested abroad? What is the impact of Brazil's domestic and foreign policies on her economy?

Brazillians are important in the swimsuit industry.Edison 13:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can read Portuguese, you will find lots of relevant statistics at these two sites: Marco polo 17:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Never Knows Best

Within the anime OVA FLCL, what is the meaning/significance (if any) of the phrase "Never Knows Best"? --Ppk01 14:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like the reverse of someone who "always knows best" (always makes the correct decisions). So, it would be a person who is always wrong. StuRat 19:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

indian American woman

indian American woman are all hot. Do most of them like to have sex. is ther any indian American woman age 18- 28 who would want to have sex with, a recent law graduate who is 25 and white?

• No. At least, not with ones who ask dumb questions like this. --jpgordon 15:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Seems like a troll, anyway, I think racial factors wouldn't be the niggest problems in this case... 惑乱 分からん 18:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Freudian Slip if I ever saw one! Philc _TC 19:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Whooops, sorry... Seems I was typing too fast... @_@ 惑乱 分からん 00:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

U r a sex addict. Crazy I have to say dude!!

What happened to your Jo Swinson crush? is it over?  --Lambiam 01:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Which "Indians" are you refering to? Biker babes, American Indians or India Indians? Indian (India) general practioners can prescribe a definite medical cure. 71.100.6.152 11:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A cure for what? @_@ (Horniness in combination with ignorance?) 惑乱 分からん 12:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A cure for any such feeling toward them. 71.100.6.152 14:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess it would be easiest if he just learned when to shut up... 惑乱 分からん 17:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do some people sneeze when they look at the Sun?

I know quite a few people who sneeze whenever they look at the Sun, or come out into a really sunny environment. Why does this happen? Thanks, --86.142.195.245 15:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• See Photic sneeze reflex. --jpgordon 15:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a faq. DirkvdM 08:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Jewish mob

Meyer Lansky. In the 1940's 50's and 60's what if any criminal organization was meyer Lanksy head of?

Pick the link to see for yourself. StuRat 18:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

He was head of the Meyer Lansky criminal organization. Loomis 07:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

jewish mob2

Is their still a Jewish mob?

<racist garbage removed - User:Zoe|(talk) 04:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)>

If personal attacks were allowed here, that would have certainly received one. --jpgordon 02:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that at least on several occasions I found myself gathered together with many other Jews, thus forming a "Jewish mob". I don't know of any substantial number of Jews gathered together at the present time, so I'd say that at present, there are no Jewish mobs. However, Jewish mobs may return, for example, if there is some sort of Jewish festival that gathers together enough Jews together to form a "mob". Loomis 08:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

We've have the Israeli Mafia here in Johannesburg. They were allegedly implicated in a number of hits a couple of years back. --Jcw69 11:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Tell me more about this "Israeli Mafia". I'm curious. Loomis 05:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Not much is known about the Israeli Mafia. If I knew more about it I’d properly be dead now. I first got to hear about them when I went on a photographic shoot with two Jewish photographers in a street in Parktown, Johannesburg. While on the shoot a Mercedes drove up with an Israeli in his late 50s. After he demanded to know what we were doing and left, the one photographer warned to the other that the driver was part of the Israeli Mafia. Here is two news links from Nov 2003 Israeli crime bodies in SA Police confirms presence of Israeli mafia --Jcw69 16:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

US Presidents who have been killed

Can anybody tell me which four United States presidents have been killed and under what circumstances. If possible, could someone also tell me what provoked the killing, i.e. dislike of foreign policy. Thanks 15:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Lincoln killed immediatly after civil war by John Wilks Booth a confederate sympathizer as part of a conspiracy to bring downn the Government.

Garfield, Killed by Charles Julius Guiteau, a deranged polital activist who was upset becuase his requests for a diplomatic post were ignored.

McKinley killed by anarchist Leon Czolgosz in order to full fill a dream where he killed a prominent figure in order to promote anarchism.

Kennedy, killed by Lee Harvey Oswald a ex Marine who claimed to be a Marxist. Why he killed Kennedy is debated. Many believe he was a lone wolf who killed Kennedy for attention. Others believe he was acting as part of conspiracy. People who believe Oswald was acting under orders greatly disgree on who he was working for. Some believe he was working for the mafia. Others believe him to have been a secret agent serving rightist forces ie the CIA anti Castro dissidents. Still other believe he was a Soviet agent.

See President of the United States for answers to your questions. Dismas| 15:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Then there was Warren G. Harding, who died after being fed some questionable oysters during a trip to Alaska, developed food poisoning, then supposedly had a heart attack. The Teapot Dome and other scandals of corrupt people in his administration were just unfolding when he passed away. There was speculation he had been poisoned. No autopsy was done.Edison 15:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Icons in Russia

what does it mean to be russian? what would russian people say is characteristic of their country and its people? what are some icons, symbols, buildings, paintings or images (etc.) that capture this "russianess"?

Are you asking about the Culture of Russia? --Kainaw 19:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

not so much the russian culure, but more of what do russian people identify with as part of their russian lives/identity? or what icons and symbols (etc.) do russians believe to be important to society? essentially, what does it mean to be a russian? i hope that makes sense!

What does it mean to be any nation or part of a nation? The Russians are no different in this regard from all other such communities on the earth. The essential elements are, of course, a common language, culture, history and religion. Even those who no longer believe in Orthodox Christianity would, I imagine, accept the vital contribution it made through history to the formation of the Russian national character. White Guard 00:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Onion domes, St. Petersberg, the Kremlin, Matryoshka dolls, Eastern Orthodox Church, Faberge eggs, Tchaikovsky, Boris Pasternak, etc. StuRat 05:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Fyodor Dostoyevsky, caviar, Marc Chagall, Sputnik, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Anchoress 03:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The concept of pravda, benevolent and personal autocracy, the concept of mir, Moscow as the Third Rome, and the duality of being both of the West and of the East have historically been ideas central to Russian self-identity. Is that more of what you are looking for? -Fsotrain 03:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

St Petersburg is an interesting case. It's not even a Russian name, but an anglicised German name. The Russians call it "Sankt Peterburg", which is pure German. (Btw, the ending is -burg, meaning 'city', not -berg, meaning 'mountain'.) The name was Russianised into Petrograd, and then became Leningrad. When the USSR collapsed and Leningrad was no longer appropriate, it seemed an extremely odd choice to revert to a German name, particularly considering the events of WWI and WW2. I can understand why Petrograd, with its Bolshevik associations, was unacceptable, but I would have thought that a German name, any German name, would have been just as unacceptable, and surely they could have found a good Russian name for this quintessentially Russian city. But 54% is a majority, so that's democracy for you. JackofOz 02:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW Burg normally means castle or fortress, and not city at all. Stadt means city. Curiously a citizen is a Bürger. German is a difficult language. Flamarande 17:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of the reason is that the name restores the city to a time when it was beautiful European gem, not the gritty industrial city it became under the Soviet Union. StuRat 12:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Merely giving it its old name could never have achieved that. It was actually more Dutch than German, my bad - but it was changed to Petrograd during WW1 because it sounded too German, at a time when Russia was at war with Germany. Given that extreme sensitivity, I can't believe that in 1991 they had already forgotten about the Siege of Leningrad, in which around 650,000 Russians died at the hands of the Germans. JackofOz 13:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

They haven't forgotten the siege or any of the many Warcrimes commited by German troops during WWII. They have simply (largely) forgiven them, and aren't blaming modern Germany for it. As for your assumption what is unacceptable in Russia or not, I guess the Russians are simply more pragmatic than you are. Live the present, forgive for the sake of the future, but always rememeber and honour the past. In Israel the music of Wagner is largely unaccetable and whose loss is it? The Germans? or the Israelis? Flamarande 17:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Point Spread Format

I'm not sure about this, so I want to ask. The following is a current point spread on USA Today:

Kansas City  37.5o-110
Pittsburg    -7 105

As I understand it, this means that if you bet the total of both scores is over 37.5, you get $110 for every $100 you bet. If you bet on Kansas City, you win $105 per $100 if their score +7 is higher than the Pittsburg score. If you bet on Pittsburg, you with $105 per $100 if their score -7 is higher than the Kansas City score. Is that correct? Basically, it doesn't indicate which team the "-7" refers to. --Kainaw 19:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Kainaw, you got that backwards: the book's juice is usually 10%, so you bet $110 to win $100. Kainaw, you got that backwards: the book's juice is usually 10%, so you bet $110 to win $100. The team with the minus is the favorite. —Wayward 23:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you be my bookie? I could bet the same amount on Pittsburg and on KC and collect unless Pittsburg won by exactly 7, in which case I'd just get my money back! Clarityfiend 02:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So, what about the question: Who does the "-7" refer to? Is it the team on top or on bottom? --Kainaw 19:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Right to life founders

who were the founders of right to life? Probably President Nixon he was the first president to run on a right to life platform.

• What makes you think Nixon ran on a "right to life" platform? The strongest statement he ever made about it seems to have been, "I do not support unrestricted abortion policies" -- followed immediately by "I have a basic faith that the American people themselves will make sound judgments regarding family size and frequency of births, judgments that are conducive both to the public interest and to personal family goals--and I believe in the right of married couples to make these judgments for themselves." --jpgordon 02:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Founders? The anti-abortion position is at least as old as medical science developed the means to induce an abortion...decades, if not centuries before Nixon. Loomis 07:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Organised opposition to abortion seems to have started in response to legal liberalisation, though - Right to Life Australia was formed after the 1969 decision in R v Davidson, and the National Right to Life Committee was formed after Roe v Wade in 1973. History of abortion is an interesting read. If the OP is asking about the founders of the National Right to Life Committee, try emailing them and asking. Natgoo 08:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Help!

Why hasn't the Beatles movie Help! ever been released on DVD in the U.S.? Is there some legal problem? I've been looking for it on Ebay, but the copies for sale appear to be just that - copies from VHS or TV. Thanks66.213.33.2 21:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The phrasing of the question makes it sound like it has been released on DVD in UK or somewhere else(?). In that case, you could just import a copy? Btw, I wouldn't mind watching the movie as a copy from VHS, it's not like the movie has any stunning cinematic qualities that would get lost with lower quality... =S 惑乱 分からん 00:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

According to some of the listings of the available DVD on Amazon.com, it was released on DVD in the US, but is now out of print. I wonder why it's so expensive? Anchoress 04:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

LAPD

What is the mandatory retirement age for members of the LAPD?

Why don't you contact the public affairs office of the LAPD and ask? They probably have a department set up to answer this type of question from fiction writers...--Robert Merkel 00:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

fire marshal in NY

Are NyC fire marshals current members of the fire department?

• Yes. --Aaron 22:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Computer addiction

What would be reccommendable for people suffering from computer addiction as a means of helping them to cut down on their addiction?--Rouge Rosado Oui? 21:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Throwing their computer out a window? Wooty 00:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Remove half the keys from the keyboard, flip the mouse buttons in the OS, and switch them to an old, crappy, ball mouse. Toss in a benchmarking program running constantly in the background to eat up CPU time. That should drive anyone away from the box. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ask for help from somebody else in the house. Schedule a specific time when you can use the comp, and have that other person take possession of the computer, or some critical component like the keyboard, the rest of the time. StuRat 04:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Separate the things the computer does from the things your head can do then only sit in front of the computer when its time to do something your head can’t do. 71.100.6.152 11:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Restrict them to a Teletype terminal with a 300 baud acoustic modem. Edison 15:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

.- -. -.. / .-. . ... - .-. .. -.-. - / - .... . .. .-. / -.-. --- -- -- ..- -. .. -.-. .- - .. --- -. / - --- / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . ..--.. 71.100.6.152 17:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• File an RFAr against them. By the time Arbcom gets through with them, they'll never want to go anywhere near a computer ever again. --Aaron 22:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

October 14

An american failure...

Hi, I'm gonna ask again, since no one answered the last time I asked...Here it goes:

What was the name of the expedition which was gonna explore the northern polar areas, but was literarly burdened by it's own weigth - you see, they used a snowcat/armoured wagon that was much too heavy for the snow, and it eventually sunk through. I believe the snowcat still lies there today (possible Greenland or the outer areas of The Northern Pole) --Petteroes 01:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Could it have been John Franklin's last Artic expedition? Quoting from the article: "McClintock also found several bodies and an astonishing amount of abandoned equipment, and heard more details from the Inuit about the expedition's disastrous end. ¶ There are several things that contributed to the loss of the Franklin expedition. Franklin was culturally conservative, observing wasteful rituals in inappropriate locales; for example, he and his men carried silver plates, crystal decanters, and many extraneous personal effects with them. They attempted to haul much of this heavy gear along with them even after abandoning the ships." However, Franklin was not American but British, so I don't know if this may be what you're looking for. Franklin was not leading an Expotition to the North Pole but an expedition to chart the Northwest Passage. They got stranded in the ice near King William Island, which is in the present Nunavut Territory.  --Lambiam 14:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A Swedish polar expedition that met similar failure is described in the FA S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897. After the balloon descended the explorers towed heavy gear across the ice until they died of trichinosis from contaminated polar bear meat. Durova 05:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sonic Youth's DAYDREAM NATION

On one of Sonic Youth's albums, Daydream Nation, there is a song listed as "Silver Rocket." What is this song about?

Looking at the lyrics here, they don't strike me as being about anything much, in the sense of describing something particular or trying to send a message. What they do - like so many of SY's lyrics - is convey a mood through a loose collection of images. In this case, I'd guess the mood they were going for is being a teenager, going to gigs, chasing girls/boys, playing in bands. A bit like Smells like teen spirit. Cheers, Sam Clark 12:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A Silver Rocket is a type of dildo, if that helps. --81.111.18.84 12:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Daydream Nation was released in 1988. The earliest dated reference I can find to 'Silver Rocket' as a name for a dildo is from 2005, here. So, I suspect that the dildo is named after the song (as are the night at The Garage in London and the Czech record label), not vice versa. Cheers, Sam Clark 15:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

US inciting Sunni-Shi’ite strife in Iraq

Making Sunnis and Shi'ites suspicious of one another ... is the policy of the Americans in Iraq.What is the US policy in Iraq? Is it really granting freedom & democracy or imposing age old colonial tenet of divide & rule??? Where is freedom??

That's not a question. It's a "soapbox" satement, and a ridiculous one at that. Please remove it. Loomis 07:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It definitely looks soapboxy, but it is constructed as a genuine question. Does the US implement a policy of divide and rule? That policy has been used so often in history that I wouldn't be surprised if it were implemented here too, so it's not a ridiculous question. Go remove yourself. :) DirkvdM 08:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Irrespective of the questioneer's intentions, there is a bit of a bite to this question, or rather the denial of the assumption. Did the US know that the situation in Iraq was such that a bloody civil war would break out? If so, then they deliberately plunged the country into chaos and the intention of divide and rule sounds very plausible. If not then they're a bunch of idiots who don't know how to handle the powers they have. A car driver who causes a terrible accident is likely to have his car confiscated. By analogy, the US should be disarmed. DirkvdM 11:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

To believe this, you would have to assume that (a) the Bush administration is competent, (b) has a coherent Iraq policy and (c) derives some benefit from dividing the country. So far, I see little sign of the first two and the last makes absolutely no sense. P.S. Did the Sunnis and Shi'ites trust each other in the first place? Clarityfiend 15:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

While I don't think the US wants a civil war in Iraq, as that makes it ungovernable, there is one possible benefit to the West. The current Muslim hatred directed at the West in the form of terrorist training schools throughout the Muslim world would be instead directed at the opposing sect, if a giant Sunni/Shiite war erupted. Eventually (probably after hundreds of millions died), they might realize that suicide bombings don't accomplish anything but kill a lot of people. StuRat 17:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The potential civil war in Palestine between Hamas and Fatah may similarly benefit Israel by deflecting Muslim hatred and suicide bombers away from it. StuRat 18:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The USA (and the West in general) is not interrested in any war in the Middle East because that would endanger the supply of oil. To the contrary, the US are interrested in keeping a relative peace in this region. Even a small localized war can easily grow and engulf the whole region. Flamarande 18:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Bush team had a lot of knowledgeable and experienced people, both in foreign policy and in energy policy. It is hard to believe that they are unaware of Hubbert peak theory, which posits that oil supplies are finite and may be about to decline. If this is a concern of theirs, it could make sense to keep Iraq politically divided and in a state of unrest that can be used to justify occupation. This would tend to keep the oil in the ground but under US control until the time of shortages, when the US military will have access to that oil. Keeping Iraq divided and weak would also remove a potential enemy of Israel. However, this is just one possible interpretation of events, and I don't claim to know what really motivates U.S. policy in Iraq. Marco polo 20:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Iraq invasion was about Bush seeking revenge for Saddam's attempt to kill his father. StuRat 00:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Bush and even I can see that's ridiculous. There were numerous reasons Iraq was chosen for invasion but revenge for an alleged attempt by Saddam to kill Bush sr. isn't one of them. In fact, it's so patently outrageous I await your evidence to support your theory. It will be interesting to read. - Pyro19 04:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The only "smoking gun" evidence you could find is if Bush admitted it, and he won't, of course. However, there is plenty of evidence that Bush and Cheney wanted to find an excuse to invade Iraq before 9-11 and then immediately after 9-11 looked for a way to use it to justify the Iraq invasion. I saw an interesting PBS documentary called something like "Cheney: The Dark Side", which talked about colon Powell and others trying to prevent the Iraq invasion. The original position of the administration is that they ONLY wanted to invade Iraq. Powell and others were finally able to get them agree to at least invade Afghanistan first, where al Queda and bin Laden were located, at the time. StuRat 18:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

So you have no evidence. Okay. - Pyro19 15:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Power corrupts and too much power in the hands of one person will make that person use it for his own agenda. Examples abound in human history. StuRat intended to citcise Bush. I criticise the system that allowed him (or anyone else) to get into a position with the power to do what he does. Note that a big part of this is that the US is the size it is, which is also the reason I am very sceptical about European integration going far beyond trade. Another problem is the fact that any country gives it's top dog, however elected (or not) too much power. The combination of these two things makes it very desirable for the US to become a parliamentary democracy (because splitting the country up would be even harder). DirkvdM 07:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

video game music

Hi I am looking for any music from the playstation one video game G DARIUS,or any sites to download from. Have already tried VGMUSIC, BEARSHARE and KAZAAR any help greatly appreciated.—Logan

Learn about PSF files and where to get them. You're likely to find that game's music in one of the several PSF archives out there. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 16:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Major causes of death as percentage of the population

What are and have been the major causes of death as percentage of the population (of a country or maybe an ethnic group or such), due to anything, so conflicts or natural disasters or ongoing events. Some examples are the Vietnam war (5-10% of the Vietnamese dead), WWII in Poland (16%), cars (close to 1% worldwide, but is it especially bad in one country?), the bubonic plague (40% in Constantinopel in 541), the holocaust (Jews, but also, say, gypsies, possibly per country) or terrorism? DirkvdM 08:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Carthage, 146BC, 100% either dead or enslaved? --jpgordon 08:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• I'll add to the list the Aztec capital city Tenochtitlan, during the Hernán Cortés invasion. I've heard in TV documentaries (sorry for the bad reference) that about 90% of a city of more than half a million inhabitants died due to rubella, which was brought by the Spaniards. --GTubio 09:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• 90% of the Eora population dying of smallpox after English colonisation? Natgoo 09:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The only AD event I can think of is the rule of the Khmer Rouge. Up to one third of the population was killed off. That's about 2-3 million. --The Dark Side 01:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

During the War of the Triple Alliance in Paraguay, around 60% of the country's population was killed. Warofdreams talk 03:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

WW2 accounted for the death of 3.17% of the population of all of the involved countries (a total death toll of 63,000,000), 13% of the population of russia, 10% of germany, and the battle of stalingrad, accounted for 2million deaths (~200% of the current population of the city). Philc _TC 18:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Surely disease has done most to control human numbers...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does Misplaced Pages apply "Jewish-American/British Jew etc" and Jewish hyphenations with nationalities?

I don't understand this. That's like putting Irish Catholic and Irish Protestant categories. I am of the mind that religion transcends ethnicity, even in Jewish cases (Barry Goldwater & Madeleine Albright were/are both of Ashkenazi/German Jewish origins, but became Episcopalians/English Protestant Christians). Israeli hyphenations should be the only categories (Natalie Portman is a good example), otherwise I think this is some sort of Jewish identification thing for paranoid anti-Semites to look up and confirm their suspicions or something. I think it would be ridiculous to have categories for Christians and Muslims (or any non-Abrahamic faith) as well, even if NNDB does it. I think that the religious component belongs merely with the biographic articles, in detailing the religious orientation of individuals. BTW, I am religious and not trying to secularize this or anything. I'm a Christian Gentile and recall the New Testament says there is no difference between Jew or Gentile in Christ. Obviously, that was about Judeans/Israelites/Hebrews (Semites, as contrasted with Greek or Roman Japhetites) and not about Jews or Judaism as a religious community in this day and age or as it has been from the Expulsion to the creation of Israel. I think it is patently unfair to Jews to have them scrutinized with categorizes like this. Hasbro 10:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Many communities in New York City are based on extrememly minor differences but which serve to divide one group from another regardless. In terms of classification/identification in the natural or in the man-made world it a very common and sometime necessary state. 71.100.6.152 12:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the issue in any way. Thanks for wasting my time. Hasbro 12:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question rather than your diatribe the same answer still applies. Sometime one must use a hyphen to distinquish between a 12 volt car battery and a 12 volt lantern battery or suffer the result of the failure to do so by getting the two mixed up. 71.100.6.152 15:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You are a troll. Hasbro 15:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

<personal attack removed - User:Zoe|(talk) 18:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)>. 71.100.6.152 17:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll is a personal attack. Failing to remove it as well provides evidence of a double standard. Besides Hasbro is the one with the history of personal attack... 71.100.6.152 20:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I still await a serious reply. Hasbro 04:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the response is that the day all the Jewish categories will be deleted from Misplaced Pages is the day when the Irish-American, Catholic-American, and for good measure African-American categories will be deleted. (In any case, I think the response and "discussion" over at Talk:American Jews is quite sufficient) Mad Jack 05:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try a serious response. In my experience the notations that someone is Jewish usually come from two distinct sets of editors: Jewish people and anti-semites. In both cases the aim is to raise awareness, but toward different ends. The comparison to Christians and Muslims is an inexact parallel because "Jewishness" has ethnic and cultural dimensions that Christianity and Islam don't share. While the mention of the New Testament would be relevant to Christians, people who are Jewish by faith as well as heritage aren't obligated to agree with what the New Testament says. There are many ways to debate around the margins of Jewish identity. Durova 05:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism is an ethnic religion as well. Just think--India and Hinduism, the Indus River all have the same name and identity (c.f. Jews and Judaism). Semites can become Christians...Gentiles (Japhetics) can become Jews. I think it has more to do with the social atmosphere--as you say, between Jews and anti-Semites. Thank you Durova, for what response shall open a doorway to normalizing Jewish identity alongside the other Abrahamic faiths. If you can do this, then perhaps Misplaced Pages will lead the way to destigmatizing the Jews. For myself, I am part Jewish as a Christian (I consider my religion more progressive). Even if I were maternally descended from a mother who practiced Judaism (or her family did), I would not automatically consider myself Jewish. That's the thing. Baptism and Christening are important rites for me. Aside from that, if I were Ashkenazi, I would see myself as German ethnically (literal interpretation) and Jewish religiously. I don't see how that is hard to fathom, unless we want to send the Jews back into ghettoes and recreate that sort of "ethnic background" once more. As it is, we have Israel to consider and not the old customs of hiding Jews in the seedy parts of the city. Jews deserve the same respect I feel I am entitled to. Japheth's descendents, as Christians, are living in the tents of Shem and expanding where the Jewish Semites left off. Of course, this is the general rule. There are Japhetic people not Christian, just as there are Semitic people not Jewish. There are Jewish Japhetics and Christian Semitics. Of course, there is the other issue of Hamites and Muslims--but that is more of the same subject discussed. Hasbro 09:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Hinduism and India is precisely the same thing. The Hinduistic religion is largely connected to the country and culture, but Hindu isn't in itself an ethnicity. That parallel is actually closer to the connection between Japan and Shintoism. Close connection to the culture it was formed it, but not in itself a marker of ethnicity. 惑乱 分からん 16:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hasbro, I appreciate that you have the best of intentions. However I believe that you're quite mistaken in one major area. You seem to believe that it's the anti-semites and the anti-semites only who consider Jews to be not simply members of a religious group, but members of an ethnic group as well. It's true that "Nazi" style anti-semitism was purely ethnic, and hardly religious. A Jew in Nazi Germany could convert to Christianity, yet the Nazis would consider him no less a Jew. On the other hand, the brand of anti-semitism that exists in the middle east among Muslim Arabs is quite the opposite. For example the PLO national covenant says something along the lines of "Judaism is indeed a religion, yet there does not exist a Jewish "people"" (ie ethnicity). In other words, while the Nazis regarded our religion as rather irrelevant, but recognized, and had rather extreme beliefs about our "ethnic" identity, anti-semitism in the Arab world works in quite the opposite way: They all out deny the existence of a Jewish Nation (i.e. ethnicity). According to them, Judaism is merely a religion and nothing else.

As for the Jewish position, we believe ourselves to be BOTH. We're BOTH a nation, as well as a religious group. An "Ashkenazi" Jew is not merely an ethnic German who practices the Jewish faith, but an ethnic Jew who happens to have dwelled in Eastern Europe. At the same time, a "Sephardic" (Hebrew for "Spanish") Jew is not merely a Spaniard who happens to practice the Jewish faith, but rather an ethnic Jew who happens to follow the traditions of those other ethnic Jews who happen to have dwelled in areas such as Spain and North Africa.

As for the original argument, I've got no problem with biographical articles noting this or that celebrity's Jewish background. I actually like it. You know, we're not in hiding anymore. Those days are over. Loomis 05:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point on new anti-semitism, but my point is that the duality is not always important. The person above you has info on other examples. What if we called Japanese Americans, Shinto Americans instead? I would hardly consider Harrison Ford to be "Jewish American". Harrison Ford, to me, is an Irish American. That explains his "Anglo" looks and his Democratic party affiliation just like most Irish Catholics as they usually have been (c.f. the Kennedys), but Jewishness doesn't really fit him at all. What about me? I consider my Mediterranean ancestors to not make myself today a "Semitic" or "Black" person, but that was just a natural ancient expanse of Noah's Gentile son in that area and before modern technology made it possible to transplant societies or cultures further from the Cradle of Humanity/Civilization etc. I consider Christian to be a quasi-ethnic/racial term for Gentiles descended from Japheth, because obviously, who gets criticized for Christian imperialism but those of the Graeco-Roman (European) persuasion? Where was the original spread of Christianity by the Apostles, except those areas considered to be the old core of the ancient "Indo-European" diaspora and from which they spread out further. By the way, Germans and Ashkenazi mean just about the same to me. I do not consider them to be racially different and certainly not politically, economically or socially different. They are however, quite different from the "Anglosphere standard". When I think of Henry (Heinrich) Kissinger, I think of a German just as much as Adolf Hitler. Yiddish speakers remind me of Prussia--that old and defunct German state. In much the same way, I don't think it is possible to differentiate Sephardim from Spaniards unless getting into nitty gritty social register conventions and how they worship. I classify them the same. It's an extremely hard sell for me, to say that Alyson Hannigan or Laura Prepon is different in any way from Nikki Cox. Gwyneth Paltrow looks German/Polish to me. How would one tell otherwise?

My main point is, that I don't think that it makes sense to hybridize religious and ethnic terms and make a proper distinction on nationality. Religious categories (Jews, Christians) fit for the Kingdom of Heaven, not the Realm of Caesar (Israelis, Greeks).

Hasbro 09:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A great deal of Japanese aren't Shinto, but Buddhist and even Christian. The vast majority of American Jews are (unfortunately!) Democrats. None of Noah's sons were "Gentiles", as Judaism hadn't existed in the time of Noah. Later on, some of Shem's descendants became Jews, meaning that all the other Shemites, Japhetics and Hammites became known as "Gentiles". Germans and Ashkenazi may mean the same to you, but they certainly don't to me. I'm an ashkenazi Jew, yet going back centuries, my ancestors dwelled in the Russian Empire. Yiddish may be a Germanic language, but it thrived mainly in Slavic countries, not Germanic ones. Most Sephardim I know immigrated from Morrocco and other North African and Middle Eastern countries, not Spain, and for the most part dwelt among Arab Muslims, not Christian Spaniards. Hasbro, though once again, you seem to have the best of intentions, I've never seen so many factual innacuracies clustered together in one post. And I only pointed out the most glaring of them. Loomis 19:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As a digression, in Sweden "bosniaks" are often referred to as "muslims", equally confusing... 惑乱 分からん 15:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, the Yiddish speakers were part of German expansionism in the East, just as Morrocan Sephardim are totally historically connected to Moorish rule in Spain. Why you would try to make cognitive dissonance about this is beyond me, but these are sophist or casuist replies. Yes, I do have good intentions and you have yet to refute the argument distinguishing the differences between citizens of God (Jews, Christians, Muslims) with citizens of Caesar (Israelis, Greeks, Egyptians). It is strange to say one is half Italian, half Jewish as Rachel Bilson's article suggests. For Alyson Hannigan's article, it says that while her father is Irish, her mother's last name is Posner. That means she is half Irish, half Ashkenazi (German). I'm being technically and literally correct, at the face value of the issue. She is not half Jewish, no more than I could be half Episcopalian and half Methodist or half Catholic and half Orthodox. You are applying specious logic here, with generalized approaches that do not fit the actual situations.

The crux of the matter is, that I could not be half Amish, half English. That is illogical, but informal and improper common descriptions among the Amish community. Just the same, it is nonapplicable to the Jewish community. Long-standing custom of inaccurate depictions, nonwithstanding. Hasbro 21:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Loomis' first response here. And the problem with all of Hasbro's arguments is that they consist entirely of his own opinions on what "Jewish", "Ashkenazi", etc. is or is not, and that these opinions do no match what reliable sources as well as Misplaced Pages say about "Jewish". Every single reputable source says the "Ashkenazi" are a distinct ethnic group - distinct that is from ethnic Germans, Russians, etc. (while these sources do not say that the Amish are an ethnic group) Hasbro, of course, has every right to believe that that's not the case and the "Ashkenazi" are not an ethnic group, but what could Hasbro's beliefs, which are in the tiniest minority, have to do with Misplaced Pages or Misplaced Pages's content? Misplaced Pages goes by what sources say, not by what users say or think. Therefore I find this discussion entirely pointless. If Hasbro aims to convince me or Loomis or anyone else that "Jewish" is not an ethnicity, I suppose he could spend his time trying (though I'm afraid that I am a lost cause in that department), but the point is that Misplaced Pages reports what reliable sources say, and reliable sources fully acknowledge that the Jews - yes, today's modern day Ashkenazi and Sephards - are a distinct ethnic group. Since that's the case, they are an ethnic group for Misplaced Pages purposes. Harrison Ford, for example, who you brought up above, says he feels "Irish as a person and Jewish as an actor" (Harrison Ford is actually only 1/4 Irish, btw, but never mind). Rachel Bilson says she is "half Italian and half Jewish". You may believe these people are incorrect when they imply that Jewish is their ethnicity, but that belief has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages's content and little to do with discussion on Misplaced Pages. Mad Jack 21:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are right, then you can tell me where I would reach my local Ashkenazi or Jewish consulate, for a visa or passport issued from those nations. The simple fact is, that is a fantasy reality invented by identity politics. In all likelihood, Rachel Bilson is half German--of the Jewish religion, which is the Ashkenazi community and a subculture. You tell me where to find the Semitic embassy and I'll agree with you. As it is, I am American and it doesn't matter if my ancestors were from England before that, France before that and the fallen city of Troy, back into prehistory. If I wanted to really stir up nonsense, I could say that I'm an African-European American because of probable Egyptian ancestors way back when. More responsible editing should be emphasized in Misplaced Pages biographies, rather than this socialist/balkanist presentation of people who are really just one type of person and not multiple personalities. Loomis, sorry to be the one to say that you are merely American and of Jewish religion. Your ancestors probably arrived after the founding of this nation and you see fit to live as though this is Yugoslavia in America. There is no Black embassy, because there is no Black nation. Niger and Nigeria sound close. These cultural terms have no legal framework. You are not Jewish and I am not Christian in the temporal world. Our souls are citizens of God, not Caesar. That means the only diplomatically recieved ethnicities are those which are nationalities and can be found in the United Nations or even unrecognized members such as rogue states where the people are a nation and not a religion. Your religious beliefs can't replace legal truth. I am not a citizen or national of Christianity any more than you are of Judaism, because neither is a country. Judea was a country a long, long time ago and so was Troy. That I may be a heir to the Trojans does not mean that I am Trojan, any more than you being a heir to the Maccabees or the line of David would make you a Judean. If you truly want the closest experience to that, become an Israeli citizen and you will bring a belief to life, more or less as a restored reality. I wish all the best to Israel and the new Israelites, but it is obviously not the same condition as the early Imperial Roman era.

What matters most is legal identification and diplomatic recognition. Where is Jewish in the ancestry for American censuses? Most American Jews usually mark German as their heritage. Hasbro 10:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This might be a bad time to enter, but an "ethnic group" clearly doesn't need to have it's own recognized nation, as you seem to believe, just look at the Kurds, the Sami, the Basque etc... 惑乱 分からん 13:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And: Most American Jews usually mark German as their heritage -- oh, really? I'd love to see some evidence for that. --jpgordon 14:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Are not most immigrant American Jews of Ashkenazi descent, from Germanic and Slavic (those countries with historical influxes of Teutons) nations? That contrasts with the colonial American Jews of mostly Sephardi descent. In most cases, Jews made famous in Hollywood or Broadway are Ashkenazim. Why not go on and say that these people are Ashkenazim, instead of "Jewish"? "Jewish" doesn't really specify the ethnic component of the person, as Ashkenazi/Sephardi/Mizrahi does. I really don't think that religious beliefs about ethnicity are represented in legal courts, even if the Jews themselves hold such traditions. What matters most is the legal, recognized ethnic heritage. Rosenberg is an Ashkenazi name, not a "Jewish" name. One might say that Yiddish fits for linguistic reasons as well, as opposed to Ladino. Rosenberg is not a Hebrew name. Why don't you split hairs properly and matter-of-factly? Judaism is not a nation of the Earth, but of Heaven. Therefore, use Earthly terms for yourself and your people. There are to be no double standards. It is not more appropriate for you to identify ethnically as Jewish than me as ethnically Christian. My soul belongs to God in Heaven and I identify with Him through my Christian status, just as you through your Jewish status (or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Shinto, or Hindu). We identify with temporal rulers and nations through other terms, like American, Israeli, Russian, Portuguese, Chinese. You anachronistically apply "Jewish" as a resident of a country that died under the shackles of Roma and only now do we see Israel being rebuilt, even if your RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY has lived isolated and preserved traditions outside of Israel/Judea all this time. That's a goddamned long time to be a hyphenated, "rootless cosmopolitan" and no physical trace of the parent nation that spawned said people. In fact, that is a backwards way of looking at it. You are no more or less a modern day Judean than I am a modern day Trojan. The facts speak for themselves. Our ancestors have changed and become other things from their historical roots. Hasbro 15:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, you continue with your own opinions, which have little to do with Misplaced Pages, etc. There's no local "Ashkenazi consulate" where you can get a passport, but there is a general state of Israel that accepts any sub-ethnicity of "Jewish" - Sephardic, Ashkenazi, Mizrahi and grants citizenship to those who are at least 1/4 of one of those - similar to how the Italian government grants citizenship to those who are 1/4 Italian. In my response above, I was going outside of the conversation and asking... "What's the point of this discussion?", siince Misplaced Pages goes by what sources say, and not by what users say. And like I told you before, I have no interest in discussing whether "Jewish" is an ethnicity or not, only looking up a reliable source and seeing that it is. Mad Jack 16:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There are competing sources and different perceptions, so ALL must be duly represented--especially the two major viewpoints. I have always been informed, that Jews can be of any race. That means, this is a religion, not an ethnicity. I also know that some view it differently. You are taking a combative and arrogant stance on every ethnic and religious category out there. I tell you to back off now. You just want to fight and win. This isn't what Misplaced Pages is about. Your brash attacks have inspired me to fire off insults that I will not type here. Hasbro 16:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"all must be duly represented" -- no, it doesn't work that way. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each...We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. --jpgordon 16:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

To sum up your statement, that means you can prove that Jewishness is not seen by a majority or significant minority as transferable between different ethnic/national/racial backgrounds and that Jewishness is identical to Judeans? Please, I'd love to see you try and prove that. Hasbro 09:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a waste of my fucking time, a charlatanous contrivance of NPOV and accuracy as things are in the REAL WORLD! Thanks a lot for spitting trash out your faces and nothing credible to work with. Thanks to all you "pros", for being such "cons". Good bye, ill reputable network of sources. Hasbro 13:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sex in Disney

There is a Disney's story that contains an explicit sexual citation? --Vess 13:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What kind of stary? Movie? Comic? Could you give more info? 惑乱 分からん 14:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

My question regards all production of Disney. --Vess 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

DO you mean the nude photo in The Rescuers? Rmhermen 21:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that only on the laserdisc copy? --The Dark Side 01:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There's the 2-frame shot of Jessica Rabbit's crotch in the live-action/animated film Who Framed Roger Rabbit, produced by Disney subsidiary Touchstone and Amblin Entertainment.  --Lambiam 12:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

From the article Down and Out in Beverly Hills

Released by Touchstone Pictures, a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company, Down and Out in Beverly Hills 
has the distinction of being the first R-rated film ever released by Disney. The R rating is due to profanity 
as well as a brief scene showing a topless woman having sex, another first for Disney. 
However, countless R-rated films have since received distribution by the Disney Company, under subsidiaries 
such as Touchstone, Miramax Films and Hollywood Pictures. 
Walt Disney Pictures, the flagship family-oriented brand, has yet to release a film with 
a rating stronger than PG-13. 

惑乱 分からん 22:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This has been currently in the news: http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/10/minnie-mouses-paris-sex-tape-hits-web.php -- AnonMoos 18:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Althouhgh that is clearly an unofficial release... ;) By the way, the movie could be watched here (or click on the link found at this page)

. 惑乱 分からん 22:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Springed Seat Thing

You can get this kind of springed seat cushion thing that helps old people get out of their seat. Does anyone know what it's called or where I can find it. My google searches have proved fruitless. --Username132 (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

:An Ejector seat would do the job.

Are you thinking of hydraulic pump or electric-power assist/assisted wheelchairs? Clarityfiend 16:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A lift chair slowly raises via an electric motor to help the person up. StuRat 17:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm thinking of a springed seat thing that I saw in the Betterware catelogue. It uses springs to provide a constant upward force which when combined with the struggle of an old person to get out of a chair, leads to the desired outcome. --Username132 (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

what's so special about humans?

topic? 205.188.117.12 14:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

They taste delicious. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 16:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Only some have good taste. Clarityfiend 17:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

They have the ability to use symbolic logic. StuRat 17:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of them don't. Chl 19:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Anatomically, humans are only different than most relatively intelligent mammals in their opposable thumbs and bipedalism, and some mammals have achieved one or the other. Of course, the mice are pan-dimensional creatures of an amazing degree of intelligence. AMP'd 18:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the dolphins! Laïka 19:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

chimpanzees and bonobos have opposable thumbs and are bipedal. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

But chimps don't go strutting around on their hindlegs 24/7. We humans can't walk on our knuckles. AMP'd 19:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I know a few exceptions who do walk on their knuckles. ;) Durova 05:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

See philosophical anthropology. These days, most philosophers would probably answer: language. Chl 19:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

They don't make chlorophyll. B00P 22:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Language is something most animals have. Of course their language is primitive compared to ours, but only if we make the comparison, by our standards. I have always been surprised at this desire to pin what's special about humans down to one specific capacity. What makes us what we are is the combination of all of our abilities (and disabilities for that matter). Many animals are known for being good at one specific thing. We are good at loads of things. So I suppose the size of our brain relative to our body size, especially the neocortex, giving us the ability to make plans better than any other animal can is an important one. But you'd have to add to that the fact that we have our hands free to execute our plans and build tools. Plus our ability to cooperate, for which we need a sophisticated language, for which we need the right kind of larynx. And thus one can probably continue adding things that may not be specific to us but that do make a unique combination that makes us what we are. DirkvdM 07:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Animals have communication systems -- the difference between those systems and human language is so large that it obscures more than it clarifies to insist on calling them by the same word... AnonMoos 16:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Humans are the only animal capable of teaching their children mathematics.

• For which they were ejected from the Garden. --jpgordon 15:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

They were expelled from the mythological garden because they disobeyed God's command ("don't eat the apple for this tree") and learned to distinguish right from wrong, and grew ashamed of their nakedness ("and covered themselves"). In their defense it can be argued that being unable to know right or wrong they were unaware they were doing something wrong. God is a bad teacher and a worse parent. Flamarande 17:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I doubt whether the bible was written to be interpreted literally, to begin with. 惑乱 分からん 18:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

About Adam and Eve - no good and wrong problem, A&E were just told not to touch that bloody delicious tree. But the book does not tell if they knew the price. If so, it was their choice.

Human is special in that he slowly gives to animals capacities he refused to them before. That evolution is quite strange, but it keeps some cohesion with good science principles ... Soon they'll receive a soul and the right to vote. I'm not talking about women. -- DLL 19:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)