Revision as of 15:20, 18 October 2011

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

• WP:RD/H

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

• 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.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 13

Burma or Myanmar?

Which is correct, Burma or Myanmar? --70.248.222.85 (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Either. Both. Neither. Depends on the context. See Names of Burma. Pfly (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There have also been huge discussions between Misplaced Pages editors. See Talk:Burma/Myanmar. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Having visited the country under each of these names, I can tell you (OR) that I vastly perfer Burma. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Rote learning

Has it been scientifically established that rote learning has certain advantages in developing the brain which learning by understanding does not? In many religious traditions too, rote learning is emphasized. Are there some advantages, besides just being able to repeat the information learned, something which develop as a by-product in the background without a person being aware of it while he/she is engaged in rote learning. Thanks-Shahab (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

All I can say is that rote learning has its place when addressing bare arbitrary (or conventional) facts, such as the list of names of British monarchs, American presidents, and Catholic popes. Nothing about Pope John Paul II would have told you that his successor would choose the name Benedict XVI. These brute facts serve as the material substance out of which, or, better, the circumstances from within which our conceptual analysis of the world arises. There is a comprehensible trend behind such things as the evolution in time of the British constitution. The import of the Abdication of Edward VIII makes sense only if you know both the brute fact learnt by rote and the relevant concepts and historical trends. For the importance of conceptual understanding, rather than rote memorisation of concretes, I would direct you to Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and the radical contingency of Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's define "rote learning" as memorisation of factual information by repetition. Usually it's chunks of text, poems, lists, paradigms, numbers etc rather than one-off facts (as in Medeis' example of Abdication of Edward VII). Usually by repetition aloud in class.

I agree with Medeis that facts and understanding go together in historical knowledge. A teacher might get a class to chant: "In Fourteen Hundred and Ninety-Two, Columbus Sailed the Ocean Blue". Rhyme is a great aid to memorisation. But if that isn't backed up with the story of how he thought he was going to India and ended up elsewhere, the rhyme, recalled in later life, is of no use at all.

It seems that there is a claim going around that the memorisation of the Qur'an is particularly good for children's subsequent learning. I don't think there is much research into that yet. It would seem logical that doing a lot of rote learning in childhood makes you better at memorisation later on. But there is also the opportunity cost to consider. Is an hour memorising Qur'anic verses better spent than an hour learning physics? That probably depends on what skills and knowledge are valued in the society the child is entering.

There are bound to be positive spin-offs from so much concentrated learning effort, but we don't really know what they are, whether they are the same for everyone, or whether they are more beneficial than if the same time had been spent on learning something else, with a different method. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I would, as an historian and a teacher, just object to using history as the great example of rote learning. Knowing "the facts" (names and dates) does not make one a student of history or give one a historical understanding. It just means one can take tests on facts, or spew out facts. I'm heavily against rote memorization as a method of teaching history, because the students inevitably forget most of it anyway, and you can't do anything with the facts alone, so they slip away. If you actually work with the facts, you tend to memorize them quite quickly anyway. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This is actually a big deal in maths teaching. On the one hand, rote learning (and blindly learning methods), by itself, doesn't let you solve real-world problems or problems outside the standard form found in your textbook, and if you don't understand the methods you cannot decide which is appropriate when, or spot when you've misremembered a step and produced a nonsense answer, and you certainly cannot synthesize a new method to solve a new problem. On the other hand, if you don't memorise any facts and methods, it takes you much longer to solve problems, even if you understand completely how to do so. I know I wasted a lot of time solving problems from first principles because I couldn't remember specific methods to solve them. And one of the big problems that many less mathematically inclined children face with maths is that they don't trust their recollection: they don't trust the answer popping into their head when someone asks them, "what's 3 times 5?", and teaching them to trust that ability and give instant answers can significantly improve their learning. Even the very mathematically capable can spend a lot longer solving a problem if they didn't learn their times tables, even with a calculator: I know being forced to memorise the square numbers up to 20 made a big difference when I started on more interesting calculus and force-balancing problems. On top of that, for most people to make use of maths in their daily lives requires them to have memorised a lot of standard mathematical facts and methods: it is no good understanding how addition and subtraction and the decimal number system work, when faced with making change, if you haven't memorised a lot of number pairs and short-cut methods: you will still be working it out 10 minutes later.

The problem comes when it becomes politically and ideologically charged: rote-learning becomes 'traditional', 'no nonsense', 'back to basics', 'empty learning', and understanding becomes 'progressive', 'hippie', 'true maths', 'all shall have prizes'. And I have sympathy with both views, because either method alone is worthless: politicians make speeches about one or the other, but children need to have both. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the most interesting things raised above is it isn't enough to memorise information, you have to then be able to operationalise the information in context. I suspect that children who learn their tables easily and then apply them in calculations have used many more strategies than simple repetition and practice. As said, you need not just to have "3 fives: 15" come into your head, but to be able to trust it. You need to know that if you needed to, you would have a means of double-checking. "Is that right? five plus five, 10 plus five, yes, 15" or "half of 3, 1 and a half, 10 times that, yes 15" or "half-way between 10 and 20, yes, 15". People use a lot of different mental methods in arithemetic. I agree with Mr 98 about history, too. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, there's rote learning and there's rote learning. Multiplication tables, which I agree must be known by heart if one expects to get anywhere in maths, are learned by rote but at the same time, one is systematically applying them, doing exercises with their help. The same goes for learning irregular conjugations in foreign languages, etc. - and if one doesn't get practice, the memorized stuff can be almost useless. I could give you the list of German prepositions that take the dative case if you woke me up in the middle of the night, wouldn't miss a beat. But if I try to speak German, the list in my head does not work for me, or at best, it works very clumsily. Another thing I know by rote are the prophets of the Old Testament in the order in which they are conventionally printed. Again, that information is in my head but inaccessible except if I recite the list mentally. I can't tell you whether Obadiah comes before Nahum or the other way round without starting from the beginning. That is not to say memorizing such lists couldn't have its uses. But it's one thing to learn things by rote with application and another to just memorize lists or texts.

Incidentally, Bertrand Russell, in an essay arguing against the use of Euclid as a textbook, says that there were schools in the 19th Century where the boys were taught "geometry" by making them learn Euclid by rote. That is, just the text of The Elements, without using actual rulers and compasses. It's difficult now to imagine how anyone ever thought that was a good idea. But if someone thinks teaching religious texts by rote makes good priests or theologians, well...--Rallette (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have done some searching and can't find any research supporting the idea that rote learning has value in itself. Rote learning does not appear to train the mind in ways that are useful in other areas of learning. On the other hand, rote learning does have value as a way of building up an arsenal of facts or examples that may be used for some purpose other than rote learning. So, for example, memorizing multiplication tables may help a person do mathematical calculations or even use a calculator more efficiently. Memorizing the Quran may help a person learn Classical Arabic. Learning Classical Arabic in this way may make it easier for a person to learn other languages later on. However, there is no evidence that memorizing the Quran, especially if no effort is made to understand the meaning of the language, will help a person learn anything else. (Of course, one may believe that learning the Quran, even without understanding it, may have spiritual or religious value, but there is no way to test that sort of thing scientifically.) Marco polo (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There are lots and lots of studies on rote learning in mathematics, in particular, because of the whole "new math" debates that has been going on for a long while. I'm not sure there is an unambiguous "winner" though at this point. For a personal anecdote, I was enrolled in one of those "conceptual" math courses that de-emphasized rote learning, when I was in high school, some time back now. The result was that I was quite good at ferreting out concepts and logical things... but I'm lousy at actually doing the calculations, and struggle quite a bit if I don't have a calculator handy to do all of the grunt work for me (I have difficulty calculating even a 15% tip in my head). That's just one anecdote, but I think in my personal case I would have been a bit better served by actually doing some repetitive, but useful, math, more so than focusing on the concepts, which were nice and fun, but neither instilled any great mathematical understanding in me, nor gave me the practical quantitative skills that would have been more useful later in life (when one does not use trigonometry on a daily basis, but would like to be able to quickly tally up numbers here and there). But this is a personal, anecdotal account. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There are situations where there is no underlying meaning to the knowledge, it's simply right or wrong. Conjugations of verbs (as I was reminded when I butchered Spanish in my visit to Ecuador this year) are something where there's not a lot of room for interpretation and rote learning is the practical way to teach it. Another example from my vestry days, the services in the Book of Common Prayer are another piece of rote learning. The order of the alphabet can really only be taught by rote. I'm guessing most speakers of English know that song, but maybe it's just an American thing? Boxing the compass is fortunately something we've dispensed with, but I for one never eat soggy waffles. SDY (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Two things:

• in traditional societies, rote learning was in fact the best method of preserving complex information over generations. Prior to the printing press (which allowed text to be set in a durable material and replicated precisely), transcription of written texts had a relatively high error rate, either from mistakes (such as misspellings or word substitutions) or from changes in conventional semantics over time.
• Rote learning has a certain intrinsic value for base tasks (there's no effective way to learn, say, multiplication tables or the capitals of nations except by simple repetition). but rote learning also has some important secondary psychological aspects:
  • it teaches intellectual discipline, which is later necessary to learn more complex ideas
  • it engrains certain concepts which are foundational to higher cognition. e.g. memorizing that 1+1=2 or 2*2=4 simultaneously forces a recognition of mathematical invariance - 1+1 always equals 2 - a concept without which calculus could not possibly make sense. The same is true of rote religious training (which happens in every religion, not just Islam - consider Sunday school and rosaries), in that it implicitly teaches certain moral precepts which the faith hopes will be built upon in adult life. --Ludwigs2 17:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, although that it occurred is memorised by school children, the Abdication of Edward VIII was given as a complex historical event which could only be fully understood based on prior rote learning of the British Monarchs, and such concepts as the sacramental nature of coronation. Regarding history as an example of rote learning, my point is that certain things are simply bare facts and must be learnt as such. Whether actual repeated out-loud recitation of lists or just repeated exposure is the best way of learning these facts is an empirical matter. But you simply cannot derive the sequence Mary>Elizabeth>James from first principles. It is simply contingent fact. The same applies for things like evolutionary biology. The fact that there was a species called T. rex is simply a contingent fact that has to be memorised. It can't be derived from first principles.

As for multiplication tables, what four times six produces can be derived from first principles. One simply draws four rows of six dots each and then counts the number of dots in total. The proper method of teaching multiplication tables is to show the row and column method, to teach the trends (such as adding the digits of multiples of nine gives a sum of nine) and requiring a child, when he gives a mistaken answer, to go to the board and draw the rows of dots and count them. Repetition is necessary, but only to automatise knowledge which the student can derive by applied thought. Mere repetition without showing the child how to derive the results from first principles leads to crippling the child's conceptual faculty, in this case teaching him that mathematics is something you can't understand but just have to memorise. He will eventually agree that mathematics is something one can't understand.

There are serious advantages to memorizing the actual table instead of just knowing the first principle, though. For another math example, even if I can figure out the integral of y=2x+3 by drawing an infinite number of rectangles, it really helps to know by rote how to do the integral without having to do several minutes worth of calculations (technically you would spend infinite time doing so if you didn't apply some shorcuts). Less steps means less opportunities for error. Maybe not perfect from a "wisdom and enlightenment" education standpoint but from the standpoint of "your bridge fell down" rote learning has a place. SDY (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Once the principle of what multiplication is, the summing of units in a set number of rows and columns, has been learnt, and the child has comprehended how to figure out the result if he does not remember it by rote, then of course the process has to be practised by repetition until it becomes automatised. Automisation is the precondition of further abstraction, for which see Rand, mentioned above. But if you teach the answers to multiplication without teaching what multiplication is and how to do it if you have to, you are mentally crippling the child. μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to get properly into this, I would strongly recommend exploring the actual published literature on pedagogy, child development, education and learning: Ayn Rand really doesn't cut it as a source for anything other than what Ayn Rand said. This is not to say that Ayn Rand is wrong in any specific thing said, but that she is not a good source for facts. I say this because I suspect that you love to understand things, and there is a lot of solid research in this area that has produced lovely, solid results and lovely, solid suggestions about good, evidence-based practice. You might want to start with things like Inside the Black Box, read about learning strategies (which you will be teaching to the children by how you teach them anything else), look at the impact of a teacher's understanding of maths, this hugely influential article on [relational understanding and instrumental understanding (read it: you'll be glad you did), and the entertaining Children's understanding of mathematics. This should give you access to a lot of related work, should you want to look further, and then you can reference someone other than Ayn Rand when you want to cite a source.

Obviously teaching rote facts and methods is not sufficient, but it is also crippling to avoid teaching any rote facts and methods: as I said, you need both. This actually has most impact on the less mathematically able, and those from social groups with a lower educational attainment, because those of us with enormous working memories and almost instinctive understanding of maths can get around a lot of problems by very quickly following inefficient methods, and children from social groups with higher educational attainment will already get drilled in basic facts, how to learn facts, and quickly recalling them when required.

Teaching understanding is very very important, and I push for it across the entire ability range, but rote learning, knowing how to learn things, having experience of learning things, having experience of recalling things, and knowing that you are capable of it? These are hugely important too, and they are most important for the children who will most struggle with the conceptual approach. Learning is not linear, it is not quite true that (as Piaget has it) we learn one principle and then progress to the next. Most of the children who will rush to understand the underlying concepts and visualisations of multiplication (and it's not really enough to see it as only one) will be the same children who have already been drilled in the rote facts, by their parents, just as the children who will rush to understand addition and subtraction will be those who have already been drilled in Number bonds, which are often introduced as a sort of counting-on without any mention made of 'adding'. And once they have encountered the underlying concepts, their recall and understanding of the memorised facts will likely improve because learning is more like a spiral, or a complicated system of connections, and these children will leap further and further ahead of their unfortunate classmates whose parents didn't gift them with a set of memorised facts before they met the underlying principles. You don't teach a child the underlying physics before they learn to walk, but anyone can run better if a well-informed coach explains the principles involved. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ayn Rand writes about what she writes about? Oh, my. Did not know that. Interesting you also badmouth Piaget, whom I would recommend if you want to study all aspects of child learning in depth. The OP seemed to be interested in automization compared with concept formation. Rand's monograph addresses those matters directly for a lay audience from an epistemological standpoint. True, you have to look elsewhere if you want statistical studies and scholarly work that avoids making any explanatory claims.

Does rote learning include learning how to write? I have a kid in Kindergarten and the teacher works hard on getting the kids to learn to write, and write clearly. At their age this mainly involves knowing how to hold pencils/pens/etc and draw the letter (and number) shapes clearly. She combines the rote aspect with lots of other non-rote, more understanding-base stuff, but still, there's a basic muscle memory aspect to writing letters clearly. Mental understanding of how to do it can't replace lots of repetitive practice, can it? Or is there is distinction between rote learning and gaining muscle memory via repitition and memorization? Pfly (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, repetitive practice is vital for the mechanical physical skill of writing. Consider that it is no good explaining the physics of bicycle riding. You just have to get on the seat and do it. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I didn't know about the new math thing. It sounds similar to a more recent "fad" of reform mathematics, described on the Math wars page. My still-evolving understanding is that reform mathematics tends to turn out crappy math skills, but various hybrid curricula do better. Pfly (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, also, since a lot of this thread has focused on math, I think the best overall approach would be one that is able, somehow, to take into account the different natural abilities of different kids and "leverage" then (to use a word a hate). For example I've always been terrible with numbers and rote math learning. I simply have trouble remembering raw number patterns. I can't even remember phone numbers half the time, or my own PIN numbers. So forced rote learning of multiplication tables and the like quickly got me shuffled off into remedial math levels and a dropping out as early as I could. On the other hand, some people, like my wife, are excellent at remembering number patterns, and enjoy playing with it, and do well with rote style teaching, which can lead to being able to more quickly grasp and work through complex problems when larger conceptual issues are in place as well. So she became a math major while I avoided it like the plague. Later, I found I loved math when it was a tool being used for an interesting reason (music and electronic synthesis being my route in, which can rapidly lead to calculus Fourier transforms, and various wave stuff). So in her case a mix of rote and comprehension teaching worked great, while for me the rote aspect resulted in bad grades and bad teachers and a deep hatred of math, until I finally realized, long out of school, it can be used for cool stuff. If math curricula, from a young age (my math hatred goes back to at least 3rd grade), could somehow identify which students would do well with which approaches, that would be a good thing, I think. Pfly (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

One final thing. The OP wrote "In many religious traditions too, rote learning is emphasized. Are there some advantages, besides just being able to repeat the information learned, something which develop as a by-product in the background without a person being aware of it while he/she is engaged in rote learning." While I don't have a scientific study to point to, I think this idea is basically sound, and applies to my example of writing to write letters clearly. As I understand it is something emphasized in various sports and performance arts (like playing the piano)—first you have to gain a level of basic muscle memory that allows rapid relatively "unthinking" response, then you can hone that in various ways. There's always the risk that muscle memory becomes a crutch though. With piano playing, an example would be the ability to play a piece from memory, except that if you get stuck you have to start over from the start and can't recover. Good piano playing requires a mix of muscle memory and intellectual understanding of a piece's form. If you know you got stuck at a place where an A major key is modulating to a D minor key, and what that means in terms of notes, you'll be much more likely to recover in the moment than if you only know the piece via muscle memory. But if you only understand the piece intellectually without muscle memory, you probably won't be able to play it at all. The same basic idea goes for fencing (the sword dueling sport), which I've long enjoyed. It is an extremely fast paced sport. You absolutely need muscle memory deeply engrained to the point of instinctive reaction. But you also need to analyze your opponent, looking for weaknesses, and developing strategies on-the-fly for taking advantage of them. And vice-verse, realizing when your opponent is doing exactly that and taking counter-measures. The balance between instinctive muscle memory and millsecond-fast readjustments to those instincts is one of the most enjoyable aspects of fencing. I think a lot of these kind of things can to applicable to religious rituals as well. To be religiously mindful and open the rituals must be in "muscle memory", but if they are carried out robotically the point is entirely missed. Pfly (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sanzomon's hat

The character Sanzomon is based on Sanzo from Journey to the West. It wears a hat with several chinese characters on it, which can be seen here, here, and here. From what I've been able to find, it appears that this hat may be called a "five-part crown", and the symbols would be references to the Five Dhyani Buddhas. Can anyone tell me the correct name of this hat, and what the symbols are/are a reference to? Please message me at my wikia talk page if you have any answers. Thanks!192.249.47.196 (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

French Rwanda Burundi Zaire French not Dutch

Why Rwanda, Burundi, and Zaire (Democratic Republic of Congo) decided to choose French as its official language despite the Belgians were Dutch speaking? Who meaning the leaders of these nations made French as official languages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.163 (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

French is an official language of Belgium (spoken by 40% of the population) as well as Dutch (see Languages of Belgium). There is a suggestion on a forum here that "The Belgian Congo had two official languages : French and Dutch. This means cities, streets, etc, always carried two names ( Leopoldville – Leopoldstad, etc…), but in reality French was by far the most used language in the Belgian Congo." The same would no doubt have applied to Ruanda-Urundi, and the reason is presumably that French is much more widely spoken than Dutch both globally and in other parts of Africa. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

At the time when the Belgians created the colonies that became these African nations, during the late 19th and early 20th century, French was the sole official language of Belgium. This was the case because French was the language of the Belgian ruling class. The political system of Belgium gave extra votes to voters based on their wealth, and most of the wealth was held by the French-speaking bourgeoisie. In Belgium, French was the language of education and status, whereas the common people spoke the "regional languages" of Walloon and Flemish. The status of French was boosted by the fact that French-speaking southern Belgium was first to industrialize and until the mid-20th century was the most prosperous part of the country. Even those whose native language was Flemish/Dutch learned French in school and had to use French professionally if they wanted to pursue a career. This began to change during the 1920s and 1930s when Belgium did away with weighting votes by wealth and Flemish was recognized as the language of government in the Flemish-speaking regions. It was not until the 1960s that the national government became fully bilingual. Of course, by that time, Belgium's colonies were gaining independence after a long period during which French was their primary official language. The use of French in neighboring former French colonies was a further argument in favor of French as an official language in these newly independent countries. Marco polo (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Belgium is officially tri-lingual, since there's a German dialect spoken in east Wallonia. In my days in the London insurance market, I used to have to fill in Belgian tax forms, which came with each question in three languages, one on top of the other, in tiny writing. I understand that the King of Belgium has to make his coronation oath in three languages too. But as you say, it was French only for official purposes until fairly recently. Alansplodge (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

But Belgium was not tri-lingual during the colonial period. It seems, from Language legislation in Belgium, that German was recognized only in 1962. --Soman (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that's what I said - if not, it's what I meant! Alansplodge (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. Just pointing out that Belgium went from being mono- then bi- to trilingual officially. The latter period of Belgian rule over Congo, Belgium was officially bilingual, but trilingualism came afterwards. --Soman (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and no offence taken. Alansplodge (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Notably, Dutch also failed to establish itself in Indonesia as a colonial language (although many Dutch loan words are found in Bahasa Indonesia). This section gives some insight: Dutch_language#Belgian_Africa. --Soman (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Look Japan

Apparently Look Japan's last issue was in April 2004.

Do you know if there are any articles discussing the closing of Look Japan, or if the April 2004 issue says "we are closing - goodbye" ?

Thanks,

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

China

1. Who was the first European to actually succeed in reaching China (or India) by going west? 2. Since an accurate way of determining longitude wasn't available until the 18th century, how did Europeans know how far the New World was from Asia? In fact, how did they even know how far it was from Europe? --140.180.26.155 (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The answer to your first question may be Martín de Rada, though of course Ferdinand Magellan sailed west across the Pacific earlier. Marco polo (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

As for your second question, Europeans had a rough idea of the distance based on sailing time and extrapolations from the circumference of the Earth, which had been calculated to a low degree of precision. Precise measurement of longitude and distance was not possible, however, until John Harrison invented the chronometer in the mid-18th century. Marco polo (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Legal question re: illegal camping in U.S. national parks

I've been trying to understand what exactly constitutes "camping without a permit" in U.S. national parks.

I've found the following two statutes:

36CFR2.10 AND § 1.4 What terms do I need to know?

The latter defines camping as:

"Camping means the erecting of a tent or shelter of natural or synthetic material, preparing a sleeping bag or other bedding material for use, parking of a motor vehicle, motor home or trailer, or mooring of a vessel for the apparent purpose of overnight occupancy."

Does this mean that as long as I am not caught actually erecting a tent, or laying out my sleeping bag, that they cannot charge me with illegal camping? That is, suppose I'm walking in a remote area on a hiking trail where I'm quite obviously camping without a permit(i.e. I'm carrying a large pack and camping gear and look like I've been living in the woods for a week), but I've got all of my gear in my pack. If I am adamant that I'm not actually camping (of course, I'll kindly cite the above-cited legal definition of "camping" for them) and am just carrying the equipment "for exercise", they couldn't fine me for illegal camping, right? That is, legally, they would have to actually catch me at a campsite to give me a ticket. Am I understanding this correctly? If not, could someone please explain where I could find more information on this.

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.211.30.204 (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

We cannot offer legal advice. Please see the legal disclaimer. Contact a lawyer.

As a general principle, the police do not need to catch you in the act of committing a crime to charge you with it, they merely need to have probable cause to believe that you have committed the crime. Once charges have been filed, it is up to the court system to determine if you have committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt. If you want to get more specific than this, consult a lawyer. --Carnildo (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Lots of national parks have additional restrictions on camping, especially for very popular areas and/or wilderness areas. Much of Mount Rainier National Park for example, is wilderness, and backcountry camping not only requires a permit but must be in designated camping areas. In short, for any given park it is likely there are more than the two statues you cited that apply. Pfly (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, permits for backcountry camping are usually done in place for good reasons, worth following. If unrestricted camping was allowed in popular places like The Enchantments (not a national park, but a national forest, still very very popular), the landscape would rapidly be degraded. The rather strict lottery-based permits used there were put in place because the place was getting trashed. Pfly (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The sad part about this is that the OP is looking to get around the rules. The rules are there to try to preserve these popular national parks as much as possible. Disrespecting the rules is the same as disrespecting the park itself. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this might fall foul of various "going equipped to commit 'X' (crime)" laws my good man. If you're wandering around with a set of lockpicks, devices for neutralising electronic alarms and a large bag marked "SWAG" in a residential neighbourhood without you can get charged & convicted for going equipped to commit burglary without going anywhere near someone's domicile. Best to not try this old bean. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Without reference to legal specifics, so far as I know, homelessness is de facto illegal throughout the United States. Any community becoming noted for being soft on homelessness would become overburdened with them, suffering all manner of social ills and expenses, not to mention being abandoned by residents horrified at the implications for their property value etc. Prohibiting camping in parks is the first step, but it is by no means sufficient - it is absolutely necessary to crack down on churches that would house or feed them, for example. Existing encampments are not merely dispersed, but such belongings as the homeless have are confiscated and burned. They are, however, sometimes granted free bus fare to go somewhere else - while some people have absorbed a genuinely hateful attitude, more see it merely as a competition between communities. (More often they explain people are being sent away to temporary shelter as a humanitarian measure...) Typically the big cities are the most lenient, because it is relatively smaller expense to them and/or there are certain neighborhoods which prove expedient (for certain interests) to redline and devalue prior to eminent domain. The extreme option is to charge vagrancy, though after the Jim Crow era this ceased to be profitable and fell into disuse. Anyway, my point here, is that any practice, regardless of the law, which would permit anyplace in the U.S. to be used reliably by homeless people, will with certainty be stamped out. Wnt (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

October 14

Economics: Could venture capital boost the American green energy sector?

Hi. Venture capital is often awarded to new businesses, and green tech is often considered an emerging sector, but could it work in the current global marketplace? Thanks. ~AH1  00:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to say. Per Wind power#Cost trends, wind power is currently growing so fast that it no longer seems to be utilizing subsidies, tax credit exchanges, or anything other than ordinary bank financing. And the developing world is growing much faster than the US. If you put those facts together, under ordinary financial conditions, any investor should be able to purchase a mutual fund or American depository receipts allowing taking advantage of such rapid growth rates. However, in the current investment climate, corporations try to produce derivatives which allow them to capture all the possible profits from an investment, precluding individual investors. Thank goodness they've learned how to outspend individuals during campaign season, or they might lose their advantage. Dualus (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Venture capital is not "awarded" but invested with expectation of return. Businessmen will invest in green in any technology if they think it will produce products which people will buy because they expect to benefit from it. μηδείς (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the interesting things about capital in our society is that it is legally treated as private property. Unless restricted by contracts or law, owners of capital can do with them as they wish. Medeis notes one of the key limiting factors: the impression that a rate of return above market average is achievable when factoring risk in. Despite the methodological beliefs of a number of economists, and the methodological assumptions of another bunch of economists who want to get on with their discipline, not all capitalists act so as to seek the maximum rate of return. So yes, venture capital could choose to invest specifically in marketisable green energy; but choosing to do so when it isn't the most profitable sector seeking capital would be foolish if their aim is to maximise returns. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Christian denomination in Europe

So far, I know that France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal are dominantly Roman Catholic and Netherlands, U.K., Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Iceland are dominantly Protestants. What about other nations in Europe? Which are Roman Catholic? Which are Protestants? and Which are Orthodox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.206 (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

See: File:Prevailing world religions map.png... this map should help. Blueboar (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

For proper balance it's only fair to mention File:Irreligion map.png as well - many countries in Europe, particularly northern Europe, are now predominantly non-religious. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Try Christianity in Europe. Flamarande (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That irreligion map contradicts the religion in china article. China is too dark on the map. It should be 40 to 60%, not 93%. The colors seem arbitrary and the whole thing needs a citation. Anyway, it's not relevant to the question as irreligion is not a "Christian denomination in Europe." Turkey is predominantely Armenian Orthodox as far as Christianity goes as 60% of Christians in that country follow that faith. They account for .08% of the population. There are far many more Christians in Sweden than in Turkey, although according to the Religion in Sweden article, there appears to be a great deal of variation among what sociologists believe. Why the authors of these maps pick the highest number even without a scholarly consensus to back it up is not clear. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Afrikaans speakers in South Africa

Although I often find surprising information on WP, it's rare for me to find something that apparently reveals my ignorance quite as much as this map. I'm surprised at two things - the high proportions speaking Afrikaans in the west of the country, and the low proportions in the east, including rural areas that I had always thought of as having historically quite high proportions of white Afrikaans-speaking settlers. The map suggests that it shows proportions of the total population - not just the ethnically "white" population. Firstly, is the map accurate; and, if so, what has led to the very sharp division between east and west of which I was previously unaware? Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not just the whites that speak Afrikaans at home, Afrikaans is also the mother tongue of the majority of the coloured population. Compare the map above with this map: File:South Africa 2001 Coloured population proportion map.svg. --Soman (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Afrikaans-speaking Coloured people form a majority only in western South Africa. This is so because this was the first part of the country settled by Europeans. Prior to European settlement, it was sparsely settled by non-agrarian Khoisan peoples, since the climate of the west, with its summer drought, would not support the crops on which the Bantu peoples of the east depended. Over the first two centuries of European settlement, a Dutch-speaking land-owning elite came to depend on a much larger mixed-race working class, the ancestors of today's Coloured peoples. This working class consisted of the descendants of the original Khoisan population mixed with other groups imported from Madagascar or Asia as laborers. In addition, white masters often fathered children through (mutually consenting or forcible) sexual relations with female workers. These children became part of the Coloured community. Over these centuries, the Dutch of the white masters evolved, partly by acquiring vocabulary from the original languages of the working class, into Afrikaans, which became the common language of the Western Cape. It was only after the Great Trek of the mid-19th century that Afrikaans-speaking whites moved into what became eastern South Africa. Coloured people largely did not take part in the Great Trek but remained the majority population of the Western Cape. What is now eastern South Africa was and is heavily populated by speakers of Bantu languages, who have always formed a majority in this region. Therefore, the Afrikaans of the white population has never been a majority language in eastern South Africa except in the small and segregated enclaves where whites formed a majority. Marco polo (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

1940 version of "Wake Up America"

I'm trying to find a copy of the 1940 version of "Wake Up America" by James Montgomery Flagg. In that one, Uncle Sam is urging viewers to become aware of war overseas. Where can I find a copy? Anyone know?24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The only image of it that I can find online is one of Flagg standing in front of a poster at

I've seen that image, and it's powerful. But is there another image similar, but without Flagg standing in front of it?24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Imperial Roman politics

So, this site is full of pages of detailed information of political offices in Rome during the empire, but what there is not much of is information on politics outside of the city. I asked some time ago regarding a book I have been writing, where one character has entered a political career in a town some way north of Rome itself (having had to go into hiding to escape dangerous criminals, hence why he cannot move back to the city just yet) and I recieved a few responses that were of some help. Since then, though, I have moved on a couple of chapters, and I think now he may well have not only moved up the cursus honorum in his town, but also be looking, perhaps unrealistically, even further up. I am wondering in particular whether there would have been any sort of regional government below the level of the provincial governors.

What I would like then is either a rough outline of the political system as it would have been out in this town, such that I can then conduct more detailed research on whichever points seem most relevant at the time, or to be directed to another website that has a more detailed description of such matters.

I feel I should say, this is only to be a minor point in the book, so I felt I did not need much in the way of in depth research, just for a couple of lines to drop in at one point, if anyone feels like telling me I should have studied the subject a lot more before writing the book.

148.197.81.179 (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

What period of the Empire, and how far north of Rome? (Still in Italy, or somewhere else?) I guess for any random provincial city, there would be a local curia, and curiales and decurions, but there wasn't really a cursus honorum outside of Rome, because the cursus was for higher offices in Rome itself. There would be a provincial governor appointed from Rome, so it's not like a local person ever rose through the ranks to govern the province. But it's hard to say exactly, without knowing the place and time period. (Sorry, I can't seem to find your previous question.) Adam Bishop (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The current chapter is set during 250, in the crisis of the third century, at a time when it seems to have calmed down a little, for a few months. I was thinking of a town quite close to Rome itself, perhaps only fifty or a hundred miles away. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well, that's a little bit simpler, since Italy wasn't exactly a province like the others, it was under the direct control of the emperor. For a town that close to Rome, the emperor's chief deputy was the urban prefect of Rome itself (for anything further away, it was the pretorian prefect). Your town (a municipium) would also have a council (a curia, essentially a mini-Senate), probably run by the wealthiest local landowners, although sometimes every adult male was obliged to serve on the council whether they wanted to or not (members of the council were called decuriones). They could collect taxes and pass local legislation and deal with local legal questions and disputes, make sure wills were propertly executed, liberate slaves, build houses and roads, that sort of thing. Serious crimes, though, were punished by the prefect, and of course taxes went to Rome. The prefect was also responsible for distribution of food. It's not that much different from a modern British, Canadian, or American town, or maybe a medieval English town near London, for example. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Cities in the Roman Empire were generally administered by various Duumviri, each of which had different functions. The "duumviri iure dicundo" were in charge of legal administration (police, law, courts, etc.), while the duumviri aedile were in charge of infrastructure and finances. Cities in the Empire were of two types; municipia, the lower class, were cities which had been absorbed by the Empire but not settled specifically by it; while Colonia, the higher class, had been founded and settled by the Empire specifically. This subdivision was, AFAIK, mostly relevent in the outer Roman provinces, which were under control of Roman governors of various titles. Within Italy itself, which was administerred directly by the Emperor, things may have worked a bit differently. However, if you want to use an authentic-sounding roman title of a city administrator, "duumviri iure dicundo" or something like that may work for you. --Jayron32 13:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the singular form would be duumvir iure dicundo. Marco polo (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Shonuff. --Jayron32 14:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

But that's a very early title (you can even tell by the archaic spelling of "dicundo"). It no longer existed by the time period the OP is asking about. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Poor people

The productive contribution of an individual poor person towards economic progress of the world is far less than the contribution of an individual rich person. Then why poor people are considered equal to riches? --Jigjig555 (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Two thoughts. First, your underlying assumption is wrong. A poor person may make a very much greater contribution than a rich person. Clearly, they do not have the spending capacity of a rich person, but that's not the only measure of a contribution. Secondly, the economic contribution that is made by a person to the economy is not the only measure of that person; from all sorts of other perspectives, people are people and should be treated as equals. Given that income does not corrolate well with "contribution to society / economy", then using wealth as a measure of worth is facile. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Poor people are by definition unequal to the rich, that is what makes them poor. In the West, poor people are nominally considered equals under the law, but that has a tendency to not bear out in practice. --Daniel 16:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The general attitude is that all people are created equal, but do not necessarily remain equal. If equality was maintained, removing rights from one person and not another would not be acceptable. -- kainaw™ 18:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.coeinc.org/Articles/HousewifeWorth.pdf.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I question the premise. Wealth is ultimately created from labor and raw natural resources. Poor people generally do far more labor than rich people. APL (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The question was not about labour, it was about "productive contribution ... towards economic progress" the men who created the Hall–Héroult process undoubtedly did contribute more than the labourer who actually create aluminum as these two men greatly increased the work efficiency for thousands of workers. I do however question how the OP basis the worth of a person on how much one makes. The idea that all humans are equal is more based on the though process of "If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?" Our lives are all equally important to ourselves. I do not see much contemporary support in the developed world for the idea that killing poor people is less of a crime than killing rich people, or any other idea which would come from the idea that the rich are more worthy than the poor. Public awareness (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Public awareness has now been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the banned editor User:Passionless.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Matthew 26:11. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Matthew 25:40. Dualus (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Genesis 25:30. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Proverbs 14:31. Dualus (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The Fall of Eve, Genesis condensed. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 17 Tishrei 5772 19:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Genesis 3:22. Dualus (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Public awareness, the same logic can be applied in the case of animal rights. Animals do feel pain, they die, even they have emotion, should they have same right as humans? Some say yes, most say no. Poor people have the same biological feature as riches, but that doesn't entitle them to have same right as the riches. --Jigjig555 (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

And in the developed world animals do have rights, and these rights continue to grow. Rights are what society gives to all those within society. Mankind has moved forward, ending serfdom, than slavery, segregation, emancipated women, and ended anti-homosexuality laws. We give out rights equally because it is widely believed today that to do otherwise is unethical. Also, see the veil of ignorance and social equality. Public awareness (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Public awareness has now been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the banned editor User:Passionless.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

We've ended anti-homosexuality laws? Perhaps you're not from the United States (neither am I), but see defense of marriage act, LGBT rights in the United States, and Proposition 8.

Anyhow, I'm not sure what sort of equality the OP had in mind, but it's not necessarily true that the rich contribute more to the economy than the poor. Case in point: Public awareness mentioned the Hall-Heroult process. Hall was poor, and discovered the process in a wooden shed with minimal equipment. Almost all scientists, both today and throughout history, were not rich, yet they've changed the world much more profoundly than any CEO. Pierre and Marie Curie famously struggled with poverty. I'm fairly sure that Maxwell, Einstein, Darwin, and Dirac were not at the very top of the social ladder, but don't quote on that. --140.180.26.155 (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like the OP is pushing for slavery. The fact that in order for slavery to work, you need slaves underlines the mistake in your original assumption. "Rich" people do not (or rarely) do the actual work (and by rich, I'm referring to the upper strata of businesses here). They direct work. If we remove the workforce (and remove the idea of a workforce), a "rich" person's economic contribution is only worth what he can actually make with his own hands. He wouldn't be rich then. Does telling people what to do entitle you to more rights than the person who's doing what you ask of them? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

All sorts of geniuses have failed to patent their inventions or otherwise turned out to be poor businessmen. So what? Actual human rights are negative--such as the right not to be murdered. Yes, the rich sometimes get off, but usually because of "poor" (i.e., uneducated) juries. In the Anglo-West, at least, people do indeed have equally protected legal human rights. The poor are actually better off if you pretend such things as welfare and free education are rights. As for homosexuals, once again, nowhere in the West are they subject to persecution for their acts. They are also free to have any minister they like perform any magical ritual they want. The fact that some jurisdictions refuse to force third parties to pretend that gay couples are the same as married parents is not a violation of any negative right. It is simply a refusal to use the law to pretend that loving and commited acts of buggery and fellatio are the same as parturition. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You should take a look at LGBT rights by country or territory. Gay couples in multiple US states and western countries are not allowed to adopt. In a few states only married couples are allowed to adopt children, and since gays cannot get married they cannot adopt children. Also, a marriage is not a "magical ritual", it is a legally binding union which ties finances together and entitles the couple to many financial benefits from tax reductions for families, to life insurance for a spouse. In most European nations gay men are still not allowed to donate blood, and in many nations gays cannot openly serve in military. Since the definition of persecution is "the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group" I don't see how you cannot consider any of this to be persecution.AerobicFox (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe we are talking about positive rights here too, right to vote, right to education, right to movement, right to health care, right to not be discriminated against based on age, gender, sexual orientation, race, even right to Internet access. But this is off topic. The question was "why poor people are considered equal to riches", well from an economical standpoint they are not equal, from a law perspective they are equal for ethical reasons, from an individual's standpoint they may or not be equal, Sergei Polonsky has stated that "anyone without a billion dollars is a "loser" and "those who don't have a billion, can go to hell"." Public awareness (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Public awareness has now been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the banned editor User:Passionless.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I enjoy a bit of sodomy just as much as the next person, but that doesn't mean my rights are violated by not being able to adopt a child based on my being a sodomite. The issue involved is the child's best interests, not the desire of the homosexual couple for a pet or a trophy child. Gays are just as entitled as straights to do it the old fashioned way if they want children. Gays should also be enabled to adopt whomever they like as next of kin--just as was allowed in Roman times. Julius Caesar adopted Octavian when the latter was a grown man. That is all that the protection of an adult's right's require. Being able to seize children with the state's assent has nothing to do with same sex sex. So long as gays are not being deprived of their lives, freedom, or property, their rights are protected. The law cannot make them biological parents against the facts of nature. BTW, if a state allows single parents to adopt, it should not take into account their sexual orientation. I am not opposed to gays adopting. I am opposed to the state forcing third parties to treat loving sodomites as if they were the same thing as biological parents just because they are registered sodomites.μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Capitalism. →Στc. 04:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Uhuh. Children up for adoption don't belong to their biological parents who abandoned them in the first place (which speaks volumes about the assertion that people who can make babies take better care of babies). What the heck is the difference between heterosexual adopters, single-parent adopters, and homosexual adopters? They are not biological parents. Adoption does not make you a biological parent. There will also always be 'trophy' adopted kids. Even straight people do that. Including that incident about one fundamentalist Christian couple who blathered on about how they love children so much they decided to adopt two orphans from Liberia on national television. Three years later they beat the 7 year old to death and hospitalized her older sister for mispronouncing a word. So yeah, what does sexual orientation have anything to do with your capacity to care for a child?

And just so you'll look at it the other way, it's the state forcing barriers on people based on arbitrary criteria. The state is actually saying all gay people are incapable of taking care of children against evidence otherwise just because the vocal ignorant majority says so. How would you like it if straight people of the opposite sexes were suddenly banned from being seen together alone? What about if certain genders were not allowed in certain professions? Oh wait... they already do that. It's the same thing. The "nature doesn't do that" argument is also a load of crap. Nature doesn't have organized religion either, they certainly don't kill each other over which imaginary friend is better, and you probably will find little evidence of kindness or altruism as well. In fact, relatively few animals adopt children. Heck lions kill the young of a competing male. If these are all unnatural things, what makes them exceptions of the "nature doesn't do that" argument?

The question is can they take care of the children whose own parents can not or will not? Will the children lead better lives away from orphanages? And the answer is yes. Leave the bullshit at the door. I'm sure you lurv "sodomy". Maybe you'd also like to try "gommorhea" sometime. *rolls eyes* -- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like μηδείς is referring to the possibility of laws which prevent parent/s who are giving up their children for adoption from rejecting parents based on their sexual orientation. However as you pointed out, this isn't the issue most are concerned with here, the big issue is quite a few governments including unfortunately NZ preventing same sex couples from adopting or treating them the same as a single parent (which is questionable if you do have some recognition of an opposite-sex couple in adoptions). And this includes cases where the biological parents aren't involved at all. There is also the example of where third parties who are not the biological parents are involved, and whether they are allowed to reject people based on sexual orientation but again, this is another thing as well. I would note that if you start talking about the government disallowing a same sex couple to adopt because it's not in the 'child's best interests' (despite the lack of evidence for this claim), others may start to talk about whether you should allow parents who express the belief that being gay is wrong or that a woman's primary role in life should be as a caregiver and mother and other such views should be allowed to adopt for the same reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to continue a debate, since I think what I have said above is clear. Suggestions that I contract "gommorhea" are bizarre, and suggest an emotional impediment to rational discussion. But my point is that rights are negative. That is, the entitle you not to be assaulted, killed, robbed or defrauded, or denied life, liberty or property without due process. The only valid state reason for marriage as a legal institution is designation of next of kin and protection of a dependent mother and minor children. Gay couples--any adults-- should have the right to designate their next of kin, and historically this has been called (adult) adoption--e.g. Gay couples can also participate in whatever magic rituals and public announcements they like, and no civilized state prevents this. But since gay couplings do not produce children, legally designating them marriages serves some other purpose than protecting the rights of dependent mothers and children. The only reason for getting the state involved in calling gay cohabitation marriage is to force third parties, employers, landlords, insurers, religious entities--at gunpoint, since that is what the law is--to treat them as if they were the same as married couples. If as a leftist you want the state to force people to provide benefits to homosexual couples involuntarily, then that's what you should say. But to say that the government is currently violating the rights of homosexuals is an Orwellian use of language. (I should say that states which don't offer or recognize some sort of civil union or adult adoption are not providing people with equal protection of the law. I think Texas refuses to recognize civil unions from other states. If, on that basis, a person were denied access to a hospital patient as next of kin, that would indeed be a gross violation of rights.)

Can't speak sarcasm, when it's not yours? You seem to delight in using "sodomy" and "sodomite" in sentences despite claiming to be irreligious. That's like talking about Hispanic people and obliviously and repeatedly calling them "spics", expecting everyone to take it all in a stride. Political correctness be damned, there's a fine line between being honest and being obnoxious.

From past discussions I got the impression that you were all for smaller government interference with personal matters that do no harm to anyone. You seem to have no problems with government interference with minorities though. Who's forcing who? And what do "third parties" have anything to do with what two people do? People don't marry just to spite their landlords, local parishes, employers, and insurers (wtf?). And do you really think most gay people want to be married in a church? LOL And for the record, I don't care what you call it, marriage, civil union, partnership, as long as it has the same legal definition as heterosexual marriages with or without children, biological or otherwise. And yes your arguments are circular. If you want to make it negative, think of it this way: People have a right not to have to live their lives according to how others want them to live it. Self-determination? Free will? That's a really basic right, isn't it?

It's called minding your own business. If you're not gay, then don't have gay sex. Ban them from entering your church/mosque/temple if you want, but seriously, reaching beyond that to affect legislation in a secular state is ridiculously obsessive attempts to control other people's lives. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Continue the debate or not I'm going to reply to this post. Your positive and negative rights argument is circular, the negative right to liberty which is granted to us allows us to do whatever we like as long as it does not harm others, we therefore have the right to do anything that doesn't hurt other people regardless of positive rights. By your reasoning the government could ban gay people from making phone calls and then state "The right to make phone calls is a positive right which you are not entitled to". If a person wants to raise a child then it is their right to do that unless it harms the child or someone else, that is why we ban child molesters from adopting children. Banning a gay person from raising a child without a reason to believe that it will harm anybody is a direct violation of their right to do whatever they like if it harms nobody else. I can't believe that you just compared a gay person finding a homeless orphan, taking them into their home and feeding them to "force third parties, employers, landlords, insurers, religious entities--at gunpoint", the gay people have a right to be left alone just like everybody else, it is at your metaphorical gunpoint that they are being told that they cannot adopt an orphan like a straight person could. AerobicFox (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The claim of the reasons for marriage are in stark contrast to the modern realities of marriages. Plenty of people get married who cannot have children by themslves i.e. couples where one partner is clearly infertile (whether because of age or some other reason). Plenty of people get married with the explicit intention to never have kids (some may later change their minds but this doesn't change their original intention). Despite the Roman Catholic Church's disagreement with this concept (the RCC is at least somewhat consistent in this stance whereas a number of other religious figures don't seem to mind accepting marriages when there is no intention for children as long as the couple is of the opposite sex), it is one the modern realities of marriage. If you want to change the law to disallow marriages when children are not a possibiliy, you should do so, rather then denying certain couples the right to marry because they cannot have children whereas allowing other couples who cannot or do not wish to have children the right to marry because of their sex.

And as others have pointed out, you are still ignoring the fact were not primarily talking about forcing anyone 'to provide benefits to homosexual couples involuntarily' but about cases were the government denies same sex couples the right to adopt (at least as couples) whereas allowing opposite sex couples the right to adopt as couples, with only the government and no one else (not counting the couple or child of course) involved. I would note according to your logic, couples who find out they are infertile, should not be allowed to adopt as couples (even though there along with those who already knew it are probably the most common couples to adopt) but instead have their marriage automatically dissolved or turned in to a civil partnership/union because it no longer serves a purpose as a marriage. In fact, I wonder whether adoption agencies should require proof of fertility before they allowing a married couple to adopt. And should older children really be accepted as proof? It would seem not since fertility changes with age and from what I can tell you're suggesting only a currently fertile couple should adopt, although obviously the children mean the marriage still serves a purpose, that is until all the children die....

Similarly once a woman in a marriage reaches say the age of 60, if she has not yet conceived her marriage should be dissolved or turned into a civil partnership/union since it no longer serves a purpose as a marriage. The same if she did conceive, but only via a sperm donor (in fact the moment the sperm donor came in to consideration, the government probably should start to question the marriage), unless you're arguing same sex female couples should be allowed to marry but not same sex male couples.

Definitely anyone who provides anything to a married couple by merit of them being married is entitled to demand of anyone without biological children that they provide proof of fertility before treating them the same as a real married couple, since they clearly aren't really married if they are infertile. And if the proof is negative, they probably should be submitting it to the government to help them dissolve this fake marriage.

Of course all this seems unnecessarily complicated, perhaps the government should simply require fertility tests of both partners before the marriage can be approved and then require say biennially re-tests until say either partner reaches 30 then yearly re-tests thereafter, until a child is conceived, and of course starting up again if all the children die (not counting any adopted children). Of course, affirmation of a desire to have children would also be needed and if it's later found one party was lying, this fraud on the institute of marriage should be dealt with harshly. On that point, the fertility test thing may be somewhat wasting of government resources so probably marriages should not be allowed if the desire is not to have children yet, wait until they actually need the marriage.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I am (by most accounts) relatively poor. I am also (by most accounts) quite a bit smarter than average. This is a choice more than anything else; money doesn't mean much to me. Would I somehow be a better person if I dedicated all of my substantial intelligence to making money? I'd be a richer person, certainly, but a better one?

the mistake the OP (who I'm pretty sure is just goofing around regardless) made is to assert that wealth is somehow meaningful. In fact, wealth has only accomplished two productive things in its entire history:

• It has paid the wages of laborers who would otherwise be doing more menial tasks (like agricultural production) and thus advanced industrial society.
• it has given people who are actually creative the liberty of being creative, rather than wasting their time scrabbling after breadcrumbs.

Keep in mind that the Medici's (who were fabulously wealthy, even by modern standards) are only remembered because they sponsored some of the greatest artists of their period, and that your average spoiled wealthy person (the Kim Kardashians and Paris Hiltons of the world) will be forgotten in a generation or so, as millions of wealthy people have already been forgotten before them. It's nice to be wealthy - it makes life easy and fun - but at the end of the day wealth doesn't count for spit in a hurricane, unless you've used it to let someone else do something meaningful. --Ludwigs2 05:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the reactions here and there only being one reply by the author (as well as the question itself), I cannot help but to wonder, within the bounds of WP:AGF, whether the reactions of the other editors was what the OP was after; not saying they were, but it's a possibility. If that is the case, I think a fair number of editors here might have been trolled. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 17 Tishrei 5772 17:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

And this surprises you? Ref desk editors (myself included) are surprisingly gullible sometimes, and most any question will manage to reach someone who's in a gullible mood. It's not really avoidable; and it's fine so long as (in the long run) it stays within the bounds of common sense. --Ludwigs2 18:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I did fall for the thing involving the dog and the peen, but no, not really. :p I always think it is better to have something bad happen to you while trying to do good than to be an asshole and tell the person to bugger off; so nothing wrong with being gullible sometimes. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 17 Tishrei 5772 19:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Eggzaggedly. A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man! --Ludwigs2 21:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Irreligious society

Has there ever been a human society, that we know of, where the majority of the population was not religious at all? 114.75.60.48 (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes - large parts of the world now. See File:Irreligion map.png, and Irreligion by country. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Depends on how you define "not religious at all" (which, I suppose, depends on how you define "religious"). Do you mean the majority are outright atheists, or do you mean something else? Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

North Korea? The USSR? Depends on if you consider certain political ideologies to be religious. Googlemeister (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The Gallup poll - on which the map I linked to is based - asked the question "Is religion an important part of your daily life?". Majorities answered "no" in Sweden (88%), Denmark (82%), China (82%) and over 30 other countries, including (for example) the UK (76%), France (74%), Japan (72%), Australia (67%), Canada (61%), Russia (59%), Germany (59%) and Israel (54%). Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This is why we need clearer definitions (and why polls can be misleading)... I certainly consider myself "religious", and yet I would have answered that poll with a "No" (My religion is not an important part of my daily life... I go for weeks without thinking about it). Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That poll and map are absolute garbage. There is no way that religion is an important part of daily life to 67% of Australians. Weekly attendance at Christian churches is around 7%. Other religions have smaller market share. HiLo48 (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Albania was officially 100% atheist for several decades... AnonMoos (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou. This is all very helpful. I suppose the definition of "religious" in this case would be that if somebody feels they're religious, they are. And if they feel they're not religious, they're not. 114.75.60.48 (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the problem with that is that you get different people answering the question differently, not because they differ in either their beliefs or how they see their beliefs, but just because they use the word differently. That's not very interesting. For example, some people believe deeply in God but consider themselves non-religious, because they interpret the word "religious" as being about formal observance. --Trovatore (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My favorite Bill Maher quote: "I believe in God! Religion is the bureaucracy between God and Man. --Trovatore (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are some more interesting maps, for comparison. This one was based strict atheism: "I agree that there isn't any sort of God, spirit, or life force". I can't tell if any countries are above 50%, but lots of European countries hover around it: . For a less strict definition of religiousness that includes both atheists and agnostics, see . There are definitely countries over 70% on this map. --140.180.26.155 (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Guilt is the god, silence the sacrament, and political correctness the dominant intolerant religion of Western Europe. Ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali. μηδείς (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That's as incomprehensible and open to multiple interpretations as any religious book. Congratulations! HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Methinks she doth protest too much. μηδείς (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

O, but she'll keep her word. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Debt in communism

Has personal debt existed at all in communist societies states like the GDR or USSR? Quest09 (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Those socities still had money, and so people could still get into personal debt. --Jayron32 14:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact, you don't even need money. In a barter society, you are in debt as long as you receive something and have not yet given whatever it is you promised in exchange. Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Did the USSR have a formal bankruptcy system? 207.108.46.201 (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither of those countries had Communist societies. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, they had communist states and not communist societies. Quest09 (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The first bankruptcy courts were not established in Russian until the 1990s. I'm not sure what other mechanisms (penalties, etc.) would have existed for someone with large debts in the USSR. I'm not even sure whether there were opportunities to take out significant (and legal) loans in the USSR. I've poked around in a few books on the Soviet economy but it's quite foreign in its structure (all discussion of loans are about loans taken out by the state, in the form of bonds, not about individuals). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that there was a way for individuals to amass debts that could lead to bankruptcy. First of all, there were no credit cards. I don't think that banks made unsecured personal loans. State banks apparently did make home-building loans per this source, but these were secured loans, and if the borrower failed to meet the repayment terms, the bank could simply repossess the building or materials. If individuals wanted to purchase expensive goods, such as automobiles or appliances, they had to save for them. Individuals might make informal loans to one another, but it's hard to imagine someone being able to amass a large debt to other private individuals. If that somehow happened, and the debtor was unable to repay those loans, I would think that the debtor could be prosecuted for theft. Marco polo (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

In true communism there is no debt. →Στc. 04:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

A corollary to that is something Will Rogers once said: "In Russia, they ain't got no income tax! But they ain't got no income!" ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Urgh Mr.98, why do you have to raise this. Soviet-style economies had internal debts between production units; these were both cost accounting debts and substantive money debts. Production units in the Soviet-style economies operated in a kind of capitalism where a single share-holder synchronised their interests between firms, and where there was firm level resistance by individual managers. The Party-State apparatus could, and did, void loans at will, and could, and did, attainder and execute management. Stuff I've read on firm level politics indicates that attainder was advocated as a result of relatively low-level party battles during periods of extreme economic stress (1930s, war); but that in other periods management was relatively safe (1950s, 1960s). See Milovan Djilas on The New Class for this. Personal economic debt in the Soviet Union could occur in the black and grey economies, in these cases you would be killed over non-payment of debts. This was primarily an phenomena of the capitals and major cities. Finally, and obviously, the Soviet Union was not a society where economics was democratically organised by the principles "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" and deep in to the 1930s, private capitalist enterprises continued to operate; and, throughout the life of the Soviet Union, value maximisation processes, alienated wage labour, and monified firm level accounting through banks continued. (Yugoslavia is even more confusing). Fifelfoo (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Were workers always paid in cash (weekly? monthly?) or into a bank account or savings account? If into an account, could they overdraw on that account? Also, was there hire purchase or anything similar? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• The Soviet Encyclopaedia indicates by 1979 that wages were paid in a physical fashion, this implies weekly in cash to me. Shkurko notes the large social-democratic component of the Soviet Wage by 1964—my understanding from a seminar on this topic is that social-wage elements were paid out of factory budget…this lead to interesting results in the 1990s as the nomenklatura strategically defunded factories. Bergson indicates that authors were paid by royalty in 1951, which indicates a functioning market system. Matthews writing in 1986 on Soviet poverty hardly mentions personal debt, with the exception of collective housing mortgages which he briefly characterises as usurious. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Are UK Magistrates (JP's) gazetted?

I am searching for a reference that shows when Francis Alfred Broad became a justice of the peace (JP). According to The Tottenham & Edmonton Weekly Herald, Friday 6 January 1956, page 7, he was appointed a justice of the peace for Middlesex in 1933. I have searched The London Gazette without success. Are JP's gazetted? If so, where? --Senra (Talk) 16:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

There would be a record at the Lord Lieutenant's office as they are keeper of the rolls. Egg Centric 16:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Useful thank you, but no joy. I read the Lord Lieutenants record's history and found it interesting. I suspect that off-line catalogue would contain what I need but it would require a trip to London which is financially out of the question for me. I still suspect such appointments are gazetted somewhere. I also searched The Times using "Frank Broad" and "Francis Broad" between 1932 and 1934 without success. Still, thank you for your input --Senra (Talk) 18:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Just going to email you as there's one extra way I can help Egg Centric 20:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No, appointments as Justices of the Peace are not published in the London Gazette (or The Times), and as far as I'm aware they never have been. Proteus (Talk) 15:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Cote d'Ivoire not a Muslim nation

I remember somebody said that Cote d'Ivoire is not a Muslim nation when it came to president and constitution in other African nations question. Then, how do you explain this? ]? It shows that Cote d'Ivoire is a Muslim nation in dark green underneath Mali. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.22.249 (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That map shows Islam to be a dominant religion in Cote d'Ivoire, this is unrelated to whether the state is secular or not. Public awareness (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Public awareness has now been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the banned editor User:Passionless.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

To expand a little but on what Public awareness says: there is a difference between the religion practiced by the people of a nation, and the government endorsing (or enforcing) a nation as an official state religion. That is, there is a distinction to be made between being "a nation of people who are mostly Muslim" and "A nation whose government is a Muslim theocracy". Cote d'Ivoire is the former, Iran is the latter. --Jayron32 20:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

2001 data: Islam 35-40%, indigenous African religions 25-40%, Christianity 20-30%; see demographics of Côte d'Ivoire. Neutrality 03:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

All well and good. So, what's the data for Ivory Coast? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ismaili significant population in Muslim world and non-Muslim world

Which Muslim nations and non-Muslim nations like India have the significant population of Ismailis regardless they are Mustalis, Nizaris and Druze? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.22.249 (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages article Ismailism has that information, though not all in one paragraph. If you read the article, however, you can find lots of information as to where the various sects of Ismailis are dominant. --Jayron32 20:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Syrians in France

How come there is no article regarding Syrians in France, its former colonial master? like Lebanese in France article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.22.249 (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Because no one has yet created it. If you can find reliable sources which you can read and then create your own text based on the ideas therin, you are invited to create the article yourself. --Jayron32 20:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

US Code "source control"

What's the best way to look at a particular passage in the United States Code and figure out the law that is responsible for that exact passage? My specific question is about Title 17, section 109, but I'd love a solution to the general case. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The way I know of: get the GPO version of the code; it has the legislative history in it (and "legislative history" is generally the term you want to be searching for when finding out what various bills made up a particulate statute). E.g. For Title 17, Chapter 1, go here, then click on Section 109, and it will tell you in exquisite and difficult-to-parse detail all of the relevant laws that have revised the current code (e.g. "(Pub. L. 94-553, title I, Sec. 101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2548; Pub. L. 98-450, Sec. 2, Oct. 4, 1984, 98 Stat. 1727; Pub. L. 100-617, Sec. 2, Nov. 5, 1988, 102 Stat. 3194; Pub. L. 101-650, title VIII, Secs. 802, 803, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5134, 5135; Pub. L. 103-465, title V, Sec. 514(b), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4981; Pub. L. 105-80, Sec. 12(a)(5), Nov. 13, 1997, 111 Stat. 1534.)", for one part of it.) You then have to work backwards to find out the contents of Public Law 94-553, and so on... fun! The GPO version seems to discuss some of the major changes, though, in the text itself. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The legal citation for you law is either 17 USC 109 or 17 USCA 109. You can find cases that deal with your law with a search for either of those terms, either on the internet, or more narrowly through google scholar. The citation format is title number, followed by the abbreviation USC or USCA (for US Code or US Code annotated) then the section number. The absolute best source would be to go to a law library and ask for where the US Code Annotated could be found. You would pick up volume 17, then turn to section 109 to find your law. Printed there would be the legal text of it, all prior versions of the law, a list of federal regulations or other statues that cite the law, a list of law review articles that cites the law, a list of secondary sources that explain the law, and a list of cases which cite the law organized by jurisdiction and topic. If I was doing legal research on the law you mentioned. I would go to the USCA and find the legal encyclopedias that deal with it so I can learn how it works in the courts. I would then look at the American Law Reports (ALR) and American Jurisprudence (Am. Jur.) sections that were cited with the code. Where my research would take me next would be dependent on the reason for the research. If I were faced with a legal problem such as a client who wanted to sue or who was being sued, I would look to the cases to see where my problem fit within the gambit of the law. If I were doing scholarly research, I would look at the broader scope paying attention to the difficulties the courts have had with the law, policy concerns cited by the courts, and law review articles written on the subject. For your purposes, a search through the cases can lead you to a judge who had to pick a part the law. Often the judge will talk about the background of the law when making his or her interpretation. Legislative intent is a part of statutory interpretation. Some law clerk did extensive research on the law to help the judge render his or her opinion, so you can often save yourself some time if you can find a judicial opinion that does that. If you search for additional terms such as "legislative intent" or "intent of congress" you might find a juicy case with all that information right there for you. Gx872op (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Irreligion in Israel

Irreligion by country claims that Israel is 54% irreligious, but this makes no sense. Isn't Israel almost entirely Jewish? --75.50.55.27 (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Judaism is a complicated thing — both an ethnicity and a religion. Even as a religion, it's got many variants which tolerate extremely skeptical attitudes towards religion itself. The idea of "atheist Jews" or "agnostic Jews" is pretty standard (it is a culture that, in all but its orthodox varieties, promotes asking tough questions, and values secular education very highly — which is a nice recipe for producing agnostics). See Religion in Israel for a breakdown of the "spectrum" of religiosity in Israel. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that Irreligion by country#By proportion says: The Gallup poll has the most broad definition of irreligion: the question "Is religion an important part of your daily life?" was asked; the "no" answer is represented below.

See also Who is a Jew? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The religion in Israel article has very similar statistics though for the number of Jews in Israel who do not consider themselves religious. 43% non-religious, 5% "anti-religious". --Mr.98 (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The stats for affiliation under the old inherited Ottoman millet system, and for personal religious belief, are two entirely distinct things. As also in the United States, being Jewish is often considered to be the basis of an ethnic group identity... AnonMoos (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Whereas in Israel it is considered an umbrella for several ethnic groups, the main ones being Ashkenazi, Sphardi and Mizrahi Jews. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 17 Tishrei 5772 16:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

And of course, Israel is not almost entirely Jewish, as there as are plenty of Muslims and Christians there too. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It is around 75% self-identified as "Jewish," but again that is not necessarily a description of their religious practices. So that's a substantial majority, and of particular note since it's an astoundingly high percentage compared to any other country. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

From what I remember about half of Israeli Jews are considred secular these days, but that varies in definition. There's a secularism where our rich cultural heritage is venerated and also atheism, which can involve some of the aspects of secular Judaism or, in some cases, a total rejection of religion alltogether. We're a very complex people you see. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 17 Tishrei 5772 16:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't put too much faith in polls or read too much into them. The poll did not ask how often they attend services or whether they believe in God. It asked if religion was important in their daily lives. We can't have the illogical conclusion that if you don't believe religion is important to you in your daily life you are an atheist or agnostic. The poll doesn't answer that question. It points to the most religious. If you go to the religion in Sweden article, you will notice that other polls indicate that 17% feel religion is important in their daily lives, but over half of all marriages take place in a church and 9 out of 10 have a Christian burial. 46% seems pretty religious for Israel. Nearly half of Israel believes religion is important in their daily lives. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

October 15

Alianzarena, Munich

I am going to Munich this weekend (21st to 25th) to visit a friend. I have two questions. First, besides Dachau which we will visit, are there any other places my fellow wikipedians can recommend? Secondly, she has tickets for the Alianzarena, but won't tell me what we are seeing. Does anyone know what's happening that weekend? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

1) Not Dachau, not Allianz Arena. 2) Soccer game TSV 1860 München : SC Paderborn. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

When I was a kid, I had a copy of Miroslav Sasek's This is Munich; unfortunately I don't still have it, and neither Amazon nor Google Books has viewable pages. If you've never been there before, it's virtually inevitable that your friend will take you to the Frauenkirche. If you're a beer drinker, a visit to the Hofbräuhaus am Platzl is also de rigueur. Have you browsed Category:Visitor attractions in Munich to see what appeals to you? Pais (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've lived in Munich for 11 years. The art museums are quite good. See Alte Pinakothek, Neue Pinakothek, Pinakothek der Moderne. The Deutsches Museum is a world-class museum of science and technology. Also, the Englischer Garten should have lovely colours this time of the year. But for me, the main attraction was always the surroundings. If the weather is fine, take a trip to Starnberg and walk along the Starnberger See. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I second Stephan's answers, and definitely recommend the Deutsches Museum, even should you happen to lack scientific or technological inclinations. Also, look inside the Asamkirche. This concentration of late baroque opulence within such a small enclosed space is quite unusual (albeit not to everyone's taste or liking). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent answers, thanks! Just what I need! KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Small follow-up: If you are interested in academics and history, make a short stop at the old core of the Ludwigs-Maximilians-Universität on Leopoldstraße. The Ludwigskirche is quite striking, and at the Geschwister-Scholl-Platz you will find both a memorial and the very building the White Rose distributed leaflets and where ultimately caught by the Nazis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Victorian water colour painter

Name George Arbuthnot. Born c.1803. Living in London 1829-1854. Who was he? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Are there any cases of reverse-provocateur government agents?

So traditionally one of the tactics used to break up and destroy subversive groups is to infiltrate them with agent provocateurs. The provocateur will usually encourage and incite the group to become more radical, militant and extreme and urge the organization to commit outrageous acts of violence, which will both discredit the group among the general population and give the government a pretext to crack down and make arrests. In some cases provocateurs might even initiate violence alone in the name of the organization.

So my question is are there any cases of reverse-provocateurs? By which I mean government agents that infiltrate radical militant groups to stear them in a more peaceful, nonviolent, legal, moderate, reformist direction. So instead of encouraging a nonviolent group to become violent, these agents would attempt to drive the violent organization in a less violent direction.

It would seem like agents who encouraged subversive groups to engage in LESS illegal activities would be less likely to be detected as provocateurs, and such a tactic might be better for a longterm strategy of defusing radicalism from within, making them less of a direct violent/terroristic revolutionary threat to the state.

So if anyone knows any examples of government use of this tactic, either from history or contemporary politics please let me know. --Gary123 (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the goal of law enforcement is generally to discredit and disband such groups, so the strategy you're talking about isn't really amenable to that mindset. But in the intelligence community you do have things like this, such as the CIA's funding of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which was generally meant to have a "liberal" (as opposed to "radical") approach to Europeans, who were perceived as particularly likely to be sucked in by Soviet propaganda during the Cold War. It wasn't so much that they paid people to try and influence towards liberalism (and against Communism) as that they funded people who happened to already believe that in the first place, and give them a mouthpiece. Other than that, though, I can't think of any comparable examples. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't there some white power skinhead group which was being infiltrated by cops in the 1990s out in the midwest U.S. somewhere? 208.54.38.200 (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Where to buy Kippot in the Czech Republic?

Where can kippot be bought in the Czech Republic either online or in person?--147.32.97.254 (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't know about buying them in person, but I suspect there are some Jewish stores in Prague. As for online, I guess you could use a site like (they've been okay in the past). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 17 Tishrei 5772 18:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, check local synagogues, they would definitely know where you can buy kippot and some probably have Judaica stores that would sell them. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 17 Tishrei 5772 18:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The Old New Synagogue is the only one still active on that list though. >.< But wait, I have found something else! Chabad of Prague 'Chabad of Prague • Parizska 3 • Praha 1, 11000 • Czech Republic • 420-222-320-200/192 -- Tefillin, Mezuzot and other Judaica items are available at Chabad. Please call +420 222 320 200.' If they have those, there is no doubt that they have kippot! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 17 Tishrei 5772 18:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, you are probably right. I just found that website very confusing (in all languages, Czech and Hebrew included) and skipped over it entirely. I'll be sure to go soon.--147.32.97.254 (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I know, it is poorly designed, but I thankfully noticed that stuff at the bottom. !חג שמח (Happy holiday!) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 17 Tishrei 5772 19:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Brechova, where Shelanu Deli is located, is a short extension from Maiselova. Walk from the main square of the Old Town straight up Parizska (sorry, no háčeks on this keyboard apart from copy and paste) and turn left into Bilkova. Alternatively, from the Staromestska metro walk up 17. listopadu and turn right. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Il Canzoniere

I know it is obvious to some, but I seem to have missed the meaning of the "II". Is it because it is to be broken up into two words?--Doug Coldwell 18:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"Canzoniere" would simply be song book. "Il Canzoniere" is the song book. It's just a Definite article. SDY (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the sans-serif font has misled you. It isn't the Roman numeral II. It's a capital eye followed by a lowercase ell, pronounced (approximately) eel. --Trovatore (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, now I get it. The sans-serif font did throw me off. It has NOTHING to do with the Roman numeral II.--Doug Coldwell 18:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Some good screen fonts, including Verdana and Segoe UI, put serifs on capital eyes despite otherwise being sans-serif fonts, thus eliminating this kind of confusion. Angr (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Cottage cheese in Israel

A while back, I read a news article regarding popular protests in Israel about cost of living, and cottage cheese came up as a specific bone of contention. Is there some particular reason this is ingrained in Israeli culture? I had a couple of Orthodox friends growing up, and none of them seemed particularly taken by the stuff. SDY (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Cottage cheese touched it off. Israelis love six types of food: Fish, Dairy, Cucumbers, anything made from chickpea, Tomatoes and Bread. I think there was some price fixing going on between the dairy companies like Tnuva and prices of cheese and other dairy products skyrocketed. Oh yeah, and I believe that another reason for the high prices was that, in the realm of dairy, Israel is very protectionist and does not allow dairy imports; or didn't until the protests, and I believe this was after several Israeli grocery stores said they would stop carrying Tnuva's products if they didn't lower the prices as the stores were apparently selling them for little or no profit. A lot of politics though. So, people got incredibly pissed off and it eventually evolved into a protest over many other things including government corruption, monopolies and high cost of living. I don't quite remember how it transitioned though, but that was an epic protest. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 17 Tishrei 5772 19:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Good info, but why cottage cheese in particular? Our article on the product doesn't give any background on the history of it other than the curds and whey. It more or less doesn't exist in India, so it's not a universal dairy food. I'm thinking Hawaiians and spam: it's a traditional food because there weren't many other meat options. Paneer has an additional quality that some cottage cheese shares, which is lack of rennet, and is that appealing from a standpoint of kashrut? SDY (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Cottage cheese is one of those foodstuffs which many cultures (at least, those that eat dairy) have arrived at independently; many have different names for it, and slightly different applications and preparation techniques, but most dairy-consuming cultures have a fresh, unaged cheese product. (besides the aforementioned Paneer, there is also things like Farmer's cheese and Queso fresco, and Quark (cheese) and so on). In Israel, apparently, it is a staple foodstuff; I'm not sure there needs to be a causitive agent for its popularity. Why do Italians eat pasta? Why do the Irish drink dark, warm beer? Why do Asian cultures use soy sauce? It just is... --Jayron32 23:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, as usual I ignored the most obvious answer. The main reason Israelis were so pissed off was because the price increase was completely and totally unreasonable to them. Israelis hate, and I mean hate, feeling like someone is taking advantage of them, to be considered a fraier (sucker, chump) is horrible (the only thing worse is to be called out as the person taking advantage of someone). The fact is that if an Israeli sees the price of something like cheese go up by 53% in the course of one month (I think that was it), he or she is going to be pissed because he or she feels that someone is trying to play him or her for a chump. It's not so much the cost or the love of cheese as the principle and no Israeli willingly takes such things lying down. Statements vetted and confirmed by Israeli girlfriend Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 18 Tishrei 5772 05:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

OT but how much is cottage cheese in Israel? It's not actually something I like much but I recently bought some and it was NZ$1.99 for 250g albeit on special. Of course NZ has a large dairy industry but we do get common complaints about the price of dairy products particularly milk. Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Cottage cheese is a staple part of Israeli breakfasts, if not the main element. In the UK, it would perhaps be comparable to the cost of breakfast cereal rising by 50% in a month. --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There's an article on the cottage cheese boycott... AnonMoos (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

See also 2010–2011 global food crisis. ~AH1  01:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient"

According to Mike Jackson, the British Army's Chief of the General Staff, as the article Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997 points out, the Provisional IRA was "professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient". Where can I read the paper (by Jackson) wherein he described the IRA as being like that? --Belchman (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Operation Banner released under FOI The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Great, thank you! --Belchman (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

silk road

What countries did the silk road go through and what goods were traded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.92.76.13 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please, see Silk Road. --Belchman (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't Derry/Londonderry join the Republic of Ireland during the partition?

Why didn't it? Its population is mostly Catholic and nationalist. --Belchman (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the relevant articles including Irish Boundary Commission and Partition of Ireland areas which were otherwise majority Catholic and Nationalist, including (London)Derry, were included on the northeast side of the border for primarily economic reasons: If the border were drawn on purely sectarian lines (i.e. fully seperating only those areas which were Protestant and Unionist into Northern Ireland), then the Northern Irish area would not have been economically viable. --Jayron32 23:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, checking those articles. Also, fixed a spelling mistake. --Belchman (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, it's the largest city in the northwest of Ireland, and has been considered by some to be a kind of Protestant holy city after the events of 1689. AnonMoos (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The border decided in 1920 was provisional, to be adjusted by a Boundary Commission, which was appointed in 1924. Its report recommended transferring some parts of Northern Ireland to the Free State, as it then was, and some parts of County Donegal to Northern Ireland, but it was suppressed for a variety of reasons - mainly because the Irish government traded it for removal of liability for a proportion of the UK's public debt, which had been included in the 1920 treaty, but also because they felt it would entrench partition and make it harder to one day get rid of entirely. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

As Anonmoos says, the symbolism of the place was a MAJOR factor. The 1689 Siege of Londonderry is seen as a defining moment in the Protestant mindset. The 13 Apprentice Boys who closed the gates to the Catholic James II, are commemorated annually. The answer to the King's ultimatum "Surrender or die" was "No surrender!", which has been the rallying call of the Ulster Protestants ever since. Surrendering Londonderry to the Free State in 1920 would have been a disaster in the eyes of every Loyalist. Alansplodge (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Another factor - our article, The Troubles in Derry says: "Although Catholics were a clear majority of the Derry population, severe gerrymandering meant that unionists controlled the city government". Alansplodge (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

All of that is true, but since the Northern Ireland government took no part in the Boundary Commission and played no part that I know of in suppressing its report, I'm not sure how relevant it is. Besides, Unionists are quite happy to celebrate the Battle of the Boyne while the Boyne is entirely in the Republic. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but I suspect that the Commission would have known what would have been grudgingly accepted by both sides, and what would have been likely to start a civil war. "Then fight and don't surrender / But come when duty calls, / With heart and hand and sword and shield / We'll guard old Derry's Walls." Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The relevant chapter from The Making of a Minority: Political Developments in Derry and the North 1912-25 by Colm Fox (1997) can be seen here. The crux of the matter seems to be as follows: "The claims that the city should become part of the Irish Free State were opposed on the grounds that the greater part of the trade of the city and its port was with Northern Ireland and that the city was linked economically with the Protestant districts of the East. These last points were decisive for Judge Feetham, who invoked the 'so far as may be compatible with economic and geographic conditions' clause of Article 12, maintaining that those conditions would take precedence over the 'wishes of the inhabitants'." Alansplodge (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

David & Karina Calvert-Jones

What are the names of their two children? Living in Los Angeles. Possibly in birth announcements in Australia. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Women in old Russia before seclusion

I know that before the Western reforms issued by Peter the Great in the early 18th century, Russian women lived secluded life's, at least in the upper classes, were they were not allowed to mingle with men. My question is, when were they secluded like this in the first place? Surely, they could not have been secluded in old Kievan Rus', as it was influenced by the Swedish culture, were women were not secluded? Or was it? Perhaps Kievan Rus were not influenced by Swedish culture, or not to that degree? If women were not secluded in Kievan Rus, then when were they placed in the seclusion from which they were freed by Peter the Great? Was it under the influence of the Golden Horde? Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this in Russians per se, the practice here is attributed to a development even beyond Mongol and Byzantine influence, but Purdah was a common Indo-European practice also known in Persia, india, and among the Greeks. Indo-Europeans themselves, the Slavs were influenced by the Greeks and the Aryan relatives of the Persians. It is doubtful that the Ruotsi brought that many women along with them and probably took native brides--but that's a guess on my part. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It's very doubtful whether it should be called an "Indo-European practice", since it was definitely not practiced by the speakers of the original Proto-Indo-European language, and there are whole branches of the Indo-European languages whose speakers have never practiced it.

It actually originated in the urban civilizations of the middle east. However, it seems to have been systematized and intensified in Achaemenid Persia, and it was the Persians who were most influential in transmitting the custom to other nations or civilizations... AnonMoos (talk)

As far as I understand, the women of India were not secluded before Islam? In any case, perhaps it is best to determine when the seclusion was first practiced in Russia? Were the Grand Princesses of Kiev secluded? And if not all, who was the first one of them to live in seclusion? Were the women secluded in the 11th century, in the 12th century, or in the 13th century Russia? If it was byzantine influence, then perhaps it was introduced by the Byzantine marriage and Christianisation of the Grand duke in 988? In short, when did the practice start? When is the first time were this practice is observed in Russia? And when is the last time when the women were not secluded? It was definitely in full practice in the 15th century, when Sophia Palaiologina was exempted from it. --Aciram (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I said the one book source I could find said that the seclusion of Muscovite women became more severe over time. I don't have an opinion of the source, having only seen it on google. I should say that there is no Indo-European word meaning "purdah" or "seclusion" in the strict sense. But, the seclusion of wives among the Greco-Aryans; the fact that the word "wed" and its analogs in other branches means "to lead away"; the fact that PIE kin terms are patrilocal; while evidence of Old Europe (archaeology) shows the opposite practice; the likelihood that the Latin word uxor comes from a root with a meaning "to become accustomed" (i.e., to one's role); the fact that the Romans found the equality with which the Etruscans treated their women suprising, while the Romans had such cults as the Vestal Virgins; the suggested etymology of wife from a verb *weip meaing "to wrap, enveil"; and many other things all imply a secluded role for wives in the culture of the Kurgan expansionists. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't really find that credible. The proto-Indo-European speakers were no doubt somewhat patriarchal in their own particular way, but their fairly mobile lifestyle (often more attached to their animals than to any particular plot of land) was not conducive to any type of strict segregation, and if they lived significantly north of the Caucasus mountain range (as seems most plausible), then they were too far away from urban civilizations to be directly influenced by them. Furthermore, it's quite dubious whether the English word "wife" goes back to Indo-European, and the attested early Germanic forms of this word don't really mean "married woman" anyway. And a source I have here explains the etymology of uxor as meaning "she who gets accustomed (to the new household)", implying patrilocal marriage customs, but not purdah. (In any case, in a society with purdah, a woman who went from seclusion in her father's household to seclusion in her husband's household would not have to become accustomed to purdah...) And the Greco-Aryan article describes what seems to be a rather speculative hypothesis. AnonMoos (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Graeco-Armeno-Aryan is rather mainstream and quite well supported by such things as the augment, the me negative, common vocabulary and morphological phenomena. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov support it as does Mallory, apparently. The only real problem seems to be that Greek alone among them is a Centum dialect, but that is not unsurmountable. Your comment that the uxor wouldn't have to get used to purdah is flippant. The object to which she would have to conform would be the husband's household. μηδείς (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

And having to accustom herself to her husband's household is evidence of patrilocal marriage customs, but not evidence for purdah as such. Of the three components of the claimed Greco-Armeno-Aryan group, the Greeks had locally-varying degrees of seclusion, the Armenians were subject to strong early and continuing Persian influence, while among Indic-language speakers purdah seems to have been greatly strengthened by external influences. The economical hypothesis is that speakers of Proto-Indo-European, while likely somewhat patriarchal in some ways, did not practice any strict seclusion of women. AnonMoos (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The degree of seclusion among the ancient Greeks seems to have varied significantly among different city-states, and Herodotus' fellow-Halicarnassian Artemisia I of Caria famously fought in the battle of Salamis as a reigning queen, etc. Some might say that if there are publicly-recognized queen-consorts in a society (as in Byzantium and Muscovy), then that's not a full implementation of purdah -- since in the system as practiced by the Abbasids (who were significantly Persianized in certain customs) and Ottomans, there was nothing that could be called a public "queen" role at all (with the exception of the mother of the reigning monarch occasionally waving from distant balconies at male ceremonies going on below), and names of "respectable" women were rarely mentioned officially in public or recorded in histories, unless they became involved in crimes or in semi-disreputable incidents where they were considered to be transgressing the accepted feminine role... AnonMoos (talk) 11:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Artemisia I of Caria was not entirely Greek but a Carian. In any case, that is not an answer to the question. Can we establish that there was no seclusion in Russia before the Golden Horde in the 13th century, or can't we? Was for example the Grand princess of Kiev Ingegerd Olofsdotter of Sweden secluded or was she not? --Aciram (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains that the practice has been common among Indo-Europeans, whether or not it was practiced by the earliest Proto-Indo-Europeans themselves. (The complaint that mobile societies can't practice some version of purdah is belied by the example of the Mongols themselves.) There is also the ancient practice of bride-kidnapping to look at, although that hardly seems relevant in the casr of Moscow.

It was mainly practiced by speakers of those branches of the Indo-European language family which ended up being spoken in areas subject to significant influences from early middle-eastern urban civilizations and/or the strong secondary center of diffusion in Persia. I really don't think that there's any particular or special affinity of speakers of Indo-European languages for purdah (beyond that shown by speakers of other language groups in comparable historical circumstances). I don't know much about Mongol customs, but I suspect that they may have been subject to influences from China -- and I'm not sure how the quasi-subsistence lifestyle in harsh conditions which the Mongols led while living in Mongolia would have allowed for strict female seclusion, unless among a small aristocratic/royal elite only... AnonMoos (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

All evidence is that the area of spread of the late PIE Graeco-Armeno-Aryans was the steppe north of the Caucasus, not the Middle East. See also Ossetian language and the superstratum influence on Slavic and Finno-Ugrian, giving such results as Bog for Gog in Slavic. (I would look to the Northwest Caucasian languages to see if they provide an influence.) None of this is conclusive but it indicates areas of research for the OP. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but what is the specific evidence (separate from general linguistic relationships) that the social custom of purdah also spread from the steppe north of the Caucasus (rather than from the middle-east, and later also Persia)? AnonMoos (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

In short, a number of groups who happened to speak Indo-European languages have also adopted purdah -- but there's no real evidence that I've seen for a special Indo-European/purdah connection or affinity, or evidence of purdah among Indo-European speakers in the pre-Bronze era, and it probably would be difficult to find reputable modern scholars who claim that it's an "Indo-European custom"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

October 16

Bahá'ís on Sundays?

According to an advertisement in my campus paper, the local Bahá'í center is the location of a worship service (or whatever it's called; my apologies, but I'm very unfamiliar with Bahá'ísm) on Sundays. Is Sunday typically the day of worship for Bahá'ís worldwide, or is it chosen here because Christianity, as the dominant religion in the USA, worships on Sundays? I can't find anything relevant in Bahá'í Faith or in Bahá'í calendar. Nyttend backup (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This would be because of its significance in Christianity. The article Bahá'í calendar says that the day of rest for Baha'is is Friday, and as far as I know, that is the only reference to a specific day of the week of significance in the Faith. Worship is based around the Feasts (an administrative/worhip-based gathering held every 19 days) and the Holy Days (11 per year, with work suspended on nine of these). As a long-term member, I can assure you that much of Baha'i civic life is designed to fit in with mainstream society, since Baha'is have to work, and generally aim to be compatible with the world. It's been emotional (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Patriot act

I've read somewhere that it is abuse of the Patriot Act that is killing America and may be preventing economic recovery and job creation. If this is true then did Bin Laden win by means of the American government's reaction to 9/11? --DeeperQA (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

IF, it's true, than probably, see the terrorists have won. Public awareness (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. It isn't even grammatical. Can you write more clearly? Pfly (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait, maybe I can parse the question. Are you asking if the Patriot Act caused the Late-2000s recession? If so, it seems unlikely to me, but what do I know? Pfly (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Multinational corporations, reassigning the "good" jobs to foreign countries, is a much more likely explanation. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

See also Occupy Wall Street. Pfly (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This is rapidly going to turn into "insert your political bias here." That doesn't answer the OP's question. I'm guessing that the OP is referring to this piece or something akin to it. There's a specific question they raise about regulations leading to people not holding their money in US banks, which may have had some effect on their ability to lend, and also reducing the influence of the dollar as currency. It's an interesting idea, and it's not one of the usual complaints about the USA PATRIOT Act (there's nothing patriotic about it, it's just a loaded language initialism), though it doesn't address what's usually fingered as the source of the problem, as Greenspan put it "irrational exuberance" and also the loophole in regulations of investment products that allowed banks to create houses of cards predicated on overly optimistic assumptions about housing prices. Did the USA PATRIOT Act contribute? Possible, but it was far from alone. SDY (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The most relevant complaint about the Patriot act to the economy that I have heard is that it makes it much more difficult for talented immigrants to come to or stay in the United States. There are some pretty hard facts out there with regards to science, technology, engineering, and medicine that the trend since 2001 has been for talented foreigners to get their educations in the United States and then to immediately go back to their home countries, rather than contributing to the United States. That's not great for the US, on the whole, and is a somewhat stupid side-effect of being overly tough on immigration issues. But it's not the cause of the financial crashes. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Parsing things through the question of "did Bin Laden win?" is a very foolish mode of analysis. It invites nothing but bias and silliness, and gets emotions up. It's subjective to say the least. There are lots of productive conversations to be had about the effects of 9/11 or the Patriot Act, but whether anyone has "won" or "lost" is the least productive lens to view these events through, and misses the important points. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Capitalism is failing at last. →Στc. 20:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop trolling. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Pure capitalism is precarious, which is why a social safety net is needed. Etc's alternative, pure communism, contains the seeds of its own guaranteed failure, for the simple reason that "people like to own stuff." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Not directly the Patriot Act, but many on the left say that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars contributed to the national debt and annual budget deficits, hence causing the present recession. The combined costs of both wars is around $1 trillion to date (Cost of War) while the total national debt is around $15 trillion (United States public debt), so it played a part, but isn't the dominant factor. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Notes: since bin Laden is dead, he didn't win. The same seems to be the fate of his organizations. Working worker ant (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Death is not necessarily a bar to winning symbolic campaigns. Consider Patrick Henry, Che Guevara, and even Jesus Christ. No doubt bin Laden would have been satisfied to sacrifice his life in order to do grave damage to the US, and considering the political, cultural, and economic problems that are all traceable back to our reaction to 9/11, I'd say he probably did succeed. The truly sad thing is that we did most of the work of destroying ourselves for him.

That being said, this is a problematic thread. I'm leaving a note on the OP's talk page. --Ludwigs2 17:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

buddhi

I see the definition of "buddhi" in Wiktionary. Can you give me a sentence or two with this usage of A transpersonal faculty of mind higher than the rational mind that might be translated as ‘intuitive intelligence’ or simply ‘higher mind’?--Doug Coldwell 11:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This word isn't generally used by English speakers - most will use the Chan Buddhist equivalent 'Buddha nature'. Buddhi would translate directly as something like 'wakefulness', and you'd say something like: proper understanding and discrimination in the world can only be achieved by buddhi; lower faculties of the mind are bound to their limited perspectives". --Ludwigs2 13:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't heard of "Buddha nature" being used, but I have come across "higher self" - the self which is subconsciously in tune with the spiritual world. One translation of "namaste" I have seen is "My higher self recognises and salutes your higher self". But to be honest I've never come across "buddhi" either! "Higher Self" is more in my experience. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am getting a good understanding on this now.--Doug Coldwell 23:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard the term Buddhi in english before. I think in sanskrit it means something like intelect or intuition in non-buddhist contexts, but something like wakefulness in Buddhist ones, but don't quote me on that as I have no idea where I read that. Rabuve (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, buddhi certainly isn't intellect, which is a lower faculty. If I remember correctly, Hindus would say something like 'Buddhi is the state of experiencing atman/brahman' (universal consciousness in its personal or general form). When you are buddhi (in contact with universal consciousness) your perspective is universal, when you are not, then your perspective is intellectual, emotional, physical… each of which is a progressively more narrow and limited worldview. --Ludwigs2 04:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff! Thanks.--Doug Coldwell 12:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

British government or British military opinion on the various loyalist paramilitaries

Where can I find a paper by the British government or the British military about the loyalist paramilitaries? --Belchman (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Here unclassified from the HOC The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

National archives are also good The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you. --Belchman (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Amerigo Vespucci

Is it true that America is named after Amerigo, because he was the first to actually realize that America was a completely new continent and not India? Or was it because he spread the word to Europeans that this land was a new continent and not India? Or neither? ScienceApe (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

See Americas#Etymology and naming. It is unclear whether Vespucci realized that South America was a separate continent. Lesgles (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, they thought they were in the "Indies" -- i.e. parts of Indonesia, or islands to the east of China -- not India itself. AnonMoos (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

According to East Indies, it seems like "Indies" was just a term they used back then for the entire Indian Subcontinent. ScienceApe (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but India itself was fairly clearly known to Europeans as early as Hellenistic times (e.g. the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, Ptolemy's maps, etc.), and Columbus never had any delusions that he was off the coast of India -- rather he thought he was finding indeterminate islands east of China, hopefully not all that far off from either the Chinese mainland or islands where exportable spices grew... AnonMoos (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The technical answer is "no" because the question implies that Amerigo did know he discovered a new continent. It was named after Amerigo because others thought that he knew he discovered a new continent. I've seen it suggested in multiple places that Amerigo's descriptions of topless natives made his writings very popular compared to the writings of other explorers, so his descriptions had a better chance of being accepted as the definitive descriptions of the new world. I've seen just as many objections to that claim. -- kainaw™ 01:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There is an alternative suggestion that America was named after a Bristol merchant of Welsh origins, Richard Amerike (or ap Merrick) - more here and here - not Vespucci at all, though I think it's fair to say that most non-Bristolians reject the theory. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the two continents could have been named after two different men, with coincidentally similar names. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

need to find an old saying

There is an old quote that begins with the danger of committing murder because it then leads to a list of other, lesser crimes and eventually ending with something like foul language. Anyone remember this? Thanks. 76.116.92.205 (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thomas de Quincy. See http://quotationsbook.com/quote/27548/ . --Trovatore (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The quote is from the (appropriately named) essay On Murder Considered as one of the Fine Arts. The entire essay (along with all of de Quincy's works) can be found at Project Gutenberg. Buddy431 (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Similar to a maxim 750 of Publilius Syrus Invitat culpam qui peccatum praeterit Pardon one offence and you encourage the commission of many.
Sleigh (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There's an old Jewish joke, in lots of versions, that the reason the rabbis forbade orgies is that it might lead to dancing. --Dweller (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I hear it told as a Christian joke about Baptists (specifically the sort of teetotal, no musical instruments Baptists that inspire the children's parody song, "On Jordan's bank the Baptists cry/If I were one then so would I." I don't know what sub-category they place themselves under). 86.163.1.168 (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks.03:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.92.205 (talk)

Positive pessimism

is there any philosophical ideas or any philosopher that has a view of positive pessimism?

I described positive pessismism as expecting the worst out of things to be happy to whatever the outcome is. Does it make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.128 (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Somehow yes, that seems to be something in the direction of Buddhism or stoicism. Wikiweek (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Some might say that approaches fatalism... AnonMoos (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you should take a look at Raymond Smullyan's This Book Needs No Title. In it he describes optimists, incurable optimists, and pessimistic optimists. An optimist thinks everything that happens is for the best, mankind will survive. An incurable optimist believes that even if mankind doesn't survive, it's still for the best. A pessimistic optimist sadly shakes his head and says "I'm very much afraid everything is for the best." Whereas Arthur Schopenhauer was an optimistic pessimist. He was happy to say "See, everything is for the worst." Furthermore, he was optimistic that everything would continue going as bad as he predicted.Greg Bard (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Some interesting reads in this area may be Candide (especially the character of Pangloss), as well as the real person upon whom Pangloss is based, see Gottfried Leibniz#Theodicy and optimism and Best of all possible worlds. --Jayron32 02:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Stoicism? I prefer utilitarianism, because it lets me smile more often. Dualus (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not an answer to the question. Working worker ant (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not? If you were going to suggest Cynicism you have to realize that Cynicism (contemporary) is a different meaning today, and more of an attitude than a philosophy. The cynic philosophy is completely different, and while it may be more fun than utilitarianism in the short run, it's not in the long run. Dualus (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Who is talking about cynicism?!? Do utilitarians expect the worst?!? That is what I mean by not answering the question...... Working worker ant (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

So do you think it is a wrong answer, or just not an answer? And what were you expecting? Dualus (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The first is not an answer, but could be right. The second is also not an answer, but more far away from the thread. Working worker ant (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Amor fati might be a lead on the topic. I often take this approach to things, although it can be hard to avoid the "expecting the worst while hoping for the best" trap. A quick google says that Mets fans "hope for the best but expect the worst", heh. Pfly (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

October 17

Polynesian ethnic group in French Polynesia

What are the different kind of ethinic groups in French Polynesia? It seems like they are all clump together as Polynesians, but they are as different as Hawaiians are from Samoans or Maoris are from Rapa Nuians. What are some of thing other than Tahitians and Marquesans? Also what are the people of the Society Islands west of Tahiti called?

Also what are the different Polynesians called other than Tahitian?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

According to Tahitians, it would appear that the Society Islands culture is refered to as "Tahitian" in general terms, implying a somewhat homogenous culture. The article Tahitian language lists other dialects and closely related tongues; language and culture being closely tied together this may lead you on some interesting threads. The article Polynesians lists various Polynesian ethnic groups, so that may also help you differentiate between them. --Jayron32 02:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Some googling on things like "bora bora" and "denonym", or "what do you call a person from Raiatea", etc, it seems like the general answer is "Tahitian". I wonder though if within the Society Islands there are informal terms for such distinctions. On the other hand, Hawaiians, both native and "newcomers" seem to call themselves just "Hawaiian". I can't recall ever seeing a term like Oahuian. Our Oahu page says "residents of Oʻahu refer to themselves as "locals" (as done throughout Hawaiʻi), no matter their ancestry." Pfly (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do Western buddhist monks and nuns change their names to Eastern names?

I was flipping through Buddhadharma:_The_Practitioner's_Quarterly at a bookstore and found myself continuously surprised to see Americans with names like John Smith Rinpoche. Or outright foreign names. While I have no problem with people naming themselves whatever they please, I'm curious why they do this. When I pick up a book written by Ven. Sri Buddhadharma Rinpoche and find on the inside flap that this is a Caucasian American it is very mentally jarring! Is this part of the ordination process? The Masked Booby (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a religious name. It is mainly a tradition for religious figures to adopt new names, similar to how the German-born Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger adopted the more-Latin name of Pope Benedict XVI. Religious names for Buddhist monks are traditionally Eastern names. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

More to the point, in many mystical traditions one gives up one's name as a symbol of release from worldly affairs, and adopts a name that reflects the spiritual principles one is aspiring to. Since these spiritual principles are usually expressed in the language of the faith, the odd names follow. Note, also, that words like 'Rinpoche' are actually titles, not names (Rinpoche translates roughly as 'one who is dear to us'). --Ludwigs2 04:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

See also Dharma name. A google search on "Dharma name" and "purpose" turns up lots of pages. There appears to be a number of opinions about why it is done, and they don't always agree. However, many seem to think it is at least partially to remind you about your new direction in life, or something to that effect. Also to serve as a kind of connection to a specific tradition and community. In Zen dharma names tend to be given during jukai or "ordination"--though in many US Zen schools one need not become a monastic, a monk or nun. Also, in the Zen schools I've encountered, you don't pick your own dharma name--your teacher gives it to you. And as Ludwig pointed out, there's a difference between titles like Rinpoche and Rōshi and religious or dharma names. An example, John Daido Loori's dharma name is "Daido". I'm not sure who gave him that name or when. Probably one of his teachers early on; Taizan Maezumi I would guess. He was also "roshi", a title he didn't earn until much later. Pfly (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to make this explicit so that you understand, pretty much all Buddhist monks and nuns, western and eastern alike take a Dharma name that follows certain traditions. In some traditions for example, there is basically a set of root words and the name is made by combining them, so all the names in a tradition sort of sound similar (e.g. Mettananda, Dhammananda, Dhammavuddho ,Yutthadhammo,etc... are all compound words). It's not a matter of the westerner adopting an eastern name just to sound eastern. They just follow the practice of taking on an ordination name like everyone else.

If you are asking why monks and nuns take ordination names at all, then all I can say is that the answer isn't exactly certain. Some say that it developed so that the name would match the language of the ordination ritual (taking a name in Pali if the ordination is done in Pali, etc...). Rabuve (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I understand now, and I appreciate all the responses. I'm glad (and somewhat relieved) to know that there is real meaning behind these appellations, and this isn't a case of Westerners just giving themselves new names to sell more books or lend unwarranted/undeserved authority to their meditation center. The Masked Booby (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

free tuition and other benefits

Is the State of California being blackmailed into providing free tuition and other benefits for illegal, undocumented and migrant produce workers so the nation's supply of produce will not stop or become contaminated with diseases like Listeria or bacteria like e-coli? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeperQA (talk • contribs) 06:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Questions like these are likely to end into a political debate, which are not appropriate for the RD. Do you have any reason to believe that this is happening? Otherwise, this questions should be deleted. Working worker ant (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No one is forcing you to consider this question much less to answer it. This is not a community with a POV but a source of merely informational questions to be answered. --DeeperQA (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I can find no evidence of blackmail, and it's hard to imagine who would do the blackmailing, since migrant workers are not well organized. There is an argument that the state should provide education and public health services to ALL residents, documented or undocumented, not for the sake of the undocumented but for the sake of the citizenry, since an uneducated and disease-ridden population ends up being a greater financial burden to the state than providing that population with childhood education and medical care. Marco polo (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Does not that leave the issue of taking care of one's own first unanswered? Would you like someone to move into your house, apartment or car and take up residence without your permission(other than an attractive member of the opposite sex) and take up space in a college that would otherwise rightfully belong to your own child or get vaccinated ahead your child when you are the one who id documented and therefore obligated to pay taxes?

Lying when installing software

I suspect most of us do it. Tick the box that says "I have read and agree to the terms and conditions....." when we haven't read the whole thing, and therefore cannot possibly agree to the terms. What is the legal significance of ticking that box when it's not true?

To further complicate the question, I'm in Australia, and most of the software is American. Whose law am I breaking, if anybody's, and does it matter?

And, given that the software companies (and their lawyers) must realise that most people don't read the terms and conditions, what's the point of it all? HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of this is covered at software license agreement. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That article suggests that the OP's premise hasn't really been tested in court. Also, given that it's a legal question being posed, trying to answer further is probably against the rules. But HiLo48 knows that, so he can click through this: My own, completely non-legalistic opinion is that if you click the "agree" and don't bother to read it, you won't get much sympathy in court. It would be like signing a contract without reading it. Somewhat of an analogy: If someone posts something on a user talk page, and the user deletes it, they are presumed to have read it, whether they actually read it or not. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

My theory is that if you have read, or at least quickly skimmed through most of, one then the rest all say near enough the same thing. Not sure that would work in court either, though. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

See HumancentiPad for a cautionary tale of not reading the terms and conditions you agree to. Pais (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If one of those agreements compels you to do something outrageous, like turning over all your assets to them or giving them your first-born child, obviously it wouldn't hold up in court. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Our article on the first-born child agreement is Unconscionability. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

See Fine print.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it's like signing a contract, since licenses of software are not equivalent to contracts. Working worker ant (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A EULA is a standard contract of adhesion - commonly known as a "take it or leave it" contract. -- kainaw™ 12:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could find the reference, but there was some talk that some EULAs would be challengeable because there was a general expectation on the part of the company that you wouldn't read it because it stretched to 47 pages or something. A bit like having a physical contract written backwards, in a different language, or indeed blaoted out to 250 pages. Best not assume this, though. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The OP's question has to do with a scholarly debate concerning contract theory. The question is whether one can be bound by the terms of a contract for which he has not given consent. This is a question of personal autonomy and contracts and when does a promise become a promise. There is a book called From Promise to Contract: Towards a Liberal Theory of Contract. Another is Economic Analysis of Law. Entire books are written on this subject and the scholars do not agree. The courts are not in agreement either. An EULA may be enforceable as a contract, it may involve the granting of a license, it may impose a limitation of warranty, it may supply a notice. It may do lots of things depending on its language. What it does most is give more legal tools to the software developer than would otherwise be available without one. Gx872op (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That was my point: how can it in all cases be a contract? Sometimes we get the software for free. Are there all contractual elements present? Working worker ant (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

As Gx872op wrote, EULAs may do lots of things depending on their language. To answer your last question, sure, some poorly written EULAs are probably invalid contracts. Whether they are enforceable depends on the language of the EULA, the jurisdiction, and presumably the judge. See bnetd, in which one US judge granted summary judgment to Blizzard Entertainment based partly on their assertion the EULA had been violated; and the case was affirmed on appeal. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The purpose is to indemnify the software company, so you can't claim damages when their program irretrievably deletes you wedding album or master's thesis or so forth. μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting responses folks. Thanks. Does anyone want to touch on the international aspect? I'm in Australia, and most of the software is American. Whose law am I breaking, if anybody's, and does it matter? HiLo48 (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the contract, it will usually say. I'm guessing that which comes with an American piece of software is probably designated to be governed by a law of some state of the US. If you sue them (or they sue you) in an Australian court, the court will look to its conflict of laws (read that article) as to what rules to apply - e.g. Victorian procedural rules but Californian substantive contract law. Note that even if the contract itself is governed by Californian law, Australian consumer protection statutes might nonetheless apply.

I don't agree with Bugs' assertion that the court does not protect you if you just click through something without reading. In most common law jurisdictions there is some protection, at least for consumers, against the harsh terms of contracts forced on them despite them not having an opportunity to negotiate it. English contract law has some relevant information.

Finally, don't take legal advice from random people on Misplaced Pages. Ask a lawyer. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Side anecdote. Every day of my working life I have my clients sign a new or amended Employment Pathway Plan, which I also sign. This document sets out their goals, what they agree to do to achieve them, maybe mentions some barriers and how they're to be addressed, and how my company can help with all this. Simple. The page where they sign contains about 10 statements starting "I understand ...", "I agree ...", etc. After the signatures come three A4 pages of small-print terms, conditions, and other things they have to be aware of. They are all part of what they're agreeing to. Not one client of mine has ever even shown the slightest interest in knowing what these pages broadly say, let alone read them. At least, not in my presence. They're given a copy to take away, but no client has ever come back and discussed the finer points of this red tape and what it actually means for them. When I was a jobseeker (before I became an employment consultant, how ironic), I exposed these documents to exactly the same degree of scrutiny as my own clients do. We might wonder why humans are prone to agreeing formally to things they have no idea about. It comes down to "I'll sign anything, just get me outta here. I trust that there's nothing unconscionable or even unreasonable in what I'm agreeing to. Signing doesn't necessarily mean I actually intend to abide by these agreements, so it's all a joke anyway. Let's all have a laugh, and have a nice day". -- Jack of Oz 20:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Jack, you must simply have a very honest face ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Would I lie to you? You can trust me. Honest.  :) -- Jack of Oz 01:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It's OK PalaceGuard008, I have no intention of taking anything written here as a legal guide for me personally. It's just that I've been thinking about the broader issue for a while. It's in my first sentence at the top, and in Jack's post. Nobody ever reads these documents in their entirety. (Am I wrong? Does anybody here actually read them?) Why does society allow itself to go through this silly process? Who benefits? HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally I never read it. It's not like anyone will stop installing the software just because of the terms of the EULA. I think the software companies just throw a bunch of harsh clauses at you in the hope that some of them will stick should your dispute ever go before a court. Who benefits? I guess the software companies and whoever drafts these stupid things for them. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue of "lying" while installing software is broader than whether one does or does not read the EULA. For example, one might pay for software, get it home, and find one must install a company name to install it, even though the purchaser/licensee either does not work for a company, or the software is unrelated to the company. So the purchaser/licensee just makes something up. Or the circumstances of the software acquisition makes the purchaser/licensee believe the EULA does not apply at all, but it won't work unless "agree" is clicked, so it gets clicked. Just as one may break open a safe one buys at an estate sale without becoming a safecracker, one may, under some conditions, click "agree" when one does not actually agree. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Australia has signed a number of treaties with the US for the protection of intellectual property. It would take some digging to find them and then additional digging to find the implementing legislation in Australia that enforces American EULAs there. A number of years ago, foreign corporations began to choose New York as the jurisdiction to resolve international disputes. I've been looking, but have not found any information why New York was chosen out of everything else. To facilitate trade, foreign jurisdictions adopted laws and jurisprudence similar to New York. The similarities around the world especially among common law jurisdictions is remarkable. Enforcement of an EULA in Australia is not a difficult thing to do. It was a requirement for increased trade, lower tarriffs, and defense pacts between the two countries. Australia and America are good friends. Gx872op (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

How to beomce a dictator

How to become a dictator? --Jigsaqqq (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you read Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook? Gabbe (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It would depend where you wanted to become dictator of. You could take over certain countries with a mercenary army, but other places, like the USA, would require different tactics. For another option, see micronation. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a history book out there with a title that I always thought sounded like a self-help book: Hitler's Thirty Days to Power ("You too can have a Thousand Year Reich, if you use my five step system!"). Jokes aside, it's not the worst template: 1. exploit weaknesses in an electoral system that allows minority parties to have much more power than their share of the vote; 2. get yourself put forward as a weak "compromise" candidate for a reasonably high office; 3. use a national emergency as a pretext for increasing your emergency powers; 4. purge the army of anyone problematic, establish your own secret police that investigates loyalty issues; 5. declare self dictator, send self flowers.

Other historical routes: be a top general in an army (or even a lesser rank, historically), convince subordinates that civilians are unable to make top decisions, conduct coup. Or, be top general, win important battles, become quite popular with many people (promise security and resources), get one's self appointed leader, decide there can be no more leaders until you die. These are more or less the standard approaches used in the past. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like George W. Bush (path 1, steps 1 to 3) and Dwight D. Eisenhower (path 2b, steps 1 to 4) both started down the path to dictatorship, then, but didn't make it to the end. Pais (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

These paths are not exclusively those of dictators, mind you. I think you overestimate Eisenhower's abilities in this regard — he was popular, but mostly because he was pragmatic, fairly non-nonsense, and legitimately bi-partisan (he could have gotten the Democratic nomination if he had wanted it). He wasn't wildly charismatic — he was no Napoleon, and far less of a monopolizer than FDR. As an alternative path of the war general, see also Cinncinatus or George Washington (the latter probably could have established himself as "king" of the USA if he had wanted it, but thankfully he didn't want it). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Get born as a psycho narcissist with a chip on your shoulder. The Boys from Brazil shows how to do that. Dmcq (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Get a sexy uniform overladen with medals, yell a lot, throw tantrums, obtain an arsenal of weapons, and get an army of heavies behind you. In three words you need guns, guts and a gang.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

it's easy: hire a secretary, sit him/her down at a keyboard, think of some letter you want written, and start dictating.

That reminds me of the lovely scene in Charlie Chaplin's film The Great Dictator, where "Adenoid Hynkel" is giving dictation to his secretary. He rabbits on for over a minute while she listens attentively to what she has to write, then all she writes is a comma or something equally inconsequential. Curious that Chaplin was born only 4 days before Hitler. -- Jack of Oz 19:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but under different zodiac signs; Chaplin having been an Aries, while Hitler was a Taurus.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

seriously though, the process of becoming a dictator (or a tyrant, or king, or any form of near-absolute ruler) is usually not intentional. generally it's the outcome of seeking more-or-less legitimate power in a society with deep cultural divisions, political instability, and significant national problems that leave the population unsettled and worried. Someone seeking legitimate power in that atmosphere will start to worry about the destruction/subversion of the system he seeks power in, and then he will use whatever power he gets to make sure that the system is safe by surveilling, brutalizing, or eliminating political or cultural elements he considers sources of subversion. It's a paranoid mentality in which unseen danger lurks everywhere and violently oppressive tactics take on a heroic air. Hussein went to his grave (and Gaddafi will go to his) believing he was a great leader and an asset to his people. It's a constant threat in any democratic society (since democratic societies tend to be multi-cultural and tend to prize a certain degree of instability), and I can't think of one where it hasn't either happened or nearly happened (except - possibly - Switzerland and Sweden). --Ludwigs2 15:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Gini coefficient. Christ, man, here's a macroeconomics textbook. Dualus (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Get a copy of Macchiavelli's The Prince. It's the absolute monarch/tyrant/despot/dictator/Marine instructor/school bully's bible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Roman Opałka Counting Paintings

I was looking at one of Roman Opałka's counting paintings, and I found a number listed twice - Is this common? Is there a list of doubles anywhere? Where can I find more information? Tewner (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

'Longevity risk'

Hi everyone,

The article on longevity risk (http://en.wikipedia.org/Longevity_risk) says that increasing life expectancy can be a problem for insurance companies by leading to increasing payouts - however, how is this the case? Surely a higher life expectancy means people will be paying for their policies for longer, so the insurer will take in a higher premium for the cost of insuring one life. Do insurers generally pay more for life insurance if you die at a later age, or something along those lines? I can't find much information on longevity risk online, and the article is extremely limited, so I would be very grateful for any help you could offer.

Thanks, 86.26.13.2 (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, when you extend a person's life, they don't get those extra years in their 20s and 30s. They get the extra years in their 80s and 90s, and 80- and 90-year olds take more money out of the medical system than they pay in premiums, given the increased number of medical problems they have compared to 20- and 30-year olds. At some point (probably around retirement age), a policy holder goes from becoming an asset to a liability for insurance companies. It is in their financial interest to keep you alive up till the point when you start to cost them money. --Jayron32 19:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that makes perfect sense - I was only thinking in terms of life insurance payouts, not medical insurance too. Thanks! 86.26.13.2 (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Longevity is a big issue for pensions (obviously - the longer you live, the longer you get paid your pension for). A lot of people get their pensions from insurance companies (if you pay into a defined contribution pension scheme, then you need to buy an annuity when you retire and that often comes from an insurance company). --Tango (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Art music journal?

Hello. Recently, I've been trying to find some kind of journal for art music (just like PHYSorg or Universe Today for the physical sciences) and have been unsuccesful. So, I was hoping for someone here to point me to one that I may have missed. It should be free and publish news at least weekly of the contemporary proceedings of art music. Thanks in advance.AtonalPhysicist (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

October 18

Lee Harvey Oswald

Seeing as today would have been Lee Harvey Oswald's 72nd birthday, I am curious as to whether he has a cult following anywhere in the world? Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope not. There seems to be a memorabilia market and that's about it. Cults need leaders with charisma. Dualus (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's Trivia Time. Oswald shares something unusual with:

* 3 other US presidents – Andrew Jackson, Rutherford B. Hayes and Bill Clinton, and

* JFK’s niece Rory Kennedy (Robert F. Kennedy’s daughter).

They were all born posthumously. -- Jack of Oz 09:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums