Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Miscellaneous/2006 July 31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions at one of the pages linked to above.

< July 30 Miscellaneous desk archive August 1 >


Contents

[edit] Maine

Did the U.S. purchase land from canada that would for the northern portion of the state of Maine? If so does the purchase have a name does it have a Wikipedia article and is their any maps of the purchase and maps of the U.S. before the purchase?

Webster-Ashburton Treaty Rmhermen 05:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
To answer your question more directly, at the time of the Webster-Ashburton Treaty, Canada was a British possession. The United States claimed a northern border for Maine that runs through what are now the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick. The United Kingdom claimed a southern border for Canada that runs through what is now Maine. The territory between the two borders (northern Maine, a southern slice of present-day Quebec, and northwestern New Brunswick) was disputed between the two nations. The Webster-Ashburton Treaty was a compromise that set the border between U.S. and British territory that is now the northern border of Maine. There was no purchase. Any map of the United States before 1842 will show the disputed area. A U.S. map from before that date would show the area claimed by the United States, while a British map would show the British claim.Marco polo 22:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fireflies

Is it possible for a firefly or lightning bug to give off a blue light instead of a green-yellow light? Thank You

I don't think so —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 13:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There are many subspecies of firefly some glow yellow, others green and some blue.Anton 15:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] help

what can neither gain or lose weight?does anyone know the answer to this riddle?

Wasn't this comprehensively answered the last time it was asked? Notinasnaid 08:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This is not really a riddle, is it? A riddle is "1. A question or statement intentionally worded in a dark or puzzling manner, and propounded in order that it may be guessed or answered, esp. as a form of pastime; an enigma; a dark saying. 2. transf. Something which puzzles or perplexes; a difficult or insoluble problem; a mystery." (OED). --Shantavira 10:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Weight is a measure of how two masses attract each other at a given distance. Given constant masses, the weight will change with a change in distance. Therefore, anything with mass can have a change in weight. Thus, something which "can neither gain or [sic] lose weight" would have to be something with no mass. Such as: a thought, an idea, a word, love, hate, time, etc. –RHolton≡– 22:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
A cylinder made of an alloy of platinum and iridium of 39 mm height and diameter, which is kept at the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (International Bureau of Weights and Measures). If it looses or gains weight it still weights a kilogram - but the weight of every other item in the universe changes. AllanHainey 13:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bubble era

Hi, i bumped into a term "bubble era" couple of times lately. What does it mean exactly? Does it describe some period of Internet development only? I would appreciate anybody's answer greatly, thank you! T

Possibly refers to Dot-com bubble, though could point to any of a number of other bubbles, back to the The South Sea Company or Tulip mania. Or Real estate bubble, United States housing bubble, Irish property bubble, Economic bubble, California property bubble, Spanish property bubble, Japanese asset price bubble, New Zealand property bubble, &c &c. So you'd need to consider the context of your bubble era. --Tagishsimon (talk)

u guyz aint that smart..the answer actually is an active monkey..it can hardly gain or lose weight...

Is putting your comment against the wrong question an example of how smart you are?  :--) JackofOz 12:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brute force and code breaking

what is brute force...is it a means of code breaking...and how does it work.what are other means of breaking codes?

Brute force can mean a few things. What you seem to be interested in is a Brute force attack. There are a variety of other means of cryptanalysis, such as rubber-hose cryptanalysis.--Philosophus T 09:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Philosophus explains the basics of it fine, so I'll just add that brute force attacks are the "baseline" for how secure a digital cipher is. If there's a method that breaks it faster that means the cipher is insecure. --ColourBurst 19:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think of "brute force code breaking" as trying every possible combo. For example, a 4-digit numeric PIN for a credit card only has ten thousand possibilities, which can all be tried out in a few minutes or hours using a computer, provided the software isn't sophisticated enough to lock out the PIN after a small number of mistakes. StuRat 23:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sloths

just wanting to know if the male,female and baby south american sloth are known by any other names? e.g moose males,females and babies are also known as bulls,cows and calves. thankyou for your help jinine--220.238.26.5 09:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither sloth nor list of animal names mention any other names. In fact the sloth article refers to "infant sloths" at one point. Rmhermen 17:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lunar Rover

There is a featured article concerning the above. However i have noticed the following in varios places and pictures: Why in the picture of the lunar rover, are there no stars? The moon has no atmosphere, and should therefore show millions of stars, however the sky apears black. please explain if possible. Thanx193.115.175.247 13:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Since this is a Wiki, you can fix it yourself, but you have to register to upload images —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 13:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Stars are not visible because they are very dim compared to the moonscape. If the film was exposed long enough for stars to show up on it, the foreground dust would be hopelessly over-exposed. If you own a camera you can experimentally verify this yourself tonight. Earth's atmosphere has little effect on things; clear non-polluted air blocks very little visible light (sorry, can't find an exact figure right now, I think it is a fraction of a percent). Weregerbil 14:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Because they were filmed in a soundstage on Earth! Adam Bishop 15:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a more detailed discussion of this at Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations#Photographs and films. --Shantavira 15:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I assume that you can see both the stars and the surface of whatever celestial body you're on with your eyes because human vision adapts, whereas in a camera the same sensitivity and exposure are used for the whole CCD or film. But where is this done? In the eyes or in the brain (or both)? And wouldn't it be possible to do something similar with cameras? I often have this problem that different parts of the photo differ so much in brightness that I can never give them both the right exposure. An intelligent camera could notice that different sections of the image differ greatly in brightness and adapt the sensitivity of the different parts of the CCD to that (wouldn't work with film). However, thinking of it, it seems rather complicated. How does the camera (or editing software) know which of the two an average-lit part belongs to? This again gives me great respect for the way human perception works (or any other animal for that matter). DirkvdM 07:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proper Pronunciation

I would like to ask you how to pronounce the Minotaur and Centaur are they ( Tar ) or ( Tor) if you can help me out thank you, and if not thanks anyway. (e-mail adress removed to prevent spam) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.47.252.104 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 31 July 2006.

Go to [1] and [2]. Click on the a loudspeaker to hear a word. Jacek Kendysz 14:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
According to wiktionary:centaur, 'centaur' is pronounced closer to an 'o' (specifically, IPA: [ˈsɛntɔː(r)]). I presume 'minotaur' is much the same. --Sam Pointon 14:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Binary dual

I have recently been reading about Monadic Cyles, I wish to know does the earth's sun have a binary dual? or to simplify, does our sun and galaxy revolve in with another? It is said in the book i am reading that it does, and with Andomeda, but that is a galaxy, acn any one shed any light on this subject in any way thanxAnton 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just tell me if theres anything about the book you don't believe, and then we can decided if you should believe it or not, cheeers —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 19:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like you're mixing up stars and galaxies. Our galaxy (the Milky Way) may revolve around another, but our star (the Sun) doesn't. DirkvdM 08:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What i believe to be true is irrelavant, What i want to know is Does our Sun have a binary dual and if so which/what/where is it.

Let's go back. I've never heard of a binary dual, and there aren't any hits in Google that seem to be relevant (except one earlier question here). So, since this is a specialised term, can you let us know where you have found this term used (a URL, if possible), and how it is defined if it isn't on a site we can visit. Thanks. Notinasnaid 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, Wiki has an article on Binary star. (dont know how to make link) Does our sun have such a Binary dual.? I really apreciate your help. Thanx193.115.175.247 14:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I think you would have got a quicker response if you had said "binary partner" or "companion star". No, the Sun does not have a binary partner; it is not part of a binary star, as scientists would mean the term. However, if you are dealing with esoteric cosmology, this is more like religion than science. Notinasnaid 15:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am dealing with esoteric cosmology actually. Well done Dude. But how would we know whether or not we are part of a binary. To observe a binary one needs to use the dopler shift, but this cannot be done as our binary partner would always be either moving away or toward us. So my actual problem is i am trying to write a book on the correlation between esoteric religion, christianity, hiduism, budism and science and how they all come together as part of a greater monadic cycle. any help in any way would be appreciated. thanks.

If the sun was part of a binary system with a nearby star, we would see it. Or, if it was black, it would still have a significant effect on the orbits of all the planets. However, scientists are able to calculate planetary orbits very accurately, which means there cannot be a nearby large gravitational source unaccounted for. If you posit that the entire solar system was in a dual relationship with a further away star, we would see the effects of the orbit in that the galaxy would appear to be rotating against our system. Or so it seems to me. But how about this for cosmic philosophy: it is never correct to say that one thing just orbits around another. While the earth orbits around the sun, so the sun orbits around the earth. Both influence each other. However, because the earth is so much smaller than the sun, the effect is that the sun has a tiny wobble, while the earth goes round very nearly the centre of the sun. So the Sun has a partner in each of its planets, and asteroids. Notinasnaid 15:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Very true, however, we might not notice the other scource rotating around us as it would do so so slowly. we might notice it comeing or going depending on what part of its cycle it was on but the sideways shift at its furthest point is impossable to observe, true or false. And again thanks.

[edit] Coffee

Cofee beans are edable. Are Coffee berries, the fruit from which the beans come, edable, and if so what do the taste like? Are they available comercially? Why is coffee only made from the seeds of these plants? why not others such as orange seeds for different types of coffee?

For starters, check out the article on the coffee plant. It mentions that the berries are in fact edible (note the spelling). You might also be interested in the article on drupes, which are the classification of fruit in which the coffee berry belongs. --Bmk 16:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I asked this same question a while ago and never got a really good answer. Maybe you'll have more luck. —Keenan Pepper 22:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
We don't take that "I didn't get a good answer from the reference desk" kind of thing lying down, you know. Oh no. I'm actually propped up on my sofa as I intimate that a) Two nuggets I've picked up are "I tried the berries David, they're quite pleasant in a sweet sort of way. Apparently it was originally the berries that were used as a beverage, the beans were discarded."[3] and "The coffee berries are difficult to chew so early coffee experimentation involved roasting the coffee beans to make them edible. Gradually, people began pouring hot water over the roasted coffee beans to make the well-known cup of coffee."[4]. Perhaps the best overview is here - enough on the history of coffee berry munching. Been going on for thousands of years, they reckon. b) Why not other seeds. Why not indeed. Google, being your friend, would like you to look up coffee substitute where you'll observe an offer of organically grown chicory, figs, cereals and acorns; and later Soy. So clearly there are nutty & legume substitutes c) And you'll recall Ersatz coffee from the war years, made of some bean or other. In short, I imagine that there are a bunch of things which make more or less palatable beverages, and many that don't, and/or that'll make you proper ill. By the same token, why not tea from chesnut leaves or grass? And yea, we see a plethora of herbal infusions including Ersatz tea made from raspberry leaf. Conclusion: get out there and start roasting & boiling things & see what the result is. --Tagishsimon (talk)
When at a coffee plantation I once ate peeled coffee berries, straight from the plant, and they weren't difficult to chew at all. However, they didn't taste like coffee at all. Nor did I notice any effect of the cafeine, but I'm an avid coffee drinker and I only ate a few. But that will have been the original reason for coffee consumption. Once people find something like this out they start experimenting and thus someone must have come up with the idea of roasting them for taste and then someone else came up with the drink. Or the other way around (although that sounds less likely).
Oddly, when people use other plants for brewing a hot drink, it's usually called 'tea'. Shouldn't there be a separate name? DirkvdM 08:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, coffee brewing has developed in something way too complicated. The best coffee is the simplest, cowboy style. Just add hot water to the ground coffee. To avoid the sludge at the bottom you could also filter it (afterwards!), whic makes it more complicated again, but that doesn't affect the taste. I suppose the reason this tates so much better is that all of the ground coffee comes into instant contact with almost-boiling water. The Coffee preparation article says "The recommended brewing temperature of coffee is 93 °C". If the water filers through a heap of coffee, only the top will get the water at the right temperature. DirkvdM 08:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I've tasted a new beverage that claims to be coffee berry juice. It has a sweet, and very mild flavour. A bit like redcurrant juice, but milder. It's amazing that this comes from the same plant as coffee. JIP | Talk 10:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline for admission to law school

I'll be a junior at UCLA this fall, after transferring from a community college. I would like to attend law school as soon as I graduate, which I estimate will happen by the summer of 2008. Supposing that most law schools would begin their academic calendars during the fall of that year, this means I would have to submit my applications the year prior, doesn't it? (That is, the fall of 2007, when I would be beginning my senior year.) If this is the case, would anyone like to share their thoughts on whether this would be a good decision? I feel that I would not have much under my belt at the university so soon after arriving. --71.103.130.75 17:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The European e-mark

Hi,

I have searched here and many places to no avail to find information about what the International/European "e-mark" is and what the criteria is for a product to receive this mark.

It appears on a product as a lower-case e. I am aware of certain products that have this, but I don't know what it means and what it takes for a skin care line, as an example, to receive this mark. I have been told it is some mark of excellence that has to do with the approval of some commitee of the European Union. Your help would be appreciated.

Yours,

Jeremiah Charles

I think its just some kind of logo —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 19:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean CE mark or more probably Estimated sign? MeltBanana 19:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It explains in the article about that, check it out if thats what you mean —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 19:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the "Estimated" sign, a lower case e, which certifies that the actual contents of the package comply with specified criteria for estimation. See also[5]. The EU does not award marks of excellence, but of standardisation. In some cases it will be illegal to sell products that do not conform to EU standards, which may include carrying marks. Notinasnaid 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
There are also European Quality Charters for all sorts of products and services (above the legal minimum standards). Is that what you mean? For example the 1998 European Quality Charter for CFL (Compact Fluorescent Lamps) link.

For specific info for businesses re EU Directives, Regulations, etc, contact any of the Information centres (EIC's). Here is a list of the ones in Britain [link]. Jameswilson 23:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Cool, I did some more digging and found the info that you were saying about the standardization mark. It has to do with quantity regulation of pre-packeged goods, of consistancy, and honesty in labeling. Thanks for your help. -Jeremiah

In short, if you don't give it the mark, every package has to contain at least the quantity the package says it does. With the mark, it only needs to be that amount on average (and within certain limits). DirkvdM 08:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rechargeable Batteries

Do rechargeable batteries(AA) specifically made for digital cameras work effectively for other divices? Thank you.

Ask Jeeves claims that they don't —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 19:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Strange, I was fairly confident that they would but wanted verification. Any ideas as to why not? Thanks again.

I'd like to see a link for the claim that they don't. If they are AA batteries, why wouldn't they work for other devices? For the record, I did go to Ask.com (it hasn't been called "Ask Jeeves" for some time now), typed in the question and found no links supporting the above responder's claim. --LarryMac 19:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake I found I was reading about a different kind of battery [6] sorry —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 19:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think of it they would perform better if anything being as digital cameras go through batteries like nothing-sounds like a good 8th grade science fair project.

A similar project would be to see it the batteries packaged as "for digital cameras" behave any differently from standard alkaline batteries. I have a feeling it's all a marketing game. --LarryMac 20:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I suspect otherwise. The charge-voltage curve for standard alkaline batteries is decidedly unfavorable towards use in cameras and other digital devices: the voltage drops too low for the device to use it long before the battery is fully discharged. If these "digital camera" alkalines have a different curve, they'll appear to last longer even though they don't actually store more power. --Serie 00:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
NiMH batteries (which is what I assume you are asking about) can be used almost anywhere. In practice a problem is that they suddenly go from good to totally flat, whereas ordinary alkalines gradually lose power, giving you some warning that they are running low. This means that for NiMHs you start off with a good beam from your torch and 2 minutes later you can have nothing at all! And then a set of NiMh batteries running with one flat destroys the flat one permanently (even if it were its first use). See the WP article link above. The Star batteries Faq (although quite obviously biased in order to sell the stuff) gives valid, scientific, understandable information. For medium drain applications such as cameras and cd-players they are the most economical. But they discharge spontaneously on storage, so for inclusion in a "disaster emergency kit" a box of waterproof matches would be a better choice :) --Seejyb 00:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Serie gave an important part of the answer. Of course standardised batteries could easily be made, but that would mean a drop in sales - good for the manufacturer, but not for the producer. Consumers may demand what they wish, but if manufacturer don't deliver, that's the end of the story. The free market system isn't as perfect as it is often made out to be. It's sort of like with democracy: it sucks, but it's the best alternative we seem to have at the moment. DirkvdM 08:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the time of day of Zidane's headbutt?

Hi...I really need to know the exact time of day (to the second even IF possible) that it was when Zidane headbutted the Italian in the worldcup final on July 9 2006.

The game began at 8pm I believe (Germany time) and the headbutt was int he 110th minute, but I need to find out the exact time of day that it was when that happened (i.e. 10:00 PM)...

This is a real challenge I think so thanks for any help

Well Zidane headbutted the guy on the 117:41 minute and the game started at 8pm German time, then it would have happened at approximatly 9:57:41pm in German time, give or take a few seconds due to the fact that the match wouldn't have started precisely on the 8pm mark. --user:02pollaj

--squiggly things

Don't you have to add in half-time to that? And stoppage time? Adam Bishop 06:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes you would need plenty of extra time for half time + stoppage time + the time in between full time and extra time... I didn't record the match, but if someone did on one of those HDD recorders, they will usually tell you the exact time you started recording and the exact time something happens. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 08:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You'll never get the exact time by trying to add duration of match time, half time, injury time, etc. The best way to get the actual time it occurred would be to either get a full recorded video of the match or to check FIFA records as presumably the Referee recorded his red card somewhere & this woud have the time on it. I've just thought, some TV companies show the time as well as the score, who's playing, etc superimposed on the screen so just a picture of the headbutt from TV might do it. AllanHainey 14:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Criss Angel

Could anyone direct me to the site(s) that explain these illusions. Maybe supply some vauluable keywords or simply the links. I have put considerable time into finding them for myself as well as previously trying to determine the explanations for myself all to no avail. Thanks.

Do you mean images (by illustrations)? —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 19:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Try Google Image search to find examples of images, and CrissAngel.com for most other info, cheers —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 19:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I never mentioned illustrations, perhaps you misread illusions?

Walking on water is explained at walking on water. How else?--Shantavira 07:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
"Levitation" is explained at invisible thread and David Copperfield's flying and the "patent" link from there. All rather obvious when you know, isn't it?--Shantavira 09:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] kung-fu actors' attire

i watch a lot of kung-fu movies, and some of the actors have a white square with a red circle on the square pasted to their head. i was wondering, what is the significance of the square.

Hinomaru? David Sneek 20:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bible question for a prisoner

genesis 2:16-17 Gensis 3:22-24 Did God did not want man to live forever???

Or does he not want man to live forever now that man has eaten of the fruit and knows right &wrong, good&evil ???

It was alright to eat from the tree of life &live forever, until man ate from the tree of conscience?

Man was never told "not to eat from the tree of life...? This Question is haunting my son (JoeyHipp)who has done extensive study of the Bible... "Please if at all possible" could somone answer this so i can send it to him???

There isn't going to be any "right answer". It's all the opinion of the reader. Of course, if you give us a particular denomination, we might be able to find their official stance on this issue. StuRat 23:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not quite sure what your question is. are you asking if eating from the tree was a sin. do you want to know what God plan was if man did not eat from the tree? Jon513 23:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I find the story a bit silly myself; what was God's plan, just for them to avoid temptation and sit there in Eden doing nothing but "being happy" ? No human civilization, no nothing, just a whole universe created for two people ? Not much of a plan, if you ask me. StuRat 23:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You are very astute to recognize that. God's purpose was origianlly, and remains, that humans live forever in peace and harmony not only with each other, but with nature, forever. The first man was told that he could eat from every tree in the garden except for the one that the Creator reserved as his special posession. The only time death was even mentioned was as a penalty for disobedience and rebellion against God. In essense, what the first man and woman did when they ate that special fruit, was tell the Sovereign Lord of the Universe that they had the right to determine for themselves, "good and bad". 6,000+ years later, we see the result of man's self rule. Utter failure. That is why the prophet Jeremiah was inspired to say at Jer 10:23 that "It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." But the Bible also outlays that this time will pass and that the earth will be restored along with obedient humanity to it's originally intended state. You see, God does not change his mind. The Bible clearly teaches that the Earth is here forever. It also teaches that is was made to be inhabited. It also clearly states that the righteous and the meek would inherit the Earth and that the wicked would be cut off and be no more. Death will be brought to nothing, sickness will be no more, nor will outcry, or pain be anymore. This is the purpose of God's Kingdom that was the theme of Jesus' ministry. This is the promise we hope for...that we look forward to seeing fulfilled. BibleTeacher89
But if you believe the story god created man in the first place. So he put the disobedient streak in him and then punished mankind for behaving in a way that he created us to behave. The story makes no sense. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 03:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It was not a disobedient streak that was put into man, man deliberately chose to disobey. It was the godlike quality of free will that was given man. But, just because you are free to make choices, you are not free to choose the result of those choices. They were made aware of what the law was. They chose to ignore that law. Just as someone who decides to "break the law" of gravity...you don't break any law of God, you break yourself against it. If they would have ignored the misleading advice of the rebellious spirit son of God who became the one called "Devil" and "Satan", they would have continued to prosper, and to fill the earth with perfect human offspring. Even if Adam would have chosen to not follow his wife, he could have been provided another wife and we would not have inherited sin as we all did. But this was not the case. Adam, the responsible and more experienced one, chose to disobey. Hence, death spread to all his offspring. That is why the ransom sacrifice was provided to buy mankind out of that condition. Jesus, having come to Earth as a perfect human, was qualified to "give his life as a ransom in exchange for many" and act as a propitiation for the perfect human life that Adam forfeited. That is why the Scriptures refer to him as "the last Adam". That act of love by Almighty God and his only begotten son paved the way for those in the memorial tombs to come out in the resurrection of the dead and for those and the ones who are preserved through and survive the "Great day of God the Almighty" to live everlastingly and have the priveledge of restoring the Earth to it's potential and filling it with perfect human society who live in peace under the rule, not of imperfect man...but of God's messianic Kingdom. BibleTeacher89 03:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that either Adam or Jesus were perfect. The evidence on Adam is his choice of actions (eating the apple). The evidence on Jesus was his questioning God: "My God, why have thou forsaken me ?" (Matt 27:46). And while we're at it, why did God allow the evil serpent and the tempting tree to exist in his "perfect" world ? I must conclude that God, which produces all these creations with a slight evil streak in them, must be both good and evil, as in Eastern Philosophy, where Good exists in the heart of Evil, and Evil in the heart of Good (see the Ying Yang symbol). StuRat 06:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

God, being omnipotent, knew before hand that they would sin, therefore he placed the plant in the garden for them to sin with so everything is part of his plan. He planned for them to sin ect.193.115.175.247 09:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, rereading the thing, it looks like the story got a bit garbled. It makes sense (to me) if you consider that the knowledge of good and evil (right and wrong) can only be learnt through experience, and therefore they had to choose to do something wrong (when they had no sense of right or wrong) and be punished in order to know what right and wrong were. All other explanations I've seen fall down for me because they had no sense of right and wrong, so how can they be expected to know it is wrong to eat the fruit? Plus, if you have an omnipotent, omniscient god, he must have set it up so that they would disobey. Seems to me the tree was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil only in the sense that Death was waiting under the tree in the Parson's Tale. It possibly got garbled once people started taking it literally. Skittle 10:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Maimonides theorizes that before they ate from the tree they saw right and wrong in the same way we view true and false. That is to say that before the sin of the tree they were able to derive a moral system by pure logic. Only after the sin did right and wrong now exsist as separate consepts from true and false. Jon513 11:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I also think your question is a bit vague, but if you take away all the question marks what you are saying is generally correct - in my opinion. Perhaps you could explain what exactly is bothering your son specifically?BenC7 11:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


God, being omnipotent could have chosen to know beforehand that they would sin, or he could have configured events so that they would have, but that is not a complete picture of what omnipotence is about. Just as the dial on a radio allows we as people to tune in on a particular frequency, The Creator has the ability to choose to or to not see events that have not taken place yet. Placing the tree deliberately there to stumble them and to caste future mankind into the state of sin and death is not fitting with God's character. God is love, and also outlined in the Scritpures is the fact that it is impossible for God to lie. Therefore, this act of deceit is impossible for Him and against all that he stands for since it would have been, in effect, a lie. As said before, man was given the ability to choose his actions. He was told that statute and the consequences of that statute, therefore, he knew what God's requirements were and what good and bad was in the eyes of God. Whether he chose to obey this, however, is another matter. However, the rebellious angel under the guise of a talking serpent, told Eve that making her own choice in the matter of deciding what was good and bad would make her like God. He, in essence, called into question God's sovereignty, His right to rule and determine for mankind what would benefit them and what would not. By following this deceitful advice, Adam and Eve therefore rejected God's sovereignty and decided to choose for themselves the knowledge of what was good and bad. That is why they lost their lives. He decided to choose an act that he knew had dire consequences. Cause and effect. It is like when you pick up one end of a stick, you are free to do that, but you cannot then choose to not pick up the other end. That is the consequence of that action. Adam deliberately went against God's clear command (action/cause). That is why human perfection, albeit temporarily, was taken from them and their offspring. (consequence/effect) It is a matter of God's right to rule; His right to tell us what it beneficial (good) and what is detrimental (bad). Once this matter is settled to the universal law's satisfaction, this little experiement of man's self rule will come to an end, and with it, as the Bible clearly points out, death, the last enemy, will be brought to nothing. --BibleTeacher89 14:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Even if God gave them free choice he would have known exactly what would happen. If God is omnipotent then he is complicit in their sin. Your particular interpretation is a bit disengienious. It requires that an omniscient omnipotent being be able to act without understanding the consequence of his actions, which is clearly impossible as it presents a logical paradox. It violates the definition of omniscience. If you believe in a truly unbound God, a God with complete omniscience and omnipotence then you must believe that God preordained the fall of man. No amount of circular logic can get around this. By the bible's own ethical rules not-acting creates the same responsibility as acting. --Darkfred Talk to me 15:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is some of the funniest stuff i have read in a long time! Well Done people! I just wanted to point out that this is all metophoric. Thanks, Oh, and basically it doesnt matter to the original question as the prisoner has no concept of right and wrong or he would not be a prisoner. i am still laughing at the previous two responses, bloody brilliant hahaha


Well, first of all, where in the Holy Scriptures do you see Almighty God apply any human definition of omniscient/omnipotent to himself? You are relying on human understaning to define the divine and spiritual. Forget, for a moment, your definition of omniscient/omnipotent. God himself, by means of his personal name, defines himself as "He Who Causes to Become" and "I Shall Prove to be What I Shall Prove to Be". He is not limited by your definition of what you think his state of being is. He can be what he wants to fit any situation. The only thing He cannot be, is a liar and deceitful. That is something that He hates and is against his very nature. Also, being complicit in their sin is against his very being. God is love. He is the personification of love and his very essense is love. He fully intended to allow them free will and for them to obey him due to love and respect; To make the choice to obey him, not out of robotic compulsion. There is nothing circular about it. It is a logical and straightforward concept. Forget predestination, it is not a Biblical teaching. It is a philosophy of man. The bottom line and the answer to the question is that Almighty God created humans with everlasting life in mind. He created us with the intent to have us live, prosper, progress, and fill the earth with perfect offspring who live in peace and care for the planet. This intent has not changed. It will be filfilled in its due time. And, if you look at present events and circumstances, that time is drawing ever closer. Our deliverance is at hand!

--BibleTeacher89 17:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Bible teacher, I invite you to take a look at Predestination, specifically the section on the Christian doctrine of predestination, predestination is a basic biblical concept, as you should well know. Anyway, it was a fun debate, although in an inappropriate forum. Because you seem new to this sort of debate I also invite you to have a look at circular logic, logical paradox and Argumentum ad populum. Argumentum ad populum, or the appeal to belief is a tricky argument to use in debate, it can force a false choice in the viewers mind between literal inerancy and atheism. This debate is a very old one see Fall of Man. The position taken by most christian religions is that the story is in at least the small details allegorical. And cannot be considered a literal paradox in that sense. If you had argued this way, then you would have avoided my entire argument. My argument relied on a literal interpretation. This way if your argument fails then most you have lost is your listeners trust in biblical literalism, not loss of faith. --Darkfred Talk to me 19:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Dark Fred, I don't seek debate. I don't care for debate. I care to teach and there is no learning in a debate, only the desire to win the argument. As for this literal paradox, I simply don't see the paradox. I hold that the account does relate an actual event and that there is nothing allegorical nor paradoxical about it, when you use discernment. When talking about the Bible, I believe in letting the Bible answer the Bible, not leaning on pagan-influenced church doctrine of men like Protestant Reformer John Calvin who defined his concept of predestination in the book Institutes of the Christian Religion. Christendom is littered with these types of empty philosophical attempts to try and understand and extrapolate the Scriptures. In my experience, the Bible answers itself. That is why my points are not circular nor are they based on the fear of loss of certain listeners' belief in the Bible or faith. Even Jesus himself, the Great Teacher, lost some listeners on occassion. He was not concerned with pleasing everyone nor am I, because he was confident that his sheep would hear his voice and respond. He was well aware that not everyone was ready to hear.
Getting back to this non-Biblical doctrine, the Scriptures reveal that there are situations in which God chooses not to foreknow the outcome. Just before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, he declared: “I am quite determined to go down that I may see whether they act altogether according to the outcry over it that has come to me, and, if not, I can get to know it.” This text clearly shows us that God did not foreknow the extent of the depravity in those cities before he investigated matters.
True, God can foresee certain events, but in many cases, he has chosen not to use his foreknowledge. Because God is almighty, he is free to exercise his abilities as he wishes, not according to the wishes of imperfect humans. Rather than attach a concept of obligitory omniscience to God's perfection, it is more in harmony with the Scriptures to say that his power is more in line with selective foreknowledge. This would mean that, rather than all history from creation onward being a mere rerun of what had already been foreseen and foreordained, God could with all sincerity set before the first human pair the prospect of everlasting life in an earth free from wickedness.
You and others who agree with Calvin say that God predetermined man’s fall before his creation and that he had predestinated the ‘chosen ones’ before that fall. But if this were true, would it not have been hypocritical for God to offer the prospect of everlasting life to Adam and Eve, fully aware that they would be unable to realize it? Moreover, the Scriptures nowhere deny that the first human couple were given a choice: either to follow divine directions and live forever or to reject them and die.
The fact that God did not choose to know which course mankind would take did not prevent him from prophesying the consequences of man’s good or bad actions. A mechanic who warns a driver of the poor condition of his vehicle cannot be held responsible if an accident occurs or be accused of predestining it. Likewise, God cannot be accused of predestining the sad consequences of individuals’ actions.
The same was true with the descendants of the first human couple. Before Cain killed his brother, God put a choice before Cain. Would he master sin, or would sin get mastery over him? Nothing in the account indicates that God predetermined that Cain would make the bad choice and murder his brother.
Later, the Mosaic Law warned the Israelites about what would happen if they turned away from God, for instance, by taking wives from among the pagan nations. What was foretold did happen. This can be seen from the example of King Solomon, who in his later years was influenced by his foreign wives to practice idolatry. God warned his people, but he did not predestine what their individual actions would be.
Man was given free will, being created “in God’s image.” Free will was indispensable if humans were to honor and serve God out of love, not as robots with every movement determined beforehand. Love displayed by intelligent, free creatures would enable God to refute unjust accusations. He says: “Be wise, my son, and make my heart rejoice, that I may make a reply to him that is taunting me.”
If God’s servants were predestined—or programmed, so to speak—could not the genuineness of their love for their Creator be called into question? Also, would it not be contrary to God’s impartiality for him to make a predetermined choice of persons destined to glory and happiness without taking their individual merits into account? Moreover, if some receive such preferential treatment, while others are destined to eternal punishment, this would hardly arouse sincere feelings of gratitude in the “elect,” or “chosen ones.”
Finally, Christ told his disciples to preach the good news to all mankind. If God has already chosen the ones to be saved, would this not dampen the zeal Christians show in evangelizing? Would it not make the preaching work essentially pointless?
Impartial love from God is the strongest force that can move men to love him in return. The greatest expression of God’s love was to sacrifice his Son in behalf of imperfect, sinful mankind. God’s foreknowledge respecting his Son is a special case, but it assures us that the restoration promises resting on Jesus will indeed be fulfilled. So may we put faith in that Son and draw close to God. Let us show our appreciation by accepting God’s invitation to come into a fine relationship with our Creator. Today, God addresses this invitation to all who want to exercise their free will and show their love for him. --BibleTeacher89 07:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The Bible only said God didn't know the conditions in Sodom, it didn't say that the reason was that he chose not to know, that's purely your interpretation. Another example is that God apparently had to "walk" in Eden and "see" that Adam and Eve had clothed themselves, before he "knew" what they had done (all very anthropomorphic compared to our modern concept of God). Not only does this show a lack of knowledge of the future, but even the present, on God's part. My interpretation is that the Bible was written by many different people, each of which had different concepts of God. Most, but not all, conceived of an omnipresent God. The few who didn't added the portions where God doesn't seem to know what's going on. StuRat 08:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that User:BibleTeacher89 is clearly a Jehovah's Witness and thus does not represent Christian theology in his answers. BenC7 04:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that it never says the question wasn't for a jehovahs witness. Xcomradex 01:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics of average earnings in parts of London?

I am looking for average - preferably median average - earnings of people in various parts of London such as Westminster, Chelsea, the City, Richmond, and so on.

I am seeking the earnings for both where people work and where they live.

I'd prefer the median average as the arithmetic average is distorted by a small number of high earners, meaning that most people earn less than the arithmetic average.

Thanks very much.

in the Winter 2005/06 the Average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees in London was 595 pounds. Information provided by Office for National Statistics of the UK, specifically here and here. Jon513 11:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DVD-R Shelf-life?

I have a collection of files I need to store permanently. I've been warned by people that DVD-Rs only last 5 years if I'm lucky -- is there any truth to this? I'm not pinching pennies, I'm using Ritek, Ridata and Verbatim discs. About 150 are stored in standard plastic DVD cases on a shelf, and another 100 are stored inside a hard plastic DVD binder. How long will they last? Should I re-burn these discs every 3 or 4 years?

The answer is yes. --ColourBurst 07:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually according to that very article, the answer is no. 100-200 years for DVD-/+R and 25 years for DVD-/+RW. Nowimnthing 14:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. That 5-10 years is what the manufacturers claim. The tests are different. --ColourBurst 16:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/f/Wikipedia%7EReference_desk_archive_Miscellaneous_2006_July_31_dc6c.html"