Baseball Bugs (talk | contribs) |
AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs) →religion: remove - "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." |
||
Line 364: | Line 364: | ||
:::I'm taking the hat off this. [[Patricia Polacco]] is a recognized author, and "Chicken Sunday" is a book we list by ISBN in her article. I see nothing about ''fried'' chicken. This is a reference desk, not a guilty-until-proven-innocent criminal courtroom. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 17:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC) |
:::I'm taking the hat off this. [[Patricia Polacco]] is a recognized author, and "Chicken Sunday" is a book we list by ISBN in her article. I see nothing about ''fried'' chicken. This is a reference desk, not a guilty-until-proven-innocent criminal courtroom. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 17:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::Fine. He's all yours. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 17:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC) |
::::Fine. He's all yours. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 17:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC) |
||
== religion == |
|||
Which is the truly religion and who is really God according to all scientists and all philosophers? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2.188.105.128|2.188.105.128]] ([[User talk:2.188.105.128|talk]]) 17:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:All of them are, and none of them are. See [[religion]] for further information. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 17:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:36, 7 November 2013
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
Main page: Help searching Wikipedia
How can I get my question answered?
- Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
- Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
- Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
- Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
- Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
- Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.
How do I answer a question?
Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines
- The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
November 2
Are there any atheists that loves religion
Are there any atheists that loves religion. I said "loves religion" not "believe in religion". Like for example loves the rituals, the structure, the politics but not actually believes in it. 220.239.51.150 (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- This chap (one Sanderson Jones - no article as yet) from today's BBC website seems to fit the definition, and I'm sure he's not alone. Tevildo (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans created The Sunday Assembly, for which we do have an article. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Redirect has been created. Pippa Evans already has an article. Tevildo (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans created The Sunday Assembly, for which we do have an article. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, me...Roman Catholic...love the link to the Roman Empire...they still wear the costumes on Sunday and my Parents were still speaking Latin in the 1960s, incense, Gregorian Chant, Confession...can't help thinking that the prods have thrown out all they good stuff, while keeping the stupid stuff like the Bible and God. Tommy Pinball (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- How can you be a Roman Catholic and also an atheist? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hello....they baptize you at birth, You don't have a choice. I am Roman Catholic....but have Pagan beliefs. It is the same with atheists. You don't have to believe even if you are technically a part of the church from birth.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- You get baptized, have first communion, and confirmed while a kid...and discriminated against by WASPs while an adult. Tommy Pinball (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- I am sure I have made it clear before I am Catholic, if not Roman, as well as an atheist. I enjoy taking my elder nephew to mass, and pretty much agree totally with Tommy. Here's a minute of the Ukranian Catholic liturgy--I can't find one in the Ruthenian recension, but they are pretty much indistinguishable. Patriarch Sviatoslav Shevchukμηδείς (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I was raised Catholic too, but at age 18 I decided it wasn't what I believed in anymore. I have never since described myself as Catholic, because as far as I'm concerned, I'm not. The RCC may continue to count me as a member, that's their business. But my position is that I long ago ceased to be a member, and that's all that matters to me. So, no, I strongly disagree with Mark Miller's "you don't have a choice". Individuals always have a choice about such matters. To me, a Catholic atheist is a contradiction in terms. Mind you, I'm certainly not an atheist; but I'm not a Catholic either. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- They should probably make up a word for people like you Jack, something like...Protestant. μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not at all. That word denotes (broadly) a member of a Christian church other than the Catholic church. I am not a member of any Christian denomination. I am not a Christian at all in any formal sense, and nobody can gainsay that. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose it depends on how many theses you have. Someone who rejects Catholicism doesn't usually become an Orthodox Christian thereby. Unless what you are saying is you have defaulted to Judaism? (I have always thought I would be a lapsed Jew if I weren't a lapsed Catholic.) μηδείς (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't how many different ways I can say it, but I'll try again: I am not a member of ANY organised religion (or any unorganised or disorganised one, come to that). I am not anti-religious, but I am just not personally involved in any of them. I am happy being a keen observer of religious organisations and their doings, but I draw the line at personal membership. Catholics would no doubt consider me a lapsed Catholic, or a renegade Catholic. Their view seems to be that "once a Catholic, always a Catholic", as if it's the Hotel California of religions ("You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave"). Well, I completely dissociate myself from such a notion. The RCC itself teaches that humans have free will and free choice about everything; I never heard they made an exception in the case of whether one can voluntarily cease to be a member. But too bad if they did. Bottom line: I and I alone decide whether I am a member, and I say I'm not. Please stop trying to put me into boxes of your own devising when I keep telling you that no religious box you could possibly name applies to me. Understood? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think one box you could qualify for in your NSA file would be one saying "Last known religious affiliation". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Given the current unusual situation within the Church, there's an excellent opportunity for Jack to inquire as to his own definitive status with the Church to the respected scholar and retired head of the former Roman Inquisition, Joseph Ratzinger. His address:
- His Holiness Benedict XVI, Supreme Pontiff Emeritus
- c/o His Holiness, Pope Francis
- Apostolic Palace
- 00120 Vatican City
- μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Now you're definitely trolling. Or maybe you're insane. Take your pick. I don't give a fuck what my status is according to them. I'm not one of them. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's funny to imagine, though: Francis is going through his fan mail and says, "Yo! Benny! This one's for you!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- First, I really hope no editor is taking any of the above too personally and let's please keep in mind that for every contributor here there are hundreds who just read this and may misconstrue some back story or history with the editing team here. That said, this was better hilarity then I've witnessed at Comedy Central Roasts, classic SNL skits (Chris Farley/Gilda Radner/Phil Harman eras), UKs Spittin Image and the best of the DailyShow/ColbertReport, that's not to lessen editors' important points nor editor contributions, just saying we may want to consider a RefDesk meetup and sell tickets as an 'intelligent-satire' team, I can see youtube viral video #1 :-). Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 00:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody expects the Roman Inquisition, eh? Least of all Jack--"Making people feel guilty is my supreme ambition in life"--ofOz. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- First, I really hope no editor is taking any of the above too personally and let's please keep in mind that for every contributor here there are hundreds who just read this and may misconstrue some back story or history with the editing team here. That said, this was better hilarity then I've witnessed at Comedy Central Roasts, classic SNL skits (Chris Farley/Gilda Radner/Phil Harman eras), UKs Spittin Image and the best of the DailyShow/ColbertReport, that's not to lessen editors' important points nor editor contributions, just saying we may want to consider a RefDesk meetup and sell tickets as an 'intelligent-satire' team, I can see youtube viral video #1 :-). Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 00:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's funny to imagine, though: Francis is going through his fan mail and says, "Yo! Benny! This one's for you!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Now you're definitely trolling. Or maybe you're insane. Take your pick. I don't give a fuck what my status is according to them. I'm not one of them. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Given the current unusual situation within the Church, there's an excellent opportunity for Jack to inquire as to his own definitive status with the Church to the respected scholar and retired head of the former Roman Inquisition, Joseph Ratzinger. His address:
- I think one box you could qualify for in your NSA file would be one saying "Last known religious affiliation". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't how many different ways I can say it, but I'll try again: I am not a member of ANY organised religion (or any unorganised or disorganised one, come to that). I am not anti-religious, but I am just not personally involved in any of them. I am happy being a keen observer of religious organisations and their doings, but I draw the line at personal membership. Catholics would no doubt consider me a lapsed Catholic, or a renegade Catholic. Their view seems to be that "once a Catholic, always a Catholic", as if it's the Hotel California of religions ("You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave"). Well, I completely dissociate myself from such a notion. The RCC itself teaches that humans have free will and free choice about everything; I never heard they made an exception in the case of whether one can voluntarily cease to be a member. But too bad if they did. Bottom line: I and I alone decide whether I am a member, and I say I'm not. Please stop trying to put me into boxes of your own devising when I keep telling you that no religious box you could possibly name applies to me. Understood? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose it depends on how many theses you have. Someone who rejects Catholicism doesn't usually become an Orthodox Christian thereby. Unless what you are saying is you have defaulted to Judaism? (I have always thought I would be a lapsed Jew if I weren't a lapsed Catholic.) μηδείς (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not at all. That word denotes (broadly) a member of a Christian church other than the Catholic church. I am not a member of any Christian denomination. I am not a Christian at all in any formal sense, and nobody can gainsay that. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- They should probably make up a word for people like you Jack, something like...Protestant. μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Tommy Pinball needs a catechism refresher course. By Roman Catholic doctrine, he wasn't baptized a "Roman Catholic", he was baptized a Christian. (And by that same dogma, like all Christians, he is subject to the leadership of the pope :). )- Nunh-huh 19:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly what you're saying, the Catholic Church would theoretically divide all of Christendom into two categories: Practicing Catholics, and Lapsed Catholics. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I was raised Catholic too, but at age 18 I decided it wasn't what I believed in anymore. I have never since described myself as Catholic, because as far as I'm concerned, I'm not. The RCC may continue to count me as a member, that's their business. But my position is that I long ago ceased to be a member, and that's all that matters to me. So, no, I strongly disagree with Mark Miller's "you don't have a choice". Individuals always have a choice about such matters. To me, a Catholic atheist is a contradiction in terms. Mind you, I'm certainly not an atheist; but I'm not a Catholic either. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- I am sure I have made it clear before I am Catholic, if not Roman, as well as an atheist. I enjoy taking my elder nephew to mass, and pretty much agree totally with Tommy. Here's a minute of the Ukranian Catholic liturgy--I can't find one in the Ruthenian recension, but they are pretty much indistinguishable. Patriarch Sviatoslav Shevchukμηδείς (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- How can you be a Roman Catholic and also an atheist? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Me too! I was raised Catholic too and although I don't believe in it, I can appreciate it in the same way as any other religion I don't believe in. It's also difficult to be a medieval historian without having a bit of reverence for religion...well, difficult for me anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- I suspect that many televangelists don't really believe in God themselves. This would explain how they can do things so at odds with what their religion says God expects of them. They apparently aren't worried about going to Hell, making me think they don't believe in any of it. StuRat (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- That's called fraud, not love. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Don't be too sure. Televangelists are a lot like salesmen... and the old adage about salesmen is that they not only have to be willing to lie, they have to be willing to believe the lie themselves. Part of that is convincing themselves that whatever they're doing on or off camera is somehow OK. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- If you are interested in a professional writer, check out the works of A. N. Wilson, who's ambiguous over time as to his faith, but very passionate. His books on Paul and Jesus are fascinating. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- See http://atheism.about.com/b/2012/12/22/celebrating-a-secular-christmas.htm.
- —Wavelength (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- On the other side of the coin, I suppose, are believers who aren't that fond of religion. That's the attitude I more approve of. Bill Maher once said something very close to "I believe in God. Religion is the bureaucracy between God and Man." (I don't want to mislead anyone about Maher's views; I have some doubts that he'd still say that; but at least he did once.) A more fire-and-brimstoney sort of anti-religionist believer would be Jack Chick, so there are decidedly different approaches that would fit the description, with no way to agree with all of them. --Trovatore (talk) 06:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, just mix faiths til you get the consistency you want Stu. [I have no doubt the faiths do this too] Shadowjams (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hence the term Mulligan Stu. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, you get any number of Mulligans. You keep trying until you get it right. Unless you croak first. Then you might have to be Born Again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- With all the Washington R******s stuff going on, must be careful how one uses the term per 'ethnic slur'. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 00:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- What swear word is that ? The best I can come up with is Wikt:ruckus, which isn't exactly something to censor. StuRat (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Buddhists are by definition atheists - there is no deity in Buddhism. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Is Buddhism considered a religion? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- I am quite, quite certain that there are vast numbers of Buddhists who are not atheists, Roger. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- The Buddhism article suggests that Buddhism, or at least some aspects of it, accept or have accepted the notion of supernatural beings, i.e. gods. Also, the countless images of Buddha around the world suggest that Buddha himself has become a de facto god. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not really. There are vast numbers of images of the Queen, the US President, Mother Teresa, statues of Robert Burns, Joan of Arc, the list is endless. Just because an image exists does not mean that people regard the person as a god or the subject of worship, and Buddhists do not worship Buddha (nor do Muslims worship Muhammed). This is one of the oft-repeated erroneous claims about Catholics and their holy statues in churches etc. Critics say this breaches the commandment about worshipping graven images. Well, there is no worship going on, period. If people pray to someone, it's not to the statue itself but to the person represented in the statue, who is said to be in Heaven and can intercede on behalf of the faithful. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- The Taliban clearly thought otherwise, when they blasted away those two ancient Buddha statues in Afghanistan. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- We accept the Taliban definition? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the Taliban view of the world has proven to be especially enlightened and life-affirming, as we have seen. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Some forms of Buddhism do have beings which appear to be deities: see Dainichi Nyorai. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think there are two different aspects, or two different kinds of "like". On the one hand, there are Cultural Christians like e.g. Richard Dawkins. Dawkins likes the Anglican liturgy, but seems to have limited interest in religion otherwise. On the other hand, there are people who are not religious, but have a deep interest in religion. One example might be Bart D. Ehrman. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- In some nations there must be quite a few people who, while not religious believers themselves, appreciate the role of their national church in their national/ethnic identity and culture. In many Eastern Orthodox (or Oriental Orthodox) nations - from Russia to Armenia to Greece to Serbia - the local Christian church is thought as an important institution that helped preserve national identity and culture (in particular, literacy in the national language) through the periods of Mongol or Ottoman domination. Lots of Poles, too, loved Pope John Paul II and were proud of him (especially in the context of Poland being within the Communist Bloc ambit), even if they may not have been believers themselves. The Jews - if defined in secular terms, simply as "the descendants of the ancient Hebrew-speaking people of Palestine" - would not likely to have been existing today as an identifiable group if not for the continuous existence of the religion of Judaism, and some secular Zionists surely appreciate that. -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- There is a tradition in England that the person who plays the organ in church is an atheist. There is a reference in a novel by Penelope Lively. Aficionados of church architecture could also be atheist. And as for experts in stained glass windows.... Itsmejudith (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- That's bizarre. What do they do if they run out of atheists who know how to play the organ? Hire Christian organists as temporary fill-ins? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
@The OP: Can I use myself as an example? Personally, I am an agnostic (not an atheist), but I like some "Christian music". Futurist110 (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'd say there are legions of people who are atheists, agnostics, whatever, who are attracted to the lore of religions: their history, their rituals, their panoply. The Catholic Church seems to have a particularly good grasp of what makes a good spectacle (very fitting for a "Roman" organisation). The Papacy in all its aspects is endlessly fascinating for all manner of people, not just Catholics and not even just believers. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, to hear Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum; habemus Papam: Eminentissimum ac Reverendissimum Dominum, Dominum Georgium Marium Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem Bergoglio qui sibi nomen imposuit Franciscum live, in Latin (!), on my computer, from Italy, along with much of the civilized world, was the most exciting thing I have witnessed since the birth of my niece. μηδείς (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
The Queen and security clearance
Does the Queen, or any British monarch, have to gain security clearance before they're able to perform their duties as the sovereign. Or is it just assumed that because they're royalty they can be trusted? --82.46.142.98 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt it, but your thesis of if they assume the queen can be trusted misses the point of a monarchy (constitutional as it may be), the queen would be the embodiment of the nation, in the UK members of the government and military swear to protect (or some similar oath) the queen (or king). Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 16:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- So the Queen swearing to protect the Queen would seem a bit redundant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- 'Government' as it were, not all that rule so to speak. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 08:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- The Queen swore "to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, The Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of (her) Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs". So she would be breaking her Coronation oath if she contravened the Official Secrets Act, but she couldn't be prosecuted because the Queen can't bring a charge against herself. In the event of such a thing occurring, I imagine that either Parliament could decide to curb her right to be informed of government decisions, or that officials would quietly stop sharing secrets with her and otherwise carry on as if nothing had happened in a very British sort of way. Alansplodge (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- May she defend our laws. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- So the Queen swearing to protect the Queen would seem a bit redundant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- There's also a process issue. People being assessed for clearances are subject to various types of checking, some known to them, some not. The not group can include interviews with people closely connected to the subject. Is anyone closely connected to the Queen going to be spilling their guts to the security people about her (hypothetical) peccadillos? Or about things that, while not being of her own doing, may somehow compromise her security standing? I very much doubt it. The people employed by the royals enjoy an unparalleled degree of trust, and to have them questioned about such matters in the realistic expectation of getting candid responses would be pointless. Hence a process failure. No, they have to wait until such people voluntarily break their trust and publish tell-all books about what really goes on behind closed doors at the Palace. There has been a long string of such disgraceful exposés, starting with her childhood nanny Marion Crawford. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Might I ask a follow-up question (both to this, and to the "The Queen Is Dead" question we had a few days ago)? Is there anything a new monarch can't do until she (or he) has taken the coronation oath? I'm thinking of the appointment of bishops, and possibly the State Opening of Parliament. Or do all the powers and duties of the office devolve immediately onto the new monarch? Tevildo (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- That question isn't as esoteric as it might seem... it's been raised at times in U.S. jurisprudence. For instance, does the president become president on the appropriate date if the oath is delayed? This has happened in some instances for executive and judicial officials. I regret that I can't point to any examples offhand, but I've read about this happening, so I know there's discussion of it. These issues are usually dealt with pragmatically in an intellectually unsatisfying way, which is to say, common sense usually works. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if there's some spirited debates on this topic, some of which might have actually meant something. But that is a very specific question, one that I doubt (no slight intended) the ref desk is equipped to handle. Shadowjams (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- We've discussed here before how the winner of the US presidential election becomes president at noon on the following 20 January. Why? Because the US Constitution says so. That happens automatically. The oath is necessary for the president to be able to undertake the office of president. That is, in whatever time gap there may be between noon and whenever he/she swears the oath (normally only a couple of minutes, but it could be longer), he/she IS president but may not carry out any of the functions of president. A null president, if you like. The UK monarchy is not analogous. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I could not agree more Jack. I would only say that the Constitution requires the president takes the oath, so whether acts taken before the oath but after the inauguration (which has included the Chief Justice administering the oath for a long while) is an unresolved question. Shadowjams (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow that last bit. Can you say more about it, Shadowjams? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I imagine a case where an executive official takes office but for some circumstance delays the oath of office, and then enacts official duties [before taking the oath]. There's a question about whether actions taken before the oath is taken are legitimate. I'm probably simplifying the actual cases somewhat, but that's the general idea of what I was getting at. The oath of office is a Constitutional requirement for some positions, so while it feels like a formality, it has real impact. Shadowjams (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- The normal functions of government can go on without anyone holding that office for a few minutes. Technically, they go on that way every time the president sleeps. The importance of the swearing-in ritual is seen in cases where the president dies in office. Typically the VP gets notified and sworn in as soon as possible. In 1963 it was easy, as LBJ was along on the trip. On past occasions, including the deaths of FDR, Harding, McKinley and probably some others, they had to send out a VP search party. But during those time gaps, the government somehow went on without its president. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I imagine a case where an executive official takes office but for some circumstance delays the oath of office, and then enacts official duties [before taking the oath]. There's a question about whether actions taken before the oath is taken are legitimate. I'm probably simplifying the actual cases somewhat, but that's the general idea of what I was getting at. The oath of office is a Constitutional requirement for some positions, so while it feels like a formality, it has real impact. Shadowjams (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow that last bit. Can you say more about it, Shadowjams? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I could not agree more Jack. I would only say that the Constitution requires the president takes the oath, so whether acts taken before the oath but after the inauguration (which has included the Chief Justice administering the oath for a long while) is an unresolved question. Shadowjams (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- We've discussed here before how the winner of the US presidential election becomes president at noon on the following 20 January. Why? Because the US Constitution says so. That happens automatically. The oath is necessary for the president to be able to undertake the office of president. That is, in whatever time gap there may be between noon and whenever he/she swears the oath (normally only a couple of minutes, but it could be longer), he/she IS president but may not carry out any of the functions of president. A null president, if you like. The UK monarchy is not analogous. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Complexity of creation and creator
Does the creator have to be more complex than the creation? Everything humans have created pales in comparison to the complexity of the human brain. Can we completely understand the functioning of our brains, let alone create something more complex? --119.155.10.191 (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Teleological argument is the most relevant article on this subject. That being said, it's certainly not (logically) necessary for the Creator to be more complex than the creation - Plato's demiurge doesn't have this characteristic. On a purely factual point, the Itanium 9500 processor has 3.2 billion transistors, compared to the human brain's 89 billion neurons - only one order of magnitude away, and, if Moore's Law continues to hold, microprocessors will beat the brain for complexity in about ten years. This doesn't, of course, mean that they'll be capable of the same behaviourial complexity. Tevildo (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- We know that very simple rules can result in very complex behaviour - see e.g. Conway's Game of Life and other Cellular Automata, or Fractals. From an information-theoretical point of view, complexity is maximised for completely random sequences. So for reasonable definitions of "complexity", it can grow without a "creator" with a perceived complexity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- The working of a single transistor is quite simple compared to that of a neuron, and with increasing numbers, the complexity of the interaction between neurons increases with greater magnitude than that of transistors. So complexity doesn't necessarily depend on quantity, correct? Also, wouldn't the LHC be a more complex structure than a microprocessor? --119.155.10.191 (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) One should note of course (and I believe Tevildo does) that a single neuron is considerably more complex than a single transistor (which effectively operates as a switch, an amplifier or both), and capable of more sophisticated logical operations. A single neuron can possess both many inputs and many outputs and can dynamically rearrange both of these based on the signals it receives, it can carry out analog computation (to a limited extent) and different neurons can respond in different ways to the same neurotransmitter. I don't believe that a one-to-one correspondence between transistors and neurones operates here. I quote this from a very interesting looking book review from 2000 entitled "How smart is a neuron?"
"From the perspective of Christof Koch’s Biophysics of Computation the situation is quite different. A neuron can no longer be viewed as a single switch; it is more or less analogous to an integrated circuit chip. I write ‘more or less’ because much of a neuron’s behaviour remains under a shroud, making it difficult to discern what a system of 10 to 100 billion real neurons, as described in this book, might or might not be able to do."
- Equisetum (talk | contributions) 19:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, yes. I would be reluctant to define a quantative metric of "complexity", and I accept that the human brain is capable of more - advanced? meaningful? - operations than a microprocessor. However, the number of components in the human brain is comparable with the number of components in a modern microprocessor, and I wanted to make that point to address the OP's "pales in comparison". Tevildo (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- The number of synapses in the human brain is on the order of 1014, several orders of magnitude larger than the number of transistors in any existing computer. However, computers operate millions of times faster than synapses, so the total computational power is more nearly equivalent. Looie496 (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- How do you measure the computational power of the brain? And since a neuron has a greater number of possible states than a transistor, despite being slower, is its computational power greater than a transistor's? --175.110.221.163 (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Who created the concepts of "complexity" and "not"? Wnt (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- We're getting ahead of ourselves. As Sir Arthur Eddington reminded us, We used to think that if we knew one, we knew two, because one and one are two. We are finding that we must learn a great deal more about 'and'. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Who created the concepts of "complexity" and "not"? Wnt (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- How do you measure the computational power of the brain? And since a neuron has a greater number of possible states than a transistor, despite being slower, is its computational power greater than a transistor's? --175.110.221.163 (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- The number of synapses in the human brain is on the order of 1014, several orders of magnitude larger than the number of transistors in any existing computer. However, computers operate millions of times faster than synapses, so the total computational power is more nearly equivalent. Looie496 (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, yes. I would be reluctant to define a quantative metric of "complexity", and I accept that the human brain is capable of more - advanced? meaningful? - operations than a microprocessor. However, the number of components in the human brain is comparable with the number of components in a modern microprocessor, and I wanted to make that point to address the OP's "pales in comparison". Tevildo (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Equisetum (talk | contributions) 19:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The limits come from the Second law of thermodynamics. The complex system that you want to create has a certain formal description. If you already know this description, then there is no problem with creating it, as the information is already exists in your brain or in the memory of your PC in a classical way. This means that in a quantum mechanical description, the information is copied a large number of times in the environment, the act of creating the system amounts to shifting information around that was already there.
In contrast, if you don't know the description of the system and you only know some of its desired properties, then creating the system using e.g. a genetic algorithm will result in a local entropy drop. This requires out of equilibrium conditions where the entropy of the environment can rise by a larger amount. At the microscopic level, no information is created out of nothing (this follows from unitary time evolution). The genetic algorithm will have to test a large number of designs and it will have to select one that works well. If you consider the information generated inside the computer, then you'll see that the computer will have to dump a large number of information about the designs that are not good enough that were replaced by better designs.
Throwing away information from your computer memory results in an entropy rise. Suppose you have one bit that can be 0 or 1 and you have a process that resets it to zero regardless of whether it was 0 or 1, then that bit of information will have to end up in the environment (because at the microscopic level information does not get lost; the laws of physics forbid you from being able to evolve two different initial states to the same final state). Being able to operate a computer thus requires it to be in a universe that is not in thermal equilibrium as the entropy has to increase during its operations. The information about the design ultimately comes from the universe itself, its entropy was increased by an extra amount due to the computations that led to the design being generated. Count Iblis (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Plato's politics
I've read that Plato was no friend of democracy and admired the Spartan system of government. What exactly were his politics about? — Melab±1 ☎ 00:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- "The Republic" is Plato's main work on the subject. He regarded enlightened dictatorship as the best form of government, assuming that the dictator was perfectly acquainted with the Form of Good, and (specifically) regarded the government of Sparta (timocracy) as superior to the Athenian democracy which he lived under. See also Philosopher king. Tevildo (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Karl Popper claims that Plato was actually more aristocratically inclined and distrustful of democracy than Socrates (see The Open Society and Its Enemies)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- The Republic denies the vast majority of citizens any political power; the reason for this is clear: Expertise in political matters is like any other expertise in it that it only comes through development of knowledge. You shouldn't go to a cobbler when you need medical care, and you shouldn't go to a physician when you need your shoes fixed. Just so, you shouldn't go to a politician when you need crops farmed, and you shouldn't go to a farmer when you need political work done. An expert in any field requires specialist training in that field (or some rare virtuosity), and politics is no different, according to Plato. The Laws is a later and larger work. There's not much consensus on exactly how to interpret many aspects of The Laws (and most believe that it is incomplete). It is clear however that political power is to be based to some extent on expertise. But it's also clear that Plato allows some democratic institutions, and that this change from the Republic is connected to Plato's view stated in the Laws that the constitution of state will have to make compromises due to practical necessities.
- Four articles:
- Kraut, Richard, "Socrates and Democracy" in Fine, Gail (ed.), Plato 2: Ethics, Politics, Religion and the Soul (Oxford University Press, 1999).
- Bobonich, Christopher, "Plato's Politics" in Fine, Gail (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Plato (Oxford University Press, 2010).
- Meyer, Susan, "Plato on the Law" in Benson, Hugh (ed.), "A Companion to Plato" (Blackwell Publishing, 2006).
- Saunders, Trevor, "Plato's Later Political Thought" in Kraut, Richard (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Plato (Cambridge University Press, 1992).
- A book:
- Klosko, George, The Development of Plato's Political Theory, Second Edition (Oxford University Press, 2006).
- You might be most interested in reading C.C.W. Taylor's "Plato's Totalitarianism" however. This is in Polis volume 5 (1986), 4–29, and also in the Fine 1999 collection. This is just about Plato's Republic and whether and in what way Plato's ideal state is a totalitarian one. Taylor's conclusion: Plato's ideal state is totalitarian, but a paternalist one, not an "extreme totalitarianism" (as Popper says) that seeks only to bolster the state's (or the rulers') power, but rather is one that resorts to totalitarianism as a form of humanitarianism, because the masses are so ignorant of virtue that without rulers to direct their lives they become slaves to their own base desires. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
the longest walk in Keds
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Tried to but can't find who the woman was who walked a huge distance along a trail or across the country in America in the early 1900s possibly? She is a role model for light weight travel & wore Keds. Came across the article ages ago but can't find it & forget her name. Manytexts (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
PS after describing light weight travel to you, I entered "ultra light" & found her here: Grandma Gatewood a pioneer in ultra light hiking. Manytexts (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Identification in Simultaenous Equation Models
I realise this question is Mathsy, but Economics is more of a Humanities and I didn't get a very good answer there so asking it here.
Let's say we have a SEM written in the form , where Y is a row vector of endogenous variables (M x 1), is a MxM matrix of coefficients, X is a row vector of exogenous variables (K x 1) and is a K x K matrix of coefficients ( and are normalized so that the diagonal is 1 and both are subject to exclusion restrictions) and is a row vector of errors which is M x 1. How do you rewrite this form of the equation to make use of the rank and order conditions? 211.31.25.66 (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Y is a row vector (1 x M) and X is a row vector (1 x K). (M x 1) is a column vector or a M by 1 matrix.
Sleigh (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
November 3
Regions of Population Growth/Decline in France
Based on these two maps here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France#Historical_population_of_metropolitan_France -- which I personally made based on (apparently reliable) data from INSEE, it appears that other than in the Paris suburbs and exurbs, the fastest population growth in France since 1975 (as well as the fastest projected future population growth in France) has primarily been in the southern and western regions of France. Does anyone with more knowledge in regards to this know why this is the case? Also, is the slower population growth and in some cases population decline in northeastern France and in parts of central France due to the fact that these areas are primarily focused on (heavy) industry and/or on agriculture, and thus can't attract population growth to as large of a degree/extent as other parts of France? Again, it would be nice to hear what someone who is more knowledgeable in regards to this topic/issue has to say about this. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds very much like population shifts in the US. In particular, an aging population likes to retire to warmer climates. StuRat (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I've noticed that as well, and while that makes sense for southern France, I am not sure that the climate in northwestern France (where the population is also growing and is also projected to grow extremely quickly) is much warmer than the climate in northeastern France (where there is much slower population growth and even population decline) is. Thus, I wonder what is causing the large population increases in northwestern France. It would also be interesting to see which areas of France have the highest percentage of immigrants--maybe this information/data can help explain a part of this. Finally, for the record, if anyone does not know this yet, there are scales for both of the maps in my link which you will see once you will click on these maps themselves. Futurist110 (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- There is a phenomenon (not certain if it is at play here) of cyclical real estate valuations, for a US comparison the Rust Belt 50 years ago was the real estate that was most pricey, places like Orlando and Las Vegas, even Seattle you could get huge bargains, 25 years ago this was completely inverted and yet now the large swaths of the Rust Belt (Detroit being a notable exception) are coming back relative to the real estate values bust in most parts of the sun belt. Places like Miami and Detroit (noted above) are some exceptions. Real estate values have a ton to do with migration patterns and like any other commodity show a pattern of cyclical valuations over generations, there is a Graduate school of Business in Florida named "Crummer" which is a somewhat curious thing to name one of the state's top MBA programs. Crummer it turns out "saved" Florida real estate (Florida was suffering in real estate was my first thought too) in the 1930s when the combination of some unluckily severe back-to-back hurricanes and the Great Depression had the huge Art Deco and hotel developments of Henry Flagler et. al. go belly up and with them the tax base of stretched out munis which all sold bonds galore to pay for massive infrastructure improvements, so Florida went boom in the 1920s bust until the 1950s and really didn't boom again until the late 1970s and now large parts of the state are bust again, and since there are only so many people rushing in and out of these booms the supply/demand factor dictates they are buying in other regions until they are priced out of a gentrified market and move back to the area their parents laughed at as a "bust", much similar to how places like Pittsburgh and Buffalo were the brunt of jokes in the 1980s, 90s and now have leaders from the sunbelt visiting to learn from the now reversed Rustbelt how to get out of their own real estate (and thus population) busts. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 08:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I've noticed that as well, and while that makes sense for southern France, I am not sure that the climate in northwestern France (where the population is also growing and is also projected to grow extremely quickly) is much warmer than the climate in northeastern France (where there is much slower population growth and even population decline) is. Thus, I wonder what is causing the large population increases in northwestern France. It would also be interesting to see which areas of France have the highest percentage of immigrants--maybe this information/data can help explain a part of this. Finally, for the record, if anyone does not know this yet, there are scales for both of the maps in my link which you will see once you will click on these maps themselves. Futurist110 (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- See also Immigration to France which must also be a factor. Alansplodge (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding the immigration to the North of France, OK so it may not be warmer than the rest of France, but it sure is warmer than the UK and other regions of Europe that are north of there. It is relatively easy to live anywhere in the EU if you are already an EU citizen. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- With that in mind, it would be interesting to note who is migrating to NW France. If it's people from the UK, they might just want to be in France but as close as possible to the UK for visits home. The Chunnel may have contributed to this migration. StuRat (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Britons famously take up residence in Provence (see A Year in Provence) in the South, where the landscape is stunning and there's a wealth of deserted farm houses at a fraction of the price that you could buy one for in the UK. Alansplodge (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- With that in mind, it would be interesting to note who is migrating to NW France. If it's people from the UK, they might just want to be in France but as close as possible to the UK for visits home. The Chunnel may have contributed to this migration. StuRat (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding the immigration to the North of France, OK so it may not be warmer than the rest of France, but it sure is warmer than the UK and other regions of Europe that are north of there. It is relatively easy to live anywhere in the EU if you are already an EU citizen. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- The French Wikipedia addresses this in Geographical distribution of French population; a rough translation is "The regions with the lowest population increase (Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Champagne-Ardenne) are formerly industrialized areas with a higher unemployment rate than the national average. With the Picardie region, they are also the sources of emigration to the more sunny regions such as Languedoc-Roussillon, Midi-Pyrenees, Aquitaine and Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur." In other words, it confirms the reasons suggested above. The article describes but does not explain the increase in Brittany and Pays de la Loire. 184.147.119.205 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- All the west coast of France is desirable from a retirement/second home perspective and that contributes to the forecast increase in Brittany and Pays de la Loire. Brittany is an export-oriented centre of agribusiness (dairy and pork products). The Pays de la Loire also has agricultural production (Muscadet, maize). Leisure boatbuilding in the Vendee. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I know at least Loire-Atlantique (in Pays de la Loire) has been positioning itself as a leader in technology recently - aeronautics (there is an Airbus assembly at Nantes Airport), information technology, banking, agribusiness. I know they promoted these types of businesses when I lived there. I'm not sure about the west of France in general but I suppose it's the same. Sometimes people even come from Paris to work there, rather than the other way around. Also, the weather's not bad, rainy but relatively warm. It doesn't get too cold even in the winter...it snowed when I was there but that was apparently the first time in 16 years. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
summary of the world political situation, snowden revelations
This is a two-part question.
1) Could you tell me about the major "factions" in the world (alliances, wars etc) among all parts of the world. What or how many "sides" are there today? (For example that a high school student might care enough to read about in 200 years).
2) What about the Snowden revelations. He is thinking of defecting to Germany. Is Germany in some sense on a different 'side' from the U.S.? What are the "sides" that there are in world-wide intelligence?
I'm sorry about the super-vague questions. Also, what active wars are there right now worldwide - are these major or minor? I really, really don't care about history and have not been paying to current events like at all. I'd just like a birds-eye, 200-year overview of the present day. Thanks! 212.96.61.236 (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Your question is rather vague and open-ended, but we do have List of ongoing armed conflicts... AnonMoos (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Does Germany have an extradition treaty with the US? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- The whole EU has an extradition treaty with the US (that devolves to the constituent states). So Germany can extradite Snowden to the US. It can also decide that he is the subject of political persecution, which would trigger a clause in the German constitution and, IIRC, an exemption clause in the treaty that would make an extradition impossible (on constitutional grounds) and optional (based on the treaty). In the end, this is possibly a political decision. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Obviously any such extradition attempt would have to be negotiated, with guarantees to ensure no capital punishment and no torture and to otherwise comply with EU's view of things. This is where the US messed up by charging him with "espionage". If they had kept it to "theft of government property", it would have been tougher for a country to claim that it was political. Theft is theft. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- The whole EU has an extradition treaty with the US (that devolves to the constituent states). So Germany can extradite Snowden to the US. It can also decide that he is the subject of political persecution, which would trigger a clause in the German constitution and, IIRC, an exemption clause in the treaty that would make an extradition impossible (on constitutional grounds) and optional (based on the treaty). In the end, this is possibly a political decision. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not vague. Pick a year (1850, 1930). You can talk about what alliances or factions there were in the world, what the history of internatoinal politics was at that time (roughly). I'm asking for the same birds-eye summary today. Granted there may be more areas like the middle east and Asia that we are paying attention to than in 1800 but the principle stands. I'd like an overview. Also, you didn't even try to answer the second question which is more specific. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Please explain it to me like I'm 5 - don't assume I know anything, because I don't. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- What's the answer to my question: Does Germany have an extradition treaty with the US? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- List of United States extradition treaties. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's fairly typical, though, for extradition treaties to be written with exceptions that allow a country to refuse to extradite if they think the charge is political or otherwise violates what they see as human rights. So I imagine Germany would have an "out" to refuse extradition if they wanted to. And I suppose they kind of might want to, as a little payback for bugging Angela Merkel's phone. But the political cost might be fairly high, and if I were Ed Snowden, I don't think I'd count on it. --Trovatore (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Precisely. And if Germany were found to have been spying on us also, they wouldn't want to cop too much of an attitude in the interim. Russia has no extradition treaty with the US, so he's better off there. But we are allies of both, or at least we have diplomatic relations with both. Any country that could have diplomatic relations with another country but doesn't, is not much of an ally. It get tricky where al-Qaeda is concerned, because they are a network of insurgents who have no actual nation, or at least not openly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Bugs, this stream-of-consciousness musing doesn't help the OP. You don't know anything about international relations, so sit back and let other people respond. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- The OP likewise claims to know nothing, while making comments that indicate he knows something. But you're obviously not nearly as dumb as I am, so what are the right answers to his questions about Germany? And by the way, the OP's snippiness towards AnonMoos doesn't help the OP either. Oh, and one more thing, Judith: Where's your own degree in international relations? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Bugs, yes I am qualified in these areas, but please judge my contributions on their quality. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's your questions about Germany, not the OP's. I gave you a link. You can thank me for it. There is an extradition treaty. Also note that Germany is in the Schengen area. If there was an inkling of extradition procedures Snowden could be in France, Germany, Luxembourg, Italy or other countries within a few hours' drive. You can just go straight through on the motorway at 100 kph. These other countries also have extradition treaties with the USA. Who knows how it will play out. Probably in favour of the Internet. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I was in fact going to thank you for finding that link, but the edit conflict beat me to it. I had been trying to find it, and somehow overlooked it in the article on the general topic of extradition laws in the US. And the OP did ask about Germany: He claims (without citation) that Snowden is thinking of "defecting" (whatever that means in this context) to Germany. And he's asking whose side Germany is on. The US and Germany are allies, and neither one is keen on giving undue advantage to terrorist organizations, so in the bigger picture they are necessarily on the same "side", even if they might disagree about details. But I'm obviously an idiot, so tell me what "in favour of the internet" means. Unless you're just being funny or ironic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- What I meant by "in favour of the Internet" is that there seems to be a war of position between on the one hand national governments and on the other an increasingly connected global citizenry. The powers spy on us, telling us that it is essential in order to defend democracy and defeat terrorism, while we continue to update our statuses with lolcats. It is becoming quite clear that it doesn't matter an iota what Obama, Cameron or Merkel think. What matters is public opinion in the West, i.e. what is said below the line on the newsblogs, and that could go either way, but is most likely to go in the direction of "I want to post invites to my party without worrying whether the drugs enforcement agency will be alerted." Itsmejudith (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Which side are the owners of entities like Google and Facebook on? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- On the side of the governments, of course. It's capitalism! But not necessarily as we know it. Give it two years, will we all be using Google and Facebook? Who knows? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- That might be one reason that the youth are moving away from Facebook, as reported in an online story the other day. (I forget where - maybe cnn.com). Give it a few years and Facebook might be history. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- And as for that weirdo Wikipedia outfit, all I can say is "Obviously it will never work, and is due to disintegrate any day now". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- According to that report linked on my talk page, wikipedia is indeed disintegrating, but it's at a snail's pace. (I almost said at a glacial pace, but in these times of global warming, that analogy doesn't work so well anymore.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- And as for that weirdo Wikipedia outfit, all I can say is "Obviously it will never work, and is due to disintegrate any day now". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- That might be one reason that the youth are moving away from Facebook, as reported in an online story the other day. (I forget where - maybe cnn.com). Give it a few years and Facebook might be history. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- On the side of the governments, of course. It's capitalism! But not necessarily as we know it. Give it two years, will we all be using Google and Facebook? Who knows? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Which side are the owners of entities like Google and Facebook on? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- What I meant by "in favour of the Internet" is that there seems to be a war of position between on the one hand national governments and on the other an increasingly connected global citizenry. The powers spy on us, telling us that it is essential in order to defend democracy and defeat terrorism, while we continue to update our statuses with lolcats. It is becoming quite clear that it doesn't matter an iota what Obama, Cameron or Merkel think. What matters is public opinion in the West, i.e. what is said below the line on the newsblogs, and that could go either way, but is most likely to go in the direction of "I want to post invites to my party without worrying whether the drugs enforcement agency will be alerted." Itsmejudith (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I was in fact going to thank you for finding that link, but the edit conflict beat me to it. I had been trying to find it, and somehow overlooked it in the article on the general topic of extradition laws in the US. And the OP did ask about Germany: He claims (without citation) that Snowden is thinking of "defecting" (whatever that means in this context) to Germany. And he's asking whose side Germany is on. The US and Germany are allies, and neither one is keen on giving undue advantage to terrorist organizations, so in the bigger picture they are necessarily on the same "side", even if they might disagree about details. But I'm obviously an idiot, so tell me what "in favour of the internet" means. Unless you're just being funny or ironic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's your questions about Germany, not the OP's. I gave you a link. You can thank me for it. There is an extradition treaty. Also note that Germany is in the Schengen area. If there was an inkling of extradition procedures Snowden could be in France, Germany, Luxembourg, Italy or other countries within a few hours' drive. You can just go straight through on the motorway at 100 kph. These other countries also have extradition treaties with the USA. Who knows how it will play out. Probably in favour of the Internet. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Bugs, yes I am qualified in these areas, but please judge my contributions on their quality. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- The OP likewise claims to know nothing, while making comments that indicate he knows something. But you're obviously not nearly as dumb as I am, so what are the right answers to his questions about Germany? And by the way, the OP's snippiness towards AnonMoos doesn't help the OP either. Oh, and one more thing, Judith: Where's your own degree in international relations? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Bugs, this stream-of-consciousness musing doesn't help the OP. You don't know anything about international relations, so sit back and let other people respond. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Precisely. And if Germany were found to have been spying on us also, they wouldn't want to cop too much of an attitude in the interim. Russia has no extradition treaty with the US, so he's better off there. But we are allies of both, or at least we have diplomatic relations with both. Any country that could have diplomatic relations with another country but doesn't, is not much of an ally. It get tricky where al-Qaeda is concerned, because they are a network of insurgents who have no actual nation, or at least not openly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's fairly typical, though, for extradition treaties to be written with exceptions that allow a country to refuse to extradite if they think the charge is political or otherwise violates what they see as human rights. So I imagine Germany would have an "out" to refuse extradition if they wanted to. And I suppose they kind of might want to, as a little payback for bugging Angela Merkel's phone. But the political cost might be fairly high, and if I were Ed Snowden, I don't think I'd count on it. --Trovatore (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- List of United States extradition treaties. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- In the world there are two classes of people, people who own things that make things (bourgeoisie), and people who own labour that makes things (proletariat). Much in the same way that Feudalism was primarily defined by the repression of those who laboured agriculturally or in towns (third estate), by the priest nobility (first estate) and the non-priestly nobility (second estate), our period of time will be seen as defined by the class conflict between workers and bosses if social history has the least to say historiographically about our period. Other answers may be possible depending on people's theory of history and whether they're Marxist or liberal in terms of their historiographical attitude. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Communism doesn't work. Even the poorest of the poor and the most-exploited of the exploited like to own things. Marxism, as attempted in some countries, has been a colossal failure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose you don't know this, Bugs, but Marxists distinguish between personal property (bicycles, clothing, artworks, furniture, things for use) and private property (factories, things to exploit other people to make money). You get to keep your personal property. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yeh, I sure wish I lived in Cuba, where everyone gets to drive 1950s cars. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose you don't know this, Bugs, but Marxists distinguish between personal property (bicycles, clothing, artworks, furniture, things for use) and private property (factories, things to exploit other people to make money). You get to keep your personal property. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Communism doesn't work. Even the poorest of the poor and the most-exploited of the exploited like to own things. Marxism, as attempted in some countries, has been a colossal failure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Following from Fifelfoo's helpful comments, directly to the OP, not to Bugs, you could have a look at the foreign policies of the great powers, particularly China, the USA and Russia. These three countries are, on the surface, friendly towards each other. If you follow the ideas of Noam Chomsky you will think that below this surface structure is a deep structure. Which powers are in economic competition with which others? Well, the USA is still the richest country, but its economy is dependent on Chinese money. (So much for the rejection of Communism.) The politics is not identical to the economics, whatever Chomsky or some very mechanical Marxists think. Politically, and this is your question, the blocs that you need to take into account are 1) USA and western Europe 2) the Muslim world 3) China. It could be a bit different net year. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe you could explain how propagandizing for a totally failed idea is in any way "helpful" to the OP. Unless you're just being funny again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- What propagandising? Count Iblis' analysis is good, except that the changes since 2008 also need to be theorised. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Filfelfoo = Count Iblis??? I don't think so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- What propagandising? Count Iblis' analysis is good, except that the changes since 2008 also need to be theorised. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe you could explain how propagandizing for a totally failed idea is in any way "helpful" to the OP. Unless you're just being funny again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Following from Fifelfoo's helpful comments, directly to the OP, not to Bugs, you could have a look at the foreign policies of the great powers, particularly China, the USA and Russia. These three countries are, on the surface, friendly towards each other. If you follow the ideas of Noam Chomsky you will think that below this surface structure is a deep structure. Which powers are in economic competition with which others? Well, the USA is still the richest country, but its economy is dependent on Chinese money. (So much for the rejection of Communism.) The politics is not identical to the economics, whatever Chomsky or some very mechanical Marxists think. Politically, and this is your question, the blocs that you need to take into account are 1) USA and western Europe 2) the Muslim world 3) China. It could be a bit different net year. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- That's nice Bugs. In historiography Marxism is still highly credible, and many if not all historians that deal with 200 year remembrance of world history use class. If you'd like to ask questions about Marxist ideologies in control of failed states, you know how to start a new section. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Marxism failed because Marx himself failed to take human nature into account. Be that as it may, have fun answering the OP's questions below. I can't give him any good information, as I'm an idiot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Fortunately, the Ref Desk doesn't depend on any respondent being an expert in the relevant field. Even idiots sometime find good references for OPs (assuming they look, that is). :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Fortunately, I'm too much of an idiot to understand what you're saying. Considering what Miss Manners said, it's a miracle I even learned to read and write. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- While an interesting perspective, your factual claim is wrong as our article (Human_nature#Modernism) indicates. Young Marx on species being and older Marx on the social construction of what it is to be human. Marx accounted rather heavily for human nature. I think, rather, that you're asserting that your own personal view of what human nature is indicates that Marx is wrong. Unless you're going to write very interesting and lengthy accounts of why Marx is wrong, I'm going to prefer to stick with people like Leszek Kołakowski whose accounts of why Marx may be wrong are nuanced, based on readings of Marx himself, and can philosophically substantiate claims about transcendent human natures. (Kolakowski's claim certainly isn't something trite like greed, but the far more defensible fallibility in terms of human subjectivities not being the totality.) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Then why hasn't the working class embraced their greed and seized control of the means of production? →Σσς. (Sigma) 07:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Who says they haven't? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Fortunately, the Ref Desk doesn't depend on any respondent being an expert in the relevant field. Even idiots sometime find good references for OPs (assuming they look, that is). :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Marxism failed because Marx himself failed to take human nature into account. Be that as it may, have fun answering the OP's questions below. I can't give him any good information, as I'm an idiot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- That's nice Bugs. In historiography Marxism is still highly credible, and many if not all historians that deal with 200 year remembrance of world history use class. If you'd like to ask questions about Marxist ideologies in control of failed states, you know how to start a new section. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
200 years from now, historians would consider the current period to be the direct aftermath of the end of the Cold War. They will explain the current situation we find ourselves in by invoking the US support for the resistance against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. That ultimately led to Afghanistan becoming a failed state leading to the problems with the Taliban and Al Qa'ida there and in Pakistan, which in turn led to the US becoming involved in the war against terror and then this whole drive to spy on almost everyone. Also, the weakening of the Soviet Union due to the escalation in Afghanistan, led to an anti-Western sentiment in the Soviet leadership which eventually led to the coup against Gorbachov. That in turn led to the Soviet Union falling apart, a weak Yeltsin government took over, there was an insurgency in Chechnya. This caused Putin to become a popular strong leader of Russia. The big non-aligned coutries like India, South Africa, Brazil, would ally themselves with Russia and China. Also, South America would distance itself from the US more and persue a more socialist path. Count Iblis (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- While I agree this is a good summary of the period, I'm pretty sure that the post-Soviet era will suffer from bowdlerisation in the mythic imaginary. Almost nobody considers Napoleon I to be the next thing to Satan. And only committed followers of pro-force Anabaptism would demonise Luther today. YMMV, I'd hope that 200 years from now the public awareness of contemporary geopolitics is so strong. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- We may be drifting a little, but the present-day descendants of the Anabaptists are mostly peace churches, not "pro-force" in any sense I understand (wow, that Müntzer guy doesn't sound like he'd really fit in with any Mennonites I've ever met). The worst things I hear about Luther are mostly from hardcore Catholics. --Trovatore (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Count Iblis - you are using these terms but I don't understand them. I recently found out that Bangladesh was a country, or that Scandinavia isn't. You need to like...dumb it down a bit more for me please.
1) What areas of the world are there? (For example: Communist East, Capitalist East, Arab World, Israel, Europe, North America, South America). But is that the best listing of areas of the world?
2) What are the major "poles" or alliances? For example: "China & North Korea versus the entire rest of world. Arab world versus all of G5 countries + Israel". These are just guesses. I don't know squat.
3) What are the active conflicts by region?
I was happy for a moment about the wall of text above, but it turned out to be about just a tangent. I'd like a coherent, like very much "dumbed-down" version (like that you would tell a 5 year old, who doesn't even know what the Soviet Union is). Please try to just like generalize as much as possible and give me an overview. Thanks! 212.96.61.236 (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I can't imagine trying to explain world politics to a five year old. Does a five year old even know what a war is? (Unless, goddess forbid, he's in a war zone.) You want to dumb it down? Tell the five year old that in the world there are two classes of people: Those that want to hurt him, and those that don't. If he grasps that, then you can start talking about war. Then you can show him a world globe and give him a lesson in geography - and of places on that globe (such as Syria) which have a large number of people trying to hurt each other. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is both some extremely interesting contributions and also for an editor that I both admire in expertise and at times can't understand why there is a seeming intent to enflame: extremely entertaining and if I can say 'quote worthy' on many levels. I mean this in the most genuine sense, this has been a joy to read, intellectually and for my funny bone. To Bugs: we're all here to learn and discuss our life experiences (the expertise we have acquired), I value all contributors here even ones I disagree with so a 'Wikipedia sunbeam' for you and I hope you are having a good day with the idea that everybody likes to see their contributions valued.
- To Itsmejudith, very impressive information, a joy to read and if I could say so your discourse was actually made better by some of the challenges in the discussion, so please don't feel that those detracted from your points for readers. I very much value Bugs contributions in the sense that he sometimes makes me a better contributor with better readable material despite the concurrent desire to throw plates across the room ;-). Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 08:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- 1 & 2) I'll take a shot at this. In the Middle East, there's Shia Islam controlled nations (Iran, the government controlled areas of Syria, and since Saddam was deposed, Iraq) against Sunni Islam controlled nations, and Israel out on it's own, with the US one of it's few allies. China is pretty much on it's own, and has been pissing off all it's neighbors with aggressive military threats. North Korea is dependent on China, but that doesn't exactly make them allies, as NK pretty much ignored China when they developed nuclear weapons, which China doesn't like because it makes others in the region likely to get nukes, too. India is also pretty much independent. Many of the smaller Asian nations co-operate in the ASEAN alliance. In the West we have NATO (along with a few others, like Australia and maybe New Zealand) with the remnants of some of the Warsaw Pact nations (mainly those nations with lots of Russians living there) in opposition. There also seems to be a small anti-US axis in the Americas, with Cuba, Venezuela, and perhaps another tentative member or two. There's not much of a power base in Africa, although some nations do co-operate here and there. StuRat (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry - you seem to be jumping around a lot. There's very little structure in your paragraph and I'm finding it very hard to follow. Can you please try to be a bit more general! I'm really bad at geography as well (as indicated). I would just like you to go through the parts of the world as it exists in 2013 in some kind of structured order. Feel free to enumerate. I mean, you only have to get through 196 countries broken down into some kind of sane order. This is obviously going to be totaly different from the 'parts of the world as it exists in 1800' or whatever even though - obviously - with a few tiny differences (a few tiny bits of land reclaimed from the sea, I guess) it is almost 1:1 the same exact Earth. I would just like an overview. Is Earth REALLY that big. I mean you can spin a globe in under 10 seconds, even rather slowly. Here is an example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spinning_globe.gif - so I would like you to put some kind of order on it that I can understand. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- No, I don't think it's too much to ask. NATO and ASEAN is good. Can I assume ASEAN and NATO forces are at war? You don't say either way. In fact you don't mention any war openly. Since I'm asking for a high-level overview, don't you think talking about the relationship between NATO and ASEAN would be a good start? What about Russia? For my second question: do these organizations share intelligence, for example? Or are they rivals? (and would do counterintelligence on each other for example)? What about China, which is not part of ASEAN? What about Israel? etc. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Broadly speaking, the world is divided into Us and Them. Leaving Them to one side for the moment, Us, (or We, as it's sometimes called), are divided into You and Me. And Me, (or I, as I prefer to be called), am right, always, but you can be my friend (or Ally, as the experts call it) if you agree to agree with me about absolutely Everything.PiCo (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- George Will once said that countries don't have "friends", they have interests. Hence if they have sufficient common interests, they can be allies. Hence our alliance with Russia against Germany during WWII, and our alliance with Germany against Russia afterward. (As satirized in 1984.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Broadly speaking, the world is divided into Us and Them. Leaving Them to one side for the moment, Us, (or We, as it's sometimes called), are divided into You and Me. And Me, (or I, as I prefer to be called), am right, always, but you can be my friend (or Ally, as the experts call it) if you agree to agree with me about absolutely Everything.PiCo (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Another approach is to look at those countries who see freedom and democracy as the most important factors in government (the US and most "western democracies" including European countries); those countries who see economic progress and control as the most important factors (China, N Korea and some others); those countries who see adherence to religious values as the most important (some but not all Islamic countries); and the majority of smaller and less developed countries who often adhere to a mix of, or fluctuate between, those values. (Not all governments, and not all people, take it for granted that freedom and democracy should override everything else, strange as that may seem to Americans in particular.) Underlying all that is the fundamental divide between rich countries (US, Europe, Japan, Australia), poor countries (most of Africa and much of Asia), and those countries somewhere in between. It's complicated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- As to whether the US and western Europe are on the same side of intelligence gathering or not, this article may be of interest.[1] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
November 4
Importance of F-117A shootdown? Greatest victory in the history of warfare?
In what was, without any doubt, the most uneven war in the history of the world, in which a small, 9 million people country, alone without any allies, weakened by 10 years of previous international sanctiones, faced the entire NATO pact, which included all the top military forces of the day (mind you, Russia in 1999. was very much different to Putin's Russia), so in what was an extremely uneven fight, I remember when our Air Defense Missile shot the top modern F-117A down it was regarded as a miracle and it was celebrated for days, I remember my father running to the balocony and firing a full clip in the air in celebration, the state TV ran pics of a shot down plane for months and so on...
Now, granted, Milošević and his TV had every interest to exaggerate the importance of this event, especially during the war itself, as it really improved the morale of the entire nation dramaticly. I was a kid then and obviously I was as happy as everyone. But recently, Russian president Putin, while meeting our new president, mentioned this incident and said how great of achivement this was and how examining the part of this plane helped the Russian army and so on... So I was wondering, objectively, how important this event was in the history of the military and history of the world? Would it be fair to say that, given the ratio of the confronted armies, this is one of the greatest achievements in the history of warfare? For years I considered this to be more of a propaganda tool than a serious success, but if president Putin, after almost 15 years, found this to be important enough to mention, then it might actually be more important then first thought: would it be fair to say that the shotdown of F117A is the biggest air-fight victory in the history of warfare (obviously not in scale, but in difficulty)? Was there ever a success similar to this since the war planes were invented up til present day? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.92.23 (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- 1999 F-117A shootdown for our article on the incident. Tevildo (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Seems like an exaggeration to me, but in any case I'll just note that we have an article about the incident, 1999 F-117A shootdown. Looie496 (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- We
don't answershoot down requests for opinions, predictions or debate. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- It was one of the most difficult victories, NATO had total air superiority and it was able to suppress anti aircraft activity almost completely. You only had to switch on your radar for more than a handful of seconds and it was guaranteed that a HARM missile would be on your way. The Attack on H3 is an action of comparable difficulty. Of course, the military impact of that attack was much larger. Count Iblis (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- The answer to the OP's question would derive from the answer to this question: Who won the war? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- As to how remarkable this was, or whether there were other air conflicts that were as or more remarkable, I could not say. However, it must be understood that this was not a development of any particular importance. Only a single aircraft was affected, and there was no impact on the outcome of the conflict. Its primary significance was on the morale of the nation. Putin or his advisers were aware of this, which is why he mentioned it. John M Baker (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- It was a shocking event to those who thought the Stealth was invincible, and makes for an interesting story, but it had no real impact, as the NATO bombings succeeded in liberating Kosovo. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- As to how remarkable this was, or whether there were other air conflicts that were as or more remarkable, I could not say. However, it must be understood that this was not a development of any particular importance. Only a single aircraft was affected, and there was no impact on the outcome of the conflict. Its primary significance was on the morale of the nation. Putin or his advisers were aware of this, which is why he mentioned it. John M Baker (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Why doesn't the Army fake Taliban chatter?
I was just watching a documentary about how soldiers in Afghanistan complain that every time they leave base, they hear Taliban spotters reporting it on the radio. Question: why don't they fake and pervert these communications? For example, they could simply record comments in an area and rebroadcast them randomly day and night. Or why don't they use NSA voiceprint/transcription capabilities and actually take conversations from other places, re-record them automatically with the voices of locals who broadcast recently? Couldn't they use drones, dropped sensors, etc. to spread this kind of confusion all over Afghanistan, and use their own secure network so that their own people can ignore the false communications? Wnt (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'll assume that you have assumed that both the American soldiers and the Taliban are stupid. There is no benefit to the Americans for faking and perverting the chatter on the radio. As soon as the Americans do this, the Taliban would use codes in their chatter and then the Americans will lose their ability to monitor the contents of the chatter. This will make the life of the American soldiers HARDER because now they will have to divert resources to breaking the new code. 202.177.218.59 (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Are you asking about the legality of fakery? Or suggesting a battle plan? How is this question remotely referenceable? 71.246.157.82 (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, both of the suggestions I made had simple codes in mind: because the Army would be rebroadcasting the Taliban's own communications, just at the wrong times, they should be properly coded. (Unless they actually have a datestamp built in) And if the codes became really sophisticated, then the Army could still crack them, then use them to riddle out who is telling who the new code. I mean, the spies make a routine thing out of cracking into SSL and TOR, I think they can handle Taliban on walkie talkies! But yes, there might be a limited number of fake messages that deliver the best return because they're believed. Wnt (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
OP, is there some reason you are convinced that the Army (etc.) doesn't "fake and pervert" enemy communications? DOR (HK) (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Was thinking the same thing Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting discussion, something no one has yet mentioned with all the sophisticated code technology at the military's disposal (and I am in agreement that they probably are doing this but as stated above, they realize that there are only a few very key opportunities to do so before they are playing coding games for hours on an ever more developing code, while all signals are being more verified by the Taliban et.c)
- Anyways, given the sophisticated technology why not just . . . triangulate the radio frequencies & do what the military does best, take them out? I might not be up to date here but the one thing I would never do is expose my location via triangulation by yapping into a walkie talkie as a sophisticated and coordinated fighting force is pin pointing my exact location as I'm target painted. Something tells me that the situation I just described is actually the event that usually happens, and yes I'm aware that it's the roof of the world without easy naval air strike access (landlocked) but as Ron White is apt to say "heck, even Poot could take him out", in many cases at least. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 07:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I was confused by this at first but then realized that they could move schools and hospitals by the bases to then broadcast from them. The 'optics' of war indeed. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 01:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Obviously, NATO don't publicise whatever it is they're doing in the way of electronic warfare and SIGINT. The British Army's specialists in this area, 14 Signal Regiment (Electronic Warfare), have had 5 men killed in Afghanistan, so they haven't been sitting on their hands. Alansplodge (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- One thing to keep in mind about code-breaking is that it is a time-critical exercise. If you cannot distinguish intelligence from a forward scout and someone discussing a shopping list within 10 minutes, then the value of that information is drastically lowered, as the scout may have moved elsewhere. 10 minutes is not a long time for anything that involves multiple parties and possibly a chain of command. Also, a takeout operation is not free. If you send soldiers, you risk an ambush. If you use a sophisticated smart weapon, or a large enough dumb weapon, you are expending significant resources, and you risk collateral damage. And it would be quite easy to fake signals and provoke such strikes. As an aside, I keep remembering the Vincennes engagement with some outrigger-powered rubber dinghies that preceded her shooting down Iran Air Flight 655. If she engaged the boats with her 5 inch guns (probably the cheapest adequate weapon system they had on board), and even if every shot kills a boat, she was still costing more in ammunition than she destroyed in rubber boats. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
That's why I think this question isn't really referenceable. But here's a hot question that a lot of people are wondering about now, that maybe someone here can shed some light on: Isn't it ILLEGAL to take Gaddafi's stockpile of weapons and give them to Jihadist rebels fighting in Syria? 71.246.157.82 (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- I would expect recognition codes to be changed daily to prevent what OP suggests.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
search for the meaning of life
Is the search for the meaning of life meaningful? I am referring to the search itself. 220.239.51.150 (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- It has as much or as little meaning as you decide to ascribe to it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I can only add that the answer to life, the universe and everything is 42 [2].--Mark Miller (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- That was one of Adams' ribs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I can only add that the answer to life, the universe and everything is 42 [2].--Mark Miller (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I came across a great quote last night, from Pablo Picasso: The reason for living is to find one's passion. The purpose for living is to share it. He had no comment on the meaning. But the Sufis had only two rules about the search for enlightenment/meaning: 1. Begin; 2. Continue. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I would amend step 2 by adding "until further notice." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sure the world community of Sufis is indebted to you for that improvement. Are you at all related to King Alfonso X of Castile, known as "El Sabio" ("The Wise")? He once said: Had I been present at the Creation, I would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of the Universe. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- The 21 employees of a small linoleum firm shared with me just now that they are passionate about my vinyl flooring. I wish I had attained such enlightenment myself. Card Zero (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I would amend step 2 by adding "until further notice." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- The more you search, the less you will find. Count Iblis (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- You might be thinking of the platitude that the search for the meaning of life is itself the meaning of life. (I most recently heard this offered as a rebuff to Q (Star Trek).) It's a temptingly easy way to get rid of the problem. It's interesting that the opposite conclusion seems to get rid of the problem even faster: if the search for meaning is not meaningful, we might as well stop. However, the meaning of life is probably a massively complex and open-ended idea as described in the article (particularly Meaning_of_life#Popular views), and the search for it is meaningful but is not in itself the meaning of life. Card Zero (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- That depends whether you're looking from a secular or religious perspective. From a secular approach, there is no meaning: life exists because the universe is conducive to it, life's sole end is to cause more life. A particular life is just a probabilistic outcome. As a result, morality is just an evolutionary byproduct. Hence, its definition is not absolute, nor does anyone have the absolute right to condemn you for any amoral action. Moreover, the universe doesn't care about our accomplishments, or lack of. "Do what you want, if you can get away with it." Thus secularly speaking, since there exists no meaning, the search for it is also meaningless. I can't speak about the other religious perspectives, but from a Christian perspective, there is a meaning of life. Discovering it, is quite revealing and rewarding, and I would recommend anyone else to also discover it. It's beautifully simple really, but it bears no effect unless you trust it's veracity. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, no, because the morality which "is just an evolutionary byproduct" is still real and meaningful. For a minority of people (those few atheists who are authoritarian enough to think they have hold of absolute truth) it can also be seen as absolute: many others consider morality to be purely relative (pure moral relativism), and opposed to that is another viewpoint: that we are continually accumulating knowledge about morality, making it an imperfectly grasped absolute to be aspired to but not reached. The various values listed in the Meaning of Life article under "To do good, to do the right thing" are not selfish (not a matter of "what you can get away with"), but do not entail religion. Card Zero (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Then I posit this: secularly, what reason is there to not be selfish, why should you care about "doing good, or doing the right thing"? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Because it is good, and the right thing. And because we don't need imaginary beings telling us so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- You miss the point of my question: why should doing the right thing matter to the secular? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I need no God looking over my shoulder to act in accordance with who I am. That is built in to me by evolution and my upbringing. There are psychos around the place, I am not one. I doubt that they are reformed by religion - they'd simply see it as something to use. Dmcq (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- You miss the point of my question: why should doing the right thing matter to the secular? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Because it is good, and the right thing. And because we don't need imaginary beings telling us so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Then I posit this: secularly, what reason is there to not be selfish, why should you care about "doing good, or doing the right thing"? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, no, because the morality which "is just an evolutionary byproduct" is still real and meaningful. For a minority of people (those few atheists who are authoritarian enough to think they have hold of absolute truth) it can also be seen as absolute: many others consider morality to be purely relative (pure moral relativism), and opposed to that is another viewpoint: that we are continually accumulating knowledge about morality, making it an imperfectly grasped absolute to be aspired to but not reached. The various values listed in the Meaning of Life article under "To do good, to do the right thing" are not selfish (not a matter of "what you can get away with"), but do not entail religion. Card Zero (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- That depends whether you're looking from a secular or religious perspective. From a secular approach, there is no meaning: life exists because the universe is conducive to it, life's sole end is to cause more life. A particular life is just a probabilistic outcome. As a result, morality is just an evolutionary byproduct. Hence, its definition is not absolute, nor does anyone have the absolute right to condemn you for any amoral action. Moreover, the universe doesn't care about our accomplishments, or lack of. "Do what you want, if you can get away with it." Thus secularly speaking, since there exists no meaning, the search for it is also meaningless. I can't speak about the other religious perspectives, but from a Christian perspective, there is a meaning of life. Discovering it, is quite revealing and rewarding, and I would recommend anyone else to also discover it. It's beautifully simple really, but it bears no effect unless you trust it's veracity. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- That is what I'm saying, secularly, morality is an evolutionary byproduct, and thus to live a moral life is a moot idea, in relevance to the objective of life. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's a fine question.
- First, let's agree that it's untrue that human behavior is controlled by an individual's genes. (Nobody mentioned this yet, but I can sense the idea "genes force us to be selfish to further their own reproduction" lurking around, and I want to head it off at the pass).
- Now, an easy observation: the lack of a reason not to be selfish is not a reason to be selfish.
- The Ayn Rand followers who see unselfishness as emerging rationally from selfishness probably deserve a mention. They continue to call the result "selfishness", which I think is misleading.
- It seems relevant to mention the idea of knowledge as non-hierachical (there's surely some Karl Popper reference for this): there's no fundamental fact from which all other facts can be deduced. This gives knowledge a web-like structure, which must also apply to knowledge about morality, so when you ask "from what do you derive your attitude to life in general" I can say "from all my other preferences, feelings and attitudes, and the things they seem to signify". I know that's something of a cop-out, but it's a personal matter and my answer is unlikely to be completely transferable to another person; and a discussion of it is unlikely to be encyclopedic in tone. In essence I believe in a sort of bootstrapping where impersonal values like valuing knowledge (for everyone) emerge gradually from childish attractions to things that are shiny or sweet or fun.
- Finally: I'm tempted to say I don't know. I have thoughts, but this is not a forum and I'd struggle to provide anything like a reference.
- Card Zero (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's a fine question.
- I wasn't concerned with your first point on the idea. My objective is to discredit living a moral life, as a valid meaning of life. It is a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds subtle. I was taking "morality" as analogous to "meaning of life" in this context (and "meaning of life" as analogous to "purpose of life"). I generally understand morality to equate to the answer to the question "what to do next?". You are likely understanding the terms a bit differently.
- If your point is that various forms of unselfish behaviour (such as the generic "helping others to attain their goals") lead to circularity when applied as the sole purpose of life, I completely agree. Card Zero (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- "why should doing the right thing matter to the secular". Our brain evolved in a certain way, it executes an algorithm to determine what we should be doing. The concept of "the right thing" and "the wrong thing" are derived from that. Count Iblis (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Technically yes, but I think that gives genes undue credit. Technically all other concepts, such as (to pick three at random) "jet engine", "cocktail", and "grandmother" also derive from the evolution of the brain, in that the evolution of the brain provided minds, and minds were capable of creating these ideas; but by the same reasoning you could give the credit to the sun as a vital root cause, or to early bacterial life, or a gas cloud that became the solar system. Really, no, it's minds that did it. (But perhaps you meant to include the evolution of ideas within culture when you say "our brain evolved"?) Card Zero (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- "why should doing the right thing matter to the secular". Our brain evolved in a certain way, it executes an algorithm to determine what we should be doing. The concept of "the right thing" and "the wrong thing" are derived from that. Count Iblis (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't concerned with your first point on the idea. My objective is to discredit living a moral life, as a valid meaning of life. It is a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Ayn Rand makes some interesting arguments. First, only living beings can actually have values or states of beings that matter to them by nature. Objects that cannot be destroyed have no reason to act one way or the other. An indestructible robot would have no natural values--any we programmed into it would be our values parasitically. Objects like stones cannot act, so even though they can be destroyed, it would be anthropomorphism to attribute values to them. Hence a system of values can only make sense for living, especially rational animals; and moralities based on the whims of God or categorical imperatives are [my words]unscientific poppycock.
- She asserts further that an individual's own life is his highest value. This may make some psychological sense, but organisms for which reproduction is not ultimately the highest value go extinct. Rand did not understand evolution, which she viewed as an open question, and was not a lover of children or family. Most people either live through their children or sublimate that into their creations or causes.
- Rand also made two versions of the following argument. The weak version is that if you want to live, and only if you want to live (in the successful long term) is it necessary to pursue certain values in an if, then relationship. She also tended to more strongly argue that living the rational life was the only moral choice, with rational usually implying sharing her personal values. That is putting the cart before the horse, and she seems to have used it mainly to browbeat her associates into following her dictates when necessary. The weaker argument is much more persuasive. If all you care about is being a great painter, you still need to keep up your health, avoid being jailed, obtain your needed materials and skills through effort, and so on. In that sense, each person is free to find the meaning of his own life. And even if that meaning is to kill Hitler, a certain rational plan must be followed. This is also a premise behind the show Dexter. To fulfill his own "evil" urges in the conventional sense, Dexter is forced to do "good" so far as the overall scheme. The weaker version also allows for people like the 9-11 bombers, whose actions were either deluded (their belief in their 72 virgins) or very short term satisfaction of their intense hatred.
- You can read much of this covered in brief excerpts at the Ayn Rand Lexicon, available on line, and with bibliographical citations. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- There must be a whole bunch of people around with the belief that they can and should act rationally. As if we had even half a handle on what that means yet. The delusion just seems to lead to them doing stupid things and making themselves and those around them unhappy. Dmcq (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Rand's not promising a rose garden. She's just saying you as an individual should pursue your own rational self-interest, as there's no reason (duty to God or the state or others) not to. She doesn't even have a problem with you dedicating yourself to God or others if it's done in the context of a free country. Ultimately everyone is his own arbiter of what's rational and what are his own highest values. (This is discussed at length in Rasmussen and Den Uyl's The Philosophical Thought of Ayn Rand.) Rand (and before her, Agatha Christie) quote the "old Spanish proverb": God said, take what you want, and pay for it. But, of course, if you think robbery is a rational means of living you maybe shouldn't complain if someone shoots you in his own self defense. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- "You are like this cup; you are full of ideas about Buddha's Way. You come and ask for teaching, but your cup is full; I can't put anything in. Before I can teach you, you'll have to empty your cup." Bus stop (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- There must be a whole bunch of people around with the belief that they can and should act rationally. As if we had even half a handle on what that means yet. The delusion just seems to lead to them doing stupid things and making themselves and those around them unhappy. Dmcq (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Survivors of the Holocaust
Why were there people to be liberated from the death camps during the Holocaust? What I mean is, the point of the Holocaust was to exterminate various groups that the Nazis felt were inferior, right? So why was there anyone left to rescue other than those who the Nazis hadn't gotten around to killing yet? The people that I often see pictures of were in no condition to do any work for the Nazis, so I don't understand why they would be kept around long enough to have been rescued. Dismas|(talk) 11:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Killing and disposing of corpses takes resources, which by the late war, the Germans were in short supply of. It should be noted that they were killing them at a pretty alarming rate. That the war ended before they got done doesn't mean they weren't trying to finish the job. According to the article The Holocaust, 6 million Jewish people were killed, not counting other "undesirables". That's a staggering number.--Jayron32 12:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Life expectancy for slave labour was low. New slaves were required to replace the slaves who died.
Sleigh (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)- There was a show on maybe the History Channel which I was watching recently. One of the survivors talked about how these trains would arrive and many of the ones arriving would be killed within the hour. Presumably some who were young and strong were kept around for that slave labor you refer to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think you really have to take into account the way in which the war went, the amount of resources in this particular discussion would appear to be man power. As the German Army began to lose the war and more men were lost to the fight, the very resource needed to kill such a large group of people that had survived the brutal transport to the camps. And there were no short supply of peoples that the Nazis sent to the death camps. Simply put, the output to the death camps exceeded the energy they expelled to eliminate every living person rounded up. Many were kept alive to be that manpower more and more, but by then the math was just overwhelming and you couldn't kill fast enough to just cover up the stupidity. I can't answer your question: "the point of the Holocaust was to exterminate various groups that the Nazis felt were inferior, right?" I don't know what the point of the Holocaust was. Does anyone know the accurate answer to that?--Mark Miller (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Public execution of Michał Kruk and several other ethnic Poles in Przemyśl as punishment for helping Jews, 1943
- I'm not sure that I fully understand the question, which I think that you answer yourself: […] why was there anyone left to rescue other than those who the Nazis hadn't gotten around to killing […]. Some escaped: there were mass escapes from Sobibor and Treblinka, for example - and if you haven't already, you ought to take half-an-hour to read Grossman's Hell of Treblinka - and there was an uprising designed to sabotage the crematoria at Aushwitz. Jan Karski, although not Jewish, deliberately got himself arrested and into Aushwitz, and then escaped from it. In addition, Jews were hidden by their Gentile neighbours - the book 'Forgotten Holocaust' by Richard Lukas, is particularly good on this, but see also the film In Darkness, and also the article Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust - and Jews themselves hid in the forests - see the book 'Ordinary Men', which describes a German sweep through a forest, and finding Jews hidden in bunkers, and the Bielski partisans. The Polish Underground had a special section, Żegota, dedicated to aiding Jews (see also: Irena Sendler). Other Jews, including the notorious Chaim Rumkowski of the Łódź Ghetto, tried to accommodate themselves to the Nazis through collaboration (see also: Żagiew).
- Other issues; the Jews in L'vov (which included Simon Wiesenthal) appear to have been almost extraordinarily fatalistic. There were also 'good Germans': Wiesenthal himself was helped to escape by a chap called Adolf Kohlrautz and, of course, there were individuals such as Oscar Schindler and Wilm Hosenfeld. Others, such as Georg Ferdinand Duckwitz, seem to have been motivated by distaste at anti-semitism and he was largely responsible for the almost complete preservation of the Danish Jews. Finally, some Jews escaped by chance: had the British not bombed Dresden, Victor Klemperer would almost certainly have been killed.
- After the 1942 defeat at Stalingrad and subsequent Red Army offensives, it became increasingly obvious that there had been systematic massacres of the Jews. At the same time, huge resources were being applied by the Nazis not to wage war effectively but to continue the process of mass murder - seen most obviously in the use of rolling stock. (The historian Michael Burleigh in his book The Third Reich: A New History argues pretty convincingly that after Stalingrad the Germans became more interested in exterminating Jews than fighting the Russians.) The SS was busy first trying to destroy the evidence - at Treblinka, for example - and only the Red Army's rapid advance prevented Aushwitz and the remnants of the Łódź Ghetto being sanitised in the same way. After Stalingrad it became increasingly obvious that the war was lost and individuals started trying to use the remnants of the Jews as bargaining chips: see, e.g. Joel Brand and there is some evidence that Himmler was trying to use the Aushwitz Jews, transferred to Bergen-Belsen just in front of the Red Army (a transport that itself demonstrates the militarily absurd use of rolling stock), as some sort of gift to the advancing British.
- The simple answer is, I suspect, along these lines: that, notoriously, the Nazi high command was always pulling and pushing against itself, as its leaders tried to interpret the wishes and curry favour with Hitler. The extermination camps were (almost) all in Poland, not Germany (which made sense as this was where the main Jewish populations were); and as the decision regarding the 'final solution' was not made until 1942 - which coincided with military reverses - that left a perilously short period in which to carry out the genocide. As it was, the speed of the Soviet advance in the summer of 1944 prevented the complete elimination of Central European Jewry. 86.183.79.59 (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Dismas: remember that those in the camps weren't necessarily killed. At some camps, many people weren't killed per se; they were worked to death as slaves, making munitions or other things — killing them outright would have reduced industrial output. Nyttend (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with Nyttend; the Auschwitz-Birkenau complex extended over 40 square kilometres and was vital to the German war effort. Only one part of the complex was used for extermination. The chemical firm of IG Farben had it's own camp, Auschwitz III-Monowitz, which with 12,000 prisoners supplied the labour for a huge synthetic rubber plant. Krupp and Siemens-Schuckert had camps there too - see List of subcamps of Auschwitz. These concerns were kept going as long as possible - you can't wage war without tyres for example. When the Soviets were getting close, the extermination facilities were destroyed and anyone that could walk was marched back towards Germany with the expectation that most would die on the way - see Death marches (Holocaust). The rest were left where they were to die of starvation and typhus. That story was repeated in the many camps all over occupied Poland and Germany.
- Dismas: remember that those in the camps weren't necessarily killed. At some camps, many people weren't killed per se; they were worked to death as slaves, making munitions or other things — killing them outright would have reduced industrial output. Nyttend (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- The simple answer is, I suspect, along these lines: that, notoriously, the Nazi high command was always pulling and pushing against itself, as its leaders tried to interpret the wishes and curry favour with Hitler. The extermination camps were (almost) all in Poland, not Germany (which made sense as this was where the main Jewish populations were); and as the decision regarding the 'final solution' was not made until 1942 - which coincided with military reverses - that left a perilously short period in which to carry out the genocide. As it was, the speed of the Soviet advance in the summer of 1944 prevented the complete elimination of Central European Jewry. 86.183.79.59 (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- The Allies liberated those who had either survived the death marches (15,000 died on the march from Auschwitz alone) or who were still alive when the camps were liberated - many were in such a bad state that they died after liberation despite medical aid. German efforts to get rid of surviving prisoners included marching 5,000 of them into the sea and shooting them (see Stutthof concentration camp#Death march, or packing them into an ocean liner offshore, with the apparent intention of sinking it when full - the RAF sank it anyway, killing 5,000 - see SS Cap Arcona (1927). So there wasn't any lack of effort on the German's part. Alansplodge (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- There's a difference between death camps (extermination camps) and work camps (arbeitslager). See the Definitions section of the extermination camps article. Very few people were liberated from the death camps. Labor needs of Nazi Germany changed throughout the war, and this affected whether prisoners were worked to death or killed outright (or left to die of exposure and hunger in the case of Soviet prisoners of war). Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder describes this pretty well, though given the subject matter, it's pretty horrifying reading.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Arthur C. Clarke
What are some of his most interesting books save for the 2001 series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.124.224.51 (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- It would be a matter of opinion, and discussing our favorite books isn't really what this desk is for, however you can peruse his works at Arthur C. Clarke bibliography which lists the books he has published. --Jayron32 15:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I went through a stage of reading quite a lot of his work some 20 years ago. The best, to me, were Childhood's End and The City and the Stars. 'Childhood's End', I read as a parable about the European Community; the first half in particular.
- Clarke himself rated Stanisław Lem as the best science-fiction writer.
- You might also like to look up Harry Harrison, and in particular his Stainless Steel Rat series which are entertaining but not particularly 'challenging', and Iain M. Banks, whose works I am currently ploughing through. His best (so far) is The Player of Games. 86.183.79.59 (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Childhood's End is widely considered his masterpiece. The next two in my opinion are The City and the Stars and Rendezvous with Rama. Beyond those I think his best work is in short stories and novellas, many of which are classics. Looie496 (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Childhood's End was conceptually similar to 2001 in a number of ways, or maybe I should say 2001 was similar to Childhood's End. It's an excellent read. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, my. Childhood's End stank. Still stinks. Stinketh. Imagine a 200-page expansion of a 20-page short story in which demonic aliens (they literally look like devils, horns, batwings, etc.) institute worldwide socialized medicine so that human children can become personless bits of the universal mind. Kind of, "Obamacare induces autistic bliss". Zamyatin's We is positively fun in comparison. Rendezvous with Rama is excellent. That, and 2010 are worth reading. If you are really interested, Kim Stanley Robinson's Icehenge is the best book 'by' Arthur C. Clarke. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hence the slippery slope of the OP's question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
My biggest gripe with Clarke is I see him as a bit of a one-trick pony. To me it seems that the man cannot write a yarn in which the world does not end, one way or another. That said, a couple of the apocalypses are interesting, provided they're contained within a short story rather than dragging you towards Ragnarok through a whole novel. So I recommend The Star and The Nine Billion Names of God. --Trovatore (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Someone still needs to stitch the ending of 2001 with the ending of Dr. Strangelove together, to fulfill that final comments in the 2001 book. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- I rather liked Tales from the White Hart and other short stories, his novels not as much. His characters are just so unmemorable, they don't enhance his longer works. (They have to get by on plot; they do, but they could have been so much better.) The only one who stands out to me is Harry Purvis from Tales. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Case citation help needed
I'm not sure what it is, but something seems wrong with citation #4 at Henderson County, Kentucky — I've tried to put in all the elements from case citation for Handly's Lessee v. Anthony, but it just doesn't look right. What's the correct citation of this decision? Nyttend (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Indiana v. Kentucky, 136 U.S. 479 (1890) is the cite for the case at the link. Handly's Lessee v. Anthony, 18 U.S. 374 (1820) is the correct citation for Handly's Lessee. Coding it in a template would look ''[[Handly's Lessee v. Anthony]]'', {{ussc|18|374|1820}} - hope that helps. GregJackP Boomer! 16:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Um, oops; I completely failed to realise that I was linking the wrong case. Thanks for the help, especially with the template coding. Nyttend (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Don't worry even lawyers do that sometimes, and in front of judges! Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 00:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Um, oops; I completely failed to realise that I was linking the wrong case. Thanks for the help, especially with the template coding. Nyttend (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
November 5
Restoration of the Monarchy after the English Civil War
Hi, why exactly did the English Parliament restore the monarchy after Cromwell's Commonwealth? Every other revolution tended to abstain from having a monarchy, unless the revolutionary government was deposed by a foreign power, such as the downfall of the French Republic.
- They didn't have a strong successor after Cromwell died.
Sleigh (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC) - Also, the monarchy was restored in France by coup (twice, by Napoleon and Napoleon III), not by a foreign power. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think the OP meant the Bourbon Restoration of King Louis XVIII by the coalition powers after Napoleon was defeated (also occurred twice, first in 1814, and second in 1815, after the Battle of Waterloo). Sodacan (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- The English Parliament that restored Charles II was a very different one that had his father killed years earlier. The English republicans began to fight amongst themselves after Oliver Cromwell was dead. They weren't sure if they wanted his weak son Richard Cromwell to continue as Lord Protector or a proper republican constitution (the latter faction was led by Sir Arthur Haselrig). Charles Stuart was the best choice because he was willing to compromise on almost everything, this made it easier for him to return. The House of Stuart was restored in 1660 alright. But was it really the same kind of monarchy that was restored? Sodacan (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Don't perceive the forces that removed Charles I as joined at the hip in terms of republican motivation. There was a right old pot pourri of issues with Charles I - personal rule, taxation, Scotland, his hideous people skills, religion etc - and for many of those who rebelled against him, the more pliant (as Sodacan points out) Charles II was very much palatable. Furthermore, Cromwell's replacement with his son would have been seen by some as replacement of one dynasty by another, even less palatable one. Finally, there will have been those among the rebels who never wanted Charles I deposed, some who never wanted him executed, but got caught up in the sweep of events. It's too easy to look back and see a homogenous group of people linked by one ideology, when that's simply not the case. This is the case with modern political bandwagons, too. --86.12.139.34 (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Despite Charles II seeming to be more palatable, it took only six months for his newly royalist parliament to get around to executing 10 of the regicides of Charles I and disinterring 3 others in order to re-execute them. Astronaut (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- And, of course, the Restoration as such only lasted for 28 years, until the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the concommitant Bill of Rights 1689, which put an end to the absolute monarchy of which the Stuarts were so enamoured. Tevildo (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Despite Charles II seeming to be more palatable, it took only six months for his newly royalist parliament to get around to executing 10 of the regicides of Charles I and disinterring 3 others in order to re-execute them. Astronaut (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Also bear in mind that the Commonwealth was desperately unpopular. Once in power, Oliver Cromwell was more of a military dictator than a parliamentarian, and Richard Cromwell had already been deposed by the army before Charles was recalled. [3] My local parish paid for the church bells to be rung for three continuous days when the king returned. Alansplodge (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
This continues to bother me.
we do not speculate on the morality and motives of living people, see WP:BLP |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
That Mr. Sandy Berger has performed valued services for our Nation is a matter of public record. That he seemingly acted out of character on multiple occasions at and around the National Archives is also a matter of public record. It is only logical to conclude that he acted either reasonably or unreasonably. There is no assertion the he acted unreasonably. Therefore we may conclude that he acted with reason(s) even if only in his own mind. If you have the means, please direct me to any documents that shed light on the question as to "Why?" Mr. Berger acted in a fashion contrary to the laws and regulations concerning protected government documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.77.215 (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
|
Does the Korean War which started on 25 June 1950 continue thru this day?
My understanding is that there was an "Armistice Agreement" concluded between the government of North Korea and the United Nations Command. What are the practical results of the lack of a "peace treaty"? For instance, what are the barriers to the United States establishing an embassy in Pyongyang? For instance, what are the barriers to the North Koreans establishing an embassy in the Washington DC metropolitan area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.77.215 (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at Korean War, especially 2013 when it declared the armistice to be null and void, North Korea continues to treat South Korea, the USA, and anyone else connected with the armistice as an enemy. That's the barrier. If NK were to decide it has had enough of this after 60-plus years, it could declare and put into practice a non-aggression stance, put out feelers for a peace treaty, and ask for diplomatic relations with those other entities. And it's certainly possible. We had a ten-year, bitterly fought war with North Vietnam, and now we have diplomatic relations with the united Vietnam which was once our enemy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed, but let's look a bit deeper. Why does NK want to keep the hostilities going ? They certainly must know they would lose a shooting war, so what's with with the brinkmanship ? (I see no reason to think China would help them, if they invaded SK, and the US would certainly fight them, as US troops are in SK.) It's because their government needs an enemy to justify it's existence. This way they can say "The military dictatorship is the only way to protect our citizens from the enemy". StuRat (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- It would be nice to see some sources for that. Might be right, but I can think of a lot of things that might be right. For example (just a question) -- suppose you live in North Korea and suggest a peace. What would happen to you? Is there anyone there who can suggest a peace? Wnt (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
There never was a final Soviet-Japanese peace treaty after WW2 (due to the Southern Kurile Islands issue), yet the Soviet Union (then Russia) and Japan have had relations... AnonMoos (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Russia and Japan have Soviet–Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956, but NK and SK don't have a similar agreement/treaty. Oda Mari (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
"Eleventh hour" armistice
The phrase "wikt:eleventh hour" long precedes the Armistice with Germany, signed on "the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month". According to the article the armistice was actually signed at 5 am to go into effect at 11 am. I suppose it is not likely that other events, i.e. Germany basically losing the war, and the abdication of the previous day, could have been shifted, and at least some time was needed for the message to go out. Still, I wonder: by how much was the armistice delayed, and how many people died, in order that the negotiators could have their sound bite? Wnt (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- And note that "the 11th hour" means "just in time", while many would find it to have been entirely too late, allowing millions to be killed in WW1 and sowing the seeds for WW2. StuRat (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- There was a BBC programme a few years ago about men who were killed on the last day of the war, including some after the Armistice came into effect: see here for some details. I don't know whether the time of the Armistice was delayed for a soundbite, but it really would have taken some hours for the orders to get to all the active units, and obviously there has to be some fixed time for the ceasefire. Even in WW2 there was a long gap between the German surrender and the official end of hostilities. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has an article on the above programme...Last Day of World War One...its just not a very good one. Tommy Pinball (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Remember that the diplomats and the generals didn't assume that the real war was over at 1100 hours on 1918-11-11. Before the Hochseeflotte was scuttled at Scapa Flow seven months later, its ships and men were kept under constant (although sometimes minor) guard; when they violated the armistice by scuttling the ships, they were sent to prisoner-of-war camps. Unlike the conclusions of other wars, e.g. Japan's surrender in World War II, the 1918 armistice was highly conditional: Germany could have continued fighting for a good while longer (it was losing, but it definitely hadn't yet fought to the end), so since they knew that the fighting might not yet be over, it wasn't a waste of effort to continue fighting through 1059 hours. Finally, also note that the last casualty of all, Henry Gunther, was really a victim of his own hubris or stupidity. With one minute to got before the armistice, he began attacking a group of German soldiers; they basically tried to stop him non-violently, since there wasn't any point to continued fighting, but he shot at them, so they shot him in self-defence. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- There was a BBC programme a few years ago about men who were killed on the last day of the war, including some after the Armistice came into effect: see here for some details. I don't know whether the time of the Armistice was delayed for a soundbite, but it really would have taken some hours for the orders to get to all the active units, and obviously there has to be some fixed time for the ceasefire. Even in WW2 there was a long gap between the German surrender and the official end of hostilities. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay this time for real
Sandy Berger chose to plead guilty to a single federal misdemeanor charge on April fools' day 2005. By pleading guilty he loses (or waives) his right to remain silent in the Federal Criminal Court context concerning this charge. Did the sentencing judge question Mr. Berger as to the motive for his criminal conduct? Did Mr. Berger's lawyer, Mr. Lanny Breuer, make any substantive statements concerning Mr. Berger's criminal conduct either within or outside of court? Was Mr. Berger represented by any lawyers in addition to Mr. Breuer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.77.215 (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Trial transcripts are sometimes posted in the internet. Have you looked for this one? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Is this the Sandy Berger week? Anyway, Freedom of information in the United States might grant us the right to request these trial transcripts too. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- If he gets fed up with the US, he could move to his own island and become a Berger King. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- funny 49.226.188.31 (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- If he gets fed up with the US, he could move to his own island and become a Berger King. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Is this the Sandy Berger week? Anyway, Freedom of information in the United States might grant us the right to request these trial transcripts too. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Novel ridiculing a character convinced of his self-importance
It is, I think from the end of the XIX or beginning of the XX century. It's not a novel that is on everyone's mind, but a slightly obscure work, which still managed to be a classic. Any suggestion? OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Diary of a nobody? 77.98.28.96 (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Joesph McCarthy HUAC hearings
McCarthy was asked something like :Have you, sir, at long last, no decency at all?' Would like exact quote, name of who asked it and citation of any background info. Many thanks, Bill Forester PWForester (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- "Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers Guild. Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" See Joseph N. Welch. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Transcript and video: [4]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- And BTW, it was the Army–McCarthy hearings, not HUAC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Right. Not many senators in the US House. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Why no special elections for US executives (president, governor...)
Why are no special elections for the offices president and governor held in America when the incumbent dies, resigns or is impeached? On the federal level the vice-president assumes the office of president, in the states usually the lieutenant-governor (in most states) becomes governor. Why is there no special under such scenario? Vacancies in the Senate and House are filled with special elections (I don't know about the state legislatures). A special election for presidents and governors would provide legitimacy for the officeholder. A vice-president or a lt.-governor who assumes the office shorty after the inauguration is head of state for almost four years without being elected to this post. --92.226.203.131 (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- But voters know the system, and when they go to the ballot box, they know they're not just voting for a president, but also for his running mate who would, in the event of the president's death or resignation, become president, and so they take that possibility into account when casting their vote. I mean, if Jesus Christ ran for president but had Adolf Hitler as his running mate, that would deter a lot of people from voting for Jesus (with his track record of being struck down in his prime and all). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Both ineligible anyway; not natural-born citizens. --Trovatore (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong. Everyone knows Jesus is from Texas and Hitler from Massachusetts. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know about the Hitler part, but I'm sure there are a lot of hombres named Jesus in the American southwest. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong. Everyone knows Jesus is from Texas and Hitler from Massachusetts. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Both ineligible anyway; not natural-born citizens. --Trovatore (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Why would a Jewish person pick a nazi party member as a running mate? Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 03:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- To balance the ticket. And keep in mind we're talking about a parallel universe here - a universe in which Hitler might have been best known for job-creation in the wallpaper business. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Why would a Jewish person pick a nazi party member as a running mate? Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 03:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- There are no special elections because the US Constitution doesn't allow for it. It specifies how and when the Prez and the Veep are elected. For members of the Congress and Senate, it leaves it up to the states how to fill vacancies. And if Jesus dies and fails to be resurrected, the country is stuck with Hitler until or if he breaks the law, in which case he can be "recalled", i.e. impeached. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not clear that an impeachable "high crime (or) misdemeanor" even has to be against the law. One position is that "an impeachable offense is whatever the House of Representatives says it is". That's almost certainly true in practice — the Supreme Court would almost certainly reject any lawsuit claiming that the conduct for which a president was impeached was not against the law, as not justiciable. --Trovatore (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- True. But in any case, the impeachment process allows for getting rid of a sitting president. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not clear that an impeachable "high crime (or) misdemeanor" even has to be against the law. One position is that "an impeachable offense is whatever the House of Representatives says it is". That's almost certainly true in practice — the Supreme Court would almost certainly reject any lawsuit claiming that the conduct for which a president was impeached was not against the law, as not justiciable. --Trovatore (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- The chances of it are incredible high, 8/ 44. I hope every voter considers carefully the vices of all candidates. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Probability is not the same as historical frequency, but if you do want to estimate it that way, you should say 8/43. There have been 44 presidents only if you count Grover Cleveland twice. It's the difference between a set and a multiset. --Trovatore (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure how 8 out of 44 counts as "incredible". I have no difficulty whatsoever believing it. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Be it 8/44 or 8/43, there's a lack of any citation that this average is statistically significant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- "Statistically significant" is a technical term that is meaningful only in the context of statistical hypothesis testing. What hypothesis are you testing? --Trovatore (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Whether 8 of a country's 43 executives dying in 200+ years is "incredible" or on par with other countries. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- I calculate for Great Britain/United Kingdom 5 out of 45 former Prime Ministers dying in office, one of whom (Compton) is described as "a figurehead". 11%. And for France, 4 out of 29 presidents, including the Fourth Republic presidents who were titular, plus Louis Napoleon and the transitional ones after 1945. 14%. Incumbents can't be included, for obvious reasons, so in the US it should be 8 out of 42. 19%. This comes up as non-significant when I run a chi-square test on it - you might want to take further advice about the stats on the Maths desk, but really we need a bigger sample of comparable countries. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Whether 8 of a country's 43 executives dying in 200+ years is "incredible" or on par with other countries. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- "Statistically significant" is a technical term that is meaningful only in the context of statistical hypothesis testing. What hypothesis are you testing? --Trovatore (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Be it 8/44 or 8/43, there's a lack of any citation that this average is statistically significant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure how 8 out of 44 counts as "incredible". I have no difficulty whatsoever believing it. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Probability is not the same as historical frequency, but if you do want to estimate it that way, you should say 8/43. There have been 44 presidents only if you count Grover Cleveland twice. It's the difference between a set and a multiset. --Trovatore (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- In more ways than one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- U.S. Senate vacancies are filled at least temporarily by appointments by the state governor. Depending on state law and when the vacancy occurs they may end up serving the remaining term. Rmhermen (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Isn't it obvious? If your senator dies, there's still 99 other senators. The Senate can still continue to do its work if a crisis develops. If your congressman dies, there's still 434 other congressmen. The House can still continue to do its work if a crisis develops.
If your Governor dies, no-one else can do that job until a replacement is elected. What if there's a crisis, or the governor is in the middle of some important policy push? There wouldn't be a Lt Governor, because why would you create an elected position whose sole purpose is to take over for a week or two until a special election. There'd probably be someone to take over, the Senate President, Secretary of State etc., but that person wouldn't have a mandate and would probably not get anything done pending the special election. At best, you'd have weeks of stagnation. At worst, you could have a constitutional crisis, as nobody has a mandate to lead the state. 92.30.141.47 (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- A crisis? Like the state Obamacare portal not working? A policy push? Like outlawing 24oz sodas? What in the world does a governor do that needs doing immediately, other than to issue death-row reprieves, or call out the state militia or national guard in case of invasion or earthquake? And why couldn't an acting governor do that? μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
November 6
Someone in ancient times predicting cars & airplanes.
I read somewhere long time ago about that some ancient philasopher or something was predicting automobiles & airplanes many hundred / thousunds of years before they were even invented!
Not in the bible btw, It wasn't that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.209.159.215 (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps you're thinking of Leonardo da Vinci? Here's his car, and here's the Smithsonian's discussion about his airplane and some diagrams. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- More specifically here: Science and inventions of Leonardo da Vinci about helicopters. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Heron of Alexandria. Count Iblis (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- The article mentions a cart, but where's the airplane? He's no Heron, he's a penguin. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Roger Bacon? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- "It is possible that great ships and sea-going vessels shall be made which can be guided by one man and will move with greater swiftness than if they were full of oarsmen...
- It is possible that a car shall be made which will move with inestimable speed, and the motion will be without the help of any living creature...
- It is possible that a device for flying shall be made such that a man sitting in the middle of it and turning a crank shall cause artificial wings to beat the air after the manner of a bird's flight...
- Similarly it is possible to construct a small-sized instrument for elevating and depressing great weights, a device which is most useful in certain exigencies.
- It is possible also that devices can be made whereby, without bodily danger, a man may walk on the bottom of the sea or of a river...
- We may read the smallest letters at an incredible distance, we may see objects however small they may be, and we may cause the stars to appear wherever we wish..." [5]
- Roger Bacon, On the Marvellous Power of Art and Nature (c. 1267) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Archytas (400 years before Heron) is reputed to have built the first aeroplane. Tevildo (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think that our article, and now this forum have successively improved the story - from the original: "For not only many eminent Greeks, but also the philosopher Favorinus, a most diligent searcher of ancient records, have stated most positively that Archytas made a wooden model of a dove with such mechanical ingenuity and art that it flew; so nicely balanced was it, you see, with weights and moved by a current of air enclosed and hidden within it. 10 About so improbable a story I prefer to give Favorinus' own words: "Archytas the Tarentine, being in other lines also a mechanician, made a flying dove out of wood. Whenever it lit, it did not rise again. For until this . . . ." To me this sounds like an ordinary model airplane. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Archytas (400 years before Heron) is reputed to have built the first aeroplane. Tevildo (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Nostradamus refers to air combat and air travel in Quatrain 71 of Century X. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
"The earth and air will freeze so much water
when they come to venerate on Thursdays.
He who will come will never be as fair as
the few partners who come to honor him."
,
- I don't see how that refers to either.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Nostra's predictions were so vague that a lot can be read into them. I could read the above quatrain as predicting the entity known as the Thanksgiving turkey. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Oh ye of little faith, this Nostradamus for Dummies article says it was C1 - 63 and 64. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Which does say; "People will travel through the sky, safely, over land & seas..." [9] and "At night they will think they have seen the sun, when they see the half pig man: Noise, screams, battles seen fought in the skies..." [10]. We don't seem to have invented a "half-pig man" yet. Alansplodge (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- No but we have been implanting porcine heart valves into man for about 50 years, and injecting diabetics with porcine insulin for longer. Not to mention the mouse with the human ear... --TammyMoet (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Which does say; "People will travel through the sky, safely, over land & seas..." [9] and "At night they will think they have seen the sun, when they see the half pig man: Noise, screams, battles seen fought in the skies..." [10]. We don't seem to have invented a "half-pig man" yet. Alansplodge (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- I am trustfull of you, Clarityfiend, even though I know little about the Chinese and gunpowder. Might Nosie' not have been thinking about the Middle-Ages animal trials ? --Askedonty (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- You have now made my morning- the trial of an egg laying rooster is perhaps the most interesting things I've come across all week (I hope the rooster was acquitted, though).Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Presumably most of these "convicts" served their sentences by being served? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem so: " l'autorité supérieure prononçait solennellement la malédiction et l'excommunication des animaux ravageurs" ( the higher authority solemnly pronounced the curse and excommunication of the animal pests, this according to our French version of the same article ). Wonder that leaved them edible? --Askedonty (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Excommunicated? Does that mean they had at some point been baptized? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- That very objection finally came to publication ( ~1583) "Giving sentence of excommunication against vermin (...) such a sin and blasphemy who seriously want to submit for the raw excommunication of animals is just the same as if someone wanted to baptize a dog or a stone." But I'm personally certain that the severity of the claim was undue. The fact may have been that the Church was missing the proper legal term for designating her right process for a curse. --Askedonty (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Excommunicated? Does that mean they had at some point been baptized? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem so: " l'autorité supérieure prononçait solennellement la malédiction et l'excommunication des animaux ravageurs" ( the higher authority solemnly pronounced the curse and excommunication of the animal pests, this according to our French version of the same article ). Wonder that leaved them edible? --Askedonty (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- At times the medievals were saner than we are on the point. I wouldn't mind watching Tilikum (orca) get hauled out of his tank at the end of a harpoon. Wnt (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- There's a reason they're called killer "whales". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- According to QI the name "killer whale" is a misnomer arising from a transposition of the elements of a Spanish name meaning "whale killers" (i.e. [dolphins] that kill whales) - see Orca#Common_names. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Somebody forgot to tell that to the orcas. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- According to QI the name "killer whale" is a misnomer arising from a transposition of the elements of a Spanish name meaning "whale killers" (i.e. [dolphins] that kill whales) - see Orca#Common_names. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- There's a reason they're called killer "whales". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Presumably most of these "convicts" served their sentences by being served? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- You have now made my morning- the trial of an egg laying rooster is perhaps the most interesting things I've come across all week (I hope the rooster was acquitted, though).Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see how that refers to either.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- All that aside, it's safe to say that the half pig man thing is the origin of the expression "Pigs will fly". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
To get back to the original query, some revisionist Hindutva scholars argue that various modern inventions originated in ancient India, and amongst these theories is that the 'viman' would correspond to a airplane or helicopter. --Soman (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- see http://books.google.com/books?id=t_FttoJVFLIC&pg=PA85 "Viman Vidya. Turning to Vedic literature, in one of the Brahmanas {Satapatha Brahmana, II, 3, 3, 15) there is mention of a ship that sails heavenwards." --Soman (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Old Shoreham
Where is Old Shoreham, in the context of a place that formerly had a manor? Is it Shoreham-by-Sea? Google tells me that it's in Sussex, but I didn't see anything more detailed. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- It is indeed Shoreham-by-Sea. See this article for a detailed history of the area. Tevildo (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
centuries
why is the 1800s the 19th century? 49.227.37.110 (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Work it backwards and you'll see. The years 1-100 were the first century, 101-200 would be the second, and so on. Dismas|(talk) 05:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- The same way the year 2000 was technically in the 20th century, with 2001 being the first year of the 21st century. There was no year 0 and there was no century 0. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 05:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- The date reads as the "so-manyeth month of year such", not "so-manyeth a year and so-many a month". Thus, there is no year zero. The first January, would be read as the "first month of the first year". Centuries work the same. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- People always talk of the lack of Year 0 as if that's somehow a surprising thing. It's an irrelevant red herring, a furphy. If you're commencing a new sequence of things, whether it's years of a new era, or page numbers of a book, or US Presidents, or modern Olympiads, or just about anything really, who would start with anything other than 1? Sure, there's an apparent discontinuity between the BC series and the AD series, but (a) who ever said they should have been continuous, and (b) it's easy to map BC years to a number line if that's what you need for mathematical purposes. It's an entirely arbitrary convention that we call them years BC (or BCE) anyway and run the series backwards. That is at least as counter-intuitive as not having a Year 0. In any event, whether there's a Year 0 or not has no bearing on the OP's question. Even if there were a Year 0, the 1st Century would be 0-99, the 2nd Century would be 100-199, ... the 19th Century would be 1800-1899. And then we'd be having people ask "Why isn't the 19th Century the years 1801-1900, or the years 1900-1999, or the years 1901-2000?". In or out, Year 0 solves nothing. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- What I mean with "centuries work the same", is that instead of "eighteen centuries and fifty years", it is read as the "fiftieth year of the nineteenth century". What I'm saying that years and centuries in terms of dates, are to be treated as names, not numbers. Like the tile of a book. You don't describe where you are in an encyclopedia as G-H and 200 pages, you read as the 200 hundredth pages of I-J. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Somebody on British TV at the Millennium celebrations said; "If you have ten cakes, you don't count the first cake as "cake zero" and the last one as "cake nine" do you?". Alansplodge (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Was this even much of an issue prior to the use of computers and the prominent use of 0's and 1's? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think it stems from our use of "the 1970s" and "the 1980s"; if you count your decades in this way, they do indeed start with a zero and end with a nine. Alansplodge (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- And the 50s and the 40s and so on. It's a convenient reference, but it doesn't necessarily match the specific frame of years anyway. What we think of culturally as "the 60s" really didn't get cranked up until the Beatles came over and until about the time Nixon and the Vietnam War ended. So "the 60s" really ran from about 1963 or 1964 to 1974 or 1975. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think it stems from our use of "the 1970s" and "the 1980s"; if you count your decades in this way, they do indeed start with a zero and end with a nine. Alansplodge (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Was this even much of an issue prior to the use of computers and the prominent use of 0's and 1's? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- "Who would start at anything other than 1"? Musicians: see Interval_(music). They start counting at 2. Card Zero (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- So why did Lawrence Welk introduce the next song with, "An' a-one, an' a-two..."? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Dancers count "5-6-7-8"... --TammyMoet (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- "Who would start at anything other than 1"? Musicians: see Interval_(music). They start counting at 2. Card Zero (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- If you think of history as a time line, there's no year 0, but there is a 0 point. Year 1 on that time line contains (retrofitting it) points for January 1 through December 31, 1 AD or CE. Year "-1", on the other side of that 0 point, contains points for January 1 through December 31, 1 BC or BCE. And so on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- For the same reason that a 21 year old is in his or her 22nd year. You get to be 21 after you have completed the 21st year. The age records how many years you have lived. History gets to be 1800 after it has completed the 18th century. Ignore the "year zero" digression. It's completely irrelevant, as Jack says. Paul B (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- In English we say, "How old are you?" In Spanish it's said as ¿Cuántos años tiene usted?, which means "How many years do you have?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- See "Off-by-one error".—Wavelength (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Birth ages are easy enough: people wouldn't want to say, a moment after the birth, that the baby is a minute, an hour, a week, a year old all at the same time. So they have to start at 0. The problem with centuries is that there is supposed to be something between < and >. If the date were accurately known, would Jesus have been born the year before Christ or the year after the Lord? Mathematically one expects a year "=C" separating BC and AD. Likewise, one expects a century 0 between century 1 and century -1. These being absent, the math will never work out. Wnt (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- It makes perfect sense that while the infant is 0 years old, it is in its 1st year. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- The article Anno Domini talks about the dispute over whether Jesus was thought to be born in AD 1 or in 1 BC. (It also mentions that He is now thought to have been born several years "BC".) Infants less than two years old are often referred to by their ages in months. If less than a month old, in weeks or days, etc. Saying that one's newborn is "0 years old" is not really useful info. And in US census, children less than one year old are often listed as things like "5/12" in the "age" column. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not really the point I was trying to make. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- My thoughts:
- 1) Many computer programmers like to start counting at 0, although I find this confusing, as then you get the problem that when you refer to the "1st item in the list", does this mean the one numbered 0 or 1 (with the 0 item called the "zeroth item") ?
- 2) This all stems from the lack of a 0 early on. Roman numerals, for example, don't normally use a zero. They wouldn't say "we have zero olives", they would say "we don't have any olives". Even today, there's still some reluctance to use zero (doesn't the second phrase sound better ?). StuRat (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- We start counting arrays at 0 so that certain convenient sums add up. Starting at 1 means you end up subtracting 1 before doing certain common kinds of processing (the underlying processing for finding elements of an array expressed in 2 or more dimensions springs to mind). Card Zero (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Of course, but then the issue comes up as to whether we should do things in a way that works best on computer, and force humans to adjust to lists starting at zero, or do them in the way that's best for humans, and make the programs adjust to us. I come down firmly on the side of humans here. We could also keep every number in binary or hex, and force everyone to use those, but we don't find that to be acceptable, either. StuRat (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's different from the way floors of a building are counted in Britain isn't it? When you have climbed a flight of stairs after entering from the sidewalk, you are only on the first floor. In the US they count floors like centuries, and you would be on the second floor. Edison (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, we think of it as the first floor up whereas you count the ground floor as the first floor you come to (from the pavement). We then use -1 for the first floor down. Dbfirs 23:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- This debate is so strange. It's difficult to understand why people keep repeatedly fixating on the lack of a year zero, or methods of counting floors. Its totally irrelevant to the question asked, as Jack said a while back. A lack of year zero is only relevant to whether or not the 19th century, technically, begins in 1800 or 1801. It has no bearing on why we call the 1800s in general the "19th century" (which is what the questioner asked). We call it that for the same reason that a 21 year old is in their 22nd year. And if that 21 year old lived to be 100, they would be in their 2nd century. And in the unlikely event that they lived to be 1800, they would be in their 19th century, and so on. If we designated a new-born child age "1" as soon as they were born, this would simply mean that they got to start their second century at 101 rather than 100, and their 19th at 1801. It would not alter the fact that their "1800s" in general would be their "19th century". Paul B (talk) 11:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's analogous because the same lack of "=" between "<" and ">" applies. In a scheme with Year 0, it would only be natural likewise to have the "century of Christ" after centuries BC and before centuries AD. So, for example, you might have years 0-99 = century 0, 100-99 = century 1 after the [century of] Christ, etc. Wnt (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- As with anyone's birth, there's not a "year 0", but rather a 0 point on the timeline. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's analogous because the same lack of "=" between "<" and ">" applies. In a scheme with Year 0, it would only be natural likewise to have the "century of Christ" after centuries BC and before centuries AD. So, for example, you might have years 0-99 = century 0, 100-99 = century 1 after the [century of] Christ, etc. Wnt (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
What is the origin of represent getting an idea by a light bulb?
Saw this in some of Pink Panther cartoons. Are there any earlier instances?--chao xian de lun zi (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- According to TV Tropes it originated in Felix the cat cartoons in the 1920s. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- What those two cartoon series have in common is that they are generally pantomime. So a visual cue such as a lightbulb coming on is used in place of a character saying, "I have an idea!" or "Now I get it!" Comic strips, even the ones with dialogue, have often used various symbols over the character's head to express thoughts or emotions: Question marks, exclamation marks, sometimes just a dash at an angle to indicate surprise or stress, etc. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- The general concept of using a symbol to represent what would normally be represented by words goes back at at least as early as 1862, when Victor Hugo sent a telegram to his publishers to ask how Les Misérables was selling. His query was, in its entirety: ?. The response was, in its entirety: !. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the charming Victor Hugo story is nonfactual. It's a variant of an earlier story, around since at least 1854, in which "0" represented no news (so I guess we can say that using a symbol instead of words goes back at least that far). Here's the story from Yankee Notions, vol. 3, p. 363 (1854): "But the shortest correspondence on record is the one between an American merchant in want of news and his London agent. The letter ran thus: ? And the answer thus: 0 Being the briefest possible intimation that there was nothing stirring."
- Thank you, dear anonymous editor. I'll pass this info on to the good folks at Talk:Victor Hugo, because it's currently mentioned in his article. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the charming Victor Hugo story is nonfactual. It's a variant of an earlier story, around since at least 1854, in which "0" represented no news (so I guess we can say that using a symbol instead of words goes back at least that far). Here's the story from Yankee Notions, vol. 3, p. 363 (1854): "But the shortest correspondence on record is the one between an American merchant in want of news and his London agent. The letter ran thus: ? And the answer thus: 0 Being the briefest possible intimation that there was nothing stirring."
In any case, ten years from now many children will have no idea what an incandescent light bulb is... AnonMoos (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- 10 years might be a bit optimistic, as the CFLs still can't dim very well, and you must pay extra for ones that dim at all, and none of them handle cold weather and constant on/off cycles well. LEDs are still too expensive. And try warming a doghouse with either. Of course, once they do replace incandescents entirely, we might use "curly-cue" CFLs in cartoons. StuRat (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- It will be like using a floppy disk as a "save" icon. No one will know what a light bulb is, but they'll know it is a symbol for "getting an idea"! Adam Bishop (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hour glasses haven't been used by most people for centuries, but we still recognise the icon. Paul B (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- There are still hourglass-shaped egg timers. When we see one of those things on-screen, we hope the total time we wait will be closer to an egg-timer than an hourglass. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hour glasses haven't been used by most people for centuries, but we still recognise the icon. Paul B (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
unusual spy stories?
I like spy stories but find them incredibly boring and a huge waste of time. We live in a world where there are a ton of real, better things to do. I guess that some people like nothing more than playing "games" with other people who like nothing more than doing the same. Good for them.
Are there any modern, more unusual spy stories? For example: spies who find the work boring, and switch to a more interesting civilian life? And so forth.
I mean, in peaceful times you have to be pretty crazy and a waste of brain cells to want to do nothing more than loaf around pretending to be something you're not. Any stories about this? Curiousgg (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- The Prisoner was sick of the futility of being a spy, and the story begins when he tries to stop.
- This review of The Spy: Undercover Operation suggests some amount of sarcasm about the tedious reality of spying.
- The character in A Perfect Spy has a mental breakdown due to excess spying, and goes into hiding.
- There are a large number of spy stories with a theme of "omigod we're all amoral"; I assume you're not interested in those. Card Zero (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm still stuck back at your first sentence. Why would you like something that is "incredibly boring and a huge waste of time"? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- I mentally added the missing words:
- I read it as expressing ambivalence. I too enjoy certain boring things. Card Zero (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Can you explain how that's possible? If you're enjoying something in the moment, then at that moment it is not "boring" to you. (Unless I have lost all knowledge of the English language.) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- So, when it's one of the interesting times, the fact that the same thing can be boring in other circumstances is completely irrelevant to what's happening right now. And vice-versa. Right? If something can be both boring and exciting depending on the circumstances, why would one describe it in general terms as "boring" and then have to make exceptions for the exciting times? Why not describe it as "exciting" and make exceptions for the boring times? See, this is my struggle with understanding what people mean by attributes such as "boring", "interesting", "fun" and various others. A movie, for example, can be considered thrilling on one occasion and boring another time - but the movie hasn't changed. The viewer has changed, yet they're attributing the change to the thing they're focussing on, not to themselves. Take them out of that immediate "boring" context and ask them, without any prompting, for their general thoughts about that movie, and see if they regard it as "a boring movie". They'd probably have a lot more to say first, and may never even mention the word "boring" at all. Which is an implicit acknowledgement that the so-called "boredom" they were experiencing was theirs alone and had nothing to do with the movie, and they were projecting their feeling state onto it (very appropriate). So, when I see respondents here describe some book or whatever as "great", I reinterpret that in my mind as "He liked it a lot". I might like it just as much, or even more, or it might not be my cup of tea at all and I'll abandon it after 5 pages, probably fewer. These glib attributes are just opinions, and we all know what they're worth.
- Sorry, I didn't mean to derail this thread, but I really do want to understand what Curiousgg and CardZero are trying to convey. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Certainly the person's state of mind plays a role, but so does the book, movie, etc., with some being boring to most people most of the time, and some being exciting to most people, most of the time.
- I'm talking about situations where a movie is considered exciting to a person on one occasion, and boring to the same person on a different occasion. The movie hasn't changed, yet the person's description of it has, and that change in description exactly matches the change in their own internal state. This blaming of the supposed agent of boredom has no connection to what I'd call "saying what you mean and meaning what you say". Hence my questions to elicit what they really meant. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- I remember a TV show where a pair of dead people awaited their fates, one of them a good person and the other evil. Both were given the same "reward", a lifetime watching family vacation slide shows. To the good person, this was her idea of heaven, while to the evil person, this was his idea of hell. StuRat (talk)
- There are endless humorous spy spoofs, from Our Man in Havana to Get Smart, The Man Who Knew Too Little, Austin Powers, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- I highly recommend The Innocent by Ian McEwan as a very unusual spy fiction. If you're interested in TV shows, The Americans is excellent - it is the story of a KGB couple working undercover in Washington, and is as much about their relationship as it is about espionage. --Viennese Waltz 09:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Somewhat akin to The Americans was 1991 BBC series Sleepers. Sleepers is more a meditation on the state of British society (at one point an MI5 "watcher" is castigated by his boss for having been indulgent enough to expense a Burger King lunch, and later has a run-in with the altogether more sinister watchers from the DHSS), rather than really being about spies. The espionage part merely affords an outsider's perspective. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
November 7
Arguments from authority
Argument from authority notes that "any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning" is fallacious. Can't there be any exceptions? The following argument is obviously deductive, and it seems to me to be valid:
- What the Tsar thinks "evil" is illegal in Russia
- The Tsar thinks that it's evil to eat peanut-butter sandwiches
- Therefore, eating peanut-butter sandwiches is illegal in Russia
Isn't an appeal to authority always valid when the authority in question has the sole right to define the situation in question? For example, as autocrats, the Tsars couldn't be gainsaid (at least from within the system; let's leave out the Bolsheviks, for example) on questions of legality. Isn't this basically the same as a valid argumentum ad baculum, e.g. "If you drive while drunk, you will be put in jail. You want to avoid going to jail. Therefore you should not drive while drunk"? The latter is making an argument about the force itself, which is valid, and it seems that my argument is talking about the definition and the authority himself and is thus valid. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- If the first two statements are considered to be true, then the third statement is likewise true. Maybe it's unenforceable, but that's not the issue. So if the article claims the argument given is fallacious, then the article is wrong and should be changed. Now, if the third line said, "Therefore, eating peanut-butter sandwiches is evil", that would be fallacious. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- There is no appeal to authority in that argument. (You'd have to add something like "it's true because the Tsar says it is", like Bugs mentioned - not "it's true that the Tsar says it is".) The reason for the "in the context of deductive reasoning" clause is to make an exception for inductive reasoning (because some people believe inductive reasoning is valid). It's really trying to say "some appeals to authority used in the context of inductive reasoning are not fallacious". Card Zero (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Our argument from authority article cleverly neglects to define what constitutes an appeal to authority in the first place, so there's really no reason to pay attention to what it says about them. (The very first thing a Wikipedia article about X should do is to answer the question, "what is an X"? If it doesn't, you know you're looking at a weak article.) Looie496 (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Note that this is called a "fiat", an arbitrary decree by a person in authority: [11]. StuRat (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- You can accept on my authority that Card Zero has this right. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- The words "fallacy" and "false" both come from the same Latin root, fallere, meaning "to deceive".[12][13] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- That's more phallusy than fallacy. StuRat (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- The world is kind of banana-shaped, if you're referencing the rare round species called the Banana globula. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- That's more phallusy than fallacy. StuRat (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's a misconception that an argument that is of a fallacious form cannot be valid. An argument can instantiate a fallacious form and still be valid, so long as it also instantiates a valid form. What is forgotten is that an argument can instantiate multiple forms at once. So showing that an argument is valid is not enough to prove that it is not fallacious. Anyway, I third Card Zero on this one. I don't think any logician would classify that as an appeal to authority-type argument. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Would you mind providing an example? If you mean that there are multiple ways to convert English to logic, I understand; but it sounds like you mean something else. --As for the original, as mentioned, that's not an appeal to authority.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- OK, let's start with a common logic error: "If it rains, then the ground will get wet, therefore, if the ground is wet, it must have rained recently." Now, if the ground is wet, it might have rained, but there are other instances where the ground is wet due to dew, snow melt, washing a car, etc. We could fix the logic error by replacing "must" with "may". We could do something similar with an argument from authority: "If an authority asserts that it is true, then it may be true." StuRat (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, of course. For example: "[1] If (R or S), then R. [2] ~(R or S). Therefore, [3] ~R." That is certainly valid (the conclusion follows from De Morgan's laws and conjunction elimination) even though it denies the antecedent in form. (I posted this example on the denying the antecedent talk page a while back, actually). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- That's clever, I'll have to remember that:-) Thanks for the example, by the way- I was thinking you were meaning something in a different direction.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- There's a tendency to get the converse mixed up with the contrapositive. The contrapositive has the same truth value as the original: If it has rained recently, the ground is wet. If the ground is not wet, then it has not rained recently. (The definition of "recently" will vary depending on the climate, but it still works.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
African Americans dressing up for church
Do African Americans have a greater tendency to dress up for church than other races? In literature, fictional or nonfictional, you can see that African Americans usually dress up for church, equipped with a nice Sunday hat and Sunday dress. In third grade, I acted as the background actor in a play that had one scene where the protagonists were looking forward to buy hats so they could go to church on Sunday. I think the play was supposed to be based on a children's book, because I remember the painted Easter eggs. 140.254.227.54 (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- In the old days, i.e. a generation or two ago, everyone of any race was expected to wear their "Sunday best" to church. Perhaps black churches have carried on that tradition better than whites. But it wasn't just church. For example, if you look at pictures of World Series crowds into the 1940s or so, the spectators tended to dress up, just like they would for going to the theater or the opera. Suit and tie were expected for office-based workers in general as recently as the 1990s. The culture of casual apparel is a recent phenomenon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yea! The book's title was "Chicken Sunday", and it's written by Patricia Polacco, first published in 1992. I read in third grade in 1998-1999. Good memories. 140.254.227.54 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- This looks to me like race-baiting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yea! The book's title was "Chicken Sunday", and it's written by Patricia Polacco, first published in 1992. I read in third grade in 1998-1999. Good memories. 140.254.227.54 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's a legitimate question - we shouldn't let fear of racism shut us off from legitimate anthropological discussions. For example, see [14] which supports the OP's assertion, and [15] which implies (though I'm not sure it says) that the tradition can be traced back to the era of slavery, in that the celebrants might first have dressed up to celebrate that they were free and could do so. But that's just me looking at the top couple of search hits - some serious students of the Humanities should be able to do a lot better at answering this. Wnt (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- He had me hooked until he started talking about fried chicken. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm taking the hat off this. Patricia Polacco is a recognized author, and "Chicken Sunday" is a book we list by ISBN in her article. I see nothing about fried chicken. This is a reference desk, not a guilty-until-proven-innocent criminal courtroom. Wnt (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Fine. He's all yours. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm taking the hat off this. Patricia Polacco is a recognized author, and "Chicken Sunday" is a book we list by ISBN in her article. I see nothing about fried chicken. This is a reference desk, not a guilty-until-proven-innocent criminal courtroom. Wnt (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- He had me hooked until he started talking about fried chicken. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)