Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 September 20

< September 19	<< Aug | Sep | Oct >>	September 21 >

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous Archives

The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions at one of the pages linked to above.

you know, its funny. i play san andreas from grand theft auto and for each population that adds up in the entire state, it doesnt ad up nearly to all the people i've killed so far, which is 20,500. yet there's still people all over the place. funny how games work.Jk31213 00:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a question? --AstoVidatu 01:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this is a statement. Mufufufufufu. Hyenaste ^(tell) 02:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An exclamation! It must be!  ;-) -- the GREAT Gavini 11:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An observation, methinks. —Daniel (‽) 18:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a friken question. anybody with a brain stem can tell that. look, (only computer experts answer this question), why does it do that (refer to the question.)

Please be polite. You didn't ask the question "Why does it do that?" in the first comment. It wasn't at all obvious that you were even asking a question. --Charlene.fic 20:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Andreas (Grand Theft Auto) might help. Carcharoth 21:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the state gives special benefits to new people moving in, and the price for lots are quite low, considering there's a maniacal serial killer loose in the neighborhood. =S 惑乱 分からん 21:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When someone is appointed to the Privy Council of the United Kingdom, he or she receives the style The Rt. Hon. in front of his or her first name. If that someone is a man, does his wife receive the title as well? For example, is Cherie Blair's official style "The Rt. Hon. Mrs. Tony Blair"? I know it works that way for the wives of sons of earls, viscounts, and barons who are styled The Hon. (The Hon. John Smith's wife is "The Hon. Mrs. John Smith.") and for the wives of actual earls, viscounts, and barons. Do the same rules apply to Privy Counsellors? 04:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought only PC members themselves had the right to call themselves "Rt Hon". --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. It stems from their personal membership of the Privy Council. Their spouses are not members, so don't get the style. JackofOz 08:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly- I was pretty sure that was the case but I wasn't definite. TysK 02:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I get a pie chart of U.S. Government Spending in the year 2006 by category?

Kelly Jo Rome

• I had seen one in a Meet the Press Webcast recently. Based on my memory about 52% is Social Security and Medicare, 5% is defense, but I don't recall the rest. The source was the Government Accountability Office. If I weren't tied up with other tasks, then I would dig http://www.gao.gov/ for a pie chart.--Patchouli 05:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The Office of Management and Budget (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/) has lots of data on the categories of US spending. According to the CIA Factbook page on the USA, though, 2005 military expenditures were 20% of the total budget expenditures; the 4-5% figure is relative to the GNP, a totally different number. --Fastfission 15:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, right the Soviet Union broke up and split up into different countries right; Russia and others impossible to spell or pronounce. So how come Estoina and Latvia, which were something like states of the Soviet Union, now speek Estonian and Latvien. Isn't that something like saying that Americans speek American rather than English.

thanx, --William dady 09:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert but I would imagine those languages were spoken in those countries even when they were part of the Soviet Union. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, they always spoke Estonian and Latvian. And Lithuania always spoke Lithuanian, and Ukraine always spoke Ukrainian, etc etc. But they had Russian forced on them from Moscow, so they were all bilingual (at least). When the USSR broke up, they didn't have to speak Russian any more. But many people still do, because it has become the lingua franca in those countries. JackofOz 10:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess an inhabitant of the Baltic states could give a more precise (and probably quite angry) answer...but the Baltic states were "eaten" by the Soviet Union during the Second World War. I once talked to a Lithuanian who claimed that they wanted to enforce Russian as much as possible (in schools etc...) but the language survived that half century. Maybe you can read Estonia? Evilbu 10:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe reading something like Russification or Ukrainization is more to the point. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They don't 'now' speak Estonian and Latvian - they always spoke them. Russia annexed them as part of the USSR, and forced Russian upon them. The problem that now arises is that as a result of the USSR, there are significant Russian minorities in all of the Baltic states, which only speak Russian, instead of the national language. In some cases, this means they can't even get citizenship, as that is only granted after passing a qualifying exam - in the national language. A comparable example would be if Scotland were to suddenly gain independence from the United Kingdom, and declare that Gaelic would be the national language, in which everything would be done - whilst some people would be okay, and it would be returning to the national language, many people who didn't speak it, yet were fully entitled to live there, would do so. --Mnemeson 12:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An extra question that pops up : what makes the Baltic states so important that they had to become a member of the Soviet Union. After World War II the Soviet Union "liberated" Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia,... but it did not become part of their country. They did kick some dust around like Prague. So why didn't they just do the same with the Baltic states? Keeping it under firm control but not absorbing it in their country?Evilbu 13:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To over simply rather: an important part of Russian policy for generations was about obtaining harbours which were not within the Arctic circle and therefore would not freeze up making them inaccessible during winter. It is much better to own a port rather then simply to have access to it as access could be denied at any time. See also The Great Game which also had an element of this. MeltBanana 13:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Baltic States, they had only been independent for about 20 years prior to their annexation by the USSR, and had previously been part of the Russian Empire for at least a couple of centuries (in the case of Lithuania) and longer in the case of the others. -- Arwel (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not strictly related, but I also found Korenization, the Soviet policy that seemed to try and counter extreme Russification. Carcharoth 15:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian and Latvian are about as different (or moreso) as English and Spanish. Russian and Estonian about as different as English and Finnish. The languages are not mutually intelligible. 惑乱 分からん 10:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the following statement accurate? "All Jews are strictly banned from entering the country." From Der Spiegel online edition http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-437017,00.html

Do Dubai/UAE authorities enforce an official ban on all people of ethnicity/heritage, how do they check all visitors if so or do they only apply a ban to Israeli nationals?

--Arri66 10:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this Israeli nationals are banned from the UAE. I doubt non-Israeli Jews are banned from Dubai, unless they're very conspicuous. It's weird, though. -- the GREAT Gavini 12:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about the UAE, but for a long time all Jews were in fact forbidden to enter Saudi Arabia, and one British ambassador to Saudi Arabia in the 1960's was declared persona non grata and told to leave when it emerged that his mother had been Jewish (though he was not Jewish himself). AnonMoos 14:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If his mother was Jewish, all Jewish authorities would consider him to be Jewish too (see Who is a Jew?). Just to clear that up. Batmanand | Talk 16:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does that also apply transitively if someone's greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgrandmother in the maternal line is Jewish? --Lambiam^Talk 18:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If none of your foremothers (is that a word?) converted, then they would all have been considered Jewish, and thus you would be considered Jewish. This only applies through the maternal line, however. —Daniel (‽) 18:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My cousin, who's Jewish, sometimes travels to Dubai for work, so I doubt they ban Jews from the country. She's American, though, not Israeli. -- Mwalcoff 23:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a question, if your mother is a jew and your father is the prophet Muhammad, then are you a jew? And would you be banned from the holy city of Mecca? 202.168.50.40 23:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to how they would identify one as a Jew, well for males at least, the old "inspection routine" wouldn't be of any use, since both Jews and Muslims practice circumcision (as well as many secular non-Jews and non-Muslims over the past several decades, though the trend seems to be going back to the "natural look" these days). Personally, I'm against it. After I was circumcised I couldn't walk for over a year! :--) Loomis 01:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for Batmanand's comment on Who is a Jew, though all Jewish authorities would consider you a Jew as long as your mother is Jewish, I doubt that all too many other authorities would care too much about what the Jewish authorities think. In fact, I'm not even sure if the Jewish authorities would still consider an apostate to be a Jew, even if his/her mother was indeed a Jew. But I'd have to look into that one. In any case, the Saudi's probably didn't care whether it was the British ambassador's mother or father who was a Jew, and didn't care that he didn't consider himself a Jew either. As long as he had "Jewish blood", he was verboten. Remember that the Nazis didn't care much either about the position of the Jewish authorities on who is a Jew, nor did it matter to them much if a Jew coverted to Christianity. If s/he had Jewish blood, s/he was a Jew. Loomis 01:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ambassador's name was Horace Phillips -- we don't seem to have an article on him. It seems he was actually a practicing Jew (though it was widely reported in the media at the time that he wasn't). AnonMoos 04:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starting article on him (not much yet): Sir Horace Phillips -- AnonMoos 05:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loomis states that he couldn't walk for a year after he was circumsized. If he was 8 days old when it was done, this is not as startling as he makes it appear. B00P 03:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B00P. It was a joke. A bit of levity. Just an example of how my people have learned to use humour to maintain or sanity in the face of constant persecution. In this case, the particular persecution we're speaking of is the fact that for no other reason than the fact that we are who we are, now, in the 21st century, we're STILL forbidden to set foot in certain countries. How do we deal with this insanity? Anger? No, that's useless. It's having something of a dark sense of humour about the absurdity of it all that maintains us. Loomis 07:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im doing some reasearch on the populations of UK counties on wikipedia, but theres a problem. As well as the "proper" counties like Lincolnshire, Devon, Cheshire im finding the populations of the "non-proper" counties such as Leeds, Telford and Wrekin, Stockport (which are populous and urban enough to be kinda counties). The problem is that to ckeck for any mistakes i did some adding up. (by the way im doing it on ms excel). When i was adding up on Nottinhamshire it didnt quite add up properly. Wikipedia tells me that there are two parts to "proper" Nottinghamshire¹; the city of Nottingham (pop=278,700) and the rest of Nottinghamshire² (pop=726,600). Add them up and you get 1,005,300 which is fine but when i search for Nottinghamshire on Wikipedia i get the total for "proper" Nottinghamshire as 1,041,300. Is it just a typo or have i just lost 36,000 people???

¹ & ² (IMPORTANT!):

When you type in Nottinghamshire on wikipedia and you look at the information box/table thingy on the right hand side the population for the rest of Nottinghamshire is the bit where it says "- Admin. pop." and the bit for nottinghamshire including Nottingham itself is the population figure above it ( "- Total (2005 est.)" )

Thanx, --William dady 11:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got the wrong figure for the rest of Nottinghamshire, it actually says 762,600 rather than 726,600. This is a classic example of a transposition error, i.e. one where you get two digits the wrong way round. The difference between two numbers in a transposition error is always divisible by 9, in this case 36,000. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "counties" or "proper counties," but the administrative subdivisions of England (and even more so those of Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland) have evolved away from the counties that existed before the 1960s. What now exist are a variety of types of subdivisions, from metropolitan boroughs to unitary authorities to metropolitan counties that (apart from Greater London) no longer have an administrative function but exist only as statistical units. The administrative counties that remain in England do not necessarily correspond to the counties whose names they carry. For example, adminstrative Cambridgeshire includes not only historical Cambridgeshire but also the historcial county of Huntingdonshire. Adminstrative Oxfordshire includes a large area that historically was part of Berkshire. Also, as you have found, many parts of historical counties have been split off as separate unitary authorities or metropolitan boroughs, such as the City of Nottingham that has been detached from the rest of Nottinghamshire. The unitary authority of Medway has been separated from Kent, not to mention those bits of historic Kent that are now part of Greater London. There are dozens of similar examples. The historic county of Middlesex has ceased to exist altogether even as a vestigial administrative unit. And as I've said, the administrative subdivisions of most parts of the UK outside of England bear little relation to counties. So, if you are looking for the populations of U.K. administrative units, you can find those. But you will have a hard time finding data on the populations of "proper counties". Marco polo 16:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When was the Aum symbol first used? I know that the Aum mantra dates back to the Vedas but I think the symbol may be much later. -- Chris Q 13:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be older than the alphabet it was based on... AnonMoos 14:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that that is true. Devanagari emerged out of earlier alphabets that could have included the symbol. -- Chris Q 15:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Aum article says that it's not based exclusively on modern Devanagari... AnonMoos 15:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Brāhmī & Indic first appeared in the 6th c. BC and Tibetan seperated in 7th century AD (the aum appears in Tibetan) (from History of the alphabet, I would imagine that it originated at some point between these dates. This is still a very large time period and only a guess. -- Chris Q 13:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My question centres around the age at which people in the US are encouraged to have sex.

It has become a trite subject in todays pop culture that the youth indulges in it very recklessly today.

What is the reason for the porn industry to flourish in the US? Why is porn viewed as a career choice in the US by many? Why is the encouragement given?

Kindly provide meaningful answers.

I don't think it's encouraged...I think it's just accepted... there's a difference between those things.. and it is accepted because the US is a free country, based on freedom of choice and of expression. many Americans would deny this 'land of the free' thing, saying that their country isn't fre at all, and that the media and blah blah blah, and even musical bands complain about this in their songs... but hey, if they can do it and survive, that means the US is indeed a free country...sorry , I got off topic, but yeah, to answer your question, I believe it's cause the US is one of the biggest 'empires' in human history that is such an advocate for human freedom. I also think the Roman empire was like that...but that may be just a missconception of mine.--Cosmic girl 19:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of doubt that a career in pornography is considered by many Americans.--The Dark Side 20:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get these notions about the U.S.? Durova 21:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... such as that it's a free country. To stay close to the original topic, try having sex in the street in broad daylight and see how long it takes the police to pick you up and put you in jail. The obvious reply to this would be that that is immoral. Says who? Well, they do. In another culture it might be a perfectly normal thing to do. The US is as free as its own culture and morals allow, but then that goes for any country. So all countries are free. By their own standards.

That said, in reality the public sex is not ok in any existing culture I know of, but substitute that with bathing naked in full view of a village. In Borneo when I reached a village and had a bath in the river in my swimming shorts, the headman joined in, stripping down completely. Yet, when, later, during a week long forest trip, I stripped down in an all-guys situation, they were shocked (and Penan aren't easily shocked) because I didn't cover my groin - a detail I hadn't paid enough attention to in the village. Different strokes for different folks. To each their own freedom. DirkvdM 09:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why could the headman join you? Shouldn't that have been shocking to them as well?: = Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wore a swimming short and he constantly kept his groin covered. DirkvdM 09:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it was the lack of cover that shocked them? Did you ask? --JohJak2 10:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty obvious from the reaction. DirkvdM 09:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my reply was off topic. There are deep regional differences between different parts of the United States. While the original poster's assumptions don't really apply anywhere, some of the responses on this page have characterized the most permissive urban neighborhoods while overlooking vast regions of the country. If anyone asked that question in rural Virginia, they'd be answered with shocked silence. Durova 17:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After browsing through many of the responses I am still baffled regarding this issue. In the US A guy called Hugh Hefner has a playboy mansion & is scotfree & at the same time there are many americans who r obese , living below poverty & have to bear the brunt of taxes. On one side u r recognising every form of mental weakness & on the other side the law is convicting sex offenders & perverts. I fail to understand the concept of freedom. Its being overhyped by the mediaworld & people r gettng impatient for no reason.

Kindly clarify??

I'm not sure of what you're asking, to be honest, because your English is difficult to follow. I'm not trying to insult you here: I'm just trying to explain why I'm writing what I am. If it doesn't answer your questions, I apologize.

It's very common to believe that one's own morals and religion are somehow "the standard" against which the rest of the universe has to prove itself, and that anybody who has a different view or who acts contrary to your religion or morals is "evil" or "perverted". Generally, however, it's best to try to understand that people who think differently than you may be right, for them.

The same should go for those who take such positions as this--minus the "for them" clause which assumes that moral relativism is the only truth and that holding general standards is itself wrong (despite the fact that many religions do hold the same general standards (see Global ethic for example))--that is unless, of course, you want to admit that you are not being objective. The inquirer said nothing of others being evil. He or she has simply started an innocent dialogue which has been rather obnoxiously (and predictably) snubbed with patronizing or dismissive comments. The clash of civilizations going on in the world would benefit, I would say, by a little genuine humility and soul-searching from both sides (rather than platitudes--whether religious-based or not). 218.17.96.221 07:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For many younger people and less conservative people, any agreed-upon (or consensual) sex act between adults is acceptable; no exceptions, no discussion. For instance, watching pornography is extremely common among young men. They don't consider it in the least bit wrong because they use it as a masturbation aid, and they don't consider masturbation wrong in the least. They also don't care if you think it's wrong, because your morals don't matter to them any more than theirs do to you.

Most young people and less conservative people also don't consider Playboy pornography. They consider it extremely, extremely mild erotica. To them, pornography only encompasses graphic videos or photos of sexual intercourse of some sort. Playboy only shows pictures of heavily Photoshopped partially and fully naked women. Hugh Hefner doesn't show anything that, if painted, couldn't be hung in a major European art gallery. He's wealthy because at the time he began to publish his magazine he was the only one doing it in the mainstream. Men like to look at naked women, and he became rich.

People work in porn because it is extremely well-paying. You can Google "porn careers" and find discussions where women relate that they make more money working in porn for ten hours a week than they do working in regular jobs for 40 to 50 hours a week. If a person doesn't feel that casual sex is a bad thing and doesn't mind participating in pornography, then there may be an economic benefit for them to act in porn.

Remember, just because you believe or your culture/religion teaches that something is wrong, "perverted", nasty, evil, or bad, doesn't mean that other people agree. They may think that you're cruel or prejudiced, or that you're trying to impose your world view on the rest of humanity. A hundred years ago it was considered sick, wrong, and "perverted" in the Western World for a woman to admit she enjoyed sex with her husband, even to her doctor.

As for why people watch porn or have sex that perhaps you don't approve of: they like it. It's enjoyable. It's the same reason why people eat. I don't think that's so difficult to understand. --Charlene.fic 20:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After browsing through many of the responses I am still baffled regarding this issue. In the US A guy called Hugh Hefner has a playboy mansion & is scotfree & at the same time there are many americans who r obese , living below poverty & have to bear the brunt of taxes. On one side u r recognising every form of mental weakness & on the other side the law is convicting sex offenders & perverts. I fail to understand the concept of freedom. Its being overhyped by the mediaworld & people r gettng impatient for no reason.

Kindly clarify??

I would recommend you find a website that is set up as a discussion board. That is not the purpose of the Wikipedia reference desks. --LarryMac 13:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, and why have you repeated exactly what you wrote further up this Reference Desk (even with the same heading of "Sex in the USA")? - Adrian Pingstone 14:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"living below poverty " I think the poster means that everyone in Mauritania, Somalia, Sudan, Iran, Myanmar, et cetera are wealthy because they have given up their Four freedoms.--Patchouli 14:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Except Saudia Arabia and Kuwait, anyone in the world who gave up the four freedoms essentially got screwed; they got nothing in return. These two oil rich countries are welfare states. However, neither accepts immigrants. You won't become a citizen even if you are born in these two countries.--Patchouli 15:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hefner is not a Scot, and he does not live free: Bunnies cost a lot of money, as do mansions. Edison 16:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this reference desk is capable of answering this poster's questions. Whatever sources of information this person has used, they've conveyed a profoundly distorted image. The best solution would be to travel and see the United States firsthand. Durova 15:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"on the other side the law is convicting sex offenders & perverts" — That's not exactly true. The United States has among the freest laws regarding sexual behavior in the world at the moment, though it has not always had such (i.e. sodomy laws were only wholly ruled unconstitutional three years ago). The only practices which are strongly prohibited in the United States is sex without consent (rape) and sex where consent is determined to be unable to be given (i.e. sex with children). Most Americans have what one could consider rather confused and conflicted views about sex (it is often valorized, esp. in the case of sexually active heterosexual men, while at the same time it is also condemned, esp. in the case of sexually active females and homosexuals), but the law has, over time, become extremely permissive from the point of view of how standards are elsewhere in the world. --Fastfission 15:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First poster, can you be a bit more specific. We have trouble understanding your question. You seem to be asking too many questions at the same time. Please, ask a specific question like for example: "Why are some people in America so rich and hedonistic while the vast majority are poor and obese?" or "Why America allows all forms of sexual pervertions (at least on video) and yet arrest those who commit them in public?". These question are much easier for people on this reference desk to answer than your confusing rant. 202.168.50.40 23:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a query for the original questioner: Why did pederasty not halt under the Taliban in Afghanistan? What exactly does Mullah Omar mean by calling non-Muslims "wrongdoers"?

Kindly clarify.--08:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I went thru all ur responses. Neither am i tryng to impose my view nor am i trying to prejudice someone. Everyone enjoys sex & watchng porn. But my feeling is that the value of women is deteriorating and sex is being over done for no reason at all. Every religion has its standard and different people have varying opinions about sexual orientation. But still the parallel world exists. How many people engage in unprotected sex before marriage & at what age? & how many believe in the institution of marriage in the west? What is the opinion of the west about religion & the values of faith?

Again you are asking numerous vague questions like "What is the opinion of the west about religion & the values of faith?". That question alone would take hundreds of pages to answer, with discussions of each religion and faith issue in each culture within each Western nation. A single specific question like "What is the average age of first sexual intercourse in the US" we could answer. StuRat 10:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alrite word it that way! My question centres around the same topic! What is the age & is there any moral standard of decency?

By the time they graduate from high school, about half of the boys and one third of the girls will have had sexual intercourse. By the time they graduate from college about 90% have had sexual intercourse at least once. From what I know, casual sex is not the norm. Especially in college, inebriation can play a role too. --AstoVidatu 17:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about after marriage ? How many times do they get into relationships.Are there anythng called family values? People have many misconceptions about the west and their culture. Kindly clarify the same?

About 90% of the players in the NFL are black. Is this the result of affirmative action? How else to explain this over-representation? Is there an article in Wikipedia on this subject? As John Stossel explained on his special last week, maybe this topic is something Americans know, but just can't talk about in public: blacks are better athletes than whites. Carla B.

It's not affirmative action. At this point, though, I suspect a lot of it is societal expectation. The "black quarterback" stigma is still a subject of some debate at the pro level, for example. I'd be far more inclined to pin the discrepancies on such "nurture" factors as opposed to skin-color "nature" ones. — Lomn 15:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of this is socioeconomic: since African-Americans on average have less income than white Americans, there's more incentive for them to earn athletic scholarships to college. Middle class white parents are more likely to steer their athletically talented children toward law or medicine or engineering, which are perceived as more open and stable fields than professional sports. Statistically, an African-American college athlete is more likely to be the first person in their family to get a university education, so on average the sort of family and neighborhood career advice these young people get is probably different. It isn't wise to posit a racial difference when other factors play a substantial role. Durova 15:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is more of an over-representation of Samoans than blacks in the NFL. As for affirmative action, the NFL is all about winning games. No team is going to take on blacks to be nice. They take on players who win games. The same goes for the quarterback issue. They won't refuse a black quarterback if he will win more games. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually about 70%, but it is quite apparent. It's almost assuredly both a natural and a social phenomenon. Speed is largely a physical characteristic, and there are of course differences in physical characteristics among ethnic groups. I read once that people from West Africa are, on average, the fastest in the world. Most African-Americans are of West African descent. The differences among ethnic groups in things like speed and strength are quite small, but are magnified when you're looking at the best of the best. If you were to chart average speed by race, blacks would have a bell curve very slightly to the right of a similar bell curve for whites. So on average, the difference would be small, but if you were to look at only the fastest 1% of people, most would be black.

But society plays a big role, too. Boxing was once dominated by Jews and Italians from their own ethnic ghettos. After WWII, blacks owned the heavyweight division. But now, white people from the former Soviet Union hold all of the heavyweight belts. Someone asked one of the defeated African-American champs what's happened, and he said there's just not enough black (or white) Americans who grow up wanting to get hit in the head for a living anymore. There are, however, a lot of African-Americans who see football or basketball as their way to success and are willing to work to make that happen. -- Mwalcoff 23:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was the subject of a John Stossel episode broadcast just recently. Rmhermen 01:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The black quarterback's time is here. Look at the starting QBs in the NFL who are black -- Donovan McNabb, Daunte Culpepper, Michael Vick, Steve McNair, Aaron Brooks, Byron Leftwich, Vince Young, Charlie Batch, David Garrard, Anthony Wright, etc. There will be more in the upcoming years. This is quite a change from a few years ago. It's only the Rush Limbaughs of the world who find it necessary to attack a quarterback merely because he's black. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you making reference to Rush's comment about a black quarterback being overly scrutinized because the press previously over-praised him simply because he was black? How is that an attack on the quarterback? It was an attack on the press' treatment of a black quarterback. There are many reasons to hate a pill-popping ass like Rush. We don't need to make up fake ones. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The easyJet article says;

...easyJet has recently come under criticism in Germany for not observing EU-law 261/2004. In the case of annulment, passengers are granted the right of being reimbursed within one week. EasyJet does not return the money paid for a ticket unless massive pressure is exerted; e.g. by the media. So passengers regularly have to wait for months for reimbursement of their expenses.

If a company fails to follow law, couldn't a victim of the company sue for a whole bunch of money? I'm guessing not, 'cause then you wouldn't get companies ignoring laws, but then my question is why not? My basic human rights have been violated! --Username132 (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which laws might apply and don't know the particulars of German civil law, but as a rule of thumb a basic fact of civil court cases in West European countries appears to be that you don't get awarded substantially more than actual economic damages suffered (including missing out on expected future income). --Lambiam^Talk 18:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, you certainly can sue a company if you have suffered some financial loss as a result of something it has done wrong. But bear in mind that to show they had broken German law, you would probably need to hire a German lawyer and go to a courthouse in Germany - which would be expensive in itself. One might not approve of the approach Easyjet takes, but in purely commercial terms it can be defended - and they are well aware that some people who might be able to claim refunds decide that it's all too difficult and just don't bother. And as rightly pointed out above, even if you did sue them and win, you wouldn't get much more than a refund on your ticket.AndyofKent 23:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that because it says 'EU-law', the law covers all of the EU? In suing them wouldn't you also get the cost of the lawyer covered? And payment for the extra time you had to spend in order to get your refund? --Username132 (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punitive damages are those awarded to punish a company for gross negligence leading to death or damage to the claimant. However, I doubt if punitive damages could be claimed in such a case. StuRat 10:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find the scripture that states; "doing somethings in moderation." i have not been successful in find the particular passage of scripture. Can you help me.

"Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand". (Philippians 4:5 and Weight Watchers). -- DLL ^{.. T} 16:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly "every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things" (1 Corinthians 9:25), which is often given as a citation for the common proverb "be moderate in all things". — Haeleth Talk 16:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"... including moderation". JackofOz 20:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure "somethings" is meant to be expressed as one word? Perhaps "somethings" is indeed a compound word I'm unfamiliar with, in which case please ignore the following. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure it would help in your search if you expressed "some things" as two separate words. I've just never heard of the word "somethings". Loomis 22:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the phrase "moderation in all things" is the classical Greek dictum ΟΥΔΕΝ ΑΓΑΝ, "nothing to excess", which was carved on one of the faces of the altar in the temple of Apollo at Delphi. Not biblical at all. Petrouchka 11:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm well known for my excessive moderation." :-) StuRat 10:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can beat that. I'm world-famous for my humility and modesty. JackofOz 08:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, Jack. I'm definitely, by far, the most modest person here. I'm also definitely the most humble. And if you disagree, it's probably because you're a moron who just can't comprehend my level of intellect. :--) Loomis 23:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think you deserve the epithet "The Uriah Heep of the North". :---) JackofOz 08:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another comical and witty comment by Loomis. I don't give you another barnstar for moderation's sake. | AndonicO 20:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Another" barnstar? I've never even got one barnstar! Obviously another clear case of antisemitism! Surely none of you will take that one seriously, I may be nuts, but I'm not that nuts! :) Of course now that I've subtly solicited a barnstar, please don't anyone give me one, as solicited barnstars don't count. I'd probably remove it. Seriously though, in a previous post I mentioned that unfortunately, though I should, I just don't seem to have the patience to get to reading all the great classics. Would it be proof of my modesty and humility that I have the courage to admit that I had to search Wiki to find out about Dickens' "Uriah Heep" character? Dammit! I just implied that I'm a courageous person, which is obvious quite immodest. I just can't win, can I! :-)

And Jack, by referring to me as "The Uriah Heep of the North", you seem to be implying that there is a corresponding "Uriah Heep of the South". I wonder who that could be... :--) Loomis 12:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to tell you, but my world-famous humility prevents me. JackofOz 20:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as my awe-inspiring level of humility, modesty and magnanimity prevents me from being the least bit upset by your downright insulting and moronic interpretation of my brilliantly humble rhetoric. I'd regard you as the very definition of an arse, were I not the outstandingly magnanimous person I am. Loomis 23:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, friendship does have a purpose after all. Go in peace (and moderation). :--) JackofOz 05:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Jack, the brilliantly modest and magnanimous guys we are, I suggest we call it a draw.

In all seriousness though, I hadn't checked my userpage in a while Andonic. And though I stand by the belief that solicited barnstars don't count, I had no idea that you had actually awarded me one before I apparently solicited one. (Check the time stamps, everyone!) I therefore won't remove it. For that, Andonic, I'm truly honoured, and I wish to thank you. I'm no longer a barnstar virgin!

As for the whole Socratic quote thing on my userpage, well, I suppose I should say this much: Maybe it's a cultural thing, but I can't help including a bit of humour in every serious statement I make. Conversely, even if what I say may appear to be (an attempt at) a completely humourous remark, if there's no nugget of truth to it that I'm wishing to convey, I probably wouldn't bother making the remark in the first place. I suppose it may explain how, despite the fact that Jews are so well regarded for our sense of humour, we tend to avoid totally inane "slapstick" type humour (and sorry Jack, but I must include "puns" as one of the most inane forms of humour). There doesn't seem to be much sense to it, so we really don't get why it's so funny. Take Jerry Lewis. Though he's Jewish, Jews tend to find his humour too silly to be of any humourous value. It's totally devoid of any intellectual element. It's totally devoid of any "wit". Maybe that's why he's so admired in France. :)

In any case, to get to my point, though the Socratic quote thing (or at least my reply to it) may have been a smug little self-congratulatory joke, I should say though, that I'm a serious admirer of Socrates, and that quote in particular, along with my devotion to the Socratic Method. What I'm saying is that my "joke" was only really "half a joke" and "half serious".

Call it whatever you want. I may be an extremely well educated individual with a vast repertoire of trivial knowledge, yet, in the grand scheme of things, with all the potential knowledge that exists in the universe, by comparison, I truly believe that I know fuck-all. Socrates was right after all. All things considered, I consider myself an utter ignoramous.

But at the very least, I'm willing to admit that I know fuck-all. And I think that's a good start. I want to learn as much as I can about EVERYTHING, and I think wiki is a great place for that. That's why I'm here. The total ignoramous that I am, I'm here, borrowing Socrates method, to learn as much as I can. If that involves getting into petty little disputes with others, then so be it. If it means playing devil's advocate, then so be it. The curious ignoramous that I am, I just love learning new things. That's why I'm here. Loomis 07:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having visited NYC several times, I am struck by the sudden transition from super-priced real estate to slums in upper Manhattan. Why is this? It would seem that if Manhattan land is so valuable (second in the world to Tokyo), the development of super-expensive commercial and rental properties would continue its march northward. Could the reason be the racism which created slum conditions in Harlem? But that just begs the question. Developers would seem to have great incentive to clear slums to build on any Manhattan land. Craig

It appears that you are assuming there is an infinite supply of developers to turn the slums into expensive real estate. There is a limit on the number of investors who are willing to develop in NYC. There is still a lot of room for development potential south of central park (Hell's Kitchen). So, there's no need to march northward (yet). --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which side of upper Manhattan do you mean: east or west? Riverside Drive and Claremont Avenue remain middle to upper middle class a good way into Harlem, yet there are depressed pockets scattered through the Upper West Side. There's even a little cluster of projects just south of Lincoln Center. Those spots are holdovers from decades ago when most of the west side was depressed. Certainly there are developers who'd like to turn a profit. At the same time there are serious problems in some neighborhoods that drive people away and community residents often resist gentrification because they don't want to be driven out of their apartments. Generally when a neighborhood does improve it's the artists who lead the way: they come for cheap studio and theater space, then coffee shops open, then recent college grads move in. There are a finite number of multimillionaires, even in New York, and those people don't want to see crack vials on the sidewalk or people urinating on the stoop. Durova 16:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the answer to this question is the concentration of public housing in upper Manhattan. These housing projects are publicly owned and off-limits to developers. They tend to house the most impoverished New Yorkers and tend to be centers of various social ills and crime. As the previous person commented, nobody who can afford to spend a million dollars on a condominium is willing to live with gunshots ringing in the street or drug addicts urinating on their doorstep. So even the privately owned land in those neighborhoods cannot attract upscale development. Marco polo 17:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public housing doesn't absolutely stop gentrification: the Lincoln Center area is one example. The larger the project, the more resistant the neighborhood becomes to gentrification, and the public housing projects in Harlem are very large. That said, it's rare to hear gunshots in New York City in any neighborhood. Violent crimes are more likely to be committed with knives. Durova 17:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, violent crimes are more likely to be committed in suburbs, honsetly, real life isn't a crime drama. If you can't find enough violent crimes in the burbs, keep going until you hit ruralality--152.163.100.72 18:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statistics I've seen might be a little out of date, but most of the serious crime in New York City concentrates in a few of the poorest precincts. Overall it's far from the most dangerous city: Miami and Boston are much more dangerous in per capita terms. New York has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Durova 21:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the exaggeration about gunshots. But another issue that we haven't mentioned is distance. People pay premiums for Manhattan real estate so that they can be within walking distance or a short cab ride from high-paying jobs in Midtown or on Wall Street or from trendy restaurants and shops in Soho, Tribeca, the Village, or the Upper East or West Side. The neighborhoods in upper Manhattan that have resisted gentrification are well outside walking distance of these affluent destinations. Furthermore, affluent people will be targets for mugging if they walk down some upper Manhattan streets dressed for dinner at an upscale restaurant. Even a cab ride to an affluent destination could be long and tedious due to traffic. Affluent people are not going to pay anywhere near the premium to live in upper Manhattan that they would pay to live in Soho or Greenwich Village. If they can't quite afford lower or midtown Manhattan, they are more likely to consider someplace like Park Slope in Brooklyn, where at least they can walk to trendy places and meet people of a similar class while walking the dog, than to brave the scariest parts of Harlem. Marco polo 19:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of agree. That doesn't explain why Alphabet City and, to a lesser extent, Hell's Kitchen still exist or why Washington Heights (at Manhattan's extreme northern end) is middle class. Queens is poorly served by the subway system yet it has the highest per capita income of any borough (extreme poverty in parts of Manhattan cancels out some of the borough's wealth). Remember also how hard it is to catch a yellow cab in some parts of town. What tends to happen is that New Yorkers have strong neighborhood affiliations and those who change neighborhoods select from a few options where they feel comfortable. So a Park Slope resident who gets a raise and decides to move to Manhattan would probably choose the Upper West Side or Greenwich Village, while a Brooklyn Heights resident would be more likely to move into Tudor City or the Upper East Side and a Williamsburg resident might go for Tribeca or Soho. Durova 21:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure on this, but I've always assumed the whole thing was one big socio-political mess. At the heart of the mess is Manhattan's policy of rent control. The heavily (pretty much exclusively) black-populated residents of Harlem strongly favour these policies. That's reasonable, what tennant wouldn't? So they then elect city councillors that make sure that these rent-control policies stay in place. Unfortunately, in this case, rent-control is a double-edged sword. On the one hand it keeps housing costs down, but on the other, it inevitably turns all the property-owners in Harlem into slumlords. If the law won't allow property owners to collect in rent an amount that is sufficient to keep the property in decent condition, well you inevitably end up with slums. It only makes sense when you think of it.

I don't agree with the idea that lower and midtown Manhatten has "enough" land to meet demand. After all, Manhatten is pretty much the most valuable island on the planet for its size. I agree with the questioner that it doesn't seem to make sense that, for example, while the Upper East Side, one of the wealthiest neighbourhoods in the world ends somewhere between 96th and 110th St., anything beyond that is pretty much worthless. That just defies common sense. The problem has to be rent control.

Unfortunately, the most sensible answer is also the most highly racially sensitive. I'd say the most sensible answer would be to allow for a more economically realistic rent-control policy, one where the property-owner actually has an incentive to invest in his/her property, and legislate incentives for the building of affordable, decent, housing somewhere off the island, on any of the four other boroughs, where the land is far less valuable, and the economic factors leading to the whole "slumlord" phenomenon simply won't exist. Unfortunately, what I see as the most sensible answer, is as well the most racially sensitive. No city councillor would ever suggest it. In fact I can see the mere mention of it being regarded as a major faut-pas, and leapt upon by black politicians, who, being politicians first and black second, would be "enraged" at the "racist notion" of "moving the Black Man off the Great Island of Manhattan and pushing him into the periphery in order to make room for the White Man!" It's all bullshit. Everybody would be better off. Unfortunately, politics being politics, it'll never happen. Loomis 23:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , I still need some help finding the painting by Leighton Sumner.

If the suggestions people made here six days ago have not been useful, it looks as though we can't help you any further. Have you tried a specialist forum? For example, there are thousands of art forums on Yahoo groups.--Shantavira 17:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engraving by an Artist Ackerman #11325 1871. The back has a stamp from Paris. Is there anyone out there who knows anything about this piece......pinky 3

Hi ,I have recrently been having problems with youths who are shouting demeaning rubbish and has then escalated into stones being thrown and actually chipping my windows.I am becoming distracted and increasingly worried by the behavior.I am a 26 yr old woman who dresses alternatively and live with my long haired partner.Neither of us has ever knowingly distressed anyone and yet living in an area with many people wearing tracksuits and sovreigns it is getting increasingly difficult . I have already had a stand off with some of them and told a few white lies to try and make it easier on us . I would really appreciate some good advice on this matter. Thanks for taking the time . Love , Peace and Respect.xxx

• "having problems with youths who are shouting demeaning rubbish and has then escalated into stones being thrown and actually chipping my windows" So, it's like an undergrad lecture hall then?--152.163.100.72 18:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm personally opposed to its use, there is The Mosquito. --Allen 18:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good fix for lecture halls, of course driving away the entire class might have some consequences (: 152.163.100.72 18:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have you tried the police? You sound like you're from Britain, and I don't know the law there, but you could probably get them on harrassment, assault, property damage. You might be worried that the police wouldn't take it seriously, and indeed they might not, but on the other hand they're often not real fond of mean teenagers either. You might also wonder what they could do to help if the kids are just yelling stuff and then running, but if they increase patrols they might well catch the same kids doing other illegal things nearby. --Allen 18:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There may be grounds for Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, if you feel comfortable with asking for such an action. Bwithh 01:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just how "alternatively" do you dress ? Perhaps it would be a good idea to tone it down a bit, while in public. StuRat 20:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you are having problems with chavs. Carcharoth 21:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Tone it down a bit", Stu? How un-American of you. She has the right to dress any way she wants! No? :) In any case, have you tried the cops? That would be my first suggestion (seems that lately I'll I'm suggesting people do is call the cops). And by the way, what's a sovreign? I'm feeling a bit embarassed to ask. Loomis 22:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you both have a point. I oppose the criticism to the Muslim cartoons, but you won't find me with a Muhammed=Bomb T-Shirt in the immigrant's outskirts of Ghent either...Evilbu 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here, Sovereign ring. hehe.Philc _T^E_C^I 22:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Phil. But it's just a ring. I was imagining it was something a bit dirtier. :) In any case, Evilbu, I think you're taking what I said too literally. I don't necessarily believe in what I just said, I just said it sarcastically to Stu, since he's American and I'm Canadian, and what he said about "toning it down a bit" sounded much more Canadian than American. Come to think of it...perhaps we were switched at birth by mistake...he's to the left of me politically, yet apparently believes that the way one should dress should take community standards into account first, and individuality second...very interesting...hmmmmm...I'll have to put some thought into this one....:-)

Well, there's two issues here:

• Dressing so as not to offend the community. I would say people should do this voluntarily, but am opposed to most laws FORCING people to do so. I suppose I would make exceptions for clothing with images and/or writings encouraging murder and terrorism, like the ubiquitous Che Guevara T-shirts: [1].

• Dressing so as not to get yourself assaulted or killed. I suppose if adults want to dress in a way that causes them to be victims of violence, that's their call, too. Parents shouldn't be allowed to dress their kids in such a way, however (sending their white kid to all-black school wear a KKK uniform, for example.) StuRat 04:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, I think we should be careful when using the word "cause" in relation to violence and clothing. A lot of people feel that saying a person's clothing choices can cause them to be attacked shifts the blame from the attacker to the victim. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it is a hot button for a lot of people. --Allen 05:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, I think that Allen was referring to rape in particular, and the whole "if she was dressed like a slut, she was asking for it" mentality. Loomis 23:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say clothing can be viewed as any portion of the blame for violence, from 0%, say, if someone inadvertently enters a gang territory wearing the colors of an opposing gang, to near 100%, say, if someone wears a KKK outfit into an all black area intentionally. StuRat 11:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, I can only see 2 realistic choices. One is to keep a low profile and hope they go away (which is a passive solution) and the other is an active solution and involves getting help from your community to defend your rights. That may involve assistance from your neighbors (assuming you are on good terms) or requesting help from the police (which is, of course, stressfull, time consuming, and frankly a pain in the ass).

Many teachers should know (though most probably haven't realized yet) the futility of verbal corrective actions towards delinquent youths. The youths you've dealt with probably wouldn't even be classified as delinquent; they're more likely just ignorant and awkward, unknowingly giving in to what seems to be a natural human tendancy against change and originality. Getting angry or threatening these guys will not help you, it will probably only make the situation worse. They don't expect you to be able to protect yourself, and you shouldn't expect them assume that, either.

If you feel strongly about your alternative lifestyle, then you have to be prepared to stand up for it. That doesn't mean getting pissed off whenever you're faced with ignorance. It may be a bit late now, but you may have had more success if you had approached the youths at first, while they were still being just "insulting", and asked them what their problem was. At the very least, they would have laughed and walked away, but you would have taken the fun out of it for them, and they probably wouldn't have come back to throw rocks at you.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forget any kind of negotiation, these people are animals. Your culture and theirs are so different finding any common ground will be almost impossible. Forget the police, too. They'll only get involved if something serious happens, and then it'll be too late. Take sensible precautions while you have to live there, carry an alarm, be careful when you're alone, at night and when they may be drunk. And as soon as possible move into the most expensive place in the most affluent area you can afford. Rentwa 11:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't be, by any chance, and old person?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  17:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does objecting to antisocial behaviour brand me an old person? Does it mean I'm not cool anymore? :) Rentwa 18:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are in Britain, this is exactly the sort of thing ASBOs were meant to deal with. Try going to the police, seriously, before it gets worse. Skittle 12:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst you try to ingnore them, both of you take a course in martial arts (I recommend ju-jutsu- cos its viscious!). THen when you are reasonably proficient (they wont be), give the leader a good kicking! (having tried to reason with him nicely first)--Light current 19:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next time they shout any thing, just sa 'Yeah, yeah thats right!' Smile and wave and walk on (looking over your shoulder) In other words, let them think theve won the encounter. Keep doing this until you are confident you can take the bastards!--Light current 19:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, becuase you are dressing like hippies or something, these guys think youre soft. Go and buy some combat fatigues and big boots and go out in those a few times. That'll get em wondering what the hell you really are!--Light current 19:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The next time this happens, phone the police and tell them that youths are shouting demeaning rubbish and throwing stones at your windows. The police will, effectively, ignore you. The next time it happens, phone the police, and tell them that the same youths are shouting demeaning rubbish and throwing stones at your windows again, and one of them has a gun. Sorted. TheMadBaron 01:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you think one of them has a gun!--Light current 02:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who or what is Bonnie Brae? I keep coming across the name: neighborhoods, churchs, treament centers, streets. I can't seem to find any historical information on the name though. Any info would be appreciated. Thanks.

--Doc311 18:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Bonnie Brae" just means "pretty hill" in the Scots language. --Allen 18:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... and Scotland does have pretty hills. 'Bonnie braes' also appear in the first line of the popular song (The Bonnie Banks O') Loch Lomond.---Sluzzelin 10:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty, and they'll make you pretty goddamn car-sick if you're sitting in the back seat.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  17:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how might the speed of the universe expanding be used in an argument about the existence of god? thanks--86.142.208.253 18:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean in favor or against god's existence? The only one I can think of is that the fact that we can see so many stars that are several million light years away proves that the earth is older than a few thousand years. A Clown in the Dark 19:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last I heard, measurements showed the density of the universe to be nearly "flat" (see Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe#Flat_universe); that is, the universe will neither re-collapse nor continue expanding without bound, but rather expand more and more slowly, approaching an asymptotic size. Of course, nearly flat isn't flat; the universe would have to be exactly flat to be flat, and our measurements aren't precise enough to tell yet. But some people argue that physics doesn't see any reason for the universe to have a one particular density or another, so the nearly-flat density is suspicious. They argue that it's more likely that either there is some unknown principle that makes the universe flat, or that the universe was designed to be flat -- otherwise, they argue, what are the chances that it would be very nearly, but not quite, flat? Arguing for the existence of God in this way is one facet of the Intelligent Design movement's version of Fine-tuned universe arguments. I can't find anything in Wikipedia about this particular (flat-universe) argument and its relation to ID; it might be tucked away in a corner or it might still need to be added to the encyclopedia. --Allen 20:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last I heard, the expansion of the universe is accelerating. See Lambda-CDM model and Big Rip. I'm not quite sure how this might be used as an argument for or against the existence of a deity, but much depends on your definitions. For example, if you define "god" to mean "a negative deceleration parameter", then the inferred acceleration could be used as strong evidence for the existence of god. --Lambiam^Talk 21:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the universe can be flat and expanding at an accelerating rate at the same time. The Lambda-CDM model actually assumes a flat universe - indeed, ΛCDM uses the flat universe assumption together with estimates of baryon and dark matter densities to calculate an implied dark energy density. Gandalf61 14:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easy! Can god create a universe where the speed of the universe expanding is less than the speed of sound? 202.168.50.40 23:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If so, wouldn't we have heard of it already? - Nunh-huh 06:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it isn't possible to measure the speed that space time is expanding (if it (still) is) you could use that as some sort of lame argument, as it is similar to the argument that it would be impossible to detect the existence of an omnipresent god. It's an attempted proof by means of falsifiability, and it works for the Invisible Pink Unicorn.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Bible says in a couple of places that God "stretched out" the heavens (sky). But trying to prove God's existence scientifically is like trying to detect wood with an x-ray machine. If we could prove God's existence by scientific means, we wouldn't need faith. It would mean that the people of today's world would be able to approach God via a different means (i.e., on a scientific I-can-prove-God-exists level) to those who have lived previously, or to those who have limited scientific knowledge. But God has put us all on the same level; the only thing that will connect us with him is faith. BenC7 09:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is to say that we need faith in the first place? What is to say that approaching communication with god is a bad thing? These rules have been made by theologists to restrict our ability to understand the existance of god within a theological mindframe. I really don't go for explanations that only make sense if you assume they are true.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  17:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theo logical. Anyone find this word strange? I man theology is about the most illogical subject ever.--Light current 19:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Answering question) It can't. The existance or non-existance of God is not amenable to scientific proof. One may, indeed, produce evidence on either side, but formal, conclusive proof is not possible. Attempting to do so is merely a waste of time. It is no different than attempting to "prove" that one nation's cuisine tastes better than another's - it justs tastes better to you.

One either believes or one doesn't. B00P 19:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can any one tell me the name of the recent Federal judge and the circumstances in which he wrote that the US Constitution was not a suicide pact. I believe it was related to the rights of the nation to defend itself against terrorism even if, in doing so, it placed minor limitations on civil rights. Thank you. Jerrells 19:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Jerrells[reply]

See The Constitution is not a suicide pact. -- Mwalcoff 22:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be how much money a rich person is paid each year. Did you have any particular rich person in mind ? StuRat 20:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but I'd say it's a bit more pejorative than that. It tends to refer to a lazy corporate exec who's grossly overpaid in relation to his/her contribution to the company and in relation to what s/he actually contributes. For example, despite his immense wealth, and despite whatever personal opinions one has about him (I'm certainly no big fan), someone like Bill Gates just doesn't seem to fit into the category of a "fat cat". Loomis 21:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would "scrawny cat" work for William H. Gates III? --Lambiam^Talk 22:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, there is actually a term "thin cat" (meaning sort of the opposite to fat cat), which might catch on (or it might not). I discovered it at Talk:Fat cat, and a Google search found this article on "fat cat businessmen", and also a use of the term 'thin cat': [2]. Carcharoth 23:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fat cat? Carcharoth 21:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Carcharoth. That was so much easier. Why didn't I think of that? :) Loomis 22:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably cos dictionary definitions are usually in wiktionary. Which you can also link to from here rather neatly if someone asks what wikt:philosophy is, as opposed to the Wikipedia article on philosophy. Let's see if wikt:fat cat exists. Carcharoth 23:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A "fat cat" makes at least twice as much money as the person who is complaining, while doing no discernable work of value, other than saying "Work smarter, not harder," "Think outside the box," and other Bullshit Bingo phrases. see Buzzword bingo or http://www.companyculture.com/topics/BullshitBingo.htm The Pointy-Haired Bossin the Dilbert comic strip certainly qualifies. Edison 14:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This local body seems to be set up in many different ways. Is there a common definition? Are these boards unique to the US? Can anyone offer a translation into German? --LampshadeHH 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A possible translation might be Zulassungsbehörde für Baugenehmigungen, but it does not carry the esthetic aspect of "design review". The term occurs in untranslated form in two articles on the German Wikipedia: de:Ina Garten and de:Reston. A more literal translation is Entwurfüberprüfungskollegium. There is or used to be a similar institution in Dutch municipalities with the strange name of schoonheidscommissie ("beauty commission") which was the bane of modern architects. --Lambiam^Talk 22:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this up, I wasn't so sure anybody would... ..behörde may sound a bit too official, since these bodies seem to be made up in all kinds of ways, with experts, members of the public etc. Lacking an established translation the English term could of course be left untranslated, but a short definition or explanation would still be needed. What are, generally speaking, the powers of these boards? I love the Dutch term schoonheidscommissie. Wouldn't it be fun to introduce that into other fields as well? Thanks again. --LampshadeHH 04:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the Battle of Britain had been lost, would the Nazis have been able to invade. If so, how difficult would it have been for them and how long would it have taken to supress the country?--Light current 22:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any plausible German invasion fleet would have been carried in barges. Any plausible barge-borne invasion fleet could have been sunk by the use of half a dozen fast destroyers - not by actually sinking them, just by steaming up and down the channel at thirty knots, the wake from which would have swamped the barges!

In an actual invasion situation, where the Royal Navy would have been thrown into the Channel... the chances of an organised force making it to the shore in anything more than company strength or so would be trivial, aside from parachutists, and there'd be little to no chance of resupply. The British would have a nasty mopping-up job in Kent and Sussex for a while, but the outcome wouldn't be in doubt. Bear in mind that after Norway, the German navy had only a handful of heavy ships ready for action and was severely lacking in destroyers; the Home Fleet was at near full strength and the RN would have thrown everything it had into the Channel. Short of gross British incompetence, it's hard to see how else the naval battle would turn out.

One reason the Battle of Britain is seen as the critical point is because the Germans found it useful to consider it this way - with the Luftwaffe failing, the other forces were free to say "Oh, yes, we were ready and able to go, not our fault we couldn't manage it", without any real risk of anyone looking into the actual possibility of their operations. Shimgray | talk | 23:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with your analysis and it concurs with other historians' viewpoints. So we are being fed a load of BS about this on TV?--Light current 23:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, here's the problem. It's a popular and interesting subject, and it's an interesting problem to consider if you can get past certain minor details at the beginning. A lot of these discussions of an invasion in 1940, when you look closely, turn out to start from the assumption that somehow three or four German divisions and a supply dump have wandered over to Dover one evening. Once you allow that, historically silly though it is, "Nazi conquest of the UK" looks a lot more plausible. Shimgray | talk | 23:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with the eminent sense of your statement 8-))--Light current 23:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK heres a rider: were we (Britain) justified in killing so many fighter pilots in defence of the airspace?--Light current 23:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fighter pilots killed weren't exactly bullet-less, I for one tend to believe that in a kill-or-be-killed situation, when you haven't done anything 'wrong' (e.g. if you're a serial killer about to be taken out by what you hoped would be your next victim, this moral permission doesn't apply to you), you don't have a choice but to do all that's necessary to survive. It's certainly a darn sight easier to justify deaths of fighter pilots than the innocent civilians in Dresden--Mnemeson 00:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But how long would the Royal Navy have continued to exist with German control of the skies. I think you are missing the lessons of the Pacific War here. Rmhermen 01:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Luftwaffe had much less emphasis placed on antishipping operations than the Japanese and the Americans, and the RN had a lot of ships. The RN wouldn't need to survive in great strength for very long once it entered dangerous airspace, just enough to disrupt the invasion fleet... and if that meant throwing away heavy ships, they'd have thrown them away. Plus, the Germans wouldn't have wiped out the RAF; they'd have wiped out the RAF over south-east England; the groups in Scotland would remain essentially untouched and would be held in reserve for such an eventuality, and until the last minute the bulk of the RN would be under their protection.

Again, I have a really hard time seeing the plausibility of the Luftwaffe taking out the RN. Mauling it nastily - yes, this would have been expensive for them. But cutting it up to such an extent it couldn't scupper the invasion preparations... bearing in mind the three-destroyers comment above? Shimgray | talk | 10:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing of history, apart what Ive seen on TV. It just seenms to me that if we were not at serious risk of invasion, why did we kill so many fighter pilots?--Light current 02:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the Battle of Britain had been completely lost, then the Germans would have had pretty much unchallenged air supremacy over South Eastern England and the adjoining seas, with the ability to bomb British infrastructure and British ships in the area at their leisure over a number of months. It wouldn't necessarily have resulted in an imminent invasion, but it wouldn't have been at all good for the inhabitants of England either. AnonMoos 04:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we are underestimating the significance of paratroopers here. Germany had major capabilities in that regard, certainly enough to create a beachhead in England. They would eventually need to be resupplied by sea, however, and would need to have heavy equipment brought in, unless they could manage to steal supplies, tanks, etc. from the Brits. So, I think if the RAF was knocked out, Britain would have been in real danger. StuRat 04:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the height of their deveopment, and a whole year later, Germany could muster about 25,000 airlanded troops (about a division) for the Battle of Crete, which they had to land over a period of several days. Although victorious they took a huge mauling from the 40,000 defenders. Britain had a lot more troops left than 40,000 in 1940, and the paratroops would have been entirely without armour or heavy artillery. We're talking Arhnem here, but without the chance of relief. DJ Clayworth 21:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone clearly thought we were in real danger, otherwise why were all the pillboxes built along rivers and roads? You can still see many of them. Looks like someone in charge in Britain thought there was a real risk of invasion. Skittle 12:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is more a demonstration of how invincible Germany seemed in 1940 than anything else... the UK prepared extensively for invasion, but in hindsight it could have got away with a lot less. Shimgray | talk | 00:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different invasion, different technology, different millennium - but let's not forget at least 2 other significant details 1) England/Britain was successfully invaded via the English Channel in 1066, the consequences of which exist to the present time and, 2) That invasion was ably and effectively assisted by supportive and sympathetic interested parties already in England/Britain, a situation that would have been similarly replicated had Hitler's invasion succeeded - per Mosley's Blackshirts and the Irish Faction et al. Hence the heavy defences and submarine petroleum pipes that were laid in anticipation of having to set the Channel on fire during any surface invasion.

For a novel about this, see "Ss/gb" by Len Deighton (1979).Had the Luftwaffe not inadvertently bombed London on an overcast night, resulting in a retaliatory bombing of Berlin, and the resulting all out bombing of London, the program of bombing British air bases and military installations into rubble would have continued and setup the planned invasion after achieving air supremacy. With German air supremacy, the British fleet would have been neutralized by airpower, so no "steaming up and down the channel and making waves" as if the channel were not already plenty wavy. Airpower trumps seapower. The Brits left behind much of their weapons in France after Dunkirk. Volunteers in England were patrolling at night with longbows to watch for German paratroopers, for lack of rifles. The Germans would have crossed the water as easily as the Vikings or the Normans did. The British forces, with the remaining artillery and tanks they did not lose in France, would have lost to the Wehrmacht as swiftly as they did in Belgium and France, if an invasion had come before the U.S. men and materiél arrived. Paratroops plus men and weapons ferried across the channel faster than you can say "Dunkirk" and it's over in weeks.Edison 14:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am delighted that you trust the vaguely sketched-out backstory of a Len Deighton novel - which was written to show the aftermath, not the event - as a reliable counterfactual source. Yes, the UK panicked at the time, and threw vast amounts of resources into anti-invasion preparation. Yes, those preparations were inspiredly useless at times. But that was 1940; we didn't know then what we do now, and what we know now is that it didn't matter. There is, simply put, no plausible way Germany could have got a militarily useful invasion force across the channel in late 1940 or early 1941 without long-term preparations they hadn't made. Oh, they could have landed some troops, and it would have been a horrible mess... but a sucess? No way.

The Germans had a badly mauled fleet. They had no transport methods more advanced than Rhine barges with tugs, dependent on an absolutely calm day and a completely unopposed crossing. They had very limited capability for air resupply. Their amphibious operations doctrine was "well, it's just a big river, isn't it?". Paratroops are all well and good, but you can't magically "ferry men and weapons across the channel" without something to put them on that won't get sunk, and that is capable of a reasonably quick turnaround. Towed barges are neither, and we discovered later in the war just how inefficient the Luftwaffe's air supply capacity was.

The British fleet would not have been neutralised by airpower; it was safe in anchorages at the other end of the country, a day's steaming away, protected by the fighter squadrons which weren't in southern England - because the RAF wouldn't have thrown them all away - and safe until the invasion began. And then what? They turn up in the Channel. Yes, they would take heavy losses from German aircraft... but this is 1940, not 1944. The Germans didn't have the weaponry or the training that would later appear in the Pacific; it's implausible they would wipe out the entire Home Fleet fast enough to prevent them wreaking havoc on the barges. And even the loss of every capital ship is a "tactical success" here if it's wrecked the invasion fleet - those barges would be the only way to get more than a trickle of men and supplies over.

As for the idea that blitzkrieg would work... well. France fell because of well-supplied, heavily concentrated, armoured attacks at a point no-one was expecting; damp infantrymen coming ashore where everyone expected them to, without tanks or heavy equipment or more than a couple of days of food? This is not the stuff of shock and awe.

To make a successful invasion would require proper landing craft, substantially more supply shipping, and a way to neutralise the Royal Navy well before the invasion begins... all of which simply weren't available to the Germans in 1940. Shimgray | talk | 18:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of interesting points in the above discussion. I have only one or two things to add. It is important not to make too much out of the ability of German paratroopers to create an effective and sustainable bridghead. Paratroopers are only effective when they can be backed up almost immediately by heavy infantry or armour; otherwise they risk being cut to pieces, as the British were at Arnhem in 1944. Only once did the Germans succeed with the use of paratroopers as an 'independent arm', and that was in Crete in May 1941. Then the losses were so heavy, both in planes and men, that the tactic was never employed again. In southern Britain paratroopers would have faced much more serious opposition than they had in Crete, and would likely have been destroyed within a few days, if not hours. By September 1940 the British Army had made a dramatic recovery from the chaos of May and June. Amongst other equipment the army had 500 anti-tank guns, 350 medium tanks and 500 light tanks. Even the unjustly maligned Home Guard was turning into a formidable fighting force, armed not with pitchforks and longbows but some of the 500,000 rifles that had arrived from the States in July. But this is all getting away from the point: any German invasion attempt would have been washed out of the water by the Royal Navy, the unsung heroes of the Battle of Britain. White Guard 23:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The British and their many admirers do not feel, retrospectively, that Hitler could have invaded their island. Similarly, they did not feel, prospectively, that he could defeat their expeditionary force in Belgium in France. Hitler only won because he CHEATED and invaded Belgium, just as the Germans did in World War 1. Who could ever have anticiated THAT move? And for an invasion, about all they would have needed is one harbor captured. As for the fleet and the reserve planes, the Germans were pretty well equipped with ships, Eboats, subs, dive bombers and other planes in 1940. Many feel there was a window of opportunity wherein he could have successfully mounted an invasion. In alternative history, the Germans could have limited the Dunkirk invasion to a far smaller extraction than was accomplished. Documents from the Germans planning for WW2 indicate that they may have spared the British expeditionary force for future use guarding Britain against any U.S. invasion after its anticipated conquest.Edison 23:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your last sentence, you may wish to consider that any German plans revolving around "and, after we conquer half the planet..." were usually pretty conjectural to start with. I would suggest not putting too much weight on the ideas the BEF was reprieved to provide a German garrison! As to "many feel", sensationalistic popular conceptions of history can occasionally be wrong... and sexy-sounding alternate-history ideas can, sometimes, have a very shaky foundation.

You might, incidentally, find this study quite eye-opening; it's written by an ex-Marine officer, from the point of view of checking its plausibility as an alternate-history scenario. The conclusion really summarises the problem here...

We can choose to wave a magic wand, and wipe out the RN and the RAF, and examine how successful the invasion was likely to be in their absence. Sandhurst has done this on four occasions to my knowledge. Both sides were given the historical starting positions, with an invasion date of 24 September.

In each case, the details of the fighting varied, but by each analysis resulted in 27 September dawning with the Wehrmacht holding two isolated beachheads, one at roughly 2 divisions strength on Romney March, and one of 1 division at Pevensey. Each were opposed by more numerous forces, with growing numbers of tanks and artillery. German resupply was still across open beaches.

I think we can all see quite where the results of that will go. Shimgray | talk | 00:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We will fight them on the beaches, in the fields and in the trees, in the rivers and the streets, the hilltops and the valleys etc etc.......we will NEVER surrender. (apologies to W.S Churchills memory))--Light current 00:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't they say things like that the morning of October 14, 1066? Anyway the material about Nazi sparing of the Expeditionary Force at Dunkirk for garrison duty after the surrender of England came from a college course in history and political science, and was based on German documents during the war, so it is not mere speculation on my part. The course was decades ago, so I can't provide a handy reference. Wargaming at Sandhurst is good, but is it really more accurate than the planning which was such a muddle pre-war? They had expectations which did not pan out in practice, when the enemy did not do what they expected. The Battle of Dunkirk article lays out a scenario of armistice or British surrender if Hitler had not halted the Panzer advance for the 2 days necessary for the extraction of the British Expeditionary Force. Hitler may well have planned for Edward VIII, later The Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor, to reclaim the British throne and head a Vichy-like state.Edison 21:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we had lost the B of B, it doesnt mean we wouldnt have been able to put more aircraft in the skies within a few weeks. In fact it was the lack of pilots not the lack of planes that was the problem. German fighters/bombers could not reach the western parts of Britain (esp Wales) and training of new pilots could easily have been carried on there. So Nazi 'air superiority' would not have lasted long and any beach heads would have been mercilessly strafed/bombed by the RAF as well as clobbered by the RN--Light current 21:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one has responded to the Petrol Pipes under the Channel entry above. Is that a myth then or just a little-known reality?

Do you mean PLUTO Pipleine under the ocean?--Light current 00:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Fleming's Invasion 1940 (chap. 13) is the only source I have which mentions the "setting the Channel on fire" thing, and it describes it as an almost entirely failed experiment by (who else?) the Petroleum Warfare Department. They rigged pipes from tanker lorries on a headland into a calm sea and started to discharge petrol at about twelve tons an hour; flares and sodium pellets quickly ignited this, giving a very impressive firestorm. However, it was incredibly expensive in oil, steel and labour, and required a dead calm to work; after one or two experiments it was finally authorised in 1941 for limited production, and a few small sections of flame barrage equipment were assembled in 1941-2 - long after an invasion was off the cards. They were close coastal devices, not pipes stretching far into the Channel.

However, at the time, there was a widespread rumour about vast numbers of German corpses washing up from the Channel, from a failed landing - Churchill gave a speech about this, eventually, where he claimed it was due to about forty bodies drowned in a practice landing, and the story inflating... but even this seems to be false, as no documentary evidence for anyone finding even those forty corpses seems to exist (again per Fleming)! A common variation on this story had all the corpses suffering terrible burns, after the RAF had somehow set the sea on fire; at least one 1950s film gave the British flaming-sea device as the reason Canaris (for he was the hero of the piece) called off the invasion.

Given the secrecy of anti-invasion preparations, the myth probably has a seperate origin, but it does link closely to an event which was at least grounded in reality. Shimgray | talk | 18:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shimgray - it seems the older I get, the more vivid, believable and realistic my long-dead grandad's yarns become. ps, I am now 59 but still leave Christmas Cake and Cheddar Cheese out for Santa's reindeers on Christmas Eve!!!!!!. And when I get up on Christmas Day, they have all been consumed (not by fire in the Channel I trust).

You're all forgetting something very important: wouldn't the Nazis have used the Eurotunnel? :-) | AndonicO 16:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well not really - since it wasnt there! So I dont get the joke if its meant to be one! 8-(--Light current 22:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im a person who wants to become a manga-ka,and i would love to have some tips from Takao Aoki(my favorite manga-ka)that would help me become one.Or atleast if there is a way I can contact him to ask if he can give manga-lessons or anything like that.Thank you for your help.

I'm no expert, but as a manga-ka, I can't see anything particularly original about Takao Aoki's manga style. Your best bet would be to a) learn Japanese, and then b) get accepted to an animation school in Japan. I doubt he gives lessons.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could try writing a polite letter to Takao Aoki C/o Shogakukan, Japan. (Look up the correct address, yourself.) If you're lucky, you might get a personal response sooner or later. 惑乱 分からん 10:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to find chords to the song "Bluer Than Midnight" of The The thank u a lot. Tomas.

Can't find the tab anywhere- later today, I'll download the song and see if I can figure them out for you. --Evan Carlstrom 15:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just listened to it quickly, and figured it out (I think). I used a guitar, I don't play piano. The melody in the opening is based mainly on the notes C# and E, with octaves of the E thrown in with descending movement, i.e. high E, E one octave below and then a D. The chords for the verse, at least, are a Bm11 with no third (B,F#, Eb), C#m, Am, and E major. I didn't have time to listen to the rest as of now, but that should get you started- you can improvise or learn some of those passing tones between the chords as well. --Evan Carlstrom 15:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, say someone uses my camera to take a picture. Do they own the copyright on that image or do I? Also, if they took the picture, can they legally force me to give them access to it? HighInBC 23:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They did the creative work that is the basis for copyright so the copyright would be theirs. Unless you paid them to take the picture, in which case the copyright may or may not be yours. Access to the image is another matter, I don't know how that would work. Rmhermen 01:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English Copyright Law will recognise Intellectual Property Rights by the image taker of the image taken whilst also recognising quiet ownership of the camera/film/memory media by the owner thereof. If you buy a book, you own the cover and the paper and the ink, but the author/publisher have exclusive rights over the story/contents, and you may not reproduce it etc., without their express permission. So in the case of the picture question, the owner of the camera would need the picture taker's permission to use the picture, but any attempt by the picture taker to force the camera owner to surrender the image (without suitable reward being first agreed)would deny the camera owner his legal and quiet ownership of the camera/film/memory media. I am sure, however, that if the picture/image in question was of say, a site of national security, the Government's Law Officers would make short work of any protests emanating from the camera owners lawyers.

Thanks for the info. The photographer owns the image, but the camera owner owns the media. That is what I thought. Good to know next time my buddy lets me use his $2000 camera, hehe. HighInBC 14:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously HighInBC, if there is the faintest likelihood of a dispute developing between you and your friend over ownership of the copyright of any picture you might take on his camera, you should give careful prior thought to how you might establish such ownership. It is normal and wise practise for authors, recording artists, painters, patent developers, inventors etc., to carefully mark their work with a Copyright Logo and Copyright Warning and where appropriate to establish such Intellectual Property Ownership through a registered Copyright/Patent Office that will extend that Copyright Protection across the globe (for a fee). But you will not find that so easy to achieve when the subject matter is inside your friend's camera, unless you have a pre-registered agreement that any such images (suitably date-stamped and described in great detail)are in fact your own property, not to be used etc., by any other party (not just your friend). You should also include in your agreement the means by which you can legally and contractually extract/retrieve/recover the image/s from your friend's camera, and you should include a liquidated damages clause that would adequately recompense you should your friend accidentally or deliberately delete the image/s so protected. Probably better methinks to get your own camera. He might end up suing you for a replacement should you drop his! And do consult an IPR Lawyer if your photography is of such potential value to you.

Nah, just wondering really. HighInBC 22:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]