The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
Where are the surviving crinoline staircases in London? I am aware of the one in No 1 Greek Street (the House of St Barnabas) but I believe there are others.
What is thought to be the earliest use of this style of staircase balustrade and when did this style fall into disuse?
If they were, as I believe, used in the C18, why are they so called when the crinoline was not invented until the C19?
I would be grateful for any related information.
Sorry, one more census query. It's just for curiotsity's sake. Though, it might tie in to my other query (which, BTW, I foudn the people - somehow "alternate spelling" doesn't factor turning a z into an s.)
How did the census takers count people on stagecoach routes? This actually could account for a good percentage of the missed, though I know they had assigned routes. And, supposing a census taker in, say, 1850 was assigned to travel a wagon train route looking for peopole; how did the counter figure the person's domicile? Just where they happened to be standing? (Oh, I'd be so tempted to stand in the Four Corner States with a foot half in each if that's true :-) Somebody or his brother (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the modern UK census, I believe you get put on the form for wherever you spend the night on that particular day (or, probably where are you at a particular time during the night, just in case people move around). I expect the old US censuses were similar. --Tango (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, as I say, it's not done by individual, it's done by place. The inn where you spend the night would have the form and would write you down on it. (I don't know if there were inns frequently enough to stay in one every night - if you sleep under the stars, you may well be missed.) --Tango (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was the first Anarchist Exclusion Act ever repealed? Can you still be barred entry to the United States nowadays for "disbeliev[ing] in or... oppos[ing] all organized government, or [being] a member of or affiliated with any organization entertaining or teaching such disbelief in or opposition to all organized government"? --superioridad(discusión)02:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IANAL, but of course the ACLU would have a field day. John Turner lost his case (where he said that the law was unconstitutional) because the Supreme Court said the Constitution didn't apply to aliens. Since various judges have said since that it does actually apply to aliens (including, iirc, Judge Hens Green in the case of the Guantánamo Bay detainees), perhaps things have changed around a bit since then? But again, I'm not a lawyer. The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indian politics and US politics
I want to know some facts about general US public attitude towards Indian politics.
I am not an American, so I may be out of line. I do know a goodly number of educated Americans, or, given what I am about to add, would I be better to say "schooled" Americans? I think your averge U.S. (or Canadian) citizen barely knows that India exists on any level beyond the Taj Mahal and the Kohinoor diamond. If they know anything of the politics, it would likely be limited to Ghandi and/or Indira Ghandi.This average person would not recognize the names of the political parties and is unlikely to know what Hindutva is. Even if you were to explain the concept of Hindu nationalism, I doubt one in a hundred would either understand or care. I say this in some personal embarrassment because I had to click on Hindutva myself to find out what it was about. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your average citizen also probably doesn't know how to spell Gandhi. --Anon, with a non-violent smile, 08:50 UTC, September 2, 2008.
I have a college degree. Two of them, in fact, and working on a third. And I would have to echo Bielle's points. Most college educated Americans when asked about India would probably think of the tech support that they got the last time they had computer issues. India just isn't that much of a concern to most Americans to know that much about it. I'm sorry if this bothers you but that's the way it is. Dismas|(talk)06:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are greatly overestimating what the average college educated American knows about national politics of various nations. I had no idea what Jamaat-e-Islami was before clicking on that link and I doubt anyone that I know would either. I would probably have a hard time finding any American who could name even one political party of a foreign nation. We may be able to tell you the forms of government that are used in various nations such as England, Germany, Russia, Cuba, and China but as far as political parties go, we'd be hard pressed to come up with the names of any of them. And just because we discuss Iran, that doesn't mean that we know about the politics of the country. Dismas|(talk)08:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, keep in mind that Americans don't view India as any sort of current or potential threat, as they do with China, Russia, and most of the Mid-East, and that the influence of events in India on the lives of average Americans is, to be honest, pretty minimal, with the singular possible exception of outsourcing. AlexiusHoratius08:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is the issue how a particular event within a particular country will affect average American's lives. For example I can say what is happening in Chechnya has nothing to do with average Americans' lives, but they are concerned with Chechnya, but not with Kashmir. I will rather more or less agree with Alexius's first argument that "Americans don't view India as any sort of current or potential threat, as they do with China, Russia, and most of the Mid-East". Another fact is probably media. The American media, especially local American media outlets like The New York Times, Los Angeles Times etc give more emphasis on the internal issues of countries like Venezuela. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who says that the average American has any idea what's going on in Chechnya? Or Kashmir? I read the news on a nearly daily basis and listen to it while driving to and from work on NPR. Neither of those places have caught my eye/ear in months if not more than a year. I'm curious, what country are you in? Dismas|(talk)10:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not American, I'm British, but I consider myself pretty well educated and I follow the news quite closely, and I know next to nothing about Indian politics, and don't know what Hindutva is without looking it up. I can tell you a little about Indian economics, but that's about it. India gets mentioned as an emerging economy, but other that it doesn't play a major role on the world stage. I know what's happening in Pakistani politics, because that's all over the news lately, I know what's happening with Russia because that's in the news all the time too. I don't know much about Chinese politics beyond the human rights abuses that get on the news, since as far as I know there isn't all that much Chinese politics, it's a one party state. I know what Chechnya and Kashmir are, but haven't heard anything about them recently. The media generally reports on things they expect their audience to be interested in (that's what sells newspapers), and I don't think anything particularly interesting to the rest of the world is happening in India at the moment. --Tango (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kashmir is in the news at present, as is the massive flooding, but Indian natural disasters don't get as much UK airtime as American ones for some reason. I am also British, and the last event I remember in Indian politics per se is Sonia Gandhi declining the primeministership four years ago. btw, China has plenty of politics, it just takes place within the Party. Algebraist11:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Americans have long been very anti-communist (with almost religious ferocity), which explains the interest in Chavez (I'm not sure he strictly qualifies as communist, but he's close enough to interest Americans). Are Americans particularly interested in Falun Gong? The British aren't, from what I've seen. Palestine is of interest because the US played such a major part in founding Israel. I don't think there are any particular reasons for Americans to be interested in the other 3 things you mention. --Tango (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Massive flooding during monsoon season isn't anything new. I understand that these floods are worse than usual, but are they as much worse than usual as Gustav is (or was potentially) worse than a usual hurricane season? Also, remember people are often more interested in things than are happening to people they can relate to - the US is much more like the UK than India is. --Tango (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what the average college educated American knows about India: Gandhi, caste system, don't eat cows, lots of gods, sitar, Mother Teresa, poverty, curry, Bollywood. Here's what the average college educated American knows about Indian politics: _____. —KevinMyers12:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My question is what is the reason behind the overall attitude which is answered by Tango above. Some typical American views are Muslims are violent, Putin is a dictator and Iran is a terrorist country. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Te term is stereotype - just as you stereotype the views of 'americans' so will others stereotype the views of other groups. Across the whole of American there will be people who believe all manner of different thigns on each of the points you mention. There will be pro-muslim, anti-muslim and indifferent to muslim, there will be putin-fans, putin haters and people who are indifferent to him. Etc. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe American views should be stereotyped because American worldview vastly differs from the view of the rest of the world (let aside some EU states) and also differs from reality. No one can deny average Americans view Muslims as inherently violent. As Kevin Myers suggested the American view above, American view towards India is horribly wrong after you read the articles Economy of India, Indian Armed Forces, India and weapons of mass destruction, Integrated Guided Missile Development Program etc. By GDP (PPP), India ranks 4th in the world and Indian Air Force is the fourth largest air force which is stronger than Royal Air Force. India is also considered to be a Potential superpower. See Potential_superpowers#India. Americans believe Vladimir Putin is a repressive dictator despite the fact more than 80% of Russian population supports him [1]. See Putin#Support. The Criticism of Vladimir Putin primarily comes from a handful of individuals, see Putin#Criticism, it mention he has widespread support in Russia. Americans carefully ignore the view of Russian population and emphasize the view of certain anti-Putin political activists. Americans still view the rest of the world as they viewed it 50 years back. For this reason, I believe general American view should be stereotyped because their worldview is certainly wrong view and unrelated to the real world. The term "American viewpoint" should also be used in a derogatory sense to denote wrong and fringe political viewpoints. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "I believe American views should be stereotyped because American worldview vastly differs from the view of the rest of the world". They may on average differ from the rest of the world, but the rest of the world isn't unanimous in their views either. Anyway, because Americans' views are different that means they should be stereotyped? Most of your generalizations about Americans aren't just stereotypes, they're wrong. Americans are divided on Putin. Most don't have any opinion on him at all. Also, being popular doesn't immunize one from the charge of being a dictator. The historical examples of popular dictators are numerous. Where is your evidence that Americans' views on the world are 50 years old? Your whole argument is a tautology: Because of the stereotypical American, Americans deserve to be stereotyped. There's no excuse for stereotyping anyone. It's just intellectual laziness. —D. Monacktalk19:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As other posters have noted, the fact that many Americans don't know anything about India seems to distress you. It's not a deliberate choice on their part. India is (to most Americans) far away and seems a very alien culture.
I was born in Canada but grew up in the United States. To put your questions about India in perspective, my guess would be that not one American voter in five could name the two largest political parties in Canada; not two in five could name the prime minister; at least half, if asked the title of the leader of Canada, would say "president." I don't think one American in 20 could name all the provinces; except for Americans living in the upper midwest, for the most part the average American couldn't find Saskatchewan on an unlabeled map of the prairie provinces. Most Americans, I think, would simply not believe you if you said America's trade with Canada (imports and exports) is nearly 50% larger than America's trade with China.
If this is the case for Canada, with whom the U.S. shares a border of nearly 9,000 kilometers, a nation where nearly 80% of the people speak English as a first language, and a nation millions of Americans can drive to, why be surprised at the U.S. view of India? — OtherDave (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking from Norway, another country where the US Democratic party would beat the US republicans by a huge margin if the population, main news channels etc were asked, I'd assume that, if people knew much about Indian politics, any nationalists would come out bad. That would mean support for Congress (not least because Gandhi remains an iconic figure) and skepticism towards any Hindu nationalist organization (which I assume Hindutva to be; I didn't look it up). But this country may not be typical; confrontation and nationalism is viewed, in a way, as something remote and perhaps uncivilized in this country which has been lucky to get away from most conflicts over the last centuries (save a relatively peaceful yet of course troublesome Nazi occupation). Yet it is my impression (having only been to the US once and that was several years ago) that a similar mechanism could be at work for the US. You might have to subtract some skepticism of Muslim organization (which would make any anti-Muslim org come out better) though. Jørgen (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The US is strongly skeptical of all nationalisms and fundamentalisms other than its own, which it embraces largely uncritically. (Sigh...) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an American I can tell you that Americans don't know much about events outside our country. After all, we just nominated a vice presidential candidate of one of the two major parties a person who didn't have a passport before last year. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the advantage of bartering stuff vs. selling and buying? It seems to me that always when you have some sort of currency the process will work more efficiently. Mr.K.(talk)17:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currency makes all transactions possible. Every item and service may be given a price and the currency seamlessly allows the transactions of items and services among the people. In strict bartering, transactions become difficult. What if I want some cheese, but I'm a website designer. The cheese guy doesn't want a website. But, he wants some gasoline. I talk to a gasoline guy, but he doesn't want a website. However, he says that he is interested in a new computer. I talk to a computer guy and he says he'll give me a computer for a website. So, I make his website, get the computer, and go to the gas guy. By that time, he already got a new computer. So, I'm stuck with a computer I don't want and I still don't have any cheese. Bartering sucks. -- kainaw™17:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the barter deals put together to get around the fact that Communist economies had limited "hard" currency reserves were almost as baroque... AnonMoos (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One advantage of bartering is that the parties involved often find ways to conceal the value of the transaction from the tax authorities. A housepainter might barter his services for dental work; neither the dentist nor the painter claims the value of the work done as income. (I'm not saying this is legal, only that it's possible.) — OtherDave (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you have currency, using it is pretty much always the best option. Bartering is handy when you don't have currency. This can happen due to you living in a society without currency (the past, say), or due to a lack of whatever is used as currency (caused by hyperinflation, say). --Tango (talk) 04:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also in a time of hyperinflation, even if you have currency you might prefer not to use it because it loses so much value between acquiring and spending it. --ColinFine (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think from, a writing perspective, the 'but' emphasizes both the similarity of the /sol/ sound in both words and the difference in meaning; it helps to point out that 'solder' is not in fact 'soulder'. Even though I've heard the song I can't remember the name of it or the artist but I don't remember it being religious at all. If it were then it would be understandable to think of it as a reference to that metaphor being used in a lot of religious traditions, so they'd be essentially saying they're not zealots. But I think it's really more of the literary reason. - Lambajan17:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good fight Kainaw, but this seems like a funny place for it. Most poetry is just asking to be understood and if we all had to go directly to the source for any kind of explanation whenever there was a part of it we don't get, it surely wouldn'tve lasted as an art form. This is hardly the sort of question that's prone to big arguments and long diatribes. Moreover, there's a pretty standard analytical tradition for breaking down poetry and getting to the meaning and reasoning behind parts of it. That said, I can see how a discussion board elsewhere on the net would be a more appropriate place where Mr.K. would find more and better answers, but there's plenty of other offending questions by plenty of repeat offenders far more worthy of your policing. - Lambajan03:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is the question: "Why do they say 'but'?" It isn't asking "What is the meaning of the word 'but' in this phrase?" It is asking for the motive of the lyric's author, not the meaning of the lyrics. If it had been worded in such a way that it was trying to understand the meaning of the lyrics, then I wouldn't have responded as such. -- kainaw™13:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'I have soul' usually refers to 'a general feeling for music' and has nothing to do with any religion. This makes sense, as it is in a song. The religious idea would use the indefinite article 'a', as in 'I have a soul'.--ChokinBako (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Human Rights - Workplace thru the Decades
Working on a presentation-for a basic and simple elective study assigment at work. I am looking for a timeline to include a few key or important facts/issues/Rights/Acts pertaining to Human Rights in the workplace for each decade; 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000. I have alot of information that I have read thru, just having a hard time pulling one from each decade, since they aren't listed out by date's etc. Please let me know if you have suggestions on where I might look, or if there is a cronological document listing Human Rights. This is for the US.
Any other tools,video clips etc. would be great, but not sure if any exist.
My suggestion would be to choose a few of the issues you've identified, research them, and look for outstanding incidents in a given time period. In other words, build your own timeline. Since you talk about rights in the workplace, you might research strikes, unions, organizing efforts. I found a list of strikes by googling the word "strike," for example. From that I found a link to the in Flint, Michigan, in 1937-37. Earlier than your dates, but then, you didn't want me doing your research for you. — OtherDave (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alcoholic drinks
Why are some alcoholic drinks generally drunk with ice and some without? Cider and whisky are generally drunk with ice. Cognac, vodka and champagne very seldom. Beer and wine pretty much never. Sake, to the extent that I know of, absolutely never - it is supposed to be drunk hot. It has no apparent correlation with either the potency of the drink nor its ingredients. Is it simply a a matter of hysterical raisins? JIP | Talk19:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not! I just like to write "hysterical raisins" instead of "historical reasons". I asked the question because of genuine interest in how different alcoholic drinks are drunk. And yes, in many places in Finland at least, cider is served with ice. JIP | Talk06:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In some instances, the inclusion of ice is to make the drink more palatable versus drinking the alcohol neat. This then moved over into the popular lager front with chilled drinks like Fosters Ice et al on draught and in bottles. Some people, like me, are errant snobs who believe that if you have to chill a drink to make it sell - it didn't taste very nice to begin with. Another possible reason is that the ice, whilst watering the drink down, also makes it last longer - giving the impression that you are 'getting more for you money'. Nanonic (talk) 08:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many bars in the UK serve cider with ice. I suspect that they do this because ice is cheaper than cider, so they can get away with giving short measure by appealing to the sort of people who think they are being cool by drinking an agricultural workers' drink in a "sophisticated, metropolitan" way. Some bars will also try to give you a head on cider, which is just daft. I am now in the position of explaining to barmen who were not even born when I started drinking how to do their jobs properly. DuncanHill (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I've only seen ice added to those vile bottled ciders (like Magners and Bulmers) for which 'served over ice' is an integral part of the brand image. Of course, in this case there's no question of short measure. I've drunk a lot of draught cider in my time, and no-one's ever tried to put ice in it. Algebraist11:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly yes, it does happen, rather a lot round here. As for Bulmers being served with ice, this is quite a new phenomenon, as I recall it started in the 90's with an advertising campaign. Cider was a "low-income" drink (part of its agricultural heritage, for a long time it attracted lower duty than beer, as it was traditionally drunk by agricultural workers who were paid significantly less than industrial workers who drank beer). By marketing it to people with a higher disposable income, higher prices can be charged, and nowadays in a city like Brighton there is no price differential between cider and bitter. DuncanHill (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Finland, cider is not considered a "low-income" drink. It costs the same as beer (in some places, even more - but only very slightly more). It is considered a ladies' drink. Most men drink beer, and most women drink cider. However, there are much more women who drink beer than there are men who drink cider. JIP | Talk17:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Draught cider and cider that comes in small bottle is the same price, if not more expensive, than beer in the UK too. You can, however, get really cheap cider in 2 litre bottles (the best known is White Lightning. That kind of cider is commonly associated with a certain variety of the homeless, since it's often the cheapest source of alcohol. --Tango (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Serving draught cider with ice, unless you use an oversize glass, would be illegal since it's a short measure. I've only ever seen it done with bottled cider, it's quite common then. --Tango (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ice in cider is very common in Ireland. I think following on from the success from Guinness in the UK, Bulmers/Magners Irish cider decided to go with a very Irish advertising campaign, including the use of ice in draft cider, and us Brits seem to love everything Irish so the custom has started to stick, but I doubt anyone who is drinking cider from the West Country would even consider ice in their cloudy pint. - Phydaux (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got a couple questions about the sister Rose of Sharon Rivers. Where did that name come from ? I found Rose of Sharon on Wiki but nothing with Rivers on it.Also why didnt the film allude to the Roman charity dipicted at the end of the book ? To me that was a shocking yet beautiful ending.Did i just answer my second queston ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.211.5 (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen in the article The Grapes of Wrath, Rose's husband's name was Connie Rivers, so her surname in the novel simply came from her husband; she would have been Rose of Sharon Joad before marriage. If the question is about her being named Rose of Sharon, I think you'd have to ask either Ma Joad or Steinbeck, neither of whom is likely to be available at this time.
Regarding the second question - our article about the film notes that the plot in the second half of the film strayed considerably from that of the novel, and specifcally mentions that "the novel's original ending was far too controversial to be included in the film," which is probably understandable for a movie released in 1940. --LarryMac | Talk19:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
September 3
VPs in the USA
Are there any historical precedents in the US where a VP has been picked by the presidential candidate of a major party, and then dropped and another person chosen to stand instead? Thanks for any info, Alex --AlexSuricata (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, I have been trying to research Communist history, namely in Czechoslovakia. Is there a Wikipedia article about the people who went abroad and were stripped of their citizenship while they weren't in Czechoslovakia? Also, are there any good online links? I'd like to know how they managed to get their citizenship back, get a passport from another country, etc. Vltava 68(talk, contribs)10:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i am looking for a high quality image of the bust of soranus, greek gyneacologist.
or indeed for the original or a copy of it?
i have a client wishing a charcoal drawing of this and my research so far has only thrown up small poor quality copies.
thank you.
89.159.144.169 (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know a woman who will be giving birth in a few months, at which time I look to send a card of congratulations. I've got a problem, though: I don't know her husband's name, so I'm not sure how I'll address the letter. She's Mrs X-Y, although she normally goes by Mrs X only. Is he likely to be Mr X, or Mr Y, or is it really impossible to know without asking one of them? 63.172.28.202 (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather lucky. I work with people from all over the world. So, I can cheat and ask, "How do you spell your last name?" Even if it is something like "Wong", I can reply, "Oh, you spell it the normal way. That's easy to remember." -- kainaw™13:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If she's Mrs. X-Y, I would guess that he's probably Mr. Y, but there's no way to say for sure. Could you ask somebody who's closer to Mrs. X-Y, and might know the answer? (BTW, my wife did not change her name when we married, and we often get cards with incorrect names. I'm sure that they will appreciate the kind thoughts even if you make a mistake.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least here in the U.S., such announcements (of graduations, marriages, births) are often seen as solicitations for gifts. Therefore, polite people may choose to send them only to their closest family and friends, to avoid the appearance of "gift-grubbing". Mr./Ms. 63.172.28.202 might be outside this close circle. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll have to ask someone, there are so many possibilities. She could use a double barrelled name because she's combined her maiden name and her husband's name, or her parents may have combined their names (or some earlier generation), or her husband's parents (or higher generation) could have combined their names, and she's taken her husband's name. (There may even be other possibilities, but I think those are the most likely.) You could just avoid surnames entirely, either by using first names (if you are familiar enough with them), or no names at all, "To the proud parents of XYZ, congratulations and best wishs, [your name here]". It's difficult to know how offended they will be if you use the wrong names. I doubt many people would be offended at being asked, though, just be appropriately apologetic about it (or ask someone else that's likely to know). --Tango (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably have to end up asking: as far as I know, I don't know anyone but her who knows him, and I'm planning on sending this card in the mail, so the postal worker likely will want more than their first names :-) 63.172.28.202 (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The child is probably unnamed at this point, though, so then the original poster might again need to know which surname to use. Personally, I'd just ask. It's going to be a hell of a lot less embarrassing than getting the name wrong, and if you don't know him that well, it's by no means impolite to ask. There's no reason to expect that you would offend them by asking. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Different Amounts for Different Charges?
In the US, or if you want to be specific, Connecticut, how much illegal substances (marijuana) do you have to have on your person to be convicted of a minor charge? How much for a major charge? Same question for controlled substances like oxycodone? --Anilmanohar (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Legal advice is like, "how should I plead in court", not "what exactly does the law say on this specific issue." The former needs expert advice. The latter is just about looking up a statute. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amazonian tribe
Which Amazonian tribe does this practise where it is like a celebration where the men hold a turtle and have to hold it from the ladies and the ladies pinch them, bite them or whatever they do to the men in order to get the turtle? This is in Brazil and I saw this thing on t.v. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.121 (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Preclassical statuary depictions of masturbation
I and some others am trying to bring the Masturbation article to GA status. Among the uncited statements is this one:
“
A clay figurine of the 4th millennium BC from a temple site on the island of Malta, depicts a woman masturbating. However, in the ancient world depictions of male masturbation are far more common.
”
I'm no expert in archaeology, and I'm having trouble finding reliable sources for the former statement. If this figurine exists, it should be referenced somewhere. Can anyone throw me a clue?
My friend and I were talking about credit cards and he said that paying your credit card statement on time, every time, can actually be a bad thing because you won't make credit card companies any money, therefore it would essentially lower one's credit score. I sort of see the sense in it, but I don't really believe it, because they make money through the merchants, right?... [Disclaimer: I'm not seeking legal/financial advice] -- MacAddct 1984(talk • contribs)17:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly have a very hard time believing paying your credit card statement on time, every time, could have any sort of harmful effect whatsoever. JIP | Talk17:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your credit score goes down if you are late (by even a single day) when paying your bill. All you need to do is ask for your credit report. There is a section that lists every time you've been late paying a bill (and the creditor reports it). There is no section listing how often you pay on time. -- kainaw™17:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pay your bill on time if possible. Not only is letting balances build up one of the worst financial mistakes to make, but paying on time (and in full) enhances your credit score. As long as the credit card / phone bill /etc is in your name you are building your credit worthiness. That is what institutions will look at when deciding to lend you money (or the rate at which they will!) in the future. Also, Credit Rating Agencies are separate from credit card companies. And you are correct, credit cards charge merchants a percentage fee per transaction and also on the interest rates charged customers on outstanding balances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwebster99 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should certainly pay at least the minimum on time every time, otherwise you will do serious harm to your credit score. I guess the question you're asking is if you should pay the balance in full every time. I think you should, the cost of the interest (which is usually very high on credit cards - if it's a 0% card, it's another matter entirely) far outweighs the fact that the credit card company won't like you much (they still make money though, the shops you use your credit card in do give the credit card company a percentage). Credit card companies certainly aren't fans of people that are good with money, but I think it's rare for them to actually do anything to penalise you. --Tango (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The minimum you should do is pay the minimum of your credit card payment on time, every time. Even the slightest deviation will harm your credit card statement. I have had a credit card for almost five years and have managed to do this every time. The more you pay of your credit card payment, the better. The credit card companies certainly want you to use your credit card very much - but they also except you to pay up every time. Failing to pay up is far worse than spending too little. And also, beware of these new-fangled "instant loan" companies that offer to get rid of credit card debt fast. They often have interest rates much higher than the credit card companies do. JIP | Talk19:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one possibility: it is possible in my experience, at least in the US, to have no credit score at all if you've never been lent money. This can be problematic if one day you want to use your credit score for something. If you pay off your credit card every month, perhaps this counts as never having being lent money? Marnanel (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having no, or a short, credit history can indeed be a problem. I think having a credit card would help in that respect as long as you use it, regardless of whether you ever actually borrow on it. You are being lent money for the month or so it takes you to pay it back and paying it back in full every time shows you are able to be responsible with your spending, which will help your credit score. Having the card and never buying anything on it may not count as having a long credit history (it could also hurt your score because you have more available credit - banks don't like to lend money to people that already have lots of available credit since they could easily end up with more debt than they can pay off, even if they don't have any debt now). --Tango (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of too much of a good thing, the Federal Reserve consumer credit estimate for June 2008 says that American consumers have $986 billion in outstanding revolving credit, and $1.618 trillion in non-revolving credit (e.g., auto loans, education loans, boat loans). That's $2.586 trillion. — OtherDave (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is nearly $8500 per person (which includes children who hopefully have no debt, and plenty of people will have mortgages on top of that). --Tango (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the replies, and thank you for that link Coneslayer, that seems to cover what I was talking about. I guess I fall into the "not that profitable for lenders, but got potential"-category. I just never understood the concept of spending money that you don't have... -- MacAddct 1984(talk • contribs)22:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spending money you don't have can be a good decision in some cases (buying a house is tricky otherwise, as is going through university, in other cases it may be a good decision now, but only because you made bad decisions earlier). Borrowing on a credit card is never a good decision - if you're that strapped for cash, find a good unsecured personal loan, you can get much better interest rates. (Of course, if you can get an interest free credit card, and trust yourself not to forget (or be unable) to pay it off at the end of the year, or however long it's free for, then go for it!) --Tango (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Borrowing on a credit card can be a very good thing if you are looking for insurance on the things you purchase and the transaction that takes place, especially if you are not 100% sure of the person you are paying. Using a credit card on the internet means that it is the creditors' money that is stolen if something goes wrong and not yours. Also, if you pay your credit card immediately, you don't build up any interest. Never say never. ;) - Phydaux (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's my imprecise use of language at fault - by "borrowing", I mean for longer than one statement period (shorter than that is still technically borrowing, but that's not your reason for using a credit card). Purchasing things on a credit card has significant advantages, but you should always pay it off in full before they start charging interest. --Tango (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an American living abroad all of my adult life, I was unhappy (but not surprised) to find out I had no credit rating at all. It was suggested that I take out a credit card and make only the minimum payment for three months, and then pay the full debt. That would establish top-quality credit. Of course, carrying any credit card debt at all is incredibly stupid for most people, as the interest rate is at least 3 and sometimes 10 times what you make keeping the money on deposit. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
September 4
Hockey Moms
Question for US people: Sarah Palin is just speaking on my TV at the moment. She seems to be going on a bit about "Hockey Moms" and there's a joke too and proud Hockey Moms in the audience with banners, etc. I'm not American: are these "Hockey Moms" just simply women whose children play hockey, or is there some deeper meaning/identity there? (there's no article on them) Thanks for info, Alex --AlexSuricata (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Soccer Mom is a similar creature, but soccer fields tend to be more accessible than ice rinks, because they are cheaper to maintain, for a start. And Soccer Moms have occasions when they are likely warm. A Hockey Mom is always cold. A Hockey Mom is not just one whose children play ice hockey, but one who drives them to practices and games, watches them play, talks hockey with other moms, is part of a car pool that takes several children to "away" games . . . What you may not know is that much of ice hockey happens before school, so it isn't unusual for a Hockey Mom to be picking up kids at 6:00 a.m. and then taking them from the rink home for showers and then to school. It is a big commitment of time and there is a lot of driving involved, especially if you live outside a city and thus have little or no public transportation. Hockey equipment takes up a lot of space and tends to be heavy (helmets, pads, ice skates, sticks) so Hockey Moms are also porters, as well as laundry managers. And these kids start really young, often when they are in kindergarten (ages 4 and 5) so there are a lot of years involved, too. There are also Hockey Dads especially as the children (usually boys) get older. This is terminology more recognizable in Canada than in the lower 48, but hockey is big in Alaska. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that for the most part it's an extension of soccer mom. Both these terms tend to imply all-American, non-elite, family-first, unpretentious people. (There's a whiff of sexism, in that "soccer dad" is rarer by far.) I have the totally unfounded impression that "hockey mom" implies more blue in the collar, in the U.S., than "soccer mom" does. Far fewer Americans (children or adults) play hockey, as a percentage of the population, than Canadians do. And see, very tangentially, Michael Melski's play Hockey Mom, Hockey Dad, set in northern Nova Scotia. — OtherDave (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that it is the Alaskan equivalent of soccer mom. Soccer mom is the more recognizable term, but changing the sport to Hockey would be understandable to most people in context. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the overarching implication is that Hockey Moms, and Soccer Moms are parents who are dedicated to their children (and by extension, families) and who are willing to sacrifice their own time, money and leisure for their children's sport, development, etc. It further implies that a Hockey Mom will be concerned with issues that relate to children, families and suburbia, and therefore probably (although not implicitly) a collection of usually conservative views with regards to family protection, abortion, sexuality and religion. Steewi (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having grown up in Alaska, and living now as I do in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, I have been well-acquainted with Hockey Moms much of my life. As has been mentioned, Hockey Moms are similar to Soccer Moms, in that they drive minivans loaded with kids and equipment all over the place, and are the classic stereotype of a Middle Class housewife. However, there is a degree of difference between Hockey and Soccer Moms, in that Hockey Moms are more noted for their aggressive behavior at games. This difference, I believe, is what Palin refered to in comparing Hockey Moms to bulldogs. Saukkomies15:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perceived taste relating to expectation
What is the name in psychology for the thinking-something-tastes-better-because-it-should-taste-better effect?:
I'd suggset looking at something like List of biases and trying to find the best match. I suspect that people would consider these a bias as it seems it would be caused by 'information' influencing the way something is perceived (i.e. marketing, peer pressure, etc.) 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, explain this: My younger brother used to have a toy telephone that, when you pressed different buttons, made different sounds. One of the buttons had a picture of an ambulance, which, when pressed, made a voice say "Emergency! Emergency!", which makes perfect sense. My Dad, however, was terribly confused by this button because he was convinced it was saying "Liverpool! Liverpool". After being told what it really said he was, eventually, able to hear it correctly. Similarly, after being told what he heard, other people (myself included) were able to make it sound like that too (I'd liken it to making a Multistable perception image switch between the two possibilities at will). Is this a known phenomenon? --Tango (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of mondegreens too, but that really only applies to a song lyric, line from a poem, or book or movie title etc. In a general context, I'd say it's just a mishearing. People with hearing issues, and their families and friends, would be well aware of this phenomenon, although the auditory interpretation of "Emergency" as "Liverpool" seems an extreme case. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mondegreens seem to be cases where the two words/phrases sound very similar. That doesn't apply here. This wasn't caused by bad hearing, since all of us could make ourselves hear it as "Liverpool" with concious effort (and I don't think it was just suggestion, it took quite a bit of effort and there was a real "oh, wow! So it does!" moment when you did it, just like with optical illusions). It was said in a kind of sing-song voice, which may make the words sound a little more alike. --Tango (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has been some studies on the mis-perception of words. The McGurk effect is one example. Your example is probably most similar to Diana Deutsch's "Phantom Words" (an example is at [4] From that page: "two words, or a single word that is composed of two syllables ... are repeated over and over again. ... the first sound is coming from the loudspeaker on the left, the second sound is coming from the loudspeaker on the right; and vice versa. ... The words coming from the different spatial locations are offset from each other in time. As a result, listeners are given a palette of sounds from which to choose, and so can create in their minds many different combinations of sounds. After continuous exposure to these repeating words, listeners begin to 'hear' words and phrases that are not really there.") -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cognitive psychologists at one time called this the "Gilbert and Sullivan Effect," as in the observation that if you know what the singers are jabbering in a patter song, you can then recognize the words, but without advance knowledge it may seem like gibberish. Edison (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That toy must have a very, very poor speaker. Phonetically, the only sound shared by the two words is /ɚ/. Otherwise, they have a different syllable count, and the last two vowels of emergency, /ɛ/ and /i/, are so different from the /u/ in Liverpool in terms of articulation. The human brain is "wired" to try and make sense of any string of sounds as language, so I guess this case is more like straining your brain to make sense poor-quality audio, like when people in a stadium misunderstand a PA system with horrible acoustics.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The different syllable count might be accounted for by the fact that it was in a sing-song voice. The fact that the words are made up of completely different sounds is harder to explain away! I wonder if they still have the toy, it might be interesting to do some studies. It seems it isn't a known phenomenon (I thought maybe there was some kind of duality between certain sounds and actually "li" and "em" are in some weird way connected, but apparently not [I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't heard the toy!]). --Tango (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in Vowel#Articulation, especially the diagram of the articulation of vowels. Vowels that are located closer on the diagram are similar (if they share the same quality of roundedness). In fact, the first vowel sound in those two words (emergency, Liverpool) is sometime realized as the same vowel sound [ɪ]. Other sounds like [v] and [m] in English are not mistaken for each other except, unfortunately, in toys with poorly-crafted sound systems.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this is related to the need for people to guess what a speaker is saying when their articulation isn't clear. People with hearing issues would be particularly prone to this. For example, I occasionally watch NCIS, and whenever Pauley Perrette says anything, I have the greatest difficulty in deciphering just what she said (I do have a hearing loss, though). She has that kind of "rapid-fire squeaky nasal little-kid voice" that's becoming so prevalent among a certain demographic (girls, mainly). That makes it hard for a lot of people to know what they're saying even in ideal listening environments, but when background music is added to the mix (and NCIS has background music playing for virtually 100% of the program), it really does come down to guesswork. (If that reads like a bit like a rant, it wasn't meant to be). -- JackofOz (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for unbiased website to compare US presidential candidate's positions
As the subject says, I'm looking for an unbiased website to compare the US presidential candidate's positions on the issues. Any suggestions? I'm looking for the sort of thing that could be given to both (open-minded, uncommitted) Liberals and Conservatives as an antidote to the spin, something that is clear and straightforward and not with a particular axe to grind. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The political compass is a wonderful website that shows the 'position' of the main candidates (though we now know who these are) on the scale. You can take the test and find where you fall too. It's pretty interesting and it'll show you wish you align to more closely based on your responses. It takes about 15 mins to complete though and asks some pretty tough questions! Anyhoo I expect they will update to have a comparison for the election itself once things get underway. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I got a score of 132, apparently putting me in the lower end of the category "Gifted (2.3% of test takers)". I'd just like to know how reliable people think online IQ tests are, and to what extent that score can be considered accurate (it was a relatively short test with questions answered in a 'true or false' format). Would this possibly be better? The thing is, that many people on a forum that also took the test generally received high scores as well, and we can't all be that smart... can we?--Lost in kyoto (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The true "IQ test" is "are you willing to pay $10 for an IQ score from some web page?" If you truly want to know your IQ, look up your local MENSA group. They take IQ tests seriously and will happily give you a real one. -- kainaw™13:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't pay any money. It emails you a score without a fee, whereas you only pay to see an 'in-depth profile', which I never considered going for as I felt it would be a waste of money.--Lost in kyoto (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the ton of SPAM you will also get, now that they have your email address for their 'free' service. They have to make money somehow, mate.--ChokinBako (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it is a 'throwaway account'. Hotmail does not provide that service. They only have regular accounts. Actual 'throwaway accounts' are email accounts that expire, typically after 15 minutes. I seriously doubt you have got 5GB of SPAM in your hotmail account in 15 minutes. That would be a world record.--ChokinBako (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Throwaway accounts are accounts that can be "thrown away" after use - that is, they are used for a specific purpose then forgotten about. To say it is "full of spam" does not imply that it has 5GB of spam in it, just that it has a lot of spam in it. If you have any further difficulties understanding the English language, I suggest you try the Language desk. DuncanHill (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Duncan, I was referring to the term 'throwaway' account as generally used on websites that advertise this service. The '5GB' I was referring to was the 5GB that hotmail gives (unless that has changed). I do realise that 'full of' something can also mean 'having a lot of XXX in it', but it does typically mean 'having far more than I would like to bother with/can handle, etc.' Try the language desk yourself, mate. We have lots of fun and games there.--ChokinBako (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Saucer of milk for table 5!" Meow, lads. :-) Getting back on topic. The questions are, a) Are these tests reliable? I have taken numerous web-based IQ tests since they first appeared on the Internets and they have all agreed a score to within about 5 points. So we can conclude that either they are accurate or they are all equally flawed (they could have motivation to inflate scores so people would pay for the trophy certificates they offer, but it is odd that they all, being quite different , agree). b) Can we all be that smart? Yes you could be. There could be a bit of selection bias at work. People likely to try the test probably have an inkling that they are going to do well. If we were to offer a gruelling fitness test to people, my guess is that we would get those people who already knew they were fit as participants rather than your average couch potato. Fribbler (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What percentage of British people would know the difference between Slovakia and Slovenia?
What would you estimate? I'd say it'd be fairly low. If ignorance is widespread enough to allow for things like the grocer's apostrophe to be in common use, then I doubt that many people would know the difference between these two based on their similar-sounding names and relative proximity in location.--Lost in kyoto (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick check and I found no studies on this. Please keep in mind that this is a Reference Desk, not a What is your opinion on something I just thought about Desk. If you want to have a discussion, use one of the many (MANY) online discussion forums. -- kainaw™13:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the majority of educated British who have some sort of reason to know would know the difference. After all, there was never such a country as 'Czechoslovenia' and we have just spent a decade fighting two wars in the Balkans. People who don't know don't care, just like most Brits don't need to know the difference between Japan and China. --ChokinBako (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find that very hard to believe. Not knowing the difference between Slovakia and Slovenia, maybe, but most people know the difference between Japan and China! --Cameron*14:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Slovenia is the only EU member from the former Yugslavia and seems the most progressive, although Croatia seems to be catching up as well. It's only further southeast that the major wars in the Balkans were fought.--Lost in kyoto (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Croatia is next door. Bosnia is next to that, then Serbia. Not very far away, and Slovakia Slovenia (whoops! I made the very mistake we speak of!) was in the news during that time, anyway. So was little Macedonia and all the rest. I don't see the relevance of your answer to mine, though. It sounds more like a complaint against your mum.--ChokinBako (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, a separatist region called South Ossetia - I can just imagine parts of US states declaring independence and their citizens all getting Russian passports! Now, that would be worth watching American news channels for! --Tango (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What counts as knowing the difference? Just knowing that they are two different countries? I would expect most people know that - if it has a different name, it's a different country (Myanmar and Burma aside!). Actually knowing anything about either country is probably more rare. --Tango (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
whilst i take your point about the grocer's apostrophe, its maybe a little unkind to then assume all my fellow compatriots are brainless dum-dums. At the risk of coming across all 'henry higgins', I would imagine that despite our national inability to speak our own language (or anyone else's for that matter) we're quite good at world geography, having conquered most of it as some stage or another.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.4.63 (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are Hungary, Finland and Estonia anomalous in Europe as well as Romania?
The former three have Finno-Ugric languages, which are not part of the Indo-European language family. This in itself is anomalous for Europe, but even more strange is the fact that these languages are found in Northern Europe and then in a small pocket in Central Europe, with areas of Slavic and Germanic tongues seperating them. Also, why is Romanian a Latin language when it is largely surrounded by Slavic ones? How can these enclaves be explained? Also why are the people of a nation considered to be representatives of their language families? There are Germanic people, Latin people and Slavic people, but this doesn't seem to be a worthy categorisation of people, just as white people and black people are in my opinion crude and outdated Americanisms which would be better replaced with European people and African people (Sub-Saharan).--Lost in kyoto (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finland and Estonia are right next to Russia, which has literally hundreds of Fenno-Ugric languages in the area near to these countries. Romania is not very far from Italy. Hungary may seem isolated, but then that may explain why its language is so different from other Fenno-Ugric languages.--ChokinBako (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simple answer: People move. For more information, see History of Europe. As for describing people by the language group they speak - it is merely a characterization of the person, not a judgement. For example, saying that a guy is wearing brown shoes is a characterization used to identify him. It is not (necessarily) a judgement about him. -- kainaw™13:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Finnic languages in the general Baltic area have more or less remained in place as far back as we can trace with any certainty. However, Hungarian was imported from hundreds of miles to the east in the Hungarian migrations of ca. 900 A.D. Also, there are some enigmas about the survival of Rumanian -- the main area of Rumanian was presumably generally north of the Jireček Line, yet it's far from clear where in general Balkans region a substantial Romance-speaking society could have been hiding out during the 7th-century A.D. and for several turbulent centuries thereafter -- when the Slavs had overrun the western Balkans as far south as the Peloponnese, while the eastern Balkans were initially split between Byzantines and Avars, and then suffered several further waves of invasions from Bulgars and Magyars (Hungarians)... We have a whole article on Origin_of_the_Romanians...AnonMoos (talk)
Romania was, at least, part of the Roman Empire, but as Kainaw says, people migrate. The whole of the Balkans and Central Europe are a linguistic jigsaw puzzle, and you can only understand it by looking at the way one wave of migration and conquest has followed another all through the region's history. On a larger scale, the same must be true of the whole world. Strawless (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Romania was a frontier during the latter part of the Roman Empire (circa roughly 300 to 400 AD). It was a wild and unsettled area, yet it technically belonged within the Empire. To address this problem, as well as to solve the problem of rewarding lands to retiring Roman Army soldier (after putting in their allotted time), the Empire gave away tracts of land to these newly made Roman citizens (upon leaving the Army, Roman soldiers were also made citizens). Most of the men in the Roman Army at this time were from far-scattered lands throughout the vast Roman Empire and beyond. The language they all had in common was Latin, but it was a rather earthy, vulgate form of Latin. The soldiers would learn this "Creole" Latin as a second language, for the most part. So, when they retired to their farms in the new settlements being created in Romania, it was the "Army Latin" that was spoken the most. From this foundation we have the beginnings of the modern language of Romanian. I have been told (although this is unfortunately for me unverified) that of all the Romance Languages (Italian, Spanish, French, etc) that Romanian is the closest to what Latin would have sounded like, as it was spoken by the average person on the streets of Rome. Saukkomies15:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spies?
I remember hearing this story, possibly on the radio, about some Americans that by some strange turns of events ended up spying for the Japanese in WW2, but I can't find anything more about it now.
Here's what I remember of the story. A couple of American men go to Mexico where they end up with money troubles and have to sell their car, but then they're stopped when trying to come back to the US because the border guards want to either see their car or have some record of its sale/destruction. This causes them to be stuck in Mexico, but at some point they hop a boat to Japan shortly before Japan's involvement in WW2. Now in Japan and citizens of the enemy, they are convinced by the Japanese to go back to the US and spy. When the guys reach the US shore they turn themselves in, but are still tried for spying anyways.
Several German-American spies invaded the US via submarine in WW2 as part of Operation Pastorius and were captured when some of them turned the others in. They were tried and most were executed after appeals to the Supreme Court in Ex parte Quirin. Herbert Haupt had the adventure you speak of, and got executed by the US government. He made their way from the U.S to Japan to Germany, was trained with the others as a saboteur and sent to the US via U-boat. Edison (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the cultural, financial and military importance of France and England for the last 400 years or so, it startles me that there are so few reknowned French and English composers and (as far as I am aware) almost no operas written in those languages. Is there a historical/cultural explanation for the domination of music by Italy, Russia and the Germanic nations? Thanks 90.192.223.228 (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay that touched on what he termed (iirc) "The German Composer Disease". That might not be quite it, but it's close. Basically, the question becomes, "Why is it that, a few notable exceptions aside, every well-known piece of "classical" music was composed by a German speaker between the years 1700 and 1900?" There will be short term explanations that deal with funding, etc. but it still seems odd, and he didn't come up with any kind of compelling answer that I can recall. In a way, I suppose the question makes as much sense as asking why German speakers between 1700 and 1900 produced very few hard rock performers. Matt Deres (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look, but I must have a dozen of his books kicking around. If I can't find it reasonably quickly, I'll drop you a line at your talk page. Matt Deres (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we're talking about operas written between 1700 and 1900, I wouldn't regard the enormous mass of operas written by Italian composers as "a few notable exceptions". (By the way, questioner, the 2nd syllable of "renowned" is pronounced like "now" - not like "know" - and is spelled accordingly. I wouldn't normally nitpick, but this is becoming an increasingly common error, so others may benefit from this comment.) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nor would I, but I don't know of any classification system where opera and classical/romantic music are combined in such a way. Everyone knows opera is the one with the big lady wearing steel lingerie and classical music is one with the shaggy-haired conductor waving a baton. ;-). Matt Deres (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Harold C. Schonberg’s answer (which should be taken with a grain of salt) to the question of why so few British composers emerged until the twentyish century “British School” of composition arose, is that Handel literally chilled British innovation in composition for hundreds of years by giving the English a sever obsession with choral music, particularly sacred choral music.
Schools of composition move in cycles. Someone somewhere will come up with something pretty neat and everyone will rush to try the new style. The French and British have had some extremely famous composers, mostly in the 19th and 20th centuries. They are perhaps not as familiar to you because there is currently a strange obsession with playing the very old music ad nauseam.
For French composers there are the composers named by Wetman above. Add to that Olivier Messiaen, Edgard Varèse, Francis Poulenc, Darius Milhaud, Arthur Honegger, Finally, of very special note, there is Nadia Boulanger who is known as perhaps the greatest and most famous composition teacher of all time; a woman who guided the development of American music itself and taught nearly all the greatest American composers for half a decade. (See List of French composers for many more names).
This page has a link to an alleged list of books that Palin wanted to ban, but even on the original page with the link, there's a great deal of skepticism as to whether the list is accurate or not. It is true that Palin tried to get the head librarian at the Wasilla libary fired for "not giving full support to the mayor": [5]. Corvus cornixtalk18:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list is not accurate at all. Please don't get confused by it and spread misinformation—it makes everyone look bad.
It's not clear that Palin ever gave the librarian a list of books—from the articles it sounds like she just sounded out the idea of getting some books removed. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the coverage so far indicates no list was produced, but you might be interested in the American Library Association's list of 100 most frequently challenged books from 1990-2000, which is probably quite representative of the sorts of books people don't want others to read: [6]. I was going to go see if "Daddy's Roommate" was available at the Wasilla public library, but their server is down. :) --Sean14:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A very recent Time Magazine article on Palin briefly mentioned this happening, though there were only one or two sentences about that. Apparently, the censorship was intended to satisfy people wanting to avoid swearing in books. Vltava 68(talk, contribs)09:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to factcheck.org, Palin never tried to have any books banned, and the phony list in circulation contains books that hadn't even been published at the time. 24.210.252.153 (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When British police take the cars of people charged with motoring offences; why dont they sell them rather than crush them?
{wild speculation) I would imagine that it is because the police are not allowed to make a profit from these types of crimes, also by crushing the car they are providing a deterrent to further crime whilst also removing what can be a dangerous vehicle from the streets (positing that uninsured and untaxed cars may be damaged/unsafe). They are allowed to liquidate the assets of someone to recover the value of any fine or damages assessed by a court via intermediaries but only in certain cases. They have no objection to selling cars from other crimes or even recovered stolen goods (in fact they have their own auction website for this at http://www.bumblebeeauctions.co.uk ). Nanonic (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably they don't have their own crushing facility but use a commercial one. That suggests that someone is profiting from crime. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What we have here is a fundamental structural flaw. It's just so unfair that anyone can profit from crime, except the perpetrator. Without the perpetrator, all the others would be out of a job, or at least have a severely reduced income. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, getting back to the tedious business of answering the question, I read in Hansard for 8 Nov 2005 a reply from Alistair Darling, the then Transport Secretary, who said "and the police now have the power to crush or sell cars that are not claimed or insured within two weeks." I guess crushing sounds more compelling in HMG's advertising. From a 19 Jul 2005 debate in the house, this time on the subject of annoying moto bikes, it is suggested that "there is a view locally that if they have been used illegally, they should not only be confiscated but crushed and taken out of the market so that the young people who are buying them might begin to focus on just how serious offence they may have committed". The Select Committee on Public Accounts Twenty-Eighth Report mentions DVLA crushing operations in 2002/3, commented that "The Agency conceded that, in the main, it is the very oldest vehicles that are wheel-clamped which go unreclaimed by the keeper, and which ultimately have to be crushed at the Agency's expense", and one can see why the powers that be may well think it a good thing to get old bangers out of the market entirely rather than, to be cynical, being sold at auction for £50 to exactly the sort of person who would then go out and drive it uninsured again. --Tagishsimon(talk)22:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen and heard of Police auction where the police sell recovered items that haven't been 'claimed'. In my local area you can go along to these 'auctions' and buy yourself a bicycle for (sometimes) bargain prices. I would be surprised if similar things didn't occur for motorised vehicles too. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the US such auctions are necesitated by the shear number of vehicles of all sort which are impounded, however, nowa days inthe town where I live the task of auctioning has been tunred of to an online auction house that psecializes in practically fraud since you can not touch or feel and returns are not allowed sorry. In other words if you can't touch or feel then forget it. The local governments then dispose of property periodically that does not sell even though the administrations are in need of cash. However the real reason cars are crushed in the UK is because cars are thought of there as living agents fully capable of causign there owner, whomever it might be. to engadge in crime. These cars are bad card and must be estroyed in order to rid the UK of such agents of the Devil. Trust me, I know I am right on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.2.227 (talk) 10:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's sometimes argued in FAC discussions that CliffsNotes and similiar guides are not "reliable sources". I can understand why Cliffsnotes would be considered unscholarly or anti-itellectual, but are they really unreliable? Can anyone give a specific example of something included in a CliffsNotes guide that is incorrect, or even just misleading? Zagalejo^^^18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are plenty of factual errors in CliffsNotes, however, that alone would not make them not WP:RS. Rather, and this is my HO, the summary nature of these notes is what limits them as a source. An encyclopedia should contain all acceptable viewpoints, not just the ones that will get you through the midterms! --Regents Park (count the magpies) 20:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I agree if you're saying that CliffsNotes & similar are more prone to factual errors than the average academic journal. I'd say the opposite, if anything, and I'll make that case more fully here if anyone really wants me to. Like the original poster, I tend to resist the thinking that books like that are not WP:RS. Sometimes when you are trying to source the basics about a topic, doing so from a book designed to discuss the basics is using the best source. AndyJones (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that they are more prone to factual errors. Rather that factual errors are not the point. The summary nature of cliffnotes and the fact that they are not necessarily assembled by established scholars in the field, makes them less than reliable for anything other than main ideas. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 21:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well (a) we're a general-purpose encylopedia: the main ideas is what we do; and (b) although I don't have any CliffsNotes here, I've a number of York Notes, Cambridge Notes and Brodie's Notes and at a quick glance it seems to me they're all written by University lecturers. AndyJones (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that it has nothing to do with errors. It has to do with the fact that CliffNotes is not the original source (unless one is writing an article *about* CliffNotes). Wikiant (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are looking for just any secondary source about a literary work, then CliffsNotes are a reliable source. But if you are trying to write a featured article about a literary work, then I would consider CliffsNotes to be a mediocre source and not worthy of use as a source in a featured article. Any literary work which has CliffsNotes of it probably has been the subject of scholarly commentary which is worthy of being cited in an encyclopedia, whereas CliffsNotes are commentary on the work aimed at high school students who either had difficulty understanding the work or didn't even read it. --Metropolitan90(talk)17:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies, everyone. I'm not specifically planning to use CliffsNotes as a source in an article; I was just wondering if anyone was aware of any bonafide factual errors in the guides. Zagalejo^^^07:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hamlet plot query
Plea for help for any Shakespeare experts... during the later stages of 'Hamlet', Hamlet is banished to England by Claudius. His ship is attacked by pirates, and Hamlet alone is captured. But why do Rosencrantz and Guildenstern continue on the ship to England? Their objective, given to them by Claudius, was to escort Hamlet to England and pass on the letter demanding Hamlet's execution to English authorities, etc. However, since their escorting duty has gone so badly wrong, surely the bumbling and timid pair, R&G, should return to Denmark for advice and further orders from Claudius. They have no need to go to England, and would probably have avoided their deaths in a 'real' situation simply by returning home. I have done research online and from books, and there is no answer. So why DO R&G bother to continue to England? Or have I missed something? 87.114.133.121 (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the OP is under the impression that a private ship was hired for the sole purpose of taking Hamlet to England. This is extremely unlikely as three passengers, even with an entourage, would make a poor payload for the captain and/or the owners. ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the OP's impression I don't think there's anything in the text of the play which makes it demonstrably wrong. Kings command naval vessels, and can commandeer merchant vessels. Besides, OP's question is still a valid one if you phrase it as "why do they bother to visit the English King?" I could suggest a number of answers to that, of course. AndyJones (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that Hamlet is a work of fiction. There wasn't any prince; there wasn't any ship; there weren't any pirates; Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern didn't go anywhere because they were not in fact real people. Shakespeare has all kinds of inconsistencies and loose ends that he fails to tie up. In any case, in Act IV Claudius has R & G take Hamlet out of the country purportedly to protect him from the consequences of killing Polonius, though mostly because Hamlet is "loved of the distracted multitude." Claudius's letter to the king of England was sealed; R & G's orders were to deliver the letter. Hamlet found it, read it, and replaced it with his own version requesting England
...That, on the view and knowing of these contents,
Oh, don't be such a spoilsport :-) Of course it's fictional; it's our job, as fans, to to explain inconsistencies, not just complain about them or push them aside. That's what real fan fiction should be, not just stuff for people who only want to write about sex.
Now, you could pull a "The reference desk is not for speculation" and that would be fine; it does call for a bit of speculation here, because Shakespeare doesn't tell us, since they're not consequential tot he plot. However, since inquiring minds want to know, I would suggest that Claudius may well have sent them because they were known for bungling things, anyway; sort of like Laurel and Hardy. I mean, as a tyrant, you're not going to send your most trusted people there. You're going to send red shirted ensigns, which Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were the first of. (Star Trek reference - surprised there's not a page for that.) If Claudius did call them "trusted," then perhaps it is in a satirical way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DTF955 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but was it really a work of fiction? The Oxfordians among us would argue differently. Various parts of Hamlet, such as the encounter with Fortinbras's army and Hamlet's brush with buccaneers, do not appear in any of the play's sources, to the puzzlement of numerous literary critics. These might be explained by reference to actual events in the known life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Just as Hamlet's review of Fortinbras's troops leads directly to an ocean voyage overtaken by pirates, de Vere's meeting with the German duke Jan Casimir (who was leading troops towards Paris) was followed by a Channel crossing intercepted by pirates. He had met Jan Casimir on his way back from Italy (his known travels in that country are all exactly mirrored in references in the plays; Shakespeare is not known to have ever left England). In April 1576, de Vere boarded a ship in order to cross the Channel back to England. The ship was attacked by pirates, his luggage was ransacked, and he was stripped naked. They were allowed to continue on their way to England, however. But he had another experience with pirates. In 1585, he sent a boatload of apparel, money, wine and venison back to England from the Lowlands. The ship was intercepted by Spanish pirates off Dunkirk and was looted. The pirates discovered a letter to de Vere from Lord Burghley appointing him commander of the horse. De Vere transformed this 2nd experience into something useful: Hamlet contains not only an encounter with pirates but also an analogous plot twist involving suborned letters at sea. (I've quoted liberally from Mark Anderson: Shakespeare by Another Name.) If one sees these plays as an ongoing coded autobiography of de Vere as much as pure fictional entertainment, many of the loose ends and unsourced references make sense. Then, you don't have to worry too much about the apparent illogicality of R&G continuing on to England. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
September 5
Vaudeville hat
Does anybody know the actual name of the distinctive round, flat-topped hat worn by vaudeville performers?
Also, would anybody happen to know of any reputable dealers of said style of hat? Not this costume stuff, real legitimate hat. Thank you!! Kenjibeast (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I think of vaudeville and hats, the Susquehanna Hat Company comes to mind. This was an (Abbott and Costello routine,[7] Youtube link]] wherein many straw boaters get destroyed one after another. A fist punches so nicely through the top of one. Edison (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is something I remember reading (at some point in my life, not recently) but I can't find it anywhere now. There is, or was, or was being considered, a rule/law to the effect of "Two people from the same State may not be elected President of the United States in successive terms." So (for example) Gov. Rick Perry of Texas legally couldn't be elected President in 2008 because he's from the same state as George W. Bush.
It isn't in President_of_the_United_States#Qualification.2C_disqualification_and_common_practice, so it's clear to me that the aforesaid rule/law is not the case, at least not now. As I (incorrectly) recall, it was in the U.S. Constitution; but I'm wrong about that. The closest I find in the Constitution is part of the 12th Amendment which requires electors to vote separately for President and VP, at least one of which "shall not be an inhabitant of the same state as themselves."
It's a confusion between candidates and electors. See this article from Snopes.com. Article II requires that at least one of the persons chosen by a state's electors "shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves." In other words, if McCain and Palin were from the same state, under the constitution no more than half of any state's electors (not voters, mind you) could choose them. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your explanation is correct. If McCain and Palin were from the same state (say, Arizona), then electors from Arizona only (not "any state") would be able to vote for only one or the other. This is really only an issue if you're looking at either a close election or a state with a high electoral vote. Were McCain and Palin both from Arizona, the Republicans would be sacrificing 5 EVs (10/2) for the pair, or 10 for Palin if they were willing to risk a Dem VP. Were they both from Alaska, it'd be a 1-2 EV drop, which might be entirely acceptable -- if you can win by even 5, who cares if you give up 1 or 2. If they were both from California, having to split those 55 votes would likely be too high a price to pay. This precise scenario is why Dick Cheney is currently a resident of Wyoming -- splitting Texas' ~35 EVs in 2000 was a ludicrously high price and would have cost the Republicans the election. — Lomn14:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I misstated. Article II says "The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves." You could in theory run two candidates from Alaska (assuming you could find a second person with the outstanding qualifications of having been a small-town mayor and a moose hunter) and throw away the whole state's electoral vote.
If Alaska is out of moose-hunting mayors, perhaps they have some "community organizers"—apparently that qualifies one for high office these days. ;-) —KevinMyers16:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Had there actually been a rule in the Constitution that "Two people from the same State may not be elected President of the United States in successive terms", the first person to suffer from that rule would have been the "Father of the Constitution" himself! Early in American history New Englanders were concerned about the dominance of the Virginia Dynasty, and in the Hartford Convention proposed such a rule. This was perhaps the rule (though never adopted) that the original questioner was thinking of. —KevinMyers15:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly intrigued by the wording of the amendment: "... one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves". Is "the same ... with" a recognised construction? Normally, it would be "the same ... as", wouldn't it? Or is there some subtle legalistic gobbledygookesque nuance I'm not seeing? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem strange, but remember the amendment was written over 100 years ago, so the language might have changed slightly. The use of "with" does make some sense, you live in a state with another person. It's probably correct English, just uncommon these days. --Tango (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's mostly the change in the language, Jack; the twelfth amendment was ratified in 1804, so that's 200 years. And if you want some linguistic fun, try parsing the second amendment. The founders were a comma-happy bunch. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to ask only about sex so both 1.) premarital sex without pregnancy, 2.) premarital sex with pregnancy but no birth prior to marriage, 3.) premarital sex with pregnancy and birth prior to marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.2.227 (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you again, but your second one gets me—is there no birth before marriage because the mother had an abortion, or because the couple got married before the baby was born? Or would you like to know both cases, in which case there would be four cases:
Premarital sex without pregnancy,
Premarital sex with pregnancy and birth prior to marriage
Premarital sex with pregnancy, followed by marriage, then childbirth
Premarital sex with pregnancy, followed by an abortion,
This question doesn't appear to be well answered. I once saw a page that listed the different religions and who considered what a sin. Your answer:
Islam considers all premarital sex to be sinful.
Christianity almost always does.
Judaism does not explicitly prohibit it, but generally hints that it's bad. explicitly prohibits it (Deuteronomy 22:21.
Dharmic religions tend to be neutral on the issue.
Animistic religions of course are too widespread to pin down.
It's generally important to note the fact that marriage exists in every society, and religion often works to enforce morals. Thus, any religion, even if not specifically prohibiting it, has normally discouraged it in the past. Does this answer your question? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't answer how it's treated. In the Baha'i Faith sex out of wedlock is forbidden, as is abortion as a form of birth control, but, other related parts of the particular circumstances aside, those actions are normally viewed as being between the individuals and God. Coreligionists close enough to them would probably offer support as friends and others (including the administration) would most likely stay out of it. I cannot speak for the other religions but I would guess that it largely depends on what the particular group of the religion is like and what the prevailing culture is like. - Lambajan19:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought maybe other people would weigh in with how this is treated. I looked and found a pretty good list of how it's viewed, and it even breaks down different Christian denominations, but I couldn't find anything about treatment for Islam from the link but we have a page here. Most of the others don't have full blown jurisprudence, so I figure the treatment probably involves some rites or counseling or something, or maybe expulsion, but the write-ups make that seem unlikely. - Lambajan15:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the Baha'i Faith, taken from the Kitab-i-Aqdas: God hath imposed a fine on every adulterer and adulteress, to be paid to the House of Justice: nine mithqals of gold, to be doubled if they should repeat the offence. The authorised notes state that this applies to unmarried individuals, not to married persons doing the deed with someone other than their spouse. It is not, however applied at the moment, and is reserved "for a future condition of society" (quoted from the notes to the standard edition). It's been emotional (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When in Indonesia, he went to a school taught in the Indonesian language. That does not mean that he could understand the language. Even if he did learn it at that time, he doesn't necessarily know it now. Also, nearly all U.S. colleges require an introductory level of foreign language (usually French or Spanish). Students do not become fluent at that level. That is what was required of his education. I do not know what he learned beyond it. -- kainaw™12:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Queen Victoria's funeral cortège: Edward and Wilhelm?
Caption for this image is: "Detail from the photograph above of Queen Victoria's Funeral Cortège. King Edward VII is clearly seen in the centre immediately behind the coffin, with the German Kaiser to his right."
I'm not up on my turn of the century royalty. It seems to be indicating that Edward is dead center of the image (in dark dress) with Wilhelm to the left of him (also in dark). Or are they the fellows behind those fellows (with "Wilhelm" dressed lighter tan the others)? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edward's the rather dumpy one with a dead bird on his hat, Kaiser Bill (rather skinny) is to his right (our left), with his left hand resting on his sword, and another dead bird on his titfer, and excessively large lapels. DuncanHill (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify (in case anyone is still confused), your first interpretation was the right one, both in dark dress, Edward's left hand is obscured by the head of the gun-carriage attendant, and you can make out the Kaiser's over-groomed moustache. DuncanHill (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So in this photo File:FuneralVictoriaDetail3.jpg, the red arrow points to Edward, and the blue arrow to the Kaiser. Any idea who the slightly more dumpy guy is that the yellow arrow points to, or the exceedingly dumpy one shown by the green arrow? - Nunh-huh15:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oscar_II_of_Sweden was probably there, and i just get the general feeling that he's the guy by the green arrow. It kind of looks like him, comparing to the picture in his article. Complete guess on my part though, so don't trust it in any way..../Coffeeshivers (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the linked old Times article it turns out he wasn't there, only his son, the future Gustav V. I don't think he ever had a particularly large beard, so green arrow probably isn't him /Coffeeshivers (talk) 09:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but I think the protocol of 1901 would have some trouble in arranging Victoria's two surviving sons and an assortment of emperors and kings in the correct order in the wake of the coffin. Somewhere near the front will be the Duke of Connaught. Kaiser Bill, although only a grandson, seems to have got up to the front because he was also an emperor. Strawless (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See At Her Majesty's Pleasure - "Where a person convicted of murder or any other offence the sentence for which is fixed by law as life imprisonment appears to the court to have been aged under 18 at the time the offence was committed, the court shall (notwithstanding anything in this or any other Act) sentence him to be detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure". This is not to be construed as legal advice, rather as an educated layman's comment. DuncanHill (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the time, they almost certainly would have been men. "City watch" would be an accurate description, I don't know if it was ever used as a name. --Tango (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I keep reading stories about soldiers in Britain being disrespected/turned away for services? This is a compilation of various news articles [9]. More info [10]. Basically, a solider was turned away from a hotel in Britain because he was a solider. I believe that most people in America would gladly give their rooms to any solider in need, but airlines and hotels turn them away in Britain. If this ever happened in America (other than the Airlines charging soldiers for extra bags) there would be hell to pay.
Why is this? Is this because Britain never had a Vietnam, where the public blamed the soldiers instead of the war, something the US has since learned from? I realize this doesn't represent Britain as a whole, but I keep hearing these stories...--mboverload@03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
in recent months the hotel had “experienced some rather serious incidents” resulting from personnel from a local barracks staying at the hotel, and said staff had been requested to act with caution when taking future bookings from members of the armed forces.. Corvus cornixtalk04:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!", But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot..., not a new phenomenon. [11]DuncanHill (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the BBC's People's War project, the Rev. Paul Wilkinson recalled VJ Day: "We went to Brecon, a big barracks town. I remember with some amusement seeing lines of soldiers all lying on the pavement all paralytically drunk!" Strawless (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonstop US war
How long has the US been in constant war with different countries all together? I have heard 30 years and ive heard 50 years, not sure whats right. Any link would be appreciated. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.33.31 (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're in an official state of war with anyone at the moment. Do you mean just being involved in some kind of conflict? --Tango (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What it's called and what it officially is are two different things. If you're looking for the official, war-has-been-declared sort of war, we are not currently in any wars, but we were from like 2002 to 2007. Before that, we weren't in any official wars since... what, the Persian Gulf War? If you're talking unofficially we-have-soldiers-in-other-countries-fighting-a-lot, sure, we've probably had that sort of thing since around 2002. Not constantly for 30 or 50 years, though. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 13:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "Iraq War" only refers to when the coalition was fighting Saddam's forces, we won that war, now it's just combating insurgency. --Tango (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OP is asking the total duration of all of America's wars. If so, United States casualties of war lists the wars and the years in which they were fought. By my count (rounding up to the nearest year), I get 9 for the Revolutionary War, 4 for the War of 1812, 3 for the Mexican-American War, 5 for the not-so-Civil War, 1 for the Spanish-American, 2 for WWI, 5 for WWII, 4 for the Korean War (although you might consider this just a "police action" or alternately much more, since there was never a formal treaty ending it), who knows how many for the Vietnam War, 2 for the Gulf War, and ? for the Iraq War. Even without counting the hard-to-determine Vietnam and Iraq Wars and various minor conflicts, that's 31 years already. So 30-50 is a reasonable guess. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted astutely above, what really constitutes "war" is a matter interpretation and of much debate. Gore Vidal (who, it must be said, isn't the Avatar of NPOV) writes "since VJ Day we have been engaged in what historian Charles A. Beard called 'perpetual war for perpetual peace'" in his book of that name, and gives a table (sourced from Federation of American Scientists) listing all the US "wars" since that time; this list seems to cover that entire era. FAS takes a particularly broad definition of "war" in this list, even including stuff like Operation Garden Plot and Operation Steel Box. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk19:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The census and statistics only mention the very vague term whites; there is no detailed breakdown. According to a document of the Czech Foreign Ministry, there are 240 Czechs in China, including Hong Kong, but I only want the number in Hong Kong. Vltava 68(talk, contribs)20:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Hong Kong Government doesn't keep statistics such as you seek. Hence, the only reliable source would be the Czech Consulate or Embassy. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nathaniel Woodard painting
Hi! Due to problems with German copyright laws I am looking for the painter of this picture. Who can help?
This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.
This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page. --~~~~
Politician’s position on the issues
I stumbled across a very informative site, which I have been looking for, for a very long time. It lists the political positions of every candidate on every issue. The site is at On The Issues.
The coverage is so detailed in fact that I needed to create a decision table to reveal conditions, combinations and positions which have not been addressed.
My question is whether or not any political position decision tables exist elsewhere on the Internet or not?
I doubt positions of that level of (unnecessary) detail exist. (You could sum up Palin's view in a sentence, why use 12 cells to convey the same information? "She believes in abortion only when continuing the pregnancy would be a threat to the mother's life" is a lot clearer than your table). Such a table would obscure nuance more than it would enlighten it, IMO. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not about Palin... its about seeing which cells are not yet complete. If you visit the site On The Issues you will see that in the case of any politician there are a mired of issues on which they hold positions - far too many to get into your own head for analysis at one time, unless you are the politician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.2.227 (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You hear all of the time about these relics that are said to belong to Jesus or some other Christian muckety-muck, but when you examine them, it turns out that it really is just a black linen duvet or something. But some of them surely must be authentic (authentic in the sense that they really are what they're presented as, not authentic as in "can do magic"). I mean, it wouldn't be so hard just to go to the grave-site of St. Oswald-who-ate-to-many-poppies and just pick up his jawbone or whatever. So my question is this: what's the most valuable or most prized relic where scholars are somewhat certain of its authenticity (I'm just talking Christian relics now, if we allowed for any religion, I would suppose the Black Stone in the Kaaba in Mecca would probably win). 83.250.202.36 (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest it is genuine and plenty of evidence to suggest it isn't. Sure, people have picked holes in every test which has shown it to be a fake, but they haven't done any conclusive tests to show otherwise (at least, not that I know of). --Tango (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One test I find interesting by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory is the correlation between the intensity of reflection or (degree of transparency) and distance from the surface. I know that similar effects can be achieved with vapor disposition on or alteration of a surface either from degree of concentration with same distance or from a difference in distance with the same concentration in absolutely still air. This fact does more to support the possibility of genuineness than to refute it, as do many of the other tests, sufficiently enough to mark anyone rejecting the possibility of genuineness as a sophomoric. — unsigned comment added by 71.100.2.227 (talk·contribs)
I find, in fact, quite the opposite in Pontius Pilate's reaction to Jesus Christ as a man, in finding no flaw in him. Surely if Jesus looked like a dark skinned crooked nose Jew Pilate might not have taken so much time to question and examine him or otherwise been so generous, nor the Roman soldiers far less so, seeing him as an actual physical threat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.2.227 (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that Jesus was not a Jew? That would be quite some statement. As for the colour of his skin or the shape of his nose, or any other of his physical characteristics, we simply don't have any way of knowing, and the Shroud of Turin certainly doesn't count as evidence for his appearance. Neither do the traditional depictions of him. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above question has me thinking about relics. I think most major religions respect the dignity of the dead, and to dig up someone's remains is considered a despicable act. I would expect that to desecrate the grave of a saint/martyr might be considered even worse (to the religious authorities) than to do so to a random person's grave. Yet religious bodies have relics in their possession, so implicitly, they condone grave robbery.
I understand that most relics are (supposedly) hundreds of years old, so religious bodies presently don't have newly acquired relics that need to be "justified". That leaves me with these questions:
In the past, how did religious authorities, such as the Catholic Church, justify the acquisition of relics that are pieces of people's bodies (or other items removed from their grave)?
How do current religious authorities justify the keeping of relics that are pieces of people's bodies (or other items removed from their grave)?
I assume money (i.e. revenue from tourist/pilgrim donations) has something to do with it.
If I donated a saint/martyr's body part, which the authorities believed to be authentic, to a religious body, what actions would/should the authorities take?
e.g. accept it / deny it / investigate me for criminal charges / …
Relic#Christian_relics makes reference to an account in 2 Kings in which the bones of Elisha bring a dead man to life. In addition, supposedly the early Christians in Rome prayed among tombs in the catacombs, leading to the practice of placing a saint's relics in the altar stone. This was not seen as grave robbery, but as respect for / veneration of the saintly individual.
Here's an article from the Boston Globe. It mentions the problem of dealing with altar stones from churches that have closed.
Without pretending to be an authority, I'd say that the most common Catholic justification for retaining relics, rather than burying them, is to allow the faithful to make a spiritual connection with the saint and through him or her, with God. Certainly tourism plays some part, though I think that was far more common in the middle ages ("the holy blissful martyr for to seek...") than today.
Authorities would question the provenance (so to speak) of any body that you claimed was that of a saint; most likely, the authorities would feel they'd had a good handle on these things.
By the way, the Catholic church has classes of relics. You're speaking of first-class relics, I think: parts of the person's body like hair or bone. (The bodies of some saints have been preserved 'uncorrupted.') See relics for more. --- OtherDave (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technicolor effect
Is it possible to replicate the technicolor "effect" using say, video recorded via iphone? If so, what programs would I look into? What processes? Etc...
Well, the unemployment rate just reached 6.1%, the gap between rich and poor has bee steadily widening, the cost of just about everything went up quite a bit recently while wages largely stayed the same (but many businesses are losing employees by attrition and replacing them when they can by lower paid employees, so wages are effectively going down). This is all over the news, I don't see the need to ask the reference desk. If you want opinions about why... well, there's facts and there's political posturing, both of which are available from many sources, wikipedia included. - Lambajan03:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean over the long term, I don't expect so. I've not seen the figures for the US but the UK figures show real terms growth across the board. The rich are getting richer faster than the poor, but the poor are still getting richer. I would expect the US figures to be similar. --Tango (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either I'm remembering incorrectly, or the US and UK aren't similar in that respect. I just found this saying median income in the US dropped 1.1% in real terms between 2000 and 2006 (it apparently grew since then, though). I'll keep trying to find the UK figures that I'm remembering. --Tango (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a common misconception that (in the US) the poor are becoming poorer. In fact, the poor are becoming richer (in real terms). The reason people quote a rise in the income gap is because the rich are becoming richer (in real terms) *faster* than the poor are becoming richer (in real terms). Wikiant (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last time nominal GDP per capita declined was 1958. Other years of decline since data was first collected (1929) are 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1938, 1946, 1949 and 1954. For nominal disposable personal income, deduct 1946, 1949, 1954 and 1958 (i.e., the last decline was in 1938).
In real (Chain-linked) terms GDP per capita declined 0.3% in 2001, and real disposable personal income declined last in 1993.
A long time ago a read a book about a Chinese revolutionary, but I can't remember his name.
Everything I remember about him:
-It was a man
-He had a "golden tongue" (meaning, he was "eloquent")
-When taken prisoner, he used his persuasive powers to convince his (communist?) captor to let him go. The captor, who was a soldier, hung himself, moved to tearful suicide by the revolutionary's speech.
-The revolutionary was captured many more times, but always convinced his guards to let him go, so amazing were his oratorical skills.
128.239.177.28 (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)JustCurious[reply]
Is the following really true and accurate? (ie: that S. Palin is suing the Bush administration): "The 44-year-old governor says a federal government decision to protect the polar bear will cripple energy development offshore. As a result, she is suing the Bush administration, which ruled the polar bear is endangered and needs protection."[[12]]. If it is, is she likely to win? --AlexSuricata (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather doubtful that someone could sue an administration. She could conceivably sue the federal government, but it is highly unlikely (to the point of ridiculousness), seeing as this is an election year. This isn't a statement as to whether she would or would not do such a thing, of course, just saying that it's extremely unlikely. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 02:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this particular year, suing the current administration could be pretty shrewd politically. They're probably not bragging about it because the undecided independent voters that would appreciate a candidate who sued the current administration would probably be the same ones who would be turned away by a candidate who protects oil companies over polar bears. - Lambajan14:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gov. Palin could have authorized the Attorney-General of Alaska to sue the federal government challenging the designation of polar bears as a protected species. It would turn out to be politically embarassing now. It might be taken as a sign of independence from the Bush administration. Personally, I find her nomination an embarassment. Actually, it makes a lot of sense to me. I'm not commenting on the plight of artic bears, only whether such a suit is credible. I assume there are netural websites dedicated to finding the veracity of all the rumors.75Janice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 02:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she sued to have polar bears de-listed from the Endangered Species Act list because she was concerned that the categorization would hurt the economy of her state. She sued "the Bush administration" in the sense that she had her state sue the Department of the Interior, which is in charge of such listings. Bush himself likely has little to do with such things—those sorts of decisions are delegated pretty far down the line. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The famous generals are well known, but in the Greek/Roman/Viking periods, or any other time before the invention of guns, were there people who are remembered for their skill in individual combat? Are there any historical figures who measure up to legendary people like Ajax of Telamon, Beowulf, or Bodvarr Bjarki? (I can think of one or two from American history, like Jim Bowie, but none earlier). 128.194.34.211 (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd put Cúchulainn up against Achilles any day (assuming that he was at some point a real guy, that is :). As for a real person who was bad-ass fighter, how about Leonidas I? Honestly I don't really think there are that many that are famous for it, like in the myths, for very practical reasons: you could have supernatural powers of close-combat fighting, but in an army of thousands it wont matter much. Especially when you're fighting in a phalanx (or similar), then everyone has to cooperate and use very specific techniques. If you improvise, showing off you're mad Jackie Chan-moves, then you'd just be breaking the line and degrade the performance of the company as a whole. The people who are remembered are the great strategists, the great generals. One of my favourite people from the Roman empire (well, Byzantine empire, but I've always thought that was a ridiculous distinction) is Flavius Belisarius, quite possibly the greatest military commander in the history of warfare (and the last man ever to receive a triumph). He could pull off miracles at the battlefield, no matter how many Achilleses the other side had. 83.250.202.36 (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering what happened to the Charter 77 signatories, as the article is rather vague. On of the links there had all the names of the signatories, but when I searched for the names, the results were all in Czech, and I very much doubt that the list includes updates (i.e. marriage, which would probably result in a change of family name)[14]. Could someone tell me what happened to the lesser well known signatories (i.e. I'm rather intrigued (by the print handwriting, which reminds me a bit of the one I used to use!) about the fate of a Marie Švermová)? Vltava 68(talk, contribs)08:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The German WP has a short list of signatories, some of which (Vaclav Havel, Pavel Kohout) have articles in the English WP. You can check those via the language links. The Czech version has a much longer list of signatories (again, you can check any English parallel articles via the language links), but neither of the lists include Marie Svermova. There is an article on such a person (1902 - 1992) in the Czech WP, but it does not seem to mention Charta 77. I assume her to be the Marie Svermova (widow of Jan Sverma) who was arrested in the purge of the Communist Party in 1950 and was released in 1956. She is briefly mentioned as the host and guide of young Bill Clinton on his visit to Prague in the 1960s, but I can´t find anything on her activities beyond that. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Racism or learning from experience?
I found the following sentence on an HR web-site:
"Researchers at a university in Germany - where the right to be surly is almost a national pastime - now claim enforced jolliness on the job is much more likely to make people fall ill."
and I ask myself if it is racism or just experience (that can be right or wrong). Is any form of negative comment against group X a form of discrimination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.158.246 (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard a Germans-are-surly stereotype; the main ones that I'm familiar with are the two somewhat contradictory ones of Germans as jolly lederhosen-and-dirndl-clad Oktoberfest beer drinkers, and Germans as soulless petty bureaucrats who don't care whether what they do is right or wrong, as long as the proper forms are correctly filled out in triplicate. The arrogant militaristic Prussian aristocrat with a duelling scar stereotype is quite old fashioned by now (though it did influence Fearless Leader), but one rising steroetype among British people seems to be that at resorts Germans try to ensure that only other Germans use beach-chairs by assigning someone to sneak down early each morning and put towels on the available beach-chairs en masse, to reserve them (there have been several news stories about spontaneous British beachchair-towel revolts at swimming places frequented by both British and German tourists...). AnonMoos (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my experience German people are not notably surly. In answer to your question, I would say that any broad negative generalization about a group could be considered to be a sign of prejudice. Whether it amounts to discrimination would of course depend on the effect such a comment had, and on the power-relationship between the person making the comment, and members of the group so characterized. DuncanHill (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Observing something that applies on average to a group of people (whether good or ill) is not prejudice. For example, it is a fact that (in the US) the average black person is more likely to be incarcerated than the average white person. Neither is it prejudice to assume that *given no other relevant information* a given black person is more likely to have been incarcerated than a given white person. It becomes prejudice when other relevant information is ignored in favor of the single piece of information of the person's skin color. In short, the distinction here is one between making a statistical observation (not prejudice) and inappropriately weighting the statistical observation (prejudice). Let me anticipate the counter-argument that, "it is because society is racist that blacks are more likely to be incarcerated than whites." That's a fair hypothesis, but not germane to my argument -- I'm *not* saying that blacks are more prone to be criminals; I'm saying that (statistically) blacks are more likely to be incarcerated. Wikiant (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think in this particular case it's not really saying anything. "The right to" is their back door out of trouble. Most people would read this as that interjection is just there to set up the inherent humor of the finding, but if they would take offense to being called surly then they would figure by the way it's written that they're not being called surly but that they respect the freedom to be that way if they choose. The fact that this is really rather harmless helps their weaseling. If they were to talk about a poor communities' right to be jobless and say it's a pastime it would be a much different story. I'm part Irish and the Notre Dame mascot doesn't bother me nearly as much as Chief Wahoo simply because the days of real Irish persecution in my country are long over while racism and prejudice towards First Nations Peoples persists. While that may seem like an aside, I think it gets at the heart of the issue. You can make any sort of outlandish jab at your friends and they take it in stride because they know they're ok with you, but if things actually aren't ok then you have a problem and you need to be careful what you say. - Lambajan15:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall Pink Houses, or a snippet of it, being played at some point at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. I was just wondering if I am remembering correctly. (I know that Mellencamp told McCain to stop using his songs, and let Edwards use them on his campaign, but I'm specifically wondering about whether they played it at the DNC.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the projected tracking map for Hurricane Ike (here [16] or here [17]) that shows it bouncing up the full length of Cuba, I wondered what, if any, precautions will be taken at Guantanamo Bay in the event that such a storms threatens its security. I couldn't find anything on line. Does anyone have a link even to a discussion of it? ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found an answer to my own question:
Strong gusts and steady rains fell at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay in southeast Cuba, where all ferries were secured and beaches were off limits. The military said cells containing the detainees — about 255 men suspected of links to the Taliban and al-Qaida — are hurricane-proof. But the base was spared the strongest winds.[18]
One of the causes of the credit crunch is, apparently, that whilst banks used to limit the amount they borrowed to the amount of money people had saved with them, now banks can 'securitise' mortgages so they can lend much more. So i guess my questions are these, firstly, what is a securitised mortagage and secondly, if i wanted to buy a securitised mortgage (if i was an investor), why would i? (i'm told that when banks lend to people who will basically default, they securitise the mortgage, but why would any one want to buy this -what are you actually buying?)
Thanks,82.22.4.63 (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, the opening statement to the question is debatable. Credit is often tight but I have never heard of a limit on borrowing equal to the amount the borrower already has on deposit. I know that talking to bankers always makes me feel as if that is what they want, but I don't think it is true. As to mortgages, they are, by definition, secured borrowing. The real property is itself the security for the loan whether the money borrowed is used to purchase the property or for other purposes as permitted by the lender. I am not sure how one might otherwise "securitise" a mortgage. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"securitized" means that a big bunch of different mortgages have been grouped together into one big pool, and that pool is chopped up and sold as a security. There are lots of other kinds of securities - they're all backed by some kind of collateral or another (bits of the ownership of companies, a share of government debt, etc.). The handy thing about a security is that it's generic - you don't need to know much about what's inside it to buy and sell it. As property prices were going up, lots of financial companies thought they'd like to invest in this market, but they didn't know much about property and didn't want to bother with the details of hundreds or thousands of individual mortgages in lots of different places. So other companies securitized their mortgages (making mortgage-backed securities), and ratings agencies gave those securities scores. Based on those scores large companies could buy and sell mortgage value without knowing much about buildings and real estate and the property market in Tuscon and how much Mrs Biggs on Escondido Avenue earns. And so everyone was happy. But it turns out that many of those mortgages were sold to people who couldn't really afford them, and that properties were trading hands at values greater than the market could really sustain. Now the ratings agencies should have known this, but they didn't really do a very thorough job of really investigating what was really inside those security bundles - and one could argue that mortages aren't so easily securitizable (that they're not like a commodity like orange juice or steel, where you can empirically test something and know if it's okay or not) but rather that every mortgage and borrower is different in complicated ways, meaning only people who are experts in real estate and who do lots of research should be buying mortgages wholesale. So the collateral that backs the securities is failing, this makes the securities' values plummet. As many institutions have invested a lot (too much) of their own money in these securities, they're taking giant losses. Like all securities, you could get a security broker (an ordinary stockbroker may deal in them), but I don't know if these particular instruments are really sold retail (they're sold in giant chunks from one giant investor to another). 87.114.2.167 (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rabbinical Judges in Israel Supreme Rabbinical Court
Can any user please tell me where I can find the names of all the Rabbinical Judges who today sit in the Israel Supreme Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, all I could find is news articles. I guess the word for judge is dayan, so I googled 'Supreme Rabbinical Court dayanim'. - Lambajan04:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
philosipher who theorized that mandkind was created by "children gods"
Many years ago I read of a philosipher who theorized that mandkind was created by "children gods", who became board and abandoned their creation. I would like to re-visit this philosipher's work, but can not find any information on this theory.
I was just reading about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and it said:
Here's how they work: Banks loan money to home buyers. The banks then sell those mortgages - assuming they meet certain credit standards - to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.
Banks then use the money they get from the sale of those mortgages to make new loans. Fannie and Freddie, meanwhile, bundle those loans, attach a payment guarantee to them, and resell them as bonds.
I thought banks usually keep the loans. Dont you get a bill every month from your bank for your mortgage? Doesnt that mean they own the loan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.33.31 (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You pretty much always make your payments to whoever originally lent you the money, but they will often forward that onto someone else. It's all done in such a way that you never need to know who actually owns your mortgage (it may well have been split between multiple people in weird ways - that's kind of where the trouble started!). --Tango (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Religious symbology
What religions/beliefs/whatever do these symbols represent? I realize that the image is being used in an article about religion in science fiction and may not be strictly associated with just one religion but get as close to one belief system as you can, please.
I originally only wanted to know #11 but I thought I'd expand my mind a bit more and just ask about them all.
From 12:00 going clockwise:
Is there a name for the idea that the Christian god, the Norse gods, the Egyptian gods, etc are all subordinates under one even more powerful god? Dismas|(talk)04:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Short Story where people have a limited number of words per day
I have searched for this on the Internet and on several other "book identification" websites with no luck.
I am looking for a short story I read in middle school or maybe elementary school. The writing style, as I remember it, was something like Ray Bradbury or Kurt Vonnegut but I have looked through lists of their stories and if it was by one of them it wasn't immediately obvious to me.
The story was about a (futuristic?) society wherein people had only a limited number of words per day that they can say. A man was trying to save up enough words to tell a woman he loves her, but then uses them up or something so when she calls him he can't say anything. That's all I can remember. If someone at the desk doesn't know it, I may try to get it published and wait to get sued because I want to know SO BAD what this story was; I really liked it. 69.244.5.221 (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Sariasister69.244.5.221 (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.gif){kind=link}
