Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::The rules are OK, although overdone at times. It's the dumb questions that are the problem. They lead to mockery and a lessening of respect, where it's the opposite that is presumably desired. ] (]) 02:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
::::The rules are OK, although overdone at times. It's the dumb questions that are the problem. They lead to mockery and a lessening of respect, where it's the opposite that is presumably desired. ] (]) 02:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::As previously stated, the question exists as part of the regime for kicking war criminals out of the country once they're already in the country, not for keeping them out of the country to begin with. For example, the granting of citizenship is generally irrevocable -- unless the government can prove that the person lied to get into the country or obtain citizenship. This is how ] had his citizenship revoked. When he applied to immigrate in 1951, he didn't mention being a death-camp guard. -- ] (]) 03:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::As previously stated, the question exists as part of the regime for kicking war criminals out of the country once they're already in the country, not for keeping them out of the country to begin with. For example, the granting of citizenship is generally irrevocable -- unless the government can prove that the person lied to get into the country or obtain citizenship. This is how ] had his citizenship revoked. When he applied to immigrate in 1951, he didn't mention being a death-camp guard. -- ] (]) 03:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::Demjanjuk didn't mention it because he possibly never was a death-camp guard, and the whole German trial was just a farce to make Germany look tough on Nazi criminals in a rather pathetic way. But that is a topic for a different question. ] (]) 03:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
= September 19 =
= September 19 =
Revision as of 03:21, 19 September 2011
Welcome to the humanities section of the Misplaced Pages reference desk.
skip to bottom
Select a section:
The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
I said foregin, but fine -- The Queen's English is foreign enough, because -- it's 2011 why have a queen? So, first on the list will be the Queen's English, second is almost certainly French... And then? 82.234.207.120 (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, fine, English, French, Spanish...and then? I really feel like you're drip-feeding me here, I'm asking for a pretty COMPLETE list. I want to know where Italian, where Portuguese fit in, etc. Please be more helpful and offer a more complete list. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Jeanne, I meant modern language, but you can include any ancient language I guess... put it in Brackets. So maybe now we have: English, French, , Spanish or what? What about the rest of the languages... 82.234.207.120 (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
This is terribly subjective, and this is not a place to start a debate over which languages are "snobbish," much less what order they belong in, much less whether being multilingual is perceived as "snobbish" or not. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the other respondents know what I'm asking.
I think I do, too. But there's no way to create a "complete" list of the sort you're asking for, and it's entirely subjective. Much less its "ordering". You're asking for a debate. That's not what we do here. There is no such list. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I do not mean to imply that the snob would speak all of the listed languages! For example, if I learned that an American speaks Italian as well, that would score pretty high snob points. I think the other respondents know what I'm talking about... As a visualization exercise, you can imagine that it's an educated American who was not raised with this other language/these languages, but learned them. (In fact I don't really care). 82.234.207.120 (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Why would speaking Italian make you a snob? In my experience, most people who speak Italian have Italian parents or grandparents, and would definitely not be considered snobs by any normal polling (unless you happen to consider blue collar Bostonians to be snobs). A businessman who works with companies in Italy — is he a snob if he learned the language? You see what I'm getting at. This is entirely, 100% subjective, at least for any living language. We could say, as a whole, that anyone who speaks a Dead language, with the exception of a Roman Catholic priest or something along those lines, is probably doing so just for the educational value of it, which perhaps we could call "snobbery" (if we want to be anti-intellectual). But other than that? It seems really quite arbitrary. I don't think speaking a foreign language is snobbish. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to ask the respondents, why are you even attempting to answer this question? It is much too subjective and there will be no concrete list from anything approaching a reliable source. For instance, it's perfectly reasonable for someone around my area to speak French since Vermont borders Quebec. Dismas|12:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
It would depend on the subject matter being spoken about, but I think French has the most potential for off-putting snobbishness, to an American.
Americans are generally thought of as being rustic; the French are generally thought of as being sophisticated. France has a history of cultivated taste in a variety of areas—food and art for example.
It is the fact that the sensibilities of the two countries are so different. Americans pride themselves on being "straight-speaking". If a French person expounds upon the values that distinguish one fine wine from another, or one fine painting from another—an American's eyes glaze over. Bus stop (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, how is this an answerable question? The reference desk specifically requests that we do not ask, nor answer, questions which require opinions, and the OP is asking (and later clarified this point unambigously) that he is looking for people's subjective opinions, and not any facts or references. What is the point of this? --Jayron3214:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if it is absolutely subjective. We are starting with one well-defined term—"Americans". That one term may be open to some interpretation, but only within limits. "Snobbishness" is also defined to some degree. So why can't we productively respond to that which corresponds to snobbishness in relation to the language of Americans, which is traditionally regarded as English? More than one response is possible, and one should not get too carried away with farfetched responses. But taking into account the problematic nature of the question, I think one can provide measured responses that would be appropriate uses of a Humanities reference desk. I think the question is acceptable.
Some things are quantifiable. I read there are 1,000 cheeses produced in France. Americans who are bred on American cheese, also known as Processed cheese, may find the French approach to cheese "snobbish". What other language but French provides this clash of sensibilities? Bus stop (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The USA has more Michelin-starred restaurants than most nations (certainly more than the UK or Italy) and more varieties of wine than most. New York is the centre of the world art market (art's pretty snobby). Depending on definitions, the USA produces more arthouse films than any other nation. Its art galleries are richer than anywhere in Europe, particularly when it comes to recent purchases. Its operas and orchestras are world-class. It leads the world in modern dance. It's had some of the best classical music composers of the later 20th century, and the best novelists and poets (notwithstanding the prejudice of the Nobel judges). Its universities are among the best in the world (only the UK challenges). I could go on. Basically YOU ARE SNOBS. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Relax...every list above puts English in the first place. After all, we're talking about an educated American in question to begin with (and what foreign languages this hypothetical american knows)...there's a reason for that :) 82.234.207.120 (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
all right guys, here is my own (OP) list. Please add to it:
English, French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Japanese, , German, (and getting lower on the list), Russian, , Chinese, Arabic, , (and getting much lower on the list) Hindi... and the bottom of the list is things like Korean, Thai, Bengali, Cherokee, etc.
Yes, this is true, it is only in Virginia that English is the only "official" language. But in practice English is by far the defining language of America. Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
It was specifically "Queen's English" further up. And now the OP has made their own list and we can be done with this. Dismas|14:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, I don't know where Hebrew goes, ancient and modern. There are a couple of approaches to getting the source of the snobbism. First of all, American culture has its background in Britain, and there historically the language of the court was English mixed with plenty of French at one point, and going back much farther you would get to Old English which was kind of Germanic. But that is going back quite far: in the meantime, the learned languages were Latin and Greek. Now I would say the "cosmopolitan" languages or lanuages of the world were mostly the colonial languages, which would surely be based around France, Spain, and Portugal (besides the UK). But if you go back just a bit farther you do get The Netherlands as a world power, so I think Dutch is an important language to include well before you get to Korean and Cherokee. German was a continental language (as opposed to a colonial one) and so figures lower on my list. Cultures largely cut off from Europe (e.g. asian ones continuing to the present day) during colonial times would figure lowest on the snob scale, with indigenous peoples who have now been supplanted by the colonial powers (as Native American languages) being lowest of all -- these languages are hardly taught or studied, in fact, as part of a general education (i.e. a bachelor's from Harvard in Art History or English Literature, you would not be surprised to find this includes learning French or Russian or Japanese, but including a Native American language to a high degree of mastery would be far rarer). These are just general approaches, but my list leaves, for me, much to be desired. Where we read widely of a literature, as Russia's, Chekhov, Tolstoi, Dostoevski, etc, that should seem to promote it as a snob language. Where we do not read a literature at all, as Punjabi, that pushes it down quite low on the list. Other considerations are, academic languages, languages of music and opera, languages whose poetry is studied at american universities in the original language after a period of study of the language by the students, etc. Also, nowhere in my list are the "rest" of the Romance languages, like Romanian, the rest of the Slavic languages, like Czech, etc, other Germanic languages, proud national languages like Gaelic (Irish), which would seem to me to score quite high on the snob list, etc etc. In total, I would like a complete listing taking all these factors into account, preferably of all the major languages of the world. My own list shows much ignornace and room for improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.207.120 (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
also my own list includes only some 14 languages and another 4 much closer to the bottom of the list. I'd like a more exhaustive list like my own with justification if you like, as I myself have given! Thanks... 82.234.207.120 (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Research approaches. You could look at what languages the Ivy Leagues teach. You could look at what languages academic works often cite in the original (certainly renaissance Italian figures here strongly). You could look at documents in which languages history scholars bother to learn enough of the original language to look at. You could look at patterns of art, travel, etc, as reflecting on the tastes of the rich, etc, etc. Did you guys even read the snob article? 82.234.207.120 (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Snobbishness doesn't always correlate with wealth; snobbishness can also correlate with an attained level of being "cultured". Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
very true, you'll note almost all of my examples are from culture and the arts, including higher learning. only one example (travel) is more closely related to being rich. still, there is some overlap... 82.234.207.120 (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
OP, you'll have to work out your own list. Where will you place, for example, Finnish? Speaking a language immediately impresses people at a cocktail party. "Oh, you speak fluent French? How come? ... Ah, I see, your father is Canadian." (less snob value). "Oh, you speak fluent Finnish? How come? ... Really, you taught yourself in only six months?" (more snob value). In other words, snobbishness is an illogical, ephemeral, inconsistent thing. If you want to study it systematically, you must propose an appropriate research methodology. Simply asking for the impressions of random people on a helpdesk isn't a research method. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Canadian provinces and US States
Nova Scotia is called Mississippi of Canada because of its black population and the racism it faced so what about the rest of the provinces? Which states are they compared to which states of America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.99 (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Windsor, Ontario is allegedly the Florida of Canada. Alberta is the Texas of Canada, based on its oil, political conservatism, etc. There seem some debates about whether New Brunswick or Nova Scotia is the Maine of Canada. And lots of places claim to the the Hawaii of Canada with considerable implausibility. (This is mostly based on googling "X of Canada", but the Windsorites seem quite serious.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Aside from the Alberta as Texas thing, I've never really heard any of these (I'm Canadian in Vancouver). Refs on the Mississippi thing? Mingmingla (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd take issue with your last statement. They're only "left-wing" in comparison with the parties in the US, both of which fall far to the right of any right-wing mainstream party in Europe. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
So far I know that Labour Party of U.K. is pro-immigrant because its has non-white members in the parliament like Rushanara Ali and other South Asian politicians, Socialist Party of France because the last time it was in power, it gained African and Arabs and Asians vote. --65.92.154.99 (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)65.92.154.99|65.92.154.99--65.92.154.99 (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
There are two subtly different questions. At least in Germany, all the major parties are at least nominally "pro-immigrant". However, there is a lot more differentiation about the question of actually encouraging immigration. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't say any German party is pro-immigration in the sense they wish new immigrants (excluding soccer players and engineers). Although all mainstream parties are certainly pro-immigration rights, at least nominally. Quest09 (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
True. Pro-immigrant, well all mainstream parties will say that they wish current immigrants well. Non-white MPs in Britain are mostly the sons and daughters of immigrants, therefore the link to current immigration is indirect. The Conservatives also try and recruit non-White people as far as possible. Pro-immigration is another question. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
There are also non-white Tory MPs such as one of my local MPs, Nadhim Zahawi. It's fair to say that all mainstream UK political parties are in favour of immigration, because as it's the policy of the EU to allow free migration between EU countries, we have to uphold it. However, attitudes towards immigration from non-EU countries vary. The parties in the UK who want zero immigration from whatever source are UKIP and BNP, and other fringe (nominally right-wing) parties. However, I think it's fair to say that no party would put up with a situation where jobs such as hospital consultant are not filled because of a block on immigration. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
This lengthy article gives a detailed overview of the politics of immigration in the UK, albeit from a socialist viewpoint. Even they admit that in the 1950s and 60s, immigration was supported by large businesses who were short of labour, and opposed by the trade unions who feared unemployment. So for a while, the usual dynamic was reversed with the right "for" and the left "against" immigration. Alansplodge (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Is there a specific term for...
I was wondering if there is a specific scientific/sociologic term for the following (common/uncommon?) human behavior/attitude/tendency:
Crimes of people who are not related, or very distant (geographically but also ethnically?), are much more readily considered carefully thought-out, purposeful and caused by simple evil intentions than when this criminal behavior is shown by relatives or other people that we are close to or feel related to. In the latter case, we'll often think in terms of those people being "fundamentally a good guy/girl", but maybe "easily influenced by bad friends" or "having had a terrible childhood", or "a bit simple minded". Another manifestation might be when someone would show xenophobic (anti-Islamic, racist...) attitudes in general, but have no problems at all with close neighbors or acquaintances who nevertheless fit into the categories they otherwise despise. A sort of blindness for one's own selectivity combined with unconscious dehumanization. Sort of. At least it sounds like something that could have been studied extensively already.
Outgroup homogeneity bias sounded closest at first and lead me to Trait ascription bias, which lead me to the Negativity effect, and the combination of these three seems to come close... But then I got to Fundamental attribution error eventually, and that seems to be it. People who we are not connected to in some way (not in one of our ingroups), we will tend to collectively "simplify". That is, we will easily turn a blind eye to all kinds of psychological complexities that we DO acknowledge in ourselves and in people that we know better, and furthermore the negative aspects will more easily be attributed to basic personality than circumstances. Sounds like what I was looking for. 91.177.162.240 (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Why are these American cities declining in population since the 1950s?
I was told on the answers to a previous question a while back, which by the way was not really a population question, that the reason that Chicago’s population is declining is because of gentrification whereas the reason that Detroit’s population is declining is because of bad economic conditions. I recently read that the metropolitan areas of these cities are growing though. A similar situation might also be happening to the metropolitan areas of population declining cities in the U.S. I also noticed that the population decline of Chicago and Detroit simultaneously began in the 1950s. I mentioned previously that in 1950, Chicago had a population of over 3.6 million people, and Detroit had a population of over 1.84 million, but today Chicago has about 2.7 million and Detroit has over 700,000 people. Now, to the point....
I discovered that Washington, DC’s population has also been declining since the 1950’s. The population at its peak was at 802,178 in the 1950s. In 2000, the population was 572,059. The population has stabilized a bit today.
The same declining population situation is also happening in Philadelphia. The population, as all the American cities I mentioned above, was at its highest in the 1950s, which was about 2.07 million. Today, it has gone down to 1.5 million people. The population has also stabled a bit today.
I found out that St. Louis has also been declining in population since the 1950s. In the 1950’s, the population was at its highest. It was 856,796, but today, it is 319,294.
I was told that Chicago’s population was declining due to a gentrification that’s taking over the city and that Detroit’s population was declining because it is really a city in decline, but what is going on with Washington, DC, St. Louis, and Philadelphia? Which of these cities is experiencing gentrification as a reason for population decline and which of these cities is experiencing what Detroit is experiencing as a reason for population decline? Also, why did all the cities that I’ve mentioned (Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C, St. Louis, and Philadelphia) simultaneously start declining their populations in the 1950s? What occurred in the 1950s that started the decline of many American cities and that is generally still continuing today? I know that there are other American cities that I haven’t mentioned whose population has been declining since the 1950s. However, I noticed that Boston hasn’t experienced that sharp of a population drop since the 1950s that other cites are experiencing. The city has had its downs and a bit of ups in population, but in the 1950’s its population was at its highest, 801,444. Today, it is 617,914. Willminator (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, DC, Philly and St. Louis -- as well as Chicago -- have parts of the city that are pretty much ghetto. In STL and DC, it's huge chunks of the city. Second, people generally take up more space than they used to. Families are smaller. Instead of 6 people in a 2,500-square-foot house, you might have 3 or even 2. The metro area is growing because there are more families and more houses. But in a built-up part of the area, the population will decline. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
One possible answer: beginning in the 1950s, you start to see the rise of suburbanization — movement out of the urban core, into suburbs. That's what it sounds like given your comment on the metropolitan areas — you're seeing all of those little periphery places getting larger, while the core is depleting in terms of actual residency. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The big bad guy here is the GI Bill, enacted in 1944 to help out returning soldiers after WW2. It contained provisions making loans more likely for those Caucasians moving out of the cities into the suburbs than those remaining in the city (in part to help out automobile companies who wanted people to drive more). (The reason the population loss wasn't seen until the 1950's is that some of the millions of returning soldiers remained in the cities for a few years while they attended college, saved up money, etc.) 2.4 million veterans had home loans backed by the Veterans' Administration. This directly caused a population loss, as those people and their families moved to the suburbs, but also caused a more devastating long-term trend. Since the young, upwardly mobile white families moved out, this left older folks and minorities in the cities. This shrank the tax base considerably, as retirees and minorities have lower incomes. As generations passed, more people were born in the suburbs or moved there, while the cities were progressively more starved for revenue, and thus decayed, leading to even more "white flight" and a lack of people moving in to replace those who moved out or died of old age. StuRat (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you could give some support for your racist accusations, like showing how negroes were excluded from the GI Bill, rather than just making the assertion? μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Support is below. Also, you should avoid saying "racist accusations", as it sounds like I am making accusations which are racist, rather than "accusations of racism", which is the unambiguous way to state it. StuRat (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow. I am sure you will be happy to show us a reference that explains how Negroes were excluded from the GI bill to support your racist allegations. μηδείς (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Considering the state of that article, I would hesitate to use it to support any point, except that Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
That article contains a large number of references, so, if you don't like the article, track down those references and read them. StuRat (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not that cities in the whole U.S. are shrinking, its that cities in the Rust belt are shrinking because, mostly, the jobs have left those areas. Cities in the sun belt are growing, major cities in the Southeast and Southwestern U.S. like Raleigh, Orlando, Atlanta, Las Vegas and Phoenix all experienced population booms at the same time that the major Northeastern and Midwestern cities were shrinking. Its not so much that cities are shrinking (indeed, the U.S. is more urbanized than ever before in history) it is that the population of the U.S. is moving southward. --Jayron3201:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to all those who answered. You're all helpful indeed, but if I may, 2 more things recently came to mind that needs some clarification after I read and thought about the answers and after I did more research.
First of all, Buffalo hasn’t been too lucky according to the Scientific American link I was going over with that was given to me by BusStop. Today, it’s half of the city in population that it once was in the 1950’s. I read there that it’s going through a Detroit kind of decline. But I realized that New York City, unlike Buffalo geographically not too far away, didn’t begin to lose population in the 1950s, and the city’s population is still booming, rapidly. It seems that its residents are not moving to the Sun Belt. I’ve learned that there are parts of New York City that are ghetto, such as in the Bronx. Yet, New York City’s population, and the Bronx especially, is still rising. It doesn’t seem as if the 1944 GI Bill and white flight affected NYC’s population growth. There are places in New York City that are undergoing rapid gentrification such as Williamsburg in Brooklyn, much of Upper Manhattan, Long Island City in Queens, SoHo, Greenwich Village, the Lower East Side of Manhattan, and many more NYC neighborhoods and places. Yet, New York City’s population and the population of these areas are still growing. The suburbs of New York City are growing and expanding, which is making the metropolitan area one of the largest in the world, but New York City’s population is still growing. New York City seems to have been and be going through things that has caused many of the cities I've mentioned to decline in population since the 1950's, which hasn't happened in New York City. Could New York City be an exception to the rules of city population decline? If so, why?
The second thing is why does it seem to me that some politicians in the population declining cities complain about the population decline if it does not always mean a bad thing (like the gentrification reason) at least in some of the population declining cities? Willminator (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, NYC does have some thriving industries, like tourism, entertainment (such as Broadway), banking, stock trading, and fashion. In some cases being "the biggest US city" and perhaps "the most well-known US city" have provided advantages that smaller cities lacked. Also, being on the coast, NYC was used as the major arrival point for immigrants coming by ship, many of whom stayed, leading to many immigrant communities which continue to attract new immigrants (even those who now come by plane and could just as easily fly elsewhere). StuRat (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
New York City did suffer a major population decline in the 1970s, when crime was bad and the economy was horrible and so on. From 1970-1980 it suffered a population loss of about a million people. From about 1980-2000 it re-added that million as the economy (in particular Wall Street) picked up again. The population of the borough of Manhattan in particular declined pretty steeply from 1950 to 1980, and has had a moderate level of growth since then. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
You're right that New York City had experienced population loss, but what I was trying to say was that New York City as a whole seems to be more lucky than those American cities who are still experiencing population decline since the 1950s. In the 1970s its population was 7.895 million, which was higher than its 1950s population which was 7.892 million. The increase was greater than the decrease. In the 1970s, the population declined again, but more sharply, but the population loss was stopped again. After doing some more reading, I found out today that Newark for example, which is a NYC suburb across the river from Manhattan, hasn't been so lucky. 442,337 was the city's population in the 1950s, but today it's down to 277,140. By the way, Manhattan had also experience population loss between 1910 - 1930. Its population was actually 2.33 million in the 1910's. I imagine it probably went down during this time because of the skysraper boom and possibly because of changes in immigration to the borough during that period. Willminator (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Declining populations pose real challenges to city mayors:
1) The city services and staff of city workers must be cut back accordingly. This means massive lay-offs (depressing the economy further) and then there remains the issue of how to continue to pay the retirement benefits for the large number of retirees.
2) The old number of roads and other infrastructure can no longer be maintained. So, how do you choose which roads to abandon, knowing that some people live along all the roads ? In Detroit, the mayor recommended moving people out of areas in the worst shape, but that didn't go over very well.
3) While gentrification can bring in people with higher incomes and thus improve the tax base, there the concern is that poor people and minorities are being abandoned and pushed out of the neighborhood. StuRat (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
A major difference between cities in the South and especially in the Southwest and cities in the Northeast and parts of the Midwest is that cities in the "Sunbelt" typically expand their municipal boundaries to capture areas of new development, whereas Northeastern cities' boundaries were typically fixed 100 years ago or so. Northeastern cities are surrounded by a ring of suburban municipalities jealous of protecting their more affluent taxpayers from the expense of supporting the needs of the central cities' poorer populations. This circumstance may create a vicious cycle of deterioration in the urban core. New York City is something of an exception because it is such a center of highly paid employment, art, and culture. New York City is a very desirable place to live for affluent people and for middle-class people who enjoy those cultural amenities. The jobs involved in providing services to all of those businesses and affluent people is a magnet to immigrants, who really account for most if not all of New York City's population growth. Also, while New York City's municipal boundaries are more than 100 years old, the metropolitan area is so large that commuting from new suburban development on the metropolitan fringe into the central city is too time-consuming to be really feasible for people with family responsibilities. (New suburban development on New York's metropolitan fringe provides housing almost exclusively to people who commute to jobs in other suburbs.) Therefore, the dynamism of New York City's economy has led to increasingly vertical development. There is some infill, but buildings in trendy neighborhoods are also being built taller than their predecessors to accommodate population growth. That just doesn't happen in any other American city, except to some extent in Los Angeles. Marco polo (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
New York City also has the "advantage" of having its central business districts on an island, which adds a lot of time to a driving commute. It's easy to get in and out of Buffalo or Detroit from a leafy exurb. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Also note that now the businesses have largely moved out of Detroit, too, so the need to commute is gone. I imagine this has happened in other cities, too. StuRat (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Last follow up post.... Have businesses also largely moved out of cities like Chicago whose population decline is partly do to bigger housing space and increase in gentrification? Also, did ghettofication really begin in the 1950s in many of those population declining cities? If not, how did it cause the 1950s population decline? I was told above that one of the reasons for the population decline that began in the 1950s was because part of those cities are ghetto, but I imagine that its possible that they had ghettos before the 1950s, but I could be wrong. Willminator (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
All large cities have, and have always had, poorer sections, sometimes called ghettos. The difference is that some US cities are now almost entirely ghetto, with no tax base to improve things. In the case of gentrification; large, old businesses like factories might still close down, but may be replaced by many smaller service-oriented businesses for the new rich. They all need restaurants with insulting waiters and dog-groomers, after all. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Ancient Roman punishment
Near the end of Livy 28:29 it says for a punishment: These were stripped to the waist and conducted into the middle of the assembly; all the apparatus of punishment was at once brought out; they were tied to the stake, scourged and finally beheaded.
What is all the apparatus of punishment?
What is the meaning of tied to the stake, especially the stake? Was it a common practice then for severe punishment for criminals to be tied to a stake?
And the apparatus of punishment must have included a stake, unless there was one already present, a scourge (whip), and an axe for the beheading. "The stake" rather than "a stake" is normal English but perhaps a bit old-fashioned now. Joan of Arc was "burnt at the stake". Itsmejudith (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The most serious Roman whip was called a Flagrum, about which we have a brief article. A Google search for "Flagrum" brings up lots of sites, many religious (connected with the Passion of Christ) but some of a (ahem) "special interest" nature ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The Latin is nudi in medium protrahebantur et simul omnis apparatus supplicii expromebatur. deligati ad palum uirgisque caesi et securi percussi
I don't particularly agree with the translation you have there. The phrase nudi in medium protrahebantur means "They were dragged (protrahebantur) naked (nudi) into the center (in medium)." There is no phrase to indicate they were stripped to the waist. Perhaps your translation didn't want its readers to assume the mutinous soldiers were not completely naked, which from the Latin, it appears that they were. The verb protrahebantur is from protraho protractum. It's where we get the word "protracted" which means drug out over a long time. The image here is more than conducted. These soldiers were dragged forcibly and naked into the middle of the assembly of soldiers.
The second phrase simul omnis apparatus supplicii expromebatur means "and at the same time (et simul) every instrument of punishment/torture (omnis apparatus supplicii) was brought forth (expromebatur). Simul, where we get the word "simultaneously" gives the impression that all at once were these naked soldiers dragged out into the assembly with all the means to torture them at the same time. Livy’s use of expromo gives the sense of taking something out for display and spectacle. The root for our modern word promotion follows the prefix ex which means out.
The last phrase, deligati ad palum uirgisque caesi et securi percussi means "They were bound to the stake (deligati ad palum) and hewn by a green tree branch commonly referred to as a switch (virgisque caesi) and cleaved by an axe (et securi percussi). The use of the conjuction que for "and" rather than the full et seems to indicate that the binding of the mutinous soldiers to the poles and thrashing them with green tree branches was a complete action as in "bound & thrashed." The use of virgis tells us that the instrument was not a scourge as in the medieval torture device, but just a branch designed for whipping, a green and flexible one. He verb caedo, cedidi, caesum is often used with axes to mean to cut, but can also mean to strike a mortal blow, beat, or cudgel. You must imagine that they were really going after these soldiers with these branches and inflicting wounds on their bare skin. The instrument for what can be implied as beheading was indeed an axe.
For your first question, apparatus here means equipment or a thing of preparation. It doesn’t mean a machine as our modern meaning has it, although in some Latin contexts it can mean a machine, just not here. There was no crazy torture machine, just instruments of torture.
For your second question, the palum or "stake" was a large piece of wood in the ground upon which soldiers could practice use of their sword, or where people could be tied for punishment. The article "the" is not present. I suppose if Livy wanted such emphasis, he would have use the pronoun ille, but there is none here. It could well have been translated as "bound to a stake"
For your third question, the soldiers were being thrashed with green branches to cause intense pain before they were executed. It was a harsh treatment for the purposes of not only punishing those who had rebelled against Scipio Africanus, but it was a spectacle meant for the other soldiers so that they would regain discipline. Our word "decimate" has the Latin root of decem meaning "ten." It was a practice among the Roman legions to kill every tenth man as an act of discipline if they did something like loose a battle. Livy is giving us one of many descriptions of a general enacting a severe form of punishment to maintain discipline in his ranks and command the utmost loyalty and respect. Gx872op (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow, great detailed explanation of these items and events. I corrected Publius Scipio to Scipio Africanus his son. The mutiny at Sucro took place in 206 BC; whereas Publius Scipio (father to Africanus) was already killed in 211 BC. Here is my question then:
I've never had a switch to the back, so I can't say for sure. It may depend on the type of wood used. This was green wood so it would have been both flexible and possibly wet with sap. Livy's word choice describes the cutting or hewing feature of the tree branches on the soldiers, so I think it did more than sting. Salt on a wound does burn, and so if they were sweating during this time, sweat and tree sap may have caused their shredded backs to burn. Methods of torture and discipline would be a good research project, but I'll leave that for someone else. 8 semesters of Latin was enough for me. Gx872op (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The use of green branches implies they were fairly or very flexible, so not the equivalent of beating someone with a cudgel (which the Roman military also sometimes engaged in). So the punishment would've been most similar to birching (or switching which has some different nuances). Our article on birching says "According to some accounts, even the legendary sting of the cat o' nine tails was less feared than the birch in certain prisons" (in the 1800s), but also that "Judicial birching in 20th-century Britain was used much more often as a fairly minor punishment for male juveniles" (with a smaller and lighter birch). Like the punishment Livy describes, 19th and 20th century birching was carried out on the bare skin, and was much more likely to cut the skin than caning (but would bruise less), and would definitely sting. The article also mentions the tradition in parts of Scandinavia "to strike one's own body with soaked birch twigs in the sauna as a form of massage and to increase blood circulation and open the pores. The twigs are chosen carefully and do not have their leaves removed, and are often softened by keeping them in water prior to use. Being struck by the twigs induces a pleasant stinging sensation but very little actual pain". So again a stinging or burning sensation for this use of green twigs/branches, although at the opposite end of the scale for severity. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Tangentially related, I believe Scipio Africanus was one of the first Romans to appear on a Roman coin while still alive. I think he appeared as a bust, although this was minted in Spain I believe. Sulla appeared but not as a bust. I think Julius Caesar was the first to appear as a bust and minted at Rome rather than a province. Gx872op (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Doug, you keep asking if there is any burning, but I can find nothing in the original text (either the English, or the Latin that Gx872op has provided) that mentions burning. Do you have a particular reason for wanting there to be burning involved? --ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe Gx872op has answered my curiosity as to a "similitude of burning", which looks to me to be stinging that would feel something like burning. I can just imagine being whipped with a green flexibly branch and it would definitely feel like much of a sting (similar to burning).--Doug Coldwell23:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything in Google nor in wikipedia's article on official residences. Do you know for sure that the Premier of Ontario even has an official residence? ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 01:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, relations were a bit tense during the Clinton Administration, which was quite critical at times of Israel's settlement policies, which the Clinton Administration saw as unneccessarily antagonistic and did not lead to a peaceful Two-state solution. --Jayron3202:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Israel has been the middle eastern country most friendly toward the US, and with good reason. How many times has the US used its Security Council veto in favor of Israel, when otherwise there would have been Council action contrary to the interests of Israel? How many billion dollars a year does the US give to Israel, and what is the total since 1948? How loudly did the US protest the Israeli "accidental" attack on the USS Liberty, and how hard did the US government work to silence the ship's surviving crewmembers from discussing or writing about the incident? Edison (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
There are some interesting recent articles about the U.S. promising to veto Palestine's application for recognition as a nation to the UN security council . The one I linked has some of the background to this situation. Buddy431 (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Conservative and Liberal places of Bangladesh.
I read the Pabna article that Pabna is conservative because it has been a political stronghold of Jamaat e Islami and BNP. Is there other places of Bangladesh that are conservative in terms of religion or being political stronghold of Jamaat and BNP? What about places that are liberal due to being political stronghold of Awami League?
The article on the Bangladeshi general election, 2008 breaks down each party's seats by region, which makes clear where some party's strongholds lie. The majority of the BNP's seats are in Chittagong, with Rajshahi the other area where they are fairly strong. Jamaat only hold seats in Chittagong. The Awami League hold almost all the seats in Dhaka, and are weakest in Chittagong and Rajshahi. Warofdreamstalk15:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
However, I think we shouldn't overestimate the ideological cleavage between BNP and Awami League (BNP isn't really a conservative party, Awami League isn't a liberal party by any standards). They are both catch-all populists. The two parties have different areas of influence due to historical reasons. Jamaat, on the other hand, is a different issue. An area with high Jamaat vote could probably be labelled 'conservative' (in the sense of being non-secular). --Soman (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Well... seeing as I can't find any, not common at all. LOL. The older Etruscan/Greek fasces incorporated a labrys, a woodcutting double axe which gives it a winged appearance. Romans also used a double headed axe (bipennis) for woodcutting, though it was far larger and had a wooden handle unlike the labrys. Roman woodcutting axes seem to be overwhelmingly single-bladed however, and depictions of fascia utilize one-bladed axes (secūrēs). The only instances where I can find two fascia crossing each other are in post-Roman Empire heraldry (which also seems to often use a telltale battleaxe instead of woodcutting axes) and I can not find anything on a single fasces with two axes.-- Obsidi♠nSoul14:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
If we knew say in the year 1000 what we do now, could the people who lived back then have had the same kind of society that we have now with the infrastructure and internet etc? What im asking i guess is have these things always had the potential to exist but we've only recently discovered how to utilise them? --Thanks, Hadseys13:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Innovations interacted with other innovations to get us to the point we are at now. Sudden possession of 1,000 years worth of knowledge would probably lead to a different set of circumstances. The incremental nature of change cannot be overlooked. By the way, it's a hard question to answer, because I don't think it is narrowly-enough-focussed. But I obviously find it interesting nevertheless. Bus stop (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean you individually, or society as a whole? If it is just you individually, you would find that a lot of the needed infrastructure to make what you know how to build is missing. I mean look at something simple like a bicycle. You should be able to invent that right? But with the tools a supplies you would have back in 1000AD, you would have a rough time. You will not have rubber for the tires, so you will need to use something else which will give a rougher ride, less traction and weigh more. You will not have aluminum or even tubular steel for the frame, so your bicycle will be rather heavy, and take a fair amount of time to fashion, either from solid iron or from wood. Moving parts will be tricky, because you will have to build them within decent tolerances with the tools on hand. Even if those trade offs are acceptable, roads at the time would not be in any condition for you to ride around very well. That is not to say that a knowledgeable individual from today would not be able to make some improvements, just don't expect airplanes, the internet and cellphones within his lifetime. Googlemeister (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Various works of fiction have themes of people with advanced knowledge of technology finding themselves in low tech worlds, either because they've gone back in time or because they're living in a post-apocalyptic world. My favourite of this ilk, although not quite right for your description is Day of the Triffids. I've not read it for years, but I thin A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court may be what you're describing - although I guess the tech is some way off 2011 levels! Various Dr Who storylines have used the idea, too. I'd guess it's fairly common. --Dweller (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
A British TV comedy sketch has an ordinary 21st century man transported back to the laboratory of Michael Faraday. When Faraday asks about modern inventions, the modern man suggests cars. "How do they work?" "Erm, you put petrol in them." "What is petrol?" - he doesn't really know. "Mobile phones?" "How do they work?" He doesn't know either. I might do better explaining an internal combustion engine, but I don't think I'd be an awful lot more useful in the past. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, everything we have now could have been created earlier, if we had the technology. It couldn't have been created instantly though, as many intermediate steps need to be achieved first. I'm not sure how much more quickly we could go through the intermediate steps, maybe a few hundred years ? Note that one problem is that our technology might well outpace our social development. That still might be the case in the modern world, where we've developed nuclear weapons before we ended warfare, but at least we have world-wide trade and the United Nations, which tend to limit to scale of wars. Without those, we might have had a global nuclear war long ago. StuRat (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
If only the threat of nuclear retaliation stopped wars, then that would leave open many wars where one of the two parties lacked nuclear weapons. StuRat (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The question is interesting. Obviously if today's knowledge just suddenly appeared in the year 1000, it would take a long time to "spin up" the infrastructure that we take for granted today, what with digging mines and oil wells, creating all those laboratories, building all those cell phone towers, farming all that coca. Another interesting aspect is that our article world population estimates says that there were around 300 million humans on Earth in the year 1000, which is under 5% of what we have today — so in order to give everybody a cell phone, we wouldn't need quite so much germanium, for example, so it may be that 300 million humans could live in a way indistinguishable from the way we live today, but with a much smaller infrastructure that could be built faster than ours was. Fewer mouths to feed. Another twist: Europeans would not have visited the New World yet; many animal species that are extinct today could be saved and several entire human civilizations, as well, if some precautions were taken. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
There's another problem with the scenario of the time-traveler that brings unknown technology. Sooner or later, he goes away, or dies. And what then? One by one, the computers in Ancient Rome begin to malfunction. Perhaps they could manage to understand the basic concepts of the Desktop metaphor (which is designed so that people does not need to know how does a computer work in the mechanical level), but without the time traveler, who will provide tech support? Who will have the slightest idea of what to do inside the computer case? Who will produce new components and computers? Cambalachero (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Banks have internal checks that are supposed to make wild speculation by a given trader visible to the bank's management, in whose interest it obviously is to stem losses before they reach such outrageous levels. The meat of Nick Leeson's conviction was that he had resorted to deceit and forgery to conceal his losses. The underlying problem in that case was that his employers really didn't properly understand how their business worked and had pitifully bad internal checks to make sure that everything was working properly. For things to get this bad requires someone to go rogue, but also requires an institutional failure. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk16:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Another article prompted by the same incident 90.200 mentions (and I guess was the catalyst for the OP) mentions :
Louise Cooper, markets analyst at BGC Partners, said the arrest will call UBS's risk management into question and an unexpected trading loss could do "significant reputational damage" to the bank.
She said: "Rich people tend not to want to do business with a bank where there are questions over risk control.
"UBS needs to do a good job in explaining what went wrong and assuring its clients that it will not affect them."
Which supports what FW mentioned. On the other hand, I've heard it suggest for NL and possibly others that one of the common reasons for the problems in the institutions is they don't care as long as the rogue trader appears to be making money which perhaps partially relates to what the OP is thinking of.
Yes, the recent UBS incident prompted my question, although they are not alone. It seems pretty straightforward to check the whereabout of 1bn, since you just need a fraction of that to track it down. Quest09 (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
historical fiction
I know there are some works of fiction out there that portray a person from a more modern time traveling to the past and living there. Are there many works for the opposite, where a person from the past comes into present days? I want to specify that it is only for people of the past coming to the present, not people from the present going to the future. Googlemeister (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Not exactly what you want, but I once read a story by an author called Simak, called 'The Goblin Reservation', which was about a world in the future where time travel was normal, and people (and all sorts of now-extinct animals and mythical creatures) from our past were living in this future world, basically for the purpose of being studied. Entertaining read, and the main plot actually had nothing to do with time travel. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
As something of a contrast to most of the above, you might consider the novel Brother Petroc's Return (1937) by "S.M.C." (Sister Mary Catherine), about a 16th century Cornish monk who, having apparently died and been entombed, is discovered in a state of suspended animation and revived around the date of the book's publication. It is not, however, easy to find. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.32 (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
You mean like the way they dispatched Jack by... Oh, I'd better not spoil it. :) One thing, though, is that Malcom and Mary carried their on-screen romance off-screen for awhile. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 23:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
In Argentina we have the comic book Gilgamesh the immortal. It is about a sumerian king who arrives to modern day the old fashioned way: being immortal. Of course, from Sumeria to modern day, and everything in the way here: ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, ancient Rome, Jesus, medieval ages, crusades, colonization of the americas, napoleonic wars, WWI, WWII, and so on... Cambalachero (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
In Philip José Farmer's multiple-novel Riverworld series, every human who has ever lived is reincarnated on the eponymous planet simultaneously, but this may be straying from what the OP is looking for. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.32 (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
There was an original Twilight Zone episode where a man about to be hung for his crimes in the Wild West is transported into the "present" (around 1960). Homicide ensues.
In another episode, a man from a wagon train is transported into the present where he finds medicine for his sick son. StuRat (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Is my face red, or what? Although those were the ghosts of deceased players, which is perhaps a bit different. And I did find it puzzling that Joe inquired about the lights, given that night baseball had been around for 25 years or so when he died. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 14:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The late Kage Baker developed this premise extensively in The Company series of novels and stories. Some characters are pre-homo sapiens and it goes through the present into the 24th C, sometimes in the same volume, in Old World and New World locales. Highly recommended; watch for the use of chocolate. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
UK riots - types of conviction
Hi,
I've been reading this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14931987 about the offences that the perpetrators of last month's riots in the UK have been convicted for. They've mostly been sent down for burglary and violent disorder. There is, however, a statutory offence of riot, created by the Public Order Act 1986. But nobody seems to have been charged with that specific offence - always with "connected" offences like burglary. Does anyone know why this is? As far as I know, the Public Order Act 1986 is still very much in force. And it seems to fit the circumstances. Why aren't the relevant parts being applied?
Most of those convicted so far are those who've pleaded guilty early in the process. I believe that's because there's good (probably video) evidence of someone taking stuff from a shop or chucking a brick at a police van. So the CPS are going to be tempted to charge them with the pretty undeniable stuff, knowing the courts will take the circumstances into account and give out a harsher sentence than a simple burglary or brick throw, and call that a success. Getting a conviction for riot sounds like a more nuanced case, one they'd need more than video evidence for, and perhaps evidence about a given person's conduct over more than just a single instant of criminality. The act talks about "common purpose" and says "The common purpose may be inferred from conduct"; that's clearly a case the CPS can make, but it's likely one they'd have to argue at some length in court (and a defence might be "my client just showed up, chucked a brick, and ran off - he didn't know any of the other people there, and wasn't acting in common purpose with them"). You'd think that the more serious cases, where a charge of riot would be appropriate, will still be bubbling through the system - if a defendant chooses to contest a charge, it can take at least 6 months (probably more, with courts and prosecutors so busy) before it comes to trial. And given the very hefty terms for riot (up to 10 years) it's a great motivator for anyone charged with that to defend it actively, and at least try to plea down to a lesser charge. So I think you will see a few people come to trial for the more serious crimes you mention, but they've not come to court yet. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk21:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
What will happen if the same thing occurs in the U.S. if all defendants request their jury trials? Certainly many of them end up pleading guilty to save money. Most cases are never tried by the jury (all facts are known and undisputed from the video) but what will happen if they choose not to plead guilty? What did they do in the 1960s? -- Toytoy (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
UN Security Council mediator Count Folke Bernadotte and Observer André Serot were murdered on September 17, 1948 by Israeli agents. Later, UN passed General Assembly Resolution 258(III) to bring the case to the International Court of Justice to decide whether the UN has legal capacity to have an advisory opinion regarding reparation for injuries suffered by UN workers.
Yes he was killed by the Zionist terrorist group Lehi and none of the murderers was punished for killing a peace-loving man who have saved hundreds of Jews from Adolf Hitler. However, without first consulting the ICJ, the UN's legal standing was not clear at that time. The ICJ's opinion granted the UN legal personality. It's, in fact, a textbook case to allow the UN to go to the ICJ. -- Toytoy (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Huh? The Lehis were an extremist terrorist group, not Israeli agents. In fact, they were forcibly disbanded by the Israeli government, if I remember correctly, by having most of them arrested. As the article says though, they were granted amnesty (usually a good idea in most situations to do so if you keep tabs on them). The UN though only has as much power as its member states choose to grant it, and that is mostly only that power granted by UNSC members (more specifically the permanents).
Out of curiosity, is this in relation to Turkey saying they're going to take Israel to the ICJ? I read that that can only happen if both nations agree to arbitration by the ICJ and then the UN takes the decision under advisement, but there;s nothing the ICJ itself can actually do. I could be wrong though, I'm no expert. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 02:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The rate of unemployment seems to be known pretty well in the United States. What about the rate of job offerings which remain unfilled out of the total jobs offered? --DeeperQA (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I did a Google search for unfilled jobs, and I found this article.
Its not that I'm lazy (which I actually am)... its just that I was not expecting to find any information so readily available, much less under the word "unfilled." Thanks. --DeeperQA (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
That article is a bit mystifying. Employers don't want to hire "overqualified" candidates because they're afraid they'll bolt when the economy improves? Really? Is there anybody left who thinks the U.S. economy is going to improve this decade or next? Wnt (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, in the current U.S. system, anytime a business hires a new employee they are at a real disadvantage. There's human resource hours, training expenses, taxes, insurance, and a plethora of legal risks and other considerations that must be weighed. ESPECIALLY When times are tough, like now, it often makes more sense to increase the compensation of existing employee to take on more of the work load, rather than to hire someone new. This can be good for long-term employees to "move up the ladder", but, unfortunately, also decreases the number of employment opportunities. Politics aside, this can become a reinforcing loop, and is not good in the big picture, but makes sense for an individual company who's main concern (and rightfully so) is profit margins. Quinn05:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, employers can afford to be picky and leave job openings out there without actually hiring someone if they don't like the candidates that apply. When the job market is bad, they know they'll continue to get applications and will eventually get someone they like. SDY (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Many businesses, particularly with large numbers of low-paid staff, have very high staff turnover (e.g. the turnover rate for McDonalds kitchen staff is over 100% p.a.). This means that even in a recession there'll be a lot of staff leaving, a lot of recruitment and hence a lot of vacancies. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Quinn's comment is mostly right, but I see little evidence that U.S. employers are increasing compensation for existing employees when they increase the workload. Real wages have been trending steadily downward since the last recession and, anecdotally, I don't know of anyone who's received a significant raise in the past few years. Far, far more common is to increase the workload without increasing compensation. Marco polo (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Philosopher who doubted physical world could hurt him?
I'm trying to figure out the name of an ancient philosopher I heard a story about. Supposedly he wasn't convinced that water could drown you or falling could kill you, so whenever he went out some of his friends went with him to keep him out of danger. But supposedly he chased his cook through the streets of Athens for having served a poor meal to his guests. It might just be solipsism but I thought there was a school of philosophy that took its name from him. Any idea what name I'm trying to remember? RJFJR (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
That seems to overlap somewhat with this account of Pyrrhon of Elis, aka Pyrrho -- except that Pyrrhon is said to have dismissed a student who chased the cook, not to have chased the cook himself. Ring any bells? Looie496 (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Is the a list of political criteria by which presidential candidates are rated or compared with other candidates, which might effect whether they are chosen over another candidate? (for instance, when Lincoln ran for President a girl suggested that he might be more electable if he wore a beard - so facial hair could be considered one of those criteria.) --DeeperQA (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
...or, at least it could have been considered that in 1861. I'm not sure fashions should be included in such a list. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I too would love to see such a list. However it would potentially be infinite and growing as new issues arise. Here are some in no particular order:
Beard: "The last President of the United States to wear any type of facial hair was William Howard Taft, who was in office from 1909 till 1913." Looks like no beard is a criteria of the last 100 years. Rmhermen (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been amused by the fact that since Obama was elected, a number of people, who wouldn't have voted for him in a pink fit anyway, have been somehow trying to prove that he is a Muslim. HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is always a work in progress. You are most welcome to add such a mention by clicking "edit" in the Psychodynamic article. 70.91.171.54 (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Is imperonating a federal agency a crime in the US?
Suppose a website wants to cause some drama by pretending it was hit with a ICE seizure. Instead of the "correct way" of faking it they put up a 404 page secured by ice.gov's SSL certificate. When a user visits the site they are hit with a SSL security warning page showing that the website is supposedly associated with the ICE somehow. Would would this violate any US federal laws? Anonymous.translator (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I know there's a law about impersonating a federal agency to gain something of value, but I can't remember if impersonating per se is forbidden. 18 USC 912 is the chapter and verse on obtaining things of value. The exact text: "Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." In this case they are arguably "pretending to be" ICE. Whether they're "acting as" ICE is less obvious. If they actually gained an advantage against a competing business, that would be a "thing of value" and they'd be in violation, but you'd probably have to demonstrate to the court that there was a gain, not just a possibility of a gain. SDY (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Nowadays if you acknowledge indebtedness and the person you are indebted to writes off the debt after you have failed to pay then the underpaid debt may be considered income. If your website tactic is what convinced the creditor to write off your debt and it is now considered income then it might also be considered gain. Some Federal prisons have tennis courts. Enjoy. --DeeperQA (talk) 08:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Just for clarity, I just know this line because somebody accused me of it a little while back on my talk page (long story). If you want an actual opinion of whether that particular behavior is illegal, you'll have to ask a lawyer. All I know is that there is a law, and the law has some really awkward wording. SDY (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
There are always phony snail mail envelopes going through the mails with legal-looking seals trying to make people think they come from governmental agencies. Those don't seem to be illegal. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Questions of "Would it be legal to do X?" or "Is party A breaking the law by doing so and so?" are inappropriate here. The Ref Desk volunteers may not give any legal advice, and certainly one would be unwise to rely on any legal advice obtained from anonymous strangers ion the internet. Edison (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
relative income
Warren Buffet does not mind if he and his peers are taxed heavily on income above $1,000,000 a year while Obama sets the amount at $250,000. The poverty line is currently $10,890 for an individual (which is a disgraceful joke if you have a car and rent or have a mortgage on a house) while the average income is $49,500. That means the average income is 4.54 times the poverty line while $1,000,000 income per year is 91.83 times the poverty line and 20.20 times the average income. $250,000 is 22.96 times the poverty line and 5.05 times the average income. Why are the multiples of the poverty line not used to determine how much individuals can afford to pay in income tax or is there a more accurate curve that does? (You can think of the multiple as the number of years you can go without a job.)--DeeperQA (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
To start, a point of clarification: El Presidente doesn't set nuttin' when it comes to taxes. Taxation and all revenue is controlled by the House of Representatives, the so-called "power of the purse." Obama may have some influence over it as the leader of the Democratic Party, but given that they're the minority now that's not much influence. He can ask for things, of course, and he's got one heck of a megaphone for that purpose, but he doesn't actually write the rules. Speaking of the House of Representatives, any decision they make over taxation tends to be political horse-trading. If taxes were set by the bureaucracy ("intelligent design"), they'd probably have a more complicated base formula with more headahces but less loopholes. Since they're set by the House, they're like swiss cheese (which goes well with ham). Assuming that there is an intelligent system is a serious flaw, the tax system is a product of evolution, where the same base system has been tweaked slightly according to the political pressures of the day, but it still likely resembles its American Civil War-era origins and the 1913 Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The system you're proposing makes sense on a certain level, but it's not how the tax code is written. SDY (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
See also our article on progressive taxaxtion. The US federal income tax, speaking vaguely (without getting into the aforementioned swiss cheese), taxes income on a scale that isn't really concerned with what your income actually is. The first $X isn't taxed at all, whether you work part time at a gas station or are Warren Buffett. Income from $X to $Y is taxed at a higher rate, but this doesn't affect the taxes you owed on the first $X. Income from $Z to $Y is taxed again higher, and again ignores taxes owed on the first $Y. Particularly since the tax structure is such that those below the poverty line generally don't owe taxes at all, there's no need for $X, $Y, or $Z to fall on exact multiples of a very rough approximation. Note also that a single-number "poverty line" does nothing to account for regional differences in cost of living: an income of $A will vary widely in whether or not it represents real poverty based on where (and how) one lives. Note how this also impacts your tying income multiples to "years without a job". — Lomn13:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The current U.S. tax system does have Tax brackets set to various income levels but the system is much more complex than simple multiples of the poverty level. And further complicated by all the deductions, AMT, dividend taxes, deferrals, etc. (It matters not only how much you make a year but sometimes how you make it, how you spend it, when you can spend it and how large your family unit is.) Rmhermen (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
where was the "Strictly Come Dancing" advert filmed?
Here is a link to the BBC's blog site for Strictly Come Dancing, and the video seems to show it was on a film set somewhere, so not a real location. If you're into SCD I thoroughly recommend the BBC's minisite for the programme, where answers to questions like yours are easy to come by. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
You may be talking about a different advert to me then: the one I've seen and saw on the BBC website featured a row of houses, and the picture on the BBC website clearly showed that the house front was just that - a brick facade held up with timber struts. Do you have a reference for you assertion of the address? You've obviously found it somewhere, otherwise why would you have asked? --TammyMoet (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I finally got to a computer that wants to show me video clips. The YouTube version can be seen in HD and you really can read the roadsign at 0:48. I've looked several times but can't see "a brick facade held up with timber struts" that TammyMoet mentions. Perhaps I'm missing something? Alansplodge (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
If God does exist, then why would God ultimately exist?
So, many so-called philosophical “ultimate questions” have been asked in history such as: Why are we and the world here? Where did everything ultimately come from? How do we know that God exists? What happens after we die? I’ve seen and heard many greasons and answers for these questions, and there is a purpose behind all of these questions. Nevertheless, people continue to ask these questions today. Apparently however, few or even no one has ever tackled what I think could be “the ultimate question.” Here is the question I’ve been contemplating recently: If God exists, then why does God ultimately exist and what’s the ultimate purpose for His existence? It’ll be difficult to explain what I mean, but I’ll give it a shot. In this situation, let’s suppose that God never decided to create everything. Therefore everything would remain non-existent. It won’t matter if there was or was no God in the midst of non-existent because non-existence would still be and remain non-existence. Now, in this next situation, let’s suppose what many religious people teach: That there is a God and in the beginning He decided to create everything for His own pleasure. Many religious people also teach, however, that He doesn’t need nor depend on His own creation for anything nor does His creation affect Him in any way. He can destroy it with no problems at any time and He could have decided not to create everything. He loves Himself infinitely more than He loves us and the rest of creation, which is still infinite though according to Christians, Jews, Muslims, and all those who teach it. Christians, Jews, etc. believe that God wants us to have fellowship with Him even though He doesn’t need it nor depend on it. As a result of all this, it might not make any difference as well to God in the ultimate sense if He decided to not create anything. Therefore, it doesn’t ultimately make a difference between no God in the midst of non-existence, a God in the midst of non-existence, and the existence the God supposedly created. Yet another thing to keep in mind here is that according to the Bible and the Qu’ran probably, God can do all things, so He could probably bring Himself into non-existence if He wanted to. Final thing, saying God is eternal is a very long time indeed. He could have created everything an infinite amount of time ago, an infinite amount of time in the future, or never. With all of these things in mind, it all brings us to the question again, but I’ll word it differently and into several different questions in one: What’s the ultimate reason for God’s existence and what’s the ultimate purpose for His existence if He does exist? Are there any possible answers to this question? If there are no possible answers to this question, then why are there no possible answers available? Willminator (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Being as how we can't even prove the existence or non-existence of God, the "why" of it is that much harder. But I once had a minister tell me the answer is in the first four words of Genesis: "In the beginning God". What was before the beginning (i.e. the Big Bang or whatever), only God knows. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 18:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Better to say no convincing proof has yet been found of the existence or non-existence of God. While most major religions look on God as both omnipotent and benevolent, there is no good reason for either premise. God's nature or natures are bound to affect the question of whether a proof is possible: if God is indeed omnipotent but is also whimsical, self-serving, or malevolent, then there could be no proof of the existence of a God of a different kind who in fact does not exist. (Of course, it's eccentric to think of God as having a gender, but our longstanding bias may never be overcome in the English language.) Moonraker (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
We have no trouble calling a dog or an owl or a dolphin "it". We like to personify God because (a) we are supposedly made "in His image" and (b) his Son (who was also God) supposedly took on human form as Jesus of Nazareth - but whatever God is, God is not actually a human being and we can safely get away with calling God "it". Or "It". -- Jack of Oz20:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe; but you wouldn't refer to your father as "it" without appearing rather rude. Christians believe in "one God, the father almighty", so the same principle applies. You may refer to God in whichever way you please, but some will (sooner or later) take offence. Alansplodge (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
These are metaphysical questions. Metaphysical questions are such that it is not humanly possible to get an answer for sure. Anyone who claims they have an answer --people who say they KNOW there's a god -- or that they KNOW that there is a "reason for everything" -- or they KNOW that "God has a plan" are really just parroting what they have been told to say. The reality is that these people just BELIEVE these things, not know them. That's just intellectual dishonesty which is being taught in churches, mosques and synagogues etcetera. The Rastafarians are famous for saying they KNOW that Hallie Sallesie is the messiah not merely believe. Unfortunately a paycheck hangs in the balance for clergy, so they promulgate the idea that you can KNOW (insert metaphysical faith claim here). Then there is the esoteric school who claim that they have special hidden knowledge that has been revealed to them (um, not really likely). They only thing we humans have at our disposal as a tool is reason. Reason tells us that if a claim is just unknowable in principle, then we cannot be held responsible morally for the answer. The answer to these questions are simply irrelevant. Whatever metaphysical theory or model you adopt for yourself to get you through your day, and makes you a wonderful decent person is a valid as any other. If you think the purpose of life is to worship and adore an invisible old white guy with a flowing white beard, well please just keep it to yourself. There isn't any point in trying to get other people involved in a personal metaphysical model. Other people have different models which are equally valid. There is no "meaning of life" there is only a meaning of your life. If you want to learn more about "unanswerable" questions, then I would recommend that you study or take a formal class (from a legitimate academic not some crack pot with a pov) in metaphysics and one in epistemology. I think you will find that the only real answers come when you think for yourself. Greg Bard (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
All knowledge is belief. At what level can you be certain that the world you are interacting with really exists and isn't, instead, some elaborate hallucination you are having? How can you prove that to yourself? Certainty is illusion, and people define for themselves at what level their "reality" is real. You don't know anything about the world your interact with anymore than anyone else believes in God. It's just a distinction of semantics you make to give yourself a sense of superiority because your belief system is superior based on the criteria you created to make it better. --Jayron3203:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
All knowledge is belief, but not all belief is knowledge (by a long shot). Jayron, I'm sorry but if your point is to say that well we can't call anything knowledge because of some radical skepticism about our perception, I'm afraid that just isn't reasonable and certainly not scientific. We can reasonably call knowledge our observations of the world just fine. What we cannot call knowledge are faith claims. How do I KNOW that I do not live in the Matrix? Everyday I wake up, and the world behaves as if it is real. It happened yesterday, the day before, and the day before. It is REASONABLE to say that I KNOW that I do not live in the Matrix. So too with the claim that the "sun with come up tomorrow", and the claim that "my car will start when I turn the key." It's called the principle of induction, and its pretty solid. So solid that I'm sure you have no trouble placing "faith" in, for instance, elevators, and ceilings that do not fall on you, and airplanes not falling either. Your claim that " don't know anything about the world interact with anymore than anyone else believes in God." is a COMPLETELY FALSE claim. Your attempt to equate scientific knowledge with religious belief is COMPLETELY WRONG. I do apologize, too. I am a logician, and so it really is my job to tell people "don't think that way." I try not to be too much of a jerk about it, but perception is what it is. I do appreciate your contributions here and they are usually quite brilliant and right on. However, it is obvious that you are a religious believer, and that is unfortunate because religion basically turns even brilliant people's brains into mush and this is an example of that. I'm certainly not aiming to portray myself as superior to anyone. However, science is clearly superior to faith as a source of knowledge and I cannot apologize for promulgating that fact. Greg Bard (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Just one correction. I didn't make any attempt to equate scientific knowledge with religious belief. You will find that claim nowhere in my statement. I could easily claim that your position is that scientific knowledge and religious belief are mutually exclusive concepts. I don't see why they need to be, yet you seem to be arguing from that position. --Jayron3204:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Your claim that " don't know anything about the world interact with anymore than anyone else believes in God." is tantamount to saying that somehow my physical scientific observations of the world which can be verified by others are no more and no less valid than someone just having any old belief floating around in their head. That's just epistemically irresponsible to say the least. So when I say that I observed the result of some litmus paper and someone else says that they believe that the world is on top of a elephant on top of a turtle on top of an elephant, that is for me (to quote you) not knowing that a sample is an acid anymore than the other person knows that the world is on top of a turtle?!?!? Really?! How about this: I know with 100% certainty that 100% of the scientists on earth and 100% of the logicians on earth are going to join with me in correcting you in that irresponsible position. It's completely wrong and a bit frustrating to have to explain to an obviously intelligent person.
Also, please let me be clear there is nothing inherent in science or religion that makes them exclusive at all. In fact, for any scientific fact that can be known there is always the possibility that someone could just believe it on faith.Greg Bard (talk) 05:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I see the truth of what you are saying, but I still wonder what the point is of comparing the degree to which one knows, and the degree to which another one believes. I was thinking that you were saying they were equally valid (they certainly are not!). However one can certainly know the result of a litmus paper to an equal degree to which another person believes there is a god. However who cares about the degree of fervor in belief, as compared to confidence in knowledge. Its apples and oranges. People can believe ridiculous things with great fervor, so what?!? Greg Bard (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The Bible says "Jehovah himself gives wisdom" (Proverbs 2:6). In God's infinity He held the advantage of meditation and inherently infinite wisdom. He wants us too to have this ability, by means of "treasur up his own commandments." The Bible says Jehovah's purpose may be carried out by means of His kingdom. To make known the eminence of this kingdom was the purpose of Jesus' ministry on Earth. In order to answer your question about God's reason for existence, another question may very well be posed: for what reason do you exist? Indeed, reason is man's wisdom, and man's wisdom is foolishness with God; also, God's wisdom is foolishness with man, which is why the love of many cools off. Schyler(exquirere bonum ipsum)00:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
See Theological veto. Yes it's true. Reason and logic do not support any particular metaphysical view. So anyone wanting to push their particular view onto others will eventually have to say that logic and reason are bad. It's a very unfortunate side effect of the politics of organized religion. It's when religious believers abandon reason that we get the crazy woman who throws her babies into the river because "god told her to." This is why reason has to come come first morally. You have to have a reasonable faith, and you have you go by your conscience, not anyone else's "teachings". Greg Bard (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The god who created these colliding galaxies forbids you to eat shellfish and sleep in the same bed as a menstruating woman. Divine wisdom or anachronistic chauvinistic tribal taboos?-- Obsidi♠nSoul06:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Putting aside the question of existence, siding with that literalist biblical god, is like siding with a despot because he is kind to you when you follow his nonsensical laws that have horrible punishments when broken. He promises plentiful rewards if only you follow him unquestioningly. In the periphery of his throne, you see the people who didn't listen being tortured by his underlings and hear their screams. You ask him why, and he just smiles and says it was their fault and he loves them anyway. If that god does exist, it is pure evil. And even if it is proven to exist, I'd rather burn.-- Obsidi♠nSoul06:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Well... you burn in hell? ;P That's another thing. The exclusivity of organized religion. If we supposed that only one was true, only a very very tiny amount of people would be 'saved'. Majority of all the humans that ever lived would suffer for eternity. Even within a religion, different sects believe different things and these differences are apparently enough to burn one sect for eternity, but not the other. Christians, Muslims, and Jews all worship the same god, yet most of them act as if each other's version was satan himself despite differing only in very minor details. It's as if they deliberately maintain exclusivity so as to appear chosen, special, and religions regularly taunt each other about the others burning in hell, as if saving oneself by being a sycophant to a cruel deity was the most blessed of human attributes. And the rather horrific thing about it all, is that doing good matters very little if you do not belong and do not perform the same rituals everyone else is doing. What happened to the Good Samaritan? He was inarguably a person with a kind heart, the epitome of the person what most religions strives their followers to be. But he belongs to a people that were rejected and still are by Jews despite sharing the same monotheistic religion. Did he go to hell as well? And if he did, would you really call a god who would allow that to happen 'good'? Jealousy is not a very divine trait.-- Obsidi♠nSoul10:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
As a Roman Catholic, I do believe God exists, but I think it very differently from most other Catholics. For one, I don't believe the Earth was created in 7 days (although it could be thought of as true in a symbolic way), and I believe that God used the Big Bang to create the universe and evolution to create all the creatures on Earth (us included). I believe that things can be seen from a scientific perspective, but there is still something or someone that controls all these things, including physics. That person is God. Narutolovehinata509:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
That's not "very differently from most other Catholics", it's mainstream Catholic belief. Catholic schools will generally teach science and the history of the Universe in accordance with the scientific consensus. Very few Catholics have bought into Evangelical Protestant ideas of 'Biblical literalism' and Young Earth Creationism. We can even point to early Christians who, without having a scientific theory to compare it to, still argued that it was missing the point to take the Genesis account as an accurate, literal history (Augustine is the classic example, I think). The Magisterium of the Church deliberately leaves the question somewhat open, so as not to unnecessarily exclude anyone on a matter that isn't (spiritually speaking) terribly important.. 86.164.76.231 (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree. It's the usual stance of almost all Catholics I know, including my immediate family, LOL. I also find it puzzling why other countries seem to have a stereotype of Catholics as terribly traditional and literalist. Perhaps because of its rather bloody history? By experience, it is the opposite.-- Obsidi♠nSoul14:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't really want to take this much further off topic, but that little discussion leads to the inevitable question of "What is a Catholic?" Clearly, in the minds of those who just posted, it doesn't mean someone who follows the teachings of Rome. Well, certainly not all of them. Just those that suit at the time. I find those sorts of attitudes (and not just among Catholics) a bit concerning, especially when it comes to those myriads of articles on Misplaced Pages telling us fairly precisely how many Catholics, Christians and assorted others there are in the world. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why you'd think this topic raises the question of "What is a Catholic?". Perhaps you are under the impression, despite my (I thought) very clearly explaining that the Vatican doesn't take a Young Earth Creationist position, that agreeing with the scientific consensus is somehow not following the teachings of Rome? I even linked to the relevant section of the Catechism, which shows you that the official position of the Church only concerns itself with the theological aspects, and encourages scientific education and enquiry. People spout a lot of rubbish about what the Church actually teaches: I recommend a read of the Catechism for the official position. There are a variety of completely valid Catholic positions on Creation, all of which are in line with Church teaching, one of the most popular of which is described by Narutolovehinata5.
But to answer the question of "What is a Catholic?": a Catholic is someone who has received Baptism, or other Sacraments of Initiation, in the Catholic Church. There is no question of "He isn't really Catholic because he doesn't make it to Mass"/"She isn't really Catholic because she believes X": one can be a lapsed Catholic, or a non-practicing Catholic, or out of communion (excommunicated) with the Church, and still be Catholic. The Church lays down very clearly what the actual points of dogma are (the things that are required to be believed to be in Communion with the Church), but nobody has the power to strip someone else of their Catholic status, and there are a whole load of things which are not dogmatically defined, and on which individual Catholics will often have a position.
Every article on Misplaced Pages that gives a figure for members of a faith should give a source, or several sources, for that figure. There are a lot of organisations that determine numbers by what people say they are, or by how many people attend a faith service every week, or whatever. I don't see why this should be "a bit concerning", as any trustworthy source for numbers will tell you the basis they used. 86.164.76.231 (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I notice there isn't actually an answer to the original question in the thread above
(Subheading created for attempting to provide actual answers to the question asked. I apologise if I missed a serious answer to the question above.)
The traditional answer from a Judeo-Christian point of view is that God answered this question when he spoke to Moses from the burning bush: "I am that I am". I recommend a read of our article on that description of God. This points to the concept of God as existence itself: God's basic property is existing. This makes God the answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?": God is existence, self-contained and uncaused: the unmoved mover, the Causeless cause. It passes the problem of existence to God, leaving God as the embodiment of the problem. Since God (in this conception) is existence, asking why God exists is the same as asking why existence is. It is, by its nature, an unanswerable question, because existence itself, God, cannot have a cause, and so cannot have a reason for being. It simply is. If it had a cause, it would not be existence, because something would have had to exist outside it.
I should also note that Christian and Jewish philosophers don't generally hold that "God can do anything that I can think of", but rather that "God can do anything that He wills", which is quite different. God isn't going to create a square circle, or an object so heavy He cannot lift it, because God isn't going to be nonsensical. There was something about God being perfect in terms of Glory, and so everything works to the Glory of God? And so God wills that which leads to more Glory for Him? I don't remember: maybe someone else could point us to that concept.
My apologies, but I thought I gave the best possible answer that I could. There is a sense in which the question is meaningless, however (not trying to be a jerk, I mean "meaning" in a strict sense). It's a hypothetical question about IF there was a god, and one should enter into the hypothetical sincerely if we are to be intellectually fair-minded about it I suppose. You have brought up a few things and there seems to be a common theme with the whole "I am that I am" thing. That is a consequence of the law of identity. An object is always the same as itself. So we have a big circle. In metaphysics, you very often find that the answer involves a big circle, i.e. a circular definition or in other cases, very often an infinite regress. If you are serious about getting answers (and not merely trolling for god --which is a very common thing at this ref desk-- happy to oblige) I would recommend giving up on the idea that there really exists a god at all. Religious belief does nothing but cloud the issues, and makes it impossible to get any real answers. You inevitably get hung up in the mythology and can't escape it.Greg Bard (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Gregbard, I don't think that the Reference Desk should be used as a preaching pulpit to try to convert anyone to a particular belief. Why should anyone here say to me or anyone here whether I or someone else here should start or stop believing in God or a god? Willminator (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, you are right. It was a good faith response however. I think it is a little more respectful to be forthright about things than to troll at the ref desk so people think about god. I don't know for sure that that is what the OP was into, but it is pretty common here at the ref desk. In my opinion, religion turns people's brains to mush, and I find that quite sad. Greg Bard (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Why do you seem to question my motives for asking this question? I thought I’ve made clear that my question was never meant to go after any group of people. I was being fair in my question. I'm not going after you nor anyone, so don't worry. Just take a deep breath. :) Willminator (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh no I don't question your motives at all. (I think you might be joshing, but I want to be clear.) It's just that for living life and being a good person, the metaphysical view doesn't matter at all. There are good people of every religion, even because of their religion. So I support them. However, if you are exploring big metaphysical questions, you just aren't going to make any real progress, because all the gobbly-gook mumbo-jumbo gets in the way. It just isn't a good idea.Greg Bard (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I would question 86.126's statement above that God wouldn't square a circle and so forth. I would say that crediting God with genuine omnipotence is vital to giving the concept a fair consideration. To me the creation of the underlying system of mathematics and logic is far more impressive than the creation of physics and matter. We've seen mountains chewed to dust by human hands, and imagine creating vast explosions, even to the extent of universes. But the mere fact that we can't imagine how pi "originally got" one particular value or why there are dimensions and matter or why a lump of nervous tissue making calculations actually "feels" things - those are what really make a person wonder how, and by whom, a universe is created. In addition, it gives people more room to interpret specific traditional scriptures in a way that makes sense. For example, God is described as making humans and animals in a Garden of Eden, this can be interpreted as the creation of the Forms (from the Theory of Forms) rather than specific families, genera, or species. Rather than seeing God as a mere gene engineer puttering around the lab making up animals that work according to the same rules as everybody else, it is possible to see God as deciding what evolution can produce, what logically is possible for it to produce, and then (perhaps) making sure it works out that way. Wnt (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I actually made no such definitive statement about the properties of God: I merely provided the usual definition of 'omnipotent' applied by Jewish and Christian philosophers when attributing that property to God (since this was clearly the framework the question was being asked within), and provided a link (one of many) where one could read further about this view, and other related views. This is because I was trying to answer the OP's question. I really couldn't care less what your personal conception of God is, just as I don't imagine the OP gives a toss what I personally think God is like. They wanted to know if people had considered these ideas, and if so who and in what way. And by 'people', I mean notable people, notable for their views on religion and philosophy. 86.164.76.231 (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Why do so many theological discussions between religious people, agnostics and atheists wind up turning into ridiculous childish competitions?
I thought I’ve asked a legitimate, sincere question, which I can’t find the answers to nor any other people in history who have asked that question. I did take an “Introduction to Philosophy” course in college. I also studied religion, and had a religious upbringing too. In all these studies, I learned about those philosophers and theologians who have asked and tried to answer the questions: Why are we here, where do we come from, what happens after we die, how will the world end, and is there a god? I learned that the reason religion exists because of these questions, and the goal of any religion is to attempt to answer these questions with their different stories. However, I’ve never heard about any philosopher, theologian, or layman in history and even today try to answer the question about why does God ultimately exist if He does. I thought about the question while I was taking the philosophy course in college. No one I asked knew how to answer the question. The reasons behind this question I tried to explain in detail in the very first post of this section. The reasons I came up with came from my study of philosophy, religion, and my religious upbringing, so my question is an educated one. All I want to know is what are the answers, if any, to the question I asked that have been brought to the table? Also, who in history asked the question would be helpful to me. If no one has come up with the answers to the question and if there aren’t any answers available to my question, then why would that be? That’s all I was trying to ask. I don’t know how my question can tick off some people here. I don’t know why some people here seem to be “Avoiding the Question” which is a logical fallacy, which you can look it up in the “Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Willminator (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
It ain't your fault that some people have those reactions to a legitimate and important question. I have asked myself that question about God a few times, though never really thought about it at length. I'm afraid that in any internet forum with a large number of people, you will often find that people wish to get into big angry discussions about this sort of thing. In those discussions, they want to show themselves as either being a holier-than-thou atheist that feels they have it all figured out or a very religious person who is super offended and feels they must spread their wisdom to those not touched by God etc (both of which I find to be rather disagreeable, even though I'm a religious intellectual :p). I would recommend having this conversation with your most intelligent friends and family. they're a better choice than people in the intertubes. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 00:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm the person who posted "What if god does exist, but it's not yours?" I did that in a deliberately somewhat provocative way without the capital "g" on "god" to highlight the inherent Judeo-Christian bias in the original question. I like to think that in an open environment like Misplaced Pages, such questions, which appear to be general in nature but are really already loaded in a particular direction, can be healthily broadened in scope. I hope others don't see that as too childish. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Because what to most people are mere exercises in philosophical questions had and still has deadly implications for some of us. You can perhaps afford to smile benignly at scriptural literalism and fundamentalism, because after all, it doesn't and hasn't affected you. Some of us can't. Anyway my shot at the original question:
I believe it's the fascination of the great mystery. You've probably experienced it, but didn't know what it was. I certainly have and still do at times. An example: when you look up at the night sky and realize that every blinking light is a massive star with their own worlds and that even then they only constitute a very small part of the vastness of everything and out there are more blinking lights, each of which is a galaxy containing more stars than you can see now, and even farther out in both distance and time are ancient massive things you can't even begin to imagine the true natures of. You feel a certain powerful awe - I guess you can call it the numinous - and you really can't help but ask 'Why?' And it happens for different reasons for different people from listening to monks chanting vespers as the sun sets, to a particularly vivid dream, to watching lightning split open a tree and start a brushfire.
A religious person would describe it as ecstasy, transcendence, illumination, magic, divine wrath, the supernatural, the face of god, etc. A nonreligious person would describe it as wonder, awe, horror, etc. We experience the same things, and ask the same questions, but we do not reach the same conclusions. It inflames the imagination and we try to capture it, share it, and most importantly explain it. From tribal folklore to modern sciences, all are driven by the desire for an explanation. Some claim to have found the answers already, some don't. Some are satisfied with the explanations of others, some have to write new interpretations for it. Some answers are playful and silly, some are deadly serious. Some answers are simplistic to the point of absurdity, some are so complex no one really honestly understands it. These are our arts, our songs, our dances, our religions, and our sciences.
While I doubt we ever will find the answer, it doesn't stop us from asking. As Albert Einstein said, "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." -- Obsidi♠nSoul12:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
First off, "You can perhaps afford to smile benignly at scriptural literalism and fundamentalism, because after all, it doesn't and hasn't affected you. Some of us can't." -- That is actually entirely wrong, please do not make such assumptions when you know nothing about the person. My girlfriend is a member of Israel's Air Force and is endangered by various fundamentalists and literalists of the three major Abrahamic faiths. So, it very much affects me and her given that I wish to marry that girl and have a family with her rather than have her die as a result of the many forms of death that her job and assignment (her airbase) put her in danger of (something I worry about every day). please consider in the future, when making such assumptions, that a person is in fact affected by the thing you are talking about so as to avoid making grossly inaccurate and rude statements.
When I say childish, I am referring to direct digs at people's faith meant to provoke them, such as this comment above, "The god who created these colliding galaxies forbids you to eat shellfish and sleep in the same bed as a menstruating woman. Divine wisdom or anachronistic chauvinistic tribal taboos?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 06:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)" (I didn't look at the author until this morning btw :p), which seems, to me at least, to mock certain Jewish beliefs (even though I don't adhere to the latter and do find it silly, still). They're unnecessary and distract people; I have seen it so many Off-Topic forums. It's okay to engage in theological discussion and critique, but it's rude and not anthropologically sound to mock the cultural traditions of another group just because you dislike them (and I'm pretty sure that is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 13:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I was referring to the Christian selective interpretation of Leviticus in response to using the bible to directly imply firsthand knowledge of the motives of god. I was picking the most blatantly anthropocentric passages I can think of, the thought of the Jewish kosher (and indeed, Muslim halal) did not enter my mind at all. >.< -- Obsidi♠nSoul14:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, no worries, I know/remember very little of that Christian stuff, and it had crossed my mind that it was probably something Christian you were referring to, but you see the inherent danger if the thing your talking about is present in more than just your own errr... culture? Religious familial background? (you know what I mean). Better to just say that it is suspect in your view that any divine being who creates such wonders would also trouble themselves with some of the strange laws we see in the Abrahamic religions (that way no one can say "he is mocking X-belief!"). I will admit that the only reason I picked that one out though is because it was so visible and I didn't feel like reading the massive amounts of text already in place, so there may have been some more calm and civil discussion. When I see stuff like that though.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 14:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
As it turned-out, a Scottish newspaper displayed a picture of one the footballers (albeit with his eyes obscured, however his identity was plainly obvious).
Before I post my question - this is not a request for legal advice, simply a query concerning the jurisdiction of English Law on US-based websites.
Recently I have noted a number of examples, where English citizens have been prosecuted or investigated for comments they have posted on either Facebook or Twitter:
1. Kate Middleton's friend interviewed under caution by police after 'joke' about shooting illegal immigrants
Using London-based law firm Schillings as an advisor, action has been undertaken by the footballer against Twitter in an attempt to obtain information on some of the users involved in naming Giggs. The action is known as CTB v Twitter Inc, Persons Unknown. A blogger for Forbes magazine remarked: "Giggs has not heard of the Streisand effect", observing that mentions of his name had significantly increased after the case against Twitter had been reported in the news. According to measurement company Experian Hitwise, traffic on Twitter in the UK rose by 22% after the action was reported. Peter Preston, former editor of The Guardian, compared the CTB situation to the Spycatcher affair of the 1980s, in which Peter Wright's book had been openly on sale in Australia and other countries, despite being banned in the UK.
The headquarters of Twitter are in San Francisco, and legal experts pointed out the difficulties in suing in a United States court, where First Amendment protection applies to freedom of speech. London-based lawyer James Quartermaine commented: “Twitter will probably just ignore it and consider it to be offensive to their First Amendment rights. It’s probably an attempt to try and show that actions have consequences in cyberspace.” On 21 May 2011, lawyers at Schillings denied that they were suing Twitter, and said that they had made an application "to obtain limited information concerning the unlawful use of Twitter by a small number of individuals who may have breached a court order." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaseywasey (talk • contribs) 18:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Foreign laws have no jurisdiction over America as such. But if a Brit uses wikipedia or twitter or whatever in violation of British law, they might come after that user. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 18:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but if I travel to Florida and see an English person and say something that may be illegal in Britain. That English person may try to report me to the US authorities, however I can claim "Freedom of Speech". When we both return to England, he can try to report me to the British police, who will advise that as the alleged incident took place in America, it is outside British jurisdiction - Surely this is identical to what is happening with the Facebook/Twitter comments Jaseywasey (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not a request for legal advice - the point I am making is that Scottish & Irish newspapers have ignored the "Super-Injunctions" due to these orders only applying to England & Wales, therefore I cannot see how any comments posted on US websites can be covered by English law! Jaseywasey (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to understand English laws limiting freedom of speech, but conceivably a person subject to English law could get away with having banned speech appear in a print publication outside of England because a paper publication could be confiscated once it reaches England. However, since English authorities do not (yet) seem to block websites, a publication on a website, no matter where it is hosted, might be considered a publication within England in a way that a print publication is not. (Apparently, though, Misplaced Pages is careful not to use servers in the UK to avoid exposure to English libel laws.) Marco polo (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I found the following line in the Freedom of Speech article:
On 27 February 2008 civil servant Darryn Walker was arrested by officers from Scotland Yard's Obscene Publications Unit for posting a work of fiction allegedly describing the kidnap, mutilation, rape and murder of the girl band 'Girls Aloud' on a fantasy pornography website. While the website was hosted outside the UK, Walker's prosecution was possible under UK law as he is a British citizen living in the UK. He was found not guilty on 29 July 2009 as the CPS offered no evidence.
This seems to raise more questions than it answers, but it appears there is a mechanism within UK (English?) law - I would be interested in finding out more information concerning this provision Jaseywasey (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Have a look at this page on the Crown Prosecution Service Website and scroll down to "Improper use of public electronic communications network - Section 127 Communications Act 2003". This seems to be the legislation used to convict the Facebook troll cited above. I can't see that the location of the server has any bearing on it. "If a message sent is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false, it is irrelevant whether it was received. The offence is one of sending, so it is committed when the sending takes place."Alansplodge (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
See also this page about the Malicious Communications Act 1988 - actually this is more likely to be the law that the Facebook man fell foul of as he "pleaded guilty to two counts of sending malicious communications". The two pieces of legislation seem to cover much of the same ground in this respect. Alansplodge (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
My question would be, were they in the UK when they sent these messages? If they were, then even though the server was outside the UK, this would not strike me as an attempt at extraterritorial jurisdiction. (I generally take a very dim view of claims of extraterritorial jurisdiction.) --Trovatore (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
In the linked newspaper article about the Facebook case, it says that the offender was unemployed and lived in Reading, so rather unlikely to be flying off to foriegn parts to make his posts. Alansplodge (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed Travtore is right. If you are in England when you click the "post" button, then you are performing an action under English jurisdiction, and liable under English law. That seems to me a reasonnable interpretation from the judges.--Lgriot (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
There may not be any specific law, but the usual justification of charges is that they are incompetent to make decisions for themselves, so anyone who has sex with them is committing a form of rape (similar logic as for statutory rape based on age). Although, in some nations there are also eugenics laws that ban the retarded from reproducing, and they may also ban sex, as that can lead there. StuRat (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The relevant law is the Sexual Offences Act 2003, specifically the provisions relating to 'Offences against persons with a mental disorder impeding choice', 'Inducements etc. to persons with a mental disorder' and 'Care workers for persons with a mental disorder' in sections 30 to 44. Link here. Down Syndrome comes within the ambit of mental disorders under this Act. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
A prohibition sounds horrible in some cases. I'm positive that some people with Down Syndrome are intelligent enough to know what they are choosing. 88.8.79.204 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
No, it sounds reasonable. I don't believe it is applied systematically against certain group of people, but rather on those impaired enough to not be able to make an informed decision. It's more about the lack of ability -and dependence on a tutor- than the deficiency -Down syndrome, schizophrenia that you have. Wikiweek (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes the legislation is clear it only applies when the person "lacks the capacity to choose whether to agree to the touching (whether because he lacks sufficient understanding of the nature or reasonably foreseeable consequences of what is being done, or for any other reason)" or "is unable to communicate such a choice to A." . Nil Einne (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
It still seems vague to me. If somebody believes a person with mild Downs Syndrome is able to to make their own choices, must they get an opinion from the court, or else risk their freedom by having a relationship based on their own perception ? If an IQ point was used as the dividing line, instead, then having those test results in hand should protect them. The vagueness of this law is similar to if age of consent laws just said the person must "be mature", rather than specifying a specific age. StuRat (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Of course it's vague: it's dealing with a vague area that requires individual judgement. An IQ test line would be a horribly unjust and ridiculous approach: why would someone's ability to complete a pattern accurately reflect their ability to consent to sex? A 10-year-old maths prodigy isn't necessarily (or often) more emotionally and socially developed, such that they can consent to sex. By its nature, this has to be a matter of judgement. As a general rule: if you think there is any doubt about someone's ability to consent, or you think other people will generally doubt they truly consented, don't have sex with them. This is a basic rule unless you're a rapist. Doubts about their consent? Don't have sex. Don't engage in other sexual behaviour. It won't kill you. I really don't see the problem for anyone except sexual predators and those who harbour stalker-like delusions as to their 'lover's feelings. Either they can unambiguously consent, or sex is not an option. 86.164.76.231 (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
What strikes me is the apparent lack of concern for the viewpoint of the "protected" person. Maybe they actually want to have sex - that feeling seems to be fairly common among "normal" people. While I see the need to protect mentally handicapped people from predation, does society have the right to deny them a healthy sex life by effectively criminalising most sexual activity? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
AFAIK society has the right to protect more vulnerable members from themselves if needed and if the mentally handicapped person really wants to have sex with somebody who is also willing then the issue has some simple rules. S/he will have to talk to his/her legal guardian (usually the parents). Those in turn will judge if the person is capable of understanding the whole issue. If they agree the person can have sex with his girlfriend. If they disagree the person can't have sex with his girlfriend. IMHO such conversations (the couple simply talk to the parents before doing anything) solve the majority of all cases.
However if the couple disagree with a negative judgement it has two choices: they do it anyway and the whole issue can end up in a court of law (and the girlfriend/boyfriend can be considered guilty of breaking the law). The other choice is that they hire a lawyer and go to court with the intent to prove that the person is capable to decide this issue. Either way the court will have to decide who is wrong and who is right. I imagine that such legal cases are rare. Flamarande (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
LOL @ asking your parents for permission to have sex. Will they then discuss sexual positions ? What color is the sky in your world ? StuRat (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
We aren't talking about normal horny teenagers. We are talking about mentally handicapped persons who are vulnerable and therefore under the protection of their parents who are their legal guardians (under a certain POV they never cease to be children - at the least in the eyes of the law). If they don't trust their own parents and are ashamed to talk about sex despite knowing that they themselves are handicapped then they are somewhat unable to judge the matter at all. Flamarande (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Because while they are embarrassed to talk to their parents they aren't mentally handicapped and therefore have the legal right to decide the issue for themselves (as they reach the proper age). 'Mentally handicapped' is not only a medical condition, it is also a legal one in which de facto and de jure you have fewer rights as society considers that you are vulnerable and that you need better protection against anyone who might wish to take advantage of you and from yourself if needs be. Therefore the legislature passes certain laws (which vary from country to country) which grant your legal guardian increased power and responsibility over you. He has the power to decide certain issues even if you don't agree with his judgement as you are considered incapable of deciding such issues. If you disagree you can go to a court and argue your cause. The court might agree and decide that you are capable of deciding said issue. They might even give you a different guardian (if they consider that your present one is inadequate). Flamarande (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe they do, in which case they will consent. But if you cannot say with certainty that somebody has consented to sex, you cannot assume that they would want to just because you think it would be "normal" to want to. And you cannot assume that they have sufficient understanding to have consented. This is all about the viewpoint of the "protected" person: the default assumption has to be that somebody doesn't want sex unless they can unambiguously consent. It would be far worse for someone to be raped than for someone to not have sex who'd quite like to. And there is almost certainly going to be a power-differential element as well, just as we do not allow teachers to have sex with 16-year-old students, who are above the age of consent: two people with a more limited social and emotional maturity having sex is less likely to involve predation and coercion than a person with limited social and emotional maturity having sex with a person with much greater social and emotional maturity. All of this complicated and variable stuff is why it is left vague, to be a judgement call. Anecdotally, abuse and taking advantage of mentally handicapped adults is far more common than prosecution for the same :( 86.164.76.231 (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
But a power differential is also very common where both parties are adults of normal intelligence. <satire>Shouldn't all boss/secretary relationships be legally considered rape, too ?</satire> StuRat (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
All, Stu? You don't give secretaries much credit for free thought, free will, and the ability to say "Boss, I'll type your letters, I'll make your coffee, I'll even buy your wife's anniversary present, but I won't sleep with you, and if you ever make this suggestion again I'll have you charged with sexual harrassment and I'll also tell your wife what's going on". -- Jack of Oz19:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused now. First you suggest that all boss/secretary relationships should be legally considered rape, but now you're saying that not all relationships with uneven power are abusive. What exactly are you saying? -- Jack of Oz20:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
If you are wearing it to actually tell time, then no Wikipedian is qualified to tell you, because it is up to you to determine what is most convenient for your needs. If you are seeking out some prevailing tradition to conform to, well then by all means wear the thing on the opposite hand from the one which you favor.Greg Bard (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
This page says that men started wearing watches on their wrists at the end of the 19th century, in particular, British officers in the Second Boer War. My conjecture, but at the start of an attack, they would have needed to have their watch on their left hand, to have the right hand free for their service revolver (unless left-handed). Right-handed men wearing watches on their right hand (at least in the UK) is a modern affectation and I never saw it done until recently. It still looks a bit odd to me. Alansplodge (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I've always thought that people wear their watches on the opposite hand than the one they write with because it may be uncomfortable to have a watchband under their wrist as they write. Dismas|21:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I wear a watch out of habit (on my left wrist), but I remove it as soon as I get to work because it is an annoyance when I'm typing. -- kainaw™15:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Wristwatches are virtually always worn on your off wrist. So for you that'd be your left. If it's an analog wristwatch, you may notice that the winding stem is facing to the right, that's so that righties can wear the watch on the left wrist and wind/set it with their right hand. (Us lefties are pretty much forced to take an analog watch off before we wind or set it.) APL (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I typically (but not always) wear my wristwatch on my dominant wrist. I think it's a matter of personal preference. Most people seem to prefer to wear it on the opposite hand, but I'm not aware of any cultural values that stipulate that one should do so. I think it's up do you; I doubt that most people would notice, or that those who notice would pass judgment. At least for me, as an American, it doesn't matter at all. I certainly have never had anybody take issue with my wrist-watch wearing habits, and only very occasionally has someone even cared to comment on it (perhaps twice or three times in my life). Falconus23:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't get this question, how can anyone say "unless the stem is on the right side", etc. Watches are worn on the left hand, period. That's the rule. Lefties will break this rule, almost always doing so consciously. (As opposed to writing with their left hand, which doesn't break any rule). So, now you know the rule. You are absolutely under no means to follow it, and regardless of whether you are a rightie or a leftie or have a watch wtih a stem on the right or left side, you can wear it on either wrist. You can even wear two watches, one on each wrist, or two watches on the left wrist (one very narrow band watch). All of these also break the rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.207.120 (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I have never in my life heard this. I have always heard that watches go on the off hand, even in formal dress. Maybe back in the olden days when it was considered shameful to be lefty, you'd wear the watch on your left to hide your shameful hand-preference, but that certainly hasn't been the case at any point in my lifetime. (Back then a gentleman would never write with his left hand, either. Not in public, anyway.)
Furthermore, you say this "rule" applies even with left-handed watches?!? So you're saying that even if you've paid extra to have a watch that was specifically manufactured as a left handed watch to be worn on your right wrist, the "rule" says that you have to wear it on your left? Anyone who noticed would laugh at you! APL (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
What? I have certainly never heard this "rule" (and might I add, have violated it nearly every day for the past decade); while someone may have written this "rule" down, I would personally be shocked if more than a handful of people are aware of it or give it any consideration whatsoever. So maybe it's a rule for somebody somewhere, but it's not a rule for my culture, not by any stretch. Falconus06:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I too think this is a matter of personal preference. Some right-handed people wear the watch on the left hand, some prefer the right hand. – b_jonas11:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I too was taught by my parents that the watch should be on the left hand. Looking for phrases such as "wristwatch", "left hand" and "right hand" on google shows that it is generally acknowledged that the majority of men wear the watch on the left hand, but as for there being any rule on this, opinions differ: Some believe that there is no rule (, ), some believe that it should go on the non-dominant hand (, ), and some believe it should go on the left hand (, . None of the examples are particularly authoritative. In case any one is interested, Miss Manners is in the first group. 188.117.30.209 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I've heard of such things, but my impression was that they were (once) practically based. If a person is going to swing a sledgehammer or reach up a cow's birth canal, best to have it in the less vulnerable position. But if what you do is type on a QWERTY keyboard all day, well, the left hand there gets more use than the right, even for a right-handed person. I would assume any and all such "rules" were limited to a time, place, and profession and are now obsolete. Wnt (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I was recently thinking about how Austria, like Germany, was divided into zones of control by the UK, US and Soviet Union after World War II and found myself wondering how it ended up that German was split into two separate countries while Austria remained unified. Given its geographic proximity to communist Eastern Europe, I would have expected Austria to end up facing a similar fate to Germany. Why didn't this happen?
12.34.4.33 (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
See the articles on History of Austria (1945-) and Austrian State Treaty (1955). Basically it seems like the USSR agreed to leave Austria alone as long as it was proclaimed as officially neutral (see Declaration of Neutrality) and wouldn't join NATO. Which is a bit odd. Germany is the odder case of the two, though, owing to its role in starting WWII and it being essentially the border state for the USSR (given the fact that Poland was already well in the bloc). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on this at all, but can't this be because the war ended in Berlin (in the middle of Germany) where neither US or the USSR would be in a position to simply say "you can have it", which would mean that the other party was the "official liberator". Austria or Hungary probably didn't have the media attention Germany had. Joepnl (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't say Berlin is in the middle of Germany. Anyway, it was the product of negotiations, as Mr.98 pointed above: you give me Türingen, I give you half of Berlin and Austria remains by her own. Wikiweek (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Media attention didn't really have much to do with the Allied negotiations. And it's of note that the partitioning took place well before the actual end of the war — e.g. the Yalta convention. Germany certainly had a special situation because of its being to hot spot for Hitler and all that. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes — I would have corrected the red link with a preview but I was in a rush. And yeah, I also would have double-checked it against Potsdam! I didn't quite remember actually submitting that edit, as it was still a work in progress.. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Discussions about possible partitions occured at Yalta, but nothing was finalized in stone there. As the "situation on the ground" became more clear, and Germany's fall became iminent, the Potsdam Conference had a lot more to do with the eventual fates of the Axis Powers, especially with the division of Germany and the status of Austia. See especially the Potsdam Agreement, the resultant document of that conference. The Misplaced Pages article Allied-occupied Austria also covers why the Soviets had so little influence there. --Jayron3205:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Something to consider... with the Anschluss, Austria was officially part of Germany. So one could say that when the war ended, Germany was actually divided into three parts: West Germany (US dominated), East Germany (Soviet dominated)... and Austria (neutral). Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed Austria (and Vienna) where divided into four zones/sectors after the war just as much as Germany/Berlin were. See The Third Man for a film set in divided Vienna. As pointed out above Austria got re-united in exchange for neutrality. Stalin extended the same offer to Germany. The then German government under Adenauer rejected the offer. There has been much discussion whether that was a mistake, or whether Stalin would have kept his word. 109.158.106.147 (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
IIRC many historians think that Stalin viewed Austria as a loss leader, hoping to persuade the West Germans to go for neutrality too. Whether he simply hoped to remove the German resource base from NATO, or planned yet another central European coup to add it to the Warsaw Pact, I probably unknowable now. Matt's talk17:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
"Aynthing you say can and will(?) be used against you in a court of law"
What's the meaning of "will" in the Miranda warning? It can't mean literally that anything the suspect says will be used in a court of law. Maybe there won't be a court of law, or maybe the suspect answered "Yes" to "Do you want a smoke?". In both cases the officer lied to the suspect if the warning was taken literally. If it doesn't have to do with me not understanding that "and will" is just a normal way of emphasizing in English, does it mean that for example the officer is not allowed to ignore something incriminating the subject says, so he will tell it to the judge? Joepnl (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
In case it's not clear, the meaning of the example is that I'm not just able, but intend to do so (still in the hypothetical case that you piss me off). 82.234.207.120 (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The key here is the use of the word "anything" rather than "everything." "Anything" implies that any sentence uttered is subject to scrutiny in court, including any cigarette offers. Perhaps the subject being a nonsmoker is important to his or her alibi, etcetera. "Will" has nothing to do with "anything" (not a pun, yet apt). Perhaps you are thinking of "Will" versus "shall." If it was "shall" then the officer would be required to use the affirmative reply to the cigarette offer against the subject in court for sure (which could end up being quite silly). "Will" is permissive, while "shall" is mandatory.Greg Bard (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks both. I thought shall is just an old fashioned way of saying will, but that they mean the same. That's why I thought anything was actually turned into everything by using will. Now I wonder what you mean by (not a pun, yet apt) :)Joepnl (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
People use the phrase "...nothing to do with anything" quite frequently. What I was doing was mentioning not using. The sentence I stated means The word "will" as used in the miranda warning has nothing to do with the word "anything" in the miranda warning. See use-mention distinction. Aren't I clever? (har har).Greg Bard (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
This is interesting. I suspect that "will" is being used here, to some degree, in the archaic sense of desire, rather than as a synonym for "shall". Unfortunately Wiktionary doesn't have an entry for "can and will", and I don't know how far back the combined phrase goes, but I think that there is some difference in meaning between how it is used there and simply saying "anything you say will be used against you...", where I think the average listener really would expect to see the entire conversation transmitted by the prosecution with some certainty. "Can and will" gives more of a sense or an implication that it is possible that it will used and that the person giving the warning wants to use it. English modal verbs are a terribly muddled system to indicate such things, but at least you don't have to learn six different endings ... Wnt (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The use of the term "will" as permissive and "shall" as mandatory is very common in the law. If you draw up a contract and you want someone to do something FOR SURE, well you'd better use the term "shall." If the law said that when a police officer sees a crime he or she "will" place someone under arrest, that only puts the matter subject to the officer's will. The officer may or may not arrest and that is just fine. Instead of arguing with the officer about it the officer just points to the term "shall" in the law and tells the subject that it isn't up to them, they should tell it to the judge. I'm not really sure that is the archaic form of "will" you were talking about.Greg Bard (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
"Can" signifies legality, and "will" is a warning of intent such that the defendant cannot then complain to the court that he was misled because he didn't think that something he said to the "good cop" would be used against him. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
How much of TD Ameritrade is owned by its founder/family?
hi,
Can a Chinese immigrate from a county to another county? what is the status of Hong-Kong on this matter?
And what about democracy?can Beijing change the results of the election?
Exx8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC).
Emigration from China requires official state permission, which can be denied (or granted) rather arbitrarily. (There is an editorial account of one such emigration in the New York Times today, which is interesting.) See Chinese_emigration#Late_20th_century:_modern_emigration for more information. People with "clean" political records can often get business or student visas.
The PRC is not really a democracy. There are elections (see Elections in the People's Republic of China) but they are all more or less for the same party (there are no opposition parties). I'm not sure Beijing needs to change the results of elections, but, if they needed to, they probably would. There is not an independent judiciary or anybody to conduct real oversight. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I assume that a Chinese citizen in good standing is not free to leave, which is what separates the "evil" countries like dictatorships, communism, totalitarian, countries, from "good" countries like the U.S., Canada, European countries, etc. This is just my impression though. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe the OP meant to say 'province' but used 'county' instead. I don't believe the OP meant 'country', as 'a country to another country' makes little sense here. I lived in China in the early 1990s, and there was little freedom of movement. There were many rural people coming into the cities to find work, but very often they were being sent back to their homes in the countryside again. I believe the situation is different now, but how different, I do not know.--KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Right, I also believe the OP really meant county, but anyway: if you can't even leave your county, it's certainly impossible to leave your country. Quest09 (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Not necessarily. It's easy to imagine a country where because of possible population density problems or fears of ethnic tensions or whatever, migrating from one county (or whatever) to another is difficult in at least some cases but they don't care if you bugger off somewhere else. Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Generally no, but there is a widely used system of requesting exemptions for past and relatively minor or less pertinent crimes. I believe laywers are frequently granted exemptions for DUI felonies in most states. 208.54.38.212 (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Or maybe Onion dome? The way the spire bit bulges in the middle does look a bit like an onion dome; and there are similar structures in pictures in the Misplaced Pages article. --Jayron3205:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Certainly not a minaret. It's not quite an onion dome (too narrow). Steeple is, like spire, awfully general for shape, and tends to specifically connote part of a church. If it's any help, the town is mostly Norwegian American, and I'm guessing that it is something specifically Nordic. - Jmabel | Talk07:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
If you'll give me a minaret to summarize this not-so-dome question, the peak is steep enough to be a steeple, but can only aspire to be a spire, and that's my finial thought on this. StuRat (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Do cats think?
The article does not say anything about this, but it does state that cats dream. Seeing as they do dream whilst asleep, it makes me wonder whether or not they actually think when awake. Would anyone know whether cats do in fact think? Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure they think - if we do. Defining "thought" is tricky, though. Several animal have shown clear signs of self-awareness - see Mirror test. However, I'm not aware that cats have passed this test so far. Of course, this is obviously only because the Supreme Masters of the Universe do not deign to participate in tests set up by their litter box cleaners. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
My favourite 'test' of cat intelligence, carried out by reserchers who clearly had little experience of cats, involved pulling on bits of string to get a tasty treat. The reserchers noted that dogs would learn to pull the right piece of string to get a treat, but cats wouldn't. They seemed to think this refleced badly on the cats' intelligence, but frankly it reflects badly on the researchers. Playing with bits of string is a cat's ultimate goal, especially if they aren't particularly hungry: why would they reject something they like for something less appealing? It would be like a dog manipulating a piece of meat to make string dangle: it's not that they can't, they'd just never want to. 86.164.76.231 (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
My favorite book on animal intelligence in general is Temple Grandin's Animals in Translation. Give it a read — you'll be glad you did. It is simply fascinating. They do think, but they think differently than most humans do. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, and I was a bit suspicious of it at first. But it's for real — and pretty interesting. Grandin is one of the most influential and most important animal behaviorists of our day. She's also one of the most important autism (and autistic) activists of our day. It's actually pretty profound stuff, and she's extremely good at indicating where she's going out on a limb and where she's not (unlike most science writers). Heavily recommended. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Cheers - I have ordered it from our local library. I used to teach autistic children and I'm interested in animal behaviour, and of course, linguistics. :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
But in truth, we could be p-zombies too. It strikes me as somewhat implausible that humans would be terribly different in that respect from other mammals with sufficiently developed brains. I suppose one could consider phenomenal consciousness a threshold effect, but that seems like kind of an odd, exceptionalist assumption to me — the burden of proof would be on showing that human conscious was somehow different from animal consciousness (given that humans are, in fact, animals), not the other way around. But I'm sure that our understanding of what consciousness really is still has quite a lot of room for development, yet. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
You could be a p-zombie. I couldn't. From your perspective, of course, it's the other way around, unless you really are a p-zombie, in which case you don't have a perspective at all. --Trovatore (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Cats have a very different socialization than common pack animals such as dogs or horses. They appear to be indifferent and uninterested when they aren't particularly hungry, probably because it gains them some kind of an advantage to wander off as opposed to remaining with groups. They certainly think and exhibit problem solving behavior when they are goal-oriented, such as when they are stalking prey. Most of the time, though, it might be fair to say that their minds wander. 70.91.171.54 (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal correspondence/letters - archive/history
Sorry if this is a bit of daft question. I was thinking about personal correspondence i.e. a person sending a letter to another person. Historians/authors often make use of personal correspondence of people of interest, but I was wondering how they get their hands on the letters.
When I send a letter I don't make a copy, I just send it to recipient - so the only copy lies with the person I sent it to. Obviously email has changed all this, but what about decades and hundreds of years ago?
Is correspondence collected by getting recipients to donate the letters they received to a central archive? Or was it common for letter-writers to carbon-copy their letters, wikipedia Carbon_paper links to http://www.kevinlaurence.net/essays/cc.php which says carbon paper was invented around 1800. So perhaps letter writers after about this time used carbon copies to keep track of what they had written, but what about before 1800ish?
It depends. We do have a fairly good collection of Jefferson letters, because he kept a copy of every letter he sent - he actually penned a draft, then the good copy, and then the archival copy. He tinkered around with a polygraph to make things easier. See here for an image and description. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2011
Lewis Carroll had an elaborate record-keeping system for keeping track of every letter he ever sent, but many others were much more lackadaisical (as to be expected). I really don't think that carbon paper was at all commonly in use by ordinary private individuals until long after 1800, but forms of the pantograph did exist (see Polygraph (duplicating device)). By far the most common method of copying documents ca. 1800 was hiring lowly-paid copy clerks, but often there would have been understandable reluctance to expose sensitive personal correspondence to such clerks. AnonMoos (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
It really depends on the person and the time period. (I say this as a practicing, professional historian, albeit one of the late 20th century period.) In the 20th century it is not uncommon for people to keep both sides of their correspondence, if they feel it is important (and they feel that they are important). However, it's also not uncommon in any century for an archive to only have one side of a conversation. For terribly important people, it's not uncommon to try and track down all other correspondence kept in other archives (so you get both sides of the conversation between two people important enough to end up in an archive) and to make copies of them and move them to a central archive (e.g. a rather extreme and systematic version of this is the Darwin Correspondence Project) . But no matter who or what you research, it's common to have only one side of the letters, and to really have to search them out. Fortunately this has become much easier in the last decade or so, because archives publish their finding aids digitally. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Carbon paper would not have worked well with quill pens circa 1800. Even a 19th steel pen nib would likely bend if enough pressure were applied to make a carbon copy. A pencil would have worked fine with carbon paper, as would a mid 20th century or later ball point pen, or a late 19th century or later typewriter. Edison (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The letters of J. R. R. Tolkien were published after his death because he kept copies; I'm not sure if he made carbons or just wrote two copies. I'm working right now in an archive that has the papers of former US Senator Birch Bayh, including letters sent by his constituents (and lots of other people, too) — the staffers that worked with these letters and wrote the replies almost always made carbon copies of the replies. Hoping that this is close enough to "personal" to be helpful for you. Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
In 20th century US government, in particular, copies are made of everything. Overrun bureaucracy and red tape ironically make life a lot easier for historians. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Why is that ironic? It would be ironic if, for example, there was a government office concerned with preserving historical documentation, but its actions made it much more difficult for future historians to study the government. The fact that the creation of massive amounts of documentation makes it easier for scholars of the government to do their job is in no way ironic. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The irony is that red tape is usually seen as a bad thing; for an historian, it turns out to be a blessing. That's all. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Elaborating on the Jefferson example above: US founders like Jefferson, Adams, and Washington knew that posterity would be interested in their correspondence and so they went to great lengths to preserve many of their letters. (But not all of their letters: of the three, only Adams made sure to preserve letters between him & his wife; for the others, this was too personal.) Founders who did not take pains to preserve their correspondence, like Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry, get less attention from historians as a result. —KevinMyers05:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, people of that era kept track of letters with a letter book/letterbook. (It's odd to see that those are red links, since we have articles on almost everything.) During the Revolution, there's a letter from John Adams to Abigail advising her to get a binder or letterbook to preserve their correspondence. —KevinMyers05:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The archives I deal with are largely commercial correspondence between 1930 and 1970 between trade unions, their branches, members, politicians, peak bodies, media, etc. Over the course of this period of time you can see the quality of record keeping change dramatically due to the commercialised impact of technology. Carbons are rare in 1930, minute books are hand written. By 1970 carbons are constant and continuous (seven slips deep, etc). By 1970 some "new" office procedures start impacting on the quality of retained data: thermocopies degrade rapidly, thermofaxes yellow to black. I dread what the historians of 1985-20XX will face given poor data and records policies by institutions of that period.
One interesting thing is with only the flimsies, often you don't get to see the letterheads... sometimes flimsies are from drafts, not finals, etc. Still, with deep primary sources like this, it is often about building up an interpretive stucco rather than deeply analysing single items of correspondence. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Correct name for leather belts without holes (clothing)
Re-enactment groups seem fond of using a certain sort of belt that has no holes in it, and a ring in one end around which a knot is tied. I'm not sure such a belt has a historical basis. Here is an image which better explains what I mean;
Are such belts notable enough to be mentioned on Misplaced Pages? Are they only used by reenactment groups? The article on belts makes no mention of them. Images of historical belt buckles suggest conventional belts have been used for a long while.
I have come across such items as a fashion accessory (and been unable to work out how to use them properly!), so I'd say they're more general than just historic interest. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that stress put on the leather at the point of the knot would result in breakage at that point after a brief few months of usage, if used as a practical way of cinching in the waist, thus I agree that a fashion purpose would be more likely than a practical one. Bus stop (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone identify the type or types of guns in these images? A source states that they date from circa 1945, so I'm confident that they're World War II (and their placement in rural Indiana makes it rather unlikely that they're non-US), but I don't know what type. Judging by the images and by my memory from 2½ months ago, I'd guess that they're all the same type, but I'm not sure. As far as I can see, none of the images show any sort of inscriptions on the guns. Nyttend (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
All of those little circular bits around the chair, and the fact that they look like the guns themselves are meant to easily pivot around the base, makes it likely that they are anti-aircraft weapons, probably for Navy ships. I'm not a weapons gearhead, but I think it's almost certainly a Mark 22 3"/50 caliber gun? (Image) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The fact that this gun had a low-angle mounting and could use armor-piercing shells indicate it was sometimes used against surface targets as well as anti-aircraft. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, as our article says, a dual-purpose mounting. I agree that it does seem to be the 3" gun linked by Mr.98 above. There is surprisingly little about the gun in Bloomfield on the web. The only reference I could find simply calls it "an anti-aircraft gun". Alansplodge (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Like everyone else he had two. According to the Grover Cleveland Library his grandfather on his father's side was William Cleveland, silversmith and watchmaker of Beacon Hill CT. His grandfather on his mother's side was a law-book publisher from an Irish background, named here as Abner Neale. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh. I thought it was Richard J. Cleveland, the captain of the Leila Byrd. How is this man related to President Cleveland?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chretien and Middle East
I remember that Jean Chretien went to Middle East like UAE when he was the Prime Minister. What was the reason of the visit to the Middle East? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.96 (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
According to Ernest Herbert Pitcher, he was awarded the Victoria Cross "by balloting". The sole reference states "P.O. Pitcher was selected by the crew of a gun of one of H.M. Ships to receive the Victoria Cross under Rule 13 of the Royal Warrant dated 29th January, 1856." Does this mean his crew mates got to pick him for the highest award in the British military? This seems to imply that the powers that be figured one was enough for the entire crew. What gives? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Almost every human being can speak a language fluently, but in developing countries, only a much smaller percentage knows how to read and write. It seems that one way to instantly make the illiteracy rate 0 is to invent an alphabet and spelling system such that there's a one-to-one correspondence between a word's pronunciation and its spelling.
Interesting theory. A couple of points. Such languages have sort of been "invented". In fact, most languages are better than English in this regard. Languages like Malay and Indonesian, where the application of the western alphabet to the sounds is relatively recent, behave very consistently. Trouble is, there are many factors that contribute to literacy. A person has to want to read, and has to be given the opportunity to learn. With television rather than the print media being the common source of much information today, the motivation to read is lower. HiLo48 (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Hangul was created for exactly the purpose the OP posited. It's a phonetic alphabet invented because Chinese ideograms were very difficult to learn for ordinary Koreans back in the 15th century. It makes you realize that the Latin alphabet, which is another phonetic alphabet, is already quite adequate for most purposes.
Phonetic alphabets are the simplest you can get if you want a one-to-one correspondence with sounds and symbols, and it's already very widespread. Yet it doesn't affect literacy rates in say, Africa. The answer is not because the Latin alphabet is complex, but because there simply aren't enough educational systems to teach it to people in the first place.
And for what it's worth, the apparent disparity between written and spoken language (words pronounced differently from how they are written) particularly in English and French, does not affect other languages like you think it does. It's the result of spoken languages evolving faster than written languages. Usually, the longer a language has been associated with a particular writing system, the larger the disparity. In languages that just recently adopted Latin script, it's not a problem.
And a side-note: comparable to Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesia, our own national language - Filipino (which is really just Tagalog despite protestations of legislators otherwise), was itself an artificial construct. Unlike those languages, however, Filipino languages lost the native rudimentary writing systems (Baybayin) very early in the Philippine colonial history. Latin script came with the Spanish in the 16th century and has remained the only form of writing for majority of the islands (a notable exception are the predominantly Muslim autonomous regions in Southern and Western Mindanao which use Arabic scripts). When Filipino was first proposed, it was not to make it easier for ordinary people to learn to read and write, it was purely for nationalistic reasons. A means of pulling together a very young nation fresh from the clutches of two colonial powers. Legislators retained the Latin alphabet (whew), but culled consonants they considered 'foreign' - f, z, c, etc. They also recommended phonetically spelling foreign loanwords such that 'Airplane' became 'Erpleyn'. The goal was to erase traces of European influence as much as possible. The result was not an increase in literacy (it was already quite high in the first place, from Spanish education systems reinforced by American Thomasites), but an increase instead in the propensity of people to misspell and mispronounce foreign words. The only thing they accomplished was make the language cruder.-- Obsidi♠nSoul06:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
If English adopted phonetic spelling the written language would be hideously complex to learn - not only would one need many extra symbols, but most words would have to be spelt differently in different places to account for the different pronunciations in different accents. DuncanHill (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I doubt Vietnamese language is worse. Speaking as a person that fluent in English (not like master it but i can speak, write, read pretty well. Good enough for typical conversation) and Vietnamese. Vietnamese has exactly same alphabet as English except we don't use z and f. We added some accents, like those little marks above or under the words to make new words. Vietnamese is a easiest language to learn, it's not because i learn it first so i think it's easy. Every word has only 1 syllable. There is no past tense or anything like that. Example i can say i run today, i run yesterday, i run before. Not like most languages there are past tense, perfect tense... (all kinds of tenses) Words always stay the same as they are. They never change to different words. There is no exception, every words follow the rules. The word system we used today was developed in 17th century by a french guy. Before that we use Chinese characters. So since it was created recently, so people tried to make it super easy and organize unlike English as an example with thousands of years so there is no actual organize. In Vietnam, most kids would know how to spell and write all the words in about 3rd or 5th grade. You don't learn new vocab at school because there aren't any. There is no spelling bee because everyone knows how to spell every words. People know how to spell and write ALL the words but it doesn't mean they understand what they mean. Vietnamese people use 2 old words combined them together to get a new word. Example a word "cat" stand alone mean an animal and "finger" stand alone mean an organ in your hand. They combined together mean something else(i made up this example). So basically if there are new words you never see before in Vietnamese, they will be the combination of 2 old words you have seen before. So as the conclusion it's the easiest language to learn but the hardest part is the pronunciation. People just can't pronounce the words correctly because their tongues were not fit to it.Trongphu (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't dispute any of that. My remark was purely in response to the "Latin alphabet with all sorts of phonetic things" Sir William referred to. There are clearly more diacritics per average word in Vietnamese than in Turkish. -- Jack of Oz02:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Why are numbers written in the five (5) format?
This has been perplexing me for years: on most U.S. official documents, numbers are first spelled out and then written using a numeral in a bracket-e.g. five(5). An example of this would be File:Anthraxreward.jpg, but also school report cards, government forms and the like. Why? I'd presume anyone with sufficient literacy and language ability to read the document would also know how to count to ten. For whose benefit is the numeral included? Thanks, Puchiko (Talk-email) 09:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Simply to avoid confusion. Writing out amounts makes something more legible. Redundancy also makes it easier to spot errors. e.g. Five thousand (50000) < you will immediately know that the extra 0 is most likely a typo. The same reason why you write out numbers on checks. You wouldn't want to be paying $50,000 on a $5000 item just because you were scatterbrained that day and wrote an extra zero in.-- Obsidi♠nSoul10:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
That reminds me. In my local bank, we have to fill in the withdrawal slips ourselves (because billions and billions of bailout money just isn't enough). I went to the bank the other day and tried to draw out a very small amount - less than you can get from an ATM, which is why I went into the bank itself. The girl at the window proceeded to count out £400 for me. I only wanted £4:00....... --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
IIRC, it's usually the other way around, e.g. 5 (five). This is to stop numbers being altered by, for example, people adding zeroes, and so on. I've never seen it done like 'five (5)'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
One place I've seen them is on medicine, for example "three (3) doses daily"; I've always assumed that's so if one is obscured the right amount is still taken. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
And for a hand-written prescription, hopefully one or the other will be legible, despite the doctor's best effort at poor penmanship. StuRat (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
New ways to make money for those in financial straits? (Disability = hard to employ)
So I tried unconventional ways to earn money; turns out, I can't donate blood/plasma if I've been to Germany, even though I haven't been there for 21 years. (No signs of CJD after 21 years = very likely no CJD at all. Why can't the FDA acknowledge that?)
There is no sperm bank in 66502.
There is no skin bank in 66502.
I haven't seen a consignment secondhand goods store around town.
Disability + no work since 2009 = hardly a chance to get a job. (Thanks to the economy, the ratio of job-seekers to openings is so incredibly out of proportion, that even "not being employed for over 2 years" is enough of an excuse not to hire me, because even if they whittle down the criteria to "only consider those who currently have another job as of application date," there's still too many of them to interview.
So are there some un-common (legal) ways to get a better living? Paying off a private student loan with a federal student loan may be better interest-wise, but that's still paying off debt with debt. (Like "fighting fire with fire?")
I read that some make a living off of posting to YouTube. However, what are the odds of getting that to happen to me? How do I increase said odds? Where can I take (free) courses on how to edit videos so they all can look more professional and appealing to a wider audience? (What websites can I learn this, if no physical locations?)
What other great websites that I might not even know too much about, could I get paid to freelance, etc.?
There could be freelance writing; I can do that. What websites offer this though?
Can there be a selling venue of common intellectual property? (like drawings on MS Paint, or more stories, etc. to write?)
(Lastly, as for auctions, eBay/FeePay has gotten too expensive to sell there; they only seem to care about the big-wig sellers, not the everyday ma-and-pas. Is there a popular auction site that will cater to people like us? Thanks.) --70.179.163.168 (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
For selling many cheap things, like under $10 each, you may do better to sell them locally, as the shipping costs eat up any profit, otherwise. Perhaps a garage sale or swap meet ? (Does your disability allow you to leave the house ?) StuRat (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
For writing, you might want to do something like proofreading student's papers for them before they turn them in, so they can fix all their mistakes. StuRat (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Some people say it's because women didn't carry swords or other weapons - for men, the sword (usually carried in a scabbard on the left, and drawn with the right hand) would catch on the 'lip' of the shirt if it buttoned the other way. Others say it's because in the old days, women had maids who would dress them, so it was easier for the maid if the buttons were on the other side. No-one actually knows. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that it has more to do with jackets than shirts. If you want to reach into your jacket and draw your sword, you need the left hand side of the jacket to be over the right hand side. The shirt then just buttons the same way as the jacket. --Tango (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
That is a possibility. The thing is, swords were usually worn outside everything, including jackets. I think it would be very uncomfortable to be wearing a jacket over your sword. A long winter coat, maybe, but only if it's open, defeating the purpose of where the buttons go. "Sir, please be a gentleman and wait while I unbutton my jacket so I can get my sword out to parry your wiley surprise attack, what!". :-) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
While those might explain the origin, the reason it remains this way is that we feel the need to have gender-specific clothing, the classic example being pink and blue clothes for baby boys and girls. If our society valued unisex clothing, then our clothes would all button on the same side (or both button on either side). StuRat (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Ironically, Stu, according to QI, pink was originally for boys, and blue for girls. Everything changed around the beginning of the 20th century, I believe. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The protesters in New York City recently are asking a question I'd like to know the answer to myself: why doesn't capitalism work? And I'll add, when did it stop working? For example:
1) Supposedly gas prices are the outcome of supply and demand. So why did the fall of oil prices from $100 a barrel to $82 a barrel produce no relief in prices? Why do governments which have taken active steps to manipulate gas prices not experience shortages, but instead the companies simply keep selling at the lower rate? (For example Honduras exercised a contract clause to take over oil storage tanks in 2007 and announced a 42-cent price decrease, but the only news I see about gas shortages came with the ensuing coup against Manuel Zelaya in 2009)
2) Supposedly labor is a good traded on the market. So why can't the unemployed simply lower their price and get back to work at any time?
3) Supposedly profit encourages businesses to expand and make more profit. So why is it that businesses in the U.S. have been making record profits, but do nothing to expand and hire people?
4) In Republican fantasy, when they explain why millionaires must continue to pay lower tax rates than the middle class, they say that this is necessary because they are "job creators". But where are the jobs? And I've heard that small businesses lead employment recovery - doesn't that mean the middle class is the job creator? Why can't the middle class create jobs?
this answer is funded in part by paragraph breaks supplied by stu rat
It is simply a mistake to say that "capitalism doesn't work". Capitalism is about using resources that are worth something and owned by someone using them to create value that did not exist before the person or entity using that resource created that value. In other words, capitalism is not prescriptive, it is descriptive of what happens when you have de facto or legally recognized private property.
There is no way to allow private property and free selling and buying without resulting in capitalism. It is a simple fact of nature that if people can have private property, they can create value, and the minute you let them buy and sell it freely, you have people using resources of value to create more value -- bam, you have capitalism. The only way to eliminate capitalism is to make it illegal for people to own private property.
Even this does not work: people will continue to own themselves; they (or their families) can invest, if nothing else, time, into their education, thereby making their personal resource worth more. They thereby create value. Think of the city you're in: would you be worth any more if you learned French fluently and could teach it to people who didn't know it yet? Of course you would be worth more. You just used resources (time and maybe money) to create value. Unfortunately for communist countries, this, and only a few other ways of creating value, were "allowed", and the state had to steal every other means of production.
Here's an answer to some of your questions:
"Supposedly labor is a good traded on the market. So why can't the unemployed simply lower their price and get back to work at any time?"
At what price would you take French lessons from a Persian Cat who grew up in Paris? Is it twenty cents an hour? Would you take two hours of lessons from that French cat for 40 cents? You would not. The cat is not able to create 40 cents worth of value by giving French lessons. Likewise, the unemployed might not be able to create even $1 of value per hour. If they or their families invested time and money into their education and increasing their skills, this value would increase.
Under communism, where every other means of production must be stolen by the state, this is the only acceptable means for increasing a person's value. In a free country, a person can increase his value in a multitude of other ways: such as by dressing respectably and being hired due to looking presentable (under communism private clothes are illegal, and the state must determine and supply all clothing: you can't just be having object fetishism willy nilly, which is what good clothes sold at a good shop front would be).
Or you could getting a van and open a business using it on it (you would at a minimum need some special license I guess under communism, you can't just buy and sell whatever service you want just by registering a company -- after all, what if you employed someone? Only the state may employ someone, since anything else is slavery), etc etc.
Or you could get a printing press and print nice posters and make photocopies etc. But not under communism, where you can't own a private press and buy and sell a good freely.
The key thing about capitalism is freedom: you have to actively suppress a person's right to buy and sell property and services, including their labor, to prevent capitalism. Anything else is capitalism by definition automatically.
"Supposedly profit encourages businesses to expand and make more profit. So why is it that businesses in the U.S. have been making record profits, but do nothing to expand and hire people"
Businesses can do whatever they like. Why would a family with two children who are in their twenties and rich lawyers not want to produce a third child to eventually make a lot of money, if the parents are still fertile? Just because you are doing well does not mean you want to expand operations.
"Was capitalist theory always this irrelevant to reality? If not, what changed to make it that way?"
Also, to put a real monkey wrench in the thing. Even though if you have ANY private property and right to buy and sell property, you automatically have capitalism, in my opinion it is completely obvious that you have to take SOME of these rights away if you want anything like a well-functioning society or progress.
That's because why doesn't someone have the right to come up to you as you're setting up that copier or poster printer I mentioned above and say, "Look, kid, you're attracted by the $40/poster market rate, aren't you. You figure you can get in for $2000 worth of machinery and break even in a year.
Well, thing is, we would like to keep these $40 and actually us producers are moving up to $50 two months from now. But we can only do that if everyone is in. How's about I pay you $2000 right now to keep hush hush and follow our pricing, welcome to our trust." You'll take it, won't you, after all he has just removed all your risk or you can repay your loan or backer. But this reasoning works for everything from sugar to oil to metal.
If we allowed people this "freedom", we never would have computers, as potentially every single input into that would have been priced out of commodity prices and into unattainable land. So, it's pretty obvious to me that you can't just allow someone to form a trust and create a monopoly -- we played this game in the 19th century, and everyone lost out. So, even though ANY amount of freedom to own goods and buy and sell goods and services instantly results in capitalism, it's obvious that you have to remove at least parts of these freedoms if you want a society worth living in. That's what the question almost always revolves around -- how much of these freedoms to remove. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I numbered your questions so I can respond in kind:
1) Price fixing can cause prices to be higher than competition would produce. If so, then government limits on prices would work, until the profit margin was so low that the companies could make more money by investing elsewhere.
2) Minimum wage doesn't allow this, and having a social safety net means people might prefer to live on welfare rather than take such low-paying jobs. Also, the large number of illegal immigrants means the low-paying jobs are already taken.
3) They've been expanding overseas. Also, expanding only makes sense where you have an expanding market or market share.
4) Whether small business owners are middle-class or rich depends on the politician talking and which way the wind is blowing. And giving money to rich people doesn't help the economy nearly as much as it does to give it to the poor. The reason is that the poor tend to spend all the money they get immediately, and locally, thus helping the local economy. StuRat (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Lack of competition from consolidation and de facto collusion troubles the petroleum markets, but there is nothing antitrust regulators can do. It's congress's job to impose more effective taxes in the absence of clear evidence of conspiracy in the face of record profits and rising gas prices on declining oil prices. But that brings us to the real problem, which is the lack of public campaign financing which makes congresspeople beholden to contributors from large companies and the rich likely invested in them. Several major reforms (health care, tax, renewable energy, sentencing, patent, etc.) all are heavily inhibited by campaign contributions. 70.91.171.54 (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)In general people are indifferent. The answers to your questions are amazingly pragmatic, i.e. completely emotionless.
I don't know enough about this topic, so sorry
Price ceilings and price floors are impediments to free trade, so it is said. Even if a worker wished to trade his labor for money at less thean minimum wage it would be illegal, as far as I understand
The business I am employed by is making "profit." Is accounting the same as reality? The company's debts are owed to the personal funds of the owner.
The jobs are in a trust fund to be doled out when there is trust in funds.
"Capitalism," such that it is, works just fine. It still keeps a small group of people who control the means of production in control (this is of course a very simplistic explanation). Your fourth question is the most telling in this regard, the middle class can't create jobs because they don't control the means to produce much of anything. Capitalism isn't intended to be good for everyone and in my opinion is actually bad for virtually everyone, but that's a different question. --Daniel22:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't buy the minimum wage explanation. If that were the explanation, the occupations with high unemployment would be those already paying minimum wage, but those with higher wages would see a free market wage drop and an increase in the number of people employed. I don't see an indication that this is what happened. Wnt (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
What is the point of asking questions like this:
"Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist activities; or genocide; or between 1933 and 1945 were you involved, in any way, in persecutions associated with Nazi Germany or its allies? " Would someone ever answer yes? Has someone been caught with that silly question? What happen if you answer yes, just as a joke? Besides that, the question is poorly written, I think. If you persecuted Nazis, like Simon Wiesenthal, you should also answer yes. But maybe it's just me being a Grammar Nazi. Quest09 (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Persecution doesn't imply unlawful persecution. If you are trying that a group of people (drug dealers, child molesters, war criminals) get imprisoned, that's persecution too. Quest09 (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
To me (and our article on the topic), mistreatment is an element of persecution. One could argue that someone being tracked down for prosecution is being mistreated (because it is stressful, limits a normal life, etc.) but then society as a whole would be persecuting a pretty wide range of individuals, yet nobody seems to describe it that way (although I suppose even that is up for debate). Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Using the word persecution, as a legitimate persecution, is not that rare: "The additional available resources will allow police to focus enforcement on other issues such as persecuting drug dealers (...)" or "They bomb us under the pretext that first, they are eliminating the guerilla forces and second, they are persecuting drug dealers, ..." or "Caribbean nations, including Jamaica, that allow their ships to enter their territorial water persecuting drug dealers, but drug traffic keeps growing (...)" Or even better: Simon Wiesenthal persecuted a single Pole"Quest09 (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
It's my understanding that once someone has entered the US under ESTA, simply being in one of those categories (that make someone ineligible for "visa free travel") isn't grounds alone for prompt deportation. But lying on the form is. So, supposedly, it streamlines the removal of someone who wasn't eligible but who got in anyway. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk22:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Nobody really expects that you will answer in a positive manner if you did or are doing any of these things. Their purpose is to give the government a legal reason to strip you of your new citizenship and to expel you from the country (if you're an immigrant) when someone finds that you're guilty of any of these things. An US citizen is obliged by law to inform the government if he is working for any foreign government. With such a law the government has something to prosecute a spy because he obviously failed to obey the law. Flamarande (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
"involved" is an ambiguous word; it can mean either "implicated" or "concerned in some way with". They mean the former, but I'm not sure what they'd say to be clearer; "implicated" or "concerned with the commission of" is perhaps better, but not perfect either. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk22:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The really complicated part is the "moral turpitude" question. Very few applicants are, our could be argued to be, war criminals or enemy spies. Given the context, you'd think "moral turpitude" means crimes that are also fairly rare and particularly vile; when I first saw it on an I-94/W I (like I imagine most people) thought it meant something akin to "are you a child molester?" But as the Misplaced Pages article shows, moral turpitude can be a complicated and rather surprising one. Someone with a 40 year old conviction for burglary would (on the face of it) fail, but someone who'd recently been convicted of loan sharking would pass. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk23:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
As a foreigner who has answered that question the OP describes a few times myself, and been in the company of several others when they have answered it, I observe that almost every time it has to be answered it leads to declarations about what a dumb question it is, and how stupid the American government is for asking such a dumb question. Now, to Americans reading this, please don't shoot the messenger here. I'm simply telling you how some foreigners perceive this question. And while you can easily say "We don't care", I suspect that at some level at least some of you do. Maybe the "real" reason (Is it outlined well enough up above yet?) for this odd question could be made clearer to those having to answer it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I also dread entering the US and dealing with annoying forms. But the underlying requirements are not unique to the US. Canada has a very similar set of rules; you just don't have to fill out a form when you cross the border. If a Canadian border guard asked the corresponding Canadian question, would it be dumb for the same reasons outlined above? Is it the use of "moral turpitude," the meaning of which is absolutely opaque to anyone entering the country? To me, it's the combination of both: the form plus the impenetrable wording. The rules themselves are not that big of a deal. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The rules are OK, although overdone at times. It's the dumb questions that are the problem. They lead to mockery and a lessening of respect, where it's the opposite that is presumably desired. HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
As previously stated, the question exists as part of the regime for kicking war criminals out of the country once they're already in the country, not for keeping them out of the country to begin with. For example, the granting of citizenship is generally irrevocable -- unless the government can prove that the person lied to get into the country or obtain citizenship. This is how John Demjanjuk had his citizenship revoked. When he applied to immigrate in 1951, he didn't mention being a death-camp guard. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Demjanjuk didn't mention it because he possibly never was a death-camp guard, and the whole German trial was just a farce to make Germany look tough on Nazi criminals in a rather pathetic way. But that is a topic for a different question. 88.8.79.204 (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by "people don't care"? And are you referring to PhD.s or M.D.s? In the US at least, people will care a lot if you are pretending to be an M.D. They might not care if you pretend to be a PhD. Blueboar (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
just sign your name Dor. John SMITH. People will assume it's a foreign abbreviation for "doctor" (whereas, though you don't mention it, you've just taken up the pen name Dorothy). 82.234.207.120 (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Vietnam, i would say. People is not going to call you with special tittle even you are a king or the best person in the world. They just call you by your name.Trongphu (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I was not asking where do people do not care about legit degrees. It was more like: in what countries the Dr. before your name is not regulated or where nobody cares if you did your PhD or not. In what countries John Smith could simply print a card with Dr. J. Smith and get away with it. Quest09 (talk)
Well i guess the answer to your question is "all the poor countries and some developing country". It's also base on chance, in any countries in the world, you may get caught if you unlucky. In richer countries like the US as an example, there is more chance of being caught by doing illegal stuffs like claim that you have a PhD but you actually don't have one.Trongphu (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I am not aware of any law in the United States that forbids claiming you have a PhD even though you actually don't. Now, if you induce someone to buy your services on that basis, that's different; that's fraud, which is illegal pretty much everywhere I'd think. But just lying about it, with no transaction involved? As far as I know that's perfectly legal. (Note: I am not a lawyer.) --Trovatore (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Coal miners in gilded age at United States?
How many people were dead each year in the gilded age in the United States (after civil war to 1900 year) by working in coal mine? What are the majority cause of the death like black lung disease or accident or...? Is there any protection for coal miners during that time like equipment or something like that? What are the protection, equipment? Total death toll for coal miners in 19th century in the US? And if anyone knows any more info and statistic about coal mining in gilded age. Everything about it would be helpful. All the info should only from in period of the gilded age in the US. Thanks!Trongphu (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
How much has black flight contributed to the population decline and urban decay of many American cities since the 1950’s when compared to white flight?
In my previous question I asked why all those American cities that are declining in population generally started doing so in the 1950s and what were the reasons behind their decline. One of the reasons given to me had to do with the concept of white flight. That is a term I've heard many times before (but I'm not too familiar with)and that many of us are probably familiar with, but when I got into the See Also section of the white flight article I came across the concept of black flight. As black flight is now a new concept for me like I mentioned above, I’m curious to know to what extent has black flight contributed to the population decline and urban decay of many American cities since the 1950’s compared to white flight. Black flight doesn't seem to be a term that comes up often. Willminator (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure white flight has bigger influence. I'm not try to being racist or something. I'm a pro equally for ALL. But well i do have to admit that white typically richer than black (simply enough because they have been superior for so long, which shouldn't be that way) so there should be more white move to suburb and have a nice house(or just a house) than black.Trongphu (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 02:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
