Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 October 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< October 3 <<Sep | Humanities desk | Nov>> October 5 >
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.

Contents

[edit] 1920's vs 1930's

Was the New Deal a success or failure? ——12.210.77.57 00:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)RyaN

Some aspects of the program were successful, and others were not. The program achieved some goals but not others. I don't think that a simple, objective answer to your question is possible. To form your own subjective opinion, read New Deal and judge for yourself. Marco polo 01:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
"Success" and "failure" depend on your criteria for judging. If by "success" you mean "ended the Great Depression," then no, it was not successful (it took the war to do that). If by "success" you mean "changed the relationship between the federal government and the individual citizen," then yes, you could argue it was successful. --Fastfission 12:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straight head to head viewship comparsion (??)

What is the straight head to head viewship comparsion for Bill O'Reiley vs Keith Olberman? All I find is compartive data that avoids a direct comparion.

Audie Price San Diego, CA 92101 (email removed)

???????? JackofOz 01:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

1/10 Jack. Even incomplete sentences require words, not merely punctuation. Eight question marks in a row is not only an incomplete sentence, but rather excessive as well. :) Loomis 13:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the questioner wants to know how many people watch Bill O'Reilly (commentator), and how many watch Keith Olberman, possibly with the proviso that it must be data from when the two are broadcasting simultaneously (so there can't be an overlap of viewership) --Mnemeson 01:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MLA Citation

I'm not sure if this is the BEST place to ask, but I desparately need to figure this out! How would one cite an excerpt from a book that is a collection of research findings when said excerpt is on a website without an author? Specifically this one [1]

Any help would be much appreciated, after about an hour of searching through all sorts of sources I can't find anything on this! Russia Moore 01:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have the MLA citation rules and have spent that much time searching, you can either make up new style by adapting the closest ones to this situation, or you can go to your professor and say, "Can you please help me with this? I have been searching the rules for an hour and it doesnt seem to fit exactly." Which way you go depends on the circumstance: if you are submitting a paper to a journal, use the first approach but if it for a college paper, try the second. alteripse 01:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Try this. It most likely will have what you are looking for. It's a citation maker! --The Dark Side 01:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips :) Sadly the citation maker didn't seem to have quite what I was looking for... I will probably just write in "(excerpt)" or something like tha, as I'm actualy generally considered an authority on the subject, but needed outside sources for a speech. Thankfully my instructor is pretty easy-going and should understand. I'm just disappointed in myself, as I'm an English Tutor hired by the school! Russia Moore 02:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The site gives a citation at the bottom giving you the proper info. "AmphibiaWeb: Information on amphibian biology and conservation. [web application]. 2006. Berkeley, California: AmphibiaWeb. Available: http://amphibiaweb.org/. (Accessed: Oct 4, 2006)." So, based on the MLA handbook, you extrapolate the style. It is pretty easy if you know the style well. — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)19:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cuban culture, specifically calle ocho

does an original calle ocho exist in havana, cuba? the calle ocho listed in wikipedia pertains to the one in miami, florida. if so(ie, a calle ocho does exist in cuba), kindly make abrief mention on its significance in general cuban cultural and/or political life. thank you y muchas gracias.

Calle Ocho is not named after a street in Cuba. It is simply the Spanish name for "Eighth Street," because the neighborhood that carries this name is located along SW 8th Street in Miami. The numbered street grid of Miami dates back to the years around 1900 when Miami was founded. The street got its original, English, name long before it became known as "Calle Ocho" to the wave of Cuban migrants who arrived around 1960 after the rise to power of Fidel Castro. Marco polo 01:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

...but isn't there an original calle ocho in havana cuba where common folk converge to talk about the issues of the day (political or otherwise), and this calle ocho in havana, cuba sort of gained fame and soon became the place for common folk and important politicos to meet and debate about issues of the day, and by coincidence when cuban migrants arrived in miami in the late 1950s - early 1960s, they somehow converged on 8th street of miami (or somewhre in that vicinity)either by intention or just plain coincidnce to do what they used to do back home in cuba - converge, have coffee, and endlessly debate about politics. kindly enlighten us more, muchas gracias.

[edit] The highest IQ

What is the highest IQ ever recorded and whose was it?--Rouge Rosado Oui? 02:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

High IQs really don't indicate much except narrow talent for taking IQ tests. Durova 02:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Marilyn vos Savant (debated) --Kainaw (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
So Savant is actually her parent's name? I thought that was a gimmick... 惑乱 分からん 06:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Mine. (How's that for concise, Jack?) Loomis 04:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Too concise. An incomplete answer to the question, and an outright lie. 2/10. Must try harder to be perfect. (Note to parents: Please discipline Loomis, he's becoming a bad influence on the other students.) (Lol) JackofOz 05:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This is in my bookmarks. — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)19:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Once you get above an IQ of 130 or so, most IQ tests stop giving meaningful numbers: a good psychologist will simply score the test as "130+" or "99th+ percentile". --Serie 21:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This question has been asked before at least once. I know cos I asked it a couple of months ago. 8-(--Light current 04:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fashion law

can a fashion product's unique design be protected ; say by patent, copyright, or some other means?

Considering that there's a whole mini-industry devoted to producing quick and cheap knockoffs of actress awards-show red-carpet dresses, I would definitely assume that the answer is no. Trademark would protect the brand-name and brand logo. Patents would protect an actual invention/innovation which meaningfully advances the prior state of the art in order to accomplish some specific function or purpose. In the United States, decorative elements used to achieve a utilitarian goal (such as font character shapes) don't seem to be copyrightable in many cases. AnonMoos 07:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
There may be some European countries where those design elements can be legally protected. In the United States the protection is limited to trademarked designer logos. Durova 14:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
But see design patent for the sorts of designs that can be protected by patent. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK Devolution

Does the UK now have a 'system of asymmetric devolution', or an 'asymmetric system of devolution'? I can find references to both. I can see that either order might convey the thought, but if possible I would appreciate a reference that makes it clear that one version or the other is legally or technically 'correct', rather than just opinions about how it sounds. Thanks if you can enlighten.

I don't think that either expression is legally or technically correct, because it isn't a "system" of devolution, but rather a set of somewhat incoherent laws and policies. Sorry that this is not the answer that you wanted. Marco polo 13:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but this seems like nothing more than a simple semantic difference. They both mean the same thing. Loomis 03:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are unrelated things allowed to be put on unrelated bills?

In the US Senate and Congress why is things like adding the recent anti-gambling bill onto a bill for port security allowed? Did this always happen or is in a more recent (last 50 years or so) phenomenon?

Well, any senator/congressman who opposes a "port security" bill would be attacked for leaving the country at risk, so they either support the anti-gambling bill, or risk political suicide. This taken to an extreme in the Simpsons, where to pass an airline rerouting bill, they attach it to "Free American flags for orphans" bill. Laïka 15:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
There was another Simpsons episode where the bill to evacuate Springfield before an impending meteor strike was defeated due to a "rider to support the perverted arts." StuRat 19:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Its just manipulative, surely to run a country correctly, every issue should be discussed in its own right. Philc TECI 17:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem would be who would decide which issues are sufficiently related to belong in the same bill. Rather than attempt to set up some long process to do that, I'd prefer to give each Congressman the right to vote on each line item, and give the President a line-item veto right. However, this would increase the power of the Presidency even further, so some compensating loss of power, such as reducing the percentage needed to override a veto, would be in order. StuRat 19:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Your right, lets not set up long boring process that work, and run the country well, lets keep governments exciting and unpredicitable, and run the country fast. I mean want kind of congressman wants to have to vote twice when he can vote once eh? Philc TECI 20:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, it is indeed his right.
In Australia, the title of a bill must reflect its contents. So, it's OK to have a bill that contains more-or-less unrelated matters as long as the title is sufficiently vague, such as "Miscellaneous Amendments Bill". But a bill called, say, "Sexual Perversions Approval Bill" could not contain matters relating to customs, defence, tax, health insurance etc. JackofOz 20:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
What you're saying is true, Jack, that whereas in the US the act tends to be commonly referred to by the members of congress who sponsored it, as in The Wagner Act or The Sherman Act or The McCain-Feingold Act, in Canada and Australia, the Act is always known by the its official title, which reflects its subject matter. And while what you're saying sounds reasonable and logical, is there actually some aspect of Australian Constitutional law that forbids, say, an act known as the "Sexual Perversions Approval Act" from including some competely unrelated provision? Your reasoning makes perfect sense, but what is the source of the authority in Australian law that prevents such "riders"? Loomis 12:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Australian House of Representatives Practice, 5th. Ed. says the following:
  • Every bill begins with a long title which sets out in brief terms the purposes of the bill or may provide a short description of the scope of a bill. .... The long title is part of a bill and as such is capable of amendment and must finally be agreed to by each House. The long title of a bill is procedurally significant. Standing orders require that ... every clause must come within the title.
The Standing Orders derive their authority ultimately from s.50 of the Australian Constitution:
  • Section 50 - Rules and orders
  • Each House of the Parliament may make rules and orders with respect to-
  • (i.) The mode in which its powers, privileges, and immunities may be exercised and upheld:
  • (ii.) The order and conduct of its business and proceedings either separately or jointly with the other House.
But IANAL, so my opinion is subject to disallowance. JackofOz 23:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not ANAL either, but the legal issue is an interesting one, and so I'll ponder it and take it under advisement. Loomis 04:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You speak the truth: Not ANAL = not am not a lawyer = am a lawyer. :) JackofOz 21:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your generosity, in considering me a REAL lawyer Jack.
What you speak of, the "Standing Orders" appear to me to be what I'd call a "regular" law: A law passed pursuant to a jurisdiction delegated to the Parliament of Australia by the Australian Constitution.
I should mention, though, that even among "regular laws", certain laws have a certain primus inter pares type status. That is, though they may be "regular statutes", they, by their significance, hold a sort of "superiour status" among other "regular statutes". For example, in Québec, we have the Civil Code of Québec, and the Québec Charter of Human Rights, which both, though they may be "regular statutes" tend to be given superiour status over other Acts of the Québec Legislature. The same goes for the Canadian Bill of Rights, a statutory, but non-constitutional instrument that's been since made obsolete by the now Constitutionally entrenched Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's an odd concept, and difficult to explain, but I believe that the Australian Parliament's "Standing Orders" may be of the same sort of law.
Another point I'd make is that I'm not at all familiar with Australia's Constitution, and in particular, if it, like Canada's, is composed to a certain degree by unwritten convention.
In any case, what I'm saying is that your "standing rules" are at the very least statutory law, and probably even, in a primus inter pares way, of the highest status among Australian Statute Law. Further though, it may actually be the case that these "standing orders" may in fact have become part of the Australian Constitution through the process of Constitutional Convention.
To make a long story short, and to go from legalese to English, you're probably right, that an unrelated "rider" in a Statute of the Parliament of Australia, probably just wouldn't fly. Loomis 02:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The Standing Orders of each house of parliament are rules of procedure. To my understanding, and I could be completely wrong, the Standing Orders are not law in the same sense as Regulations made under the authority of an act. That's not to say that members and senators aren't obliged to obey them, but the consequences of disobeying them (eg. being suspended from the service of the house for a period) are parliamentary and political in nature, not legal. There's a link to them at the bottom of here. JackofOz 07:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Once again, I'll take your note under advisement. :) Loomis 09:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Most U.S. state legislatures forbid these kind of shenanigans. See [2]. -- Mwalcoff 23:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Sayings

I need a number that connects with this phrase,"For a significant man,the one thought he values greatly,to the laughter and scorn of insignificant men,is a key to hidden treasure chambers;for those others,it is nothing but a piece of old iron.

Errmmm, don't quite understand. What do you mean, you need a number? Maid Marion 13:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
183 MeltBanana 16:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
37 Edison 17:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
183 is correct. 184 is "It is neither the best nor the worst of a book that it is untranslatable." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holding out for a hero percussion

I heard the Bonnie Tyler oldie Holding Out for a Hero on the radio the other day.

It's years since I've heard it and I noticed something I'd never heard before - from the end of the instrumental break, there was some very odd percussion. So odd that at first I put it down to poor reception or a dodgy CD at the radio station.

Is it there on a "proper" recording? And if so, what is it? And am I the only one who thinks it's really odd and out of place? (I'm not brilliantly literate in music terminology) --Dweller 13:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

On amazon's sample the break sounds like good old electronic drums. ---Sluzzelin 21:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It's horrible. What was the producer thinking of? --Dweller 09:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I was yelled at for playing the sample full blast at home yesterday.---Sluzzelin 09:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah well, the song was made in the 1980's. It didn't sound too awful to me, but maybe it'd be more annoying in the context of the full song... I remember this song from the Footloose movie, btw. 惑乱 分からん 11:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] insignia origin and meaning

I am looking for a mechanism to search for the meaning of a specific item that I have an image of. The image of a lapel pin that was my fathers. It is probably from Denmark, but I have no idea of its significance.

There is really no good place for image identification on the internet that I know of unless it is "get humans to look at it" in a place like here. There is http://www.symbols.com but it probably will not get you very modern logos. MeltBanana 16:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess you can upload a scan or digital photograph at a webhosting service like ImageShack or Photobucket and send us the link... 惑乱 分からん 20:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sourdough History

How long has sourdough been used? How did its use spread around the world? The entry on sourdough says nothing whatsoever about its pre-modern history except that it is ancient. Dfeuer 17:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a little more on the talk page. AnonMoos 18:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Song

A heard a classical type of song, maybe from the 1800's, that starts out slow and then suddenly leaps into a battle like composition. It was in the show Get Smart one time, when smart was captured by KAOS and a cannon was about to fired at him, but wouldn't by fired at him until the end of the song. I remember it being really long, like around 10 minutes. Anyone know the name of the piece?

It might be Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture as this starts slow, and ends fast and with a cannon. If you remember the melody, you can check it at musipedia. Dar-Ape 02:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We had the captain for our meal (poem)

I'm looking for a poem I heard recited 53 years ago about a shipwreck, and it contains the phrase, "We had the captain for our meal." Does this resonate with any scholars out there? Jthorson 18:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)jthorson

The Yarn Of The 'Nancy Bell', perhaps? --LarryMac 19:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why did the Netherlands last for so little against the Wehrmacht in WW2?

France's fast fall was the topic of many discussions, but doesn't seem the same case for the Netherlands, a former colonial power and one of the richest countries at the time... So, what happened?

Not sure but, the german army was huge, collosally over sized given the size of the country, and the netherlands weren't prepared for blitzkreig tactics. Philc TECI 20:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Tiny country (no more than 360 x 260 km according to one place I looked), big surprise. I mean, you could drive across it in a couple of hours. That makes it hard to defend under the best of circumstances. Clarityfiend 20:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Small can still be effective, I mean belgium (a smaller country) famously halted the Schlieffen Plan in WW1, and thus all of germanys failings in that war can be traced back to that. As Germany expected to have a closed western front before an eastern one opened, this didnt happen, and they were forced to divide their armies. And the rest is, as they say, history. Philc TECI 21:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought the Germans were rained out during the Shlieffen Plan and their soldiers couldn't traverse the mud fast enough to surround Paris. --The Dark Side 22:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
For goodness sake, Belgium did not halt the Schlieffen Plan; almost all the country was occupied, save for a small strip of Flanders. The Germans were 'halted'-if that's the right word-because their lines of communication were too long, their flanks too exposed, the First army was not strong enough, the troops were exhausted, and because they had run out of reserves. The French forced them the regroup northwards after moving into a threatening position on the River Marne. What followed was a series of flanking moves, known-incorrectly-as the 'race to the sea'. As for the Netherlands in 1940, look at the map: a small, flat country, few defensive positions and a fraction of the German strength. Besides, they were not expecting to be attacked. White Guard 22:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It took them about a month to invade belgium, the Germans expected to be in paris by that time, I didnt say the Belgians won the war, they just severley screwed up germanies plans. If you read the article, which I think you should, as you don't seem to know whats going on, the plan failed because
  1. The Belgian resistance delayed them for a month
  2. This gave the french time to reloacte their forces and further hamper it
  3. The British had time to send over forces into belgium to help defend it
  4. The russians had mobilized before the Germans had finished in france
So as you may see, the latter 3 points would not have happened if it were not for the belgians. So yeh, they did halt the schlieffen plan, The war wasnt over, the germans still had troops and a war to fight, but that particular plan had gone to the dogs. Philc TECI 17:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Absoultely, you are quite right; I simply do not know what is going on. I should have understood in my ignorance that when you wrote that Belgium 'halted the Schlieffen Plan' that, of course, meant that Belgium 'delayed the the Schlieffen Plan'(as opposed to the advance of German troops, a quite different thing). I should also have understood that when the German army cleared the Belgian border and advanced into northern France, that the allies were not being pushed south, simply 'relocating'. I should really have understood that Belgian resistence gave the British time to 'send over their forces' to defend them, rather than falling back with the French, as they did, to the River Marne. I'm afraid, however, that the connection between the speed of Russian mobilization and Belgian resistence escapes me-I admit this is probably due to my ignorance of the whole issue. Your clarification has cast light on the fog of my misunderstanding. I'm still puzzled, though; so perhaps you can offer some more illumination? You say it took the Germans a month to invade Belgium? In my ignorance I asssumed they crossed the border on 4 August. The British government seems to have assumed so, declaring war the same day. What a pity you were not around to correct the mistake.
White Guard 23:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to be rude or cynical, I'm sorry you interpreted it that way. They did invade belgium on the 4th of August, they just hadnt finished until the next month. They got some forces across the french border before then, but a lot were held up seiging various Belgian fortifications, and they as a result could not advance as intended. Philc TECI 17:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
That's fine; but please be careful about expressions like "you don't seem to know what is going on." I could do no more than interpret that as rude and dismissive, particularly irksome because I have a reasonably detailed knowledge of the course of the Great War. White Guard 23:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, well I am sorry for causing any offence. Philc TECI 13:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
See The Netherlands in World War II#The outbreak of the war and Battle of the Netherlands#The battle.  --LambiamTalk 00:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Not only is the Netherlands a small country, but it has no natural geographic barriers to protect against invasion and a substantial portion of its land is below sea level. The Germans could have retaliated by simply flooding the place. Durova 03:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to respond to Clarityfiend's remark that a country's geographical size is in any way related to its military vulnerability: As everyone here knows, I'm a Canadian Jew. Just take a look at the two countries that are nearest and dearest to my heart: Canada and Israel. Canada is just over 450 times as big as Israel. Now, hypothetically, say the American/Canadian relationship wasn't as incredibly friendly as it happens to be, but rather, that the US denied the very existence of Canada, and let's also say, hypothetically, that the US military was equivalent in power to the combined militaries of Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Jordan. Massive Canada, the second largest country in the world, would last, at the very best, an afternoon before being completely overrun, destroyed and conquered by our hostile neighbours to the south. Compare this to the Six Day War. So much for size being a factor. Loomis 21:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, thats not quite a fair comparison, the Six day war was an israeli offensive, even if justified, they weren't defending against an organized assault from these combined masses.... Philc TECI 22:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, they were. Syria, Jordan and Egypt were actually mobilized, in a coordinated effort along their respective borders with Israel. To make the comparison even fairer and more accurate, let's say the US (given the above-mentioned hypothetical scenario) didn't attack Canada, but rather, mobilized its forces along the Canada/US border, about to attack. Are you saying that rather than wait for the Americans to attack, a pre-emptive attack by Canada into the states would make any difference? Please. Even if the US military was as backward and unskilled as that of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq, still, we'd be toast.
As for Canada being atypical, I beg to differ. Giant Australia is in the same boat. Just look to WWII. The Axis powers, those of the relatively tiny Germany, Italy and Japan, collectively, actually had a good shot at taking over the whole world! In particular, tiny Japan somehow managed to conquer such massive territories in China, Indochina, southeast Asia in general, and even managed to go so far as to harrass gigantic Australia back then. And the Aussies certainly weren't taken by surprise! They knew well in advance what was coming! And looking back to the 19th century, how was it possible for tiny Britain to have accumulated such a vast empire? The Brits actually conquered India of all places! Not only is India massive in size compared to tiny Britain, but the whole "tiny population" argument doesn't work there either. India's population was then, as it is now, at the very least ten times that of Britain. I hate to put it this way, (and please, don't read too much into it :--) ) but when it comes to military power, (geographical) size really doesn't really matter. Loomis 00:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Holland was a small country, accessible by land by its attacker (unlike Australia). So it had nowhere to fall back to and regroup after the surprise German attack. France was bigger and the surprise was lessened, so it lasted longer. Russia was huge, so even though its army took a terrific beating at first, it had thousands(?) of miles to work with, so it had time to recover. Size therefore does make a huge difference in a country's defensive capability. Throw in the flat Dutch terrain and the original poster's question is answered. Clarityfiend 02:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
And so that brings me back to my original point. Israel, too, was a tiny country, accessible by land by its attackers. The whole "push them into the sea" line has been repeated so many times that it's unnecessary to point out that Israel "had nowhere to fall back to and regroup..." As for the "surprise" (Surprise! We've been talking about conquering Europe since 1924! SURPRISE!) German attack, well, I can only say that those Dutch who were actually so naive as to not see Hitler as some sort of threat after he took over the Rheinland, Austria, the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Poland etc, well, if they were THAT naive, (which I don't believe they were,) then of course they'd be no match for the Nazi war machine. But of course I give far more credit to the good Dutch people than that. The REAL reason the Netherlands were so easily overrun by the Germans is because they were a society of good, pacifist people, with no expansionist military ambitions, and as such hadn't dedicated anywhere near as much of their "intellectual potential" or their GDP toward military purposes, and were unfortunately overwhelmed by the massive dedication toward expansionism as well as the sheer inhumane brutality of the Hitler's Germany. It's got little to do with geographical size. Loomis 04:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It may have been a little hard to read, but I did say "Tiny country, big surprise". The combination of the two was just too lethal. But size does matter. Canada is an atypical case, because it has a small population compared to its size and it is very much concentrated near the border. If it were more decentralized, then its defenders would have more options, i.e. trading space for time. Ask the Germans about Russia. P.S. Don't tell Rummy about Terrance and Phillip.
Dutch border guard: Wehrmacht?
German soldier: HERE macht.

Clarityfiend 23:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring what is stated directly above I think I will put the real reason why the netherlands didn't "last"(wrong word here)long. First of all we declared ourselves Neutral. just like in the first world war, very much the same as switzerland but we still got attacked: at the first surprise attack we managed to push back nazi-germany to around our borderlines after they penetrated deep into our territory. there we dug ourselves in and put up a strong defensive line across the borders. thus giving our royal family the time to flee to England. even if it did not want to. then, after four days the nazi-germans saw no way to push in and switched tactics. their new tactics were to fly (heavy) bombers over the defensive lines and then bomb the at-that-time second biggest city rotterdam to rubble, and threatened to bombard all the other major cities as well. this made it impossible for general Winkelman to keep going on because as has been said we really were humanists and pacifists. and he capitulated, on rather good terms actually as one ould see in the first period of the occupation. although this had more reasons, one being the fact that dutch people are actually better ubermenschen than germans, which immediately explains the bombing target rotterdam(biggest port and therefore most "polluted") and they saw us as brethren. Conclusion: The Dutch Forces Could Have Lasted On For Much Longer But Due To The Bombing Of Cities And The Threat Of More Bombings The Netherlands CapitulatedGraendal 05:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US calling code

hi guys, what is the code I should dial to call the US and then to call Chicago specifically?. thank you.--Cosmic girl 20:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

From where do you call? 惑乱 分からん 20:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Long gone are the days when a city the size of Chicago had only one area code. You will need to get the specific ten digit phone number from somewhere, and as the person above implies, the dialing instructions from your location. The country code for the US is +1. --LarryMac 20:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
See also list of North American area codes. (Searching for "calling codes" or "dialling codes" won't get you far in Wikipedia.)--Shantavira 08:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Your profile suggests that you are in Peru. According to international access code, the access code from Peru is 00. Therefore, you dial 001, then the ten-digit local phone number in Chicago. Marco polo 22:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!! :) --Cosmic girl 22:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyprus climate

what is the climate of cyprus

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Type "cyprus" in the search box. You will see an article on Cyprus. You will also see a link to extra information on the Geography of Cyprus, which has a section specifically on the climate. --Kainaw (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/f/Wikipedia%7EReference_desk_archive_Humanities_2006_October_4_0033.html"