This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Light current (talk | contribs) at 01:59, 5 December 2006 (→old photographs: when you are a photographer). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Reference Desk

December 2

Religious emblems

When I was thinking of the various imagery associated with the major world religions, the thought occured to me that one stands out as being non-abstract: the Christian Cross. (See the image at the top of the religion article for a sampling).

Of course the cross refers to crucifiction, a terrible and humilating punishment, practically extinct in the modern world.

Am I the only one who finds it a touch curious that the world's foremost religion has a symbol of execution on the spires of its temples, and around the necks' of its practicioners?

Or perhaps there is a darker meaning behind other religion's symbols that I am not aware of. If so, please inform. Thanks -- Theavatar3 01:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yeah... It's rather strange... The cartoonist Dan Piraro once did a (censored for major media) cartoon with catholic-like priests carrying electric chair replicas around their neck, and doing stylized chair signs with thir index fingers. Quite funny! ;) 惑乱 分からん 01:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a scan on the Internet somewhere... It's probably published in one of his Bizarro compilaitons. He briefly had his own magazine in my native Sweden (featuring his cartoons and other humor comic strips and cartoons , and they included a section called "Brpphffgh, as a dog would have put it", (or something like that) featuring more of his "edgier" stuff, with jokes about taboo subjects such as sex, religion etc... 惑乱 分からん 01:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely hilarious. It has become a symbol of sacrifice and redemption, the core meaning of Christianity. Clio the Muse 01:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess if you leave the Almighty God out of the equation, the core meaning of Christianity would be that Jesus was executed by the leading power of the day, the Roman Empire, for being a little too pro-active. Thus the Cross would be a little reminder for everyone, forevermore, not to be too smart for their own good. Preach against the prevailing hegemony, and we'll nail you to one of these. :) -- Theavatar3 05:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I do, however, urge you to look a little deeper into this question. Christ was not crucified for preaching against Roman power. Clio the Muse 08:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah -- I have read on Misplaced Pages that Nietzsche thought it wasn't the Romans either. And I've never known Nietzsche to be wrong. So, why exactly was Jesus crucified, and by whom, in your understanding? Theavatar3 19:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You could have a read through Jesus Christ#arrest, trial, and death, Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus and Caiaphas and draw your own conclusions. Also please note that I did not say that Christ was not crucified by the Romans. Only the Roman governor of Judea would have the power to carry out sentences passed by local courts. Clio the Muse 23:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the links. :)

I had a look through -- it looks his Jesus's losing his cool with the moneylenders in the temple is the straw that broke that camel's back. Presumably the rest of his activities were not overly objectionable.

At any rate he seemed to have some serious issues with what was going on in Israel back in the day, and he was quite outspoken on these matters. When he got violent, well, bad news. Theavatar3 02:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Crucifiction? I imagine that's a horribly written novel? - Nunh-huh 01:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I would interpret wearing of the cross as a Christian reminder that the material world is not real and the immortal world is in heaven. I think it is a glorification of death, as Christ left the world on a cross. Moonwalkerwiz 02:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Just the contrary, Moonwalkerwiz: it's a glorification of life, or of victory over death. Christ did not leave the world on a cross; he rose from the dead before ascending to heaven of his own volition. Clio the Muse 02:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, my ignorance of the Bible shows. Yeah, now I remember. Still, I think Christianity is basically a negation of the material world, and the cross represents not a "victory over death," but a resignation or a relinquishment of the will to live, knowing that true life is somewhere else. Moonwalkerwiz 03:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The 'negation of the material world' is less a feature of Christianity than some of the dualist heresies against which the medieval church battled, including the Cathars, and Gnostics. Nietzsche's critique is pitched less against the sacrifice of Christ, and much more against the priestly cast. As a supplement he proposes 'affirmation' rather than the emphasis on suffering and sacrifice that lie at the core of Christian ethics. But of course this has nothing to do with the significance of the Crucifixion as such. You puzzle me, Moonwalkerwiz. How can someone so obviously knowledgeable about Nietzsche not have a detailed understanding of Christianity? After all, so much of his philosophy, the concept of the superman and the revaluation of all values takes Christianity as a point of departure. Clio the Muse 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Also, Jesus did not 'lose the will to live'; this is obvious from what he said in the garden: "Father, if it is possible, let this cup (of suffering) pass from me - yet not my will, but yours be done". He died as a sacrifice for people's sins, not because he didn't want to live any more. He even said shortly before he entered Jerusalem, "This is why I have come (i.e., to die on the cross)" (John 12:27). BenC7 04:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I don't study Christianity at all. I am a non-practicing Catholic by the way. I only know Christianity through what my mother and my elementary teachers told me about it. But I take it from Nietzsche that it's just unhealthy to delve in it. "How wretched is the "New Testament" compared to Manu, how foul it smells!—" he says, funny as ever. I guess I apply Nietzsche's views less on religious matters but more on the general philosophy of life. Thank you for the info, though, about the Cathars and the Gnostics. However, I am aware that Nietzsche was not criticizing Christ, he was basically awestruck with him. But the last Christian died on the cross, and Christianity now as I see it is nothing but the opium of the people. But this is far from the original question so let's drop it. ( : Moonwalkerwiz 04:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want an accurate picture of Christianity, you should read the New Testament yourself, rather than relying on someone else's opinion. Incidentally, it says in Proverbs, "Every story sounds true; then someone else comes along and sets the record straight". If you only ever read Nietzsche, that's what you're likely to believe. BenC7 04:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've read some of it (though I like the Old Testament better, much more exciting) and it used to produce a kind of enchantment within me. But after reading Marx and Nietzsche I came to look at it very differently. If you want to reply, please post it on my page because I don't want to clutter the discussion here over the original question. Moonwalkerwiz 05:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have one additional comment to make. Those who are not familiar with the statement by Karl Marx might be interested in the full thing, which has very little to do with religion in any theological sense, and a lot to do with earthly suffering; Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, or the soul of souless conditions. It is the opium of the people. Clio the Muse 08:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting the original topic again. But "very little thing to do with religion in any theological sense"? I don't understand what you mean, Clio. Marx was referring to religion as an expression of mankind's earthly suffering. He was criticizing religion as the necessary illusion of man/woman under the burden of an imperfect society. As long as people cannot face the reality that true happiness can only be achieved in this world, and keeps looking at someplace else (heaven, for example) for a unification with his/her essence (God in religion), then he/she attains no freedom. "The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion," he writes. When man/woman practices some kind of "universality" in state affairs (voting, etc.) and then goes inside his/her room to pray to his/her God at night (a form of "particularity"), it is an expression of society not yet humanly emancipated. As long as there exists a chasm between private and public life (as long as Rorty has his followers) man/woman is not fee. Moonwalkerwiz 00:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps worth noting, also, that when Marx wrote, opium was extremely widely used in the form of Laudanum. The 'opium of the people' is therefore a familiar drug, dulling inescapable suffering. As Clio hints, Marx was more concerned with the suffering than with the painkiller. Cheers, Sam Clark 15:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me preface this by saying that I am not a theologian, by any stretch of the imagination. However, I've seen, and understood, that there are differences in interpreation between crucifixes, which show Jesus hanging on the cross, and an empty cross. A crucifix, which is more of a Roman Catholic symbol, represents Jesus's giving himself for mankind. The empty cross, which is more of a Protestant symbol, celebrates the triumph over Death. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe Marx may have gotten it backwards. I would argue, tragic as it is may be as an observation of a large element of society today, that: "Opium is the Religion of the Masses".

And Clio, though I'm sure you didn't mean it, I fear that your statement that "Christ was not crucified for preaching against Roman power" though true in the narrowest of senses, nonetheless has the potential to lead to a dangerous misperception. No, the Romans didn't crucify Christ for preaching against Roman power strictly speaking, nonetheless, they did crucify him for causing unrest within the local population. Loomis 09:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, this is an issue on which I refuse to be drawn, for all sorts of reasons, which, I feel sure you will understand. I assume you have read over the links I flagged up for Theavater, all relevant to the topic? I do agree that this is one of the most sensitive areas that it is possible to touch on, the source and cause of centuries of religious misunderstanding and anti-semitism. However, the strict interpretation would be that Christ was executed for blasphemy. Only the Romans had the power to carry out such executions; but when he was handed over to them, Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea, initially demurred, finding, as he saw it, no obvious fault. When the matter was pressed he, nevertheless, went ahead; so it is possible to say that the crucifixion was indeed a way of preventing further unrest, and I readily conceed the point. I make no judgement beyond that. Clio the Muse 23:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually no, Clio. I haven't read over the links and I don't intend to. Loomis 03:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad thing, and I do understand. Clio the Muse 05:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Christians aren't the only ones to do this - the GLBT movement often uses the same symbol that homosexuals were forced to wear in Nazi death camps. Eran of Arcadia 16:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Averting Nuclear War

Hello. A while back it was featured on the main page about some Russian who averted nuclear war during the Reagan Administration by ignoring the faulty declarations of a computer that the USA had launched missiles at Russia. Does anyone recall who this man was? Thanks. 70.17.247.111 02:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It was Stanislav Petrov. Clio the Muse 02:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! 70.17.247.111 02:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Clio the Muse 02:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't they have several such incidents? I can only remember 2 more: Cuban missle crisis, and one time that the Russians thought that a ?Norwegian? weather balloon was an American missle. I think that in both occaisions, we were only minutes away from nuclear war (the second one at least). | AndonicO 02:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that I have the base article, I can go along the linkchain -- most likely you are thinking of Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov and the Norwegian rocket incident. You can also see the article World War III.

There have been at least 4 such "false alarms". See . --24.147.86.187 14:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Titles and Duties of crew members on a ship

Hi, I've been trying to find the definitions of various types of crew members on a sailing ship. I can find every bit of sailing terminology from knot making to racing but nothing about the people who work on and maintain the ship. I got started looking for this information because I thought I recalled that one of the crew member's jobs would be to relay the Captains orders by yelling them out to the rest of the crew. I guess they would be the captain's assistant or something. But I cannot find any information to the actual titles these crew members would be given.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thank you, Zelda ;)

What era and what size ship are you talking about? A three-man yacht and a ship-of-the-line have very different crew requirements. --Carnildo 07:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I was thinking about the old large wooden sailing ships with actual sails. Not anything modern. Thanks.

Why not have a look through some classic literature which touches on the subject of sailing? I would recommend Moby Dick and Two Years Before the Mast. The page on Able seaman also has a link to other marine occupations. The assistant to the captain on a sailing vessel, incidentally, is usually known, depending on the size, and the degree of formailty, as the master's mate Clio the Muse 23:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do, thanks ;)

Canada in WWIII

People keep telling me that if there ever was a WWIII between USSRand USA, that Canada would be bombed out of existence just because it is between the two. Is this true? Would Canada be wiped off the map by the USA just so that the Soviets would not be able to establish a beach head? Or would it just be a case of faulty nukes prematurely exploding over the Canadians? --The Dark Side 02:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the USSR ceased to exist several years ago, it is highly unlikely. -THB 04:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the past tense is the operative context here, and the sense in which the question should be understood, interpreted and answered. I do not have the information, so I can venture no detailed response. I will say, though, that if there ever had been an all-out nuclear war, Canada would have fared no better than the rest of North America, suffering either direct attack or massive radiation fall-out. Clio the Muse 04:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The OP is referring to some dark plot by the Pentagon to bomb Canada to prevent the Commies from establishing a beachhead. Doesn't seem very likely for a lot of reasons. If there had been a WWIII, it would have been a nuclear (or nucular) war, with no invasions. I don't think the USSR even had the capability to land a large enough invasion force anyway. D-Day was relatively small (only a handful of divisions) and from bases a short distance away and it still took 6939 ships and boats. Even if the Reds were daffy enough to try, why would the USSR land in Canada instead of the US? It's not as if the American coastline had strong defenses in place. The US wouldn't have bombed Canada either - a little matter of radioactive fallout being blown south. Besides, the Americans wouldn't have dared; they knew that we would have unleashed our hockey players on them, eh. Clarityfiend 05:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear missiles that fall short of their target wouldn't detonate, but would spread some radioactive contamination. The only direct targetting of Canada would likely have been the DEW Line, the Mid-Canada Line and the Pinetree Line, which were an important part of joint US-Canadian defences during the cold war. However, of the three, only the Pinetree Line is near populated areas. StuRat 06:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The USSR had plenty of missiles to spare (good old overkill). There's not a lot of worthwhile Canadian targets, so I'm sure they would have dropped a few on Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal/Quebec City basically, with a sprinkling of other targets. Clarityfiend 06:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think using them to take out US missile locations and other targets would be a much higher priority. StuRat 06:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

They had plenty for both, with backups, and backups for their backups. According to this , a precision strike by the US against Russian military targets would take 1300 missiles. At the time of its dissolution, the USSR had 35,000 (Russia and weapons of mass destruction#Nuclear weapons). Assume say 3000 American targets and even with the lesser accuracy of Russian ICBM's, you'd still have a huge redundancy factor. It was just ridiculous how paranoid they were in those days. Trust me, they wouldn't have left out any significant US allies (including our mighty, stealth, nuclear-powered Zambonis). Clarityfiend 06:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent point, Clarityfiend. People have a tendency to believe nuclear strikes would be against population centres and major strategic locations; but I have seen target lists which, among other places, included transport hubs and rail networks in Austria, which was not even a member of the NATO alliance. Clio the Muse 08:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted though that the 35,000 refers to total warheads, not necessarily armed weapons, and not necessarily ICBMs or SLBMs. You'd have to look at the number of launchers to really know what their strike capacity was. --24.147.86.187 14:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border. -THB 06:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an important point. Even if they didn't target Canada, targeting large US cities near the border with hydrogen bombs (Seattle, Detroit, Buffalo?) would probably wash quite a bit of fallout into the heart of Canadian cities as well. --24.147.86.187 14:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How would bombing Canada before any Russians landed there stop them later on? Or am I misunderstanding this? DirkvdM 09:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some presumption that if the U.S bombed a Canadian harbor or beach, the Russians would be unable to land an invasion fleet there later, either because it woudn't exist anymore (?!) or because it would be so radioactive they would die. In the immediate post World War 2 period, the U.S. conducted atom bomb tests and had our military personnel move into the bombed area soon afterward. I have seen a documentary which showed an old Pentagon film of this , with soldiers/sailors shown in the post blast area smiling and healthy, to show that our soldiers would be able to fight and win a nuclear war. The documentary then showed some of the same personnel as old men with cancer, which they attributed to the radioactivity. After a week, the fallout has becreased dramatically in intensity, and after 2 weeks U.S. civil defense manuals said it would be safe for citizens to come out of their fallout shelters and go on with life. If the Soviets had nuked a Canadian or U.S. port or landing area to eliminate defenses, in a few days the commanders would probably have been willing to send soldiers into the area to exploit the breach in defenses, and defenders would be sent in to stop them. Battlefields are places where combatants get killed or maimed immediately in horrible ways. The possibility that they might die 10 or 20 years later or even a few weeks later would have likely not been at the top of the worry list for fighters at the Charge of the Light Brigade, Antietam, Custer's last stand, The Battle of the Somme, Battle of Stalingrad, the Battle of the Bulge, the Guadalcanal, or Iwo Jima. I doubt that the commanders would have conceded the still-radioactive battlefield to a ruthless foe to protect the health of their troops. Edison 16:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Soviets sent many people to certain deaths in the Chernobyl cleanup. They gave them paper masks and told them that would protect them, which they did, long enough so they didn't die until shortly after they had finished the cleanup. StuRat 08:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Many of them knew they would die, but went in anyway without coercion to save hundreds of thousands of lives. Clarityfiend 09:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, I saw a documentary in which some of those workers explained how that worked. They knew they were being exposed and that the 'protection' was pretty useless, so they went in for a short time each. Which is why it would have been hundreds. Of whom many delveloped cancer later on. I suppose that also has to do with this idea Russians have that they can take anything. This was in a documentary on nuclear energy, and one of those workers declared himself an advocate of nuclear energy, despite what happened. DirkvdM 07:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

StuRat, you shouldn't expose yourself like that (no pun). People might start thinking that all the rest you say is complete bull too. :) DirkvdM 07:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't "complete bull"; many of them went in with completely inadequate protection, and died as a result, just as I said. StuRat 12:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

SeeSL-1 A U.S experimental military power reactor incident lead to the deaths of the three operators and a radiation level of 500 roentgens per hour. Volunteers were sent in to retrieve bodies with a 65 second exposure allowance. "Radiation exposure limits prior to the accident were 100 roentgens to save a life and 25 to save valuable property. During the response to the accident 22 people received doses of 3 to 27 roentgens total body exposure and 3 doses above 27 R. In March 1962 the Atomic Energy Commission awarded certificates of heroism to 32 participants in the response." Onboard a nuke sub, crew would have to endure lethal doses of radiation to try and limit a reactor incident, since the alternative would be loss of the sub and entire crew and comtamination of the local area. Firefighters at Chernoble were sent to lethal exposure levels to limit the damage. In a war, in battles such as those listed above, soldiers are exposed to the liklihood of death or maiming to invade or defend a country, so high rad exposure level would be likely be allowed as well. Edison 17:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Seven Worlds

There was a mention of seven worlds that were created along side Earth in the Jewish religous texts, this page once existed, but now it doesnt... could anyone provide the names of these seven worlds

Well, they're mentioned in the Zohar in an exegesis of the Psalms ("I will walk before the Lord in the lands or earths of the living" (Ps. cxvi. 9).) But I don't see their names there - the Zohar would never be so prosaic as to be pinned down to a single list of them, or a single interpretation. Still, here are some things I found on the web; how much is in the actual texts and how much is later elaboration is left as an exercise for the reader - Nunh-huh 03:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Arqa
2. Adamah
3. Tziah
4. Gey / Geh
5. Nishiyah / Nesziah
6. Erez
7. Tevel / Thebel (Earth)

Stuff to look at: Ah, and oddly enough, we seem to have no article at The Seven Worlds, but one of our mirrors does.... Apparently we deleted it as non-notable and unsourced. - Nunh-huh 03:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I for one think this seems rather interesting and notable. Someone up for giving an article another shot? Sourced this time of course.--SeizureDog 20:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

Why did the British leave waffles on the Falklands?

More seriously, how large is the current British garrison on the islands? --Carnildo 06:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Military of the Falkland Islands, they maintain a force of about 500 soldiers. This is a tiny number overall, but huge relative to the Falkland's population of just over 3000. Those troops, and nine aircraft, and a frigate or destroyer, are there to defend against any further attempts by Argentina to retake the islands by force. StuRat 08:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I know my knowledge of history is bad but the leaving of waffles on a group of islands really confuses me. I don't see a mention on the Falkland Islands article, so could someone explain what this means? I'm guessing it's not the breakfast cakes that we're discussing... Dismas| 14:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The questioner is referring to a famous double-meaning headline from 1982: "British left waffles on Falkland Islands". 66.213.33.2 14:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL. StuRat 15:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Does 'to waffle' mean the same thing in the US as it does in the UK? Anyway, for those of you who may still be perplexed by this it simply means that the political left in England, headed by the Labour Party, talked at length about the Falklands issue without reaching a definite conclusion. Nothing at all to do with the breakfast cakes! Clio the Muse 23:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, same meaning in the U.S., where—I suspect as in the UK—it is primarily an activity of politicians. - Nunh-huh 23:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Doonesbury tends to use imagery for political leaders, instead of actual images of Presidents, candidates, etc. One of his images was of a talking waffle. I wish I could remember who it was representing. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Waffle (speech), it was none other than Bill Clinton. Clarityfiend 06:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"Waffle iron" = golf club used to strike politicians who constantly change their positions. StuRat 08:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon and March 8

We all know why the governing coalition in Lebanon is known as the March 14 coalition, but from where did the anti-government forces derive the name March 8? Is it just a label that's applied to them by outsiders? If so, why?

--Noung 10:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The reference is to a mass demonstration organized by Hezbollah on March 8 2005, directed against Israel and US policy in the Middle East. Clio the Muse 10:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Workers owning their factory

Is there an example of workers owning their factory / plant / big business so that they make the decisions and control the shares receiving the dividents? Is it viable? How would it work? Keria 11:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC) p.s. I'm thinking big businesses say 100+ employees.

I heard about a factory in South America (I think) quite recently, don't know much about it, though, Argentina in connection to a national economical collapse, or similar... 惑乱 分からん 13:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

See worker cooperative and list of cooperatives. See also John Lewis Partnership, which is slightly different.--Shantavira 14:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Note, though, that that list of cooperatives is not about this. In the Netherlands section (the one I'd know about) there are some companies that definitely aren't worker coopertives. DirkvdM 07:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

See socialism. -THB 03:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A hell of a work incentive. We could do with some more of that. DirkvdM 07:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Some more of what? Loomis 22:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, Loomis, that dear old fashioned notion that Friedrich Hayek warned against in The Road to Serfdom, and even Edmund Burke anticipated, when he wrote; This barbarous philosophy, which is the offspring of cold hearts and muddy understandings. It's an intellectual museum piece, some might be happy to say. Clio the Muse 00:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, Clio. I warned you of my literary limitations. If you want to spread your message to all the flora and the fauna of the world, you're gonna have to dumb it down a few notches. Perhaps even the elms might understand! But yes, thanks to the hyperlinks you provided I managed to catch the meaning of your post.

I wouldn't call it a museum piece though. I happen to think that the idea of workers owning the business they work in should be given a chance and thought through a bit. Let's say you start with 100 workers on something simple like a farm. Of course someone has to decide which crops to plant. Human nature being what it is, we all have our respective strengths and weaknesses. Some are strong and are able to do the heavy tasks such as ploughing the fields, some are well trained in horticulture and are better at tending the delicate plants, and some are exceptionally intelligent and are just born leaders. It's only logical, then, to choose the brightest among the workers to make the important decisions. It's also only logical that the rest of the workers respect the decisions of the leaders, for the good of all. Otherwise the business would be a failure and all the workers would suffer. But wait, now they're not truly equal, are they? That's not right! I know what's wrong! One of the leaders is a traitor! The solution is simple: Blame it all on Snowball, send him off to exile in Mexico and then have him assassinated! Ok, so I may have done a bit of reading in my day. Loomis 03:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Loomis; for once it is me who is being unclear. My response was in relation to your question about Dirk's statement which was in relation to THB's suggestion. Phew! The museum piece in question is socialism rather than worker co-operatives. Clio the Muse 05:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you were clear enough. I knew it was socialism. With all your literary prowess, couldn't you tell that my response was a pretty obvious reference to Orwell's Animal Farm? Even if you haven't read it...exile to Mexico? Assassination? Ring a bell? Trotsky? Perhaps I've overestimated you. Loomis 06:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, Napoleon; I understood that-All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. Clio the Muse 06:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

When all the while I was talking about worker cooperatives, which is, after all, the subject at hand (also note the indentation). But now that we're off-topic, nothing wrong with socialism, as a counterbalance for capitalism. (Or were you guys thinking of state socialism (animal farm)?) One needs a bit of each. Socialism at the bottom to keep people from starving and a free market for the rest to keep the economy going. Most countries have that, even the US, although many take it a bit further, giving the bottom enough, not only to lead a decent life, but also to ensure that people are fit (and knowledgeable) enough to be productive and that all children get an equal chance. DirkvdM 07:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You've basically just described the "capitalist" welfare state. And all this time I tought you were a Marxist. Loomis 19:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Rudeness

During a movie or play, what is the most effective way to stop someone in the audience near you from popping and snapping their gum? The glare usually doesn't work, because the chewer doesn't understand what the annoyance is about. Asking the person firmly to cease and desist often increases the popping and snapping. Threats of violence, of course, are off-limits. Your best advice? 66.213.33.2 14:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If they respond to a polite request by making still more noise, it is unlikely you can get them to stop by asking nicely. If other neighbors show solidarity and also tell them to shut up, they might respond to social pressure or fear of getting hit. Possibly they are bored and do not want to be there, but someone coerced them to come. Possibly the performance is wretched and their artistic sensibilities are offended by it. Self-help attempts by you, such as grabbing them and throwing them out of the theater, might be prosecuted as assault and battery. What is left is to inform an usher of the offense and let them deal with it if it is a concert, opera, or play with high admission charges, assigned seating and enforced decorum. They are good at shushing or removing people at the first break in the program where a scuffle will not interrupt the performance. If it is the movies, try moving to another part of the hall, or get a big screen TV, digital cable, and a DVD player and then be selective about who you invite to watch movies with you. Edison 16:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

A problem everyone faces eventually! I'd say try to get the seat behind him, and kick his seat from the back( gently, at least at first). If not possible, try to establish alliances, like Edison said. And of course, the people sitting behind him are of utmost relevance when it comes to alliances like that.Evilbu 22:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The most effective way is a .38 Special or equivalent. --Carnildo 22:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Levity?--Light current 22:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that method splatters brains all over the screen, which is fine for horror movies, but really kills the mood during a romance scene. :-) StuRat 12:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Proof for God's inexistence

As with any other theory, it can be formulated in a falsifiable way or a non-falsifiable one.

The most common is the non-falsifiable model, which, by nature, must be rejected, since that is by itself a fallacy. The reason for this is that it just doesn't describe anything, it doesn't provide any prediction for any testable event (think of it as saying something and then accusing the tester of misunderstading your statements).

On the other hand, all falsifiable "God theories" are absolutely trivial to refute, since all experience shows that random governs the world, not any "intelligent" being (think of cursing God and not happening anything as a bad example).

Everybody should accept things as they are, because otherwise results in lower happiness due to continuous frustrations while facing the real world. If you accuse an incoming car of not existing, then you will face the consequences when it hits you.

Therefore, everybody should be a strong atheist.

Please, comment my argument... possible flaws, misunderstandings... Thanks.

--GTubio 15:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT, "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox: Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Misplaced Pages articles are not: Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article." This also applies to the reference desk. Thanks. Edison 16:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Two objections: 1) the claim that non-falsifiable theories are nonsense is not obviously true. The first reason for being worried about it is that it appears to be self-refuting: is the theory 'non-falsifiable theories are nonsense' itself falsifiable? 2) It is highly disputable that 'all experience shows that randomness governs the world'. If this is true, how is it that we are often able to predict the course of future events? None of this demonstrates the existence of God, but your argument doesn't seem to disprove it either. Cheers, Sam Clark 15:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

To avoid confusion I'd like to know what you are trying to prove/disprove exactly - ie define what you mean by 'god' - this may sound obvious but it helps a lot. 83.100.253.51 15:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

To be a true scientific theory, the existence of God would, indeed, need to be falsifiable. A specific description of God, can, in fact, be tested. For example, the theory that God created the Earth and Adam and Eve a few thousand years ago can easily be tested and disproven, as every scientific method we have at our disposal (plate tectonics, radioactive decay, sedimentation rate, erosion rate, genetic drift, etc.) proves that the Earth is far older than that (some 4.5 billion years old). However, if you allow "God" to be a nebulous "creative force", which can be redefined as needed, then that "theory" is not falsifiable, and therefore not scientific. For example, we could say that God controls the vibration of the cosmic strings upon which everything is based. Then, if scientists are later able to identify the source of that vibration, God could be redefined to be controlling that source. This can happen ad infinitum. StuRat 15:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Niggle - - from scientific tests we can infer that the earth is older, but not prove it. (Your use of the word 'proves'....)83.100.253.51 15:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, if one wants to start poking holes in the notion of God, it's best to take a psychoanalytic perspective. Why do people want to, or need to, believe in God?

Best answer I can give: it creates, in their minds, an omnipotent power that they can appease, for favorable results of course. Declaring faith in God is, I think, no different from invoking the word 'karma' or 'fate' to account for one's circumstances.

We all crave certainty, and if there's large gaps in our understanding, getting 'God' involved is an extremely useful way to temporarily alleviate any uncertainty. However, every time you ascribe things to being the work of God (or karma, or fate), it's like tying a little knot in your brain, that will need to be untied later, for the sake of clarity, serenity, and overall being a happy and useful member of society. Theavatar3 20:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I would not begin by saying that "science doesn't explain everything." I'd rather state that science is good to test, explain and prove things able to be tested. Many domains of human knowledge are not in science's scope.

E.g., history cannot be tested, lived once again, be it populations', societies', or individuals'history. You may tell that it happened and offer proofs : the experience is not reproducible and proves nothing more.

When science stops, there is religion, not better nor worse when considered as human experience, there is philosophy, art ... Let God preserve us from inane thinking - if he has time to think about us. -- DLL 21:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my favorite topic. Trying to squeeeeeeze God into the "science box" amounts to practicing Scientism. Science has limits and God falls into the category of metaphysics of which natural science is a mere subset. Check out the Pope's otherwise controversial discourse on Religion and Reason, here, for an interesting read. IMO, the error that tends to be made is confusing science with reason and scientific with reasonable. Reason goes well beyond the limits of science (at least as science is presently defined). --Justanother 06:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

My God is omnipotent, and therefore, obviously able to transcend those subjects such as "science" and "logic" that us feeble-minded primates so arrogantly think we've mastered. Attempting to prove the existence of God is an excercise in absolute futility. In fact, if some scientist or master logician were to claim to have finally arrived at absolute proof in the existence of God, that person would surely be insane. God will forever be scientifically and logically unprovable, and that's why I love Him! Loomis 02:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Such a god surely has no use whatsoever. That which is outside the realm of description is in the realm of madness or death, and no one has ever returned from it to tell the tale. "What we cannot speak of, we must pass over in silence." - Moonwalkerwiz 01:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What I see as the problem here can best desribed as hubris. Humans, though we may be the most intelligent of all life forms we know of, are ultimately limited in our intelligence. All of us, no matter our beliefs, must accept this inescapable truth, be us Atheists, Agnostics or Deists (such as myself). To expect a human to understand the infinite mysteries of the universe (which, in my case, includes a Supreme Being) is akin to expecting a cockroach to understand simple arithmetic. From a cockroach's perspective, simple arithmetic, 1+1=2, is completely and utterly incomprehensible. It's so far beyond the limits of their intellectual grasp that, for them, I suppose it can fairly be described to be "outside the realm of description". But does that mean that simple arithmetic is "in the realm of madness or death?" Of course not! All it means is that cockroachs are so incredibly feeble minded that the simplest of concepts are beyond their grasp. Of course us humans are far more intelligent than cockroaches. To us, simple arithmetic is child's play. Unfortunately however, our intelligence has its limits as well. Even the brightest minds among us still struggle to understand the mysteries of the universe. And when it comes to the most difficult questions of all, such as "Why are we here?", "What's the meaning life?", "Is there a God?", we're no different from cockroaches attempting to tackle what for them (not that they even possess the capacity to even contemplate the question) would be that most mysterious incomprehensible of incomprehensibles: "What is 1 + 1?" Loomis 05:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You're comparing apples and oranges. Of course, 1+1=2 is not outside the realm of description. It's a mathematical equation. It is within the realm of reason. It is within language. Cockroaches cannot understand it because they don't have reason, they are in the realm of reason's opposite (madness). But can the same logic be applied when comparing humans and god? No. Because this time, the cockroaches(humans) are the ones that possess reason, and man (god), madness. This time, the only describable world is our world, the human world and not some other godly world. This time, god is indescribably and we cannot derive any reasonable proposition from him because he (I'm not implying that he is male) is outside the limits of reasoning. "we're no different from cockroaches" - that's preposterous. God, in the realm of madness, indescribable, infinite, without reason cannot be of any use to a sincere man/woman. For I ask, how can something that cannot possibly exist in our consciousness be of any use to us? Moonwalkerwiz 07:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

More hubris. Can you not accept that there exist some truths that are simply beyond the grasp of human intellect? Just as a hypothetical to illustrate my point, can you not envision some extra-terrestrial race as intellectually superiour to us as we're intellectually superiour to cockroaches? You seem to divide "intelligence" in the broad sense of the term, into two and only two categories: Humans, endowed with reason, and non-human animal life, not endowed with reason. I'd submit, with the backing of the scientific community no less, that this is a gross simplification of the notion of "intelligence". Rather, it exists on a spectrum, as an admitedly oversimplified illustration, try to think about it in these terms: Cockroaches → Chickens → Cattle → Dogs → Chimpanzees → Humans → Hypothetical Creature X → Hypothetical Creature Y → Hypothetical Creature Z → ? These hypothetcal creatures need not exist for my point to remain valid. All I'm saying is that human intellect is limited, and to believe otherwise, that the human mind is the epitome of intelligence, is pure hubris. Loomis 14:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

All He/She/It/They would have to do is show up and perform a miracle, raising all the dead from a cemetary would do nicely, and then we would have proof. StuRat 12:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

american law

im taking a test and this question is not very clear to me. help would be greatly appreciated!

the following events are out of order: the jury anounces the verdict, judge instructs the jury before the trial begins, grand jury votes for and indictment, a summons is mailed to each prospective member of a petit jury, and members of a petit jury are selected. Which step is Grand jury votes for an indictment?

I believe they want you to put them in order, number them, and tell them which number is assigned to that step. If you put them in order, we will tell you if you are correct. StuRat 15:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The grand jury indictment comes before the petit jury trial. -THB 00:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

We say "do your own homework" not to be mean but because this is stuff you are supposed to learn. It really does not help you if we give you the answers. So look at grand jury and look at petit jury and look at your books and work it out. --Justanother 07:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Of those it would come first in order. (I sure hope this is a high school homework question and not a law school or bar exam question...otherwise, I wish I'd gone to your law school or was taking your state's bar exam!) Loomis 09:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to make it perfectly clear:

1. grand jury votes for an indictment
2. a summons is mailed to each prospective member of a petit jury
3. members of a petit jury are selected
4. judge instructs the jury before the trial begins
5. the jury announces the verdict - Nunh-huh 21:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, summoning a jury is usually unrelated to any particular indictment and could conceivably happen before the indictment (not that the wheels of justice normally turn that quickly) Rmhermen 21:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point, since he asked about the mailing of the summons. I have had jury duty a number of times and it seems the summons was mailed out about a month before the appearance date. So conceivably that could be the first item on the list. Mmmm, maybe a trick question (wink). --Justanother 22:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You're both right. But that would be a nasty trick question, or, more likely, the professor hadn't considered that possibility. Reminds me of a trick multiple choice question I once encountered: Which of the following four don't belong? 1) A Rhinocerous, 2) A Zebra, 3) An Elephant, or 4) A prune. Why the Zebra of course! It's the only one that isn't wrinkly! Loomis 01:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't court cases be simpler if they just determined who is the richest, and have them win automatically, without going through the pretext of a trial ? :-) StuRat 11:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would certainly be an improvement on the situation in the US. You could also take the less drastic measure of reforming the system in a way that's less prejudicial to the party without the deep pockets. It's a bit better on that count up here, but we could use some reform too. Loomis 18:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Direction to story?

I read a story I liked, and it was called... The Cabuliwala. In Afghanastan, and there's this girl and the Cabuilwala, and stuff. How is it spelled? X (DESK|How's my driving?) 17:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Kabuliwala. –mysid☎ 18:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Government

What was the senate vote to confirm Ruth Bader-Ginsberg? 216.187.162.62 19:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean what was its result? It was 96 to 3 (see Ruth Bader Ginsburg#Judicial career). –mysid☎ 19:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Only $19.99!

What's the term for that annoying sales tatic where everything is just a penny (or a nickel) shy of being a round dollar? --SeizureDog 20:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Psychological pricing. –mysid☎ 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Does that work in countries with sales tax? I mean, if you want to calculate what $19.99 is with 14% tax, surely you'll round it to $20 to make the calculation easier? --Bowlhover 03:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Almost every entity in the US has sales tax, but it will be almost impossible to find a $20.00 product. What's even more ridiculous is the pricing of gasoline, which goes to the tenth of a cent. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's common practice in the UK, where VAT-or sales tax-is built into the price. The addition of tax at the counter was something that really threw me when I first visited the US. It's particularly embarrassing if you have only just enough money to buy what you wanted! Clio the Muse 03:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Conversely, I was very surprised in Europe to find they quote prices with tax included. You'd think someone over there would have realized you can make things look cheaper if you add the tax on to the listed price. But I guess if you were the first person to do that, everyone would think you were trying to cheat people. -- Mwalcoff 05:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And it would probably be illegal. A price is a price. You don't go adding to the price afterwards. It's highly unethical. "Oh, sorry, forgot to add in the cleaning lady's wages, so that's another 20 cents". But when you're used to it it may seem normal. When I was confused by this once, fresh in the US, and asked about the price difference, the guy at the counter became positively rude, took my money, turned to help another customer and only after that gave me my change. I was flabbergasted, didn't say a word. Only later did I realise what had happened. DirkvdM 07:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not uncommon in Europe, or at least parts of Europe, for restaurants to add a service charge on to the bill. That's never included in the listed prices. -- Mwalcoff 18:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

More on the topic, something similar, albeit on a much smaller scale, has happened in the Netherlands since the introduction of the euro. Most shops now round off the prices. Up or down, depending on the price. But of course, given the pricing strategies, it's usually up. DirkvdM 07:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As for always rounding prices up, this is a reason why the penny hasn't yet been discontinued in the US. There is concern that everyone will raise prices to the next multiple of 5 cents, and this will cause an inflation cycle. StuRat 08:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As for not including the taxes in the price, I find this annoying, too, especially when they say "you pay only X", when you clearly must pay Y. However, it is useful in one respect, Americans are all quite aware of what tax levels exist on various items, as a result. Hidden taxes have a tendency to rise uncontrollably. There are cases where the tax is included, such as with gasoline, and many states require a disclosure of the taxes on each pump to avoid this "hidden tax" problem. StuRat 08:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression the gas stations themselves were choosing to do this so people blame the government, rather than them, for high prices. -- Mwalcoff 18:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Part of the reason sales tax is not included is that it often varies from place to place. For example, I live in Spokane, with (last time I checked) a sales tax of 8.5%. Five miles from me, outside the city limits, it's a few tenths of a percent lower. By not including the tax in the stated price, a store chain can use the same advertisements everywhere. --Carnildo 22:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler to mention the tax level next to the price? Anyway, without that, people in the Netherlands know fairly well what the tax levels are. Around 10% for basic goods (looked it up - turns out to be only 6%), 19% for luxury goods and high taxes (accijns) for special cases, up to hundreds of percents for tobacco. I don't remember that tax being added on at the counter in the US, though. DirkvdM 07:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You proved my point in that you didn't know the tax rate for basic goods. If you saw the before- and after-tax prices, like in the US, then you would know that. StuRat 16:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As for picking prices slightly less than a dollar, that is due to the faulty way many people truncate prices rather than rounding them, in their minds. So, some people see $199.99 and remember "it was a hundred something", rather than "it was two hundred dollars". This makes the price seem much lower. StuRat 08:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A related concept is that of tips, especially where the tips are added in on a mandatory basis after the fact. I am thinking restaurants that do that with large parties but it is also done with cruise prices ("port charges additional") and many other things. Re the $19.99 I have finally trained my 7-year-old and now when he looks at the Lego catalog he says "Dad, this is only $40" when it says $39.99. I always let him slide on the tax and s/h. --Justanother 18:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In the Philippines, where the US influence resulted in them also slapping the tax on at the counter, I noticed that often there were very weird prices, which after adding tax became nice round figures. But often, such as in hamburger joints they did this the wrong way around, starting with the price they wanted, say 10 peso, then substracting the tax, say 10%, putting up the price of 9 peso and then at the counter supposedly 'adding the tax' again to reach a price of .... 10 peso! I thought about asking them to do the actual calculation, but decided not to bother. I regret that now. Could have been fun. DirkvdM 07:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, many people don't realize that if you decrease a price by 10%, then increase the new price by 10%, you still end up with 1% less than the original price. The really odd thing, is that if you increase the price by 10% then decrease the new price by 10%, you still end up with 1% less than the original price. On the other hand, maybe some Filipino accountant understands it all very well, as is now laughing maniacally while rolling naked in a room full of pennies. :-) StuRat 11:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the briefest answer to the original question is "First impressions count". As for tax, in Australia since 2000 most goods and services have attracted a 10% GST. It is illegal to quote a price net of GST (suggesting that the cost to the consumer is only $50, when it will actually be $55 if GST applies), and even the practice of saying "This item costs $50 plus 10% GST, for a total of $55" is strongly discouraged. JackofOz 00:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that it's discouraged because the gov doesn't want people to think about how high their taxes are, as this might cause a backlash from the voters and then legislatures would be forced to reduce taxes. Of course, the $50 base price also includes many hidden taxes; on the manufacturer, delivery trucks, etc., but these are a bit harder to show, as they aren't "per unit" taxes. StuRat 04:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

December 3

Wa-wa-wa sound effect

Is there a name for the brass instrument sound effect that goes wa-wa-waaa and is sometimes played for comedic effect after a joke? --Dgies 00:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Its just called a wa wa effect. Played with a mute (music) or plunger closed(WW) then open(AAAH). Its sometimes written on the music as + for closed and o for open--Light current 00:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Also used in the trombone section through the Glenn Miller tune: Tuxedo junction to give that DO- WAHH, DO-WAHH sound.--Light current 00:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The comedic version is usually a Trumpet, with a mute, as above :) - cohesion 02:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is Wah-wah. —Keenan Pepper 02:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

its not a trumpet..its a trombone. sorry band geek..had to comment. --Kittycat rox 02:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Trumpets have been used with "wah-wah" mutes (a special metal mute), or a plunger (like used to unjam a toilet) since the 1920's or earlier. King Oliver, who was Louis Armstrong's mentor was noted for it, as was Bubber Miley in the early Duke Ellington band. Clyde McCoy was a pop musician from the 1930's on who used it a lot, as in "Sugar Blues." Many others have used the effect up to the present, and most concert band trumpeters have a plunger must in their instrument case, since it is sometimes called for in scores. Edison 03:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

THere is one mute that is used with a plunger. I dont know if that is the wah wah mute. 8-?--Light current 03:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? Hm. I've never seen one, though I've occasionally used a plunger over a straight mute. Wah-wah mutes are their own thing; Image:TrumpetMutes.jpg is blurry, but the one in the middle on the bottom is the wah-wah mute. --jpgordon 04:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah well I call that a Harmon mute. Maybe Im thinkig of a pixie mute used with a plunger.--Light current 16:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Harmon" is just a brand name. Oh, here's your mute-with-plunger pic: the great Ray Nance doing exactly that! And it might be a pixie mute, according to the caption -- is that what you were looking at? (I'm bloody amazed that, though I've been a trumpet player for forty years, there are still mutes I've never heard of...) --jpgordon 16:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a sample of the trumpet version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo0bYDUsTis (or http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/summary/play.cfm/sound_iid.34146) and here's the Trombone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMpXAknykeg

Cara Black

TTWITE:

Has someone already asked the question I'm asking: I'm kind of a newbie around here, but I want to be able to split the Cara Black entries. How do I do that?

Thanks.

William D. (Rick) Razo

It's a bad idea to do something like that without general consensus. First, bring it up for discussion on the article's talk page. 惑乱 分からん 02:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Cara Black is only what we call a stub (a very short article), so presumably you don't mean to split it into separate articles. We would only do that if the article was becoming too long. If you want to split it into sections, see the above question (1 December) about creating sections.--Shantavira 08:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Spiro Agnew Science Fiction

Does anybody know about a sci-fi novel about the cancelled super-collider in texas?

A brief plot outline:

The supercollider was built, and opened up a time portal. Evil creatures came into the present, as they inevitably will when a time portal is opened. The scientists who discovered the portal went into the past. They brought almanacs.

The scientists became fabulously rich, fabulously influential and fabulously republican. They use their influence to get Spiro Agnew Nixon's Vice Presidency. Spiro Agnew, a modern-day Luddite is the one responsible for cancelling the collider's construction.

Oh the irony.

Can't find anything about it through Google, maybe you could give us a hand

You might be referring to Einstein's Bridge by John Cramer.--Charm quark 13:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Saladin and Europe

Did Saladin ever voice a desire to invade Europe? 70.17.247.111 02:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the page on Saladin. To my knowledge he never expressed any such desire. He had far too much business closer to home to deal with. Clio the Muse 02:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That was what I thought, and what the article page seemed to suggest. I was making sure, because a friend said he did indeed want to invade Europe. It's good to know I haven't neglected such a part of history. Thank you! 70.17.247.111 03:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad to have been of some help to you. Clio the Muse 03:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Depends on how you define "Europe". For example, if you take it according to the Eurovision criteria, or those of FIFA/UEFA, he not only desired to but actually did (successfully) invade a part of Europe. --Dweller 09:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary: by those criteria he never left Europe. However, as Saladin was fortunate enough to live centuries before those august bodies were conceived, and before the world was subject to the horrors of the Eurovision song contest, Europe for him was merely a 'geographical expression.' Clio the Muse 23:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As for neglecting a part of history, by "history" do you mean what actually happened, or what historians have recorded as having happened? JackofOz 00:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Clio, even by those (bonkers) criteria, Egypt is not Europe. Yet. I seem to recall Saladin spent quite a bit of time in Egypt. --Dweller 13:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Dweller; he did indeed. But did he invade it? For him to have made war on the Muslim Mamelukes and the Crusaders at the same time hardly makes much sense; does it? After all, he was no George Bush. Clio the Muse 01:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I was replying to "by those criteria he never left Europe", rather than the OP. --Dweller 10:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right; I beg your pardon. So Egypt is not part of Eurovision? Lucky Egypt! Clio the Muse 10:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Marriage Question

Suppose A and B are legally married, and co-own a house. They live together with their child, C (aged above 13 but under 18).

A and B's marriage is on bad terms, and they are contemplating divorce (but have not started proceedings yet). B has filed a personal protection order against A because A threw a book at B.

At 12.30am, B returns home, when A and C are sleeping. The door is locked, and B does not have the key. B knocks on the door and rings the bell, waking A and C up. A refuses to unlock the door for B. When C goes to unlock the door for B, A issues verbal and profane threats at C.

Because B has filed a PPO against A, B threathens to call the police if A does not unlock the door.

Under Singapore law, what can the police do? Can they demand A open the door for B? Can they take legal action against A for violating the PPO?

Did I miss out any important information?

Singapore is waaaay out of my jurisdiction, and I (nor likely anyone else) couldn't even offer an educated guess without having the details of the PPO. Nonetheless, assuming it's like most PPO's and at the very least it requires A to maintain a certain physical distance from B (eg. 100 metres,) B's certainly violated that and this alone would certainly invite some sort of at least quasi-criminal penalty against A. That much I can say with reasonable certainty. Unfortunately, I can't be any more specific than that. Fortunately, a quick call to the police with a brief description of the situtation and the details of the PPO would likely yield a definitive answer to your question (i.e. no costly lawyers necessary!). Loomis 09:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Especially in a situation that could involve physical violence, you must obtain professional assistance with legal matters, whether it be from an attorney or the police. Legal advice cannot be given at the reference desk. -THB 14:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

THB, do you know any website where I can ask for professional assistance? It would be great if you find one about Singapore law, as many such sites would focus on Americans.

Maybe here. -THB 17:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

can queenEII be sued under the law of Tort in a matter in which she personally had direct involvment

we have all heard that in a constitutional monarchy like uk the sovereign can not be sued as they are the one who created the courts. but since second world war many issues has been resolved and government or ministers are sued. and now in uk we have human rights bill which is a law now.

i would like to know currently if anyone who claims has suffered losses as result of negligence by queen herself (not ministers or government departments)can sue her (i.e to put her name down as the defendant)in a civil law suit. as far as i am concern i believe yes she can be sued as but i don't know to what act of parliament or law that i can refer to. bearing in mind by not allowing a law suit against her the government would have breached the human rights bill!!! can any lawyer help me. or source i can refer to. many thanks for your assistance

The Queen can not be sued personally. Any legal action would have to be against the Crown; in other words, against the state. Clio the Muse 09:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And if the Queen herself hurts you (through slander, whatever)? I suspect it would be a scandal, but I suppose you could sue her. Flamarande 16:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't sue the Queen, but given a good lawyer and the right circumstances, you might be able to sue Elizabeth Windsor. --Carnildo 22:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Or Elizabeth Saxe Coburg to give her the proper name.--Light current 23:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

a) You mean Saxe-Coburg; b) you're still wrong. Shimgray | talk | 23:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not that "the government" won't let you sue her; the structure of the law won't let you sue her. The Human Rights Act is a bit of a distraction here... Shimgray | talk | 23:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The Queen cannot be sued, neither can Elizabeth Windsor, no matter how smart the lawyer. And there is no such person as Elizabeth Saxe Coburg Gotha, a name abandoned by George V, the present Queen's grandfather, in 1917. Clio the Muse 23:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Here I am, once again, to irritate you all by injecting a dose of reality into the question. Though I'd prefer to put some more research into the quesion as to whether the Queen is indeed immune from being sued in tort, for now I'll assume that she is. Still, it has to be understood that UK constitutional law is, for the uninitiated, extremely dificult to understand. It's basically a delightful combination of quaint symbolism and cold reality; in so many areas of the law there are two answers: the technically accurate yet completely unrealistic answer, and the real answer.

Suppose, as a very silly example, you're at a cocktail party attended by Queen Elizabeth II, and for reasons only she could explain, she loses her temper and gives you a swift kick into your own "family jewels", so to speak. Do you have an action in tort? I suppose not. Will you be compensated many, many, many times better than you would have been were she not immune to a tort action? You'd better believe it! Loomis 01:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That will be the same day, Loomis, when Elvis rides down Whitehall on the back of Shergar, while being chased by Jim Morrison, all by the blue light of the moon! Clio the Muse 01:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So what would happen if Queen Elizabeth II, or Elizabeth Windsor, were driving her Range Rover and hit somebody? Would she not be liable for civil or criminal charges? Is the Queen insured? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Another hypothetical, Zoe, though I admit a little more plausible! As far as I am aware the Queen, since she became Queen, has not driven on public highways; but in the case you have given action would still have to be against the Crown. The Queen cannot be cited to appear in her own courts. Clio the Muse 23:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Since this is all hypothetical, imagine a scenario where the Queen, in full view of many witnesses, pulls out a gun and murders one of her subjects. No amount of $$ compensation would be enough to placate the grieving family; they would want justice. What could be done to get it, and what action could be taken against HM? JackofOz 00:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Jack: this is all getting too silly for me. As I have no more useful contribution to make I will just decamp elsewhere. Nil desperandum-I'm sure an 'answer' will wing its way towards you in due course, in the terms in which you have pitched your question. The boring answer, though, is that such a monarch would be ushered away in the same fashion of George III. Clio the Muse 00:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's silly, but musing about silly things that are extremely unlikely to ever happen can have its benefits. I do not flinch from such matters. But then, I've always lived in a fairy-tale hypothetical world, the so-called "real world" being a far too dangerous place for me ever to visit.  :) JackofOz 01:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Silly? Well I suppose the hypotheticals Jack and I presented were silly indeed. Nevertheless my point remains dead serious. Sure, the Queen may "technically" be immune from tort action, nevertheless, should she commit any serious tort, she'd be held accountable, one way or another. Recall how Edward VIII was forced to abdicate the throne by that mere commoner, Stanley Baldwin. Of course Baldwin had absolutely no "black-letter" legal right to demand Edward's abdication, just as no hypothetical victim of a tort committed by her majesty has any "black-letter" legal right to demand compensation. Yet, despite the "letter of the law", overwhelming public sentiment left Edward with no realistic choice. Similarly, Queen Elizabeth, should she commit a serious tort, despite whatever "black-letter" immunity she may have, overwhelming public sentiment would demand that she compensate any hypothetical victim. And of course she would undoubtedly obey the demands of public sentiment. Imagine if she would stick to her technical immunity and basically take the position: "Bug off! I'm Queen! I'm immune from any and all forms of legal lability!"...Enter the "Republic of Great Britain". Loomis 04:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Loomis, the Lord, in his wisdom, has delivered you into my hands! Stanley Baldwin did not 'force' Edward to abdicate: it was merely one of the options presented to him should he insist on marrying Wallis Simpson against government advice. In the event the king abdicated of his own volition. Throughout the whole crisis, moreover, he had the overwhelming support of public opinion, as you will discover if you look deeper into the matter. The point remains that a British monarch cannot be brought before a British court, with any justification or basis in law. To date only attempt to do so was the 'trial' of Charles I in 1649, when the king properly demanded; I would know by what power I am called hither, I would know by what authority, I mean lawful; there are many unlawful authorities...Remember I am your king, your lawful king, and what sins you bring upon your heads, and the judgement of God upon this land. Parliament has the power, not the right, to carry out any enormity; but this is one road we are never likely to travel again. Clio the Muse 06:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

How the English people never cease to charm and impress me with their uncanny talent for doublespeak, and the polite and understated manner by which they conduct themselves in times of great crisis. The government was threatening to resign, and the rest of the commonwealth made it clear they couldn't live with the marriage. But it would be so utterly un-English for the King's Prime Minister to so arrogantly and irreverently "demand" the King's abdication. Rather, again with such charmingly humble pretence, Baldwin offered his majesty "Three sugestions". Cutting through all the pretence though, Edward had only one real option, and both he and Baldwin knew it. Still, arranging it in such a manner so as to allow the King, apparently of his own volition to "choose" to abdicate, not only saved face for Edward, but served to maintain as much dignity as possible for the monarchy. How charmingly English. But Clio, as I'm sure you're well aware, here on the other side of the Atlantic, even in Canada, our speech tends to be far more irreverent, blunt, and to the point. In other words Clio, get real. Loomis 13:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I always appreciate your candour! But I am English; and while I am not sure if this is a national characteristic, I do place great emphasis on factual and linguistic accuracy; my dear old school would expect no less. Baldwin did indeed make it clear that the marriage was unacceptable, and if the king went ahead it would be the cause of a grave political crisis, both at home and in the Commonwealth. But this is still a long way from 'demanding' abdication: it was always open to Edward to retreat from the brink. And that, Loomis, is about as 'real' as I am prepared to get! But on the question of 'double speak' this brings to mind one of my favourite essayists. Please read George Orwell's Politics and the English Language. It might help to understand me a little better! And, yes; I still love you colonials! Clio the Muse 19:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

But Clio, don't you see the terrible injury that your approach has the posibility of inflicting on future generations' understanding of history? Historians, I firmly believe, are duty-bound to concern themselves first and foremost with relating what really happened. I absolutely adore all of those JCPC judgments wherein, after stating their reasons, rather than have the audacity to state the clear "factual" truth of the matter; that is, that they've decided to reject the appeal, their lordships choose to torture the reality of the situation into such an utter fiction by so charmingly stating that they "humbly advise her majesty to dispose of the appeal". Now while of course those trained in British Constitutional Law may understand what's really going on, and why it's being done in such an utterly bizarre fashion, don't you believe that it's the responsiblity of historians to make sure that some poor teenage history student of the 26th century isn't actually fooled into believing that her majesty actually has any practical say in the matter? I can't even imagine how badly my own knowledge of what was actually going on back in the 16th century was so terribly distorted by what you yourself somewhat curiously consider to be a "great emphasis on factual and linguistic accuracy". Loomis 22:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I know from hard experience, Loomis, including many hours in British and foreign archives, that history seldom if ever presents clear routes and simple choices. History should indeed be concerned with what really happened; but outcomes are rarely predetermined. In analysing the Abdication it is important to embrace all of the casual factors, including the motivations of the King. Baldwin may very well have wanted to get rid of Edward; but that is still a long way from saying that he presented him with an ultimatium. The suggestion that he did is the one sure way to 'mislead' future generations of historians, even teenage ones. Edward did indeed have a say: he could have abandoned Mrs. Simpson, and thus upset all of the Prime Minister's calculations. But in the end history is a business concerned with the intelligent interpretation of conflicting pieces of evidence; and that is how I have always approached the subject. I'm always mindful of the warning of Cocteau; History becomes legend, and legend history. Or you might be inclined to agree with Arthur Schopenhauer, my favourite philosopher; Clio, the muse of history, is as thoroughly infected with lies as a street whore with syphilis. Ouch! Clio the Muse 23:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're now referring (a street whore with syphilis) to Wallis Simpson, Clio. JackofOz 01:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me straight from the begining. The discussion began with a question as to whether the Queen can be sued in tort. You gave what I consider to be half an answer, and a particularly inadequate one. You merely said: "No, she can't", and left it at that. Yes, that was the "technically correct" answer, yet an inevitably misleading one. The full answer would be "technically, no, she can't, however, for political reasons, she would ultimately have no other realistic choice but to compensate the victim rather lavishly, in order to maintain her image as a fair and noble Queen".

I can't help but be reminded of that scene in one of those Peter Sellers "Pink Panther" movies. My memory is hazy on it, but I do remember the essence: Inspector Clouseau walks into a room where there is present a man and a dog. The adorably clumsy inspector asks: "Monsieur, does your dog bite"? "No, the man responds. He's the gentlest of dogs, he wouldn't bite a soul". Reassured, Clouseau bends down to pet the dog gently, only to have the viscious animal chomp down on his finger quite mercilessly. "But Monsieur, did you not assure me that your dog does not bite"? "But of course Monsieur. My dog does not bite...however that is not my dog". Loomis 03:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In all court cases against the governments (in which the Queen is the head of state), the usual method of proceeding with a Statement of Claim is by naming for example: "Her Majesty the Queen" as the defendant. Sometime they name the defendant "Her Majesty the Queen, in the Right of Canada". Usually the Plaintiff lawyers do this, but other times they name "The Attorney General of Canada" or the respective cabinet minister. However be warned if you plan to sue the government, they have smart well paid lawyers. Unless you can prove to the judge you have a legimate cause of action, your case will be thrown out by the Defendant motion to dismiss the case. --Poorman1 09:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot give the answers you are looking for, and in the style you desire; I am not Alice and this is not Wonderland. I deal in factual matters, which is my true task here, not imponderables or what might might happen in this, that or the other unlikely event. I have little interest in debate for the sake of debate, and none at all in polemics. Nobody is under any obligation to accept what I say on this or any other point; and my answers, adequate or not, will always strive to be technically correct. If anyone has any doubts about this I urge them to check the raw data for themselves, which is good practice in any case. No one should ever take anything for granted. But, to round this whole thing off, on the assumption that the original OP is still around, the Queen cannot be summoned to appear before her own courts. The rest is silence. Clio the Muse 09:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the duty of any professional, in any matter, to give an accurate, yes, but far more importantly, a full answer to all questions posed, with the inclusion of all reasonably expectable alternate scenarios. Anything less would be considered professional negligence, falling below the so-called "standard of care". Unfortunately, here, you've fallen below that standard. Now there will be silence. Loomis 11:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Online Translations

Is there a good free online English to Vietnamese block text translator out there? Crisco_1492

• Chào, Crisco: as far as I know of, no. (Then again, I can't point to any machine translator that does not mutilate the language in one way or another.) For an accurate translation, your best bet is probably pasting the block of text that you want to translate here, or on a Vietnamese Wikipedian Community board, if there is one. Chúc may mắn (Best of luck!) --It's-is-not-a-genitive 19:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. As I wouldn't like to be a bother for anyone here (I'm planning a comic strip,and the text could possibly be pretty long,) I'll just change the nationality of the protaganist to Korean. Babelfish has that one, although my past experiences with babelfish aren't the best... oh well, c'est la vie. Crisco 1492 04:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Kuhn/History of Scientific Development

I am looking for material concerning how Thomas Kuhn's ideas in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions can be applied to the development of an aspect of science. In other words, I need to use Kuhn's ideas to show how an area of science developed. Thanks!

Hve you tried reading him? It's a long time since I did so, but as far as I remember, he gives many examples. --ColinFine 23:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

He does indeed, and the book itself is highly readable. But for an alternative view of scientific methodology you might have a look at Karl Popper, particularly Conjectures and Refutations. Clio the Muse 00:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Music from Bedazzled

In the 2000 remake of the film bedazzled, there is a scene where the so called devil is dressed as a parking attendant, and she changes the lights so that there is a massive pile-up. My question is what is the upbeat drum track that plays in the background?

I'm so sorry that i cant find anyone a sample video it just seems that youtube is all out of bedazzled clips, plus i dont know if that would be totally legal. Since it is a small part of the film's soundtrack it won't be featured on its soundtrack cd, but i have heard it featured in many places before. Anyone with a DVD and good musical knowledge able to check up on this for me? -J

It's probably listed in this page ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 18:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

i'd like to think so, but how can i preview those tracks? -J

As a digression, there's some wonderful songs in the original. I love the concept of the devil as a pop singer... ;) 惑乱 分からん 19:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw the original for about 15 minutes when it was shown on tv, but after seeing the remake, i couldnt sit and watch that one. -J

Were wheels known in ancient Egypt?

Pre-thanks --Ulisse0 20:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. They had chariots.

Although if one went back far enough, there would be a point where nobody had wheels, but I'm assuming that you meant Dynastic Egypt under the Pharaohs. B00P 20:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Im sure power brokers and administrators were in evidence then as now! 8-(--Light current 21:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I used to think they didn't have wheels because they didn't use them to transpor the stone blocks for the pyramids, but it is simply that the wheels of the time were not strong enough for that. Making a strong wheel is not as simple as it may seem. DirkvdM 08:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

They had chariots by Biblical times. Anyone know when / from where they derived them? Is it one of the things they picked up from the Hyksos? --Dweller 09:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Read over the page on Chariots. Like so many innovations in technology and design they probably emerged in different places, and among different cultures, at roughly the same time. Clio the Muse 23:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Life in Japan immediately following Japanese Surrender (under American Occupation)

I am interested to find out about the post war experience of the Japanese people post ww2.

At the least you can begin with Douglas MacArthur as well as Hibakusha and maybe someone like Soichiro Honda whose business practices defied many pre-war Japanese conceptions of how a company should be run.Wolfgangus 20:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the book Embracing Defeat by John W. Dower. That would really be the first place to start, I think. -- Mwalcoff 22:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You might also want to look at the page on Occupied Japan. Unfortunately, this is not one of the better Misplaced Pages articles, being a little too schematic; but it at least provides some general indicators. Clio the Muse 01:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Antipater

I was just reading the article on Antipater, Alexander the Great's regent. In one part of the article it stated that Memnon had died and in the next paragraph, it stated that Antipater pardoned Memnon. Which is correct or are there two Memnons?

Two Memnons. We have an article on Memnon of Rhodes but no article on Memnon of Thrace. - Nunh-huh 21:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm amazed that when Antipater met Philip II of Macedon, they didn't annihilate each other. :-) StuRat 11:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I always assumed that antipater was a reference to Alex's mother.  :) JackofOz 01:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

How goes the battle?

Who originally said: "How goes the battle?"--129.123.250.135 20:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Could this possibly be Went the Day Well?, a British movie from World War II? There was a paper published a few years ago with the title How Goes the Battle? in the New Democrat by John J. Dilulio, but I do not know if this was drawn from an original quotation. However, you will probably find lots of variations of this quotation throughout history. One I do know of dates to the Battle of Killiecrankie, fought in Scotland in July 1689. The victorious general, John Graham of Claverhouse was mortally wounded at the height of the fighting. On the point of death he is said to have asked 'How goes the day?' To which reply was given 'Well for King James, but I am sorry for your lordship' 'If it goes well for him, it matters less for me.' Clio the Muse 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure if that is it or not. The man who used to say it me died recently, so I can't ask him.--129.123.250.158 04:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Iliad translation

What are some recommendations for a translation of the Iliad?

My personal favorite modern translation is the one by Robert Fagles (he's also done a nice job on the Odyssey, as well as on the Oresteia of Aeschylus). I guess it depends on your taste: some are more colloquial and idiomatic, some attempt to reproduce the original text more literally, and there are even a few prose translations (I have an old one by W.D.Rouse) Antandrus (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I second Antandrus's recommendation: the Fagles translation is top notch. My alternative was Richmond Lattimore, which was technically accurate but rather dull compared to Fagles. Geogre 21:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Fagles makes a trade-off: he milks every line for as much dramatic vividness as possible, even if it's not true to the original. There is no question that Lattimore's translation will give you a better idea of what the Iliad is like in Greek than any other translation. It's therefore a great translation if you already know that you love the Iliad (and why), or are otherwise devoted to getting a direct acquaintance with a beautiful kind of poetry in all its foreignness. Once you decide you don't want this, you might want to go a few steps beyond Fagles and get the page-turning, fast-moving, colloquial verse of Stanley Lombardo (or even whiz through the abridgement in Lombardo's Essential Homer—but avoid the Essential Iliad which is an even more severe abridgement, to the point of overall faithlessness). But if you ever want to go back to the Iliad, deeper into the Iliad, etc., you need Lattimore (or a good course in Homeric Greek, possibly online and for free). Wareh 03:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Do any of you all have an opinion on Robert Fitzgerald's translation? It seems to me like a good option.

"Achilles' wrath, to Greece the direful spring

Of woes unnumber'd, heavenly goddess, sing!"

Skarioffszky 09:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fitzgerald has a greater claim to be an English poet than any of the others whose names have been mentioned (explicitly, not counting Pope!). His translations are certainly generally excellent, so if you're attracted to them, I recommend them. He sometimes makes striking use of English verse forms—I'm thinking of some very ballad-like sequences in his Odyssey. (Both of his Homeric translations are good, but his Odyssey in particular has lots of admirers.) Wareh 00:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

December 4

British American football teams

In an episode of Family Guy, Peter joins the "London Sillynannies", an effeminate American football team. I didn't think there was such a thing, but I looked it up and was surprised to learn that there really is a British American Football League. My question is, what is the popular perception of these teams in Britain? Do people make fun of them? Is there a stereotype of people who watch American football rather than soccer or other sports?

Also, isn't London Blitz an offensive name (because of the London Blitz)? —Keenan Pepper 02:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No British person would find the use offensive in this context. Clio the Muse 06:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's such a minority sport in Britain that I don't think any popular perceptions have really bedded in. The accusation of effeminacy comes from the perceived contrast between the clothes worn onfield by American footballers and players of rugby, which is an extremely popular sport in some parts of the UK. People wonder why American footballers need so much padding and protection when players of rugby, which is at least as physical a sport if not more so, have nothing except a mouth guard and a jock strap for company. --Richardrj 08:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've come across this attitude a lot among British sports fans. It's ironic, because the last thing Americans would ever think about (American) football is that it's somehow wimpy. Players are always getting horribly mangled. A couple of NFL players have been paralyzed from game injuries. This may be because the type of contact in American football is different than the type of contact in rugby, where interference and forward passing are illegal. A wide receiver (who typically weighs under 200 lbs.) will often have to leap in the air, completely unprotected, and then get whammed by a 260-pound linebacker who has a head start of several seconds. Quarterbacks are often hit completely from the blindside with no warning by people weighing up to 100 lbs. more than them. Not that rugby players aren't insane in what they go through. -- Mwalcoff 00:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a pro team called the London Monarchs, who played in a European league for a while, with some success. Their profile rose and fell but never really captured the public's imagination, despite some "celebrity" signings and other razzmatazz. I'd say that their press coverage was respectful. Unfortunately, the Brits are sports-crazy and it's a hard to break a new sport into the marketplace. There's an excellent parallel with Harlequins Rugby League, who've been trying without overwhelming success to break a (northern) British sport into a new (southern) British area (ie London) for several decades, again without overwhelming progress, despite patches of on-the-field success. PS I think that the London Monarchs were badly named - it may have sounded good to an American PR guru, but the naming coincided with one of the least popular periods for the Royal family... and how butch does "Monarchs" sound????!!?! Amateur (British) American football has zero profile, outside of the players' circles. --Dweller 08:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be more a university thing; I've seen a couple of unis with American Football teams. Laïka 13:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I would dearly love to see an exhibition match (for some good charity) in which an American pro football team would play against a Britise football (rugby) team. After all, the two sports only diverged in the 1880's and both a re collision sports. By coin toss, they would play one game for a half and then the other game for a half. Each team would get, say a week's training in the rules, equipment, and strategy of the other team. Leaving aside the unequal scoring schemes, it would be fascinating to see those tough Rugby guys try to deal with the size and power of the American linemen. The college players drafted into the NFL as offensive linemen typically weigh over 300 pounds (135 kg) and have to be fast on their feet (40 yards in a little over 5 seconds), and tall (many over 6 feet 6 inches (198cm)) and strong (25 reps of 225 pounds (102 kg)). Other positions will be lighter and faster. The padding was necessitated by the high death rate among college and professional atheletes, to avoid the sport being banned altogether as a gladiatorial spectacle. gives stats for Rugby players but I'm not sure which would be comparable in relative level of competition. They seem to be lighter in general but comparable in speed with U.S players.Edison 18:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It would take more than a week to teach American football. It takes years to understand blocking assignments, pass patterns, zone defences, etc. That's why the playground games of football you'll see on American streets looks very little like the game played in stadiums. -- Mwalcoff 00:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It would doubtless take more than a week to learn Rugby, so both sides would be on an equal footing. Edison 01:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Crime and Punishment Translations

I've never got around to reading Crime and Punishment, so I thought I'd sit down with it over Christmas. Any thoughts on which translation is the best? The Crime and Punishment article says the Constance Garnett is the classic translation, but doesn't go any further than that... Thanks, GreatManTheory 03:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Garnett's is one of the original and best translations, and it was her version that I first read. There are more up to date translations by Jessie Coulson-Oxford-and David McDuff-Penguin. Clio the Muse 05:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Constance Garnett is the "classic" in the sense of being the 19th c. translation that made Dostoevsky felt in English. But the modern classic is Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. Look into it & I'm sure you'll easily find some of the rapturous reviews their Dostoevsky translations (and their Anna Karenina; still waiting for War & Peace tho) have received. I have not read their C&P (sitting on the shelf), but I've read their Brothers K. and Demons (and their tr. of Gogol's Dead Souls), and I recommend their versions highly. (They allow just a bit of the Russianness of the idiom to come through, but overall I don't think you'll get more of Dostoevsky's passion, flow, thought, & style in English than they offer.) Wareh 00:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

End of WWI Trenches

What where the trench systems on the western front at the Swiss border and Atlantic Ocean like?

The trench system began at the Swiss border and ended by the shores of the North Sea, not the Atlantic. At both ends it petered out with gun emplacements and barbed wire entanglements. Clio the Muse 06:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Longest and Shortest Wars

What were the longest and shortest wars in the past 2000 years? I remember hearing of one war, I think between Britain and a mediteranean nation, which started in the 15th or 16th century, and due to clerical error, didn't end until said error was discovered in the 1960s or 70s. As for the shortest, I heard of one which lasted 45 minutes from the begginning of shelling to surrender. I forget the name of that one as well... any ideas? Crisco 1492 04:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War and Anglo-Zanzibar War. Unless you consider the war between the sexes to be the longest. Clarityfiend 05:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

War between the sexes? Was that not won long ago? Clio the Muse 06:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The clerical error war you mention probably refers to violent little Berwick-upon-Tweed. meltBanana 14:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Extremely short wars usually result from one side putting up token resistance to overwhelming force and enduring a bombardment before striking the colors, to avoid the shame of surrendering without any defense as did Fort Mackinac in the War of 1812. The result is a foregone conclusion, there is no possibility of holding out until help arrives, and there is no desire to fight to the death. Another factor is that the attackers do not give an ultimatum to surrender without a fight or be slaughtered. Edison 18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That would more apply to a very short battle than a very short war. The shortest war (Anglo-Zanzibar War) did not involve a token resistance - just massive overwhelming force. Rmhermen 22:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... Wow, it appears that Cathy Ryan was right: "If you don't write it down, it never happened." And ya, the 335 years war and the Anglo-Zanzibar war are the ones I was thinking of. For the sake of curiousity Cleo, who won the War of the Sexes? I'd say it was a tie (or pretty close to it) since after a war ends, the victor usually subjugates to loser. Currently most places have equal rights, so I should hope it was a tie :P Crisco 1492 22:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't you know? Well, have a look at the terms of the peace treaty. What did Richard Armour say? Yes, I remember; It was a man's world. Then Eve arrived. But my personal favourite is dear old Timothy Leary; Women who seek to be the equal of men lack ambition. Clio the Muse 23:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

FromAxis powers of World War II:"In the immediate aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japan invaded Thailand on the morning of December 8, 1941. Only hours after the invasion, Field Marshal Phibunsongkhram, the prime minister, ordered the cessation of resistance." Edison 01:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That would still make these 'hostilities' longer than the Anglo-Zanzibar War. And as there was no official declaration of war between Japan and Thailand, and thus no peace treaty to follow, this example does not really count. Clio the Muse 01:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Colors associated with Christmas

What is the origin of the use of red and green for Christmas decorations? Tcolonna 04:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Holly. —Keenan Pepper 05:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

But then I suppose we need to figure out why this plant is associated with Xmas. Somebody misread the lyrics to Silent Night ("Holly infant so tender and mild") ? :-) StuRat 11:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As another song explains: "Of all the trees that are in the wood, the holly bears the crown" (The Holly and the Ivy). Holly, being one of the few lively, attractive plants at that time of year, it was probably often used for decoration as it still is. meltBanana 14:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, poinsettias are also red and green at that time of the year. So, were they chosen as XMAS plants because of that, or are XMAS colors red and green as a result ? StuRat 15:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Poinsettia are a more modern custom. Rmhermen 16:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I did have another theory about why red and green are the XMAS colors, but I think it's probably only my family who celebrates XMAS by putting frogs in blenders. :-) StuRat 15:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Frogs? In blenders? I would never come up with that. Anyways, I thought white was also a Christmas color. | AndonicO 16:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Being both the color of snow and of purity (as in the "virgin" birth), that makes sense to me. StuRat 17:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the term?

What is the term for giving an inanimate object a personality? I found a reference to that in a book a couple of years ago, but I can't seem to find it again, and no one that we know can tell us what the word is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.241.142.150 (talk • contribs).

Personification? Anthropomorphism? --jh51681 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with anthropomorphitization, but I may not be able to, since this computer hates me and often refuses to work. StuRat 11:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Voodoo, Idol Worship ? (joke hopefully)83.100.183.34 15:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fetishisation, at least as Marx uses the term. Cheers, Sam Clark 17:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say personification as you are giving an inanimate object a personality. On another note, isnt' this a question for the language desk? --The Dark Side 01:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Use of a Dremel on a gemstone.

Hello, I am interested in carving two stones, Lapis and Tigers eye, into smooth polished orbs as well as other items including rings, pendants, bracelets, etc. I have found through extensive research that the tool I may need is called a Dremel. However, I have found no clues on what sort of Dremel I need to buy. The Dremel, from what I understand, will enable me to cut and fashion the stone into my desired shape, but what is the best way to polish gemstones? In their raw state, they aren't too pretty - But once polished, they are very beautiful. So, in short, what sort of dremel do I need (If infact I do need one), and how do I polish my finished product? And are there any other tools I could benefit from having/using?

Thank you very much, -- Enrique. P.S., I know your website warns against listing my email address for my own privacy, but I already have an email address that is completely sold out to junk-email, yet I still check it very regularly, and thus, I have NO qualms about listing it here. Please respond to my question by email if possible. ecoh1112@hotmail.com Yep, it's a hotmail account. Go figure, huh? lol.

A Dremel could be useful to carve them into a specific shape, but what you really want is a rock tumbler. You can leave it running for a long time, and switch to finer and finer grits, to get them much smoother and shinier. —Keenan Pepper 05:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

yes - a dremel would be usefull - as would a tumbler (which is also useful for fine polishing)

The term you want to look up is lapidary - I can't give you much info myself but there is a lot of info on the web on polishing gemstones - try a google search on 'lapidary' and 'gemstone' or both. eg http://www.delscope.demon.co.uk/personal/lapidary.htm and http://www.ganoksin.com/borisat/nenam/lapidary-safety.htm gives some dremel tips (watch out for that stone dust!) The web is loaded with gemcutting tips if you look.. An alternative to a dremel type tool is a electric rotary grindstone - like used for sharpening axes - you'd need different fittings for grindind/smoothing/polishing - but the machines are quite cheap - not much more than a dremel or less.87.102.32.183 08:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Cost of food in Sierra Leone?

Since Sierra Leone has long been considered the poorest of all countries, how much does it take to sustain a family for a whole year? By sustain, I mean, food, shelter & clothing.69.110.4.54 05:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the Economy of Sierra Leone, which appears to be taken from the CIA Factbook, the annual GDP is $800 per person. However, the income distribution is extremely unbalanced, so the amount is significantly less than $800. -THB 06:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Income distribution is extremely unbalanced everywhere, but Sierra Leone is an extreme case according to the List of countries by income equality (note, though, that this is based on 1989 data). However, especially in Africa, it is not uncommon for people to live on land that is traditionally theirs, build their own houses and grow their own food (both usually communally) and such, not needing any money. Maybe this is very common in Sierra Leone, which would explain both teh low average income and the income inequality. So these things don't necessarily mean poverty or physical inequality (respectively). Without money you may not have any hopes of getting rich, but it doesn't have to mean you have a miseable life. These are just things to keep in mind when you read data like that. In how far this applies to Sierra Leone, I don't know. DirkvdM 08:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in most countries income is highly dependent on employment (with a few exceptions, of course). StuRat 11:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

SWORDS and metals : what swords were made of

I was not sure where to post this, but i figured this being partially a cultural question, so...

SWORDS AND METALS

As is known, during the iron age they used iron to make swords and weapons, but one eventually figured STEEL was the best metal for making weapons as far as I know. But question is, was there any other metals they used for making swords ? Sometimes I see weapons whose blades is much darker than average, almost going over to black, while other times i see weapons with blades more bronze-coloured... So is there any dark metals that was used for sword-making, or was bronze used? Or was it maybe steel all along, that steel can take on both dark and various colors ? I know steel as blank in color... And i wonder then about which metals CAN BE and WAS used for sword-making in the past, and then especially during the the middle ages (about 800-1400) And which metals was the best to use ? was there any better than STEEL or did any other metal even come close to the same quality?

I've tried search and read both sword, middle-ages, various metals and leather but didnt find the answers i seek. And about the leather, i wonder what kind of leather was used and how the leather was treated before and when one covered the hilt of the sword?

Thank you - eager and impressed user of Misplaced Pages —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klippert (talk • contribs).

Swords were made of bronze during the bronze age, iron during the iron age, and then steel in modern times. Iron has the black color you mention, at least if it is kept properly oiled to prevent rust. StuRat 11:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember seeing on tv that in India, they made swords differently (don't know if technique or materiel), and this helped the turks in the crusades. | AndonicO 16:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be Damascus steel but the connection to Indian wootz steel is still debated. Rmhermen 16:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Advent

In the Roman Catholic Church, why is the rose candle lit on the third Sunday of Advent on the Advent wreath?

Thanks for asking, I always wondered, but never asked. In the Advent article, the Candles and Calendars section explains this. | AndonicO 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Criminal Law: Bail/Suicide

Suppose a person is accused of crime, but not yet convicted. They are allowed free on bail. If they were to run away, the bail money would be forfeit. If they died of natural causes before their court date, I think the money would be returned. However, what if the accused commits suicide? Does that count as absconding or evading justice?

I have been unable to find any prior cases that indicate what happens to the bail money, in this situation. 32.97.110.142 17:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• I imagine it depends on the jurisdiction. Here in Nevada, for example, the law says that death "exonerates" any surety (bail); it does not distinguish suicide from any other death. Some state constitutions explicitly rule out any such distinction (and I got to remind myself again of the wonderful word deodand while studying this.) --jpgordon 19:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

MiddleAge-swords : various questions

Krikkert7 20:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)krikkert7

First i just gotta say that I know that SHAGREEN-leather is used to cover the sword-hilts during the MiddleAges. Back in the middleage that meant the skin from a horseback, and in the east i think they used the skin from a onager-creature as well. I know that today in modern times we use shark-skin and ray-skin to make SHAGREEN-leather, but the modern days are not of interest to me.

My questions is :

1) Is there any other type of leather than SHAGREEN that was used on sword-hilts ?

2) I read that SHAGREEN-leather tends to be green in color... But sword-hilts were often brown or dark in colour, so SHAGREEN can take on other colors too, right ? Like dark brown and black ? Otherwise, that must mean more than only SHAGREEN was used.

Leathers can be easily died - blue leather for instance - shagreen is probably no exception.

3) I read about the techniques for preparing the leather before wrapping it around the hilt, but i am unsure if i am understanding it right... I read lots about "when the leather is dry... bla bla" Does this mean the leather is boiled in hot water before using it on the hilt, just liek they do with leather-armor to make it hard and rough?

4) The pommel and the crossguard/crucifix was mostly or always made of the same metal as the blade itself, right ?? The reason for me asking is that i have noticed that both the pommel and the crossguard often are a bit different in colour than the blade itself, making me wonder if maybe another metal was used ? I'm not sure, but it would only be logical to assume i guess that the entire blade(pommel,crossguard,blade and handle) is made as one by the same metal, am I right? and ofcourse, the leather was put on afterwards on the handle/hilt.

The cross guard is almost certainly iron or steel like the sword - the pommel isn't though - I'm sure I've see pommels made out of ivory etc..

5) Steel is made of iron(+ more), and thus i guess steel is stronger and better suited for swords and weapons than iron is. And bronze is weaker than iron, right ? Which makes Steel the ultimate sword-metal then ? or could Iron and bronze swords be of the same standard ?

Bronze is pretty good, and was originally better than the iron swords of ancient times - but iron is more common and cheaper than the tin and copper used to make bronze. Modern metallurgy probably could make a bronze alloy as good as steel in some respects but probably lacking in springyness. Plus bronze doesn't rust. In general steel would probably be the ultimate sword material as you say without going into making exotic alloys.(Best = steel>bronze>iron)

6) Could you LINK me to an info-page about oiling of sword-blades and weapons to avoid rust? i don't know how to search for it, and what to call it.

Basically you just oil it - clean the old oil of periodically and reoil - for more info (japaanese swords) see http://home.earthlink.net/~steinrl/care.htm I just did a search like this http://ww.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=oiling+sword&meta=. Lots of info. Also here http://swordforum.com/sfu/primer/oiling.html

7) Could you also link me to a page giving info on how they kept their swords sharp ? you know, they used to use some kind of stone or something to polish the sword-edges. I dont know what stones they used or what the technique is called and not what to search for.

"Whetstone" is probably the word you are looking for. The page sharpening should have the basics. Also here http://swordforum.com/sfu/primer/sharpening.html

I'm no expert but this site looks really reliable http://swordforum.com/sfu/87.102.21.243 21:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

justice

i am having trouble defining the concept of "sense of justice". Specifically, how someone with a sense of justice feels about wrongful convictions and the criminal justice system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.116.21 (talk • contribs)

I suggest reading Justice and Punishment as starting places. But to give a short answer: presumably someone with a sense of justice is angered or wounded by injustice, in such a way that she wants to do something about it, by righting the wrong or responding to the wrongdoer. For John Stuart Mill in Utilitarianism, our desire for justice is a combination of two more primitive human feelings: the desire to retaliate against people who have hurt us, and our capacity for sympathetic identification with others. So, when we see someone hurt, we imagine ourselves in her position, and want to lash out at the wrongdoer on her behalf. Hope this helps. Sam Clark 21:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

To what Sam has written I would add the general observation that in a perfect world justice and a sense of justice would be a reflex, like breathing. But for a definition of things as they are, and how the law-as opposed to justice-actually works, I recall the words of Jonathan Swift; Laws are like cobwebs, which catch the small flies, but let wasps and hornets pass through. Clio the Muse 00:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wheat Berry substitute

My local bulk barn store does not carry wheat berries. Does anyone know what I can use to substitute this in a receipe? My kids are making "Kutya" for a class project and it calls for this ingredient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.147.115 (talk • contribs)

This website offers the following:

wheat berries = hard wheat berries = whole wheat berries. Notes: These are wheat kernels that have been stripped only of their inedible outer hulls. They're nutritious, but they take hours to cook. If you don't have the patience to use the whole berries, try the more convenient cracked wheat, bulgur, or wheat flakes. Substitutes: kamut berries OR spelt berries OR soft wheat berries (softer and starchier) OR triticale berries OR cracked wheat OR bulgur

Cheers, Sam Clark 21:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Dutch employment law

Is it legal in the Netherlands to ask about marital status in a job interview? Thanks. moink 21:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, Moink! As far as I am aware, a potential employer is allowed to ask you, en passant, of your marital status. However, it cannot be used as grounds for discriminating against you, be it in a positive or a negative way. The Dutch General Equal Treatment Act states that discrimination on the grounds of religion, gender, philosophy of life, political conviction, race, heterosexual or homosexual orientation and marital status is unacceptable. The problem would be proving that you lost a job opportunity just because of your marital status.

Best wishes, It's is not a genitive/fala-me 23:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe that in Canada and the U.S., they avoid that whole having to prove harm thing by simply making it illegal to ask. I was surprised that it came up. moink 23:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Name of the List of "Best Universities

I heard somewhere that a list exists ranking universities (I assume in order of achievements or popularity...)Does anyone know the name of this list and by what they are ranked?Links would be nice. Thanks --San22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)~

You haven't said where you're from and what country/category/whatever you're looking at. Take a look at College and university rankings. moink 22:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

December 5

East Indians and Caucasians

Hello: I read in the Misplaced Pages article entitled "Caucasian race", that East Indians are technically classified as Caucasian by anthropologists. Is this true? As a general question, who is classified as being Caucasian, and who isn't? Vikramkr 00:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Do contemporary anthropologists still use this as a mode of classification? I though it was a residue of nineteenth century taxonomy? It seems to be such an elastic concept that it would be possible to include virtually anything and anyone, including 'East Indians', if by this you mean people from the Indonesian archipelago. By and large the term is no longer in use in Europe; and I think in the US it is simply a generic term for 'white people.' Clio the Muse 00:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

old photographs

why doesnt anyone smile in very old photgraphs?thanks, k.rain

Because they were not told to do so by the photographer?--Light current 01:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That may have more than grain of truth in it. The abominable practice of a group of people posing for a camera, saying "cheese" and playing "happy families" is relatively new. I can't think of a single classical painting of a front-facing person or group of people where they're all smiling. Or, if they are, it's for a good reason, not because the painter told them to. JackofOz 01:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Its amazing what you can get people (esp females) to do in front of a camera when you are a photographer! 8-)--Light current 01:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Reference Desk archive