This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kjvenus (talk | contribs) at 20:15, 10 January 2007 (→Racial abuse in the work place). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Reference Desk

January 6

James Cameron

Hi. I was just wondering if there was any possibility of James Cameron being an a**hole to anyone on set. I've heard some documents about his personality before and that's quite accurate. It doesn't say anything about that here on Misplaced Pages. I just thought an article should say something about that since Misplaced Pages is all about accuracy.Jk31213 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is indeed about accuracy. If there is a referenced source and it is considered worthy then such things about his 'controversial' manner on stage could well be worthy of addition to the entry. Find it, reference it, add it and wait and see what the community thinks. ny156uk 01:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well not really written but on T.V. It is said that Linda Hamilton yelled at him on set, not to mention you could figure one or a couple things about him just by listening to him in the Titanic commentary. He says that he was arguing with a costum designer or something about a hat that kate winslet should wear in a scene. He threw the hat into the ocean to end the argument. Those are a couple examples, anyway. I cant find actual written ones about him. Jk31213 02:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but Linda Hamilton was his wife, she had a right to yell at him.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 01:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This was before she married him.Jk31213 03:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not at all unusual for there to be arguments on a film set on occasion. Artists are often passionate people, and successful ones develop considerable egos. Furthermore, on a film set, people work long hours in often trying conditions. So it's not surprising that occasionally people snap on film sets. In any case, this discussion probably belongs on Talk:James Cameron. --Robert Merkel 05:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Power of God

Aside from a few miracles that don't significantly affect everyday life, why does God have so little influence on Earth's events? It seems as if humans are in control of our planet instead of God. Also, if God never intervenes in earthly matters, why did the people who started religion believe he exist? --Bowlhover 01:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Is god (presumably the christian god) supposed to rule over the earth? God's apparent existance is a matter of faith. The people who believe he existed believe as a matter of faith, as a matter of understanding the way of the universe. If God made every decision (or even just the big decisions) for us what more would be than puppets on a string? Any god worth their salt creates a world and people and sets them free - kinda like an experiment. ny156uk 01:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe... just maybe... God doesn't exist. --The Dark Side 01:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously now, according to the Bible he has alot of influence, you just don't realize it. For example, in the first book of Samuel, how likely is it that Saul would go to the town where Samuel was waiting? I'm pretty sure that the hand of God was guiding him or his servant/slave. See Saul's appointment as king. --The Dark Side 01:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to which "few miracles that don't significantly affect everyday life" you're referring to. But that's a side issue. I really like NY's answer. All I'd add is a little anecdote from a trailer for some tv show that eventually got cancelled I believe. I never watched the show so I don't even know what it was called, but I wouldn't doubt if the show was crap. Still, a couple of lines from the trailer were actually quite profound and worth repeating:

For whatever reason, God decides to take the appearance of some ordinary teenage guy, and has a conversation with a teenage girl in a park. At one point He reveals to her that He's actually God, to which the girl responds in the most sarcastic of tones: "Yeah right! If you're really God, why don't you prove it and show me a miracle, huh?" God, in the form of the teenage kid, responds: "Alright, wanna see a miracle? I'll show you a miracle". He then points to the most massive, most amazingly beautiful oak in the park and continues: "There's a miracle for you". Loomis 01:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ny156uk: surely God made enough decisions to make his existence apparent? If a terrible, cruel act was commited, shouldn't God interfere to set things right? If I had unlimited powers, I wouldn't abandon my creation. I would watch over it to make sure nothing goes wrong.

But if this god interferes where is your freedom? Virtually all law is retrospective (punished AFTER the event). It's not about abandoning a creation, it's about letting your creation do what it does. I'm just saying if I was a god I wouldn't interfere because where does it stop. What if I help Dave survive a crash in America but forget about Jorge in Spain? Wouldn't that make people think I had favouritism? And if I did save Jorge too at what point do I let people make mistakes (again back to the puppets on a string). If a god showed their actions for everyone to see, that god would be more hated than loved - because that god would either have to save every bad action, or pick and choose - so less 'freedom from god' or more 'why didn't he help me?'...Much better to do nothing but send a prophet to 'guide' people...again all assuming a belief in god.ny156uk 11:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Dark Side: I'm an atheist too, but it's interesting to speculate why people like the creators of religion believed in God. Also, the Bible was written by theists, and it wasn't the reason people started believing in deities.

Loomis: By miracles, I was referring to images of Jesus on pieces of bread or concrete walls, and the like. --Bowlhover 01:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Cultural anthropology seems to say that mythology and deities are what people with primitive technologies use to explain the world. Those "miracles" can be attributed to observer bias (observer-expectancy effect). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjoonlee (talk • contribs) 03:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's because no one knows the meaning of life. --The Dark Side 03:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Assuming there is one. Maybe we're just atom machines moving around the universe. We don't have to have a meaning, per se, but we can make the best of the fact we're here. A lot of people seem to think that lack of intrinsic meaning means we have no reason to live or exist at all, which is a pretty stupid thing to say since you still have the choice to do whatever you want. — Kieff 11:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"It's 'I'm not touching you' on a cosmic scale." --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The question is a good example of how antecedant beliefs define a question's answer. As a Christian, I'm rather surprised at the total mastery God has over the universe, and the deftness of touch that allows forgiveness and free will.

My interpretation of the question is "Why doesn't god change the minds of those who choose not to respect god?" The bible provides a perfectly adequate answer to that, as any mainstream local (Christian) church should endorse. I gather though, that questioner didn't frame it that way for a reason.

Phillip K Dick, in his book Valis, poses many similar questions. If you enjoy reading books of great writers who just don't get it, give it a go DDB 08:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The people who believed in God before the Bible did so because he dealt with them personally. God communicated with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Job and others long before the Bible was written. The plagues on Egypt in Moses' time, the deliverance of the people of Israel (through a sea, mind you) - these things were done before the Bible was written. God dealt with them first, then things were written down - not the other way around. BenC7 13:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm also reminded of a quote from C.S. Lewis which seems relevant to post here:

We can perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of abuse of this free will...; a wooden beam would become as soft as grass when it became a weapon, and the air would refuse to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry insults. But such a world would become one in which wrong actions would be impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void... All matter in the neighbourhood of an evil man would be liable to undergo unpredictable alterations. That God can and does, on occasions, modify the behaviour of matter and produce miracles is part of the Christian faith; but the very conception of a... stable world demands that these occasions should be extremely rare. BenC7 13:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a paradox: God can't exist, be infinitely powerful, and also be infinitely good. This is because very bad things happen to good people, some of them from natural phenomena, like tsunamis. Either God doesn't exist, or lacks the power to prevent a tsunami, or has the power and chooses not to do so. This is still true if you assume all evil is the action of Satan. Either God lacks the power to stop Satan, in which case He isn't infinitely powerful, or he chooses not to stop Satan. Allowing Satan to do as he pleases, given the ability to stop him, seems to be rather immoral. StuRat 19:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

God is good, and has the power to stop evil. He doesn't always, because he has given us free will (see quote above). Many people have the mistaken impression that God is good only, or love only. But God is more than a single characteristic. God sometimes causes evil things to happen to people as well (see Amos 9:4, for one example of many). He does this for his own reasons. Sometimes for punishment; sometimes so others will be protected; sometimes for discipline; sometimes so people will think about their life, and perhaps what awaits them after death; and for other reasons. Other times evil things happen because of our own choices or the actions of others. Does that make God less good? No, it just means that God has more than one aspect to his character. BenC7 02:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So the consensus here seems to be that God doesn't try to stop evil because he wants to let humans do whatever they want with each other and their planet. But what about natural disasters? Surely God could stop those without taking away anybody's freedom? --Bowlhover 10:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, but where is the line drawn? Certainly God could stop a tidal wave from killing several hundred people in some place. What about if only 5 people were killed? Only 1? What if many people were injured, but no-one died? What if a few people were injured? What if no-one was injured, but people lost their property? What if only one person lost their property? What if... (and you can keep going down the list of injuriousness as much as you like). It's like saying, if God stops only large things, what about things that are kind-of large? Medium sized? Small? Eventually we end up in a world where nothing can ever possibly go wrong. And many times it is affliction that brings people closer to God, or at least gets them questioning if he exists. God's plan is not ultimately to make us comfortable or to get us to enjoy this life as though it were the only one we had; God's plan is for us to be with him. BenC7 02:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

But to go against your view, where is the line drawn regarding how bad things go until you say "enough, there's too much needless evil in this world"? If you adopt the Leibniz's "this is the best of all possible worlds", then you'll never stop saying that anything bad is for overall good. What do you say to the innocent AIDS victims? Their children? The hopeless starving children in Africa? Are their suffering for some kind of good? Isn't that kind of cynical and insensitive to the real issues? If you haven't, read Voltaire's POEM ON THE LISBON DISASTER; Or an Examination of the Axiom, “All is Well” at http://courses.essex.ac.uk/cs/cs101/VOLT/Lisbon2.htm.

I'm not a theist, but even if I were to believe in a god, I wouldn't go so far as saying that evil things are for the best because that would mock those who truly suffer. 128.163.241.210 05:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that all bad things are for overall good. But let me take AIDS orphans as an example. Somewhere along the line, at least one person would have made a poor decision that ultimately culminated in the (tragic) death of both parents of particular children. What do you want God to do? To step in, miraculously transport the children to a better country where they would have better chances at life? What about people who are moderately afflicted? People who are lightly afflicted? People who are only lightly afflicted for a particular period of their lives? Where would God end up having to transport people to? A perfect family in a perfect neighbourhood with perfect parents, friends, relatives, teachers, etc. in a perfect country in a perfect world. In a world where God intervenes to negate every possible consequence of evil actions, we again end up in a world where people don't have free will. BenC7 11:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I am not a theist either, but a Buddhist. The bible says that mankind chose in Eden to bite an apple from the tree of knowledge. This action was a choice of free will over being controlled by God. If God were to intervene every time someone prayed, then he would be taking away free will. He respects mankinds desire for freedom and free will by letting mankind be responsible for their own actions. Suppose no one were responsible for their actions, but just had to pray to have things fixed when they messed things up? Some feel that wew need to wait until "rapture" until God will interact with us again.

Another view is that the world as we know it, as is increasingly described by scientists, including physics, chemistry, and even evolution, is God's prescribed mechanism for creating and managing the world. All of the things we take for granted every day are God.

Some Christians feel that God, being all poweerful and all knowing had no capability for directly understanding mankind. (as paradoxical as that sounds) That there was a time when God was angry and vengeful at Mankinds disobedience, and that through the act of allowing himself to be born, and experience life from a human perspective, God gained compassion and understanding of the human condition, human frailty and limitations. Hence why there are no recorded miracles since Jesus. In this model the old testament is then historical, and all of the old rules (hebrew bible/old testament) no longer apply, as God made a new pact with mankind through himself/son Jesus.

There are countless variations, and hypothetical variations of these. There is not, and will never be any way to know. Whatever the purpose, or lack thereof, we are obligated to live our mortal lives seperated from God, and this was by our choice, in order to have free will. It is by design, or by necessity a matter of faith. If it were not a matter of faith, there would be one true way, one true path, one set of rules we must all live our lives by. Clearly, this isn't the case. Some hypothesize that ALL paths lead to the same place eventually, and that compassion for one another, and helping each other on our mortal path is appropriate. All religions and all paths eventually get there. (paradoxically, even the ones who say that they are right and everyone else is wrong.)Atom 13:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any Christians who believe that God did not have the capacity for understanding man. The Bible says, for example, that God knows the depths of the human heart. It also says things like, God knows what we are going to say even before we say it.

Also, all paths cannot lead to God. That is essentially saying that there are multiple truths, which is an internally contradictory statement. (i.e., if A is true, and A contradicts B, A and B cannot both be true.) BenC7 02:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

About how people even came up with the idea of gods: I think that all humans have this desire to feel like there is a god. We feel a need for justice: if people are not 'good Christians' while alive, they will be punished. If they are virtuous, they will end up in Heaven. And, however much we flatter ourselves that free will is a great choice, we have a need to feel that someone is in control. That our existence is more than a series of coincidences and (possibly) accidents. But, it's still a bunch of crap. FruitMart07 00:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

See the post by me marked in bold above, which is a response to a similar comment made by User:The Dark Side. BenC7 01:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Lost his bottle of oil"

In The Frogs, during the 'battle' between Aeschylus and Euripides, Euripides recites various lines, which I take to be the prologues from several of his plays. Each time, Aeschylus interjects with "lost his bottle of oil". As far as I can tell, this is a criticism of some sort, based upon the claim Aeschylus makes that,

You frame your prologues so that each and all Fit in with a "bottle of oil,"

I'm having trouble understanding what exactly Aeschylus' point is. Could someone help me with this? --Awesome 07:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It is famous that Seinfeld episodes contained a reference to Superman. Such comedy can be obscure. One philosopher friend of mine was puzzled over a reference to vice, which complained of many having too much liking for wine, small boys and fish. Apparently, some fish used to be good for smoking, providing an effect akin to cannabis.

Cicero, in argument for a man accused of killing his father, fingers a wealthy Greek man who used a fashionably large amount of hair oil. Euripides characters were supposed to be more common than Aeschylus. It is possible that their vanity required hair oil. But I'm guessing. DDB 07:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Guesses are fun! But actually, it's the rhythm of the words, not the words themselves, in this case. Euripides is quite proud of his explanatory prologues. Aeschylus is showing them to be boring and monotonous, every one of them in the same meter, into which can freely be injected the "little bottle of oil". It's kinda like singing the poems of Emily Dickinson to the tune of The Yellow Rose of Texas. (Try it; you'll never be able to read Dickinson again without hearing it.) --jpgordon 15:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

or singing "My Darling Clementine" to the tune of the German national anthem, for that matter... Grutness...wha? 00:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Or, perhaps my favorite, Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening to the tune of Hernando's Hideaway. But neither of those are entire work like Dickinson's yellow roses. --jpgordon 16:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I acquired a copy of Hernando's Hideaway after reading this, and now that poem will never be the same again! -GTBacchus 23:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

How did they figure out you could milk a cow?

Hi all. I was wondering how early man figured out you could milk a cow. I mean, honestly, think about what had to have been running through his mind. Any resources would be wonderful. Much help appreciated ! Xhin 08:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely he just saw a calf doing it. In any case, would he not have been suckled himself?--Shantavira 09:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Most people don't remember the age when they themselves would have been breast-feeding, but that doesn't matter if they get to see others doing it. "Hey look, that calf is doing the same thing as Baby Ugg was this morning... and Mrs. Cow's got room in there for a whole lot more milk than Mrs. Ugg! I wonder if..." And thus we see that the nudity taboo in many of today's societies is crippling to man's inventive powers. :-) --Anonymous, January 6, 2OO7, 10:OO (UTC).

Actually, traditionally, children were breastfed for years rather than months or weeks (see the work of Katherine Dettwyler who apparently doesn't have an article here, but probably should). But that doesn't change the fact that you mention, that kids would also see others nursing. Ingrid 20:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was alone in enjoying this smutty joke. Notes were not taken of the time. Dogs were apparently domesticated in Asia about 70,000 years ago. Anthropomorphism suggests it seemed a good idea, being more plentiful than cat milk. DDB 23:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever try to milk a cat? --Charlene 21:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Enigma Machine

I have read articles about the royal navy capturing an enigma machine from a german sub and a rumour that the captor was a young sailor from runcorn but cannot find any details or. Does anybody know the true story. richie mercer

There were several captures of Enigma machines and codebooks from German U-boats during WWII (see our article on Cryptanalysis of the Enigma), but the most famous event is probably the capture of U-110 by HMS Bulldog in May 1941. After a depth-charge attack, U-110 was abandoned on the surface by its crew in the mistaken belief that it was about to sink. According to this BBC article a boarding party from the Bulldog, led by Lieutenant Balme, searched the U-boat. The Bulldog's telegraphist, Alan Osborne Long, found an Enigma machine in the U-110's radio room. Although he did not realise exactly what it was, it was sufficently unusual for it to be taken on board the Bulldog. The Bulldog took U-110 in tow, but it sank before they could reach port. When the Bulldog returned to Scapa Flow, the Enigma machine and associated documents were collected by a RN Intelligence officer and taken to Bletchley Park. Can't find anything about a Runcorn connection, however. Gandalf61 12:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility is U-559, although it appears that none of the three sailors directly involved in retrieving the enigma codebooks, etc. were from Runcorn. The "young sailor" was, in this case, a canteen assistant named Tommy Brown, but he was from North Shields, not Runcorn. Carom 16:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Father of the Renaissance

Sometimes Petrarch is considered the father of the Renaissance; while on the other hand Dante is also. Perhaps there are also others (i.e. Boccaccio)? What is this definition and what is meant by this title? Are there then some sort of subcategories to this title? When in the Renaissance was this given out?--Doug 13:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In Florence, Italy, there is a long road with statues on either side. Primarily 'Renaissance' figures. One of the two nearest to the river is Machiavelli's. He may not be the father of the Renaissance, but his name tends to be known and remembered better than most. Dante is surely one of the top two as well. Then there's the Medici family. Vranak 17:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Really, Doug, there is no great mystery here, nor is there any strict definition to what is merely a colloquial, and loosely applied title. Later generations, loooking for a seminal figure, draped the honour on Petrarch, because he might be said to have been the first to develop a new and disinterested mode of intellectual inquiry, in a clear break with the prevailing attitudes of the Middle Ages. I dare say there are many others, like Dante and Boccaccio, who have every right also to be considered as fathers and step-fathers; and the various branches of art and thought probably have their own favourite 'petty' fathers. The complex taxonomy you seem to be looking for does not exist. Finally, on a point of procedure, can I ask you please not to link the names of people like Petrarch every time you mention them, as you have now ad nauseum: there is simply no need. Clio the Muse 17:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

history

hi all , im not a student of history but would want u all to help me with a question which has been troubling me for long, i will appriciate ur response.

the question is as follows.

Some one long back told me that the start of human race came from a very few civilizations? for eg the chinese, korean,, japanese etc have originated from the mongolian civilization, the Europeans from the mesopotimian civilization, where did the other races in the world come from for eg African, Asians, Latin Americans , Russians etc.

will be great full for ur support

As I understand it, current understanding is that the first humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago and spread from there, replacing populations of other hominids that had already migrated to different parts of the world. Civilisation, i.e. living in settled communities, didn't start until about 10,000 years ago. --Nicknack009 15:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

See the article Single-origin hypothesis. This is, as the name indicates, a hypothesis. The article links to other hypotheses.  --Lambiam 18:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

i prefix fad

Does anyone think the i-prefix has become a fad? with obviously the inclusion of apple's products, and alot of other products have also adopted the i- prefix i guess to be 'hip'. if it is, around what time do you think it became a fad?--Technofreak90 15:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Does Steve Wozniak explain it in his autobiography iWoz:  ? :-) StuRat 19:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The i prefix, imho, is an excellent marketing tool that gets results. DDB 23:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

iMac, released 1998, mentions some of the history it is more difficult to determine when it caught on a became a fad, probably shortly before apple started issuing lawsuits. A much older i- fad in english, from about 1000 years ago, added i- or y- to lots of words to denote several different things such as past participles. Yclept meaning called, named is one of the longest lived, kept alive by poets and logorrhœa sufferers. meltBanana 02:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sumer is icumen in: lhude sing cuccu: the first line of the first recognizably English poem. The Early Modern version would have been "a-coming", however. --Wetman 10:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume the question means the recent use of the "i" prefix to mean "Internet". StuRat 16:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, but also in terms of the individual's revolution, such as the video revolution and creative commons and the ability for one person to have the same power as any other on the internet to present their own ideas.--Technofreak90 23:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

E-well, e-at e-least e-it's e-a e-change e-from e-the e-ubiquitous e-e-prefix. JackofOz 00:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Driving age in Greece

What is the driving age in Greece?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.180.179 (talk • contribs)

Sixteen or eighteeen, depending on the category of vehicle. See driver's license and this page.--Shantavira 16:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Familiarity seeking behavior in children

I've noticed that children tend to like to reread the same books, watch the same music, and eat the same foods, to a greater extent than adults. What explains this difference ? There might be a partial evolutionary reason in the case of foods, in that children who ate unfamiliar foods were more likely to die. However, when the parents say it's good to eat, and even eat some to prove it, this no longer seems to be the case (unless we consider the risk of a life-threatening allergic reaction to be significant). In the case of music, this strong desire for familiarity seems to last into the teens and perhaps even the 20s, as evidenced by top 10 radio stations, which repeat each song many times a day. StuRat 19:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I can't find the exact text, in The Uses of Enchantment Bruno Bettelheim argues that one reason children like to hear and read the same fables and stories again and again is because it takes these repeat performances for them to absorb the various implications not so readily apparent the first time around. Wolfgangus 20:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A secret of obsessive/compulsive behaviour is that when a victim finds something they like doing, they want to do it again.

A reverse behaviour may be described as masochism.DDB 23:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is comfort in familiarity and routine, important for all children. Rudyard Kipling used to tell his daughter, Josephine, the same stories night after night, and if he deviated at all from the established pattern she would immediately object, No! I want it just so. From this simple admonition the world was to be given the Just So Stories. Clio the Muse 02:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Adults do it too. The women I work with have a small library in the office - dozens of books in a filing cabinet, and they all seem to be romances set in the late 19th or early 20th century and have covers featuring a woman in a shawl looking wistfully into the distance while her hair blows in the wind. Not exactly the same story, but they've discovered something they like and are sticking to it. Likewise science fiction fans, soap opera addicts, comics fans and so on have found something they like, and often get upset if their choice of entertainment does something unexpected - "George Lucas raped my childhood", anyone? --Nicknack009 02:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, bodice rippers. StuRat 16:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The bane of romance writers and readers is the horrible covers stuck on the books by (mostly) male editors, who can take two completely different books, slap on virtually identical covers, and justify it by saying, "they're just women's fiction, they're not important!" People who have never seen past the covers assume the books are identical and sneer at the people reading them. --Charlene 21:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on the idea that heaven and hell have no philsophical foundation

Apart from people like Flew, Wittgenstein, Dawkins & Marks for the pro-argument & Augustine, Ireneaus & Hick. How would you go about tackling such a statement in providing arguments for & against this topic. What other people would you include, critical Bible passes & atheist thinkers.

--85.189.4.34 19:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The heaven/hell concept seems an expression of Western Thinking. I personally find it interesting that a biblical description of Hell is akin to symptoms of Diabetes (thirst, heat). Heaven, as I understand it, is merely to 'be with god.' The nebulous nature of the biblical concepts seems to have been adapted to suit 'dark age' peasants.

I understand there are aspects of heaven/hell demarcations in ancient cultures. US Indians having hunting grounds, Asia having a motif of being with family. Not much of a division for Norse peoples, but the Karmic cycle sounds satisfying for many.

In some ways, Judaism seems to have created the demarcation as a result of identifying one god. DDB 22:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Like anywhere else, I suppose, even Hell has a history. But beyond this, although heaven is illusive and absent, hell is ever more present. For Arthur Schopenhauer, hell was something created by humanity on this earth, and for Jean-Paul Sartre Hell is other people. Clio the Muse 01:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You realize, of course, that Jesus talked about both heaven and hell numerous times...? The fact that hell is akin to diabetes is laughable. Yes, God will punish sin by giving people diabetes. Please. BenC7 02:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

North Korea Solutions

What are some solutions to the problem in North Korea with the nuclear weapons? Thanks! -I choose to remain anonymous

Please, anyone?

It's hard to see any solutions, when NK doesn't seem to be willing to cooperate. 惑乱 分からん 21:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Invade?martianlostinspace 22:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of solutions, but they aren't all practicable. Rewording the question, 'Why is it that the world wants North Korea to have nuclear weapons?' To an extent, China makes use of a dangerous, unpredictable NK as a mentor of a troubled child. If the world criticises China, China can point out that they are the only ones who can deal with NK. Iran must feel grateful for NK. They can share expertise and trade and won't seek to undermine each others paranoia. UN must appreciate NK, as it justifies UN existence without requiring a solution. US, European anti conservatives must love the opportunity to be critical, siding with UN and China.

Getting back to the original question, ideally, NK will implode. NK leadership are aware of the possibility, and are committed to nullifying any benefits through propaganda. China does not want a failed state on its doorstep. Nor does China tolerate outside interference.

For the possibility of armed invasion, China will have to acquiesse. Perhaps China will do it for the world, if NK lose their usefulness. DDB 22:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think invasion plans are avoided, as long as there is a threat of NK nuking nearby countries such as Japan, South Korea and possibly China... 惑乱 分からん 00:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

North Korea generally wants certain guarantees before it would think about getting rid of its weapons and rejoining the NPT. Some of these guarantees would not be hard to give if it weren't for the current US administration's reluctance to deal with "the axis of evil" (a strategy which has worked out wonderfully). One thing N. Korea has been looking for for a long time was a promise from the US not to invade North Korea — to me this seems like something that would be easy to give, with of course conditions under which it would be declared null and void. But the current administration's "tough" stance seems to lean away from negotiation, which I'm not sure gets good results when all is said and done. --24.147.86.187 01:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A US invasion is silly, NK can't possibly think that's a possibility. A Chinese invasion on the other hand, seems quite plausible to me. It would allow China to expand with very little world opposition, unlike when they invaded Tibet (or if they were to invade Taiwan). They could then govern it like Hong Kong, allowing a degree of independence, keeping the economy from collapsing, thus preventing a flood of refugees into China. China might also benefit from increased trade with South Korea. And, maybe in a few decades, NK could be united with SK. StuRat 01:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you actually visit North Korea, or at least read around the subject a little more before making blanket declarations of this kind. For whatever reasons, silly or not, Pyongyang perceives America as the greatest threat to its security, a fear made all the worse by the invasion of Iraq, the first link in Bush's Axis of Evil. The best guarantee of North Korean integrity is not Kim Jong-Il's weapons programme, but China, which would never tolerate either serious military or economic actions against the regime. Also you might care to look a little more deeply into the whole course of Korean history. Then you might really begin to understand why China would not in any light sense consider invasion.Clio the Muse 02:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you claiming that only people who have visited NK are qualified to comment ? Have you ? StuRat 16:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes; I have. But you entirely miss the point. To make the kind of sweeping assertion you have you either need direct experience, or you need to have looked into the question in some depth. Your statement is so far removed from the facts that it is patently obvious that you have neither the experience nor the insight. Your observations in the matter are therefore fatuously incorrect. Clio the Muse 17:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you prove you have visited NK ? Otherwise, I'm not inclined to believe you. And, even if you had visited NK, that would in no way make you any more competent to say whether China would ever invade NK, any more than touring Pearl Harbor prior to WW2 would have told you that the Japanese were planning on bombing it. As for what NK thinks of the possibility of a US invasion, the only opinion that matters in a dictatorship is that of the dictator. Kim Jung Il certainly claims to be afraid of a US invasion, but then again, so does Hugo Chavez. It's just a useful propaganda tool to say "we're under attack by a powerful enemy so you all must whatever I say to protect our homeland". StuRat 07:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I shall just have to manage to live with your disbelief, StuRat, which will, I assure you, not trouble me overmuch. But once again you are completely missing the essential point. I am not saying that it is absolutely necessary to have visited North Korea, or any other country, to understand the political situation, though that is obviously one way of deepening insight. What I am saying is that you have to have acquired some depth of knowledge and understanding based on serious inquiry, and by this I mean reading and research. Your initial statement is so far from the truth that the only insight it provides is into your complete lack of any meaningful comprehension. You are now, in qualifying your statement, tying yourself up in contradiction: how can North Korea use a specific fear for propaganda purposes which, by your contention, it can't possibly think of as a possibility in the first place? Venezuela is not part of the Axis of Evil; Korea is. Chavez may not be mindful of the fate of Saddam Hussein; but it is a fairly safe bet that Kim Jong Il is only too well aware. I have no idea if even George Bush is mad enough to invade North Korea; but it would be a foolish leadership that discounted such a possibility. I have now said all I intend to on this subject; so if you wish to continue in your belief that North Korea has no real fear of American military action, and that Chinese troops are massing north of the Yalu River, then you may do so free of contradiction. Clio the Muse 08:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your total lack of comprehension is evident. The propaganda can be used because the people of NK have absolutely no idea what the true military situation is, they only know what the NK gov cares to tell it. If they tell the citizens the US is poised to attack, the people may very well believe it. But, as I've said before, and you apparently are incapable of comprehending, what the people think in a dictatorship simply doesn't matter, regarding it's foreign policy. The leadership of NK is fully aware of the impossibility of a US invasion, due to a lack of available troops, lack of political will to do so, the presence of NK's nuclear weapons as well as massive conventional forces, the threat to SK and Japan, etc. And your allegedly having traveled to NK in no way whatsoever helps you to increase your comprehension of the motives of the leadership, unless your next claim is that you've spent several weeks in deep conversation with Kim Jong Il. On the contrary, people who visit NK are likely to be even less capable of understanding the motives of the leadership, especially feeble-minded individuals who will believe the government propaganda. StuRat 17:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comprehension, comprehending, comprehension-very good! Could you maybe manage just one more, purely for the sake of balance? Let me see: what about comprehending? Clio the Muse 19:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Here I thought you had promised us you would stop talking, and then you come back with a brilliant piece of unassailable logic like that which so completely proves your case. StuRat 21:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Stu? Why are you even bothering? Clio is obviously "all-knowing", and she should be treated as nothing less than an oracle of absolute truth. Puny humans like you and I simply have nothing of value to offer. (Of course when she screws up she hasn't the intellectual honesty to fess up and admit that she's been mistaken). Right now I'm booking a flight to Riyadh to visit its ancient Jewish Community. Over thirty years of in-depth study have told me that no such community exists, but if Clio says it does, then I suppose my decades of learning must heed to her assertions. I also always thought that "Crimes Against Humanity" and "Genocide" were two related, though distinct concepts, each with a related, yet distinct definition. Apparently I was wrong there too, as Clio the Oracle says otherwise. I'm just wondering if Clio the Oracle has enough humanity left in her to, at the very least, admit that she was wrong on these two points. Two erroneous points that I should point out came only after at least a half dozen earlier erroneouos points that have already been discussed to death. It's actually quite simple: "I'm sorry, I must have been mistaken". For some of us these words are such a natural aspect of our humanity that we feel no shame in uttering them. In fact, some of us actually feel pride that we have the intellectual strength and security to say so. Unfortunately, some of us lack that intellectual strength and security. Loomis 01:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't go to Riyadh, go to Jeddah, which, from the name, is obviously the new home of the Kingdom of Judah. :-) StuRat 05:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose, being neither Korean, nor having the most intimate of understanding of Korean culture, I would seem to be disqualified from making any comment whatsoever as to the nightmare of a nuclear North Korea. Fair enough. But there are two sides of this coin. As a Jew, and therefore being as intimately familiar as is humanly possible with the Jewish State and its political relations within the Middle East, I suppose it goes without saying that the above poster will graciously defer to my authority on all things regarding at the very least, the Israel-Palestinian conflict, as well as the larger Jewish-Muslim conflict.

In fact, just tonight, a news report finally mentioned the fact that Israel is indeed training for and planning a surgical strike to finally whipe out Iran's nuclear ambitions. I'd welcome anyone intimately familiar with Zionism and the Jewish State to comment on these reports. I'd love to get as many perspectives as possible on this. Unfortunately, though, unless you're as intimately familiar with Zionism and possess an in-depth understanding of the Jewish State of Israel as I do, I'm afraid your comments will display only ignorance and a complete lack of insight. Any sweeping assertions by non-Jews and non-Arabs/Muslims are therefore unwelcome as being based on sheer ignorance. Loomis 05:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

\:::More specifically: Korean War. Carcharoth 09:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that rather than asking randoms on the internet, as a starting point you could consider reading some of the works of Bruce Cumings. I find his political views intensely annoying (and I certainly wouldn't be recommending his implied solutions), but he has done a great deal of research in the area and does a thorough job debunking some of the nonsense regularly written about North Korea. --Robert Merkel 02:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a Mexican standoff. The US can't do anything other than bluster and NK can't seriously threaten the US. China doesn't want to upset the status quo; it wouldn't look too kindly on any disruption of trade with its biggest(?) export market. It only becomes interesting when Kim Jong-Il gets old or starts to lose control of the government. Up until then, it's not in the self-interest of the "Dear Leader" to do anything drastic. When he's got nothing to lose, who knows what he might do. Clarityfiend 06:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

North Korea is China's biggest export market? That sounds unbelievable... How would NK pay back China? 惑乱 分からん 13:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

According to this source, the top five export markets for China are: US 21.4%, Hong Kong 16.3%, Japan 11%, South Korea 4.6%, Germany 4.3%: . They might very well ship the most grain, etc. to NK, but aren't paid for it, so it's just charity, not classified as an export. StuRat 16:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about China slapping North Korea down if it disrupted Sino-American trade. Clarityfiend 19:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

christ on a bike

Hi does anybody have any clue to the origins of the phrase "christ on a bike", beyond it being provocatively profane. I am especially interested in literary or theological origins.

Sounds more like one of those attention drawing names Catch phrase or slogans associated with one or more bike crusaders who hold services and preach and maybe even render spiritual or even physical help to other bikers in the name of Jesus Christ. Barringa 00:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably derivative of "Christ on a crutch", where crutch is an old word for cross. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

'E gets around a bit that christ bloke, I've heard of him on a bike, a cross, a crutch, a raft and fire engine! Earliest cites: 'bike' 1972, 'crutch' 1941, 'raft' Joseph Moncure March, The Set-Up 1928 and specifically as a profanity 'cross' 1956. Goodness knows where the fire engine came from but it is out there on the internut. My guess for the bike is that they have a cross-bar and some people probably think riding one is like being crucified. 'Strewh meltBanana 02:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I heard "on a pogo stick" circa 1976. Edison 04:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Song Lyrics - brighter day, I'm looking for a brighter day

This section was moved to the Entertainment desk .

January 7

Rich and poor in greek theater

I have searched on the internet and in the library in several books but am unable to find details on how greek theater was different for the rich and poor. Any help, even just links would help.

According to one web page the tyrant Pisistratus granted certain groups of people free admission (and some of the best seats in the house) to Athens' yearly City Dionysia festival. So apparently most people had to pay for admission, which would have made an immediate difference. Further, this web page tells us that priests and other dignitaries had a row of specially designed reserved seats. In our own article Theatre of ancient Greece we find that these were the first stone seats, rather than just sitting on the ground.  --Lambiam 04:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

East Indians (ethnic group)

This article is a bit confusing to me. My understanding is that this is not a very common usage compared to North American and possibly other usage which define East Indians as people who are from India as opposed to West Indians from the Carribean or Indians, which can mean either the indigenous peoples of central North America (or I suppose anyplace in the Americas except for the Arctic) OR people from India. Plus it does not have much in the way of references. Comments? Suggestions?--Filll 04:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the article name is fine. If you search for "East Indians", you get a disambiguation page listing the sense of the term "East Indian" more commonly used outside of India. This is as it should be. The link to the disambiguation page also appears at the top of the article that you cite. This ethnic group is apparently known as "East Indians" within India, so there seems to be no other appropriate name for the article. Marco polo 21:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophical Question: Love and the Heart

You might be interested in this question asked on the Science Desk. Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Science#Love_and_P_A_I_N. --Judged 04:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The name “Ishmael”

In modern times is the first name “Ishmael” a Muslim name? I always thought it was, but in the film Fanny and Alexander there is a Jewish character named Ismael. In real life, however, I have never met any Jews named Ishmael or Ismael. Also in the novel Moby Dick was the narrator Ishmael supposed to be from a Muslim background? Thanks for any clarification.--Citefixer1965 05:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not a "Muslim" name per se - but you might expect that Muslims would use it. For Jews and Christians, the focus is on Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In Islam, the focus is more on Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob. Muslims believe that Ishmael was born to Hagar, who was married to Abraham. Christians (I'm not really sure about Jews on this part) believe that Ishmael was born to Hagar in a human attempt to bring about the fulfilment of God's earlier promise to Abraham, and that Abraham was not married to Hagar at all. There is more detail in the article Ishmael. BenC7 06:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ishmael is not commonly given as a name to Jewish boys, but it is a good Hebrew name, and for an example of a Jew called Ishmael see Ishmael ben Elisha. As far as I know, there is no reason to think that the fictitious character Ishmael has a Muslim background, any more than that Abraham Lincoln has a Jewish background.  --Lambiam 06:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much; that answers my question. --Citefixer1965 17:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the Arabic form of the name is Isma`il. AnonMoos 18:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that there was a typo in Moby Dick. In fact the first line was supposed to read "Call me fishmeal" :p DDB 09:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

At the time of the writing of Moby Dick, Biblical names were very popular. Ishmael is a Biblical name, just one of many given to Protestant New Englanders. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Hebrew Bible says of Ishmael, "He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers." Because of this negative reference, the name has not been traditionally used by those (for example, Jews and Christians) for whom the Hebrew Bible is holy scripture. Ishmael in the Qur'an "is a highly regarded person," which is why the name is common among Muslims. I personally wouldn't believe the claim that Protestant New Englanders, etc., used the name, without further evidence. (I don't think they named their kids "Cain" either.) I'd guess that virtually all persons with the name Ishmael were named by (A) Muslims or (B) Moby-Dick fans. Wareh 20:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The SSA, whose online info only covers the top 1000 names of each year between 1880-1998, shows Ishmael returning in the 900's in 1995-1998, after being out of the top 1000 since 1917. There was a strange spike up to #788 in 1912. It also made low-ranked single-year appearances in 1880, 1893, and 1901. I offer this for whatever interest it may have; obviously it fails to shed any light on the period before the publication of Moby-Dick. Wareh 14:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, you guys do realize that the "Call me Ishmael" introduction to Moby Dick is meant as a pseudonym, right? Presumably the narrator (in the backstory in Melville's head) has some more conventional name, but he is consciously comparing himself to the Biblical figure.--Pharos 06:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wet finger in air to indicate wind?

Why is it in movies, and I think in real life too, that people make their finger a little wet with their mouth and then stick the finger into the air, to see from where the wind blows? How does that work? Feeling a little colder on the side of the finger the wind blows on? Gettin dry on the side where the wind blows on before the other side? And especially, why would people do that, to me it seems you could just stick your face in the wind and have a much greater surface to feel the wind on, and to better judge the wind therefore. -- Aetherfukz 08:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, both ways work (try them), but raising a wet finger (one side feels colder) is quicker, because you can sense all directions at once without turning around. --Anonymous, January 07, '07, 10:32 (UTC).

I would also note that it is a signal to the person you ask that you are checking (if you just told them without doing anything they would wonder how you knew and not them, potentially). A common thing to do is to pick up a bit of grass and dropping to see which way it blows in the wind. ny156uk 19:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Evaporation of water from the windward side of the wet finger causes a much stronger cooling than mere exposure of dry skin to the wind would. Also, the finger is more or less round, and therefore about equally sensitive to wind from all directions, whereas the your head probably has hair on the back, which makes it much less sensitive to wind from that direction. But yes, if you are bald and have a tub handy to wet your whole head with, that would indeed be more sensitive... I prefer ny156uk's grass method myself. (By the way, this question would be suited for the science reference desk.) --mglg_(talk) 23:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Man whose wife is dead

Dear Friend, What is a man whose wife is dead known as? (like woman whose husband has expired is known as widow) Thank you, Best regards, Bijal

The word is 'widower'. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This would have been an excellent question for the Language ref Desk. StuRat 16:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A Person with Great Intelligence - Adolf Hitler & Napoleon Bonaparte

Does the Ability of a Person to Manipulate others = A Person with Great Intelligence? --Foundby 14:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Naaah, that's social competence. --User:Wakuran 15:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

And what might social competence be? --Foundby 16:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would call that guile. Also note that there are different definitions and ideas about the word "intellect" Chickenflicker---♣ 16:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Guile makes no sense at all. There should be an Article descibing what Social Competence Entails. Or did you guys just make it up Social Competence, never heard of it. --Foundby 16:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You would agree that manipulating someone is tricking someone into doing something - being deceptive, being duplicitous, right? Thus, while guile means "insidious cunning in attaining a goal; crafty or artful deception; duplicity" , a manipulative person would need to be guileful. Chickenflicker---♣ 16:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't social competence used in English? As far as I have understood, it's just a common catchphrase for vaguely perceived as "people skills". It was a joke... =S 惑乱 分からん 17:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah and why are we on the word Guile? When we are talkking about human intelligence? --Foundby 18:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Then that would make the person manipulated, stupid, retarded, unintelligent, a person who is not very bright, and without much intelligence? --Foundby 17:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes. It's not nice, but people who let themselves be manipulated will often be described in those words. Skarioffszky 17:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Emotional intelligence is "the ability, capacity, or skill to perceive, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups" (emphasis added). Skarioffszky 17:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So if you have high Emotional intelligence you can control the world? --Foundby 18:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A person of high intelligence will know well that manipulating others will generate bad karma. Vranak 18:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

And this Karma article redirects me to a spiritual article. I am an Athiest. --Foundby 18:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that article is very useful or even accurate. Karma's the type of thing that cannot be taught... and once you do know it well, you can forget the about the concept entirely. Vranak

Say this person has no Karma but high Emotional intelligence, then he would be able to control the whole world? And rule the whole world? --Foundby 18:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Consider two people with extremely high emotional intelligence and very little karma/scruples: Napoleon and Hitler. It's impossible to manipulate everybody at the same time, no matter how good you are at it. Clarityfiend 19:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I remember now before the war how Adolf Hitler started building up military, and by breaking that treaty, by manupilating England & France, saying its all for peace. Then he took over the Austria I believe, and told England & France that Austria wanted to be invaded. He conviced Englands Prime Minister so much that the war started too late. Then when he invaded Poland, England was not fooled this time. So Hitler signed a treaty with Russia by Deciet (he broke it later). Then he tried invadeding the whole Europe. And then he died. The End. --Foundby 21:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The ability to get others to do what you want is power, not intelligence, at least according to Bertrand Russell, who seems as good as any expert to consult on this. --24.147.86.187 22:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"You may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time." --The Dark Side 22:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but couldn't Hitler just send some diplomats after the war was declared, and make Britain and France call it off by a signing a treaty with them? (see I am smarter than Hitler lol) --Foundby 23:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What is your definition of "smart?" Some Nazi leaders were thought to have high IQs, but they were dumb enough to blindly follow a paranoid leader into a war that nearly destroyed their country. Hitler may have been charismatic and succesfully manipulative, but that doesn't mean he was intelligent. It's clear his views on race were completely wrong from a scientific point of view, not just a moral one. I mean, this was someone who (assuming Nazi propaganda reflected his views) not only believed blacks (and Jews) were inferior intellectually but believed they were inferior athletes! Doesn't sound too smart to me. -- Mwalcoff 03:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Mwalcoff There is a difference between IQ and Emotional Intellegince. So even though they may have had high IQ, they must be defficient in Emotional Intelligence. --Foundby 19:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Define further: Coincidences verses fact

When is a number of coincidences consider then a fact? In other words, how many coincidences does it take on the same item or same subject before the consensus is toward it being an actual fact and not longer a mere "coincidence"? --Doug 16:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

When you can identify something that is causing the coincidence to happen and prove it in a stable environment (kinda like an experiment) it would potentially change. A co-incindence could well already be a fact you aren't aware of (e.g. it might seem a coincidence that it is always colder in the countryside, but in reality inner city heat causes cities generally to be a little warmer than the countryside) though. ny156uk 17:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If, by a mere coincidence, you happen to have some intuition, you'll find it is a mere fact where others still think of a coincidence. -- DLL 17:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Cf. epistemology --OliverH 18:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these excellent answers. I especially like this of "opistemology". This is a new term to me. Will have to study this further since it is very deep material. I do believe this is what I am refereing to. Also like that of the "experiment", because I believe this to be true then. Also of this of temperature: Through the last 30 + years I have noticed a general overall trend of "global warming". Perhaps a year or 2 of extra high temperatures may be just a mere coincidence, however overall it has been accuring at least the last 30 years. Perhaps this may lean towards that of a fact then since it has happened so many times over a long period of time? What do you think? --Doug 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Your question is a main subject of the science of mathematical statistics. The question is not about epistemology, which discusses which questions can or cannot be answered in principle, but about statistics, which determines quantitative rules for whether, and with what certainty, an answer is supported by the observations at hand. Importand concepts include confidence interval and p-value. Basically, no statement about the real world is an absolute fact, but some things have negligible probability of being false. The direct answer to your question is that it depends on how unlikely each of the coincidences would be if your proposed "fact" (hypothesis) were false, and on how many such hypothesis tests are being done in parallel. If you are interested in the general question of coincidences vs facts, I suggest you ask it on the mathematics reference desk. If you are curious about the observational certainty of recent global warming in particular, you may want to ask questions on Talk:Instrumental_temperature_record. --mglg_(talk) 23:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look at how statisticians deal with determining whether a collection of facts has real meaning or not. Our articles on correlation and chi-square test might be of some value to you. Generally speaking though, what separates out superficial from more rigorous conclusions is a combination of methodology, repeated measurement, and large data sets. One person's informal observations over the last 30 years would not be a terribly rigorous data set — however if you took standardized readings of temperatures over time you could potentially make certain claims about them (though your claims are often limited by your data set — measurement of yearly temperatures in your local area would not tell you about the entire world, for example). --24.147.86.187 22:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this last answer makes the important point that whether a number of things occurring simultaneously are related or not, each of them is still a fact. A fact does not cease being a fact just because it happened coincidentally with something else. That the 2 things are related, may be an additional fact. JackofOz 23:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding answers. Thanks all. Actually I was just using the global warming as an example, however I am really looking at this from the viewpoint of "Codes" and ciphers. I stayed away from that because I know how much controversy it causes, just speaking of that (i.e. a Da Vinci Code). I think the one answer is especially noteworthy, that being of putting it on the Mathematics and Science reference desks. In the future I will do that, however not now since someone I'm sure will say I am double-posting. The actual question I am thinking more along the line is: if one did in fact find what one believes to be a systematic code or secret writing in some ancient manuscripts and it is consistent all the time (in other words: very predictable), then is it not a Fact and no longer a mere coincidence? In the process of using this Code, many say to me that no matter how many times it "just happens" to decode a message that makes sense (and is consistent with the story before and after this particular story), it is still simply "a mere coincidence" (basically because they themselves do not want to believe it is a Code). Now lets say this "Code" is so predictable that one could use it as a system to decode a very large manuscript (or several large manuscripts that use the same Code) and the decoded manuscript (message) makes complete sense each and evey time. It works not just once or twice or just a dozen times, but works hundreds of times; going way beyond a few mere "coincidences". Is it not then a fact; meaning the decoded manuscript is in fact then the true message? To me, coincidences are something that happen at random and just a few times over a long period of time; whereas it is a true Code if it is predictable and usable hundreds of times in a very short time of usage. Also then (to me) it is a true Code (i.e. type of a Da Vinci Code) if one (anyone) can apply the same principles and "Rules" as a system to other similar manuscripts and come up with (as an end result) true verifiable historical records already written by reliable famous ancient historians (i.e. Polybus, Plutarch, Livy). Perhaps one example could be that the revealed message says the Cyrus Cylinder has 40 lines. Perhaps another example could be that the revealed message is that a very famous Roman road (a Straight street) goes to the city of Taras (Appian Way, which is a verifiable true fact). So bottomline, is this then (being systematic and logical) no longer a set of "coincidences", however then truely a Code? --Doug 23:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What events led to South African independence?

What were some events (wars, protests, meetings, etc) that led to the independence of South Africa? NIRVANA2764 19:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The answer depends on what you mean by independence. If you mean the achievement of statehood and self-rule, then read about the historical roots of the Union of South Africa and follow the links from that article. If you mean the achievement of full sovereignty, which came with independence from the British government, then you should read the articles on Statute of Westminster 1931 and Dominion and follow the links. If you mean the severing of all ties with the United Kingdom, you might look at South African referendum, 1960 and follow the links. If you mean the achievement by South Africa's black majority of self-determination, then read History of South Africa in the apartheid era. Marco polo 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You pretty much just pwn3d my World Cultures teacher. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NIRVANA2764 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Saudi Arabia

Is it Illegal to not be a Muslim in Saudi? If it is what punishments can be received for practicing your faith. If its not, are things forbidden to Muslims, such as Alcohol and Pork banned for non-Muslims too? Ken 22:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The main point of reference here, Ken, is Islam in Saudi Arabia. Strictly speaking it isn't illegal to be a non-Muslim, and there is an ancient Jewish community, as well as significant numbers of Hindus and Christians, concentrated chiefly among the migrant workers in the Kingdom. However, with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, the practice of other religions has become increasingly difficult, and public worship of Christianity is now effectively illegal. For this see Roman Catholicism in Saudi Arabia. I cannot really comment on the consumption of items like alcohol and pork by non Muslims, but I believe that the wealthier expats, who live more or less in isolation from the rest of the community anyway, may have access to some illegal goods. Clio the Muse 23:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there is not an "ancient Jewish community" in Saudi Arabia (there was one before Muhammad, but it has not existed for over a thousand years) -- and for many years the Saudi authorities explicitly prohibited Jews from entering or working in Saudi Arabia (see Horace Phillips (diplomat) etc. etc.). AnonMoos 04:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct, Anon. Judaism is basically verboten in Saudi Arabia. There exists no "ancient Jewish community". Without an in-depth understanding of the subject of Judaism in Muslim countries, I'd suggest that the original responder refrain from making such ignorant statements concerning areas for which s/he is clearly uninformed. Loomis 05:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Anon is ever-so-slightly incorrect. The Saudi authorities do not prohibit all Jews from entering Saudi Arabia and, in some areas, they are allowed to work (Jewish workers for foreign countries/companies in Saudi Arabia). For example, the U.S. press tried to make a big deal out of the American Jewish Committee visiting King Fahd. But, they were not the first ones to visit there and meet with the royals. As for workers, there are many oil companies working in Saudi Arabia that hire Jewish employees and the U.S. has Jewish military that have been stationed in Saudi Arabia. Of course, all of those are non-Israeli Jewish people. I would not be surprised if they are extremely strict against Israeli Jews entering the country. --Kainaw 06:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

They don't now forbid all Jews from entering now, but in the 1960's they did. AnonMoos 07:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally know an American Jewish engineer who was banned from working in Saudi Arabia in the 60s or 70s maybe. I wonder when the policy was changed?--Pharos 02:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's true. As for Christianity, during the lead-up to the Gulf War, during Christmas of 1991, Christian soldiers from the various coalition countries stationed in Saudi Arabia to protect that country from a seemingly imminent Iraqi attack (Iraqi forces were mobilized along the Iraq/Saudi border) were under strict orders from their superiours to make sure that they do not celebrate Christmas in any public way, lest they offend their Saudi "hosts". Loomis 17:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We were told not to celebrate it off base. On base, we had a Christmas tree, Christmas music, received gifts mailed in, and the Saudis shipped in a bunch of turkeys for us (no hams for obvious reasons). This is not unusual. There are cultural issues in all countries. Also, we were not there to protect the Saudis. We were borrowing an air base from them to launch attacks against Iraq. In the area, we had few allies that would let us do that. There was Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Every other country was opposed to having U.S. troops stationed in their country. I have heard that Turkey secretly allowed intelligence forces monitor the northern border of Iraq, but that is officially denied. --Kainaw 03:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Nazi badges

Good day

I have been given 2 pieces from my mother from WW2. One looks like a Weibliche Jugend female Rad badge with no inscriptions on it at all. The other made of bronze has a piece approx 1cm width by 2cm length black, red yellow flag and in the centre is what looks like a compass and something else I cannot discribe, I think it is a hammer. The piece attached to it is aprox 2cm by 2cm and incaves at each side as it is a square piece with a circle in the centre with the hammer and compass and wheat either side of it. Around this is KOLEKTIV DER ARBEIT SOZIALISTISCHEN. On the back is enssribed " SOZIALISTISCH ARBEITEN LERNEN UND LEBEN". Still in original plastic box. Please let me know if anyone has a clue where this came from. I think my Grandmother may have been part of the Rad National labor service in a Third reich depot her surname was Martins. The first piece I talk about looks exactly like the gold female Rad badge but it must be alluninium. Thank you and have a great New year.

Karen Bronkhorst South Africa

Hello, Karen. Actually it looks to me as if these badges might be Communist rather than Nazi, perhaps from the German Democratic Republic or even the pre-Nazi KPD. I am almost certain that a Nazi badge would mention the Nation as well as Socialist Labour, rather than have labour isolated in this 'red' sense. Oh, yes, there is one other thing: the compass and the hammer are indeed the symbols of the old Communist East Germany, and you will find them on the red, black and yellow flag, together with the wheat sheaf. So, if it's any consolation to you, your grandmother seems to have been involved in Communist rather than Nazi youth organizations. Es lebe unsere DDR! Clio the Muse 23:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

See illustration at Commietravel. They may be able to help you date the item. --05:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's easier than that. shows these particlar medals and slogans. --jpgordon 17:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jpgordon, I should have been more thorough. The front lettering seems not to appear in those pictures, but it does in this OMSA database picture, with the three colour bar. According to RIBBONS OF ORDERS AND DECORATIONS OF THE WORLD it is a ministerial decoration for civilians, the "Ehrentitel Kollektiv der sozialistischen Arbeit" (Collective of Socialist Labor), established in 1962. The FDGB-Lexikon, Arbeitsversion, Berlin 2005, says: "The honour was awarded to Collectives ... for outstanding socialist competitiveness, the fulfilment of political, cultural and technical requirements, as well as the observance of socialist morals and ethics. The collective received a certificate and a monetary award. Each member received a medal and a certificate. By 1989, 270 000 collectives, with 4.8 million members, had already received the honour." --Seejyb 22:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Pre and post 9/11 America

for some reason lately i have been intensely researching late 90's and early 2000's culture, and since i was a little too young at the time to really 'feel' what the time period was like, i wanted to know how huge (or not) the shift in American and global culture was after 9/11. It seems that the decade was heading in a different direction up until that point, with late 90's more dressed-down futuristic fashions and a more electronic-influenced feel to popular music. I have read specific points of view saying that America had to rethink the direction it was going, and the progressive fashions were replaced by fashions of the past, which exists even today. Also, music seems to have had the same transformation, with many styles from previous eras coming back. Is this a result of the fact that we aren't specifically in a decade with a name, or have we run out of ideas, or like i said previously, a result of 9/11 and possibly the collapse of the "new economy"? --Technofreak90 23:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective as an Irish person, America has definitely changed since 9/11, I think it has more to do with the changer over from Clinton to Bush however. I don't think Americans realise how much better of a leader Clinton was in regard to keaping a positive image of the U.S.. Bush (aided by 9/11) has brought out a much more conservative America which has sort of isolated the US from other world cultures. I'm not trying to be critical of the Bush administration, just telling things as I see it. Ken 23:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is my opinion that 9/11 was not a major change for the direction of the U.S. - except for allowing it to finally finish Desert Storm a good 10 years after it began. The collapse of the stock market and the fallout of related corporate crime afterward is the big change. Before 9/11, anyone who suggested that the stock market was unreasonably inflated would be laughed at. Middle class people thought they had it made. Throw money into any stock and you profit. Shortly after 9/11, the stock market collapsed. Not the whole thing - primarily the highly profitable tech and med stocks. Middle class people who thought they were going to retire and live on a private island in the keys were suddenly stuck with being middle class again. Then, one executive after another was investigated for making illegal stock trades or illegally inflating their stocks. The rich got richer off the collapse while the middle class got much poorer. Things went back to the way they were before the 90s. This is, of course, not unique. Look at the "roaring" 20s and the following depression. I'm sure it will happen again in 30-50 years. --Kainaw 00:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I grew up in the 1960's. I am a New Yorker. I lived, worked, socialized, shopped, ate and commuted at the WTC. Americans had a false sense of security. The WTC had been attacked before but the loss of life was small scale. I was terrorized! I flinched at every plane. Millions of Americans were traumatized too. It wasn't just 9/11 but also its consequences. No New Yorker or D.C. resident imagined they would catch commuter trains, eat food, etc. with a military presence. I am a liberal Democrat, I welcomed FEMA, the National Guard and increased security with tears. I believe urban Americans feel vulnerable and are willing to have their freedom restricted. I know I have. The unnecesarry deprivation of civil liiberties is shocking. This isn't Vietnam, though. We don't protest because we want security. I was joyous when we invaded Afghanistan. It is not good but trembling with fear and feeling innocent planes are crashing on you is not fun.

Even both of those things weren't related to 9/11 - the Dot-com bubble burst before 9/11. Rmhermen 01:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is unencyclopedic and completely subjective, but here goes: I am in my 40s and was an adult during the 1980s and 1990s. I saw a big shift in popular sentiment and culture in the United States after 9/11. The biggest changes that I perceive are increases in fearfulness and cynicism. Fearfulness of terrorism was in my opinion fanned by the Bush administration (for example, through the Homeland Security Advisory System). The public's fear was used by the Bush administration to muster support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as Kainaw suggests. Repeatedly, however, Bush and his team made claims that turned out not to be true, such as the claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This, together with revelations of rampant corporate fraud, led to widespread public cynicism and distrust of claims by people in power. From a cultural point of view, I think that these events have led to a loss of national self-confidence among Americans (despite the almost desperate flag waving) and a loss of confidence in the future. This may explain the popularity of "retro" cultural styles, which offer nostalgic reminders of seemingly more innocent, secure, or hopeful times. Marco polo 02:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I was watching West Wing on 9/11 and recall attitudinal changes that have largely been ignored by the popular press. Generally, voters were disgusted at the sleazy Clinton administration that hamfistedly broke peace accord in the Middle East as Clinton tried to score a foreign goal. During the storm that followed, Democrat leaders lay low, and, not actually having any congress responsibilities, began promising much which they will never have to address. Spin doctors used to say that sexuality had nothing to do with administration. Now, spin doctors want to ignore worthy achievements made in times of adversity. imho. DDB 03:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Power: A New Social Analysis

I am looking for the complete book online of Power: A New Social Analysis. Since it was released in 1938 it is free domain now. Where can I find the complete book. (I am a bad google searcher). Much Appreciated. thnx. --Foundby 23:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not public domain. Copyright extends to either 50 or 75 years (depending on jurisdiction) after the author's death, and Bertrand Russell only died in 1970. --Nicknack009 00:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Where can I find the pirated version, you know the ebook for free? --Foundby 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a place to look for pirated material. If you want a version for free try your local library. --Fastfission 21:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

January 8

China and the G8

Sorry if this has been asked before, but I don´t understand why China is not a full and regular member of the G8 (or its coming adhesion to the group not being announced in the press). According to GDP figures it is 4th (nominal) or 2nd (PPP) in the world, so why is it still excluded? (btw: The G8 wikiarticle doesn´t seem to directly address the issue of Chinese membership). Thanks for info. as I don´t understand the reasoning here. --AlexSuricata 00:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Alex, it is not just the relative size of the economies that is important here, but political processes as well. Members are expected to be democracies, which would obviously preclude China. This site will give you some more detail Clio the Muse 01:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the G8 members have a floating currency, while China does not. StuRat 07:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Anything to with the fact that it is (rediculously) a developing country?martianlostinspace 11:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info (and the very good link provided) - I didn´t know that having a democratic government was a such a strong prerequisiste for G8 membership and have requested that the G8 article reflects this more clearly. --AlexSuricata 11:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Category Lacking: Jewelry Design

I am working on several projects about great jewelry designers ranging from Celinni, Castelani, Lalique, Tiffany, Boucheron, Belperon Jensen and Andreasen.

You have no category for Jewelry Designers under the main category of Design. To whom can I address this problem?

thanks, Archie Martin 01:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

See Category:Jewellery designers - note the spelling and lowercase. Stevage 03:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

See Benvenuto Cellini, René Lalique, Louis Comfort Tiffany, Georg Jensen: also Bulgari, Van Cleef & Arpels, Harry Winston: their careers as jewelry designers are under-represented at Misplaced Pages, it's true. --Wetman 06:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Political terms

I was looking for a place to categorise Sexennio (and somewhere to redirect Quinquennat to) and can't seem to find any very relevant pages or categories. We must have an article about the normal lengths of political terms? There's term limit (and List of political term limits) but that describes how many subsequent terms one person can have, not how long those terms last. And political term, term of office, term (politics) are all red links. Am I thinking about this the wrong way perhaps? Thanks in advance. Stevage 03:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on the definition given at sexenio, it is a term limit and should be so categorized. (I've gone ahead and added a link at List_of_political_term_limits#Mexico.) The definition at term limit ("a legal restriction that limits the number of terms") clearly includes a restriction to one term, and that article goes on to cite the ancient Roman "law... imposing a limit of a single term on the office of Censor" as an example of a term limit. Wareh 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There's still a big difference between the length of a term, and "term limits" as such. For example, let's look at Australia in that list. For some reason it only lists the GG, not the prime minister. The PM's term varies but is around 3-4 years. There's no limit to the number of consecutive terms, however. There doesn't seem to be any article on the length of the terms themselves, other than these upper limits. Stevage 00:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would still say that the sexennio should be categorized as a "term limit"– despite the nickname, the whole point is that it's only six years once. I agree with you that there should be an article on term of office; there are an awful lot of things that could be said on that topic, and various philosophies on whether short or long terms are preferable.--Pharos 07:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That list is somewhat inadequate, and inaccurate. The office of G-G is inherently apolitical, even if it is filled on the nomination of the Prime Minister, a wholly political animal - so it should not be on the list at all. The PM's term is not defined; upon appointment, the PM holds office until:

• his party is defeated at an election and he advises the G-G to commission the leader of the winning party or coalition to form a new government (eg. Paul Keating)
• he dies (eg. Harold Holt)
• he resigns his commission because he wants to retire (eg. Robert Menzies was the only one who has managed this so far)
• he loses the confidence of his party and is ousted as party leader (eg. Bob Hawke); or
• his commission is terminated by the Governor-General (eg. Gough Whitlam).

A general election must be held no later than 3 years after the first sitting of the parliament following the preceding election - this is usually translated to "3 year parliamentary terms", but it can be some months longer; or considerably shorter. And a single parliament may contain a number of different PMs (there were 3 in 1967-68, and there were 3 in 1945). JackofOz 02:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading fiction - is there any point to it?

Apart from escapism and relaxation, what good does it do anyone to read fiction/novels? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.24.62 (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Fiction can make you think, it can give you a new look at certain things, and it can also teach you a lot of things. Science fiction can be quite an inspiration. — Kieff 04:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Escapism and relaxation both may be regarded independently as sufficient reasons to read fiction. And to expand on Kieff, fiction does make you think, and reading, as an activity, can keep your mind sharp and broaden your vocabulary, both of which contribute to an improved ability to communicate and express yourself. And really, that's just for starters. Wolfgangus 04:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My philosophy is that real life is for real life, and gross unrealism is for fiction. If outlandish and absurd situations didn't exist in fiction, then they would not exist at all. Moreover, I think that most of the people who have read, say, The Lord of the Rings would not hesitate to tell you that the experience of doing so improved them somehow. Vranak

How? (by turning them into Hobbits? ) 8-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Light current (talk • contribs) 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

It helps you empathise. Try reading, say The Chrysalids without gaining new insights into disfigurement. Or any novel where you are invited to see the world through the eyes of someone markedly different from yourself, in terms of age, sex, class etc. People who can't empathise are psychopaths, but there is a continuum of how much one is able to truly empathise. Moving along that line makes you a better human being. --Dweller 11:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Character traits that you can apply to your own life can be found in fiction. Pictures of bravery, courage, valour, integrity, leadership, perserverance etc. can be gleaned from fiction. That they are in fictional stories does not necessarily mean that nothing can be gotten from it. Sometimes important concepts can be conveyed and remembered better in a fictional story rather than simply telling the reader straight out. The Pilgrim's Progress and Chronicles of Narnia spring to mind. BenC7 11:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no point to doing anything, if you have to ask. Instead of fiction you might read Roman history or perfect your figure-skating skills. If you have to ask "what's the point of going to church?" the experience is not doing you any good. Why not leave fiction alone and learn to speak a new language? Or to bake a cheese soufflé? --Wetman 15:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Some fiction is read for education and information, almost like non-fiction. Animal Farm by George Orwell for example is a work of fiction; yet the book also acts as a fairly detailed and accurate summary of the events leading up to the formation of the Soviet Union; people who would normally not be very interested in reading about the history of Russia, such as teenagers or older children, enjoy the book as an allegory. Likewise, most major events have works of fiction written around them (just think of all the novels and movies about the sinking of the Titanic), and some books, such as those of Tom Clancy, are so exhaustively detailed and painstaking researched that some people read these to learn just as much as for entertainment. Laïka 15:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Request information on 'Psychological Distress'

Please help me glean / collect information on "Psychological Distress" from a seriously academic point of view 06:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)~~ Dr. Pant

"Psychological distress" is seriously vague topic, not defined well enough to treat "seriously". It can range from realizing that one has missed a train stop to paranoid schizophrenia to existential angst. I don't think we can help you further. alteripse 12:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the topic is too vague. Distress is merely stress caused by adverse events. As our article on stress points out, stress has a physiological dimension that is eminently suitable for scientific study. Unfortunately, the sources cited by our article have more to do with avoiding stress than describing it. However, this article, from the website for a university course, provides a useful introduction to the topic, with some additional references listed at the end. Marco polo 16:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Population Vs. Ethnicity

I have been searching the census pages and encyclopedias trying to find an average statistic for my question and cannot find an answer. Here is my question: Q.What is the total population of "americans" in the world in realtion to the total population of caucasians in the world? Any help eould be appreciated Michi Yamano —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.167.255.231 (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

From the perspective of a European, you've managed to choose two of the most ambiguous descriptors of human groups you possibly could. Over here, Caucasian usually refers to people living in the Caucasus, but I believe in the U.S. it's typically used as a synonym for white people. On top of that, it appears it also refers to people who speak one of the languages of the Caucasus, but don't necessarily live in the region. Progressing to "American", do you mean "people of the Americas", or of North America, or of the United States? Do you want the number of people that live in those regions, or have citizenship of a country in them? I'm not being disingenuous, I really don't have any idea which combination you're after.GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 12:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Try this: What is the total number of "white americans" in the world in relation to the total number of "white-skinned" people in the world (to include that of european, australian, and every other "white-skinned" person? The question is derived from my job where I am to ask a citizenship question and an every day response I get is "well, I'm white" where I would like to be able to say "well Jean Claude is white too, but he's from France and is not a citizen" but I can't say that so I would like some kind of statistic I could use. Thanks for any help!

OK, let me get this straight. You perform surveys on citizenship and some white Americans respond, "well, gee, I'm white, of course I'm a citizen", right? It would not be particularly educational in this situation to point out that how many white people in Europe etc. are not American citizens. The correct response would be "well, gee, you never had a great-grandfather, came from somewhere else?". This will hopefully point out the foolishness of their racist assumption without undue insult.--Pharos 08:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that you cannot find any statistics on that. Being "white" is too vague, as being a member of any other so called race. Me for example, I am from Eastern Europe, but I do not consider my self as being "white", while I know people having darker coloured skin, who define themselves as "white". I don't believe that there possibly be a global statistics on the matter, because diffrent people consider bieng "white" a diffrent variation of the skin colour. I mean that all possible statistics such as the one you are looking for cannot be objective or/and will be ethnocentric.--82.146.27.71 14:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We do have stats on whites in the US: . The population of 298,444,215 (July 2006 est.) can be multiplied by the 81.7% figure for the white percentage of the total population (note that this includes Hispanics) to get a white population around 244 million. The global population of "white people", including Hispanics, is a bit harder to estimate. It would include most people in Europe, the Americas, Australia and New Zealand, and a few people in other countries. I'd guesstimate it at a bit under 2 billion people. So, we get a percentage around maybe 12.5% or 1 in 8. This is a "back of the envelope" calculation, though, so could be off by as much as a factor of 2, depending on your assumptions, methods of measurement, etc. StuRat 16:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Human population seems to be estimated at 6.5 billion. The math doesn't add up... 惑乱 分からん 16:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Snopes estimated the white population at roughly 27%\, which puts the total at 1,775,000,000, although they accept that the question is vague. Laïka 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I take it you meant to add another 3 zeroes to the total number of "whites" in the world. That site estimates about 30% of the world is "white", so, when multiplied by the above 6.5 billion estimate for total world pop, this gives us 1.95 billion, or a little less than 2 billion, just as I'd said. StuRat 18:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, Thanks! The 30% figure at the top of the page is from a viral email; they calculate further down the page that 30% is slightly high. Laïka 21:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Tudor Rose

I am a primary school teacher and a nine year old girl in my class has asked why the Tudor Rose is sometimes depicted as being red on the outside, white on the inside and sometimes depicted as being white on the outside and red on the inside. I do not know the answer, nor do I know which is correct. Can you help us? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.188.51.13 (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Hey there - according to our article on Tudor rose:

"In so doing he created the Tudor rose, conjoining the White Rose of York and the Red Rose of Lancaster. In heraldry, the rose is depicted as white on red if placed on a field of a metal (gold or silver), or red on white if placed on a field of a colour, due to the rule of tincture." --Mnemeson 11:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that in heraldry white is often represented by silver, so when printed on the pages of a book, the white-on-red rose should be used, making it the "correct" one in most circumstances. Laïka 11:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

San Miguelino de los Mercados

what is the s San Miguelino de los Mercados? --Scarlett Kiteway 12:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the context: a church in Manila? a convent in Argentina? a pious confraternity in Seville? --Wetman 15:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Boccacio's "Concerning the Falls of Illustrious Men"

In The Monk's Prologue and Tale lists the 17 seventeen short stories on the theme of tragedy based on Giovanni Boccaccio's Concerning the Falls of Illustrious Men. Is Boccaccio's list identically the same list (but just in Latin) or is it a shorter list? Which are on Boccaccio's list then if it is shorter? --Doug 16:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Chaucer's work was not a translation he just pynched the idea. John Lydgate's Fall of Princes is closer to Boccaccio's work but Lydgate loosely translated Laurent de Premierfait who had in turn loosely translated Boccaccio. I haven't found much detail on Boccaccio's Illustrious Men online but there is a dead tree version in english, translated and abridged by Louis Brewer Hall. New York, 1965. From stray references I think Darius and Mark Antony are in Boccaccio but not Chaucer. meltBanana 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles For Deletion/Suz Andreasen

Hi - I apologize if I am not in the right area to ask this question. I am Phd student at Bard who is attempting to write and edit a number of articles on well known jewellery and functional art designers from 1800 - present. I began by writing an article on the notable designer Suz Andreasen and have been getting conflicting signals from the editors. I think now I am getting somewhere but the current revision got nominated for deletion however there is a discussion going on which is good. I am trying to get folks in the arts of humanities to take a look at it in relation to the current listings you have in the Jewellery Designers Section which is where this candidate should be located. Can anyone help direct me? Thanks, Archie Martin Archiemartin 17:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 17:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Look it over, including the html, as I've wikified it and incorporated the references. Frankly, it still reads like a promo, no doubt the main issue editors are having with it. Does her teacher have a Misplaced Pages article? --Wetman 09:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Nazi

I wish to find out more about Jewish people who survived WWII, while remaining in Germany or Poland, I already know about Shoah and the two men who escaped from Chelmno Camp. But any others would be greatly appreciated.81.144.161.223 17:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The film The Pianist is (in my view) one of the most amazing WWII survival films. This is about a young pianist struggling to survive in Poland during occupation. Anne Frank's diary is probably the most famous from the war period and is more than worthy of a read. There is a category called Category:Holocaust literature which would maybe be a good area to start. There is also a tv-series (I forget the name) that if I recall is set in a German village/town and shows how german families survived throughout the war (it is supposed to be excellent but I have never tracked any of it down on tv/online). ny156uk 17:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

See Solomon Perel. His story was made into the movie Europa, Europa. BTW, Anne Frank did not survive the War. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC) (Very good point, sorry forgot about that!!) NY15UK

I see we also have a List of Holocaust survivors. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not all of the people on the above list are, of course, Jewish. But there are a number of very good accounts, both by Jews and Gentiles, of the struggle for survival. I would specifically recommend the work of Primo Levi, If This is a Man, Elie Wiesel's The Night and Wieslaw Kielar's Anus Mundi: Five Years in Auschwitz But in my estimation arguably the most stunning treatment of all are the stories of Tadeusz Borowski, This Way for the Gas, Ladies and Gentlemen. Casting the net still wider, you might also be interested The Last of the Just, a literary tour de force by Andre Schwarz-Bart, though the subject is courage, rather than survival. There is also Jiři Weil's, Life with a Star, set in the then Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, rather than Poland or Germany. Clio the Muse 19:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Another worthwhile work is Still Alive by Ruth Kluger. Carom 19:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I also recommend Maus, a graphic novel in which the Jews are portrayed as mice and the Germans as cats, written by the son of a concentration camp survivor. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Was just going to recommend the very same thing! You'd need both Maus books to get the full story. Skittle 01:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I recommend the movie/novel Everything Is Illuminated DDB 01:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For a searching exposition of why some concentration camp inmates survived, and others died, go no further that Victor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning (written by a survivor). This is one of my favourite quotes from the book: "We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way." JackofOz 02:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Rap sheet

What does the "rap" in rap sheet mean?4.244.195.135 19:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The basic meaning "blow" (e.g. "a rap on the knuckles") has developed into the sense "rebuke; adverse criticism." The OED's first citation in this sense is 1777 ("The post master general..has lately had a rap, which I hope will have a good effect"), and here the connection to "blow" is still felt (approximately, "someone slapped the postmaster with some good criticism"). Within this sense, we get the more specific meaning "criminal accusation"; here the OED's first citation is 1903 ("What makes you look so glum?"... "Turned out of police court this morning."... "What was the rap, Mike?"). A "rap sheet" is a catalog of criminal charges. Wareh 20:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

HA! I always thought it was 'rep sheet' as in reputation! You learn something new every day:). Thanks. Vespine 22:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Poem

I remember reading some time ago a set of poems (or maybe it was a single epic poem) that depicted the story of human pre-history. It was not from a religious point of view. Does anyone have any idea what this poem might have been and who wrote it. Sorry I can’t remember more about this. S.dedalus 20:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm not certain it's right, the Epic of Gilgamesh comes immediately to mind. Wolfgangus 21:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility might be the Edda, although it covers more than the time period you mentioned. Carom 21:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the poem was 20th centory though. S.dedalus 23:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're sure that the poem is an epic, you might want to check the article on epic poetry, and see if any of the poems listed under "20th century" ring a bell. Carom 00:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Was it Adam Had 'Em? Anchoress 00:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

On the Nature of Things has a major section on purported human prehistory (it's not 20th century though).--Pharos 07:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Culture Warrior

How best is the attitude of the west towards the Muslim community? Recently there were reports of Muslims being harassed at the airports...French tourists are treated with utmost care and respect in almost every middle-eastern country and Asia particularly. The small discrimation of an american overseas sparks huge outcries in the western soil that people take it to the extent of dragging the issue to the legal system in the US..

Why are there such drastic disparaties in treatments? 21:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ppl are simply scared and angry. Flamarande 21:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC) PS: Sign your bloody statements

For the most part I see no 'problems' in my day to day life. I have seen little (in the UK) of the huge-outcries you speak of. The airport attitudes are a different matter. Whilst it is discriminatory it is something of 'human nature' to feel anxious in surroundings where there has been a recent history of attacks/issues - this is not helped my media hysteria or people's inability to deal with probability (how many flights per years, how many attacks per year = v. small chance). Additionally as is noted ocassionally it is not merely Muslim-groups that are responsible for terrorism. It is this sort of divisive (spelling) mindset of them Vs us that is perpetuating the troubles. One needs to seperate those doing things from those not. Muslims as a whole did not commit the terrorist acts, a group did. Similarly the Western-world does not have an outcry (as a whole) when the treatment of a citizen is less than the excellent service expected across the globe. The day when we can change from grouping people in such large masses negatively is the day we can hope for a prolonged period of stability throughout the world. ny156uk 00:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Is your question: Why are Muslims harassed in the west more than French (people) beening harassed in Muslims countries? The answer is obvious. Because Muslims in Muslims countries do not fear that the French are terrorists. I wish to point out that prior to Sep 11, Muslims are not being harassed in the west. 202.168.50.40 00:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If you look at the percentage of terrorist attacks on airplanes committed by Muslims versus those committed by non-Muslims, the ratio of Muslims terrorists is much higher than the portion of travelers who are Muslim. This suggests that special security measures should be applied to Muslims. Here is a list of some terrorist attacks committed by Muslim against aircraft over the last 40 years:

• 1968: The first Arab-Israeli hijacking, as three members of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijack an El Al plane to Rome. Diverting to Algiers the negotiations extend over forty days. Both the hijackers and the hostages go free. This was the first and the only successful hijacking of an El Al flight.

• 1969: There were 82 recorded hijack attempts worldwide, more than twice the total attempts for the whole period 1947-67. Most were Palestinians using hijacks as a political weapon to publicise their cause and to force the Israeli government to release Palestinian prisoners from jail.

• 1970, September: As part of the Dawson's Field hijackings, PFLP members attempt to hijack four aircraft simultaneously. They succeed on three and force the planes to fly to the Jordanian desert, where the hijackers blow up the aircraft after releasing most of the hostages. The final hostages are freed in exchange for seven Palestinian prisoners. The fourth attack on an El Al plane by two people including Leila Khalid is foiled by armed guards aboard.

• 1976: The Palestinian hijack of Air France Flight 139 is brought to an end at Entebbe Airport, Uganda by Operation Entebbe: Israeli commandos assault the building holding the hijackers and hostages killing all Palestinian hijackers and rescuing 105 persons, mostly Israeli hostages; three passengers and one commando are killed.

• 1977: Lufthansa Flight 181 (also known as the Landshut) was hijacked by Palestinian terrorists on a flight from Palma de Mallorca to Frankfurt. The ordeal ended in Mogadishu when GSG 9 commandos stormed the plane. Three hijackers were killed and 86 hostages were freed. The pilot was killed. The hand of German Red Army Faction was suspected.

• 1977 December 4: A Boeing 737 Malaysia Airlines Flight 653 was hijacked and crashed in Tanjung Kupang, Johore killing 100 people aboard.

• 1978: Two Arab guerrillas seized a plane in Cyprus. Egyptian commandos flew in uninvited to try to take the plane. Cypriot troops resisted and 15 Egyptians died in a 45-minute battle.

• 1981: A Pakistan International Airlines jet is hijacked and taken to Kabul, where one passenger is killed before the plane flies on to Damascus; the hostages are finally released after 13 days when the Pakistani Government agrees to free fifty political prisoners.

• 1981: The Hijacking of Flight Garuda Indonesia GA 206 on 28 March 1981. This was the first serious Indonesian airline hijacking, since the first case was a desperate Marine hijacker who was killed by the pilot himself. The hijackers, a group called Commando Jihad, hijacked the DC 9 "Woyla", onroute from Palembang to Medan, and ordered the pilot to fly the plane to Colombo, Sri Lanka. But since the plane didn't have enough fuel, it refueled in Penang, Malaysia and then to Don Muang, Thailand. The hijackers demanded the release of Commando Jihad members imprisoned in Indonesia, and US $ 1.5 million, as well as a plane to take those prisoners to an unspecified destination. The Kopassus commandos who took part in this mission trained for only three days with totally unfamiliar weapons, brilliantly executed this fast-paced operation. One of the Kopassus commandos was shot by the hijacker leader, who then shot himself. All the other hijackers were killed. All the hostages were saved.

• 1984: Lebanese Shi'a hijackers divert a Kuwait Airways flight to Tehran. The plane is taken by Iranian security forces who were dressed as custodial staff.

• 1985: Lebanese Shi'a hijackers divert TWA Flight 847 from Athens to Beirut with 153 people on board. The stand-off ends after Israel frees 31 Lebanese prisoners.

• 1985: Palestinians take over EgyptAir Flight 648 and fly it to Malta. All together, 60 people died, most of them when Egyptian commandos stormed the aircraft.

• 1986: 22 people are killed when Pakistani security forces storm Pan Am Flight 73 at Karachi, carrying 400 passengers and crew after a 16-hour siege.

• 1988: Two Kuwaitis are killed in 1988 when Shi'a gunmen hijack a Kuwait Airways flight from Thailand and force it to fly to Algiers with more than 110 people on board; the hijack ends after 16 days when the hijackers free the remaining hostages and are allowed to leave Algiers.

• The destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988.

• 1991: 26 March 1991, Singapore Airlines Flight 117 hijacked by individuals claiming to be members of the Pakistan People's Party. Elite Singapore Special Operations Force members stormed the plane, killing all four hijackers and freeing all 118 passengers and 9 crew in an operation lasting just 30 seconds. None of the passengers and crew were hurt.

• 1994: Air France Flight 8969 is hijacked by four GIA terrorists planning to crash into the Eiffel Tower. After the execution of 3 passengers, GIGN commandos storm the plane killing all hijackers and freeing all passengers.

• 1995: Iranian defector and flight attendant Rida Garari hijacked Kish Air flight 707, which landed in Israel. No casualties.

• 1996: Hemus Air Tu-154 aircraft was hijacked by the Palestinian Nadir Abdallah, flying from Beirut to Varna. The hijacker demamded that the aircraft be refuelled and given passage to Oslo, Norway after landing at Varna Airport. All of the 150 passengers were freed at Varna, afterwards the crew continued the flight to Oslo.

• 1999-2000: Pakistan based terrorists hijack Indian Airlines Flight 814 and divert it to Kandahar. After a week-long stand-off India agrees to release three jailed Pakistani terrorists in exchange for the hostages. 1 hostage was stabbed to death and his body thrown on the tarmac as a "warning attack".

• 2001: September 11 attacks, American Airlines Flight 11.

• 2001: September 11 attacks, American Airlines Flight 77.

• 2001: September 11 attacks, United Airlines Flight 93.

• 2001: September 11 attacks, United Airlines Flight 175.

• 2001: American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris, France to Miami, United States survives a failed shoe bombing attempt by Richard Reid — an Islamic fundamentalist from the United Kingdom, and alleged/self-proclaimed Al Qaeda operative.

StuRat 02:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't want to start a war here, I consider myself a very tolerant and open minded individual, but I'm struggling to come to terms with fatwa, Ruhollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and The Satanic Verses.. Most hijackings are perpetrated by Muslims does not mean most Muslims are terrorists, I believe in equality and tolerance, BUT the people linked above aren't crazed pockets of extremists hiding in some cave in Afghanistan, they are the people in power! How is someone in the west expected to rationalise that? I'm struggling. Vespine 02:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The ones doing the attacks are extremists. The fact we're camped out supporting a state that we gave control of their holy land to, and the fact that it's the second largest religion in the world are also factors. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Their Holy Land? The holiest city in Islam is Mecca, the second holiest city is Medina. Both are located in the VERY Muslim kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Of course the "third" holiest city of Islam is supposedly Jerusalem. I'm sure there must be a fourth, a fifth, a sixth, and even a seventeenth "holiest city" of Islam. The fact remains that the two "holiest cities" of Islam are held very tightly in Muslim hands. How many other "holy cities" they expect to control is anyone's guess. Judaism's one and only Holy City is Jerusalem. That's it. Abraham was born somewhere in Iraq, but Jews have no interest in "claiming" that as a "Holy City". Moses was born in Egypt, but once again, Jews have no interest in claiming any part of Egypt as a "Holy Land". In fact the Torah explicitly forbids Jews to ever return to Egypt, as that was the land of slavery. The Torah itself was given to the Jews somewhere on the Sinai Peninsula, another territory Israel makes no real claim to, as it was clearly outside the "promised land", and given back to Egypt in return for peace. Judaism has but one "Holy City" and that is Jerusalem. How many "Holy Cities" is a religion allowed to claim? Mecca and Medina are clearly the two "Holiest Cities" of Islam. Perhaps Jews should do as their Muslim cousins and lay claim to each and every city of religious significance to Jews. That being the case, Jerusalem would still be the first "Holy City" of the Jews. Second? Brooklyn perhaps, along with Manhattan's lower East Side. Third? Well that one's easy: Miami Beach. Loomis 06:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If only a test exists that would say "This muslim is an extremist. That muslim is not an extremist." Then there would not be any requirement to "harass" the vast majority of muslims (in the west).202.168.50.40 03:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Extremists" aren't the tiny group that is often portrayed. While not a majority of the Muslim community worldwide, they do have control or have strong influence in many Muslim governments, such as Iran (where the President holds a conference to claim that the Holocaust never happened), Palestine (where the Hamas terrorist group was elected despite their commitment to violence and the total destruction of Israel), Lebanon (where the Hezbollah terrorist group controls the southern half of the country), and formerly Afghanistan (under the Taliban). StuRat 04:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Shocking, and I who truly (didn't :) believe that Democracy is always the best answer for everything and the best political system for every nation of this planet regardless of everything (I even know of a certain lobby (Neo-Conservatives) that humbly believes that Democracy is so good that it should be forced upon other nations at gun-point). But please, don't forget (or choose to ignore) that the elections in Iran aren't truly free when moderate candidates are barred by the Guardian Council. And it just might be possible that IF the Palestinian ppl weren't completly desperate and miserable Hamas might not have been elected, and that IF the Lebanese goverment wasn't way too feeble (because of the Lebanese Civil War) Hezbollah might have been kicked out allready (like the PLO was with the Black September in Jordan). And that the Taliban rose to power in consequence and during a civil war. Flamarande 23:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, but those extremist groups gaining power shows that they are more than just trivial fringe movements. If only 1% of the population of a country were extremists, then they could never gain power by either democratic or nondemocratic means. StuRat 05:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Baskets and Bombs

For the sake of some balance, and in full expectation that the following argument is likely to elicit a venomous response, let me try to introduce some objectivity and perspective into this thread. Yes, a war of terrorism is indeed a terrible thing, one where we cannot discriminate between guilty and innocent, soldier and civilian, participant and bystander. It breeds fear and suspicion, turning every devout Muslim man and woman into 'the enemy'; which might, in fact, be said to be Bin Laden's most significant political achievement to date. Yet has anyone paused to consider that it is Muslim people themselves who are the chief victims of terrorism, either of the state sponsored and official variety, or of the more home grown versions. Consider, moreover, the hypocrisy of past American policy on this whole matter, which encouraged and supported Bin Laden when the victims of terrorism were Russian soldiers in Afghanistan, and supported Saddam when the victims of poison gas attacks were Iranians. Yes, Bin Laden and his kind are monsters; but just who exactly, it is legitimate to ask, should be cast in the role of Dr. Frankenstein?

Now, let's look at the above list of 'Muslim' outrages, devoid of context, explanation or political genealogy. What purpose does this serve other than to turn a whole faith community into the enemy, into the 'other', it might be said, a uniform object of fear, and a suitable case for treatment? Some of you may think there is good reason behind this; but what would you think of an argument that lumped together ETA, the IRA, FARC and the likes of Timothy McVeigh as examples of 'Christian terrorism'? We preach time and again to the Islamic world about the values of democracy, as if this is some kind of universal panacea; yet when the Palestinian people vote for Hamas, somehow democracy is no longer the answer after all. But Hamas is a symptom, not the disease. Do we even begin to understand how desperately angry the Palestinian people are, locked up in the appalling ghetto of Gaza, under constant threat from a state which was itself partly built on terrorism, and continues to employ the tactic in a wholesale and indiscriminate fashion, against the innocent and guilty alike. Do we even want to know how much anger there is in the Islamic world against the West, against a hypocrisy that preaches human rights and justice in theory, but ignores gross breaches of these very ideals in practice?

Coming back to my original point, yes, terrorism is a terrible weapon, though it is still an open question as to who is the terrorist and who is the freedom fighter. But what, after all, is terrorism of the Bin Laden kind but a low-intensity war, a war of those without, it might be said, the big guns. I'm always mindful here of an exchange I saw in The Battle for Algiers, a documentary-style movie depicting the FLN's war of liberation against the French colonialists in the early 1960s. During this struggle Arab women dressed up as French civilians and left basket bombs in bistros and the like, killing many civilians. Later one of the captured rebel leaders is asked by a reporter Isn't it cowardly to use your women's bakets to carry bombs that have killed so many innocent people? Reply is given thus: Is it less cowardly to drop your napalm on defenseless villages, killing thousands more? Give us your bombers, and you can have our women's baskets. Next time you see reports (if you see reports) on the continuing injuries and deaths caused by Israeli cluster bombs, used in the recent attack on Lebanon, you may remember this. And next time you see a Muslim man with a beard, or a woman wearing a burqa, try to think a little more objectively. Clio the Muse 09:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And the mask finally comes off. MY GOD!. The above statement has got to be one of the most perverse, twisted, disgusting and appalling secretion of pure excrement I have ever had the misfortune of reading here on Misplaced Pages. "For the sake of some balance... a state which was itself partly built on terrorism"? Yes, I'm intimately aware of the activities of the Irgun. Yes they were a guerilla force. But please tell me where they ever, EVER used tactics involving the targetting of civilians to achieve their objectives. Please, as you say so often to others, DO SOME READING before you proceed to subject the rest of us to such a disgusting discharge of pure verbal diarrhea. The sheer ignorance and perversity of your statement is so disgustingly vile, and so openly anti-semitic...I'd say more, but I must be off to the bathroom to vomit. Loomis 07:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree strongly with your first two paragraphs (let me remind that everybody was against the Russian rules of engagement in Chechnia before 9/11 but since then everybody is happy to ignore the whole issue) and disagree completly with the last one. Bin Laden isn't fighting for the independence/freedom of his country/people, and he didn't began fighting against an invader (despite more recent speeches).

Bin Laden created a network whose only goal is to kill ppl everywhere. He may loudly proclaim that the ultimate goal is to free the Palestinian ppl from Israeli ocupation (besides destroying the "Great Satan")and many really believe that propaganda-crap, but does anyone think that the actions of Al-Quaeda helped at all in that issue? Oh, his theory is that since the USA is the main supporter of Israel killing Americans (civilians, military, and employes of the US gov, but mainly civilians) is justified (and way too many idiots everywhere share that view). Too many believe that if they hurt the Americans hard enough they will somehow stop supporting Israel. Everybody is somehow convinced that if someone hurts the American ppl hard enough they will cave. But history shows exactly that it is the other way around: that if you hurt a ppl they will come after you and your own. That's what happened with Pearl Harbor and that's what happenend in Afghanistan. You hurt the Americans and they will come after you, storm your stronghold, and shot you between the eyes (unless you surrender like a cowardly dog like the late Sadam, then someone will judge you). Of course, that popular demand was used and manipulated by a completly incompetent US-administration for the invasion of Iraq (I like to think that anyone with two brain-cells wouldn't have done that mistake but sometimes I wonder).

Some might even say that was what Bin Laden wanted: A scared and angry America who in the ensuing fire-fight unavoidably kills a lot of innocent Muslim bystanders. I personally think that Bin Laden isn't that machiavelian; IMHO he is just a hate-filled fanatic blinded by his own legend and propaganda.

Look closely at his interviews; the guy is an actor (figurately speaking): his entire presentation, his clothing, his beard, his carefully studied speech, do you think that he doesn't groom himself for his role: the great and rightous leader of the Jihad?. Sadly, too many Mulims believe in his speeches and most importantly they believe in him. But truly Bin Laden isn't some kind of Muslim champion, he is directly (and indirectly) responsable for the death of tens of thousands of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq. I also believe that most insurgents in Iraq are fighting against the US-troops because they want to avenge dead relatives and of sheer desperation and not because they follow Bin Laden's views. Let's just hope that he is dead and that his corpse is feeding the maggots somewhere. Flamarande 23:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Flamarande, for that interesting contribution. But please look again at what I have written in my final paragraph. I in no way justify Bin Laden's actions at any level, merely describe in passing the forms of low-intensity war that he and his kind are pursuing. He is indeed a monster, and his war is probably one without end, it saddens me to admit. But he is also a monster that we have done much to create, one that waxes strong on deep reservoirs of anger in the Muslim world. On your final point, my deepest fear is that Bin Laden has become a semi-mythic figure, a little like Big Brother in George Orwell's novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, in that he will never truly die, if you understand my meaning. The countours may change, but that face may look down on us for generations to come. Clio the Muse 00:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree that Islamist terrorism is a problem because Muslims are oppressed. I don't think Muslims, as a whole, are all that oppressed by non-Muslims. That's not to say none are, but I think most Muslims who are oppressed are oppressed by other Muslims in places like Iran, Turkey and Turkmenistan. True, some oppressive regimes in Muslim countries are supported by Western powers, but that doesn't relieve the countries' leaders of the primary blame. Arab countries, particularly, have little to complain about: Their oil, coupled with America's addiction to it, has put some of them among the world's wealthiest states. No Arab nation (save maybe the Sahrawi) lacks self-government. The Palestians have autonomy, and the Iraqis now have their own elected government despite the presence of foreign troops. The Palestinian Authority is the largest per-capita recipient of foreign aid in the world, although most of that aid has been suspended due to the election of Hamas. Western countries have opened their doors to millions of Arab immigrants, as well as Muslims from other places, allowing them to share in their prosperity.

I don't doubt that some Muslims in some places are oppressed or discriminated against. I know it can't be easy to be a Muslim nowadays in some Western countries. But compared to the Tibetians, the Degar of Vietnam or the blacks of southern Sudan, few Muslims have much to complain about. Yet we don't see much Tibetian terrorism. -- Mwalcoff 01:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry what? We don't see Tibetan terrorists because there was no Buddhist revolution and there's never been events like the Tibet contra scandal. The west has been interfering in the middle east since ww1, there are many examples of it, I can easily see how Muslims can feel oppressed by the west. When almost every western nation condemns Israeli attacks time and time again and the United states fails to do so? A bit one sided but articles like this give the other side of the story. Vespine 02:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the Iran-Contra scandal and the revolution in Iran have to do with this. We don't see Tibetan terrorism because terrorism does not result from oppression like lung cancer results from smoking. And as you say, most countries don't support Israel as steadfastly as the U.S. does. Yet Islamists have attacked not only the U.S. but also Britain, Spain, France, Argentina, Thailand, the Philippines and tourists of various nationalities in Tunisia, Egypt and Indonesia. -- Mwalcoff 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting way beyond the scope of the reference desk. I don't see how you can fail to associate Muslim animosity towards the west with Iran contra and the Iranian revolution. Britain, apart from being US ally number one has also historically been involved in the region. As for the others, the fact they are allies is enough for the extremists. I don't believe terrorists exist just because a few evil psychos decided to give world destruction a shot, there is a cause. Vespine 04:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

cost-benefit arguments

I am writing a paper on the benefits of reserach for a community based advocacy group and would like some information about the benefits of good research to support the development of cost-benefit arguments to support advocacy. Many thanksCoastal blue 22:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It would probably depend what the advocacy is for, and the nature of the research. Can you provide more informaiton? BenC7 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You should consider the money-value of information. This is something to do with decision trees (last time I read this article it was very badly written and misleading as far as I recall) and can be specifically calculated. This topic will probably be covered on textbooks about operations research. 80.1.184.60 13:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

flip flops

i ask a lot of fads questions on this page, this is one of the more vague: Are flip-flops a fad of the 2000's, as in they are acceptable to wear outside of beach and summer-related situations, or did this begin in the 90's. --Technofreak90 02:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Our article suggests that the change occurred in the late 1990's, which dovetails nicely with my own recollection. However, I cannot cite a source to support this (and the article does not provide one either). Obviously, not everyone agrees that wearing flip-flops outside the beach is acceptable, and there are some situations where wearing flip-flops has caused something of an uproar - one is mentioned in the article. Carom 02:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly the fad started in a few pockets, such as coastal California or Florida, in the late 1990s, but I don't remember flip-flops breaking out across the United States until 2002 or 2003. See this article. I remember a conversation in one of those years with an American woman who had traveled to Europe and heard European women complaining about American women wearing beach attire in the city. It hadn't yet caught on in Europe. (I suspect it has by now.) Marco polo 02:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably true. I was thinking of Chicago's North Shore, where I remember them becoming fashionable as more than just "beachwear" in the spring of either '99 or '00. Carom 02:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean right about the time that MTV touted flip-flops as being the new cool thing to wear (as opposed to hiking boots, which they said were the cool thing to wear throughout the 90's). --Kainaw 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's about right. ; ) Carom 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

We've been wearing flip-flops in Australia (although we call them thongs or pluggas) for a lot longer than the last 10 years! BenC7 06:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Here in California, too. :) User:Zoe|(talk) 17:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Better not call them "thongs" in the US, though: "thong" is more often used for a type of undergarment or swimwear. --Carnildo 19:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

We've been wearing them here too for a lot longer than 10 years. More like 35. Here being inland Canada! (Well, we don't wear them in the winter!) --Charlene 21:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

They've been an integral part of informal Australian culture for at least 50 years. (Not sure if that's something I should be proud of, but it's a fact). JackofOz 00:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I was born in New York to Australian parents. We wore flip flops all the time at home in the late '60s. DDB 07:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Do humans have free will?

Do you think that we truly have free will? I was thinking about it and I came to the conclusion that what makes us act how we do is how the molecules and chemicals react in our brain, which we have no actual have no control over, therefore we have no true free will. Do you think my conclusion is correct? Imaninjapirate 02:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No. --The Dark Side 02:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether we do or not, we might as well act as if we do. It's like Pascal's Wager - there's nothing to gain by believing we're biological robots. Clarityfiend 02:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Except the ability to manipulate others... Skittle 03:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference between "acting like" we have free will and... whatever the alternative would be? -GTBacchus 03:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Potentially, doing anything at all and just lying there. Some people would feel that if they had no free will there would be no point in 'choosing' to do anything at all. If you 'act like', or perhaps 'pretend to yourself', that you have free will, you avoid this problem. "I am the master of my fate/ I am the captain of my soul" is very seductive. Of course, some people find that they have no problem with living their lives in the knowledge that everything is inevitable. Oh and some people (not me) would find the idea of holding people responsible for their actions problematic if they 'acted like' people didn't have free will. Skittle 03:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm one of those people who's ok with inevitability, and the "just lay there" argument has never made any sense to me. Why would not having free will imply inaction? Wouldn't you have to decide to be inactive? I mean, the "no free will" position still allows that we have all the normal human motivations, to eat, sleep, reproduce, bungee jump, etc. It just takes the apparent forks out of the road.

As far as holding people responsible for their actions, denying free will does change that somewhat. In a world without free will, it's impossible to justify revenge, for example, and the only possible point of incarcerating criminals is to stop them from continuing to offend, and to rehabilitate them, since "punishment" stops making sense. Sounds pretty good to me. -GTBacchus 03:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

See this article on free will and neuroscience --The Dark Side 02:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents - humans have the "experience" of free will, i.e., we find ourselves in situations where we aren't certain what we'll do, and then when we do something, the impetus for that decision seems to have arisen spontaneously within us. This experience is largely conditioned by incomplete information of our own mental state. If we knew all the various causes at work in our minds, then we might feel that we "experience" determinism. -GTBacchus 03:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Free Will is practically unfalsifiable. If you can predict in advance the behavior of a human being from birth to death then you can prove that that person does not have free will. Unfortunately, to do so will require that you control the whole environment of that person (see Truman Show) to eliminate random variables, so it's highly unethical. Failure to predict in advance does not prove a person have free will, merely that you failed to prove that the person does not have free will. 202.168.50.40 03:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For now, at least. What would happen if... we could predict the future by analyzing a universe, a system, such as the Earth, while substituting in constants for outside variables? X (DESK|How's my driving?) 10:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake to talk about free will as a singular, distinct phenomenon, with each of us only having one. There's a lot going on in our brains and bodies, and to try to distill that down to a singular driving force is an extreme case of greedy reductionism. Ever had to scratch two itches at once? =) Vranak 16:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no choice but to say "yes". --Carnildo 19:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is "no free will," and our ability to choose a course of action is an illusion, or an epiphenomenon of mechanistic underlying processes, then think about the implications: If I choose to goof off instead of studying or going to work, and lay around, then that's fine because that's what I was going to do anyway. If I rob a bank, it was not my choice. Sure takes away guilt and fear, I suppose. Wow, now I'm completely unmotivated. I think I'll just spend all my time on Misplaced Pages. Edison 00:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're working with a misunderstanding there. You still have desires, even if those desires are determined by impersonal chemical and electrical reactions. You're still going to act to satisfy those desires, because you're alive, and life forms are desire-having-and-satisfying machines. Lots of people desire success and money and... to move out of their parents' house, all of which are sufficient reason to get off the Internet and get a job. If the only thing keeping you from spending all your time on Misplaced Pages was a sense of moral obligation, then I agree you should just sit online until some desire gets your attention and makes you realize that you want some things enough to work for them.

Whether or not the choice to rob a bank is determined by the chemicals in your brain, you're still the person robbing it, and you're the person who's going to get locked up for it, to stop you from doing it again, if for nothing else. If you're comfortable with the risks involved in robbing a bank, and are willing to live with the consequences as you understand them, then I guess you'll go for it, right? -GTBacchus 09:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Humans have free will. Getting a plumber on weekends is hard, but not impossible for the more determined and devious. There is a misapplication of the butterfly effect theory that fails to transfer from chaos theory implicit to your question. The decision making of a person involves relationships that are not intrinsic to the body. Two genetically identical people who read a book and watch a movie do not experience the same as each other. In recent research it was shown spiders possess individual personalities, some being aggressive, others timid or curious. DDB 07:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The uniquness of each individual doesn't contradict the idea of complete deteminism. Everything you said is correct, but it's still perfectly possible for those things to be true in the absence of "free will". As for the butterfly effect, it certainly tells us that human behavior is radically unpredictable, in the same sense that the weather is —- each of us has a whole climate system going on inside. Still, something that's totally unpredictable can still be totally determined, as long as there's nothing but deterministic laws involved. -GTBacchus 09:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If you didn'thave free will,you would not have posted on here!LOL!(hotclaws**== 17:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Gross Domestic Product

In U.S. definitions, If an American car makers sales drop by one unit and a Foreign car makers sales increase in America by one unit will GDP change?Capt.Industry 04:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Gross domestic product is consumption + investment + government spending + (exports − imports)

Consumption remains unchanged, investment remains unchanged, government spending remains unchanged, exports remain unchanged and imports rise by one car. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is assuming that the foreign car maker's additional car was actually manufactured outside the United States. But in fact, many car makers with headquarters outside of the United States actually produce cars for the U.S. market within the United States. If the "foreign" car was actually manufactured in the United States, and its sale price is the same as the "American" car that is not sold, then there is no change to GDP. Marco polo 15:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And there's also the interesting fact that cars made in Canada (and a lot are) aren't counted as "foreign". In the same way, American cars aren't counted as "foreign" in Canada. Hence the girl from Vancouver who wins a new car on The Price is Right doesn't have to pay duty or customs charges on her new vehicle because it's not considered an import. --Charlene 21:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

January 9

Cross Referencing Czech & Czechoslovak Entries

I'm trying to improve the Czech entries, many of which are submitted by Czechs and need grammar changes. Also - there's a paucity of detailed and cited data I'd like to bring up to scratch.

The problem is - trying to find entries in English. They seem to be put solely under Czech-language titles.

E.g. 'Czech secret police', 'State Security', 'StB'. If searched for in English I get zip.

I think - for purposes of cross-referencing and verifying citations in other languages - there ought to be a facilty to permit this. Otherwise readers are at the mercy of translators' vagaries, a real problem for less well-know languages like Czech.

--TresRoque 09:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you give an example? Is this something that could be sorted out by using Misplaced Pages:Redirect? Vespine 22:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

ordinance

what is ordinace i'm asking relating to laws —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.76.252.98 (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

In my country (England) it would be used in reference to rules or decrees passed by a non-sovereign executive authority. For example, Parliament passes laws, but a city council issues ordinances. Clio the Muse 10:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is laid out on our Ordinance page. Marco polo 15:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Evert Collier

Dear Misplaced Pages

I am researching the artist Evert Collier (as spelled in Misplaced Pages) as part of a PhD in Dutch vanitas painting. I see that you have his burial as St James's Piccadilly in London in September 1708. I have been unable to verify this in any other source and wonder if you can tell me where you got that information from. St James's themselves don't seem to have a ready reference to it so I am tracking down burial records. But it would help me enormously if you knew where your info came from and could let me know.

Any help would be really appreciated.

Best wishes

Debra Pring82.43.45.248 10:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

According to that page's edit history, the information was added on 26 October 2006 by Afasmit. Try leaving a message on that editor's Talk page indicating your question here. -- Deborahjay 11:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I asked Afasmit, who responded here, with this website. For his dilligence in tracking down sources, I awarded him a barnstar. You should also. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The declaration of the thirteen united states of america

Hi, I have a reprint of the "Unanimous Declarion of the thirteen united States Of America" Printed by Mutual Life Insuance Company in Boston Massachusetts and i was wondering how i would go about finding how much it is worth. Thank you for you time """""

You could list it on eBay and see what offers you get. However, I don't expect that it is worth much. The Boston Mutual Life Insurance Company was founded in 1891, so it can't be any older than that and is probably more recent. It was very likely a mass printing distributed as a freebie to policyholders. Marco polo 16:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have an electronic copy of the declaration (), but if I print it out and sell it to you, how much would you be willing to pay for it? The original, signed declaration is enormously valuable, but in my opinion any 20th-century reprints won't be worth more than a few dimes. --Bowlhover 03:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sonderkommando

I would please like to thank any one who answered my previous question and ask for info on the Sonderkommando.

Have you looked at Sonderkommando? Let us know if there is any info you need that is not provided by the article. Marco polo 18:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You will get slightly fuller account here , a piece by Jacqueline Shields. Also, I would recommend browsing through the index of Martin Gilbert's book, The Holocaust. Clio the Muse 19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Christmas on Sundays?

What happens to Christian families when Christmas falls on a Sunday? Because

1. Sundays are set aside for rest and
2. Christmas day, many, many families prepare large feasts.

Just wondering... ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 19:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Christian denominations generally do not have the same prohibitions on worklike activities on Sunday that Orthodox Jews observe on Shabbat. For a very observant Christian, Sunday is a day when church attendance is obligatory, though not for the whole day (except maybe in some extreme denominations). However, an observant Christian would also attend church on Christmas Day. So it is not a problem to prepare a large feast and family gathering on Christmas. Christmas is observed much the same way on Sunday as it would be on any other day. Marco polo 19:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ~user:orngjce223 and you could always tell me... how am I typing? 20:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There is one small point that might be worth underlining here: Christmas, in point of fact, is based on no scriptural authority, but emerged as a Christian holiday in the late Roman Empire, celebrated at a time of already existing pagan festivals. This lack of Biblical sanction was later to become an important issue after the Reformation, and the celebration of Christmas was finally banned in the mid-seventeenth century by the Commonwealth of England. Although it was reinstated with the return of the monarchy in 1660, the stricter puritan sects continued to shun the feast. It was still an issue with some as late as the nineteenth century, as those familiar with Edmund Gosse's account of his childhood in Father and Son, will be aware. Who knows; perhaps even today there are some strict Protestants who do not celebrate Christmas, on Sunday or any other day of the week? Clio the Muse 00:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There is actually a trend among some American Protestant megachurches to cancel Sunday services if Christmas falls on a Sunday. At least, that's what a fair number of megachurches did in 2005 (There was a New York Times article on the topic at the time).--Pharos 00:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's important to note, of course, that many Protestant churches traditionally hold a Christmas Eve service, with no service on Christmas Day. -sthomson06 (Talk) 16:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That is amazing from the viewpoint of liturgical churches, such as Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and Episcopal. Edison 05:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that the Puritans considered Christmas a secular holiday, and banned it in the Massachusetts Bay colony. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Influence of the media world

There were reports of a young lad hang himself in the US just because he was rejected by a girl in Myspace.com. And a few days back many deaths were reported of young children after having watched saddam's execution.

Which side of the story is being given more importance? Whether the reaction to the knowledge or the influence of the media world??? Was freedom empowered in Iraq or is freedom abused???20:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)~~

Thank you for your question, Kjvenus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). You will find that questions such as the one above, which call for speculation and the opinions of individuals, will not be answered on the reference desk. I suggest you find a debating forum on the internet if you wish to engage in such activities. Allow me to reccomend the forvm, at . Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yugoslav money value

I just bought a Yugoslav bill on eBay dated 1993 and worth 500,000,000,000 dinara . As it was the highest valued bill of the time there (like the US $100 bill), I'm guessing that it had a good value then. If it was late 1993, what would this bill be worth then? What about the collector's value now? Thanks!! Reywas92_Sigs 21:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A 1993 500,000,000,000 Yugoslav dinar note would have been worth 500 dinar on January 1, 1994 when the currency was devalued at a rate of one billion old dinars to one "new dinar". Three and a half weeks later, on January 24, 1994, the "new dinar" was yet again devalued at a rate of (if I get this right) ten trillion to one, which made your bill worth something like one five-thousandth of the new New Dinar, which was on that date tied to the German Mark. (This may be wrong - I'm out of my league with the math. At any rate it was rendered worthless.)

Basically it ended up being worth less than the paper it was made from. As a collector's item it's not worth that much either, since (as you can imagine) the 100% per day inflation meant you needed a wheelbarrow full of notes to buy a loaf of bread. Yikes. --Charlene 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it was rendered worthless later, after being revalued twice. I'm asking what it was worth when it came out, not after even more inflation. Thanks. Reywas92_Sigs 22:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem with hyperinflation - the purchasing power of the currency changed so quickly that we can't tell simply by the year of the bill. If the bill was issued in January it would have been worth about 70 German marks, if my numbers are right. If it was issued in June of the same year, it would have been worth a fraction of a mark. And that's before the devaluations I mentioned. So it's impossible to tell.

Okay. Thanks very much! Reywas92_Sigs 11:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Difference between tantric art and Kama sutra

Whats the underlying difference between the Kama Sutra and Tantric Yoga and other means of Spiritual enlightenment. Why is the KS included in many curricula of the western universities. 21:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kjvenus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Flamarande 00:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)