Revision as of 04:44, 8 November 2006

Reference Desk

November 5

Egyptian Happyness

I just got an extreemly lousy question for my homework: Are the Egyptians happy with their government? I have no idea either why I would be asked that. So... how/where would I find the answer to that question? Help much appreciated ---- MayhemMessiah Nov 4, 2006 6:16pm (GMT)

Why not just ask an Egyptian??. -- Chris 18:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Lousy question? I would say that it was close to impossible. How do you measure 'happiness', and this applies to any political system, not just the Egyptian? Anyway, sorry if this sounds too negative. Begin with the Politics of Egypt and Hosni Mubarak. Perhaps it might help if I tell you that there has been a general decline in levels of support for President Mubarak because of allegations of corruption and concerns about the future direction of Egyptian politics. There is also an active Islamist movement in Egypt, hostile to Mubarak's 'secular' form of government. Have a look at the pages I have suggested, then we will take it from there. Good luck. Clio the Muse 00:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The results of this google search might give you a teensy bit of help. I agree that it's a really tough one. Unless there's a recent news article from a prominent media outlet that you're supposed to know about. OTOH, THIS google result shows a bunch of hits for a recent news item that the majority of Egyptians don't even know what an opinion poll is, so maybe it's a trick question, meant to convey the different way some societies go about assessing the opinions of citizens? Anchoress 01:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

And here's a short article that addresses the issue. Anchoress 01:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll be specific about those who are unhappy with the government; your teacher will probably want examples. Anyways, there are several groups in Egypt that oppose the Mubarak regime. First, there are Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood who favor the implementation of Islamic law in the country. The Brotherhood itself is widely popular (not to mention outlawed.) Also, there are reformist liberals who speak out against the president in the newspapers, and are regularly arrested. For examples, look through the categories Egyptian human rights activists, Egyptian journalists, and other categories to be found at Egyptian people by occupation. (I bet the reason many of them have Misplaced Pages articles is because their arrests were written about!) Then, there are millions of Egyptians (see Hepatitis C#Epidemiology and this salon.com article) who were accidentally infected with Hepatitis C during a vaccination campaign against Schistosomiasis; call it original research, but I doubt that they're happy with the government. And for some other individuals who oppose the government, see Egyptian presidential election, 2005, which had 9 opposition candidates. Picaroon9288 01:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

And yet the question still is flawed because it is framed as if all Egyptians had the same opinion. The question should be something like, "Are the majority ..." B00P 04:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Danish history

I'm researching Danish history for a novel I'm writing. Does anyone know what system of measurement was used in Denmark before the metric system. (I believe Denmark adopted the metric system around 1920, if that helps.) I'm specifically looking for the unit of measurement that would have been used for indicating the distance between towns, like the present day kilometer. Thanks! Lynne Jorgensen 01:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at Danish units of measurement. And good luck with your novel. Clio the Muse 01:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You could check out the Danish version, too, and try to find other sources. The word "palme" for "palm of hand" seems slightly improbable, since Danish uses the word "håndflade". 惑乱 分からん 03:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Fabulous! This is exactly what I needed! Thanks! Lynne Jorgensen 04:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

How long is a 288-year prison sentence?

Creationist and tax evader Kent Hovind may face a sentence of up to 288 years in prison. This reminded me that I've always wondered about why people are given sentences longer than a lifespan. For Kent Hovind, then, what does this mean in practical terms? If sentenced to 288 years, will he inevitably serve for life? Is he likely to be released for good behaviour or something instead, and how soon might this happen? (How long will we be free of him?) --Grace 06:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A sentence of that length would indeed mean that he would be imprisoned for his natural life, without possibility of parole. Unless, of course, he has a lifespan of Old Testament proportions? Clio the Muse 06:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There are a few reasons to impose such long sentences:

• To counter the tendency to give "time off for good behavior". The percentage that a sentence can be reduced varies by jurisdiction, but can be 75% off in some cases. So, that would lower it to a 72 year sentence.

• Such sentences are typically the result of multiple convictions. For example, if there were 72 counts of 4 years each, that would total 288 years. Judges are sometimes given leeway to decide if multiple sentences are served concurrently or sequentially, giving them enormous power to vary the sentence.

• In the case of multiple convictions, it is possible to have some convictions overturned, and others upheld, so the large number of years may be needed to keep the person in prison after appeals.

Failing to give such long sentences can have disastrous consequences, as in the case of Coral Eugene Watts, a serial killer who was almost released. StuRat 07:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent explaination. I've always wondered why they gave someone a 7.5 life sentences, but I never looked it up since the law is very ambiguous in some aspects, thus lawyers exist. But now it makes somewhat more sense. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• In this case, we're talking US federal sentencing. There's no parole, and good behavior time is limited to about 15%. Are there mandatory minimums for these crimes? --jpgordon 15:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This truly is a sad day. With Hovind locked away we will no longer get such gems as:

What a riot--Fuhghettaboutit 09:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a question in here somewhere or does this somehow relate to the previous question ? StuRat 10:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question, it's a desperate plea for sanity in this insane world. Try reading Kent Hovind, then come back with some specific questions. ;-) Anchoress 10:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed Stu, that was related to the last question--which was about the infamous Kent Hovind; evolution gadfly; Yogi Bera's creationist doppelganger. Just read those quotes. You couldn't make this stuff up. Anchoress, you sound like a big fan ;-)--Fuhghettaboutit 11:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The last question wasn't on Kent Hovind, per se, but was about excessive prison sentences. Kent was only used as an example. StuRat 18:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he is. Who wouldn't be? "They were so desperate to find missing links, so desperate to prove their theory that they murdered people to prove it." I'd only been up for 20 minutes, yet I got my first laugh of the day. --Bowlhover 15:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

And my post wasn't obviously a comment related to that question referencing that specific individual, even if tangential? And a discussion of the degree of attenuation is useful how? Another words, why are we discussing this?--Fuhghettaboutit 19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I thoroughly enjoyed the quotes, so thank you. :) And thanks everyone for the real answers too. --Grace 22:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Its so if he is cleared of some of his convictions, he may still be serving a life sentence on the others, i.e. if someone killed 2 people, was given 2 life sentences, you wouldnt want him released to early for being cleared of one of them. Philc _TC 21:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Secretary of Defense

Me and a friend have a bet I hope you guys can help us settle. Is the US Secretary of Defense in the chain of command of the US military? As in, if the Secretary starts ordering the generals around, are they obligated to obey his orders, or what?

Apparently, yes. Our article on Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff touches on this topic, though our article on the United States Secretary of Defence doesn't say this explicitly. See also National Command Authority, which deals with the situation where a nuclear weapons launch is called for - that both the Secretary of Defense and the President must give the order for them to be used (even though the constitutionality of such a rule is actually a bit dubious). --Robert Merkel 10:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

STUDENT COUNCIL HELP 2

Help! (again) the last time I was here I posted this question. . .

Where can I find some ideas and slogans for elementary type elections. He needs to find a slogan for his election posters. Thank You

PS: Make sure that the slogans are age approriate. G and PG only --Devol4 20:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Rhyming is usually important if you're in elementary school (or if you're Jesse Jackson). What's his first name (so we can suggest a nice rhyming slogan) ? StuRat 23:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You might find some ideas at slogan.--Shantavira 10:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

His first name is Daniel and he is Runnig for 5th grade represenative. If you can come up with a slogan it will help so much. THANKS Chris

If he goes by "Dan", there's always "Vote for Dan, he's the man !". "Daniel" is a bit harder, we could go with "Vote for Daniel, the man you'll pick !". Try some like that, and keep them short enough to remember. StuRat 18:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Vote for Daniel, da dawg's no Cocker Spaniel!" ;) 惑乱 分からん 19:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

THANKS VERY MUCH WAKURAN

Peace out Chris

Alright! You're welcome... Glad you liked it! ;D 惑乱 分からん 20:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Instead of focusing on slogans, perhaps it would be a wise idea to focus on the qualities of the people that are running. --Proficient 02:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is fifth grade. I wouldn't expect him to be digging up his opponent's voting record ;) -Elmer Clark 02:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

How about "Vote for Daniel, he's the MANiel"? Maybe that's dumb, but I recall 5th grade elections as being mostly about funny slogans, posterboard and glitter...Dina 01:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Country Music Awards

Who make up the Board of Directors of the American Country Music Awards...who determines who is nominated for an award?

according to their website it's these folks. Dina 23:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This page explains how the nominations and voting is handled. It is a bit complicated (vote for five in each category on second ballot) and not limited top the boardmembers. Rmhermen 18:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson

is it true that he will launch his own makeup line? --Cosmic girl 16:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If so, wouldn't you think he would have done so in time for Halloween ? StuRat 18:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Headshot! -- Chris 19:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe he'll do it in time for Christmas, or New Year. (However, that link I gave was from October 2005. So the webpage says that he'll launch it by the end of 2005, not 2006.) --Bowlhover 18:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe next year? --Proficient 02:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

aww, I hope he does =(...--Cosmic girl 15:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Play

I'm looking for a canadian play about nature, I can't seem to find one. -74.12.101.207 20:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Start looking here: List of Canadian playwrights. I saw one by David Young that takes place in an ice cave. Anchoress 20:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

racial origins of the Devil

All the images I remember seeing of the Devil seem to be a dark, swarthy Caucasian (Italo-Spanish type or Arab/Semite). Why is this?, and are there any more modern depictions in the West of blond & blue-eyed, black or Asian devils? Also, do Fundamentalist Christians think the Devil really exists and can take form on Earth, and if so do they always see a Robert De Niro look-a-like or visualize the above-mentioned variations too? Thanks, ==Robert==

There is a long history of turning your real enemies (or people you just don't like much) into fantastical or imaginary enemies but perhaps equating them with the devil is just too big a compliment. The devil is often portrayed as more bestial then human with maybe only his/her minions being swarthy type. Here is a good book of cultural depictions. I would say that there has been a tendency to shift evil from looking obviously evil to being more sly and subtle with evil being thought of as "just like us". Modern devilish depictors I can recall include Harvey Keitel, Peter Cook, Elizabeth Hurley and Al Pacino MeltBanana 22:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Lucifer in DC Comics is depicted as blond and blue-eyed, which I believe was started by Neil Gaiman's Sandman series. Hardly an orthodox source, but to me it sort of makes sense because Lucifer was one of the most beautiful angels before the Fall, and other angels are often depicted as blond and blue-eyed. I'm sorry I don't have any other answers for you. --Grace 22:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Does the Devil belong to a race? No more, I would have thought, than any other divine or semi-divine concept. If he does belong to a race it's the race of angels; and how does one depict them? If you take the concept back to source you will find that he is given no physical description in any of the scared texts, Hebrew, Christian or Muslim. It isn't until the Middle Ages that he takes on a physical form, borrowed, in large measure, from the ancient pagan divinities, most notably Dionysis and the Great God Pan. As we move towards the modern age he inevitably metamorphoses into that which people fear most, in political, cultural or racial terms. And as far as angels being blond and blue-eyed that is also a very modern, and culturally specific concept. If the ancient Hebrews had ever attempted to depict such transcendental figures-which they never did-the one thing we can be sure of is that they would not have been seen in such a Nordic guise. Clio the Muse 00:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

See also, Fallen angel. The statue depicting Lucifer (1878) by Ricardo Bellver in Retiro Park in Spain, depicts a very "angelic" Satin (i.e. without any "racial" specifics, he looks like a healthy strong European), in line with the mythos of Dante and other earlier Christian and non-Christian concepts. --Cody.Pope 01:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Race implies continuation of a species and reproduction, which applies only to animate beings with bodies. Satan, according to the scriptures, is an immortal spiritual being. We can't visualise spiritual beings such as God, angels and devils, so we attribute human forms to them to make the task easier. But that's just our own construct; they don't have bodies. This is also why it's so hard for most people to accept that it's not the case that we ourselves are human beings who have occasional spiritual experiences, but rather, we are immortal spiritual beings who are currently having a temporary human experience. JackofOz 01:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but may I suggest that the difficulty of visualising immortal spiritual beings is not the only reason why it's 'so hard for most people to accept that ... we are immortal spiritual beings who are currently having a temporary human experience'? There are also rather a lot of arguments for the position that there are no such beings. Cheers, Sam Clark 09:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I rest my case ... (I think). JackofOz 23:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but no you don't. Again: argument, not failure of imagination, is the main reason why I don't believe that I'm an immortal spiritual being, or that evil is a fallen angel. I can imagine it just fine, and once believed it, but I don't think it's true. I don't think this is obvious, and respect (some) people who disagree with me, but the question is one that can and should be rationally discussed. Cheers, Sam Clark 08:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, apart from the fact that I get to choose when I rest my case and when I don't - since you've subtly manipulated me into reopening it, I will now choose to do so. :) I think it is true to say that nobody can either prove or disprove the existence of spiritual beings, no matter how good their argument might be. Arguments have been advanced forever for both the pro and con cases; some people are influenced by these arguments, some are not. Many people who were totally convinced of the correctness of one position later change their minds. The very fact that some argue passionately for the existence of spiritual beings while others argue equally passionately against their existence, seems to suggest that at the end of the day it comes down to the individual's personal belief system. Either one believes in their existence or one doesn't, compelling arguments to the contrary position notwithstanding. Cheers JackofOz 07:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That could all be true, but wouldn't support the claim I was disagreeing with: that the main reason some people don't believe that they're immortal spirits is that they can't visualise such things. Again: I don't believe this because I was convinced by argument that it's not the case. And incidentally, the fact that there is passionate, ongoing argument about a topic does not entail that the answer 'comes down to the individual's personal belief system'. That's just naive relativism. Cheers, Sam Clark 14:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Always remember Wittgenstein-Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. But what has any of this to do with depictions of the Devil, which are, and have always been, cultural and historical constructs? Clio the Muse 23:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ballot questions

I cannot find anything at all that explains to me what ballot questions (or whatever they may be called) really are or how they come to be included on the ballot. If laws are voted on by legislators, why then once every couple years are random questions included on the ballot for the general public to pass into law? Do all states do ballot questions? If anyone at all could clarify this for me or elaborate on the process/idea of ballot questions, I'd appreciate it! Also, if you have a good source/website that explains it, include that too. All my Google searches give are news about the actual ballot questions for this Tuesday. → JARED   22:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Our article on this topic is Referendums. You might also check out Initiative and referendum and History of direct democracy in the United States. Some U.S. states (mainly in the west) make it easier to get these questions on the ballot than do others. Typically, an interest group (with an interest in the question to be put on the ballot) has to collect a certain number of signatures to qualify their question for the ballot. Sometimes the groups sponsoring questions are grassroots citizen's groups, but because of the expense of collecting signatures (which often involves paying people to stand outside supermarkets and collect them), they are often sponsored by industry groups. Marco polo 23:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is ironic, because I&R was originally a Progressive Era reform to try to give power to "the people" at the expense of the organize interests thought to control state legislatures. A short answer to your questions: Generally, ballot questions are put on the ballot through the initiative process Marco Polo mentions, or are put on the ballot after passing the legislature because the state constitution requires it. For example, a tax increase or change to the state constitution might require voter approval. You can visit the site of the Initiative and Referendum Institute for more information. -- Mwalcoff 01:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Some states have non-binding referenda, while others have binding proposals (meaning it becomes law if passed). StuRat 01:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The terminology is confused. There are pieces of citizen proposed legislation (Including ones to revoke existing legislation), pieces of contentious legislation that the legislature wants to have an explicit mandate to renew (Compare the Parliamentary practise of dissolving legislatures and making a campaign on one main issue (EG. Nationalization of power in Quebec)), and in some cases the legislature is required to put some things to a referendum (In the United States, this is almost always a state constitutional amendment. In some states (EG. Tennessee) it's the easiest of several ways, in others (EG. New Jersey, Alaska) its absolutely required.). 68.39.174.238 04:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

When did winking originate?

On the subject of winking...when did it start? Is this something that has been around for longer than we have records of?

I became intrigued on this subject because in my English class, we watched a production of The Taming of the Shrew where at the very end, Kate winks to show that her whole little speech about how women should be subservient to men wasn't what she truly thought.

It's not written into the script, so I was wondering not only if this sort of body language existed when Shakespeare's plays were originally being performed, but also at what time winking actually started. =) --chickenflicker 22:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Was this a movie or a stage production? If you think about Shakespeare's original productions in Elizabethan theatres, like the Globe, a wink would simply have been lost on most of the audience, too far from the stage to pick it up. To be honest with you I think this is a question without an answer, a little akin to when did frowning or scowling or any other form of expression or cultural gesture start? Clio the Muse 00:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Live audience, taped for television. I was thinking that my question wouldn't be able to be answered as well, but perhaps hoping that winking was perhaps a gesture like shaking hands, which has some sort of known origin, or at least a few theories about its origin. chickenflicker 02:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The Taming of the Shrew has often been regarded as a problematic play in modern times, because headstrong Kate, one of Shakespeare's most memorable heroines, is apparently completely subjugated by the end. I've been involved in productions of the play and its not just a problem "politically" it's also a problem dramatically because there's really not a clear explanation in the play of how or why she changes so thoroughly -- it gets sort of rushed at the end. Several modern directors have made the choice (in one way or another, sometimes more subtley than a wink) to imply at the end that either: a)Kate is faking it and will return to her old behaviour soon or b) she and Petruchio have developed a relationship of equals and she is pretending to be subjugated to help him win the wager. Either way, nothing of the sort is definitively there in the original text and it's all left to interpretation. So regardless of whether or not winking existed in Shakespeare's time, it's highly unlikely it would have been a part of the production. However, I have a vague memory of some other winking occurring in a Shakespeare (though I can't remember where) which would come closer to answering your question. ;) Dina 01:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

From Cymbeline a play I'm not terribly familiar with:

Posthumus.

I tell thee, fellow, there are none want eyes to

direct them the way I am going, but such as wink and

will not use them.

First Gaoler.'

What an infinite mock is this, that a man should

have the best use of eyes to see the way of

blindness! I am sure hanging's the way of winking.

Dina 02:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, from one of Shakespeare's contemporary's (mocking the audience of his plays): You will see such heaving and shoving, such itching and shouldering to sit by the women, such care for their garments that they be not trod on . . . such toying, such smiling, such winking, such manning them home ... that it is a right comedy to mark their behaviour" (Stephen Gosson, "The School of Abuse", 1579). (emphasis mine) Dina 02:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Pretty helpful information, about winking in Shakespeare's other work. I had watched a 1976 performance which was in front of a live audience, but taped for television, so, to me, the wink was pretty obvious, but to those who were in the back row during the original taping...I don't know how they would have seen it. chickenflicker 02:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how it originated, but winking is mentioned half a dozen time in the Bible, e.g. Job 15:12, Psalms 35:19.--Shantavira 10:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Metternich's views on University professors and private property

Many years ago I saw Metternich (Prince Klemens von Metternich) quoted as having said that he could not stand university professors because none of them had any respect for private property. Is there any source to substantiate this, or any similar comment? (I do not need anything on his general views, or his measures,-- such as the Carlsbad decrees,-- on Universities, students, professors, censorship, and so on.) Many thanks, Stephen Scott.

I do not know of such a quotation, and there is very little in Misplaced Pages itself which might be of assistance to you: the page on Metternich is, to be blunt, far from satisfactory. As far as I am aware the chief thrust of his policy in the area of education was to restrict-or eliminate-the perpetuation of socially harmful doctrines, like constitutionalism, republicanism, liberalism and nationalism. As far as the sanctity of private property is concerned I would have assumed that the views of most professors would not have been that be that far removed from those of Metternich himself. Clio the Muse 23:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Clio,-- Many thanks for responding with your thoughts. Indeed, private property is par excellence an institution as to which sympathetic opinion can straddle the political spectrum between autocrats, aristocrats, gentry, and the bourgeoisie. I do remember once seeing some opinion, along the lines of that which I quoted, attributed to Metternich, and I posted my query on the odd chance that someone amongst the many sophisticated readers just might happen to recognize it. And I venture to add that, in my experience, academics are not, as a class, typically the staunchest defenders of property rights. (On the subject of property and economic liberalism, I am also fond of the remark often attributed to Guizot,-- even if perhaps at least partly apocryphal,-- "Bourgeois, enrichissez vous!" (It is taken up elsewhere on this website.) Thanks again, Stephen Scott.

You're welcome, Stephen. Sorry I was not able to be of greater assistance. Clio the Muse 03:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

</noinclude>

November 6

S.M.O.M.

Here's a question I haven't been able to answer by reading the Misplaced Pages article. A few months ago, I saw a program on The History Channel, which explained about S.M.O.M. (Sovereign Military Order of Malta). It is, according to the program, the smallest country on earth, and is located in Rome (like the Vatican). This is what Misplaced Pages has to say, but it doesn't even say it's a country. I know it exists, because they even gave the adress and showed license plates; besides, the History Channel wouldn't lie (would they?). No one believes the existance of such a place, and to convice people, I have to repeat everything in the program, while I would normally just cite Misplaced Pages. I'd apreciate help. Thanks | AndonicO Talk 01:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Our article does not say it is a country, because it isn't a country. SMOM claims sovereignty under international law and "has been granted permanent observer status at the United Nations. (Its claims of sovereignty are disputed by some scholars.) ... However, unlike the Holy See, which is sovereign over the Vatican City, SMOM has no sovereign territory since the loss of the island of Malta in 1798. The United Nations does not classify it as a "non-member state" but as one of the "entities and intergovernmental organizations having received a standing invitation to participate as observers"." Until and unless other states recognise SMOM as a sovereign nation like the Vatican City, it is wrong to claim that it is "the smallest country on earth", or indeed, a country at all. JackofOz 02:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, interesting. I believe that Vatican City is still regarded as the smallest independent nation on earth, but I found this (randomly online here:)

The S.M.O.M. is an ancient organization founded under the aegis of the Roman Catholic church during the Crusades to protect pligrims on their way to the Holy Land. It now functions as a Catholic charitable organization (running a number of hospitals throughout the world), and enjoys limited diplomatic status as a "sovereign entity", complete with passports, coinage (via the world's smallest national mint), license plates (via a special contract with the Italian government), an (unofficial) amateur radio license prefix (1A0) and a post office (Postage stamps are a major source of income). The S.M.O.M. headquarters, consisting of a building and courtyard in Rome, Italy, is officially the world's smallest self-governing sovereign territory (roughly twice the size of a standard tennis court, small enough to have a mailing address*), and exchanges ambassadors and diplomatic representatives with over 80 countries.

To quote the website: "After the loss of the island of Malta, the Order settled permanently in Rome, Italy, in 1834. Its two headquarters, granted with extraterritoriality, are the Palazzo Malta in Via dei Condotti 68 - where the Grand Master resides and Government Bodies meet - and the Villa Malta on the Aventine. The latter hosts the Grand Priory of Rome, the Embassy of the Order to the Holy See and the Embassy of the Order to the Italian Republic."

On August 24, 1994, the S.M.O.M was granted Permenant Observer Status in the United Nations, allowing them to participate in the discussions of the U.N. General Assembly.

It wouldn't serve as a good source for a Misplaced Pages article, and the link it provides is to a website in Italian. But I think you might be somewhat right -- the distinction is is whatever the difference between the "world's smallest self-governing entity" and "the world's smallest independent nation." I expect the distinction is important somehow. Cheers. Dina 02:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look at Knights Hospitalers#International Status of the Order you will see that the order does not claim to be a 'country', but a 'sovereign entity', quite a different concept altogether. It enjoys a certain extra-territorial status in the Vatican City, but has no direct authority. The status is a residue from the time the Knights controlled Rhodes and then Malta. The Order exists in international law a little like a 'government in exile'; though this is purely honorary and formalist in practice Clio the Muse 02:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well there it is, serves me right for going straight to google...Dina 02:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, but would being a sovereign entity make it a government? And would a government with some territory be regarded as a country? | AndonicO Talk 11:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No, and no. No large tract of land, no country. Citing the Vatican as a country just shows it is mislabelled due to clout, and should not be considered a country either. Edison 14:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What are the minimum dimensions of "a large tract of land", and who sets such limits? Like it or not, almost every government on earth recognises the Vatican City State as a sovereign nation separate from Italy, and the Pope as a head of state. Best of luck with informing all these governments they've got it wrong and they should rescind their recognition. JackofOz 00:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Which nations are the ones of equal or less area than the Vatican? From I see Holy See has 0 sq km of area,(0.44 sq km per Misplaced Pages) and Bassas da India also with 0 sq km per the CIA and 80 sq km per wikipedia, but uninhabited so I don't know who to contact. Edison 00:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Vatican City is the smallest independent nation in the world. See List of countries and outlying territories by total area. JackofOz 00:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

PS. Each country's government makes its own decisions about recognizing other countries, so you'd need to contact them all separately. There are over 200 national governments, so start immediately. I'd try the Italian government first and see how you fare.  :-) JackofOz 00:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ice age?

Someone told me that the pentagon was interested in the results of a report about an upcoming ice age. The thermohalen conveyer is supposedly going to stop, and create another ice age. The person who told me heard this on the radio, so they didn't get the name of the report. As in the question I asked a section above, I saw this on TV (The Science Channel), so it's a scientific possibility. I'd like the name of the report if possible. Thank you! | AndonicO Talk 01:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If the Pentagon is preparing for an Ice Age it is clearly, and perhaps typically, moving in the opposite direction from the rest of the human race. Clio the Muse 02:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the report was named, but you might want to look at Thermohaline circulation. And from what I've heard, Europe may well see significant cooling after enough ice in Greenland melts. The fresh water flowing into the northern Atlantic might stop the global ocean currents that bring warm water north to Europe, which keep the continent warmer than it would be otherwise. Maybe ask your question at the science reference desk. Philbert 05:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll ask the question over there too. | AndonicO Talk 11:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Lambiam gave me a good link at the Science Reference desk. Shutdown of thermohaline circulation It's close enough to what I wanted, thank you too. | AndonicO Talk 13:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

India Export Tax

Where can I find articles regarding export tax of India on Portland Cement? Do they have an export tax? --Transit1 02:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Export taxes are one of the stupidest taxes ever invented, I would think India would be smarter than that. They just damage their own industry, exports, and economy. Import taxes, on the other hand, can help protect native industries. StuRat 05:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually stu, I have to disagree. Export taxes do have their use, because selling in the foreign becomes more expensive selling in the homecountry somewhat more interesting. usually this also discourages the settlement of low-wage factories which usually are BAD for the health standard of a country. also the extra effect is that the production of cement in this case which is pretty highly polluting (at least with the techniques used in india). Graendal 06:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that makes no sense. They should aim to sell in both foreign AND domestic markets. Cutting off one market won't help the other. As for environmental protection, the way to do that is with tough environmental protection laws, not by destroying industry. That way, if it's possible to produce cement without breaking the laws, they will, and if not, they will go out of business. StuRat 14:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's not the presence of low-wage jobs that are bad for the people, it's the absence of high-wage jobs. Adding low-wage jobs to an economy never hurts anything, unless it comes at the cost of high-wage jobs, and there's no reason to think that high-wage jobs would be destroyed by exporting goods. If anything, a few high-wage jobs would be created (engineering, etc.). StuRat 14:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

On a semi-relevant note, the U.S. constitution bans export taxes, brecause the drafters of the Constitution were afraid of future political favoritism between the exports of different states... AnonMoos 19:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still struggling with "selling in the foreign becomes more expensive selling in the homecountry somewhat more interesting". JackofOz 00:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to translate into English:

"When selling a product in a foreign market becomes more expensive, the producer turns his interest toward selling the product in his home country."

I don't agree that this is good, however. If there was a domestic market with unsatisfied demand, the company would have already sold the product there before exploring export opportunities. If forced to dump their product on the domestic market, the excess supply will cause a price collapse, which will harm that company, as well as any competitors. StuRat 02:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You should all love reading The Wealth of Nations. -THB 00:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, no flashbacks to 1987, thank you. (Love? Shudder.) --Charlene 23:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Catholic response to Calvinism

Are there any specific Catholic documents that contain reactions or refuations of Calvinism? (paticualry the 5 Points of Calvinism)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.163.95 (talk • contribs)

To begin with have a look over the page on the Counter Reformation. If you do not find some general outlines there we can try some finer tuning. You should also read the page on John Calvin. The chief Catholic accusation against Calvinism seems to be that innovation in theology inevitably leads to degeneration and moral decay. Clio the Muse 07:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that the Reformation got going with Martin Luther in 1517, years before Calvin entered the fray.Edison 14:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Pish posh. There are dozens of attacks on Calvin from other Protestant churches as well as from the Roman Catholic Church. The chief Church of England counter came in Richard Hooker's Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, but the main attacks were on the extreme form of Augustinianism that Calvin endorsed and what the English theologians called "enthusiasm" or "phrenzy," which they had a great deal of trouble with. Direct inspiration and the rejection of theology set the Calvinists in England directly at odds with every other group, including the "Independents" (Baptists) and Quakers. Remember: Calvinist in England = Puritain. Geogre 18:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Children

If there was a child who starred in a movie that was rated R, would they be permitted to watch the movie?

If you're referring to the U.S. "R" rating, yes but being in the film isn't required. Any child under 17 years of age can watch an R rated movie so long as they have a parent or guardian accompanying them. Dismas| 05:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What about a film under the Australian "R" rating, where you do have to be 18 or over to see it? --Grace 11:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

An "R" rated movie is not generally a collection of scenes all of which are "R" rated. Remember that someone could be "in" a movie and only be in very innocuous scenes, and never see anything controversial during the filming, so there is no sense in which they would have already seen the scenes which generate the "R" rating. Edison 14:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In Australia, persons under 18 cannot see an R-rated movie at the cinema, whether or not they're accompanied by an adult. Babes in arms might be an exception, I'm not sure. I remember the case of the 1970s Australian movie Libido, which starred a boy of about 14. He could participate in the making of the movie, but couldn't see it till he turned 18. That was in the days before video, so he just had to wait. JackofOz 00:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I remember Thomas Sangster having the same problem with Love Actually. He wasn't allowed to watch it in theatres. Made no sense. He saw it when he did the commentary for the DVD... - Mgm| 11:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • With the advent of home videos and DVDs, these restrictions have been undermined. People can't take young children to see non-G movies at the cinema, but there's nothing stopping them (apart from their own conscience) from obtaining the video or the DVD and showing it to them at home. Same goes for liquor consumption, drugs, etc. But governments feel they have to at least defend the public honour in public places. There would certainly be voter backlash if 7-year-olds were suddenly permitted to see R-rated movies. JackofOz 00:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Compulsive Lying

me and my mates are finding it impossible to remember the single word term for a compujlsive liar. can you help us?

It's called Mythomania. Next time, make sure you make a "new question" when you ask it. The link is at the top of the page. ;) --AstoVidatu 04:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have though that the more standard expression would be Pathological liar. Clio the Muse 09:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the question asked for the single-word term. -THB 00:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Mythomania is the condition. The person is a mythomaniac. JackofOz 00:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. -THB 02:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. JackofOz 00:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Clothing and housing in 13th century Christian Spain

What clothing was worn in 13th century Spain, and what types of houses were built? Mo-Al 04:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Have a trawl through the History of Western fashion. You will find some general category indicators at the bottom of the page. However, a word of caution: beware of illustrations of 'typical' fashions. You will find that they are anything but typical, showing only what the more affluent would be able to wear. Most of the peasantry and urban poor would use the most basic forms of clothing, usually a simple gown, shirt and doublet, if even that. Housing is more problematic, and will range from castles to hovels, hovels being more typical, but less enduring, than castles. Medieval Spain is little different in this regard from the rest of Europe. Clio the Muse 08:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our article on the history of Western fashion doesn't go back any further than the 16th century. However, here are a few web sources on fashion from the 13th century: this from About.com, this from a site of uncertain reliability, and this from a site endorsed by the Annenberg foundation. The Annenberg site also has a section on housing. Clothing was probably fairly similar across Europe, with greater differences between classes than between regions. Peasants tended to wear rough woolen hose and tunics. Nobles wore finer and more colorful woolens, more linen, fur, jewelry, and perhaps some silk. Housing, on the other hand, would have varied from region to region depending on materials available locally. Peasant housing was often built of wattle and daub, though in Spain, adobe was often used. Peasant cottages typically had thatched roofs and only one room, with perhaps an attached stall for animals (though in one-room cottages, animals often slept with the family). Noble's manor houses were more often built with timber framed walls and slate roofs. Marco polo 14:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What's more, we only know what the affluent wore to have their portraits painted - a different matter completely than what they wore on a regular basis. The affluent were also a much smaller percentage of society than they are now - maybe one in a thousand persons was well-off enough to follow fashion in the 13th century.

With respect to Spain, you also have to ask yourself whether you're interested in Moorish Islamic Spain or Spanish Christian Spain. They probably wore completely different clothing on either side of the border. --Charlene 23:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

An odd question for The Stranger

First, I'll admit, this is a homework question. I have read The Outsider (English translation of The Stranger, by Albert Camus), and I have a bunch of questions to answer. This particular question is: "Is Meursault a 'person'? (a human person, a true individual, to be contrasted with a cliché, a stereotype or one sadly reduced to common sense)." What do you think this is asking for? How should I go about answering it? What I'm thinking right now is to say Meursault is more a metaphor than a real person... but that seems a bit weak. Thanks much in advance! 154.20.206.99 08:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Read over, but please do not reproduce (it is too obvious!) the article on The Stranger (novel). As a character Meursault is real enough, but he suffers from the weakness of all novels written to illustrate a point in philosophy-he appears little better than an epiphenomenon, rather than a complete human being. The best kind of novel should convince you that the character exists independently, if you like, from the author's creative imagination. Meursault does not. He only exists to give life to Camus' notion of the absurd, and becomes, in himself, 'absurd' in more senses than the author intended. I once heard Camus described as the 'bargain basement of modern literature'. I can provide no better summary than that. Clio the Muse 09:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, not bargain basement, though flat, of course. Absurdist literature has at least the advantage of wanting characters to be transparently fictive and philosophical (Beckett's plays, Brecht's "Epic Theater"), but Camus isn't part of the absurdist literary movement, despite ostensibly being a founder of it (just as Pirandello cannot manage to be unbelievable). That said, Camus's novel has some virtues. Many have found its sense of isolation and disenfranchisement intriguing (though I never did), and, on the completely other hand, he makes it easy to reject absurdism by pointing out the actual implications of an Absurdist life. (He showed how bankrupt the philosophy was, if you put it into action, in other words.) If one wants a philosopher novelist with some believability or usefulness, I'd recommend Hesse. Geogre 18:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The original French title was not "The Stranger", but "L’Étranger". JackofOz 00:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A few interest rates questions

Wasn't really sure where to put an economics question...but seeing as economics is meant to be a 'social science' and 'society' is listed in the humanities desk...figured this was the best place to try.

1. Basically, i've got in my economics textbook that "A common 'rule of thumb' is that monetary policy should be tightened when nominal interest rates are lower than nominal GDP growth".

Why? I figured if nominal interest rates were lower than nominal GDP growth, then people would have little incentive to save, since they'd get more return from investing than interest from saving. That would mean increased aggregate demand, since investment is a component of it, which leads to inflation. So therefore, increased interest rate would be the logical thing to do since increasing interest rate reduces consumption and investmnet, therefore reducing aggregate demand, therefore cooling inflation. Is this the only reason?

2. I've got, in the same book, that "if nominal interest is zero and inflation is below zero, there is a negative rate of real interest."

I don't really understand this. For a start, real interest is nominal interest minus inflation. So if nominal interest is zero and inflation is below zero, then shouldn't the real interest be above zero? Since zero minus a negative number gives you a positive number.

Also, i don't really see how it would work. Let's just say the economy is deflating at 2% (so an inflation rate of negative 2), and i have a $100 bill in my hand. If i just hold onto it, i'd still have a $100 bill in my hand one year later. If i put it into a bank at 0% interest, i'd also end up with just a 100$ bill after one year. Of course, after a year, the 100$ is worth more because things are becoming cheaper, but whether i hold on to it or if i put it into a bank at 0% interest, i'd end up with the same.

I admit this is sort of a homework question. For the record, i've already (tried) reading the relevant articles here, and they really haven't helped much. Would really appreciate it if anyone could enlighten me here. --`/aksha 10:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Science would be the right place to post this. On number 1, you seem to have figured it out on your own. An overheated economy can lead to an oversupply of goods and satiated demand, causing a recession or even a depression, so it's best to "put the brakes on" before this happens. I agree with you on number 2, they made a mistake. StuRat 14:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) I do not claim to be an expert, but I would say to your question #1: The reason that you have given is the main reason for keeping interest rates at or above the rate of nominal GDP growth. Another reason is that low interest rates can cause destabilizing asset inflation. As for your question 2., I agree with StuRat that you are correct and your textbook is in error. Marco polo 14:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll third that, with regards to #2. The first time I read the question, it seemed to me that the textbook got it backward, but I wasn't 100% sure and didn't want to simply throw in a "guess" in an area I'm not expert in. But after hearing from Stu and Marco Polo, yes, seems like you've got it right, and the textboook is wrong.

As for the first question, I can't say that I have an actual answer to the particular question, but I have to disagree with Stu about this question being more appropriate for the Science RefDesk. (Sorry Stu for always disagreeing with you about RefDesk categories! It isn't personal!) Economics, if it can be considered a science at all, is the "softist" of possible sciences, more akin to political "science" than to "hard" sciences such as physics, math or chemistry. Like political science, economics is replete with unresolvable debate, a variety of schools of thought, issues such as the merits and demerits of Keynesianism vs. Monetarism, supply side vs. demand side economics, whether trickle-down economics actually works, whether economic stimulation is better accomplished through tax cuts, thereby allowing taxpayers to retain more income to spend, or by tax-and-spend policies, whereby the government raises more taxes, but then turns around and spends it on programmes intended to induce economic activity, the appropriate balance between individual tax and corporate tax...I can go on and on. The way I see it, economics is such an intricately complex field that I'm almost inclined to call it more of an art than a science of any kind.

I call it science because you can apply the scientific method. For example, you could develop a theory that, if you reduce the price by 10% on a given item, you should sell 10% more. Then, you can do exactly that and test your theory. StuRat 20:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As to these two questions, especially the second, you're absolutely right. They're pretty much black and white, which seems to be what scientists deal with best (well, maybe not quantum physicists, but they're a special breed). But what if the question were: Which is better for a country's economy: Free Trade or Protectionism? Is it a good think to run a deficit during a recession to have the extra cash to stimulate the economy, or are you just further dooming future generations? If tax cuts are made, should they be aimed at middle class individuals, so they'll have more disposable income to stimulate the economy, or aimed toward corporations, who'll be able to use the extra cash to expand operations and therefore create more jobs (and who, by the way, are owned in large part by the middle class ayway, in their 401(k)s and other investments)? Economics is filled with such "fuzzy" questions, and scientists tend to shy away from such "fuzziness". Loomis 08:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No.! is already answered. For No. 2, you can reason through it: On January 1, you borrow a dollar for one year at a zero nominal interest and a deflation rate of five percent. On January 1 an apple costs $1.00. At the end of the year, you must pay back $1.00. However, an apple now costs only $0.95. The real interest rate is 5%.

Negative real interest rates occur when the rate of interest is lower than the rate of inflation. -THB 01:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and economics is the DISMAL science. -THB 02:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses. Science RD would have probably worked well for this, but there's not much point doing moving now. To THB - paying back interest for money borrowed is only half of it, the other half is getting interest for money you save. And this is where i don't really get how your reasoning works. Although i do pay a "real interest" of %5 when i pay back borrowed money to the bank, i'm certainly not going to get paid more money than what i deposited when i withdraw my money from a bank. Or is that sort of irrelevant...since even though i don't get more money, the bank will lose money by having to pay me the same amount of money (in nominal terms)? --`/aksha 03:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Which congressional district is Tucson AZ in?

I'm English, try not to bite me for asking.

I cant find out on the pages for the 7th or 8th Districts, or page for Tucson (at least not definitively). I think the city is split in two amongst the 7th and 8th districts although it is hard to tell from low res maps. Please help. --Amists 13:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that Tucson is split between those two districts. The city center is in the 7th District, while the more affluent residential areas to the north and east are in the 8th District. Here is a more detailed map of the district boundaries in Tucson. Marco polo 14:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You are awesome. Exactly what I wanted :) I'll edit Tucson incase anyone else ever wants to know. --Amists 14:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

But realize the voting districts are changed to give the advantage to whichever party is in power at the time (Gerrymandering). StuRat 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What a shocking admission, Stu! Do you guys really tolerate such things these days? JackofOz 00:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, we tolerate a lot more than that unfortunately. Dina 01:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical Senate Trial of Nixon

As we all know Nixon resigned the presidency on August 9th, 1974, even before being impeached by the House, not to mention conviction by the Senate. Impeachment by the House was pretty much a certainty. I'm curious though about what the article calls his "probable" conviction by the Senate.

First off, given the timing of his resignation (just three months before a midterm election), should impeachment proceedings drag on a few months, which Senate (1972 or 1974) would preside over the conviction proceedings? In either case, by implication, according to Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution, only 34 of the 100 sitting Senators would be enough to block any guilty verdict. I realize that even among Republican Senators, he lost a great deal of support. I'm just wondering if any research has been done as to the likely vote of each Senator, (be it the '72 or the '74 Senate,) and how close it is speculated that Nixon would have come to the "magic number" of 34. Any thoughts or references would be appreciated. Thanks! Oh, an by the way, please forgive me for forgetting to mention that the jurisdiction I'm referring to is the United States of America. :) Loomis 17:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting point. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the 1974 Senate elections were a stronger tilt toward the Dems than they were (+4). A look at United States Senate elections, 1974 indicates the breakdown of the Senate following those elections was 62-38. An slightly angrier electorate might have elected Harry Reid over Paul Laxalt in Nevada (actual results, 47.0% - 46.6%); William L. Guy over Milton R. Young in N. Dakota (48.4%-48.3%); Ed Edmondson over Harry Bellmon in OK (49.4%-48.9%) -- that would have made it 66-34. Assuming that the Democrats voted unanimously to convict, it would have only taken a single GOP defector -- and I'd venture at the very least that Barry Goldwater would have voted to convict, given that it was Goldwater's joining the calls for impeachment on August 5, 1974 that triggered Nixon's resignation four days later. But it wouldn't have been that close; once he lost Goldwater, one of his most loyal supporters, Nixon hadn't a chance. --jpgordon 20:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Six of the 17 Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee (and all of the Democrats) voted for impeachment before Nixon resigned. The other 11 changed their mind once they heard all the tapes. This was not a partisan thing like the Clinton administration. Nixon was toast. -- Mwalcoff 00:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming by your response that it would be the 1974 Senate that would preside. In any case, you mentioned that the distribution was 62-38. I'm sure you know your US politics better than I, but technically it was actually 60-38-1-1, the two individuals being a "Conservative" and an "Independent". I really don't know who these other two were and what their ideologies were (except that the "Conservative" was from NY). I recognize that it was hopeless for Nixon, but I just can't help being curious. Would either of you care to venture at least an estimation, an educated guess, as to the likely result, in terms of the numbers of Senators voting either "yea or nay" in the hypothetical trial? Loomis 00:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The independent was Harry F. Byrd, Jr., who caucused with the Democrats; the Conservative was James L. Buckley, who caucused with the GOP. I won't speculate; 67 suffices. --jpgordon 18:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Spanish History 1010

Hi,

can anyone please tell me what happened in Spanish history in the year 1010? Thanks!

Try here History of Spain or 1010. Dina 19:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that when they first started selling digital clocks ? :-) StuRat 20:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why specifically 1010? It seems terribly precise. Clio the Muse 08:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Following Dina's suggestion, I found the articles on Hisham II, Al-Andalus, and Taifa. They give you an idea (and maps) of what happened in Spanish history around the year 1010.---Sluzzelin 09:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the questioner is looking for background information for his NaNoWriMo attempt? GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 09:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Need Metal Band Name

My friend needs some help looking for a name for his black metal band. It should be or at least sound Egyptian, Babylonian, or Persian and preferrably based on a myth cycle of some sort. Any suggestions? Thanks.

I know the Admins will spank me for answering with a joke, but I can't help, upon hearing the terms "Metal Band" and "Egyptian" to suggest "The Bangles". Oh well, the name's already been used. Sorry guys, for the joke answer, I promise to never do it again, except under exceptional circumstances. Loomis 18:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Brilliant! --Grace 22:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused Grace. "Brilliant" that I'll do my best to avoid nonsensical joke responses? I'm not even sure myself if my "joke" made any sense at all. :)

I have a suggestion: Use Misplaced Pages to find a name. There are many articles you may be interested in, such as Ancient Egypt, Babylonia, and Persia. --Kainaw 18:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Puns:

• The Asp Kickers.

• Babel On.

• Toot in Common (more for a brass band).

• Car Touche.

• Sphinxter.

• Whore Us.

Serious:

• Nose Hook.

• Scarab.

• Mummified Cat.

• Osiris.

• Book of the Dead.

• Ra.

• Nimrod.

• Ankh.

• Anubis.

StuRat 19:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Or your friend could avoid cliche and try and come up with a name which isn't just like the names of thousands of other black metal bands... Cheers, Sam Clark 19:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

People who religiously follow odd youth subcultures are roughly incapable of original thought, incase it doesnt conform with their subculture, as young unstable people growing up nowadays find that one subculture or another is the only way that they can identify who they are. Also for some reason people like to be part of a minority for that feeling that they are fighting back against the world, what a lot of these people fail to realise is that together goth and emo, account for a massive majority of youths nowadays, head and shoulders above the other smaller subcultures. So much ofr the minority, They will hate to hear it, but being an emo or goth, is probably the most normal thing you can do in western youth culture nowadays. Thoroughly unoriginal. Philc _TC 20:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Philc: I used to think like that, I'm glad I changed my mind. I made my peace by realizing that those kids will probably grow up just fine, discover different music and so on, but they often need this experience of belonging to a subculture to help them deal with that alienation stuff that comes with being a teenager. Didn't you ever feel like the world was a horrible place and nobody liked you? I dealt with it by escaping into books, but I wonder if it wouldn't have been healthier to participate in some subculture and perfect the art of social interaction.

Anyway...Black metal, let it be said, is not goth or emo except to the casual observer. It dates back to the 1980s and the genre has its own very specific set of conventions, like most metal subgenres.

To the original poster: The Babylon article has some cool-sounding names: Nineveh, Marduk, Darius, the Ishtar Gate. Mesopotamian mythology provides more Babylonian mythological names (see also the categories at the bottom of that page). And don't forget godchecker.com. Good luck to your friend with his band! --Grace 22:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Do they go into a subculture because of alienation, or do they alienate themselves by entering a subculture. I dont think I am a part of any subcultures, and yet I dont feel alienated by anyone, at my school no one really is, generally ther just normal kids, there are a few goths, punks, "scene kids" and emos, and if you ask them why they dress up and do weird things purely for the sake of it you are hit with a snide remark such as "because I'm not a sheep" which is desperately ironic, as copying a subculture to the letter rather than developing your own tastes shows far less originality. Philc _TC 23:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were still in school, it must be more difficult when you have to put up with them every day. :) I think a lot of people get into subcultures because they dislike something about mainstream culture and want to express their opposition to it, and (whatever they say) they do like the companionship of belonging to a group (goths can be quite friendly to other goths, for example, because they instantly recognize that they have something in common). It's good that you don't feel like you need to do that sort of thing. But remind yourself that they'll probably discover better ways to change society or express their individuality by the time they get to their twenties. --Grace 04:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Mythica has a wide varity of names from all over. --Phydaux 20:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

How about Cataracts of the Nile (just because it sound cool) Dina 23:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the cataracts affected the Pharaoh’s vision of Egypt ? StuRat 02:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

How about "Build My Statue"? or better yet, "Build My Statue, Slaves"?Moonwalkerwiz 05:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to hand it to Stu for "Toot in Common", one of the funniest things I've seen here in a while. My favourites would be Rosetta Stone or Ziggurat. Loomis 07:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ! StuRat 08:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the fashion for band names is to either put together two unrelated words like "bona wallaby" or misspell a common word like "Pirrahmyds". DJ Clayworth 18:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Come on! Not a lot of you have really tried to help the guy. How must he/she feel when reading your pedagogical comments on subcultures? Take him/her serious. So how about:

Darayavaush - Old Persian version of Darius, name of Persian kings of the Achaemenid dynasty

Word of Enki - in homage to Neal Stephenson's novel 'Snowcrash'

Gilgamesh - Sumerian myth, but the name is probably taken

Sargon or Sargon King - famous Mesopotamian ruler

Ashes of Troy - I think that has a nice bleak feel to it. Okay, it's a Greek myth.

And this excerpt from the Misplaced Pages article Mesopotamian mythology should go some way to helping you:

"In Akkadian and Sumerian mythology, Irkalla (also Ir-Kalla, Irkalia) is the hell-like underworld from which there is no return. It is also called Arali, Kigal, Gizal, and the lower world. Irkalla is ruled by the death god Nergal and his consort Ereshkigal."

So how about 'Irkalla'?--88.73.22.216 13:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Another US Constitutional Question

While I'm at it, I might as well ask this one. In the run-up to the 2000 election, I remember watching a Conan O'Brien spoof where this Clinton impersonator outlined his strategy at getting around the two-term limit of the 22nd Amendment. Reading it carefully, it only forbids one from being "elected to the office of the President" more than twice. His "plan" was to get onto the Gore ticket as candidate for Vice-President. Gore would then immediately resign, then, pursuant to the 25th Amendment, Clinton would be sworn in as President, and essentially be allowed to serve a third term. In fact, he could even go so far as nominate Gore as his VP, and with Congress' confirmation, we'd essenially have yet another four years of a Clinton-Gore administration! Of course it was meant as an absurd joke, but poring carefully over the words of the 22nd Amendment, it actually seems like, technically at least, the ridiculous plan would actually be Constitutionally legal. Am I missing something? If not, I may actually consider giving Karl Rove a call! I'm joking of course, I hope that last line hasn't caused any of you to suffer any serious psychological trauma. :--)

On a more serious note, the 25th Amendment, describing, inter alia, how upon the removal, death or resignation of the President, the VP becomes President. Yet this Amendment was only ratified in '67, four years after JFK's assination and LBJ's swearing in. Without this particular Amendment, what was the Constitutional basis for automatically assuming that LBJ, or Truman for that matter, or even those VPs further back in history who were sworn in as President upon the death of the sitting President were the obvious successors? Loomis 18:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Article II Section 1: In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. The 25th Amendment article does describe why that first section is needed: does "shall devolve on" mean "take over the job"? --jpgordon 18:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks JP. I should have gone over the article more thoroughly before asking. It just threw me off that the 25th Amendment seems to introduce a concept that had been practiced routinely beforehand. It hadn't occured to me that it could merely be clarification of previously existing text in the main body of the Constitution. Still, though, as the article states, the concept became pretty clear as far back as when John Tyler succeeded William Henry Harrison upon the latter's death. Even moreso ever since Teddy Roosevelt's succession upon the death of William McKinley, and as I've mentioned, the cases of Truman and LBJ.

The section would seem be rather redundant, given all the precedent set, and akin to passing an Amendment authorizing the courts to excercize judicial review, a function they've been excercizing without explicit Constitutional authority ever since the precedent was set in Marbury v. Madison. On the other hand, if it helps to clarify things, even unnecessarily, I suppose there's no harm. Loomis 19:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I figure they were doing the VP-replacement stuff anyway, so figured they may as well clean up the ambiguity -- it wasn't hurting anything, but it was easy enough to take care of while doing more important stuff. --jpgordon 19:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that Article II treats four situations identically: removal from office, death, resignation, and inability to perform presidential duties. As noted, the action it calls for is ambiguous -- does "the same" mean the office (so Tyler was a president) or the duties (so he was an acting president)? From what I've read, Tyler simply acted as if it obviously meant the office, and this, ah, president precedent became accepted. But if a president had declared himself incapacitated, would that precedent mean that he had to give up the office? (None ever did, not even Wilson when he had a stroke.)

The 25th Amendment provision making it clear that the VP only becomes the acting president resolved this point. But if the amendment was going to explicitly cover one of the four situations, it only made sense to explicitly cover the other three as well.

--Anonymous, 23:32 UTC, November 6.

It's a cute plan, but rendered null by the 12th amendment, which states "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligable to that of Vice-President of the United States". Because Clinton cannot be elected President, he cannot therefore be elected Vice President. Whilst you could potentially argue that he could be 'appointed' Vice President, if a VP resigned and he was chosen to replace him, the constitution makes clear that when Congress are involved in choosing Pres/VP, they are voting and it is an election. The longest a President can serve is ten years (exactly two years of someone else's term, then two four years of their own), there's no way for Clinton to get back in, unfortunately. Thankfully, this does mean Bush is gone if the planet survives another two years. --Mnemeson 03:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The 25th Amendment was created in order to cover situations such as the period of time when Woodrow Wilson was President, but had had a stroke and was unable to perform his duties. Many members of Congress had considered what might have happened had Kennedy been incapacitated by the assassination attempt and not killed, so they came up with the ability for the Vice President to act as Acting President until such a time as the President is healthy enough to perform his duties again. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As a follow up question, where would I be able to find that particular "law" that provides for the order of succession absent both a president and a vice-president. I believe the Speaker of the House comes third, but I may be mistaken, and then perhaps the Secretary of State, &c.

Also, I'm aware of certain periods of US history where there was no VP, most recently from '63 to '65, when LBJ served out the remainder of JFK's term. Who served as president of the Senate at that time? What would have happened if, during that time, LBJ died, resigned or was removed from office? Loomis 15:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That would have been Carl T. Hayden, who was president pro tem from 1957-1969, except for the '63-'65 period, when he was President of the Senate (in the absence of a VP, who normally has that title.) But the Speaker of the House would have come before him, per the Presidential Succession Act of 1947; that would have been John William McCormack. --jpgordon 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The last period with no VP was not 63-65 but August 9 - December 19, 1974 after Nixon resigned, and Ford became president but before Rockefeller was approved as VP. We also have a large article on the United States presidential line of succession which links to the actual law involved. Rmhermen 22:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Veil Controversy

Whats the whole debate regarding the veil made such a big issue around the world?

Whose freedom is being questioned? The west or the religion? Or Is there some element of choice in the religion? Or is the world slaves of freedom and western democracy where there is no rationality of thought and the West is imposing its way of life as a compulsion on the east ?

Or is the east under a compulsion to accept the age of plastic surgery and nip tuck?? -- unsigned contribution by User:Kjvenus, 19:27, 6 November 2006

If you're so big on "choice", then ask yourself whether women in Iran and Saudi Arabia are free to choose whether or not to wear it... AnonMoos 19:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what exactly you're asking. I get the point that you're in some way upset about veils and religion, so I'm guessing this is something to do with the current controversy about Muslim women wearing Niqab in the UK (and elsewhere), but beyond that I'm lost. Could you be more specific? Sam Clark 19:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not upset about anything, just pointing out that User:Kjvenus has what some might consider to be a rather selective definition of "choice"... AnonMoos 21:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I was talking to the original questioner... Sam Clark 21:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Then you should have put your comment in the proper place with the correct indentation level... AnonMoos 21:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The place is OK, but they shouldn't have indented further than your comment, that does make it a reply to you. StuRat 21:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I was dealing with an edit conflict, and accidentally added a colon: my bad. The confusion is now resolved. Does this really need any further analysis? Sam Clark 21:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

How does one define freedom? Is it the western perception of the quality of immorally reprehensible lifestyle that the world is obligated to accept? 19:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The world is not obligated to do anything. Who are you to determine that someone else's lifestyle is reprehensible? Is it the impatience of desire? Get a life, go get married or something.  --Lambiam 20:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Freedom is usually defined as two concepts: freedom to choose good things, and freedom from affliction by bad things. For examples, most of us think that there is very little freedom in islamic countries, where one has no freedom to choose something important like one's religion or one's government, and no freedom from the rules of mullahs or the attacks of religious murderers. In the west, one can choose to live in one of many different social groups and environments, and although we are currently afflicted by a bad government doing evil things, we have the freedom to change it now that many of our slower citizens have caught on. How easily can you change your government? Or are you one of the vile cowards who chose, or whose parents chose, the freedom and hospitality of the west but are now trying your hardest to ruin the freedom and abuse the hospitality? If so, please move back to some islamic paradise and leave the civilized world alone. Dalembert 20:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, if you don't like the West, then stop your whining and go home ! StuRat 21:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, the questioner is based in Mumbai.  --Lambiam 09:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I was continuing the hypothetical line of thought from Dalembert. StuRat 15:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The west is not the same as the US, and civilization is not distinct from Islam. On the interesting question about the definition of 'freedom', see Freedom for some starting places. On the interesting question raised by Lambiam: someone is going to have to determine that at least some lifestyles are reprehensible (unless one is prepared to be tolerant of mass murder, for instance). The difficult question, of course, is how? I doubt that this question is going to be answered by identifying different ways of life as 'Western' or 'Eastern', though. Yours, Sam Clark 21:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Further: the suggestion 'if you don't like the West, then stop your whining and go home', if meant seriously, is both abusive and stupid. Among the things which 'the west' - amongst other places - centrally and rightly values are: 1. the right of radical criticism; and 2. the right to choose one's home. 'Defending' these and other values by denying them is just plain dumb. Yours, Sam Clark 21:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sam, moving to a country and then complaining that it's not like where you came from is what's insulting. If a person is unwilling to adjust and integrate into a new society then they shouldn't enter that society. Furthermore, any society has a right to maintain the status-quo, that is, to maintain their existing traditions. Any group of immigrants who doesn't respect the values of that society should therefore be barred from entering. Specifically, they should be willing to learn the language, at the very minimum, to be granted entry. Also, they should be questioned about if they would be willing to kill civilians to achieve political ends, and deported if they do, or support any organization that does. Requirements for attaining citizenship should be much stricter, as well. StuRat 01:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Stu - 1. The original poster hasn't said anything about where he or she is from, or now lives, so the 'love it or leave it' commentary from you and others is off-topic as well as offensive. 2. 'any society has a right to maintain the status-quo, that is, to maintain their existing traditions' - rubbish. What if their existing traditions involve slavery? Or the example I've already used, genocide? Or systematic oppression of women or minorities? There is an important and difficult question about the standards of moral assessment for societies, as for individuals, but it's not answered - not even approached - by isolationist sloganeering or unsupported assertions about a 'right to maintain the status-quo'. Yours, Sam Clark 08:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a strawman argument, "genocide" is obviously not a "tradition to be maintained". However, a country's native language, and women either being covered from head to toe in a burka, or not, ARE traditions of a society to be maintained, to be decided upon by the existing majority. StuRat 15:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not a strawman argument, because, first, it's not obvious that there can't be a tradition of genocide (what's your alternative explanation of long-term conflicts like those between Hutu and Tutsi, for instance?); and, second, slavery and oppression, among many other appalling activities, can very obviously be traditions. You're trying to defend your initial claim about a right to defend the status-quo, which I've refuted, by redefining 'tradition' so it only covers things you think it's allowable to defend. This is sometimes known as a no true scotsman argument. Sam Clark 15:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed it's an absolute right that trumps people's rights not to be killed or enslaved, that is your straw man. My only claim was that a country's traditions trump immigrants rights to dress in ways inconsistent with those traditions and exclusively speak foreign languages. Your intentional misinterpretation of what I said is most definitely a straw man argument. You might as well claim you oppose the right to bear arms because that must include nuclear weapons. StuRat 20:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness' sake: generalisations apply to cases. You asserted the generalisation that 'any society has a right to maintain the status-quo, that is, to maintain their existing traditions'. I pointed out that this has absurd consequences for a wide range of cases, and that your generalisation is therefore false. This is neither a misinterpretation nor a strawman argument, it's the standard philosophical technique of criticism by reductio. In the absence of an uncontroversial definition of 'tradition' - which we don't have and are unlikely to get - your response in defence of your original, offensive comment doesn't work. My reason for making that criticism is that your dogmatic claims about how we should live together are no help in solving the serious problems which the veil controvery exemplifies. I'm not suggesting that I have a perfect solution to these problems. I am suggesting that your proposed solutions don't work, that you need to think harder about them, and that the comment you directed at the questioner was inappropriate, and should be withdrawn. Yours, Sam Clark 20:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You took "any society has a right to maintain the status-quo, that is, to maintain their existing traditions" and implied that it somehow means "any society has a right to maintain the status-quo, that is, to maintain their existing traditions, and this right is more important than every other human right, including the right to life and to be free from slavery". That's an absurd intentional misinterpretation. StuRat 00:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm obviously not explaining myself very well, but I'll try to make it clear what I was saying. I have not misrepresented you, because I never claimed that you held the position we both think is absurd, that the alleged right to maintain the status quo trumps all other rights. My argument - as I've already noted a couple of times - is the standard philosophical technique of reductio ad absurdum: showing that a claim can't stand because of its absurd consequences (with the aim of refining, not ridiculing the claim). The point of doing this was not to attribute a totally implausible position to you, it was to show that your assumption of an obviously-true, lexically-ordered set of rights was false. There is no such set, and which rights trump which is a massive problem (I made much the same point about freedoms, below).

• I don't see the diff. Extending my argument to an absurd case is not a valid strategy, unless I had actually said that preserving the status quo trumped every other right. You should instead refute the two cases I listed: that any society has a right to maintain a certain standard of dress, and their language. StuRat 01:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• How we got into this argument is that I objected to your post, 'if you don't like the West, then stop your whining and go home', which was inappropriate and should be withdrawn. You defended it by making dogmatic claims about what rights communities and individuals have or don't have. I was arguing that these claims are unjustified, and trying to get you 1. to make them more precise by specifying what exactly counts as a 'tradition' for the purpose of the alleged right to maintain the status quo; and 2. to give some argument for the existence of the alleged right. I still think you should do these things, if you're interested in having reasoned moral and political beliefs, but that of course is up to you. More importantly, I think you should strike out, and apologise for, the piece of near-racist sloganeering which started this argument.

Yours, Sam Clark 14:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I will not be withdrawing that comment, and it's not racist, as it also applies to Westerners who move to a foreign country and complain about it. They should stop whining and go home, too. You should apologize for misrepresenting my remarks. The main argument for the existence of this right is that the majority of the world's countries practice them. Most countries take actions to protect their language and culture. Only certain liberal Western nations seem to feel that the right of immigrants to go wherever they want and do whatever they want trumps their right to maintain their language and culture. StuRat 01:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Briefly: 1. That you don't see the difference between the strategy you attribute to me and the strategy I'm actually using is your problem. I've explained it as clearly as I can. 2. Your argument for the existence of the alleged right - 'the majority of the world's countries practice them' - doesn't work, even if the premise is true. The majority of the world's countries practiced slavery until very recently. And before you start claiming misrepresentation again, note that I'm not asserting that you think slavery is OK, I'm pointing out that the argument 'majority practices X, therefore X is moral' has absurd consequences, and is therefore a bad argument. 3. Up to you what you withdraw, of course. I've stated my opinion and my reasons for it. 4. I don't intend to continue this. You make many useful and intelligent contributions to the reference desk, but you're also quite seriously opinionated about subjects - notably political and ethical theory - that you don't appear to know much about. I've done my best to explain why your dogmatic claims about the rights of countries and individuals are dubious. Your response has been to appeal to your own intuitions - which are not universally shared - as if they were obviously correct; and to stubbornly refuse to understand a quite simple argument. Well, fair enough, not everybody can think critically about their moral commitments, and not everybody chooses to. Yours, Sam Clark 09:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to avoid these exchanges, because they they have a habit of becoming pointless and angry. The process, I see, is already at work. Might I suggest, Sam, that if you disagree with someone that you muster your counter-arguments in a precise and logical fashion. To use dismissive terms like 'rubbish' is both shallow and counter-productive; it only invites irritation and annoyance, which always leads to further intellectual degeneration. There is simply too much of that on these pages. Clio the Muse 09:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Clio, I have 'mustered my counter-argument in a precise and logical fashion': it consists of a reductio ad absurdum of the claimed right to maintain the status-quo, as I thought was clear. 'Rubbish' was meant to be robust but not unfriendly, and I'm sorry if it came across otherwise, but I don't think I'm the worst offender in this exchange: telling the questioner 'if you don't like the West, then stop your whining and go home' was quite seriously offensive - borderline racist, in fact - and I thought it worth saying so. I agree completely about the tendency to degeneration of discussion on these pages, but I'm not convinced that remaining aloof is always the way to combat it. Yours, Sam Clark 10:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You may be right, Sam; but these debates usually slip into futility, sad to say. Clio the Muse 00:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, given the above lengthy exchange, perhaps you were right. Cheers, Sam Clark 09:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

To answer the original question: I heard an interesting lecture from Gillian Whitlock about how we, as Westerners, tend to want to see Muslim women remove the veil, because for us it is "dehumanizing" and a powerful symbol of their oppression. For Muslim women, the veil itself is not as much of an issue, and certainly not a high priority for activism at the moment, compared to issues like domestic violence. Some Islamic feminists even see the veil as liberating because it allows them to participate in politics, etc., as equals with men, rather than being seen as sexual objects. An interesting way of looking at it. Perhaps this helps explain why many still choose to wear it when they have the freedom to choose. --Grace 23:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, and relates to the question about the definition of freedom. There are many freedoms: freedom to dress as you please, freedom to go about in public without threat or shame, freedom to take part in government, freedom from oppression. Wearing niqab could be a condition of the important freedom to take part in managing your community; and it could also be lack of freedom, if a woman who went out in public without a veil would be vilified or attacked. The general point is that freedoms clash with one another (my freedom of speech may well clash with your freedom to appear in public unthreatened, if what I say is hate speech). So, we need to decide how to rank freedoms, and how to trade them off against one another. And that problem is part of the larger problem of how to make a moral judgement about ways of life. Neither cultural relativism - who are we to judge anyone else? - nor moral protectionism - we have a right to defend our way of life just because it is our way of life - are any help in answering this problem. Yours, Sam Clark 09:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Another thing to bear in mind is I think a lot of people in the West (I live in the West) are deluded as to how much freedom we have in dress. While we might have more freedom then in some Arabs states, it might not be as much as people like to think. People often point out the social pressures etc to dress in a certain way in some Muslim countries despite the abscence of legal requirements or backing. But what about the social pressures we face in the West? How many ordinary guys would dare to dress in a dress or skirt (not a kilt) even if they wanted to? Not many. Or, when it comes to women, young women in particular, there are in fact strong pressures to dress in a fairly revealing way in many situations. Images in the media, expectations of friends, expectations of the opposite sex etc. Now obviously there is still the option not to dress in such a way and many want to dress in this way but then the same is true in a number of Islamic countries as well. While there are in some countries the cases where people are punished either by the courts or vigilantes this doesn't occur in all Muslim countries. Oh and about the point Grace was making, not that this applies in the west as well. A number of Muslim women choose to dress conservatively and were the veil or headscarf in the west, not just because they feel it is required by their religion but because they feel it forces people, men in particular to judge them by their thoughts and mind, not their bodies and looks. Nil Einne 16:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. Talking to young girls these days, it feels like they believe they'll be called hideously deformed, ugly beyond toleration, a subhuman scum of the earth not fit to be in public, etc. by a large percentage of the population unless they dress in tight, revealing clothes. On the other hand, if they do wear revealing clothes, other people call them whores, sluts, etc. and say they deserve to be assaulted or abused. They often feel that what they themselves want is completely irrelevant - they are forced to dress a way so as not to be verbally abused (at the least) by one group, but doing so gets them verbally abused by another group. They can't win. And they're told outright and subliminally every day that the only thing that matters about them is whether men they don't know get aroused by looking at them. Nothing else, not a thing, matters but whether they turn on men they've never met. --Charlene 23:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Barf ?

Misplaced Pages has a good article on the dubious sport of competitive eating, but doesn't seem to answer the most obvious question: After the contest, do the eaters bring the food back up, or do they allow their bodies to process these huge amounts of food in the natural way? 66.213.33.2 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think vomiting, if found out, leads to direct disqualification... 惑乱 分からん 22:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Do they follow them home to check? Philc _TC 23:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is a time during which they have to keep it down, something like 10 minutes or so. Dismas| 01:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

During the contest, vomiting is allowed, but EXPELLING the vomit is not. (It actually makes sense to me.) Apparently there was some controversy with Takeru Kobayashi and claims that he actually expelled vomitus. -THB 01:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between "vomiting" (according to www.dictionary.com: to eject the contents of the stomach through the mouth) and "expelling vomit" (according to www.dictionary.com: to discharge or eject the matter ejected in vomiting)?  --Lambiam 09:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The logical difference would be that the vomitus must be retained within the mouth and re-swallowed, instead of being expelled out through the mouth. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Who designed the stained glass in the east window of St. Etheldreda's Church?

The Pitkin Guide (Cunnigham, Fr. Kit, with Rosemary Nibbs. St. Etheldreda's, Ely Place: A Pitkin Guide. Norwich: Jarrold Publishing, 2003)lists Edward Nuttgens as the designer of the stained glass of the east window, but Joseph Lutyens is named on the official website . Does anyone know anything about this? Maybe one of them designed and one executed the window? Bencoland 21:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• From what I can tell, Nuttgens' window (along with all the others) was destroyed in the Blitz; Luytens replaced it. --jpgordon 21:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reference you could point me towards? Thanks, Bencoland 18:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm even more confused now. Scratch all that. --jpgordon 03:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

November 7

BOMB!

Where does the stereotypical image of a bomb come from? I'm referring to the black sphere with the fuse coming out the top with the word "BOMB" written on the side. Is this just a U.S. custom or is it prevalent across the pond as well? Did bombs used to be made from hollow cannon balls or something of that nature? Dismas| 01:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

See the history of Hand grenades. Rmhermen 01:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That particular image, typically accompanied by a man in a black overcoat with a black hat, throwing the bomb, is the "mad bomber" stereotype, which was applied to the Anarchist Movement, in the decades around 1900. Bombs of that time period did indeed look just like that. Anarchists wanted to destroy all the current governments of the world, by assassinating their leaders, in the hopes that whatever new institutions formed would be a vast improvement. They were somewhat successful on the assassination front, killing a US President, for example (William McKinley). Eventually, after WW1, the anarchists were drawn into other movements or killed by them (communism, Zionism, fascism), but the image remains with us. StuRat 02:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the image of the 'mad bomber' is eastern European, specifically Russian in origin. Years before the death of President McKinley Narodnaya Volya was enthusiastically bombing and assassinating. Their chief victim was Tsar Alexander II. Clio the Muse 09:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that Clio is right. Might Michael Bakunin be one prototype? Cheers, Sam Clark 09:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

See Propaganda of the deed. Lupo 09:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In the 1950's street repair crews in the U.S. sometimes used smudgepots image of smudgepotas warning devices, where today flashing yellow lights in barricades are used. I remember as a kid seeing newspaper cartoons of anarchists with little black spherical bombs with a burning fuse on the top, anarchist bomb cartoons then seeing men digging up the street with similar looking devices around the excavation, and wondering if they were anarchists, and why no one seemed concerned about it. Edison 16:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The oldest book that is still being updated

What is the oldest book that continues to have new editions printed. I'm thinking about one where the newest edition is less than ten years old. I am assuming it would be a encyclopedia or dictionary of some kind. Ed Dehm 05:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Bible is constantly being translated, does that count? --Cody.Pope 06:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say the Bible too 8-(--Light current 07:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It would have to be the Bible, or some related sacred text. Dictionaries and encyclopedias only date from the eighteenth century. Clio the Muse 09:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

But Bibles and sacred texts are never "updated". I'd go for a dictionary or encyclopedia.--Shantavira 09:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Shantavira. What you say has merit, though 'updating' may simply mean better and more precise translations of the original text. However, the question actually relates to new editions of older texts. Clio the Muse 09:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparantly Penguin classics released a new edition of the Epic of Gilgamesh in 2003. I'd say that one takes the prize. GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 09:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No Shantavira. Bibles are updated by virtue of the new translations. King James version, RSV, New English Bible, The Living Bible etc etc. The newer versions use more modern language and can therfore be said to be updataed. 8-)

--Light current 09:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really. 'Updated' implies that the previous version is rendered redundant by the new edition, which is certainly not the case with new translations of sacred texts. Same goes for Gilgamesh. The question is obviously poorly worded ('updated' being different from 'new editions'), but I agree with Shantavira that it would be a dictionary or encyclopedia. My first thought was some kind of legal compendium that sets out the laws of the land. --Richardrj 13:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely go with the Epic of Gilgamesh. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

But Bibles and sacred texts are never "updated". Shantavira, was your comment meant as sarcasm? Clio, you too! The Bible hasn't merely been "translated and retranslated" but much more importantly, aside from the linguistic aspect, the actual content of the Christian Bible, was only settled upon, for the most part, for Roman Catholics and most Protestant denominations, around the 16th century. And even so, it differs among these denominations. I would only imagine that certain denominations have surprisingly recently undergone or are even currently undergoing their own process of "biblical canonization", that being, amongst other things, the choice of which texts to be included in "their" Bible and regarded as canon, which are to be included despite being regarded as biblical apocrypha and therefore non-canonical, and which of these apocryphal texts are to be excluded entirely and designated as heresy, With regards to the Old Testament, (which, it should be understood, should not be regarded as synonymous with the Hebrew Bible,) biblical canonization includes the choice between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagent as to which is to be regarded as authoritative. "Bible updating" goes far beyond mere matters of translation. Check out the article on biblical canon and you may be in for a very interesting surprise! Loomis 14:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You will note, Loomis, that I did not myself say that sacred texts were never updated. And I am never knowingly sarcastic, a very low form of wit indeed. Besides, what is 'translation' (which takes more forms than the most obvious one) but a mode of intellectual refinement and adaptation: 'updating', if you prefer? But your own point really confirms a contention already made: even if the Christian Bible only took its final form in the sixteenth century this would still make it one of the oldest books in continuous use, exceeding 'dictionaries and encyclopedias'. However, I was thinking of the Bible in the widest possible sense, taking in to account older textsClio the Muse 00:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that new translations of the Bible significantly change the meaning, whether intentionally or not. For example, "Thou shalt not kill" does not mean the same thing as "Thou shalt not commit murder". Leaving aside that "Thou shalt not kill", taken literally, applies to plants, animals, and even bacteria, it also doesn't give any exceptions for when we're allowed to kill people. "Thou shalt not commit murder", on the other hand, implies that it's OK to kill people so long as that killing isn't defined as murder. This would include executions, war, etc. StuRat 16:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And then there's the Sinner's Bible which radically changes the Ten Commandments! I especially like the commandment, "Thou shall commit adultery." --Kainaw 16:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Many cults or sects which are offshoots of Christianity have their own prophets who are adding prophecies, so they add their new info to the Bible, thereby updating it, or God tells their leaders to remove things from the canonical Bible, or to change the name of God to their own version, so they can read to their flock from the Bible rather than saying "Today we will have an Old Testament lesson, then a Psalm, then an Epistle, then some Heresy written down by our pastor, founder, and prophet". I will not name any names here, because I am sure they all think they are true Christians. Edison 16:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah like the Catholic Church, Anglican Church and well all forms of Christianity... Nil Einne runs 16:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

While StuRat's point about the absolutism of "Thou shalt not kill" is cogent, two things ought be mentioned. (1) While splitting hairs on the exact meaning of a word is more than acceptable, it should be remembered that "kill" is merely a translation of the word in question. (2) Subsequent to the Ten Commandments, there are a large number of others, some of which do, in fact, help clarify that it is Premeditated Murder that is meant. Other forms of Homicide are apportioned out as felonies, torts, or justifiable. I am not disagreeing with StuRat, just posting some caveats. B00P 17:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What about periodicals? Isn't there some science journal that has been going since the 1800s or earlier? I wouldn't count The Bible because each new edition doesn't have concurrent version numbers. They have been "updating" it since roman times but the newest version doesn't say "The Bible: version 4.45.2".Ed Dehm 22:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to get into that, the U.S. Constitution is still being rewritten and it predates the periodicals. --Kainaw 23:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Taking the question in the spirit that I think was intended, the Encylopaedia Britannica dates to 1768. Complete new editions have not been all that frequent and the most recent one is about 20 years old. I think they publish some sort of separate update volumes between editions. But I think it still counts. Now the question is whether there is something older. --Anonymous, 00:56 UTC, November 8.

Discounting translations, the oldest book that is still being updated could quite possibly be the Halakha. First written in 200CE, it beats Britannica by a long shot. See this for a recent update. Of course, if you want to quibble about the meaning of question given the OPs use of the term printed, (the Mishnah being handwritten, not printed with movable type) then the most likely answer is the forty-two line bible. There are recently-produced facsimiles which use one particular copy as the example and will differ from some of the remaining original copies in typographical detail. Lowerarchy 03:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

US Mid-term elections in Redmond

Does anybody know how close the US elections that involve Redmond are likely to be? I'm wondering whether the lack of votes from the 2000 or so (at least that's what I've heard) programmers etc who are likely to be either too busy programming etcing Vista to meet the November 8th deadline or completely dead after probably 4 hours of sleep over the past week when they've finally released Vista would affect the results* Nil Einne 10:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Actually 2000 may be a little low. I believe this is the number of programmers but presumeably there are other staff doing stuff who are in the same boat. I don't know but potentially the people who do the compiles and tests and stuff may not be counted in the 2000 Nil Einne 10:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If they're that zonked, I'm not sure that I'd want their votes. (Or their software, either.) B00P 17:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly hope that Vista has been finished by now. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

about history

hi,i had listened a lot about ur site and today after surfing your site i am extrremly happy,u have information upto infinity,i am having two questions, 1)is it true that Adolf eikaman(a associate of hitler)had killed more then 500000 jews people and then was hanged by just 5 jewish 2)from where do u get all this information?i hope it is not a trade secret.......... Praduman jani....Ahemdabad....India

Do you perhaps mean Adolf Eichmann? Sam Clark 11:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In answer to the second question, all the articles on Misplaced Pages are created and edited by volunteers from all over the world. See Misplaced Pages:About. --Richardrj 13:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's best not to overestimate Eichmann. He was never an 'associate' of Hitler, but merely the worst kind of literal-minded bureaucrat in the Nazi machine. He was responsible for sending thousands of people to their deaths; but, as far as I am aware, was not himself involved in killing. As a human being he was almost completely devoid of both empathy and imagination. Might I suggest that you look over Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem?. It has some interpretive value still, the criticism notwithstanding. Clio the Muse 00:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

She's A Runaway - Song

What is this song that goes along the lines of "she's a runawaaaayyyy, she's a runawwaaayyy" and somewhere in there is say "she's made up her mind, she's not coming back" or something to that effect. Google and Google Desktop and WMP search are lying to me. --Username132 (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, "they're lying to you"? You don't mean "She's a runaway", by America (1983, from the album "Your Move")? Lupo 12:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I mean that I have the song on my computer and they deny it (like being told there's no CD in the drive when there freakin' well is) and Google wasn't finding it with the lyrics I entered. Anyway, yeah, it's the one by America. Thank you both --Username132 (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Or do you mean "She's a little runaway" (Bon Jovi)? Or one of these other "runaway" songs? Lupo 12:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Dealing With Human Resources

When I'm asked in an interview regarding whether I've applied elsewhere, what are they hoping to hear? What would their ideal candidate being saying? Do applications elsewhere mean I'm trying to make up for my lack of chance in getting a specific job or do a lack of applications elsewhere show that I'm not proactive enough? What do they want? --Username132 (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have always been 100% honest in all interviews. I figure it is stupid to lie to get a job and then you have to be the lie until you lose the job. For example, in my last interview I was asked if I work well with others. I said no. I work well with animals, but not people. That is why I'm a computer programmer. There are very few people involved. Apparently, they liked the answer because I was hired later that day. --Kainaw 15:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL, they apparently wanted somebody who would stay in his cubicle and not waste time talking to people. StuRat 15:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. Or maybe they didn't care about the answer per se since the job didn't require working with people so it didn't matter but they were using the question to get an idea of the character and honest of the person. As said below, don't assume the interviewer won't know when your lying. Even if your demenour doesn't give it away, if they check your references they might find you don't work particularly well with people. I've you've said you do, even though it's not a required skill do you think they're going to hire you? Probably not... Even if you're not lying, if you don't appreciate your limitations it's unlikely to be a good sign. Potentially too, if you say you are good with working people, they will go further and ask various examples. Other then helping them ascertain whether you appreciate your limitations, this may also help them ascertain your general character. Point being don't assume the question was necessarily asked because the specific answer mattered. It may have very well been how you answered that mattered. That's why IMHO it's a good idea to be honest. Now obviously if the position clearly says you need to work well with people then it's not much point applying. But even if you do apply, it's still pointless lying. At the very least, you should say something like I do have problems but I'm working on them or something. Pretending that everything is fine and dandy when it's not is just a recipe for disaster IMHO. Even if you do get hired, what then? Nil Einne 16:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Despite never having taken part in a job interview I would agree it's best to be honest. It's pointless trying to second guess the interviewer, they might detect your lying and what happens if you get a job elsewhere (if you are looking and say you're not)? IMHO, there are probably some instances of both. In some cases, they might need to fill the position urgently and want to ensure they don't lose the person in a few months so they might not want a person who has applied elsewhere. On the other hand, if you haven't applied elsewhere, they might think you're not that concerned about finding a job or you're too self-confident or whatever. Nil Einne 16:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I tried being honest. I told them my interest area in science when asked (which I'd already included in my cover letter) and then the interviewer foccused on it and decided not to hire me, quoting a lack of experience and that he didn't see how the job fitted with my future career aspirations. Since I spent 125 pounds on the plane ticket to get there, and it took an entire day, I feel that was a big investment in being honest, and it didn't pay off. My mum and best friend suggested making out that the particular job area for which I'm applying, is something I'm interested in in the long term even if it's not (I only want this job until my course starts next year). I've got another interview next week which will cost 100 plane ticket and this is a large quantity of money when you're going to be penalised for having applied elsewhere or not being so good with people. If I say I'm not good people I can forget it. No doubt I need to work as part of a team and be a team player and blah de freakin' blah. The way I'm beginning to see it is the interviewer stands between me and my job and I need to do what I need to do to get around that (getting a job in science will help me to get on the biomolecular science course I'm interested in and currently all I do is serve drinks (and hate it)). Username132 (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In interviews (I've succesfully gone through a good 10) you should try to be honest if you can (not if your honesty directly jeopardizes any chance of a job) but the most important is presenting the honest information in the right way. i.e. "I like working in a team but I also value individual initiative". or even more honest but also more devious: "Although I value team work I have sometimes found it difficult to work with certain characters. This is why I have divised effective strategies to avoid confrontationnal interactions in teamwork." etc... One interview I went to (and failed) I had decided to be completely honnest, finishing the interview saying what I REALLY wanted was to be left alone in a shack by a lake and never work for them. that didn't go down too well although they were very polite about it. Maybe investing in a book (like "The best answers to a 100 typical interview questions") might be worth it especially as they have answers to the dreaded: "What would you say is your worst failing?" Keria 18:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In an interview as a computer programmer, when asked about if I preferred to work alone or in a team, I gave a rather thorough answer:

• If possible, any project should be done by a single person, as that avoids the inefficiency of meetings and communication between the team members to decide on the method to be used and division of labor.

• However, if the project requires more resources than a single person can supply, then a team is necessary. If so, responsibilities should be divided up as much as possible, avoiding any gaps or overlaps, to allow each individual to work relatively independently.

So, I basically told them I prefer to work alone without giving them the impression I'm a hermit who lives in the woods alone and sends letter bombs as a hobby. StuRat 18:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Afghan Northern Alliance

I've noticed how the Afghan northern alliance page has information about befor the teliban, and four years later after the teliban... what about in between? what was going on then?Xiaden 15:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The article points out that the Northern Alliance was fighting the Taliban when the Taliban were in power. During that period, the Northern Alliance controlled about 30% of Afghanistan, in the northern part of the country. Marco polo 15:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

i was trying to find something more specific. it's kinda obvious that they wern't getting along. but thanks for the help, nonetheless. Xiaden 15:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

They were just as vicious as the Taliban (particularly Abdul Rashid Dostum, I believe), which is one reason why NATO didn't leave them in charge after the Taliban had been defeated. StuRat 18:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Decleration of the Rights of Man-1789

Article 12 says:

The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those whom they shall be intrusted.

My question is, what do they mean by military forces? Do they mean a weapon or an actual person? I would assume weapon because it would make the most sense. Then again, I'm not sure if I even understand what this article is saying. Help me please. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hollywood49 (talk • contribs) .

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen? I have no knowledge, but it sounds like the military itself is not there for personal gain of whoever controls the military, but for the benefit of the citizen, and the law also says the military is necessary. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Military forces=army and/or police. seems that article is part of transfering the monopoly of violence from the individual to the state hence the "not for the personal advantage ...". Keria 18:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What you have to remember is that the Declaration of the Rights of Man was, amongst other things, translating the 'private' into the 'public'. Under the Ancien Regime the army was essentially the servant of the king, and often made up of foreign mercenaries. The new 'citizen' armies were intended for the service of the national community as a whole. Military force here refers not to weapons, but to those who carry weapons. Clio the Muse 00:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The original poster says article 12 refers to "public military forces", but of course this is a translation. At Wikisource there is evidently a different translation, as this has the words as "a public force" followed immediately by an explanatory note "". In the original French -- hmm, how do I make a link to French Wikisource? I'll just use a URL. -- in the original French text the words are "une force publique", which literally means "a public force". My French isn't good enough to be sure as to whether this usage would include both military and police, but the term is in the singular.

In any case, whichever it is, it clearly means the body of men and not their weaponry.

--Anonymous, 01:09 UTC, November 8.

wiki

What are the main differences between a cat and a dog?

Aside from the obvious fact that cats and dogs tend to hate each other. Chris 17:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, not all cats and dogs hate each other, from experience with my cat and my dog. --Hollywood49 17:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

They split at the family, Felidae and Canidae, for one. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The main division among Carnivora is between Feliformia (or cat-like carnivores) and Caniformia (or dog-like carnivores). According to this source the distinguishing feature between the two groups is whether the bony structure enclosing the middle ear is made up of a single chamber (Caniformia) or a double chamber (Feliformia). A more mundane observation is that domestic dogs are pack animals, whereas domestic cats are not. Marco polo 17:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

But lions are pack animals, and other cats seem to have the ability to get along in social settings. Many cats can live together, for example, without killing each other. StuRat 18:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The main differences? Dogs need to be walked, cats don't. Dogs obey their owners, cats don't. B00P 18:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

From the owner's perspective, BOOP is right that those are probably most important. Meanwhile I thought of another physical difference (again between domestic cats and dogs, as I don't know whether this is generally true for all feliforms and caniforms): Cats have retractable claws; dogs don't. Marco polo 18:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Cats wash themselves and cover their poo. The are usually fairly quiet.--Shantavira 19:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And male cats have a retractable penis. (I wonder why, they don't even have to deal with zippers.) :-) StuRat 19:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean female cats dont have retractable ones? 8-)--Light current 23:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct, they don't have retractable penises. :-) StuRat 23:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because of the barb on the penis which "stimulates" the female to ovulate. The females don't appear to appreciate this, however. StuRat 19:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Not all cats have retractable claws. Some large ones don't. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

People own dogs. Cats own people.--Light current 23:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In general, cats are much less smelly than dogs, unless they have fish breath. Cats are smarter than dogs but pretend like they're not. Cats have a secret name that only they know. There are more "cat ladies" than "dog ladies". T. S. Eliot wrote many poems about cats (Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats), but not dogs. More people seem to dislike cats than dogs. -THB 02:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Being a bird lover, I'm not a great fan of cats. I do find it slightly amusing when the local feral cats try to attack the local great black-backed gulls when they're nesting. I guess the young ones have never seen an angry mother gull standing her ground with her heckles raised - or seen how far she will go to protect her chicks. GBB gulls are actually bigger than most cats and will even take on humans with little fear, so the results are predictable. It always makes me snigger to see the cat go from sleek, confident predator to terrified, running-like-hell streak of panic as it realizes the grave error of judgement it has just made. That's without any of the neighbouring birds joining in too... ;) I suppose it could be considered karma for all those dead songbirds. Usually, it's just a bit of a scuffle and wounded pride but occasionally it gets very bloody. Gulls aim for the eyes. --Kurt Shaped Box 03:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you turn a dog into a cat, or vice versa?

Discuss? Chris 22:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

or....

Why bother?--Light current 23:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

See alchemy. -THB 02:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you turn a lion into a house cat? Or a wolf into a dog? Which would be easier?

If you started with young cubs separated from their mothers, it might be possible in both cases.--Light current 23:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, people have certainly done that in the past. I'm not sure how you'd go about training a big cat - but for a wolf it would be a case of proving that you're the biggest, baddest beast in the jungle to it from an early age, never showing fear and never giving it an inch. --Kurt Shaped Box

Housecats are just miniature lions anyway. -THB 02:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Easyjet Booking Reference

Why does the Easyjet website say that I need my booking reference and my passport to fly, when they never actually ask for my booking reference? Is there any point in writing it down? --Username132 (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in case their computers are down or it's needed for some other reason. StuRat 19:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Foucault

Is human identity a product of what Foucault would call 'technologies of power'?

Homework? You could try looking at Michel Foucault, Power (sociology) and Self (philosophy), although the last one is sadly not very good. Cheers, Sam Clark 20:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And Biopower and Personal identity. A possibly relevant distinction is that between "technologies of power" and "technologies of the self".  --Lambiam 21:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Foucault, every dang thing is about power. :) --BluePlatypus 21:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I thing opinion tends to swing both ways! 8-)--Light current 23:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

generation

Dear referance people: How long(in years) is a human generation? Looking forward to the answer. Thank you.

It depends on when people tend to have children. I don't think there's a universally agreed number, but a quick google search and glances at Generation and Demographics suggest anything from 20 to 50 years, depending on context. A study quoted in Generation used 22 years as a standard generation. Cheers, Sam Clark 22:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Standard figure I thought was 30 yrs.--Light current 23:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It has varied a lot historically. Thirty years sounds about right for the developed world today, but the duration was probably closer to 22 years on average over the whole of human existence. Marco polo 23:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

29.85 years. Edison 00:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

In academia it is almost always 20 years for humans. In animals, it is the amount of time between being born and producing your first offspring. --Cody.Pope 02:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I always thought it was twenty/a score. -THB 02:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Call of Duty

How come citizens of Germany and Austria cant get the video game Call of Duty and others ot that ilk (World War 2)? I mean the obvious answer is that they (the countries) have attempted to distance themselves from that war as much as possible. But banning a video game almost seems like a step in the wrong direction as well as juvenille. Wasnt one of their (many) mistakes in the first place banning stuff? I feel bad, cause its a tight game.

They may distance themselves from it, but they certainly don't want to embrace it. Besides, those games portray German soldiers as more stereotypical (heartless and barbarian) enemies than they really were. Яussiaп F 22:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A bit out of left field, but the answer that jumps to mind, at least for Germany, would be the Swastika laws - it's just not a permitted symbol outside of academia, so no German kid could ever have an accurate model of a German WW2 plane for example, because that would require it. Since it tends to be fairly common in graphics for games like that, that might be the reason --Mnemeson 22:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a probable reason. Common Nazi symbolism are illegal for entertainment usage in Germany. 惑乱 分からん 23:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a law in germany banning games/activities for children that glorify war? Seems fair enough to me, as there are pressure groups in other countries to do similar thinfgs, since people are always blaming computer games for things. Philc _TC 22:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Not that I'm much of a gamer myself, but I couldn't agree more with the questioner. "Wasnt one of their (many) mistakes in the first place banning stuff?" Absolutely. I'm against the so-called "Swastika Laws" for a good number of reasons. Most importantly, it sanitizes Germany's history to the detriment of Germans themselves, not to mention the rest of the world. How can one really appreciate the absolute ugliness of it all, as well as the inconceivable REALITY of it all, through textbooks alone? In my view, a neo-Nazi gathering here and there, fit with swastika armbands and flags, together with the sickening cries of "Sieg Heil!" and "Heil Hitler!" would do wonders to better educate the younger generation, and, indeed, to SHOCK them into truly undertstanding the reality of it all, than any picture in any textbook could possibly do. Without these few "living reminders", a textbook on Germany's Nazi history will seem no more real to German children than a textbook on paleontology, with really cool pictures of "all those giant monsters that the teachers tell us once roamed the Earth...but who really knows..." Loomis 00:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dont worry, there is no shortage of german neo nazis, these laws are just to give the german police and excuse to brutalise them. The germans are under no illusions to what happened in WW2, but I for one think its better for children to grow up seeing neo nazis carted away in tha backs of vans, for the sicks things that they are doing, than defended for expressing their freedom of speech. Philc _TC 00:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Newspapers on Campus for Free

I'm a student senator at a small community college. At a recent senate meeting, it was brought to our attention that a representative from a major national commercial newspaper would like to come to the college to talk to us. He would like to offer the school copies of his paper, which (from what we have been told) would be available for students for free. How true that is, I'm not sure. I've done some research about this online and have read that some schools pay thousands of dollars (which becomes a small fee added to each student's tuition.)

Is anyone familiar with programs like this one? What could they get out of a deal like this? Should we be concerned? I am afraid that by having these papers available on campus, students will be unknowingly absorbing corporate values. Or are they trying to increase circulation--to increase advertisers? Are we being commoditized? I mean, why are they offering this to us? It seems suspisious. I've been looking all over the Web today for criticisms of programs that offer free newspapers to students, but haven't found anything substancial. Any insight would be appreciated.

Thanks! 198.38.6.253 21:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've always thought it was because people pick up their brand-loyalty to a paper at about that age, and acquire the habit of reading a paper at all. So if you can get them used to it, they're more likely to buy it for the rest of their lives. Skittle 23:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're being paranoid. They are offering free newspapers in the hope that students will become "addicted" and then pay for that newspaper for the rest of their life after they leave college. Of all the forms of addiction, reading a newspaper each day is a pretty good one. Save your outrage for when they provide free cigs and alcohol to the students. StuRat 23:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot of newspapers do this. Not only does it help stem the diminishing percentages of newspaper readers in each successive generation, it increases their circulation and perhaps what they can charge for ads (if those fees aren't based solely on paid circulation).

Some newspapers, such as The New York Times, ask people to donate their copies when they go on vacation rather than suspending delivery service. That way the newspaper gets credit for the paper as paid and they get the entire subscription fee that would have been lost while the subscriber is on vacation. -THB 02:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not just about making money in the short term. Newspapers nationwide are trying to get young people used to reading newspapers -- any newspapers -- since newspaper readership has dropped so much in recent years. -- Mwalcoff 03:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

just wondering...

I've just been looking at Blasphemy law in the United Kingdom. I have always been annoyed that although many four letter words arn't allowed before watershed, and words like bloody and crap are even sometimes bleeped; people can use the Lord's name in vain at what ever time of the day; Is this against the blasphemy law? I have phoned the BBC to complain a few times, but have never noticed any difference; are the broadcasters at fault in showing people saying things like 'for God's sake', 'oh, God' et cetera? MHDIV Englishnerd 22:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well you may not be aware that:

Bloody is a contraction of 'By Our Lady'. So this is 'an oath'

Crap comes from Thomas Crapper inventor of the WC. So its slang for you know what. So what?

--Light current 23:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, both of these etymologies are fake folk etymologies, bloody is likely the same word as the common adjective, akin to "blutig" used similarly in some German varieties... 惑乱 分からん 23:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it: in the first place, blasphemy is 'defamation of the name of God' (according to Blasphemy), and I don't think saying 'for God's sake' counts as defamation. And in the second place, the UK blasphemy law seems to be pretty much a dead letter. An attempt to bring a prosecution under it would be unlikely to succeed - indeed, would be more likely to reignite demands for its repeal. Cheers, Sam Clark 22:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The "crap" - "Crapper" etymology is certainly false, since the word "crap" was around (and commonly used) for at least 400 years before Thomas Crapper was flushed with pride. The OED finds the first written use in 1440. --Charlene 23:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What did it mean then?--Light current 02:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I also heard that the term "crap" for excrement is only coincidentally related with Thomas Crapper. Well, perhaps I should say semi-coincindentally, as I'm sure the term, which could have originally been extremely obscure, could only have become far more popular once the "Crapper" came into popular use. Loomis 23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Taking the Lord's name in vain has never commanded a particularly high priority where blasphemy laws have been invoked. Indeed, there is considerably less imagination now in this regard than there was in the past. Try reading through Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, to take but one example. It contains wonderful and original oaths, like 'By God's Teeth!', 'God's Bones!' and many others of the same kind. Even the most august-and religious-people were not exempt from this. My personal favourite is the appeal Oliver Cromwell made to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1650-'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you might be mistaken!' Clio the Muse 23:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And let's not forget "Gadzooks", or "God's hooks", the nails that fixed Christ to the cross. Shakespeare could write "the bawdy hand of the dial is upon the prick of noon" and get it past the censors, but not "gadzooks". Also "odds' bodkins" or "God's little bones" and "slids" or "God's eyelids" (no kidding). Charlene 23:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The best one is 'snails from god's nails (also no kidding). Cursing god and gastropods at the same time, surely the perfect oath. MeltBanana 01:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

November 8

Poem

Hi, I’m a student classical composer and I’m looking for a poem to set for choir. Obviously I need one from the public domain (so know later then about 1920). I would like to find a poet who writes extensively in free verse (no rhyming necessary). It would also be great if the poetry contains strong imagery and is descriptive of a thing or place. I’ve been looking at Walt Whitman and John Donne but I was wondering if any one has any other suggestions for poets that I might not have thought of. Thanks! S.dedalus 00:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll limit my suggestions to the first two that came to mind: All in green went my love riding (E. E. Cummings, 1923), Philomela (Matthew Arnold, 1853).---Sluzzelin 00:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and please tell us which poem you ultimately picked, I'm genuinely curious. Also good luck on your work! ---Sluzzelin 00:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I will put in a bid for Dover Beach, because it is one of my favourite poems, no better reason than that. Clio the Muse 01:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost. StuRat 04:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Question for New-Yorkers or Constitutional loiterers.

In New York State, do people in the state Legislature who run for other elected office have to resign? For example, Raymond Meier, running in the 24 district seems to be losing. Does he have to resign for campaigning for a separate office regardless of his winning? I know in some states it's absolutely required. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 04:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Reference Desk archive