|
==summary==
{{/How_to_ask_and_answer|[[WP:RD/H]]}}
Rock Star Supernova album cover, taken from sonymusicstore.com
== Licensing ==
{{Non-free album cover}}
== Fair use in [[Headspin (song)]] and [[Rock Star Supernova (album)]]==
= February 13 =
Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
# It's a low resolution copy of a CD/album cover.
== Movie with a fight scene in a public toilet? ==
# It doesn't limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the CD/album in any way, in fact, it may encourage sales.
# Because of the low resolution, copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the album artwork on another CD.
I've seen a movie (maybe a TV one) last year (winter 2004-2005) in France where a guy with a sabre fight a guy with some clubs or tonfas in what seemed like public toilet (airport kind). Does it ring a bell to anyone?
# The image is itself a subject of discussion in the article or used in the infobox thereof.
[[User:83.214.23.85|83.214.23.85]] 00:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
# The image on the cover is significant because it was made by a famous artist.
==Source==
:I picture a dual between a fighter with a toilet brush and another with a toilet plunger. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
#Derived from a digital capture (scan/photo) of the album/CD cover (creator of this digital version is irrelevant as the copyright in all equivalent images is still held by the same party). Copyright held by the record company or the artist. Claimed as fair use regardless.
[[Category:Album covers|Rock Star Supernova (album)]]
:It was [[Jet Li]]. I believe it was Unleashed, but it could have been another one of his movies. The point was that he was fighting a very tall guy. In the tiny stall, the guy didn't have room to move around, but Jet Li (being smaller) could easily fight against him. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]]</sup></small> 04:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:If your talking about "Danny the Dog", it's absolutely not that.
:First it was a wide public toilet like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Urbeach-washroom-changeroom-architecture.jpg washroom](not a closet).
:Second I don't remember Jet Li and the guy using anything like a sabre/katana or batons (not a baseball bat). But thanks anyway for you contribution. [[User:83.214.23.85|83.214.23.85]] 12:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
== Gun laws ==
Q: Is it legal to own a shot gun in England, for purposes of hunting?
: A: Yes, although you need a firearms licence. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 00:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:Actually, you need a shotgun license. A firearms license does not cover shotguns. This is only issued if you can demonstrate "good reason" and after police checks. You would also need a game license, and somewhere to hunt (there is no public hunting, with the possible exception of wildfowl on the foreshore). Note also that in England the term "hunting" mostly refers to hunting (e.g. foxes) on horseback; other kinds of hunting would be called "shooting". [[User:Notinasnaid|Notinasnaid]] 15:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::There's also the term lamping: see [[Spotlighting#UK and Ireland: lamping]] for details. The BASC webpage linked off that page has guidelines which cover the legalities of this and which refers to the use of shotguns as well as rifles. We have an article [[Gun politics in the United Kingdom]] but it seems to be in some disarray at the moment. --[[User:Telsa|Telsa]] [[User talk:Telsa|(talk)]] 18:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== Prostitutes and pregnency ==
why is that long before the widespread use of contraceptives their are few stories of prostitutes bearing children?
: Prostitutes had plenty of children (if there are "few stories" about that, it's probably because stories about prostitutes having children don't sell well). They also procured abortions; you don't get stories about ''that'' much either - the market for back-alley medieval abortion stories is even poorer. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 00:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
: I saw a TV program a year ago about an archaeological dig of what was concluded to be a Roman brothel. The sewer underneath was packed with the bodies of male infants. Presumably the females were kept to perpetuate the trade, and the males were dangerous to keep around as the bastard of a nobleman is a political hot potato. — [[User:PhilHibbs|PhilHibbs]] | [[User talk:PhilHibbs|talk]] 11:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:: PhilHibbs, do you have any more information on that? Really interesting, in a morbid way. [[User:Henriksdal|Henriksdal]] 11:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
::: Sorry, I don't. It might even have been a radio program, because I don't have any vivid visual memories, and you'd expect that sort of thing to stay with you. — [[User:PhilHibbs|PhilHibbs]] | [[User talk:PhilHibbs|talk]] 13:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating. --Leah
:Be aware also that [[contraception]] has been "widespread" for a very, very long time. The [[condom]] alone has a venerable history, and various other forms of contraception (vinegar changing the pH of the vagina to make implantation difficult was a Roman favorite) have existed for ages. However, prostitutes did, indeed, have children, although less often than one might suppose if they had no contraception. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 20:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
== Luthansa Heist ==
I am looking for information on the Luthansa heist and its participants.
Q: What ever happened to Jimmey Burkes bar "Roberts lounge" is it still functioning?
Q: Was Jimmey Burke ever the formal owner of Roberts Lounge?
Q: Regarding his associate Martin Krugman, what are his life dates?
Q: Does anyone know anything about his life, or his family? What where his wig commercials like?
Q: Does anyone have any documents related to Jimmey Burkes early crimminal career, or early like?
Read all about it [http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/gang/heist/5.html here]. --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 01:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:I assume that you are just going by the film [[Goodfellas]], I believe the names of those involved in real life is different from in the film. I think Jimmy Burke was Jimmy Connelly or something else beginning with a C, can't remember fully though. [[User:AllanHainey|AllanHainey]] 08:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::[[Jimmy Conway]], which [[Jimmy Burke]] already redirects to. Also [[Martin Krugman]], although I suspect the person asking the question may have already looked at these, as his questions are not answered in these articles. [[User:Chuck Carroll|Chuck]] 22:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
== Mafia ==
Is it true that in order to become a made member of mafia you must have been involved in a homicide? Or is that just ledgend? {{unsigned|68.112.242.121}} <small><small> So, now we know where you live.</small></small>
:Hey you, listen to [http://www.moviesounds.com/godfathr/offer.wav this] and fuggeta bout it. [[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 02:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:The [[Mafia]] in the real world was primarily involved in [[racketeering]]. In the movies, it was involved in everything else. However, it is primarily a gang, like any other gang. One way to ensure gang unity is to have some leverage against each member. By forcing a member to commit a crime and keeping evidence of the crime, you have leverage over that member. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]]</sup></small> 04:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::"Was"? [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
== Napoleon? ==
Q: Because Napoleon kidnapped the Pope because of the Popes use of his temporal authority in the papal states, is not the popes attempt to ex communicate him against papal law?
:You can read all about it in the [[Napoleon#The_Italian_campaign_of_1796.E2.80.9397|Italian campaign]] section of the [[Napoleon I of France|Napoleon]] article. The Pope's power to [[Excommunication|excommunicate]] is part of his office. --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 01:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
== elevated art ==
what is elevated art? is it historic art that has to do with biblical themes? or is it a genre of art that's thought to be superior? Whenever I search for it it just says it's elevated art, and gives no definition or on the net it just talks about subject matter but not specifically elevated subject matter. --thanks
: Well, there's [[Elevator music]], which is pretty much the opposite of what the [[Highbrow]] population would consider [[Taste (aesthetics)|good taste]]. "[[Art|Elevated art]]" is pretty much what those with [[Breeding|breeding]], education, and money declare it is. It can be literature, music, painting, sculture, dance.... --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 05:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
**Ok, what would elevated subject matter be when Reynolds and Gainsborough were painting?
***Well, (1) it isn't the subject matter that makes the art elevated, but (2) if you think that's important for these two painters, I suppose the most elevated part would be the wigs. --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 04:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
=="three alarm fire"==
When reporting on fires, US media often uses a term like "three alarm fire", where the number of alarms seems to be roughly correlated with the fire's severity. What, actually, does the number represent? Fron context, I've not been able to distinguish between it being:
# the number of times people call the fire department
# the number of premises affected
# the number of different fire stations which send appliances to the fire
# the number of fire appliances which are needed to tackle the blaze
Which, if any, of these is right? -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 02:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:the third and fourth. more stations = more appliances, and vice versa. —[[User:Mirv|Charles P._]]<small>[[User talk:Mirv|(Mirv)]]</small> 02:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:*Each fire district defines they're own specific meaning. In most districts the "number" refers to the type and number of equipment that responds. There is no ''universal'' or ''standard'' meaning to the ''number(#)'' alarm fire. In general, the higher the number then the more equipment is dispatched in response. [[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 03:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::Agreed. They convey the severity of the fire to the firefighters by sounding the alarm that many times, so a three alarm fire has them ring the alarm at the fire station 3 times. The firefighters respond with a specific level of staff and equipment. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
== Weapons legality ==
Do we have an article on legality of various sorts of weapons, in various jurisdictions, etc? I am specifically interested in if we have a n article on legality of martial (i.e. non-firearm) weapons. -[[User:Rhymeless|Tim Rhymeless]] [[User talk:Rhymeless| (Er...let's shimmy)]] 09:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Which raises the question what constitutes a weapon. I have several machetes and someone once told me that is illegal (in the Netherlands). But they aren't any more dangerous than a kitchen knife. Or several 'normal' tools in an ordinary toolbox. [[User:80.126.178.133|80.126.178.133]] 08:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:I know what you mean. I was recently told that the thermonuclear devices I keep in my basement are even considered by some to be weapons. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 09:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::Which are just as utilitarian as home heating appliances as my long bladed hedge trimmers. Seriously though, machetes are great for coconuts, not that it's easy to get fresh coconuts in the continental U.S.—[[User:WAvegetarian|WAvegetarian]]•<small><sub><sub>[[Special:Contributions/WAvegetarian|CONTRIBUTIONS]]</sub></sub><sup><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-64px; margin-right:-64px;">[[User talk:WAvegetarian|TALK]]</sup></sup></sup><big>• </big><sup><sup>[[Special:Emailuser/WAvegetarian|EMAIL]]</span></sup></sup></small><span style="position: relative; left:+6px; margin-right:+6px;">•22:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
== Stressed out ==
I am totally stressed out. i have so much homework and i can't seem to get any done. Japan is pretty coo. It's hard to speak Japanese though. I think we should all learn English.
:Is there any question here ? [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 17:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
yeah I'm kinda stressed out too, and I think Japan is cool too, though I've never been there...but... what is the question? --[[User:Cosmic girl|Cosmic girl]] 21:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::He said Japan is ''coo'', not ''cool''. He's too ''coo'' to use lame words like ''cool''. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]]</sup></small> 04:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Oh, but of course. -[[User:Rhymeless|Tim Rhymeless]] [[User talk:Rhymeless| (Er...let's shimmy)]] 08:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The question is, what to do when you're stressed out? The answer is, find some way to [[Leisure|rest]] or [[Recreation|relax]]. -- (Dr.) [[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 00:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC) <small>Expect a bill at the end of the month</small>
:I go hang out at the store with my friends and bug the ppls there. -[[User:Rhymeless|Tim Rhymeless]] [[User talk:Rhymeless| (Er...let's shimmy)]] 08:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
== should law follow social change within a society or should it create social change? ==
:After we write your essay for you, should we deliver it directly to your teacher, too ? [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 17:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:I believe the answer is "yes". [[User:Deltabeignet|Deltabeignet]] 23:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:How many words does the essay have to be? Can the answer be, "Law should follow social change within a society when the social change is created by a law that is following the change within the society." --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]]</sup></small> 04:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
== Joan Didion, "The Year of Magical Thinking" ==
To what do you think the last sentence in this novel refers: "No eye is on the sparrow but he told me that."
:[[Joan Didion]]'s ''The Year of Magical Thinking'' (ISBN 140004314X) is not a novel but rather a meditation on her year of grief following the death of her husband, [[John Gregory Dunne]]. Though I don't have the book at hand, the sentence you refer to is clearly a complex allusion to the traditional [[gospel]] [[spiritual]], "[[His Eye is on the Sparrow]]," which was also the title of a well-known book (ISBN 0306804778) by blues singer [[Ethel Waters]]. The idea in the titles is that God cares for even the least of his creatures (see Matt. 6:25-34). Didion and Dunne were not religious. Hence, Didion writes, "No eye is on the sparrow"; but what she means by "he told me that" must be understood from the sentences which precede this final sentence. --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 04:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:P.S. For proper citation, refer to [[MLA style manual]]. The model and example given there are as follows:
:* A website: Author of webpage."Article Title." Title of webpage. Date of publication. Institution associated with. Date of retrieval <url>.
:*"Plagiarism." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 22 Jul. 2004, 10:55 UTC. Wikimedia Foundation. 10 Aug. 2004 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism>.
:--[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 04:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC) <small>If the advice was not needed by you, it's needed by others.</small>
== Retaliation towards Germany post World War 2 ==
After WWII finished, were there acts of retaliation towards Germany from citizens of nearby countries? Is there a list anywhere? When was the last act committed? Thanks. [[User:218.101.92.204|218.101.92.204]] 22:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:Football hooligans tried to murder a Russian in England at Euro 96 because they mistook him for a German. The last act of retaliation is certainly yet to be committed. [[User:Markalexander100|Mark]][[User talk:Markalexander100|<sup>your words</sup>]] 22:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:When I was stationed in Germany in the 1970s, a friend of a friend (so it might be an [[urban legend]]) got out of the Air Force and decided he wasn't ready to return to the United States yet, so he got a house in a German town near to the base, but he had to replace his US Forces license plate with a German plate. He decided to take a driving tour of parts of Europe, and he claimed that when he was driving in Yugoslavia, people threw rocks at his car because of the German plates. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::For a start, have a look at the following articel, where you will find some links to other related articels.: [[Expulsion of Germans after World War II]]--[[User:Nodutschke|nodutschke]] 15:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== Prime Ministers of the UK. ==
Primary occupations of UK Prime Minister:
Does any one have any comments?
Tony Blair: Lawyer.
John Major: Banker
Margret Thatcher: Lawyer
Jim Callahan: Union offical.
Edward Heath: Civil Servant
Harold Wilson: Academic
Douglas Home: Polititian, Aristocrat
Anthony Eden: Politition.
Clement Attlee: Lawyer
Winston Churchill: Writer, politition.
Nevil Chamberlain: Planter
Stanley Baldwin: Industrialist
Ramsey MacDonald: Polititian
David Lloyd George: Lawyer
::Comments about what? That they had jobs? A lot of people have jobs... Do you have a more specific question? [[User:Dismas|Dismas]]|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 23:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:::ISTR they were all politicians at some stage, which seems like an unlikely coincidence to me. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 06:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:I'd say their primary occupation was as politicians as they all got to be PM. By the way you've got the beginnings of a nice list, perhaps [[List of British prime Ministers by occupation]], why don't you make a start on it & no doubt others will fill in the blanks over time. [[User:AllanHainey|AllanHainey]] 08:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Somewhat related; I've tallied the studies done by members of parliament in the Netherlands in 1995 and these were the most common ones:
<br>law 33
<br>politicology 22
<br>economics 21
<br>social studies 16
<br>education 14
<br>agrarian (incl biology) 10
<br>languages 7
<br>math/physics/chemistry 7
<br>technical studies 5
<br>The ones at the top make sense, but note the lack of hard sciences. Isn't it about time things were balanced out a bit more? Do we need a new party for this? How is this in other contries? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:I've no hard data on this, but I think that in New Zealand at least, there are a handful of "hard science" people in our 125-member parliament. [[Pete Hodgson|Our current Minister of Transport]] was formerly a veterinarian, for instance. Strangely, [[David Benson-Pope|my local M.P.]] (also a cabinet minister) taught German at High School. Mind you, [[Helen Clark|our Prime Minister]] was a Political Studies lecturer, [[Michael Cullen|her Deputy]] was an Economics lecturer, and [[Don Brash|the leader of the Opposition]] was a senior civil servant (Manager of the Reserve Bank, no less). Other prominent NZ MPs include a [[Mark Burton|Red Cross spokesperson]], [[Harry_Duynhoven|an electrician and technical science teacher]], [[Gerry_Brownlee|a carpenter]], [[Rodney Hide|a zoologist and oil-rig worker]], [[Jeanette Fitzsimons|a lecturer on environmental studies]], any number of lawyers, political scientists and economists, and - believe it or not - [[Georgina Beyer|a transsexual prostitute and stripper]]. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 11:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:You should check those facts. For example '''[[Margaret Thatcher]]''' was never a lawyer - she had a degree in Chemistry and worked as a '''research chemist''' before becoming a politician. Also Churchill was a soldier as well as a writer.
:I don't find the figures odd at all. People skills are generally not highly valued in the 'hard sciences', and so people with those skills don't tend to favour them as careers. On the other hand people skills are extremely valuable in politics. The people who manage to make a success of both must be pretty exceptional. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 18:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:What is politicology? [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::DJ, you seem to focus on the rhetorical side of politics, the presentation to the public and the building up of a social network, whereas I was thinking of the jobs at hand, which are often technical. Such knowledge and insight are important for the members of parliament (and the people behind them). The ministers can't do and think of everything. That's one thing parliament is for. The party members (whether in parliament or not) to help them work things out and members of other parties to check on them. And if the job at hand is some construction thing (which it often is) then some technical knowledge would be very handy. In several fields. So you need a broad orientation in parliament, not a focus on a few studies that happen to all sit in the same little corner. True, technicians and 'hard scientists' don't usually have the best social skills, but of course some do, and I think it's time they went into politics. However, if Margaret Thatcher is the only example, one might wonder if that is such a good idea after all. :) [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 08:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
==why did japan want to go war with the usa in both major wars ww1 and ww2?==
*Japan's participation in World War I was on the same side as the US, see the [[Triple Entente]] article. In [[World War II]], Japan signed an alliance with Germany and the attack on Pearl Harbor which brought the US into the war was part of an Imperial expansionist drive on the part of Japan in the Asia-Pacific region. --[[User:Canley|Canley]] 03:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::Initially, the public was taught that Japan was evil and joined the evil Germans against the US. But, at some point, the [[Zimmerman Telegram]] was made public. It showed a slightly different scenario. To be brief and skip over all the facts (because it is late and my brain isn't functioning)... Germany sank the [[RMS Lusitania]] with a uboat. The US threatened to join against Germany if it ever used a uboat to sink ANY ship without surfacing first. Germany cut a deal with Japan and Mexico. If they attack the US on the same day (Japan from the west and Mexico from the south), then Germany will help from the east and the US will be defeated right away. Then, Germany can sink all the ships it wants without surfacing. The US intercepted the telegram to Mexico, found out about the deal, and talked Mexico out of the deal. Then, the US prepared to defend against a German attack from the east that never materialized - but Japan did attack from the west. They didn't attack Los Angeles as expected. They attacked Pearl Harbor. So, the US public, that was dead set against the war all along, suddenly wanted blood. The US joined the war and the rest is history.
::Now, I want to point out that, for all we know, the Zimmerman Telegram could all be a hoax set up by the US government. But, it does make the whole story a bit more interesting. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]]</sup></small> 04:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Note that the [[Zimmermann Telegram]] incident took place during [[World War I]], and the attack on Pearl Harbor during [[World War II]]. The Mexican decision not to participate in this alliance seems to indicate that Japan was not even informed by Mexico (or Germany) of the proposal. Japan was also subject to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance with Britain, and hence entered the war on the side of the Allied Entente Forces. --[[User:Canley|Canley]] 05:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Also, Germany ''did'' attack the US by sinking ships in harbours (New York harbour I believe, but I'm not sure), in other words in US territory. And Germany ''did'' officially declare war on the US (after Japan had done so), which gave the US the perfect excuse to fully enter the war. Before that, they had their own [[Monroe doctrine]] stopping them. It is generally believed that Hitler's biggest mistake (apart from starting the war in the first place) was the attack on the USSR. But he might just have pulled that off if he hadn't pulled the US into the war as well. But that's mere speculation. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Do we really think that the US would have fought a one-front war with Japan if Germany hadn't declared war? [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::For a time, yes. The US would have preferred to focus it's military on Japan until it was defeated (maybe by 1944 in the case of a one-front war) and then declare war on Germany. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Note that both Japan and Germany had reasons to declare war on the US during WW2:
*The US and other nations had placed an embargo on Japan after the invasion of [[Manchuria]] and other aggressive acts by Japan. Since Japan is an island with limited resources, this embargo was starting to hurt. This left them the options of withdrawing troops or attacking those nations (including the US) which were blocking their access to the resources they needed. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
*In the case of Germany, the US's [[Lend-Lease]] program with England was supplying their enemy with the war matériel needed to hold out against the German military. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:*Also, why did not Japan invade Switzerland or Sweden ??? --[[User:Harvestman|DLL]] 22:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:: I assume you mean Germany...
:: They didn't have to. Sweden was a tempting target though due to the essential iron ore exports to the German war machine. However, Germany needed Norway for strategic reasons and on the road to Norway Germany needed to use the airbase in [[Aalborg]] in northern part of [[Jutland]] (Denmark) to ensure efficient [[Luftwaffe]] operations. Almost as an afterfought Hitler decided to take all of [[Denmark]]. So now Sweden is sorrounded by German occupied territories to the west and south while the [[Soviet Union]] is harassing [[Finland]] to the east. Germany could negotiate pretty much any deal with Sweden including iron ore shipments and transportation of German troops across Swedish territory to Finland - which they did. Attacking Sweden was needless as they already had everything they needed.
::In the case of Switzerland - Hitler wasn't really interrested in a war with the western powers. He wanted Chechoslovakia, Poland and pretty much most of Russia. The French and British declarations of war wasn't Hitlers real agenda - Hitler wanted peace with France and England and was extremely frustrated concerning the British determination. Hitler had assumed that when France surrendered he could starve Britain to surrender so he could focus on the real objective - the Sovjet - and [[Lebensraum]].
::An attack on Switzerland was 1) Not Hitlers agenda. 2) Would further complicate matters if peace were to be negotiated with France and England. 3) Switzerland wasn't of any strategic importance to Germany as the German ally Italy lay to the south, the French [[Vichy]] government lay to the west and Germany lay to the East, in now Austria.
:: In hindsight - France and England declared war on Germany to protect Poland and Eastern Europe from German assimilation. The end result became Sovjet occupation instead... [[User:Celcius|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black"><b>Celcius</b></font></font>]] [[User_talk:Celcius|<small><sup><font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black"><b>(Talk)</b></font></font></sup></small>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Denmark.svg|18px|]] <small><font color="Black">Wiki be With us!</font></small> 15:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Is a "Sovjet" a jet made by the Soviet Union ? LOL [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 23:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
==Movie title==
I need help recalling the title of a movie (comedy, perhaps 1980s). The premise was that two youngish guys, not wanting to have their vacation (or something) spoiled by the death of their host/benefactor, pretend that he is still alive by proping him into a wheelchair (with sunglasses) and bringing him along to various events. Groaning allowed. Thanks, --[[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 23:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:Sounds a bit like [[Jeremy Bentham]]. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 23:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::Nah, this one was set in contemporary times. ;-) [[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 23:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Was it [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098627/ this]? [[User:69.142.89.10|69.142.89.10]] 00:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:We should at least provide a [[Weekend at Bernie's|Wikipedia link]] — [[User:PhilHibbs|PhilHibbs]] | [[User talk:PhilHibbs|talk]] 11:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
*Yessss! Thanks, [[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 00:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:There was even a [[Weekend at Bernie's II|sequel]]. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
== Is <s>their</s> there a hell? ==
*If you mean a physical place with lots of fire and a guy called Satan. There's no scientific proof that place exists, but that doesn't mean anything. If you take it a less literal and use [[hell]] to describe a place where people have to relive bad experiences for the rest of eternity, earth could easily be hell. It also depends a lot on your religion and what your personal beliefs are. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 23:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, [[Hell, Michigan|here]], and [[Hell, Norway|here]], and [[Hell, California|here]], and well as [[Hell|here]]. --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 23:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:Not to mention [[Hell, Grand Cayman|here]], and I've been to [[Hull, Quebec|Hull]] and back! [[User:Sputnikcccp|<span style="color: black">СПУТНИК</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sputnikcccp|<span style="color: maroon">ССС</span>]] [[Special:Emailuser/Sputnikcccp|<span style="color: maroon">Р</span>]]</sup> 23:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::No, not unless you count [[Dundee]]. [[User:Markalexander100|Mark]][[User talk:Markalexander100|<sup>your words</sup>]] 01:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Working at Mc Do's ? see below --[[User:Harvestman|DLL]] 22:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Infamously, "Hell is other people" according to [[Jean Paul Sartre]]. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 20:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
== Why would God want someone to work at McDonald's? ==
A long time ago (back in '04), when I told a friend about how I wished for a better job, he told me something like (can't remember exactly), "Good luck. You'll find a better job. Or maybe God thinks you're better off working at McDonald's."
Well gee, how does working at such a menial place serve God in any way? How does that make my life better, how does it make me tithe more, and how does it further God's cause? I don't know why God would '''want''' for anyone to work over there. In fact, I think all humans deserve better than to work there. [[Android]]s should replace the employees, while the employees work at better places. --[[User:Shultz|Shultz]] 23:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
*"God works in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform". [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 23:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
*God works in mysterious ways. It may not directly make your life better, but by serving people in a friendly manner, you may affect their lives in ways you can't possibly imagine. Knowing first aid when a customer drops to the floor during your shift could save their life. Your friendly service (despite your working conditions) may make customers reflect on themselves and decide they don't have it so bad and shelf their suicide ideas. You working there could influence a lot of people in a good way. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 23:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
*No need to see God as a placement counselor, but you could take the attitude that no honest work is demeaning and that all work can be sanctifying. --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 23:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::Well you see, I was the lobby person, the most mindless job there ever was. McDonald's wasn't my bag, so I resigned in a hurry and left on 2-2-2005. I understand that lobby people could save the lives of those who have heart attacks, but it's not customer service, and when androids replace employees of menial jobs, they could still be programed to save lives, and much, much more. (Again, human employees deserve better.)
::I hope to design and program androids once I'm out of college. I could make a MUCH bigger impact this way. What majors do you suggest that I take, that fits what I want to do? --[[User:Shultz|Shultz]] 23:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Engineering. --[[User:68.112.242.121]]
::::There are several engineering majors at my university, [[K-State]]. Civil Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, and the list goes on and on. Therefore, which majors are appropriate for a future android designer & programmer? --[[User:Shultz|Shultz]] 00:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::Android construction would span several disciplines, but mechanical engineering or computer science would be the best choices. [[User:GeeJo|<font style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #809EF5; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #99B3FF">GeeJo</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]]</sub> <small>•</small> <small>09:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)</small>
*Every life serves a purpose. It may just be that yours is to serve as an example to others. — [[User:PhilHibbs|PhilHibbs]] | [[User talk:PhilHibbs|talk]] 11:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::You could start with [[artificial intelligence]] and follow all the links. That'll take you to just about all the articles and sources we have in that area. The majors would be harder, but like they said above, start with basic mechanics, electronics and computer science and see if you can handle it. Also go for job shadowing if you get the chance, to see what it's like. As for the religion - If you really trust the big G to make you happy, you shouldn't keep questioning him. That can only lead to eternal damnation and teenage pregnancy. [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 12:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:Engaging in honest work, learning to serve others, understanding humility; I can think of many reasons why God might want people to work in McDonalds. However I can't think of any reason why he would want people to ''eat'' there. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 18:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:My understanding of Christianity is that God gave man free will to work wherever he was able to get employment. In other words, God doesn't give you bad jobs, you get them all by yourself. (If I was Christian, this is what I would probably think, anyway. I don't think God cares where every person gets a job, in the same way He really shouldn't care who wins the Superbowl.) --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 00:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::No God, christian or non-christian, does such menial works as choosing a job for you. We are born free and grow slaves of caricatural Gods. Just do your best. --[[User:Harvestman|DLL]] 22:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
If you can demonstrate career progress in your job at McDonalds, that is a very worthwhile jumpstart to any career. For example, if you can advance to shift supervisor, that demonstrates ambition and leadership. At many companies, that is more important than specific technical skills. So for example, a graduating student who was a shift supervisor at McDonalds will almost certainly be hired ahead of someone who has had more "relevant" technical experience but has not demonstrated any ambition or leadership. [[User:Samw|Samw]] 02:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
== Saddams Step Father ==
What ever happened to saddams abusive step father? Did he live to see his step son come to power? Did he gain an office? did Sadam take retribution on him? The article on Saddam mentions little about Saddams step father.
:According to [http://www.boston.com/news/packages/iraq/globe_stories/102702_hussein.htm this source], "Even after Saddam became the strongman in Iraq, and all the family lived in tremendous affluence, Saddam's stepfather was still living in a mud hut in the tiny old dusty village of Uja." Saddam got away from his step-father as early as he could, at age 17. There's no evidence I could find that indicates he ever did more than scorn and ignore him. --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 14:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
== World leaders ==
World leaders ages.
Are their any siting heads of state/ government born before 1918?
Are their any sitting heads of State/ government born after 1980?
:Confusing question. There's only one head of government in the British parliament, [[Tony Blair]]. Is he a "world leader"? That's a matter of opinion. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 23:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::I think the question is "Are there any leaders (heads of state or government) in the world aged over 88 or under 26?" In the case of heads of state there might well be some oldies, since that can include kings and queens, who don't need to do much beside be present at occasions and one can do that at an age. Other than that, I doubt it. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::DirkvdM, maybe next time you can strike the original title through, rather than replacing it entirely. The way it reads now, one would be as confused by my answer as I was about the original question/title. (The original title was "British parliment" [sic]). [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 10:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::::The question was posted twice and I merged them. Don't recall replacing the title. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 08:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::The software seems to be having a tough time. The "show changes" and the updated page show different things. Very confusing. Sorry if I defamed you. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 10:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::Nah, I'm not easily defamed. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 08:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as monarchs are concerned, [[Malietoa Tanumafili II of Samoa]] is the only one who is older than 88 - he's in his mid 90s. Of the others, [[Taufa'ahau Tupou IV]] of neighbouring Tonga was born in 1918, and [[Abdullah_of_Saudi_Arabia]] is 80, just ahead of 79-year-old [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom]] and 78-year-old [[Pope Benedict XVI]]. Most of the current reigning monarchs were born in the 1950s. As for the youngest none are nearly as young as your question, with [[Mswati III of Swaziland]] the youngest at 37. There may be younger elected or military leaders, but I don't know. BTW, I was surprised to notice that there are currently two ruling Albert IIs, one in Belgium and one in Monaco, and that the heads of state of Kuwait and Qatar have almost identical names! [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 11:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:There was a Final Jeopardy question on ''[[Jeopardy!]]'' last week about which two currently ruling European monarchs have the same name. :) [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::Bet you wished you had had the Wikipedia ref desk at hand then. :) [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 08:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== Famous woman who have had abortions. ==
Their are many famous woman known for their permiscuity. Such was case before birth control became widespread, yet many never bore children. Is their any evidence famous promiscuious woman who aquired back ally abortions?
*It might help if you could narrow your question down to identify the women who didn't have children that you are thinking of, and the time period. I assume you mean pre-20th century? My understanding is that in ancient Greece & Rome, rather than practicing abortion people practiced infanticide. (Note, however that the Greek [[hetaira]] [[Aspasia]] kept her child. But the hetaira weren't necessarily "promiscuious" in the sense you are probably thinking of.) Abortion methods were known, but in ancient times were very dangerous. Even until the early modern period, even though we know the techniques that were used, I doubt there is any record of specific women who used them. It is much easier to figure out if someone had a child 500 years ago than it is to figure out that she didn't have one. As a side note, birth-control methods were known in ancient times (the ancient Eqyptians did something with a cervical cap made from dried aligator dung among other things), they just weren't as effective as the ones we have today and were comparatively more expensive. [[User:Crypticfirefly|Crypticfirefly]] 06:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
== Kim Jong IL ==
Would society not be better off if somone would kill Kim Jong ILL?
:Let's see. leaving aside the question of whether killing a person is ethical or "good", we have several scenarios, incuding among them:
:#Kim dies, communism collapses, Korea is reunified, everyone lives happily ever after
:#Kim dies, someone even more despotic takes his place, claims that "the west" was responsible for the killing of his predecessor, and unveils that yes, they really do have nuclear weapons.
:#Kim dies, there is a power vacuum, civil war erupts in North Korea, spilling over into both South Korea and China. South Korea calls on its allies in the U.S., and we end up with American and Chinese troops eyeballing each other across the no-longer-demilitarized zone.
:I suppose your answer depends on whether you feel lucky. Well do ya, punk? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 05:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::Good reasoning. But then why do (or did) the US try to kill Castro? That would certainly make him a martyr. Then again, the US have made a similar misjudgement in the Bay of Pigs, so I suppose hatred, like love, blinds people. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
== Easiness ==
Who is easier French woman or Latin woman?
:I would say that it depends very much on the woman in question and not her ethnicity... But why don't you do some field tests and let us know of your results. ;-) [[User:Dismas|Dismas]]|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 05:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::Original research is frowned upon in Wikipedia. [[User:David Sneek|David Sneek]] 07:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::A) It was a joke, see the smilie. B) I didn't say they should write an article about it. C) It was a joke. [[User:Dismas|Dismas]]|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 09:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Heh, I think [[User:David Sneek|David Sneek]] meant his statement as a joke as well. :) (It was funny, too!) [[User:Zafiroblue05|zafiroblue05]] | [[User talk:Zafiroblue05|Talk]] 10:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::::So, what's the answer? I need to make travel plans. --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 13:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:For me, French. I don't speak Latin. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 18:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
*Definitely French women. I don't speak much French, but [[Latin]] is a dead language anyway. :) - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::I wonder why people keep saying that. It might not be ''lingua franca'' anywhere, or any country's official language, but it is far from dead. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 20:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:It would be considerably easier to have sex with a French woman, since all of the Latin women are dead. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
''femme'' vs. ''femina''—I think the one syllable of the French is slightly easier than the three of the Latin, especially because you don't have to remember which vowels are short and which are long, or where the stress goes. —[[User:Mirv|Charles P._]]<small>[[User talk:Mirv|(Mirv)]]</small> 04:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::If by Latin, however, you mean Spanish - then the answer is French women. Not only are French women easier, Spanish women are also uglier, all look the same, and have the worst dress sense in Western Europe. This isn't a personal attack, but it is original research. [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none"><span style="text-underline:none"><font color="#007700">Proto</font></span></span>]]<font color="#555555"><b>||</b></font><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none"><span style="text-underline:none"><font color="#007700">type</font></span></span>]]</small> 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Oh, wow. This is no personal attack either, but you do sound quite ignorant to me. --[[User:RiseRover|RiseRover]] 14:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
== UFO abduction ==
How do extrateresials abduct people from cities and other densely populated places? Would they not be witnessed?
:Your question assumes that the abductions themselves are real and the stories about them true when in fact they have not been even remotely proven. See [[Alien abduction]] for more info. [[User:Dismas|Dismas]]|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 05:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:You're talking about creatures that are (probably) totally and utterly different and of whom we know nothing apart from some wild stories and you expect us to be able to tell you how they do things? Thanks for giving us so much credit. You're too kind. :) [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:It's easy. They use an application of [[Clarke's three laws|Clarke's Third Law]]. [[User:Notinasnaid|Notinasnaid]] 11:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:: If abductions were conducted by people from our own world and same technology available as we have, then in big city it is easier to hide after the abduction. Just have a get away vehicle (like an auto or van) that a few blocks away will drive up a famp into a semi, so that the get away vehicle as witnessed by people at site of abduction, is no longer visible to any police looking for it. This is called a successful kidnapping plot, and there is plenty of evidence that people know how to do it. Actually sneaking up on people in a sparsely populated rural area is more difficult, because strangers are more likely to be spotted.
:: When abductions are to be done by visitors from another time (time travelers collecting samples from our time, because when history gets changed, they no longer have reliable evidence for science analysis), dimension, or wherever, they have the technology that lets them move between wherever and us reality, so obviously real easy for them to take passengers back with them. Their motivations must be quite different from present day humanity, because if our people had this technology, the bad people among us would be busy removing all the gold from Fort Knox, the crown jewels, emptying the Smithsonian, raping starlets, you name it, but they are not, which tends to imply that either there are no such visitors, or if they are, their value systems are totally alien to us. [[User:AlMac]]|[[User talk:AlMac|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 11:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Thankfully this business is on the decline because the aliens have "learned all they can from the anal probe." [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 17:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
= February 14 =
== British Museum ==
I think my question didn't get saved so I'll ask again. In the Victorian Era around the late 1800's does anyone know what the floor layout was, did it include an egyptian exhibit, if so on what floor and what was included, and if anyone knows what other exhibits this would include? {{unsigned|198.188.255.2}}
:Perhaps read [[British_Museum#History]]. [[User:Markalexander100|Mark]][[User talk:Markalexander100|<sup>your words</sup>]] 01:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
*I can't give any details, but given that Ancien[[t Egypt]] was very popular in the late [[1800s]] (hence [[mummy]] unwrappings) it's only logical for the British museum to exhibit Egyptian artefacts, although a lot less mummies (the famous ones still had to be discovered). - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
== Religion in Sri Lanka ==
Is the Multi-religious Federation
[http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=17183]
a specific organization in [[Sri Lanka]]? What is its local name? [[User:Eequor|‣<font size="+1">ᓛᖁ</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">ᑐ</font>] 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
== Monotheism/Religion ==
Was polytheism the first type of religion or was there also monotheism during the same time period?
[[User:71.98.96.188|71.98.96.188]] 02:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
*See the article [[History of religions]], which ties the growth of "city states" to the development of monotheistic religions. --[[User:Canley|Canley]] 03:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
That's history. But religion goes back way beyond (written) history. Probably at least tens of thousands of years. So the question is impossible to answer. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The [[Abrahamic religions]] are generally thought to have been the first monotheistic religions. But see the article on [[Monotheism]] for a somewhat different view. [[Polytheism]] is mostly ancient but can still be found today. --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 13:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:People worship whatever seems powerful to them. Early on, that's mostly animals. Then, once animals have been tamed, comes the Sun, Moon, etc. as in the Egyptian gods. Next, come people, so you get gods that are a lot like people, such as the Greek and Roman gods. Finally come the fundamental forces of nature, like gravity, and one omnipotent god is sufficent to explain those. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 22:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
== classical music piece ==
I am trying to find the name of a piece of classical music I know only as "Fire Engines". Thank you {{unsigned|66.15.123.8}}
:Can you give us some representation of the melody? —[[User:Keenan Pepper|Keenan Pepper]] 04:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::Uh... Perhaps he means ''[[Chariots of Fire]]'' theme by [[Vangelis]]? It is a classical in a way, but not "classical" ☢ [[User:Kieff|<span style="letter-spacing:1px"><span style="font-size:110%">Ҡ</span>''i''∊''<span style="vertical-align:-0.2em;font-size:110%">ff</span>''</span>]]<span style="font-size:120%">⌇</span>[[User_talk:Kieff|<span style="font-size:110%">↯</span>]] 09:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
== Name The House Wreckers ==
This was on British TV but I believe the incident is American and would have been shown there too.
Two or more teenagers videoed themselves causing massive vandalism to a residence. I don't believe any of the teens lived there. It was a large house. Much of the vandalism was done with baseball bats.
The video footage includes shots of; a celing fan, with a light in the centre of it, being smashed down; the toilet seat being kicked off and the bowl being hit with a bat; filmed from below, one of them kicking through the ceiling from above; many, many windows being smashed; there is an outside shot of the house from some distance away revealing that all the windows that can be seen from the view had been smashed. I understand they were punished for this with their video, of course, making their case impossible to defend.
Anyone able to name the kids or add any details I could plug into a search engine? --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod]] 04:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:I saw the footage, it was quite a while back, over a year ago, I think. I also recall that it was a new housing development under construction at the time. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 22:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:: Yes, it is ''at least'' a year old, I'd say. Hmmm, from what you say then, perhaps the house was a show-home rather than owned by anyone at that time. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod]] 03:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::In the US it is common for developers to build houses in a subdivision ahead of time, in the hopes that they can sell them once built. I believe it was one of those, under construction (nearly finished). [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 04:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Could this be it ? It's from 11 years ago: [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE5D81E38F932A25750C0A963958260] [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 05:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== Musical charts ==
Why do some music recordings feature on charts for more than one style of music? For instance a musical release may feature on both the pop and country charts etc?
:As I understand it, this is because of the radio stations that a track is played on. Sometimes the pop stations might play a country song, for example. -[[User:Rhymeless|Tim Rhymeless]] [[User talk:Rhymeless| (Er...let's shimmy)]] 08:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
== Killed By Trousers ==
I see statements like "more people are killed by trousers than by aeroplanes", but how do I find out the statistics for the number of people killed by trousers? I have done a few web and wikipedia searches but all I can find are uncited quotes like this. — [[User:PhilHibbs|PhilHibbs]] | [[User talk:PhilHibbs|talk]] 09:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:Uh-oh. I can see the TV reality show now: "When good trousers attack" [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 10:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:87.2% of statistics are just made up on the spot. [[User:Notinasnaid|Notinasnaid]] 11:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:73.2% of people making that claim have watched ''[[The Wrong Trousers]]''. —[[User:WAvegetarian|WAvegetarian]]•<small><sub><sub>[[Special:Contributions/WAvegetarian|CONTRIBUTIONS]]</sub></sub><sup><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-64px; margin-right:-64px;">[[User talk:WAvegetarian|TALK]]</sup></sup></sup><big>• </big><sup><sup>[[Special:Emailuser/WAvegetarian|EMAIL]]</span></sup></sup></small><span style="position: relative; left:+6px; margin-right:+6px;">•14:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::You know, it's interesting. My psychology and statistics textbooks claim people who make up statistics make up round numbers, like 10% of people being gay, but it seems to me pseudo-random numbers are much more popular. They sound like you know exactly what you're talking about. [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 20:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Realistically we will never know the number of trouser-related deaths, because the countries where most people live (India, China etc.) have bigger worries than keeping those statistics. In the UK, however, [[RoSPA]] publishes amusing statistics on accidents (presumably most are not fatal) involving various items. In 2002 these included 9,410 accidents involving trousers, 17,159 involving cats, and 656 for 'sex or marital aid e.g. condom or vibrator'. You can laugh at other people's misery [http://www.hassandlass.org.uk/query/MainSelector.aspx?Reset=T here], though the interface is a tad cumbersome. [[User:Markalexander100|Mark]][[User talk:Markalexander100|<sup>your words</sup>]] 20:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I have a hard time picturing how people are killed by pants, but there are an amazing number of tree related deaths each year, including the following:
*Cars that run into trees.
*Trees that fall on people or houses, usually during storms.
*People who fall out of trees while climbing them.
*Objects that fall out of trees on people, like coconuts and treehouses.
*Lightning that hits trees and kills people hiding under them from the rain.
*Trees can spread a fire that kills people.
*Trees, once cut down to form houses, can kill peeople by collapsing, catching fire, etc.
[[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 22:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:Don't forget that time a guy had sex with a tree, cut himself, got an infection and died. [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshgavin</font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="blue">ΓΛĿЌ </font>]] 06:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== Greatest Sitting world leader ==
Who is the greatest sitting (current) world leader
The [[Buddha]] is generally depicted as sitting. --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]]
:Yes, he is the greatest, sitting idol. [[User:David Sneek|David Sneek]] 14:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lincoln_statue.jpg Abraham Lincoln] is also sitting, and pretty great. Seriously though, entirely subjective questions are not going to get a sensible answer here. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 17:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I nominate: Tony Blair.
*How about the [[Dalai Lama]]. Who is the greatest depends on your interpretation of great. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::I nominate [http://maddox.xmission.com Maddox] [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 20:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
== Lonest serving legislators? ==
Who is the longest serving current member of the French National assembly?
Who is the longest serving current member of the Japanese Diet?
*Why do you ask? [[User:Notinasnaid|Notinasnaid]] 12:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Because I want to write a wikipedia article listing longest, currently serving legislators.
== Jews in power ==
Outside of Isreal are their any jews who currently serve as president or Prime minister of a nation?
:Well, [http://www.greatestjeneration.com/archives/000837.php this] admittedly non-authoritative link states that [[Job Cohen]] would have been the first Jewish PM outside of Israel had he won election in the Netherlands two years ago. Alas, he did not. [[Michael Howard]] former leader of the [[Conservative Party (UK)]] is Jewish, but of course he never made it to power either. Finally, there's [[Joe Lieberman]] who almost became American Vice President in 2000. I think it quite possible that the answer is no at the moment.
:[[Benjamin Disraeli]] is probably the best known person of Jewish descent to hold Prime Ministerial office outside of Israel (though that's going back more than a century). [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 13:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
: [[Léon Blum]] who was prime minister of France was jewish. [[Béla Kun]], the communist leader of Hungary (for a short while) was somewhat jewish (as a hard-line communist he was of course against all religion). On that note, [[Samuel Aba]], a medieval king of Hungary, was likely jewish. (Which is rather remarkable). --[[User:BluePlatypus|BluePlatypus]] 14:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
: New Zealand's 19th century prime minister Sir [[Julius Vogel]] was also Jewish. ISTR that there has been another Jewish PM in New Zealand, but his name eludes me. Not that that answers the "currently" part of the question. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 21:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:Julius Vogel also wrote the first New Zealand science fiction novel. [[User:Lisiate|Lisiate]] 21:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::and the [[Sir Julius Vogel Award|NZ science fiction awards]] (of which I am a past recipient :) are named in his honour. He may not have been the first NZ sf novelist though... the case is still out on that one. Oh, and as far as Jewish heads of state are concerned, though he's not a national head, [[Michael Bloomberg]] is the [[Mayor of New York City|next best thing]]. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 22:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
[[Janet Jagan]], president of [[Guyana]] from 1997 to 1999, was of Jewish descent, although nonpracticing. [[Bruno Kreisky]], chancellor of Austria from 1970 to 1983, was also Jewish by birth, but I don't know if he practiced the religion. According to the [http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/wjcreport/05fall/atw_p23.html World Jewish Congress], five presidents in the Central America-Caribbean region have been Jewish, including two practicing presidents of Panama -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 04:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:The first Australian-born Governor-General, [[Sir Isaac Isaacs]] was Jewish. He wasn't the [[head of state]] in my opinion or that of Wikipedia, but a large number of Australians do consider the G-G the head of state. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 07:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== The Lawyer Chenny shot ==
Is it just me or does this guy look like president Bush?
Could he possibly be his (President Bushes) biological father?
:I don't know the lawyer you're talking about, but the Bush family has been around in the [[Texas]] [[oil industry|oil biz]] for a long time. [[George W. Bush|Gee Dub]] is most certainly [[George H.W. Bush|Aitch]]'s son.
I suggest you have a close look at
—[[User:WAvegetarian|WAvegetarian]]•<small><sub><sub>[[Special:Contributions/WAvegetarian|CONTRIBUTIONS]]</sub></sub><sup><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-64px; margin-right:-64px;">[[User talk:WAvegetarian|TALK]]</sup></sup></sup><big>• </big><sup><sup>[[Special:Emailuser/WAvegetarian|EMAIL]]</span></sup></sup></small><span style="position: relative; left:+6px; margin-right:+6px;">•14:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
*I've got no idea who this Chenny is. Perhaps you're referring to [[Dick Cheney]]. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
No, it's [[Harry Whittington]]. See [[Dick Cheney#Hunting accident]]. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
"I always said that US Vice President Dick Cheney was evil ([[Halliburton]], the Iraq war, US energy policy, the [[Valerie Plame]] incident, etc.). But, at least he used to be subtle about it. Now he's apparently decided to just go out and start shooting people." 21:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Dubya sure looks like his father's ([[George H. W. Bush]]) son to me, though I think he does choose slightly nicer ties:
<gallery>Image:George-W-Bush.jpeg|Dubya
Image:georgebush.jpg|Dad</gallery>
Frankly, if we're going to be throwing nasty aspersions round, the favourite one going round the lefty blogs at the moment is: what were Cheney and Whittington going out shooting with two women who weren't their wives...;) --[[User:Robert Merkel|Robert Merkel]] 22:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
== KFA ==
Is their any credible evidence that KFA members have, used conscripted sex workers, in North Korea?
:See [[Korean Friendship Association]]. Given the tight control on the media in North Korea, it would be difficult to confirm or deny any such allegations. --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 13:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
== Blair's politics ==
Is Tony Blair right of center, or left of center?
*It's kind of a matter of opinion: as a [[Labour Party (UK)]] politician, he'd usually be considered left of centre. However, as the article [[Tony Blair]] attests, he has come under considerable criticism from left-wingers in his own party for being too right-wing, and forsaking the party's traditional priorities. --[[User:Canley|Canley]] 13:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::*He is right of centre. In some aspects of policy he has gone further than Thatcher, especially with regard to introducing private sector involvement in public services. Of course, if the two main parties drift right you could argue that the centre drifts right with them. Have a look at this: [http://www.politicalcompass.org/ Political compass]. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod]] 17:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:''Left'', ''right'' and ''centre'' are attempts to apply simple labels to complex, ambiguous things like political positions. Worse, their interpretations are entirely subjective, with different people understanding them in different ways. Deciding what label to apply to his policies is very unlikely to be helpful. To take one simple example if Tony were a US politician his policies (public healthcare support, gun control, same-sex civil unions) would put him on the extreme left wing. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 17:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
*Not forgetting the fact someone can have extreme left views on one subject and an extreme right one on others. The first three answers here, should give you an idea how useless those labels really are. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:It's also the case that the "left/right" business varies according to where you are, since "centrist" tends to refer to the accepted middle-ground in whatever country you're in. To use an example - traditionally in US politics the Democrats are to the left and the Republicans are to the right, but the Democrats would be considered well to the right of centre compared with politics where I am in New Zealand. Britain's politics lie somewhere between the US's and NZ's so from a US viewpoint, Blair would be considerably to the left, whereas he's far closer to the centre or over towards the right by British or New Zealand standards. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 21:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:See [[Left-Right politics]]. Frankly, the terms are near-useless in trying to place politicians in a historic or global perspective; they are useful only in a ''gross'' approximation of their views within a country's political debate at a particular time. --[[User:Robert Merkel|Robert Merkel]] 22:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::As an illustration of some difficulties with the left/right classification in an international context, here are my impressions of the political compass bodnotbod linked to. That test seems designed to push me into a left wing corner. I'm left-wing with respect to the questions asked. But there is no nuance on the left wing side. Just like IQ tests come in different forms depending on the intelligence measured, there should be different versions for different countries here. Simply put, the questionnaire states that if you're Dutch, you're a commie. ::Take this one: "Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried." I disagree only with the word 'only' and therefore with the whole statement. Had that been 'mostly' I would have agreed. Or this one: "The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist." I disagree. But had it been asked in reverse I would ahve disagreed as well. But that sort of question is never asked.
::And I found this one interresting: "A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system." I agreed with that, but wonder if that is taken as a right-wing or a left-wing thing. It could refer to Lenin or Hitler. Or this one: "Some people are naturally unlucky." I don't see any link with left/right-wing (I disagreed because I don't see a scientific basis for it). Finally, I often missed the option 'haven't a clue'.
::Oh, and then there's this one: "Sex outside marriage is usually immoral." As I explained in a previous thread, I disagree because I consider it ''by definition'' immoral (but interpreted the intention and filled in 'agree').
::And the result? Apparently, I'm a mild left wing libertarian, putting me right next to Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama (I can live with that) and opposite George Bush (phew, that's a relief :) ). [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Whee! Interesting test. It put me out beyond Gandhi on both axes...and currectly predicted my Green Party vote at last year's NZ election. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 04:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
== Sex ==
Do female wikipedian's between the age of 18 and 28 like to have sex?
Some do, some don't. Why don't you ask in your favorite Wikipedian bar? --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 13:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:Something wrong with 29+? [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 13:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:*Why don't you start [[:Category:Wikipedians by interest|a subcategory]]? --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod]] 17:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
*I imagine quite a few of those female Wikipedians like to have sex depending on who they're with. [[Kinsey]] found out sex is a hard area to research reliably. If you're looking for a sex partner as your earlier questions make it appear, I suggest you check out your local bar/cinema/disco/club etc. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::*Meet women at the cinema? Some bugger starts prowling around my local fleapit trying to draw random women into conversation whilst I'm trying to watch the film, they'll end up with a jumbo hot dog wrapped 'round their neck. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod]] 18:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
*How about break time, or in the foyer before the film? - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::What are these "females" of which you speak? [[User:Angmering|Angmering]] 22:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:Why are you limiting the ages? [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Because I am 24, and do am not a gerophile. Seriously I am a 24 year old law student, is their woman in my age bracket living in the north east who wants to have sex?
::I'm sure there is. At least one. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 03:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::But, there probably aren't any women who read this page who have the least desire to have sex with a random man who posts such a question here. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 04:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Sex: "The pleasure momentary, the posture ridiculous, and the expense damnable" -- [[Evelyn Waugh]]. Personally, I don't have any objection to the posture or the expense. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 18:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== British supporting actors 1950s ==
where can I get a list detailing which actors - e.g. Victor Maddern, Sam Kydd - made the MOST films in the 1950s. I have been commissioned to write a book about the top ten but don't know how to find the top ten! help. Dee Gordon
:Presumably, since you've been comissioned to write this book, you must have some idea who they are likely to be - say narrowing it down to the top hundred or so. It should be no more than a couple of days work to go through [http://www.imdb.com IMDB] and find out which ones were in the most films. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 17:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:*It seems a strange commission, in a way. One is tempted to ask "who cares who made the ''most''?" A book might more entertainingly cover those actors who had the most interesting life stories or individual anecdotes. But I'd second the recommendation of wading, rather laboriously probably, through the IMDB which will give you a good ''at a glance'' view of likely contenders. Asking on the IMDB forums is liable to get you more knowledgeable answers than here.
::You could also try asking on the [http://talk.guardian.co.uk Guardian newspaper talk boards] which I recommend because it has an older, ''British'', clientelle than many other forums out there, many of them interested in film and media. Try the ''Notes and Queries'' folder there (linked to on the left of that page) --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod]] 18:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
*How did you get commissioned to write a book about which you don't know the basic outline/facts? - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 19:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
== First Amendment Protections ==
Were sit-in's during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's protected by the first amendment (freedom of speech)? It's always said that they were, but I thought that the Constitution only protected people against the government - sit-ins occurred in private restaurants who could choose to accomodate whoever they want? What am I missing? Thank you. [[User:Mnuccio2|Mickey]] 16:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:Assuming you mean in the US, then sit-ins, which are typically designed to cause a disruption, are not protected, whether on private or public land. Then again, being arrested may actually be the goal, for maximum press coverage. A sit-in in a government office might be such an example.[[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 04:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::Racial discrimination by businesses that serve interstate commerce was prohibited in the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]]. The constitution had nothing to do with it. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 04:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::The fact that restaurants can't legally discriminate based on race doesn't make it legal for those who accuse them of violating this law to sit-in and disrupt their restaurant. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 06:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::::In the early 1960's the protestors merely sat down in all available tables/seats and waited to be served, which didn't happen. Is that disruptive? [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 20:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::I suppose that would depend on what they ordered and how long they stayed. If they ordered a cup of coffee then stayed for 10 hours, yes, that would disrupt their ability to make money. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 00:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
== Stalins almamater ==
What ever happened to the Tiflis Theological Seminary, where stalin studied? Is it still in operation?
:The building that housed it is now the Georgian State Art Museum [http://rustaveli.tripod.com/sakartvelo/tbilisi/tbilisi.html]. The seminary apparently was closed down at some point. [http://www.patriarchate.ge/biograf/1e.htm This page] says that the only seminary open in Georgia in the 1960s was at [[Mtskheta]]. The Mtskheta seminary became the current Tbilisi Theological Academy and Seminary [http://www.osgf.ge/tta/] in 1988 [http://www.patriarchate.ge/biograf/1e.htm]. --[[User:Cam|Cam]] 05:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== Images of Flags of Countries Projected by NBC on the ice at the Olympics ==
I've been watching the Speed Skating coverage by the NBC network in the United States. It seems like NBC is somehow projecting the flag of the country the competitor is from on the ice during some speed skating races. How are they doing this? Is it happening within the stadium at the Olympics or is it being done by NBC?
:It's a video effect, not something you'd see if you were actually present. [http://www.courant.com/sports/hc-olytvcol0210.artfeb10,0,650815.story?coll=hc-headlines-sports] - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 20:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:The same way that ads are projected onto the background behind a catcher during televised baseball games. If you were in the stadium, all you'd see would be a green background, but at home you see the ad. Sometimes, if you watch really closely, you can see that, as the camera switches from some other shot back to the catcher, the ad takes a fraction of a second to be redisplayed. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
== Law Concurrent Liability ==
hi all,
can someone give me an idea on concurrent liability...detailed explanation is required....not cases...
I would like to relate it with Tort and Law of contract...
please help.
Matt
:You need to specify what jurisdiction you want to know about. Oh, and your almost certainly going to have to get to grips with the cases - they're the primary sources.[[User:Lisiate|Lisiate]] 21:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I wanted to know Concurrent Liability in Tort and Contract law in UK. i would appreciate if you could give me a lot of theoritical explanation rather than cases.
Thanks
'''Hi All,
'''I really need a help on this. Didnt get a response yet. Can someone please help me? Thanks
Matt''''''
== British Politics ==
Can a king or prince or queen or any of the royalty become prime minister?
:No. But the nobility can now they are no longer allowed to sit automatically in the House of Lords.
::Technically, I'm not sure that members of the royal family are even allowed to ''vote''. As to the House of lords rule, there have been instances (before the modernisation of the UK Upper House) where hereditary peers have renounced their titles (i.e., "become commoners") in order to become MPs - most famously [[Tony Benn]]. It also gives a cluse as to the reason for the name of the "House of Commons". [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 00:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Except for the reigning monarch legally yes. However, it would considered a violation of tradition for a member of the royal family to run for political office, or even vote.
:I agree with that. Some members of the Royal Family are peers and entitled to sit in the House of Lords, eg. the Prince of Wales has done so. They would not be able to stand for the House of Commons unless they disclaimed their peerage (whether this would also entail somehow renouncing their royal status is something I'm not competent to say). If they were eligible to stand for office, they could be elected, and could ultimately become PM. Grutness, whether a member of the Royal Family is allowed to vote or not has nothing to do with whether they could, technically, stand for election. Voting is non-compulsory in the UK, so for all I know Tony Blair might never have voted in his life. (Actually, I'm sure he has, but he's not forced to.) [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 07:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::I don't remember saying that it did - although I suspect if someone is ''legally barred'' from voting then they would be unable to stand for office. Whether the royals are actually barred or simply don't vote is another matter entirely. ''Traditionally'', though, members of the royal family never even indicate their support of any particular political viewpoint, let alone a particular party, and similarly never launch legal proceedings against anyone - although Prince Charles in particular has bent these unwritten guidelines considerably with his views on environmentalism. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 10:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:A monarch in a parliamentary democracy that has any dealings with politics (usually in an advisory function) is (or else should be) supposed to be politically neutral, something one cannot be when in parliament. I don't know how this is in practise, but by this reason it should be illegal (by constitution). And of course the same goes for anyone who might somehow ''become'' the monarch and that might include a lot of members of the royal family, though that may vary a lot between countries. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 10:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::Note also that the idea that the Prime Minister must be a member of the Commons, like so much of British constitutional practice, is only a matter of tradition and not law; and in fact it is a tradition no more than 100 years old, arising after [[Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury|Lord Salisbury]]'s terms as PM. See [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom]] for discussion of how the office and its traditions have gradually evolved. So theoretically I don't think there's anything stopping a monarch from breaking tradition appointing himself or another royal as PM; however, the conditions for that to happen ''and'' for the Commons to give him the necessary vote of confidence are hard to imagine. It would certainly be viewed as undemocratic in any normal circumstance. --Anonymous, 10:10 UTC, February 15, 2006.
::NB that reform of the House of Lords means that only 92(?) peers (one in ten) now sit in the Lords. They can however now stand for election to the House of Commons instead without having to disclaim their title. [[John Sinclair, 3rd Viscount Thurso|Viscount Thurso]] became the first to take advantage of this change, winning Caithness for the Lib Dems in 2001. [[User:Jameswilson|Jameswilson]] 23:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
= February 15 =
== Russia ==
Is Russia a democracy or a dictatorship?
:Is this a homework question? If so, have you read [[democracy]], [[dictatorship]], [[Politics of Russia]] (though that article pulls its punches), and [[Vladimir Putin]]? Hint: it's not a simple question, and neither "democracy" nor "dictatorship" are unambiguous or rigidly defined. --[[User:Robert Merkel|Robert Merkel]] 03:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:Doesn't seem too much like a homework question to me. [[User:GeeJo|<font style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #809EF5; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #99B3FF">GeeJo</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]]</sub> <small>•</small> <small>10:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)</small>
*Are we talking now or historically? - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 09:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:The question is in present tense, so it refers to now. In stead of burning my fingers on this specific case let me point out that a dictator can assume power through a democratic process. Hitler is a prime example. And Saddam Hussein also claims to have been democratically elected. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 10:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== Soccer Hooligans ==
Is it true that many European soccor hooligans have links to radical right, Nazi, and neo fascist groups.
:See our article [[Hooliganism]]. --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 04:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:Define hooligan. An illustrating anecdote: I've been a football supporter with the 'Angel Side' ([[MVV]]) for a few years, and when in Mexico I went to a football game. At the counter I asked where the home supporters were located (usually the most lively part of the stadium). The guy didn't understand, so I explained, after which he indignantly exclaimed "We don't have any hooligans here." Which was quite an understatement. The entire stadium was totally dead, with the response to a goal being a friendly applause. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 10:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::I'm sure if you ask politely they will arrange a violent riot so you will feel right at home. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 04:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Nah, I'm a pacifist hooligan. At least if one is to believe that test I referred to above, which put me in league with Gandhi and the Dalai Lama. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 08:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
== David Cammeron ==
From the U.S. prospective who would be easier to work with, David Cameron or Gordon Brown?
:Is this a homework question? Have you read [[David Cameron]] and [[Gordon Brown]]? Furthermore, you might read [[Conservative Party (UK)]] and [[Labour Party (UK)]] for some more hints, particularly the mention of [[Atlanticism]] in the Tory article. Think also about what you mean by the question - do you mean the US generally or the current White House, which are not one and the same thing (as Australia may well discover in February 2009). --[[User:Robert Merkel|Robert Merkel]] 03:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== Hereditary peers ==
Why did britan give them so much power until very recently?
How could a modernist justify giving so much power to someome, just because of what their great grandpa did?
Is it true a member was caught selling drugs at Westmister, in the late 90's?
:See [[Conservatism]]. See also [[Tourism]] and the thought of what getting rid of the biggest hereditary office in the land would do to the UK's inbound tourist trade... --[[User:Robert Merkel|Robert Merkel]] 03:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::It's likely that all countries have constitutional leftovers that seem unfair nowadays. In the U.S., residents of [[District of Columbia|DC]] have no representation in Congress, California has 62 times more people per senator than Wyoming does and you can be elected president even if someone else gets more votes than you. And Canadian senators are appointed by the governor general on the advice of the prime minister. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 04:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Which is ironic considering the US want to 'bring democracy to the world'. Maybe they should start with getting a proper one themselves. :) Irritatingly, some people here in the Netherlands now say we should also get ourselves a district system. Oh horror. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 10:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Well said. In fact the US is not a democracy at all. I think it is actually a Federated Republic, or something like that. I'm not sure what it is, but I know that it is is not a Democracy. Imagine that Dubya, undemocraticly imposing democracy all over the world, when he doesn't even represent one! (how can I get this to not put a big blue box around whatever I write, but still enable me to indent? ----Leah
:::::I fixed the indent problem.. In the future, write it as a single line of text (don't hit return between lines) with colons in front to control the indent level. As for the US not being a democracy, it is most definitely a form of [[representative democracy]]. While it is true that power is not shared equally in any representative democracy, this does not mean it's no longer classified as a democracy. All people in a democracy do have some power, however slight, versus a totalitarian system where they have no power at all. To actually give everyone equal power, [[direct democracy]] would be needed in the US, and everywhere else. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 20:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::Oh, ok then. So She is a democracy. I looked up Federal Republic. It appears that the two terms are not directly related. Is there any such critter as a Totalitarian Federated Republic? What would that be? ---Leah
::::::A direct democracy is not needed for everyone to have equal power. A representative democracy in its most representative form does that too, unless one nitpicks. The parliament of the Netherlands is sometimes called the most representative democracy in the world because it uses [[direct election]]s without an [[electoral threshold]]. So if a party gets the number of votes required for one seat (number of voters divided by number of seats), it actually gets that seat. Which is just under 65.000. Of course, if you vote for a party that doesn't reach that number of voters, you won't be represented. The chances of this happening decrease with the number of seats, until it reaches one, in which case you have a direct democracy. But then that doesn't work on a national scale, so the Dutch system would be the best approximation (if only we'd get rid of the bloody queen and upper house).
::::::Actually, I think world peace would be best served if the US had a directly elected parliament. I'll raise this question in a new thread. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 08:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Of course, I doubt if the EU government is elected based strictly on population, either, but rather by "districts" (countries). [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 04:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::Ah, but the EU is not a country. I used to be all in favour of giving all power to a parliament with equal representation because that is more democratic. But if the constitution referendum did one thing for me it was make me think about what the EU really should be. And I'm now convinced it shouldn't be a country, little more than a collection of (trade) agreements (which may spread as far as it wishes - Turkey - Iraq - Russia - India - Brazil - wherever). That's why I voted against the constitution - there should be no constitution at all. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 08:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:Britain didn't ''give'' peers their power, the peers ''took'' their power from the king, starting with the [[Magna Carta]]. "Modernists" didn't "give so much power" to them, modernists ''took it away''. - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 13:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::There are a number of good reasons for having a non-elected revising legislative chamber, briefly summarrised they are that
#It allows the ability to appoint people of real merit/knowledge on particular subjects.
:::Who is to decide that? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 08:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
#It allows experienced politicians to continue to play an active (& beneficial) part in public life, even (or especially) in areas where they have particular interest/experience.
#There is an in-built conservative (with a small c) majority which ensures that no temporarily elected party can do away with long held rights & liberties (though this has broken down since the 'reform' of HoL & the large number of Labour peers now in place).
#Generally it ensures that well educated people have the opportunity to debate the issues, & the fact that they didn't need to sit in the HoL except when they wanted to usually meant that only those who actually were well educated & concerned about the issues did speak or vote.
:::Who is to decide that? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 08:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
#It allows the government of the day to reward old politicians & make room for new ones in the HoC (more so nowadays since life peerages became common).
#It prevents both houses of the legislature being controlled by the same party, in the sense that members of the HoL, while some nominally belonged to a party, tend to be far more independent than members of the HoC as they're not afraid of deselection from their seats/the party machine not booking them paying speaking engagements/not getting appointed to Cabinet or other career benefit.
#Members of the HoL don't need to worry about getting voted out so they could discuss politically unpopular issues which will inevitably offend/upset some people/vested interests in a way which elected political parties & members are reluctant to do.
:::Ah, you've actually got a good argument here. But it's pointless if they have no power and undemocratic if they do. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 08:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
::On the guy caught dealing drugs I believe it was the son of a peer & frankly thats not uncommon as [[Jack Straw]]'s son was also caught for dealing drugs, as have a number of other people. Even if it was a peer it wouldn't matter as you can't use this as an argument against a whole group. [[User:AllanHainey|AllanHainey]] 12:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
== Augustine of Hippo...Just War ==
Please help.I have been hunting for the specific text(s) in which Augustine puts forward the idea of 'just war.'Could someone help me to locate it/them?
Thanks.
Paul Delaney
:[http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/SS/SS040.html This segment] on war from the [[Summa Theologica]] of [[Thomas Aquinas]] cites Augustine by chapter and verse. --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 04:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== Minoan food and clothing ==
What did the ancient Minoans eat? I can't seem to find it anywhere in wikipedia... [[User:Gelo3|gelo]] 05:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:[[Minoan civilization#Agriculture]] has the information you want. To that I would add that, being island-dwellers and [[Thalassocracy|noted seafarers]], they probably ate a fair amount of seafood. What about clothing? —[[User:Mirv|Charles P._]]<small>[[User talk:Mirv|(Mirv)]]</small> 06:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 06:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::Based on the images I've seen, they didn't wear much. :) [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 19:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== philosophy of man>phenomenology of love ==
man is a social being and therefore he is capable of loving and being loved. They say that the experience of loving starts in the experience of loneliness, how did it happen? Explain.
:Unfortunately, we can't do your homework for you. - [[User:Akamad|Akamad]] 06:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:Have you read our article on [[Love]]? [[User:GeeJo|<font style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #809EF5; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #99B3FF">GeeJo</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]]</sub> <small>•</small> <small>10:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)</small>
== The greeks(plato and aristotle), the scholastics, and the mercantilists each built their analysis around a specific economic objective(or goal) for society. Describe these objectives ==
:When is your homework due? [[User:Notinasnaid|Notinasnaid]] 08:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
*These objectives are probably in the course material you had to read/watch before answering this question. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 09:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
You seem to have forgotten at least one Greek philosopher, [[Socrates]].[[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:Damn fine [[Sócrates|soccer player]], too... [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 10:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
And he is particularly missed:
:[[Immanuel Kant]] was a real pissant
:Who was very rarely stable,
:[[Heidegger]], Heidegger was a boozy beggar
:Who could think you under the table,
:[[David Hume]] could out-consume
:[[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]].
:And [[Wittgenstein]] was a beery swine
:Who was just as schloshed as [[Schlegel]].
:There's nothing [[Nietzsche]] couldn't teach ya
:'Bout the raising of the wrist,
:[[Socrates]], himself, was permanently pissed.
:[[John Stuart Mill]], of his own free will,
:On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill,
:[[Plato]], they say, could stick it away,
:Half a crate of whisky every day.
:[[Aristotle]], Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
:[[Hobbes]] was fond of his dram,
:And [[Rene Descartes]] was a drunken fart,
:"I drink, therefore I am."
:Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed.
:A lovely little thinker,
:But a bugger when he's pissed.''
[[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 12:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
== 17 century painting styles ==
Please advise me on how to find the most popular painting styles during the 17 century. Thank you.
Rachel
:The rather poor article [[History of painting]] suggests [[Baroque]] which is a better article. This only discusses Europe, scattered articles may give wider details e.g [[Japanese_art#Art_of_the_Edo_period]]. Unfortunately fine art is rather a black hole here on the wiki so if you learn anything more it would be great if you can come back and contribute it. <small><font color="#000000">[[User:MeltBanana|MeltBanana]]</font></small> 16:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
"I had a beautiful [[Rennaisance]] vase, but then I dropped it, and now it's [[Baroque]]." [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== Hume ==
Hume said we can't be certain of any kind of knowledge besides mathematical knowledge...but can we be 100% certain even of that? if yes, what explanation did he give?.--[[User:Cosmic girl|Cosmic girl]] 15:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:When mathematicians talk of a "proof" they do mean something absolute, and this is something not available in other forms of study (unless it follows the same principles, see below). But what do mathematicians really mean? Mathematics is built on [[axioms]]. These are things we have to take for granted, things we assume. A "proof" is actually a proof using axioms as the original assumptions, and using axioms in the steps of the proof, and nothing else added. You can therefore say that ''if'' the axioms are valid, ''then'' the proofs are valid. Most maths is built on axioms that make sense in the real world such as ''x = x'', but mathematicians can have funs by using illogical, made up, or plain wrong axioms. The proofs using these axioms are still proofs. And you can prove other things outside maths, if you start with a different set of axioms. Some theologians have done this, starting with truths that they hold to be ''self evident''. I guess you could use axiomatic proofs in physics too: if ''s = u + a . t'' is an axiom, then we can probably prove things about distance travelled as related to time passed. Doesn't mean that what is proved is right. Does that make sense? [[User:Notinasnaid|Notinasnaid]] 16:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::As a quick interjection, non-numerical proofs are possible as well and (I think...) Hume would accord them the same designation as "knowledge" as he would anything else, ''so long as you do not attempt to induct on the basis of the proof''. Sure, "this is true" insofar as the top of the page is consistent with the bottom--and beyond the page nothing can be said. He wouldn't accord any veracity to ''an applied'' proof (numerical or otherwise) as justifying a future certainty. Math says: "Venus' orbit will do X." Hume says: "I don't know that." He's not declaiming math as untrue; he's refusing to draw an inference where the proof says he should. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 22:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:From another perspective, this is explained in critical thinking as the difference between a ''fact'' and a ''truth''. It is a factual statement to say that there is intelligent life on Mars. It is factual because it can be proven to be true or false. We know it to be false because we have explored enough of Mars to know that there is no intelligent life there. Now, claiming that there is intelligent life on some other planet is also a factual statement. We don't know if it is true or false, but it could be proven by inspecting every single planet. Math works with factual statements, as explained above. So does everything else. The Declaration of Independence is based on the factual statement that all people are born with inalienable rights. It assumes this to be true because it is ''self evident''. That is not a proof that it is true. It is assumed to be true and then all factual statements based on it are assumed to be true as well. Should you disagree about the self evidence of inalienable rights, the rest of the Declaration of Independence is a flawed proof. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]]</sup></small> 18:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
ok I see. I knew that math is based on axioms, but they are axioms acording to US humans...let's imagine that 'God' exists, maybe he can make irrational things (for us) happen and be 'true metaphysically'...so, what I'm saying here is that we would be really rational to accept even what we take to be axioms have a posibility, however slight, of being wrong 'metaphysically', thus, not 'absolutely true', am I making a point? or is there an argument that inmunizes math to the irrationality of metaphysics and so called 'ultimate truth'.
oh and also, that comment notinasnaid said about math making proofs out of irrational and untrue axioms for 'fun'..is it just for fun? or has anything useful ever been developed (like technology or an important theory) using 'false axioms'? my guess is it hasnt but...what do I know?. :P --[[User:Cosmic girl|Cosmic girl]] 22:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:First, the easy answer... There are areas in logic where an expected false fact is used as a true axiom in a sort of reverse proof.
:Now, the harder answer... When we, as humans, state something as 'true', we imply that it is true within the confines of time and space as we know it. It is a well accepted truth that all laws of math and physics as we know it cease to exist at the big bang. Most feel that they cease to exist in the middle of a black hole. So, it is perfectly reasonable to claim that beyond our existence, there is one in which our math is completely wrong. But, who cares? We use math and physics to understand the universe that we live in - not one that we have no connection or comprehension of. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]]</sup></small> 23:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Totally agree, who cares? science is a great tool (I repeat,tool), and I also 'know' that there is the possibility that our math isn't absolute for 'everything' even things 'outside' our existence...and now you said it too, so I'm not the only one...I thought I was crazy for reasoning this way actually, but now that you say that our math and physics break down soon after the BB...I know maybe I'm not that crazy.--[[User:Cosmic girl|Cosmic girl]] 02:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
== The meaning of "Cory" as in Chilean or Polish Cory ==
This is in political science text: "The Third Wave, Democratization in the Late Twenthieth Century," Samuel P. Huntington, U of Oklahoma Press. It reads: "There is no Chilean Cory." "Lech Walesa was a Polish Cory." p. 158.
Thanks
Janet
:Maybe [[Corazon Aquino]] [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 19:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== Mona Lisa ==
Why were panels at both sides of the Mona Lisa removed?
:A mystery. The sides of the panel were cut not long after Leonardo's death, but that's about all that is known. [[User:David Sneek|David Sneek]] 23:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
How is it known that the panels were cut soon after
his death? ---Leah
== Tattoo and military tattoo ==
The word tattoo is unusual and I see it came from Tahiti and generally means an inked image on a person's body. How did the word tattoo then become associated with "military tattoo" or Scottish tattoo?
:Although it's not clearly described in [[Military Tattoo]] article, it would seem that the military type of tattoo came from a Dutch phrase "doe den tap toe." --[[User:LarryMac|LarryMac]] 19:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::And the military meaning appeared first in English. The "skin decoration" meaning is about 100 years after that. - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 04:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:It's one of those rare English words that are really two different words. Same spelling, but two completely different etymologies. "Compound" is another word like that; yet another is "wake". [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 11:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
== early christian letters ==
Can you tell me the name of the early christian letters that are read at mass?--[[User:70.251.111.227|70.251.111.227]] 19:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:Do you mean [[epistles]]? [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 19:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== How many car accidents happen a day in the USA? ==
''Question in title only''
:by a remarkable coincidence, this question was just answered over on the [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Car_stats_2005|Miscellaneous desk]]. [[User:GeeJo|<font style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #809EF5; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #99B3FF">GeeJo</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]]</sub> <small>•</small> <small>19:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)</small>
::Also [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#How_many_car_crashes_are_there_a_second_in_the_U.S..3F|Here]]. Have they put this as a sample question somewhere or something? [[User:GeeJo|<font style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #809EF5; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #99B3FF">GeeJo</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]]</sub> <small>•</small> <small>21:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)</small>
== Humanities (I think) People with same birth and death dates ==
I can't seem to find an article that lists people who have the same birth and death dates...surely there must be some prominent people with this unusual occurrance? Is there already an article and I'm just not finding it? If there isn't an article on this already, can anyone suggest what might be the easiest way to find out who had the same birth and death dates? Thanks in advance. [[User:Bcatt|bcatt]] 19:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:Try [[List of people who died on their birthdays]]. By the way, it's not all that uncommon. It happens to one in every 365 people. [[User:GeeJo|<font style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #809EF5; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #99B3FF">GeeJo</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]]</sub> <small>•</small> <small>19:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)</small>
:: I admit that for somebody with a degree in math, I am horrible at probability and statistics; so kindly indulge me and explain how it can happen to 1 in every 365 people. I can sort of understand that any individual person has a 1 in 365 chance of dying on his birthday (excepting those born on 29 Feb, but let's ignore them for now). --[[User:LarryMac|LarryMac]] 20:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::I don't understand your question. Since any individual person has a 1 in 365 chance of dying on his birthday, then 1 in 365 people will do so. [[User:Markalexander100|Mark]][[User talk:Markalexander100|<sup>your words</sup>]] 20:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Hey, I said I was horrible at this stuff. There is some kind of brick wall in my head that prevents me from seeing those as the same thing. I always preferred the easy stuff, like differential equations, although most everything is lost in the haze of 20 some years of disuse :-) --[[User:LarryMac|LarryMac]] 20:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Maybe think of it this way: 1 in 365 people will die on 21st June, Christmas Day, or any other particular day of which there is one every year. That 'particular day' can be defined in any way you want, as long as there is only one each year. Since each person has one birthday per year, 1 in 365 people will also die on his birthday. [[User:Markalexander100|Mark]][[User talk:Markalexander100|<sup>your words</sup>]] 21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::::The number of people who die on their birthday might even be higher than 1/365, if you consider surprise parties given to elderly people with heart conditions. :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::I appreciate the help, and I will try to get my mind to suitly emphazi the explanation. --[[User:LarryMac|LarryMac]] 01:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Hehe...thanks for the point in the right direction...and for the laughs. [[User:Bcatt|bcatt]] 23:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:Actually I've seen it said that a person is statistically more likely to die in the months just after their birthday than those just before. This is claimed to be for psychological reasons: wanting to reach one more birthday promotes the will to live. I don't know if it's an accepted theory today, though, or how it would relate to deaths actually on one's birthday. --Anonymous, 00:30 UTC, February 16, 2006, not my birthday.
::There is some evidence for people dying slightly faster after major events - Christmas and New Year are the big ones, but then early January is also the time that winter really begins to bite - but I'm not sure if a study has linked it to birthdays or not, and "the months" is very vague... that's covering half the year! Someone actually won an IgNobel for related work, come to think of it...
:::2001 Economics prize: Presented to Joel Slemrod, of the University of Michigan Business School, and Wojciech Kopczuk, of the University of British Columbia, for their conclusion that people find a way to postpone their deaths if that would qualify them for a lower rate on the inheritance tax.
::That classic work of accountancy is here [http://www.columbia.edu/~wk2110/bin/dying-final.pdf PDF] - Page 5 summarises related research, including a one-third (!) drop in Chinese mortality the week before the Harvest Moon festival and an equal peak the week after, and a ''claim'' (though unreliable) the same effect happens for birthdays. You might want to chase up the cited paper there.
::Bear in mind that, especially with birthdays and major religious events, the actual strain of the event may help induce the death itself; they cite post-Passover deaths as being greater if the holiday was over a weekend, where the celebrations tend to be more highly observed. [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
== Diaspora? ==
Could the peopling of Oceania/Polynesia be called a diaspora? [[User:64.198.112.210|64.198.112.210]] 21:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::That is more of a scattered settling. They did ultimately split up and migrated into new territories on their own. I thought of diaspora as it pertains to the Jewish scattering across Europe as teh result of persecution. When the American west was settled, it wasn't called a diaspora; they settled and migrated on their accord.--[[User:192.160.130.12|192.160.130.12]] 21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::The defining characteristic of a [[diaspora]] is not persecution, it's spreading out from a specific place. The settling of America ''included'' several diasporas, such as the [[Irish diaspora]], but since the settlers came from many different places, it was not ''itself'' a diaspora. The peopling of Polynesia is not really a diaspora because we don't know where they started out from. In a trivial sense, of course, they must have started from somewhere in Africa, which leads some people to include them in the [[African diaspora]]. But that's just silly. [[User:Markalexander100|Mark]][[User talk:Markalexander100|<sup>your words</sup>]] 23:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:Could it be? It is! It's usually referred to as the Pacific Diaspora. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 00:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
::Most of the Google hits for that seem to refer to Pacific islanders moving ''away'' from the islands, to NZ or the US. Which would be in line with the usual terminology of naming the diaspora after the place left, not the place gone to. [[User:Markalexander100|Mark]][[User talk:Markalexander100|<sup>your words</sup>]] 00:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:Let me re-word my reply: The Pacific Diaspora is the name used by anthropologists studying the spread of the Polynesian, Melanesian, and Micronesian races across the Pacific from about 100 BC to 1200 AD. Or at least it is here in the Pacific. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 05:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to first think about the concept of diaspora. In any kind of social reality, applying any kind of category has limits and these limits are often a result of the categories themselves. The concept of diaspora, if understood to mean the dispersal of a group of people from their original homeland, assumes that human beings were somehow some time back in history immobile and rooted. Within anthropology, that is a conceptual remnant that doesn't really apply any more. Human beings have always been on the move. Not that they've been nomadic, but people have been fluid in their movements over time. The second assumption is about "original homeland". If there was an original homeland, where was it? In applying social categories such as diaspora, it's better to see what the people themselves are calling it. Do the people of Oceania/Polynesia call themselves diasporic? ([[User:Conalho|Conalho]] 22:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)conalho)
:I can't speak for all Pacific Island people, but here in New Zealand, the Maori still regard the legendary [[Hawaiki]] as their spiritual home, and the most important event in Maori (pre-)history is the arrival of the great fleet of canoes in New Zealand from Hawaiki. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 01:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
==Who said it?==
'''Questioning authority is like a gangreous toe about to kill the whole body.'''
I can't find this through google, help would be appreciated.
:Do you mean "cutting off a '''gangrenous''' toe" ? [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 00:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
::A google search for -questioning authority gangrenous toe- turned up this [http://www.nancho.net/kipower/kisoma.html] along with a bunch of medical sites. Bartleby.com doesn't have it. [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 20:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
== Mentalism ==
I need to learn some basic techniques of mentalism before monday (It's a private issue...meant for nothing harmful though) is there any website I can get any tips from? please, I really need this for monday.I've searched in google but haven't found any useful site, or if anyone wants to give me some advide on this, please post it on my talk page,I'd be so thankful.--[[User:Cosmic girl|Cosmic girl]] 22:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:Try doing a search on [[cold reading]]. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 00:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thanx :)...but I'm trying more to actually influence someone to my favour than to guess his life... because...well it's a long story, but I'm the victim and I need to gain this key person to 'my cause' or else I'm doomed.--[[User:Cosmic girl|Cosmic girl]] 04:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:We need the specifics to help. Who are you trying to influence to do what ? [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 04:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:Short answer - as far as science has been able to tell, it doesn't work. Whatever it is you want from this person, you'd be better off learning a bit more about "conventional" persuasion techniques than pinning your hopes on the supernatural. That said, if you have a religious bent, some religious friends claim that [[prayer]] helps them find answers to difficult problems, though not necessarily in the way that they anticipate. --[[User:Robert Merkel|Robert Merkel]] 05:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
*Mentalism is not supernatural perse. It's also the name for the use of psychology in magic type mind reading performances. I would recommend reading the section on [[Derren Brown]] on the website of the British [[Channel 4]] for some useful techniques. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 08:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Mentalism isn't supposed to be suprenatural... it's just psychological persuasion, that's all...
and I want to have an influence because my parents want me to go to psychological therapy for not being a catholic... it's not only something stupid but the psychologist is gonna agree with them since they are the ones that pay and I don't live in a 'free country' like america... here, the family has it right always, no matter how twisted are the things they ask for.--[[User:Cosmic girl|Cosmic girl]] 17:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:If you're just looking to learn about psychological persuasion, there's plenty of books that cover that. Since you don't have much time, though, the Wikipedia articles on ''[[How to Win Friends and Influence People]]'' and ''[[Influence Science and Practice]]'' might be good places to start. I'd dispute your claim that mentalism "isn't supposed to be supernatural" and is "just psychological persuasion," on the grounds that psychologists themselves study influence and persuasion all the time--and they ''don't'' call it mentalism. [[User:Chuck Carroll|Chuck]] 23:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
::Well yes, but psychologists don't do it for the purposes of entertainment. If they did, then they'd be mentalists. [[User:GeeJo|<font style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #809EF5; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #99B3FF">GeeJo</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]]</sub> <small>•</small> <small>13:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)</small>
Thank you! :) ...well maybe it's just another name for the same thing, then, because 'mentalists' say they have no paranormal abilities...they say it themselves, guys like derren brown, or banachek.--[[User:Cosmic girl|Cosmic girl]] 03:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:LOL, I thought you meant [[Banacek]], the 1970's TV mystery series: [[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068044/]] [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 16:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
haha :D --[[User:Cosmic girl|Cosmic girl]] 17:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:One guerilla technique that could help is - say to the shrinker (psy man) that you had a supernatural dream and that you are deeply catholic, but the angel in the vision told you not to go to church but only to pray in the silence of your heart. Some did try it and found it useful. --[[User:Harvestman|DLL]] 19:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
=P haha... Ok, I will but I'll avoid the dream part since I don't wanna be locked up.--[[User:Cosmic girl|Cosmic girl]] 21:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
== Lift Out Quotes ==
Could you please tell me what a lift out quote is? It relates to the packaging of news in media. Thanks
:I think the idea is that it's a line that can be quoted and make sense alone, hopefully without distorting the original meaning. Take the following paragraph, for example:
Many people spend their lives trying to find the
secret of happiness. I believe the secret of
happiness lies in setting achievable goals,
working hard to realize those goals - then, once
they have been achieved, defining a new set of
attainable goals. Unhappiness comes from failing
to set any goals, setting impossible goals,
setting overly simple goals, or failing to define
new goals once the first set has been attained.
:The "lift out quote" here, is the only sentence which can stand alone to summarize the paragraph:
"I believe the secret of
happiness lies in setting achievable goals,
working hard to realize those goals - then, once
they have been achieved, defining a new set of
attainable goals." [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 00:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
== Recent bills in congress ==
Can anyone please tell me a few bills that have been proposed by congress? More specifically, bills that have been proposed recently by the house or the senate.
:Assuming you mean the US Congress, that's not any more specific, since the Senate and the House of Representatives, together, are the exact same thing as Congress. For recent bills, how about the proposed extensions of the Homeland Security Act ? [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 00:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
::Go to http://thomas.loc.gov. The House bill to be introduced was H.R. 4753, so if you search for, say, H.R. 4650, H.R. 4651, etc., you'll see what members of the House have been proposing. For the Senate, they're now on S. 2286, so you can search for S. 2200, S. 2201, etc. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 01:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
= February 16 =
== Early Scopes For Weapons?! ==
Where can I get information on the first and early scopes for guns!?
:Early guns weren't accurate enough to benefit from a telescopic sight, so, if anything, probably only had a simple sight such as a vertical bar above the end of the barrel. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 00:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:Scopes were not required until rifles were accurate beyond at least 500 yards (the minimum distance required for Marines with plain iron sights). That was just before WWI. So, it is a 20th century invention. Previously, scopes were literally telescopes or binoculars attached by the user himself. For snipers, scopes are not well-liked. Yes, they can help increase the distance you can aim, but they attract a lot of attention to the sniper. Night scopes are a completely different entity. They aren't used specifically for distance. They provide ability to see targets with very little light. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]]</sup></small> 02:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
::You'd neeed more support for the statement that snipers don't like [[Sniper rifle|rifles]] with scopes. Military [[Sniper|snipers]] generally are attached to a regular unit and fire from considerable distances, not solo from trees or the tops of buildings, as the movies might picture it. At least, so I gathered from Anthony Swofford's ''Jarhead : A Marine's Chronicle of the Gulf War and Other Battles'' (ISBN 0743287215). --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 04:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:Scopes existed long before WWI. Some of the earliest scopes were long thin tubes aligned with the barrel. See [http://www.davide-pedersoli.com/accessoriDettaglio.aspx?CategoriaId=1317&lang=en] for U.S. civil war era reproductions. Telescopic scopes date back at least to the 1880's. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 06:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
::Sorry for not being clear. I meant that the "rifle with a scope attached from the factory" did not become popular until shortly before WWI. Before that, the user took a scope and put it on his own rifle. As for snipers, there are two problems with scopes. They reflect light and they are awkward to use from a prone position. Keep in mind that a sniper does not want to be detected in any way and you can see why snipers are wary of using a device that makes them more detectable and is not necessary. They will use scopes, GPS devices, laser tracking, and all that stuff if required, but not if it isn't required. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]]</sup></small> 14:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
== Actors/actresses who were never nominated for an Oscar ==
I'm wanting to compile a list of film actors/actresses who were never nominated for an [[Academy Award]] despite being considered serious contenders. Any suggestions for (a) names and (b) particular performances? [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 01:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
*Being considered serious contenders by who? - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 08:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:Nitpickers are excused from answering. Anybody else? [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 08:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
*That doesn't sound like nitpicking. Behind every nominee stand tens of thousands of actors who were never nominated. To be encyclopedic, exactly what criteria would the article define and enforce for "being considered a serious contender"? Without a rigorous definition, the article isn't likely to survive. [[User:Notinasnaid|Notinasnaid]] 08:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
**It wasn't intended for a Wikipedia article (although now that you mention it, that's not a bad idea). The 'serious contenders' was my shorthand way of eliminating most of the tens of thousands, and I was really hoping not to have to get into an exhaustive definition of my terms before I even got to the first name. (No such luck apparently). Most of the tens of thousands would be in nobody's list of potential Oscar nominees, so they're not even considered to begin with. A lot of others would be names that are well-known to the movie-going public, but they never managed an "Oscar-standard" performance (or maybe were never given a sufficiently meaty role). That leaves a fairly small number of people who put in at least one "Oscar-standard" screen performance, but for whatever reason never had an Oscar nomination. Don't ask me to define "Oscar-standard", it's inherently subjective. I don't want discussion, I want names. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 09:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:Would your list include actors/actresses who did or do not usually appear in English language films? If they are accepted, I nominate '''[[Isabelle Huppert]]''' and '''[[Monica Vitti]]'''. [[User:David Sneek|David Sneek]] 09:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
::Yes indeed, and thank you. Actors in any film eligible for Oscar consideration would be acceptable.
::'''[[Joseph Cotten]]''' is another. If his roles in [[Citizen Kane]], [[The Third Man]], [[Portrait of Jennie]] and [[Shadow of a Doubt]] weren't good enough for the Academy, what would be! [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 11:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:::And [[Cary Grant]]! But what about actors whose careers were in their latter years when the academy awards were started up? [[Charlie Chaplin]], for example? And do you simply mean for best actor/actress, or are you including supporting roles (several top names, such as [[Sean Connery]], have only won for supporting roles)? A few names that spring to mind include [[Samuel L. Jackson]], [[Lauren Bacall]], and [[Sigourney Weaver]], to name but three (and [[Ralph Fiennes]] has been overlooked yet again this year...). It's also worth noting that [[Henry Fonda]] had to wait until his last role for his only acting Oscar. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 11:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:Cary Grant was nominated twice, for ''[[Penny Serenade]]'' and ''[[None But the Lonely Heart]]'', plus they gave him an honorary award. How about '''[[Sterling Hayden]]''' - ''[[The Killing]]'', ''[[Dr. Strangelove]]'', ''[[Johnny Guitar]]'', ''[[The Asphalt Jungle]]''... [[User:David Sneek|David Sneek]] 11:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
::I like Sterling Hayden. He's on the list. That makes 4 now.
::A nomination in any acting category means they're off the list. Sorry, Grutness, but none of your names qualify. Henry Fonda did win for [[On Golden Pond]], but he had also been nominated in 1944 for [[The Grapes of Wrath]]. Sigourney Weaver was nominated for [[Gorillas in the Mist]] and [[Working Girl]] - in the same year. Chaplin was nominated for Best Actor for [[The Great Dictator]]. Samuel L Jackson was nominated for [[Pulp Fiction]]. Ralph Fiennes was nominated for [[Schindler's List]]. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 11:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:::ah sorry - misread your question as relating to winners, not nominees.In that case, I can still suggest '''[[Peter Lorre]]''', though. And '''[[Richard Attenborough]]''''s only Oscar was for directing. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 01:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:'''[[Lon Chaney, Sr.]]'''; His incredible performance in ''[[The Unknown]]'' would have been eligible in the first year of the Academy Awards. [[User:David Sneek|David Sneek]] 11:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:'''[[Jeanne Moreau]]'''. [[User:David Sneek|David Sneek]] 11:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
::Yep, and '''[[Lon Chaney Jr]]''' would qualify (''Man of a Thousand Faces''). Most of Jeanne Moreau's movies were French-language films made when only English-language films were accepted for acting awards. The rules are different these days. She's pencilled in. Thanks for these great names. I want more. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 12:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:It's difficult, because "Awards & Nominations" loads very slowly at the IMDb right now. But let's not forget '''[[Marilyn Monroe]]''' (I'm not really a fan, but she deserved at least a nomination for ''[[The Misfits]]''). [[User:David Sneek|David Sneek]] 12:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:'''[[John Barrymore]]'''. When did they first allow foreign language films for acting awards, btw? I'm afraid I might have to withdraw Monica Vitti's nomination. [[User:David Sneek|David Sneek]] 13:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:: Monroe and Barrymore, great. It wasn't that long ago, perhaps 20 years tops. I'll have to check it out. Two more: '''[[Vincent Price]]''' and '''[[Errol Flynn]]'''. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 13:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:::The Oscars have allowed foreign language films to get acting nominations at least since 1961 when Sophia Loren won for ''Two Women'' in Italian; I don't have any evidence that foreign language performances were prohibited from nominations before then, either. See [http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/statistics/actingForLang.html]. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] 02:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Here are some more. I got these from [http://www.filmsite.org/noawards3.html here]. Some of these are still acting so they may yet manage a nomination:
[[Dana Andrews]], [[Lucille Ball]], [[Jacqueline Bisset]], [[Dirk Bogarde]], [[Noel Coward]], [[Douglas Fairbanks, Sr]], [[Douglas Fairbanks, Jr]], [[Mia Farrow]], [[W.C. Fields]], [[Glenn Ford]], [[Jean Harlow]], [[Rita Hayworth]], [[Alan Ladd]], [[Myrna Loy]], [[Ida Lupino]], [[Joel McCrea]], [[Roddy MacDowall]], [[Malcolm McDowell]], [[Fred MacMurray]], [[Maureen O'Hara]], [[Tyrone Power]], [[Edward G Robinson]], [[Meg Ryan]], [[Donald Sutherland]], [[Robert Taylor]], [[Robert Young]]. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 10:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:You forgot to suitly emphazi them. Myrna Loy got an honorary Oscar, by the way; I looked her up yesterday. [[User:David Sneek|David Sneek]] 10:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
::Yes she did, and so did Edward G Robinson and Noel Coward, but they were never nominated in a competitive acting category. Honorary awards are by definition non-competitive. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 01:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
== If I founded a new city named "Hoeryong" in Pennsylvania or North Carolina, how would people react? ==
Every so often, new cities are built. Therefore, if I were to build a city in Pennsylvania or North Carolina and name it "[[Hoeryong]]", how would people react? What would they say about my naming decision? --[[User:Shultz|Shultz]] 05:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:Depends on how good their Dutch is, I suppose. Or wasn't I supposed to give this away? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 08:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
::The wikilink will give a hint. It's not Dutch. --[[User:Shultz|Shultz]] 13:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:::He means the wikilink of [[Hoeryong]], that he added above. It appears that you didn't notice. --[[User:129.130.117.8|129.130.117.8]] 16:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)<small> The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Shultz|Shultz]].</small> [[User:Markalexander100|Mark]][[User talk:Markalexander100|<sup>your words</sup>]] 16:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, if the Canadians managed to get away with naming a town [[Dildo]], how bad can your suggestion be ? [http://www.fallingrain.com/world/CA/5/Dildo.html] [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:Canadians didn't. [[Dildo, Newfoundland and Labrador|Dildo, Newfoundland]], was founded long before 1949, and therefore was named by [[Newfoundland and Labrador|Newfoundlanders]]. For fun, see also... huh, it's been moved pending possible deletion. Silly idea. Anyway, for fun, see also [[Wikipedia:List of interesting or unusual place names]]. --Anonymous, 23:13 UTC, February 16.
::Most of them would probably not care, even if their politics are different. There is a medium sized city in OH called Medina (pronounced with emphasis on the long 'i') which is named after the city that pilgrims go to in Saudi Arabia. Most haven't made the connection, and the ones who have don't care enough to have an opinion one way or another on the matter. -[[User:LambaJan|LambaJan]] 04:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:::[[Mecca]] is the city Muslims visit during that [[Hajj]], but I suppose some might stop by [[Medina]], too. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 06:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Verily. ''"Like Mecca, the city of Medina only permits Muslims to enter. Both cities' numerous mosques are the destination for large numbers of Muslims on their annual pilgrimage."'' [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 07:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::Didn't someone point out in a thread a while ago that there is a Chinese town with a Chinatwon (wasn't that Hong Kong?). In that case Mecca might just have a [[Medina quarter]] too. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:Didn't know Labradors had dildos. Apparently they had to find new land for that. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
In an attempt to get something serious out of this. In my first comment I was referring to the Dutch word 'hoerejong', which means 'son of a whore'. I thought that maybe Pennsylvania and North Carolina had a large Dutch community. I now wonder if the reason for the question is they have a large Korean community. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:Pennsylvania does have a large Dutch community. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 16:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
::Michigan and New York have large Dutch communities. Pennslyvania and North Carolina have large German communities. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 17:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:::I see. Apparently [[Pennsylvania Dutch]] really means Pennsylvania Deitsch, AKA German. My bad.[[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 05:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:I think the reason for the original question is that we have a baby [[Internet troll | troll]] running around the ref desk. Or we did, until he got a timeout. --[[User:LarryMac|LarryMac]] 16:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
==What is George W. Bush's IQ?==
What it said.
:Real intelligence quotient, or faulty intelligence quotient? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 11:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
::A closely guarded secret? [[User:AllanHainey|AllanHainey]] 12:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Not applicable :) [[User:deeptrivia|deeptrivia]] ([[User talk:deeptrivia|talk]]) 12:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:Well, one way of making a guess is to assume that his [[SAT]] scores correlate with his IQ (not an uncontroversial assumption, but we'll make it for the purpose of argument). According to this article, he was in the 88th percentile on verbal scores, and 86th percentile on mathematics. So, very roughly, if we assume he has an IQ greater than 87% of people, with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 that works out to an IQ of about 117 (assuming I've done my calculations correctly).
:What conclusions should be drawn from this information are of course open to the reader; even assuming that rough guesstimate is accurate, [[IQ]] is by no means the only thing that determines one's suitability for the presidency. Aside from having political convictions acceptable to enough of the American populace, there are qualities such as personal integrity, appropriate education and life experience, the concept amphormously described as [[emotional intelligence]], and the quality of advice they receive (some of which is under the President's control, some of which ultimately comes down to luck). You may also draw your own conclusions on these aspects of Bush's presidency so far. --[[User:Robert Merkel|Robert Merkel]] 13:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:This reminds me of a question about Bush I asked awhile back, to which I received no answer. I'll try again, below. --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 17:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:By the way, see [http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm this widely-circluated parody on the topic], which was at the time reported as fact in ''The Guardian''.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 21:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
::IQ is indeed not quite the only important thing and even itself only an indication of intelligence. It ''is'', however, a fairly good indicator of intellectual powers in the sense of achieving things (the tests are tested against school grades). And one ''can'' expect the leader of a country to have a certain intellectual level. Let's say university level or at least something close to that. So at least 120. A score below 100 would be below average (one might even say substandard) for your average job. For the leader of a country such a low IQ would be so bad it might even be a good idea to make it illegal. More so if that person is a president who almost single-handedly holds all power (and what a power in this case). Well, I know I exaggerate now, but I mean that in a parliamentary democracy powers are more evenly spread and the stupidity of one person will be levelled out by the others in the government and in parliament. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:::I don't think such legislation is necessary - voters would be smart enough to recognise that somebody with a mediocre IQ simply isn't up to the job and not elect them. Democracy means trusting the voters to get it right. --[[User:Robert Merkel|Robert Merkel]] 00:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
::::I admire your trust. Democracy is the best form of government by virtue of the fact that all other forms of government are even worse. The problem in the US system (not only there, though) is that people vote for a party but do that by voting for a single person who usurps a large part of the power. People want a single strong leader only because they don't know what's good for them. [[Checks_and_balances#Checks_and_balances|Checks and balances]] are needed. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 07:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::A comment for both of you, if I may. Robert, in a democracy where the electoral system is transparent, the people choose whomever they choose, and that choice is ''by definition'' "the right decision", so it's not even a question of trust. Dirk, nobody can argue that their personal wisdom is greater than the collective wisdom of an entire country. Individuals may not know what's best for them, but countries do, in my opinion. "Usurpation" is hardly an accurate way of describing the system that the USA has accepted for a very long time. :-) [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 10:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
== Greek Historical Period 500-440 ==
Hello
i was just wondering if any one can help me in explaining the significance of the battles of Thermopylae and Artemisium
Thank You
:Have you looked at the articles on the [[Battle of Thermopylae]] and the [[Battle of Artemisium]]? [[User:David Sneek|David Sneek]] 11:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeh i have but they arent giving me information in a great detail.
== Women becoming porn star ==
How rich can one get by becoming a porn star or some sort of posing nude in magazines?
Once decided that I am going to get into it, which area should I try to get maximum rich? That is should one try porn movies or should one try porn TVs or simply which would give me more fame and money
How rich are people who are pornstars?
Have anyone earned more than 100 million dollars?
what are the main reasons that business' carry out market research?
--[[User:82.37.56.231|82.37.56.231]] 14:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)--[[User:82.37.56.231|82.37.56.231]] 14:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)--[[User:82.37.56.231|82.37.56.231]] 14:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thanks
:I know not much of this industry but it seems basic principles can applied. However, additional information is required to adequately answer your question.
* The quality of the product you are selling.
**Do you feel your product is of high or low quality?
**Is the product heavily used or barely used?
* The consumer base for the product you are seeling.
**Can significant consumer demand be established for the product?
**Do you think the product can be sold universally or only in few specialized communities?
**Does your product support a multi-user interface?
* The possible applications of the product you are selling.
**Is the product versatile or can it only be used for very specific purposes?
**Can the product be applied to previously uncharted areas of commerce in the relevant industry?
**Can the product be bundled with similar products?
* Time frame in which the product can be sold.
**For how long is it feasible to sell the product?
**Does the product have en expiration date?
* Your investments in and maintenance of the product.
**Does your product correspond to modern standards and needs?
**Do you maintain your product well or do you sell it "as is"?
[[User:Celcius|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black"><b>Celcius</b></font></font>]] [[User_talk:Celcius|<small><sup><font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black"><b>(Talk)</b></font></font></sup></small>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Denmark.svg|18px|]] <small><font color="Black">Wiki be With us!</font></small> 16:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
* The people making the most money in porn (as well as any media) aren't the actors, it's the producers. (some of which have backgrounds as actors). I think it's safe to say no porno actor has ever come anywhere near $100 million on acting alone. They'd probably do well to reach $1 million. --[[User:BluePlatypus|BluePlatypus]] 16:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
*Furthermore, their average careers are about 12 months. They might make $5,000 - $10,000 per film, if starring and getting certain types of penetration, and the women might work in 3 films a week. That's a lot of ripping and tearing and infecting (normal infections, not AIDS). Careers are short, drug use high, savings minimal, so no, it's not a great career for getting rich. On the other hand, the producers and distributors can make $250,000 on a $20,000 "film" investment. If they, too, make 3 films a week, they get exceptionally wealthy in the same year. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 16:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:[[Jordan (model)|Katie Price]] has done well from modelling topless - she's created a successful media personality, sold a lot of books, had a reality show, and made quite a bit of money - this [http://money.uk.msn.com/MyMoney/Insight/Well_Heeled/article.aspx?cp-documentid=145397 msn money piece] states she and Peter Andre made £5 million in 2004 alone. That's definitely comfortable. [[User:Natgoo|Natgoo]] 21:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The harder the porn, the more exploitative of the actors it becomes. So, posing nude or doing soft porn has the most potential to pay off. However, other skills, like acting ability, are probably needed, in any case. One way to "cut out the middlemen" (who steal all the profits) is to create your own web site. It would likely need to offer something special to succeed, though, like catering to a specific fetish. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
::[[Chasey Lain]], [[Asia Carrere]], and [[Jenna Jameson]] made quite a bit of money, though not $100 million probably, but then people in the porn business are a lot like standard actors. There are a handful who make millions per picture but most of them don't. In the end, porn is just another job. You either get very lucky, or you work at it like you would any other job. [[User:Dismas|Dismas]]|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:::I disagree that all jobs are the same with respect to salary distributions. Jobs in sports and entertainment (including porn) have a dramatic difference between top salaries and bottom salaries, so much so that most people fail to make a living in those fields. Many non-sports and entertainment jobs, like teachers, doctors, engineers, etc., have a lot less difference between the top and bottom. Pretty much anyone who can hold down a job in those fields can make a good living. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 00:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
== Bush's MBA record ==
It's well-known that President Bush had "gentleman's C" grades as an undergraduate at Yale. He also received a Harvard MBA in 1975. How good was his academic performance at Harvard? Grade point average? Rank in class? Any distinctions? --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 17:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:Student records are sealed, generally. Unless the student makes them public, even if he becomes a public figure or a government official, the school has neither an obligation nor a likelihood of giving out his transcripts. Now, if he used his transcript for a job somewhere, that company might violate privacy regulations and make the information known, but the reason no one has reported his grades is that, honestly, Harvard won't tell. However, he reminds me of something [[Calvin Trillin]] said about [[Dan Quayle]]: "He's going around the country giving C students a bad name." [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 20:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:Harvard is very protective of student records and their policy is usually to not release them to researchers until 80 years have passed.[http://hul.harvard.edu/huarc/holdings_02.shtml] --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 22:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you both. I don't suppose academic achievement is highly valued in those political circles anyhow. --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 23:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:If someone applies for a job, it would be normal for the future employer to ask for (and get) the various grades that applicant has reached, right? And in a democracy the employers of a politician (or at least the recruitment officials, or what do you call that?) are the voters, the general public. So it would make sense if all future presidents would have to make their grades public knowledge. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
::In theory yes, in practice, as [[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] said, grades probably aren't the deciding factor in a job like President. Plus, would you vote for a politician who got all As in his degree, but can't speak coherently to save himself, and wants to bring back corporal punishment for keeping a canary in your apartment (insert-any-objectionable-law-proposal-here)? — [[User:QuantumEleven|QuantumEleven]] | [[User_talk:QuantumEleven|(talk)]] 12:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Richard Hofstadter's ''Anti-Intellectualism in American Life'' (1966) ISBN 0394703170 is still very much in print. --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 16:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Of course that is not the only basis to select an employee, but it's still one of the more important ones. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 07:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
::::A few years ago... OK, 40 years ago, I recall ads in business publications saying, "Send me a man who reads." And they weren't referring to reading the stock tapes. --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 14:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
== Beacon Hill, Tulare County, California. ==
Could you give me the history on how "Beacon Hill", located in Tulare County, California, got it's name and is it a protected landmark?
Thank you,
Russell Austin
== Jesus Quote ==
There's a biblical quote I'm trying to track down, something to the effect of "what you hold true on earth, I'll hold true in Heaven." Does anyone recognize it? Was it addressed just to a particular person (like the Pope), or to all Christians? [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 20:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
: I think it's a paraphrasing of Matthew 18:18, ''Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'' ([[KJV]]) --[[User:BluePlatypus|BluePlatypus]] 20:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
::I do not disagree that it is likely a paraphrase of Matthew 18:18. However, it is a terrible paraphrase. Matthew 18:18 is discussing "saving" people. By ''bind'', it is referring to the souls that you bind to Jesus. By ''loose'', it is referring to the souls you let loose from Jesus. So, a better paraphrase would be, "Those who are saved will be in Heaven. Those that aren't, will not." --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]]</sup></small> 20:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure. The version of the quote I have above is from [[Dogma_(movie)]], and when I tried to find a reference to it on the web all I got was chat sites repeating it as though it were already gospel. In the movie, it claimed someone (I believe Jesus) said to someone (I belive called Paul) just before he left that whatever they decide on earth would be binding. This was apparently proof that something with a papal sanction (in this case an arch that cures sin) is absolutely reliable. I got onto this because I'm not sure whether the Vatican's recent move to eliminate Limbo, or its original decision that it existed in the first place, in any way represents the actual netherworld in their religion. [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 03:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:You could take a look at [[Limbo]], and here's a link to a Catholic News Service article, [http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506867.htm Closing the doors of limbo: Theologians say it was hypothesis]. As for Catholic teachings on the "netherworld" -- scroll down in [[Hell]] for a decent discussion. The idea of Limbo had to do with [[Original sin]]: if all human beings were infected with sin as a result, and [[Baptism#Roman_Catholic.2C_Eastern_Catholic.2C_Eastern_Orthodox.2C_Lutheran.2C_Anglican_and_Methodist_baptism|baptism]] were the only way to erase it, what about the innocent souls (especially infants) who through no fault of their own were unbaptized? Did they go to hell? Theologians who thought this was unthinkable invented the idea of Limbo, which was not bliss with God in Heaven but was definitely not the fires of Hell. The idea was popularly accepted but never became church doctrine. Nowadays most theologians would frame the entire question differently. "Limbo" in theology has about the same status as [[Aether (classical element)|the aether]] in physics. --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 05:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:"something with a papal sanction is absolutely reliable" sounds like [[Papal infallibility]]; that article has some potentially interesting readings on the scriptural grounding of that bit of dogma. [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 17:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
That could be interpreted to mean that succesful people on earth will be succesful in heaven and vice versa...and in other occasion it's said that the last will be the first...thus the bible has inconcistent metaphysics.--[[User:Cosmic girl|Cosmic girl]] 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
= February 17 =
== How do I determine the taxes due on employer pension payments? ==
How is it possible for me to determine the taxes due on pension payments?
Thank you
Leah Roach
:In the US, usually the money placed in the pension plan by the employer was not taxed. Therefore, when it is paid out, it is taxable, usually as ordinary income. --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 03:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC) <small>For informational purposes only. For tax advice, consult your tax professional.</small>
:It's a little vague to give you the answer too. You didn't say where you live, so again for the US, the entity responsible for paying the pension is also responsible for withholding taxes from the payments. See [http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15.pdf publication 15] if you really want to know how that is done. Other than that, file a tax return to see if the withholdings covered the tax bill enough or to excess. Probably a 1040 would work, though you might be able to get by with others. See http://www.irs.gov for more. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 05:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
== suppressing a PhD ==
In some contexts, people tend to suppress the fact they have PhDs, especially those in the humanities. I've noticed this in business and journalism especially. What gives? I know that some people say P.H.D. means "piled higher and deeper," but.... --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 00:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:I would think in fields where a PhD is considered to be excessive this would be the case. It comes across like you're appending your high IQ to your title, just to impress people. In fields where a PhD is considered more of a requirement, like college profs, I would expect them to use the title more. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 08:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:I'm not sure what you mean by "suppress the fact". If you mean that they don't list themselves as "Joe Schmoe, PhD" -- that's because everybody teaching and writing at the academic level in these fields (not all, of course) is pretty much assumed to have a PhD or some other high-level degree, so pointing it out doesn't help anyone. Additionally, the people who usually tend to point such things out explicitly are often those with some sort of problem establishing authority (i.e. "This book was written by Joe Schmoe, Ph.D." is a clear sign that Joe Schmoe thinks his academic training is necessary for you to take him seriously), and in fields where PhDs are the norm then you definitely don't want to look like one of those fellows. In many fields, though, PhDs are less common "requirements" and so noting them probably does not have this effect (or has a slightly different effect -- noting that you have a PhD in computer science will make it clear that you are an "academic" computer scientist, something somewhat different than most people working in on the "business" end of computer science. If that makes sense. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 19:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
== Small countries at the Olympics ==
Has a [[micronation]] ever competed in the Olympics? What is the smallest country by population that has ever won a gold medal? —[[User:Keenan Pepper|Keenan Pepper]] 01:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
: Probably [[Luxembourg]]. Won 2 golds, and has less than 500,000 people. See [[Total Olympics medal count]]. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 01:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
::There are some problems in the data at [[Total Olympics medal count]]. According to [[Winter Olympics medal count]], [[Liechtenstein]] has won two gold medals at the Winter Olympics, and it's considerably smaller than Luxembourg. <s>Most of the micronations have competed in the Olympics, although not necessarily successfully.</s> --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] 02:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:::I thought the original poster was talking about [[microstate]]s and forgot to look up the definition of [[micronation]]. No micronations have ever competed in the Olympics. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] 02:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
::Micronations don't compete at the Olympics. The smallest country with medals is almost certainly [[Liechtenstein]] in the Winter Olympics, and ISTR [[Bermuda]] won a medal at a Summer Olympics (possibly in the long jump or triple jump?). [[Nauru]] has won gold in Weightlifting at the [[Commonwealth Games]], and the same competitor finished 8th in his event at the 2004 Olympics - not bad for a country with 6000 people. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 10:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:Bermuda has one a medal according to the listed article. I didn't notice any with smaller populations. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 17:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
::They've won one bronze medal. The question was about gold medals. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 01:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:To further emphasise: despite its name, a [[micronation]] is not a nation, certainly not a way of saying a "small country", so it cannot possibly compete in the Olympics. [[User:Notinasnaid|Notinasnaid]] 18:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
== The act of reading/studing a restaraunt menu and ordering ==
After many years of working in restuarants and observing patrons, it has come to my attention that there is no specific verb for the act of seating/reading/and ordering of a menu.
Because millions of people do the exact action accross the world everyday there must be a verb to describe the action as one?
thankyou for your time
Allyn Laing
*You just gave them. Just because they usually follow each other doesn't mean there should be one verb to describe them all. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 09:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
*Not every idea or thing needs a single word for it. Different languages will vary in how they treat the same concept, and where one language takes several words to define a given idea another may have a single word that covers it. For example, in Spanish, there is a word for the sticky film left on the floor the morning after a party. I doubt many other languages have such a word, and no, I have no idea what the word is anymore. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 17:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:lol! Maybe something related to costra or costrilla... --[[User:RiseRover|RiseRover]] 14:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
*I suggest adopting ''menusing'' as the word and see if we can get it into common usage. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 18:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
::I will oppose the creation of such a "word" with every resource available to me. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 00:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
*I propose calling it the ''Digester's Read'' :) [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 02:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
LOL!!! I'm for all of those. -[[User:LambaJan|LambaJan]] 06:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
== Love ==
What is love?
Allen Matthews
--[[User:67.173.157.34|67.173.157.34]] 02:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:Yes! I question I can answer with a YTMND: http://datalove.ytmnd.com/ —[[User:Keenan Pepper|Keenan Pepper]] 02:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:(I think the original is http://whatislove.ytmnd.com/) —[[User:Keenan Pepper|Keenan Pepper]] 02:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Listen to the song L.O.V.E. by Ashlee Simpson...XD --[[User:Cosmic girl|Cosmic girl]] 03:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:See [[Love]]. -[[User:LambaJan|LambaJan]] 04:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Assuming you mean [[romantic love]], this is a mechanism to enforce [[pair bonding]] in humans and certain other species of animals. <satire>But then again, I'm just a romantic fool.</satire> [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 08:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:<friendly riposte not meant to be taken seriously> You couldn't possibly be. No true romantic would ever talk about "mechanisms to enforce pair bonding". </friendly riposte not meant to be taken seriously> [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 09:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:::That was a joke, son. I guess I need to use the <satire> </satire> flags for you. I've now added them. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 15:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
::No true evolutionist either. There are only mechanisms ''that have been selected for because they'' enforce pair bonding and this brings some reproductive benefit. --Anonymous, 09:51 UTC, February 17.
:::I've had this discussion before. Saying all that every time is about as painful as saying "when the Earth rotates into a position such that the Sun is now visible", instead of "at sunrise". If it was actually a discussion of evolution, I would go into that level of detail, but feel free to shorten it when not discussing evolution directly. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 15:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:Love is nothing. At least, in tennis. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm an Ignostic regarding 'love' because you can mean a lot of things by the word.--[[User:Cosmic girl|Cosmic girl]] 18:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
: Thanks for expanding my [[Ignosticism|vocabulary]]. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 00:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
::You want your vocab expanded ? Ok...a [[freemartin]] is a lesbian cow. Seems odd that they have a specific name for it, doesn't it ? [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 05:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:::The riches are inexhaustible. Night, Ralph. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 06:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I could've sweared a 'freemartin' was a guy called martin who was a former prisoner of some sort! =P .--[[User:Cosmic girl|Cosmic girl]] 19:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:I'm storing Freemartin away in my little book of insults :) And don't forget that a podshaver is someone who hand-makes [[cricket bat]]s! But I digress. Love can be many things, and has been classified and categorised in many different ways. A few of these include the following.
:Love is:
:#real ("real love")
:#feeling ("feeling love")
:#''wanting'' to be loved
:#touch (and vice versa)
:#reaching ("reaching love")
:#''asking'' to be loved
:#free (and vice versa)
:#living ("living love")
:#''needing'' to be loved
:[[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 00:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC) <small>(with apologies to J.L.)</small>
::Speaking of classifications for love, there is a theological doctrine that places it in four catagories:
:::1. God's love for Himself
:::2. God's love for mankind
:::3. Mankind's love for God
:::4. Mankind's love for man
::I didn't think this fit the conversation earlier, but now I think you might find it a little bit interesting. -[[User:LambaJan|LambaJan]] 06:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Which reminds me that some other languages have separate words for these different kinds of love. English lumps them all together. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 10:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
== Israel page sources? ==
In the page on Israel, under Historical Roots, it states(summerized) that the Jewish people lived there, were kicked out by the Roman Empire, then the Roman Empire was beaten by the Arab Nations. As one of the arguments against Israel's Existance is that the arabs owned the land first then the Jewish people took it away from them, this statement is significant. My question is, has this fact been verified, and if so, how and by whom. If this fact is true, it shows the the Jewish people were the first people too live there.
[[User:72.57.173.62|72.57.173.62]] 02:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
CuriousReader
:This seems like an oversimplification, as there were other conquerors between the Romans and Muslims. However, the claim that the Jews were there first is easily verified, as Mohammed actually conquered Jerusalem from the Jews. The Jews had to be there first, then, didn't they ? Especially as Islam was basically founded by Mohammed. The Jews did take the land from the pagans who lived there before them, though. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 04:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a book called the [[Tanakh]] (or [[Old Testament|O.T.]] to most of us) that outlines the original claim. You're not from around here, are you? [[User:Alteripse|alteripse]] 02:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
== Is this a sterotype or is it true? ==
Seriously now, do black people in the southern US really prefer fried chicken and watermelon or is it just a common sterotype? [[User:A Clown in the Dark|A Clown in the Dark]] 03:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:Well, I'm white and I like both. In fact, that makes a pretty good picnic. Just add a soft drink and some sort of amateur sport, and you're there. [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 03:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Make up your mind. Or are you only black when you're a carrot? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
::Those are common foods, particularly for picnics. I'm not sure those foods are much more popular amongst blacks than whites, though. They are cheap, however, so would be more popular among the poor, many of whom are black. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 04:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:I think the watermelon stereotype comes from the unfortunate fact that many blacks were forced to labor on watermelon farms. This was treated in [[Bamboozled]]. The fried chicken stereotype is probably more factually based, but it should be thought of as simply a visable portion of a stereotypical diet that also includes many other hearty southern recipies. Here it's important to note the southern connection. If you go to Georgia, you'll find that the white diet is nearly identical to the diet that northern whites often attribute to the stereotypical black. -[[User:LambaJan|LambaJan]] 04:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:Don't forget the cornbread and [[collard greens]]! —[[User:Keenan Pepper|Keenan Pepper]] 05:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
: I eat all of these things: [[soul food]][[User:EvKnight13|Dlayiga]] 07:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
::Who the hell doesn't like watermelon? [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 10:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Fructophobes, perhaps? [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 10:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:::I don't like watermelon. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 11:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Any reply will probably will probably violate NPA... I didn't think it was possible to ''actually dislike watermelon'' but I have been corrected :). [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 23:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::Eating too much fruit can give you a urinary tract infection. Especially sweet fruit and watermelon certainly classifies there. Alas, I speak from experience. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 07:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:Watermelon and [[okra]] are foods with African origins although, for watermelon at least, its history in the Americas is complex. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 17:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
== India ==
How many metropolitan cites are there in India? Is Banglore or Hyderabad a metro.[[User:61.17.240.135|61.17.240.135]] 05:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
: There is no clear definition of [[metropolis]], so I'm afraid it's not possible to give a good answer to your question. - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|<font color="#226b22"><small>(talk)</small></font>]] 17:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
::The table near the end of [[Delhi]] classifies Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Kolkata, and Mumbai as metropolises though how this was arrived at is not obvious. [[User:Tintin1107|Tintin]] ([[User_talk:Tintin1107|talk]]) 00:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
== Outsourcing ==
To Reference Desk,
Here is a business question, I have been noticing the recent buzzword "transformational outsourcing", what does this mean? What does mean in connection to "oursourcing"?
:Perhaps they are talking of outsourcing to such an extent that only upper management remains in the company. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 08:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:After subjecting myself to a maze of buzzwords, all alike, I seems that "transformational outsourcing" is concerned with using outsourcing to change the way a company does business. While originally outsourcing was seen primarily as a way to cut costs, this transformational stuff is less about costs and more about finding ways to quickly achieve some type of business goal. A simple Google search with the term "transformational outsourcing" yielded "about 239,000" results. Just beware of the buzzwords. --[[User:LarryMac|LarryMac]] 17:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
== Doctrine of Estoppel ==
A person who is not a party to a contract cannot sue to except where for very good reasons,The common law allows him to do so.state and explain at least four instances in which statutory power or authority has conferred on the individual the power to sue to enforce contract to which he/she is not a party
:Do your own homework. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 11:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:Seriously, you didn't even ''try'' to phrase this as a normal question. If you're going to try to deceive your teacher about who did your homework, you may as well practise on us first. [[User:GeeJo|<font style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #809EF5; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #99B3FF">GeeJo</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]]</sub> <small>•</small> <small>13:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)</small>
== Absurdism vs. Faith ==
Why should I choose Absurdism as opposed to Faith according to absurdists? And why should I choose Faith as opposed to Absurdism according to theists or theologians?, what would Camus, kierkeegard,kafka,tertullian,and all those guys tell me?What was Kant's oppinion on absurdism? did he have any? ( I know, this question can make anyone uneasy...but I ask those kinds of questions...=P ) --[[User:Cosmic girl|Cosmic girl]] 17:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:Why do you assume Absurdism and Faith are mutually exclusive? Our own definition "Absurdism is a philosophy stating that the efforts of man to find meaning in the universe will ultimately fail because no such meaning exists (at least in relation to man)" is unfortunate and misleading I think. Kierkegaard for one, ''viewed faith as absurd.'' A better definition than Absurd = meaninglessness is Absurd = ''acting despite'' meaninglessness and this action ''is itself a kind of faith.'' This, IMO, is how Kierk. and later existenialists viewed it. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 17:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
You are right, acting in spite of the absurd is a kind of faith, but I meant the faith of the theists that not everything is meaningless, I mean, the faith of the theists that there is an absolute which is self consistent and provides meaning, not an absurd 'truth'.
Absurdism is in fact opposed to the faith of the theists because the later implies meaning exists.
maybe kierk. meant that faith is absurd because we have no reason to have it, BUT I'm asking why should someone choose either one. (faith or non faith)--[[User:Cosmic girl|Cosmic girl]] 18:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:[[Credo quia absurdum]]. [[User:David Sneek|David Sneek]] 19:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
XD thnx! but the question is still open if anyone wants to contribute...=P.
--[[User:Cosmic girl|Cosmic girl]] 21:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:Ms. Cosmic:
:I think if you want an answer as to why traditional, doctrinaire, "this-is-the-reaveled-word" believers adhere to a particular faith, you will be somewhat disappointed. I would say (with a touch of prejudice) that they have ''this'' faith because their fathers had ''this'' faith. There is no grander reason than that. If you believe that the Qu'ran is the revealed word or that Christ is the son of God, well, you believe that--and I suspect you believe that because you were raised with that truth. If there were ''a definite reason to believe it there would not be a debate.'' But there is no definite reason. You can't ask for one with faith in this strict sense.
:The point of my post was to underscore the fact that pious monotheisits cannot corner faith and call it their own. The existentialists, particularly Kierkegaard (peace be upon him :), helped re-define faith ''as absurd'', for people who would never think the concept relevant otherwise. Faith is a big word. It's bigger than any -ism you can present. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 23:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
wow...I'm wordless,I can't counter that anymore, good job!..you are right,faith is a big word, but skepticism can be bigger!
Also...I didn't mean faith too much in the sense of ''this is the revealed word'' I meant it more in the sense of ''absolute truth exists'' = faith as opposed to ''we can't know if absolute truth exists'' or ''absolutes don't exist'' = skepticism and maybe absurdism. --[[User:Cosmic girl|Cosmic girl]] 00:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:Part of a litany: "Sustain us in belief, protect us with doubt" (Patricia Storace). --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 03:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, as someone who comes from a rather agnostic/materialist family who became a rather faithful member of an organized religion, I'd have to say that a big attraction for me is the logic of it. I mean this in terms of the teachings that are common among the major ones, which are consistant with the ideal actions that would maintain order and tranquility in the world. Sure, certain teachings have been changed or blown out of proportion so that some selfish individuals could use religion for their own personal motives, but those people who really acted in a manner consistant with what the major religions teach, whether they claim membership to those religions or not, have all been nearly universally recognized as great people who have done great things to furthur society. I don't think that's absurd. -[[User:LambaJan|LambaJan]] 06:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:It's not a coincidence that the [[Abrahamic religions]] have a lot in common, as both [[Christianity]] and then [[Islam]] branched off of [[Judaism]]. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 19:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
== Journalists helping their topic pieces ==
If journalists, say from National Geographic, write a piece on a suffering family in some part of the world do they financially assist the family or just write the piece and then move on? More generally, to what extent do journalists become involved with helping to improve bad situations on which they are reporting (like newscasters saving pets during Katrina)
:I recently saw just such a discussion, this time with [[PBS]] news reporters following up on the Pakistan-India earthquake. They said they feel they can do far more good by bringing the world's attention than they can by helping them directly. That said, they did help directly a bit, but not much. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 02:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
== Congo Free State and Tippu Tip...? ==
Can it be argued that Tippu Tip inspired Congolese nationalism and independence from Belgium?
:Just about anything can be argued. But what do ''you'' think happened? (Hint: You would only get some sort of opinion on that by doing your homework.) [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 00:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
= February 18 =
== Mosques ==
Hello
i was just wondering if there are any muslims that would like to complete my survey.. it would be a great deal of help.. thank you... Name:(Optional)...
Gender:...
Age:...
Do you attend your mosque regularly?....
Do you know what the architecture of the mosque means? If yes please explain...
Does the architecture of your mosque personally to you, reflect or inspire religious beliefs? If yes what are they?...
What does the architecture personally mean to you?...
As an individual does the architecture capture you in any form (such as spiritually, emotionally and e.t.c)?
Thank You For Completing the survey
:I'm sorry to criticize, but I don't think this is the best place for this particular survey... not if you want your results to have any scientific validity, anyway. For instance, the method of transmittion (wikipedia reference desk) invites the [[Selection bias]]. See [[Bias (statistics)]] and [[List of cognitive biases]]. Also the short length of the survey and the openendedness of the questions may be problematic. I think the best way to collect this data would be to visit a local Mosque and [[interview]] a few people. -[[User:LambaJan|LambaJan]] 06:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
::But only if you want to interview church-going muslims specifically and even then there will be a bias towards the more church-going ones, if you'll pardon my crooked English. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 07:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
*Don't you mean mosque-going? - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 08:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
::Ehm, whatever. What is a general term? Temple? Ok, temple-going then. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 08:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I know my survey is got openendedness but im just trying to gather data for a wide range, this will just help me in my summing up of the topic i have choosen.. Thank You
If you could complete the survey it would b great :D
== Graduate and post graduate students. ==
what is the differene between a post grauduate student and an under graduate student?
:[[Graduation]]. [[User:GeeJo|<font style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #809EF5; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #99B3FF">GeeJo</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]]</sub> <small>•</small> <small>12:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)</small>
:[[Undergraduate]] and [[Postgraduate education]] explain it better. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 12:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:In the U.S. educational system, you have:
:*Undergraduates. These are people attending college for the first time. Usually 4 years of instruction.
:*Graduate students. These are people who are pursuing master's or doctoral degrees. They have usually received an undergraduate degree. Programs vary by degree type and discipline, usually between 1 and 6 years. Sometimes these are apparently referred to as "postgraduates" (though I haven't heard it much in the United States).
:*Postdoctoral appointments. These are usually not considered students, but people who have received their master's or doctoral degrees who get an appointment for a year or two (or more) at a university or research institution, often to do research and sometimes to teach. The ramifications of these vary by discipline; in the humanities they are often a way to "kill some time, get some experience" if one has difficulty getting a job the first time around.
:Hopefully that clarifies the terminology a bit. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 19:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
==Art==
This came up during a discussion with a friend last night: at what point in history did artists start signing their works? I'm thinking of western art here. I know [[Michelangelo]] carved his name on [[Pietà (Michelangelo)|one]] of his Pietàs, but didn't add a signature on any other work. When did signing a painting or sculpture become the normal thing to do? [[User:David Sneek|David Sneek]] 12:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:This has to do with the nature of the artists, themselves. In the middle ages, art was treated largely as a commodity, with each king or noble employing a staff who were told what art to create. The emphasis was on the art looking the same, so the work of any one artist wouldn't stand out. Signatures under this scheme served no purpose. Later, artists like [[Michelangelo]] developed a style all their own, and worked for a number of employers, such as the [[Medici family]]. Under this new paradigm, signing works of art now made sense. Still, there are times a work of art remains unsigned, such as when the artist considers it unfinished or not up to par. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 19:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, StuRat, but it's not exactly the answer I was hoping for. I understand that a new paradigm and different ideas about the role of the artist caused this change, but nevertheless people like [[Tintoretto]], [[Titian]] or [[Michelangelo]] hardly ever signed their work; regardless of whether it was finished or not, of the highest standard or not. I'm looking for something more concrete: at what point did it become customary to finish every work with a signature? I realize that it's maybe unanswerable, because this custom probably emerged gradually... [[User:David Sneek|David Sneek]] 11:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
== Is Polygamy possible with written consent? ==
I just want to know whether having two or more wives is possible in USA for US citizens provided all wives give written consent for that.
And if possible, tell me whether it is possible in other western countries and is it possible in Singapore?
:Not sure what you mean -- U.S. governmental entities don't legally recognize any marriage after the first. "Letters of consent" have nothing to do with it. Whether they choose to prosecute for bigamy in any particular case is a different matter. [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 13:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
::[[IANAL]]. To my knowledge, letters of consent or any other similar thing cannot change laws. The only way to legally marry more than one person, if it's illegal in that area, is to get the law changed. [[User:Dismas|Dismas]]|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 16:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:::I agree that it's not currently legal in the US, but suggest it could be, under a system similar to database locks:
:::*An EXCLUSIVE marriage (the regular type) would only be allowed if neither partner was already married, and would prevent EITHER form of marriage by either partner until the marriage is ended with a divorce.
:::*A SHARED marriage would be allowed so long as neither partner had an existing EXCLUSIVE marriage and would only prevent future EXCLUSIVE marriages, until it ended with divorce.
:::Such a system would prevent the current discrimination against religious minorities, such as a faction of Mormons, and other cultures where polygamy is normal. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 19:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
::::But, such a system would cause problems for the economic purpose of marriage. Married people may file taxes jointly. All joint forms ask you to list the husband and wife. There is no form for second, third, or fourth wife. We know how much government wastes on paperwork - imaging how many billions of dollars it will take to change the tax law and forms to allow for multiple spouses. Then, there is insurance. In insurance, a spouse is often covered and/or liable. This is set for one spouse. They don't want to deal with the situation that one guy gets insurance and suddenly his 14 wifes have to be covered as well. In death, a spouse has many legal rights to the estate. Imagine how this would play out with multiple spouses. All in all, marriage is far more a legal rights agreement than a bond of love. So, in allowing multiple spouses, the legal ramifications should be taken into account. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]]</sup></small> 20:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it can't be done. Note that many of those issues arise now, when a rich old man dies with young wife like [[Anna-Nicole Smith]] (who apparently only married him for the money), several ex-wives, and perhaps current or former girlfriends, some of which he has had children with. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 20:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:One of the b*i*g difficulties is the law of contracts - see the consequences when the marriage ends, either by death, divorce or other existing (?) impeachments. To whom belongs the car, the dog or the house ; what may children expect of the wealth of the married parents, who cares for them, &c.
:Some countries may find nothing to oppose to marital (unmarried) life with more than one partner. --[[User:Harvestman|DLL]] 20:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest having a look at some of the websites linked at the bottom of [[Polyamory]] - something on one of them might give you some advice. IANAL, but personally I'd suggest a non-marriage partnership (such as de facto), with agreements similar to pre-nups. Legally polygamy is barred in most western countries, but any combination is possible in de facto (I know a FMM group and a FMF group living quite happily here in NZ). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 00:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Allowing people of the same sex to marry at all would be a more just cause than inventing ways of letting straight people have more than one legal spouse. I congratulate those countries (alas, not mine) that have already taken this step. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 00:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
== Country with no Army ==
[[Image:Swiss_Guard.jpg|200px|right]]
What countries of the world do not have a standing army?
:According to [http://www.dailytexanonline.com/media/paper410/news/2004/02/10/WorldNation/Death.Toll.In.Haiti.Uprising.Reaches.40-602419.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.dailytexanonline.com this article] from the Daily Texas Online, Haiti has no army, the [http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ha.html CIA factbook] states that "the regular Haitian Armed Forces (FAdH) - Army, Navy, and Air Force - have been demobilized but still exist on paper until or unless they are constitutionally abolished." - [[User:Akamad|Akamad]] 14:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:Nauru, for one. I suspect a few other Pacific states. Also various European microstates - Andorra, Monaco, &c? [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 14:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
::[[Costa Rica]] ([http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cs.html#Military]). [[User:David Sneek|David Sneek]] 16:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Yeah. See [[Military of Costa Rica]]. Also, [[Japan]] is forbidden by its own Constitution from having "land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential", though the "self-defense forces" seem like an army. [[Iceland]] also has none. Likewise [[Liechtenstein]] and [[Palau]]. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 16:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
::::I'd also include the [[Vatican]], if only because it's impossible to take an army in uniforms like these seriously. :) [[User:GeeJo|<font style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #809EF5; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #99B3FF">GeeJo</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]]</sub> <small>•</small> <small>18:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)</small>
:::::You do realize that the [[Swiss Guard]] are trained in machine gun usage as well as halberds? [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 20:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::Yep, which is why I qualified the statement. They ''are'' a defence force, but it's pretty hard to take them seriously wearing [[Renaissance fair|Ren fair]] clothing. [[User:GeeJo|<font style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #809EF5; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #99B3FF">GeeJo</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]]</sub> <small>•</small> <small>23:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)</small>
:::::::Traditions have their uses. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 00:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Yes. Imagine these guys running across the battle field at you. You'd be laughing too hard to fight back. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]]</sup></small> 04:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Maybe some pope watched Monty Python? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 08:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Anyone remember the pope character that [[John Cleese]] played so brilliantly? He summoned [[Michelangelo]], who had painted a ''Last Supper'' with kangaroos, red and green jellies, and three (!) Christs. The sketch ended with Pope Cleese shouting "Look mate, I'm the bleeding pope, I may not know much about art, but I know what I like". Maybe it was he who designed the Swiss Guards' uniforms. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 10:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
And what prevents these countries from being invaded? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 08:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
:You want an honest answer? I could say, "who wants them!?" But, the honest answer is that they have defense agreements of one kind or another with larger, well militarized countries. For example, [[Kuwait]] has [[Military of Kuwait|practically no military force]]. So, Iraq invaded and Kuwait called upon the United States to defend it. From a political standpoint, Kuwait is protected by the [[United Nations|UN]]. From a practical standpoint, Kuwait is protected by the United States. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]]</sup></small> 13:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
:Iceland is also protected by the U.S. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 20:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
== royal academy of arts ==
what were some of the events leading up to the foundation of the academy besides the foundling hospital? Who else attempted to form an academy? or let me know where i can find the info-that would be just as good. thanks
:Have you had a look at the [[Royal Academy]] article? [[User:David Sneek|David Sneek]] 16:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
== Legislation and Special Needs Code of Practice ==
Could anyone tell me as a result of the following quote which Law came about.
Providers should make `reasonable adjustments` to include children with SEN - e.g provide/attend training. A written SEN policy is needed. A SENCO should be identified
Sorry i forgot to put it is in the UK
I have looked through the SEN and Disability act but, cant find it.
Thank you for your help
[[User:Cazzy|Cazzy]] 23:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:Do you know which country ? [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 20:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:SEN's are used in the UK - could it be the [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/20010010.htm Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001]? [[User:Natgoo|Natgoo]] 20:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:Part IV of the [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/96056-zd.htm#p4c1 Education Act 1996] also discusses SEN - it might be what you're looking for. [[User:Natgoo|Natgoo]] 01:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
== Japan Questions ==
I was wondering if anyone could help me out with this question.
When was the mortar and petsal invented in Japan? Also, when did gem mining (esp. diamonds and rubies) first start in Japan?
I am using this info to date a folk tale which I cannot find a time period for.
Thank you very much! ^_^
Raven
:Appearently, the Japanese used to use a pestle to grind things on a flat stone until the mortar was introduced from China in the 11th or 12th century. [http://www.gourmetsleuth.com/suribachis.htm] I couldn't find anything on gem mining. BTW, what is this tale? -[[User:LambaJan|LambaJan]] 22:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
==Identify this food stuff==
I visited my favorite oriental food store the other day and bought what I though was a container of [[hummus]]. When I opened it I discovered something else. The text on the container says it is from Lebanon, called "Halawa extra" and contains grounded sesame seeds, sugar, natural roots and pistachios. The taste is very sweet. What is it and what can I do with it? [[User:Thuresson|Thuresson]] 20:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:Sounds like [[tahini]]. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 20:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:It's [[Halva]] (the second meaning), which is known in various places as Halwa, Halawa, Halava, etc. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 20:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks for the help. But what do I do with it, can I eat it straight from the container with a spoon? [[User:Thuresson|Thuresson]] 07:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
:::You betcha! I can eat way too much of that stuff, given the opportunity. If there's oil sitting on top of the halvah, you might want to try to stir it in -- otherwise the halvah can be somewhat chalky. On the other hand, some people like it chalky; experiment. Note: it can be addictive. A pal of mine visits her family home in Nablus every couple years, and they usually bring me back some of the local stuff. Mmm. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 08:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
== sanskrit words ==
hello ,
can anyone give me the sanskrit equivelant to the following words in hindu philosophy ( in sanskrit letters ) :
Agni,
Varuna वरुण,
Rta,
Soma,
Rudra,
Vishnu विष्णु,
Prajapati,
Samhita,
Brahma Sutra ब्रह्मासूत्र,
Yoga Sutra,
Yoga Vasishta,
Atman,
Samsara,
Kshatriya,
Shudras,
Artha,
Kama काम,
Karma Yoga,
Bhakti Yoga,
Jnana Yoga,
Raja Yoga,
Samadhi,
Devadasis,
Samnayasin,
Sadhu,
Swami,
Yogin,
Mudra,
Mantra,
thank you
i have an open proxy so i cant edit - but what is that writing they use after they say sanskrit ( .... ) in many wikipedia articles , thats what i need , but maybe this isnt the right place . [[User:Hhnnrr|Hhnnrr]] 21:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:Those look like Sanskrit words already. —[[User:Keenan Pepper|Keenan Pepper]] 21:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
::yeah, but the questioner's asking for them in Sanskrit script. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 00:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
:::There isn't such a thing as "Sanskrit Script". Westerners most often see Sanskrit written in [[Devanagari]], but traditionally, Sanskrit was written in different regional scripts in the different parts of India (Devanagari happens to be the regional script for the Hindi language, basically). [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 00:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
::I'm just saying what the questioner asked. Devanagari would be the most logical script to use, since it is the...erm... graphia franca for siuch languages. Mind you, the question should have been over at the Languages Desk rather than here anyway. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 00:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I gave you a few above, and I could do the rest according to how they would be in Hindi, but I'm not confident enough that they would be correct Sanskrit. Some of the Wikipedia articles have the devanagari, so try putting the terms in the search box at the upper left to look for the article. You can also start from [[Hindu deities]] that has links to many of our articles. You could also get all your answers by spending some time google searching. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 13:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
== Vatican & heliocentric theory ==
I have heard that the Catholic Church did not officially recognize that the Earth revolved around the Sun until the 1920's. Is this true?
Thanks,
[[User:Andrew4549|Andrew4549]]
:I don't know about that, but they only apologized for their conviction of [[Galileo]] for saying so, in 1992. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 23:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
::When did they decide it wasn't a sin to use anasthetics? [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 07:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
:::The Catholic Church never thought it was. Jesuit missionaries learned the virtues of cocaine from those they conquered in South America; following its use by the Countess of Chinchon, Regent of Peru, in 1638, it was introduced to Europe. It was the Protestants who abjected to its use as an anaesthetic, calling it an invention of the devil, or the Catholics (it hardly mattered which). And in England, when the use of (better) anaesthetics was introduced, it fell to the Protestant churches to denounce them as contrary to Holy Writ, it being self-evident that the use of chloroform to avoid "the primeval curse on woman" was impious.
:;:As to Galileo, like all history it is rather more complicated than one likes. It wasn't "Earth center, Galileo bad" followed by "Oops, Sun center, Galileo good." The first response the Church had to being proved wrong about heliocentrism was to evade its own history (i.e., lie: to claim that Galileo was condemned not for affirming the Earth's motion, but for supporting it from Scripture, or that he was condemned not for heresy, but for contumacy, or that the condemnation was provisory, and that popes as popes had never condemend Galileo's theory, and that therefore infallibility was not involved. All the while, quietly removing Copernicus from the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, etc. I don't know that they ''ever'' "officially" said "the Earth revolves around the Sun" in the same way, or with the same force, with which they once said "The Sun revolves around the Earth". - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 07:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
= February 19 =
== Is pain in the mind? ==
Is pain in the mind? Hence, is it possible to condition our minds to NOT feel pain? [[User:Gelo3|gelo]] 01:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
:Have you checked the useful online resource Wikipeda? They have an article about [[pain]] and it is not too painful to read. <small><font color="#000000">[[User:MeltBanana|MeltBanana]]</font></small> 01:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
== Nuclear Superpowers ==
Although the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Russia today would still have nuclear power. So between the United States and present-day Russia (not the Soviet Union), who would have stronger nuclear weapons today according to the most recent reliable info? Did the collapse of the U.S.S.R. even have an effect on their nuclear weapons programs?
--[[User:Swang|Swang]] 04:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
*"Stronger nuclear weapons" is a bit of a null term given the state of current warfare - let's just say they're both strong enough. In terms of overall number of warheads (a far more important thing) the US would have a significant edge. But when it's a difference between being able to destroy the planet ten times over or twenty times over, these figures don't really make that much difference. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 06:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
*If you take a look at our articles "[[List of countries with nuclear weapons]]" and [[Nuclear arms race]]" it will give you some idea of the comparative nuclear forces in terms of warheads. Of course there is more to it than that (delivery systems, etc.), but it is somewhat of a metric, and both of those articles have references to more detailed discussions of both the U.S. and Russia's nuclear forces as of the end of 2005. The collapse of the USSR did have a very powerful effect -- both countries soon scaled back their production programs, stopped all [[nuclear testing]], and generally shifted their weapons development programs into what is called in the U.S. "[[stockpile stewardship]]" for the most part. A somewhat detailed discussion of all of this from the U.S. perspective is in our article "[[Nuclear weapons and the United States]]". Hope that helps you. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 16:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
**By the way, Russia always had and still has more warheads than the U.S. (since the 1950's anyway) [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 20:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
== Order of the Friars Minor in Peru ==
Was the "Order of the Friars Minor" persecuted or oppressed by the civil authorities or the Church at the beggining of the Eighteenth Century in Peru?
-- M. M. S.
== World peace and US democracy ==
I've got this notion that the world would be a much more peaceful place if the US had a parliamentary democracy (preferably with direct elections, so more like the Dutch than the British system, but that's not my point here).
The present system is 'winner-take-all'. After the president has been elected, the votes for the other contenders are thrown out the window. Which effectively means there will only be one other contender. If a left-wing party would participate, it would mainly draw votes from the Democrats. Assuming that party doesn't win (a fair assumption) the only effect will be that the Republicans win. So a left-wing vote actually gets the right wing in power. For the same reason there is no need for the Democrats to have a left wing agenda. Left wing voters have no choice. So they stay nice and close to the Republicans on the right side, just a bit to the left of them. By the way, I wonder if the system could have turned out such that there were now two left-wing parties.
A parliamentary democracy would not only give all denominations (not just the left but all sorts of mindsets) a vote but it would also force all those different groups to talk to each other. Which would mean the decision to go to war is not that easily made anymore. So my questions are 1) does this reasoning (apart from the last sentence) hold up and 2) is it a good idea? It seems like a good idea to split these two things, so I've made two sub-headers. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 08:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
===Is above reasoning correct?===
To some extent, yes. The current system does prevent the extreme left (think [[American Communist Party]]) and the extreme right (think [[Pat Robertson]]) from gaining much power and also prevents an indecisive government that is incapable of making decisions. I think it's good to prevent those things, however. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 08:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
:In practise, in a parliamentary democracy the more extreme parties usually get only a small percentage of the votes (if we forget about the Nazis, but there was something different at work there as well, namely two causes of poverty). Even in the Netherlands at a time when communism was in vogue (after the Russian revolution and after WWII) the Communist Party got only about 10% of the votes, after which they waned and finally dissolved. So yes, extremist parties will probably emerge, but they will remain small and the 'anger' of those voters will be channeled and appeased to some extent. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
::I agree that each individual extremist party would only gain a small portion of the votes, but collectively, all of these extremist parties might even manage a majority. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 09:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
:::For that to work (I mean for them to work together) They'd have to be on the same side of the political spectrum, which sounds very unlikely. There is quite a history of parliamentary history. Can you think of an example of this ever happening?
:Most countries that run a proportional type of voting system have a threshold that a party must reach before they gain representation (here in NZ, for instance, a party must either win a constituency or gain 5% of the vote overall). That stops the vast majority of the lunatic fringe parties from getting near parliament. It's worth noting that this restriction was lacking in Germany in the 1930s, but has been in place since the end of WWII. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 10:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
::The Netherlands have no [[electoral threshold]] and that has worked out fine so far. By the way, [[LPF]], a party that some consider extremist, had a huge success in the [[Dutch general election, 2002]] that no threshold would have stopped. However, just one year later they were effectively thrown out of the forced coalition and lost loads of votes in the ensuing elections. At the moment they're marginalised to just one seat in the polls. The political message has gotten through and things are almost back to narmal now. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 13:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
===Would it be a good idea? (would it bring world peace?)===
There seems to be the assumption buried within this question that the US is the source of all conflict in the world. I don't think so. If we look at the Muslim terrorism issue, they don't just attack the US, but have also attacked the [[Russia]]ns over [[Chechnya]] and [[Dagestan]], the [[France|French]] oil tanker Lindburg, etc. Russia and France both opposed the US invasion of Iraq.
There are many other wars that occur with no action from the US, like the [[Darfur]] conflict in [[Sudan]] and the genocide in [[Rwanda]]. In fact, it might well be argued that these wars began or continued because of the failure of governments around the world to act to oppose them. Putting a less decisive government into power in Washington is not the cure needed here, but rather we need more decisive governments elsewhere in the world. The few cases where war has ended due to military intervention have recently been led almost exclusively by the US, such as in [[Kosovo]] and the first Gulf War (liberation of [[Kuwait]]). It certainly seems to me that Europe could have led, and should have, in their own backyard (the former [[Yugoslavia]]), but failed to do so. If this inability to act is the result of a parliamentary system, then this weakness seems like a detriment to all of mankind, to me. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 08:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
:I'm not claiming that the US is the only warring nation in the world, but it certainly has been the most prominent one since WWII. Muslim terrorism is a very recent thing, but the fact that it is mostly aimed at the US is an indication of what I mean. If the US hadn't meddled so much in foreign affairs maybe the whole thing wouldn't have arisen. As usual, it is probably caused by a combination of things and if one cause had not been there .... I don't know, I don't have a crystal ball, but it sounds plausible. And be careful of what you wish for. If other contries were as decisive and willing to go to war as the US, they might very well decide to gang together and go to war with the US. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
::I disagree that the US has been the most prominent warring nation since WW2. The Soviet Union carried out a massive 45 year occupation of Eastern Europe, including numerous invasions to prevent the formation of democracies. They also funded and supplied the North Vietnamese in the Vietnam War and invaded Afghanistan in 1979 as well as funding/supplying the Arab nations during the Arab/Israeli wars and funding/supplying many other combatants around the world. I'd bet the Muslim attacks on the Russians in that war killed far more than the 5000 or so Americans killed during and since the 9-11 attacks. The Russians continue their war in Chechnya, which gets little world press relative to the Iraq war. Also note that Muslim extremists have attacked the Spanish, British, Australians, India, and even the Netherlands ([[Theo van Gogh (film director)|Theo van Gogh]]). [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 09:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
:The US government's foreign policies certainly haven't helped, and have been a major contributing factor to political instability in several parts of the world. Ironically, a country which prides itself on being anti-imperial seems to have a government that goes out of its ay to treat other countries as if it was a colonial power, assuming that its views are the only possible right ones and ignoring local wishes. However, it is far from the only culprit, and it may be a common factor in any country with enough clout to be a superpower. Mix a bit of religious fuundamentalism into the mix and you've got a lot of different factors in any upswelling of military belligerance. BTW, I'd argue the point about Theo van Gogh - his killing was a one-off assassination, related to his own personal work and unrelated to the views of the people or government of the Netherlands. It certainly wasn't of the same sort as the attacks on the US and UK. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 11:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
::Right, dont' give me that van Gogh bull. That was just one extremist killing another over some insults. That's not terrorism. And even terrorism (ie war without the backing of a country) isn't the issue either. The issue is if a certain form of government (eg presidency vs parliament) is more likely to get a country to go to war. For example, do you think Russia would still be so much at war if it had a functioning parliament in stead of a new dictator? From the [[Politics of Russia]] article: "A new constitution, creating a strong presidency, was approved by referendum in December 1993." Sounds like that's when things went wrong. With the strong presidency. Actually, Russia may be a better example than the US to show how bad the idea of a presidency is. First it was a complete nut, Yeltsin, and now a dangerous one. What will follow?
::To generalise this a bit more, it would be interresting to make a list of countries by type of government (centralisation of power in more or fewer hands) and see how bellicose the countries in the various categories are. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 13:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
:::The U.S. system is actually designed to disperse power, not concentrate it. The Constitution says only Congress can declare war. Although Congress doesn't really declare war anymore (it hasn't since WWII), it still must approve the deployment of troops and the military budget. Congress agreed by wide margins in 2002 to give the president authority to invade Iraq (see [[Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002]]). In a system like that of the UK, Bush would only have had to convince his Cabinet. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 18:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
If you're looking for a structural reason why, at least to western europeans, US politics seems extreme (some would say "resolute", your mileage may vary), I don't think you can really blame the presidential system. Indeed, the distribution of powers between the legislature and the presidency should, at least in theory, make the president ''weaker'' - and indeed, in domestic matters where his writ is particularly circumscribed the president really ''is'' comparatively weak. If you want a political-structure explanation for US policy (and frankly I'd be wary of the need for one, as there's plenty of evidence that most US citizens are perfectly happy with most US foreign policies) I'd look to the way electoral boundaries are drawn. In the UK, by way of a contrasting example, boundaries for the Westminster parliament are drawn up by the [[Boundary Commission (United Kingdom)]], a largely non-partisan [[quango]]. This tries to make constituencies roughly map to communities, and in general its findings aren't very controversial, and there are rarely accusations that it's engaged in [[gerrymandering]]. As a consequence (yes, I'm asserting that its a consequence, not just a coincidence) there were members from 12 different parties elected to the westminster parliament. Of those elected, many are either politically centrist (often those in fairly marginal constituencies) or (e.g. [[Dennis Skinner]]) politically independent minded, able to take a nuanced, defiant, or contrarian position. Electoral boundaries in the US are (generally) drawn by highly partisan committees, and shamefaced gerrymandering common. This has two (in my view deleterious) effects on US politics: firstly it largely squeezes other parties out of contention (the house and senate each have only one independent, so an essentially perfect duopoly prevails). Secondly the large number of safe seats that this redistricting produces means there's no need to put a moderate up for election (to sway floating voters and the soft flank of the opposition). I'd ''guess'' (it'd be an interesting theory to try out) that if boundaries were drawn on roughly geographical lines (or by some other means, even a random scheme) that you'd see both a greater variety of parties and a greater number of rebellious moderates. A system of proportional representation would (probably) enhance this effect. You likely would see one or several parties of the genuine left, but you'd see one or several parties to the right of the republicans (including, perhaps, right-libertarians and a close-the-borders-splendid-isolation party, and quite possibly an outright nationalist/fascist party). I wouldn't be at all surprised if you didn't get a conservative religious party, and parties representing the larger ethnic groups (California's Mexicans, Florida's Cubans, and urban African-Americans are all rather taken for granted by the Republicrat duopoly, and some will welcome the opportunity to try for enhanced negociating muscle). I absolutely ''don't'' think this would result in a wholesale shift of US politics to the left (or the right), but you'd see a marked change in its character; even then, the new congress would seem a lot more like the [[Knesset]] than Westminster. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 18:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
:Hold on, I've made a mistake. I started focusing on the presidency system, when the real issue is the winner-take-all effect. Which, of course, one has with a president. But I once understood that the same goes for congress (or was that the senate specifically?), but I now see in the relevant articles that it has representatives from both parties. But now I don't understand why the US has only two parties in congress when it does not use a first-past-the-post system. I suppose I'll have to read the US politics articles (should have done so before I asked this :) ). Thanks for the word [[duopoly]]. That led to the relevant articles [[Two-party system]] and [[Duverger's law]], which in turn led to [[first past the post]].
:By the way, I wasn't suggesting that there should be a shift to the left in the US. Just more parties that have to form coalitions, which would mean that they would have to talk to each other and find ways to accommodate the other parties. That would not just have an effect in the number of representing parties but also in the way of thinking. Not having to listen to others can cause tunnel vision (if that's the word for it).
:And the UK may also have a district system, with in the last elections the result that the liberal democrats got 22% of the votes but only 10% of the seats, which is highly unrepresentative, but at least they got ''some'' seats (or rather bums in them :) ). [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 20:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
::The US does have a first-past-the-post system. Whoever gets the most votes for a House or Senate seat wins. Unlike in Canada and the UK, there is not really much of a push for proportional representation in the US.
::Remember that in the US, parties don't matter nearly as much as they do in most other countries. Every vote in Congress -- with the exception of the vote to elect the speaker of the House -- is a [[free vote]]. In order to get approval for something, you have to convince 218 House members and 50 or 60 senators individually. Just because the leadership of the party wants something passed doesn't mean they necessarily can count on their caucus's members voting for it. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 21:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
:::What I meant was that I had understood that members in the congress or senate were all of one party. But I think I understand now. There's a first past the post at state level, with each state delivering their representative, so you ''do'' get a mix of the two parties, but at the same time you have only two parties. This feels rather compicated for someone used to a simple one man one vote representative democracy. Sort of like trying to understand the imperial unit system. I'll ponder on this some more tomorrow when I'm awake (bedtime now). [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 21:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Members of the House are elected from Districts. It's winner take all per district, not per state. The Senate is per state, however. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
==Who is she?==
Another Wikipedian and I are minorly puzzled as to [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:SF_Chinese_new_year_p1060726.jpg who this woman is] at a Chinese New Year celebration in San Francisco. We both think it may be [[Dianne Feinstein]] but we aren't completely sure; if it is, we're going to add the picture to her article, but I don't want to run the risk of having the wrong picture on her article. Can anyone else give insight? [[User:Mike Halterman|Mike H.]] [[User talk:Mike Halterman|That's hot]] 10:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
:I don't know who it is, but it is certainly '''not''' Dianne Feinstein! - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 11:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
::I'm pretty sure that's [[Nancy Pelosi]]. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 17:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
== Politics of Nepal - the current issue ==
What are the Maoists in Nepal upto?
* Deposing the monarchy, introducing a [[Communist]] [[one-party state]]. See [[Nepal]]. [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] 20:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I will also see the article. I hope it is not biased in favor of the government.
== Kings of Malta ==
Which kings knights fought in the great siege of [[malta]]?
John Bridges
:The [[Knights Hospitaller]] were an independent military group although Malta was nominally a fief of the [[King of Sicily]] at the time of the [[Siege of Malta (1565)]]. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 20:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
== 1972 Virginia House of Delegates Campaign ==
I would like to know the vote count for the 1972 Va. House of Delegates Campaign between Hal Lackey and A.L. Philpott. Thanks.
== 96-Year-Old GED Graduate ==
What is the name of the 96-year-old farmer in Georgia, U.S. who recently received a high school diploma? I think the name I heard was '''Thurman Barnes''', but I haven't seen its spelling and did not find an article on him.
--[[User:66.81.192.26|66.81.192.26]] 15:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
:Here you go -- http://www.westgatech.edu/News/news2005.htm#barnes --[[User:LarryMac|LarryMac]] 18:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
== Architectural firms during the depression ==
Hi,
I'm new to this, so please excuse any errors. Also I'm rather computer illiterate - don't know a mouse from a megahertz.
I would assume that during the Depression architectural firms had to close for lack of business. Are there any statistics regarding this? Is there a book I could read to find out this information? Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Sue Grawey
:I don't have any statistics on this (if you find them tell us or put them in an article). But I assume you are assuming that no investments were made because of the depression and therefore no construction work was done. However, one economic policy was to actually invest to get the economy back up it's feet. Governments did that (the Dutch government to some extent), but it was also a good idea for businesses. At least that's what my grandfather thought. During a depression labour is cheap, so construction necessarily also (being rather labour intensive). So he built what was dubbed the [[Glass Palace]] in Heerlen, a big, highly modern department store. A visiting minister declared him nuts for undertaking something that big during a depression, but he was put in the right because his business continued to flourish (and expand further) after that. Actually, this makes so much sense to me that I cannot understand why some people think differntly. A depression is the best time to invest. And constuction is a fine example for that. Actually, [[Bauhaus]] did rather well during the depression, I believe, until Hitler decided their architecture was degenerate or something. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 20:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
:The exact opposite is easier to document. In New York, both the [[Empire State Building]] and the [[Chrysler Building]] were built during the depression. If you want to go to architecture of things other than buildings, there is the [[Hoover Dam]] and [[Mount Rushmore]]. So, it is certainly true that some architectural firms closed, but others continued to do very well. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]]</sup></small> 20:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
== Seeking information on a copy of The Storm ==
I have a (24" X 36") oil painting copy of The Storm by Pierre Auguste Cot. I can not find an Artist name. However, there is a small brass plaque on the frame with the name A Vateriano. Were there many oil copies and how can I find more information about tnis copy?
There are several coats of varnish over the painting which seem to make the painting very dark. It is in need os restoration and I wonder if it worth doing.
Hoping you can help me with this request. Thank you for your time.
Gene Pisciotta
== Bach's Missing Partita? ==
I can't find the names of Bach's G Major Partita's movements. It was written for the viola, any takers?
:I haven't found any reference to a partita for viola in G major. But is it possible you mean the Partita for solo ''violin'' in G ''minor'', BWV 1001? The movements are: 1. Adagio 2. Fuga (Allegro) 3. Siciliana 4. Presto. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 01:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
== what problems did spain and poland have with the IGC? ==
= February 20 =
== Counter arguments ==
Are there any 'conclusive' or somewhat conclusive arguments against philosphical skepticism?...I think Wittgenstein gave one but I don't understand it.--[[User:Cosmic girl|Cosmic girl]] 01:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
| 
