Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 September 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
< September 23 << Aug | Sep | Oct >> September 25 >
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] Rastafarian views on Jews and Christians?

How does the Rastafari religion view Judasism and Christianity? Is there any opposition to their teachings? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.34.2 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The Rastafari movement was sortof an offshoot of Christianity, formed because the original followers believed that Haile Selassie was God (or Jah, from the Hebrew "הּ ") incarnate. Selassie, a member of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, rejected this view. Because their God, "affectionately called Jah-jah", as I remember reading somewhere, was a pious Christian, I doubt that the Rastafari movement has that negative a view of Christianity in general. They also follow dietary laws, ital, that are similar to the Jewish Kosher practices. In conclusion, I don't think that Rastafarians oppose any parts of Judaism or Christianity, but instead have built on them. This is just how I understand it, however.Picaroon9288 02:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. As I understand it, when Selassie denied being God, the Rastas simply stated that "God would have no need, or desire to proclaim his Godlyness to the world in the persuit of mere earthly power", or it was a "test of faith" or something like that. Thinking about it, if you or I were declared God incarnate by a group of devoted followers, there would be very little that could be done to convince them otherwise. Anything you did to demonstrate that you were only a human could be explained away as a 'test of faith'. Even if you started randomly killing them, they'd just comment that "We have angered God". Might as well just give in and try to lead them into the future as best you could. --81.77.34.2 03:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Some Rastafarians believe that the white man's god is satan [1] -- Chris Q 11:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What do you mean?

Hey Fresh, with all do respect what do you mean there is nothing original about Takao Aoki's art style?How many manga-ka do you know can draw like that?I don't want to seem disrespectful or anything but i just want to know who else can draw like that.Thanks

Hey, he did not say: "There is nothing original about [it]." He said: "I can't see anything particularly original about [it]." Maybe you should enlighten us what is so original about it. --LambiamTalk 02:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
What is this about and could it please stay there? DirkvdM 07:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Or maybe not. I apologize for not having Lambiam's patience. I believe that Takao Aoki has been given more than due weight at this reference desk - four questions on the current page. Several people have given you the best suggestions they could come up with. Perhaps it is unfortunate that no mangaologists seem to be present at the humanities reference desk, but currently we cannot do any better. There are numerous manga newsletters, chat rooms, and talk pages where you're more likely to receive the answer you seek and more welcome to discuss the aesthetic qualities of Takao Aoki's art.---Sluzzelin 07:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
At the very least, this should have been asked on my talk page. I'm with Slizzelin on this one, but I'll answer your question anyways. Aoki's style in Beyblade particularly reminds me of Pokemon and Detective Conan, and is very likely aiming to snatch a piece of the same crowd in the US (i.e. kids).  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What does Noam Chomsky say about 9/11 conspiracy theories?

I'm curious about what Noam Chomsky has to say about the allegations that the U.S. government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. Chomsky often seems unusually critical of the U.S., but he still seems to be pretty reasonable, just with an unusual perspective. I doubt that he's been taken in by the 9/11 conspiracy theories. But has he ever publicly commented on them at all? --Mr. Billion 07:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote from an interview: ""There's by now a small industry on the thesis that the administration had something to do with 9-11. I've looked at some of it, and have often been asked. There's a weak thesis that is possible though extremely unlikely in my opinion, and a strong thesis that is close to inconceivable. The weak thesis is that they knew about it and didn't try to stop it. The strong thesis is that they were actually involved. The evidence for either thesis is, in my opinion, based on a failure to understand properly what evidence is. Even in controlled scientific experiments one finds all sorts of unexplained phenomena, strange coincidences, loose ends, apparent contradictions, etc. Read the letters in technical science journals and you'll find plenty of samples. In real world situations, chaos is overwhelming, and these will mount to the sky. That aside, they'd have had to be quite mad to try anything like that. It would have had to involve a large number of people, something would be very likely to leak, pretty quickly, they'd all be lined up before firing squads and the Republican Party would be dead forever. That would have happened whether the plan succeeded or not, and success was at best a long shot; it would have been extremely hard to predict what would happen.""
Another quote from an interview: "I think such speculations lead us away from issues of prime significance, not towards them . . . Personally, I don't think it's worth the effort." He nevertheless thinks that the western world's global capitalization caused the attack. But that's not a conspiracy theory. ---Sluzzelin 08:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Do you have links or the dates/locations of the interviews? --Mr. Billion 08:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, here we go. Good old Google. Thanks again. --Mr. Billion 08:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
A question I'm curious about, (and honestly, though I may sound like I'm being facetious here, please believe me that I'm not. I'm seriously curious about this,) is what the world psychiatric community's position is on the mental health of Noam Chomsky. I find his theories to be unusually bizarre, (bordering on the insane,) to say the least. Loomis 22:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Really obscure movie music question

I'm pretty sure this isn't covered in the Polar Express article. On my Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (film) DVD, there's a preview for the movie Polar Express. I want to know the name of the piece of music being played. I've listened to clips of a bunch of songs from the soundtrack and none of them sounds familiar; but often the music played during previews is actually from different movies. Anchoress 08:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you give more details? What does the voice-over guy say? I just watched a clip and the VO says: "What if there is a place... Beyond your imagination... And to get there... All you have to do... Is believe?" What segments from the movie are shown? How long is the trailer?
You might be able to find the trailer on Youtube or the Apple trailers site or the official movie site, and that way people can hear what song you're talking about. --Mr. Billion 08:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I thought someone else who has the POA DVD might know what I'm talking about. It's long, at least 2 minutes, and it's narrated by Tom Hanks. He starts by describing how when he was a kid he was in bed listening for something. Then there's an animation of the Polar Express showing up, and then Tom Hanks as an adult jumps off as the conductor and says whatever about the Polar Express, 'C'mon, we're waiting for you,' or whatever. Anchoress 08:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Just looked at the youtube trailer, and it sounds like a separate score (i havent heard it before.) Just go on amazon and listen to samples of songs from the soundtrack. I bet it's an original

Music in the trailers for a film are rarely used in the final film, for the simple reason that the film score often isn't finished by the time the trailer is released! So a studio will use a piece from another film, or from a totally different source, in their trailers. It's often difficult to identify the pieces in trailers, however, if you have the stomach for it, I suggest you try the IMDb forums for the movie in question. What music is playing during the trailer is an often-asked question there (just scan the headlines of the conversation threads), and usually gets a reply. Good luck! — QuantumEleven 10:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] who says discrimination still exists at our work place

friends...i have been arguing with my mate that due to the government laws that has been made for anti discrimination, now discrimination at work is almost nil..however my mate argues its still there... How many of you agree with my friend that discrimination still exists at our work place? thanks Sherlene

Though things have greatly improved in a lot of countries, the hard facts probably still support your mate's view, especially when it comes to wages. Nevertheless I'd like to know which country and which type of discrimination (sexist, racist, ageist etc.) you are talking about. ---Sluzzelin 09:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with your mate. If you're in England, there's no doubt that you're in one of the most racial diverse countries in the world. You're right, that there are loads of laws protecting people from racism. People, though, don't change so easily. People still look down on certain types of people, they still make jokes about race, they still stereotype and make judgements, and they still think in many ways like they used to. It will take many generations before racism may be considered an "insignificant problem", though even then some people may just be holding their opinions to themselves.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  13:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I definateley agree with your "mate." My father owns his own buisness and talks about not hiring some people. Of course there are anti-discrimination laws, but the person who doesn't get hired doesn't know that they are being discriminated against if you say we have no open posistions at this time. schyler 13:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

And there are more passive forms of discrimination as well. A study a few years ago showed than in the US, resumes with "black sounding names" and "white sounding names", with identical qualifications, were called in for interviews at very disproportionate rates. I personally doubt it was because of overt racism, but the fact that people will "read" a work differently depending on prior assumptions about the race or gender of the author. Something which looks innocuous in one setting suddenly looks problematic in another, for example. --Fastfission 17:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Sherlene, I have no idea how things are at your work place. ColinFine 17:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget for the most obvious question a potential employer can do to a woman: "Are you planning to have children in the near future?" If you answer "yes" or refuse to answer that (ilegal) question chances are very high that he will not hire you because he doesn't want to bother himself with a temporary replacement. If someone asks you this question lie, lie and lie again. "No, we are not planning to have any children in the next decade." This question is ilegal and legaly nothing should happen to you when you decide to have a kid. And the argument that "you lied and that this is a breach of contract" is ridicolous. A competent laywer will have a field-day as you sue your employers as* if he fires you. Flamarande 19:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks discrimination doesn't still exist in the workplace should try to get a factory job at age 55. -- Mwalcoff 05:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Try sending two recent university graduates to employment agencies with exactly the same résume except for one detail: the name. One grad is male and the other is female. See who gets the typing test. Durova 14:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Racial Discrimination still exists. One example is the instance of Katrina victims being accorded late remedy after being displaced by the hurricane. The blacks were not able to get the necessary assisstance on time.

[edit] Downloading question

Say I've just bought a new album on vinyl, because I like listening to music on my turntable. But I would also like to be able to listen to it on my mp3 player as well. I know the technology exists to make mp3s out of vinyl tracks, but I don't have any of that stuff. I've paid for the music when I bought the vinyl LP, so would I be justified in also downloading the mp3s from a file sharing site? --Richardrj talk email 09:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're one of the most ethical people I've ever met. I'm assuming your question is mainly about the ethics of doing such a thing, as, practically speaking, when it comes to the legality of it you've got nothing to worry about. Ethically speaking, that's actually a pretty tough question. But generally, both the "ethical" and the "legal" rule is that there's no problem, once you've "bought" the music, to copy it in any way you wish, so long as the "copy", and the "original" aren't being used at the same time. That's, in a nutshell, the law about copyright. But you've added a bit of a twist to it. Your "copy" isn't actually being "copied" from the original version you bought. I'm not really sure how to answer the question. But I'll try.
If your vinyl version is in perfect condition, I'd say you've "bought" the right to listen to it in any manner you please. The fact that your "copy" isn't exactly a "copy" of the album in the original format you bought it, to me at least, wouldn't make downloading a separate "copy" of it unethical. But I'm really not sure of the actual "legal" answer (it would actually make a great exam question for an IP law course!) In any case, let's put it into the simplest of terms. The fact is that you've actually "paid" for the music, but then again, you haven't "paid" for it in as good a format as the copy would be. It's quite the ethical dilemma. But all being said, I'd say download the damn thing dammit! Just the fact that you've taken the trouble to ask this question proves that you're a better person than most. Just download the thing and enjoy it with a clear conscience! Loomis 11:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Legally, it is wrong to download copywrited music online even if you have real copies. If you're going to be ethical about it, you're just going to have to buy an electric version (a CD would do) and copy it for your own use for yourself. If you're only half ethical, you can probably convince yourself that downloading something you already own is justifiable.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  13:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to take issue with that last statement. You're mixing up morality/ethics and law. Though ideally, law should be a parallel to morality/ethics, and most often it is, (eg. murder is both legally and morally/ethically wrong,) oftentimes the two don't quite parallel each other (eg. it's definitely illegal for a man to steal a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, yet ethically and morally I'd consider it 100% right). You mentioned that "legally, it is wrong". Categorizing something as "legally wrong" is mixing ethics up with legality. Legally speaking, something may be legal or illegal. Ethically/morally speaking, the same thing would be either right or wrong. (That being said, I'm definitely not encouraging people to go out breaking the law whenever they see fit! All I'm trying to do is underline the distinction between ethics/morality and law). Consider the concept of civil disobedience. Loomis 22:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Or you coukd take it to a video transfer store where they turn old film reels into DVDs and whatnot. They will definately have the equipment to turn your record into a CD. It should cost at the most $10 USD. schyler 13:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You would have the right to make a personal copy of it. You would not be entitled to download a new copy of it, anymore than you would be entitled to a new LP in case your LP got worn down to nothing, or to a CD version just because you bought the LP. --Fastfission 17:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all the replies. Unsurprisingly, I really don't see much of an ethical dilemma here. By downloading the album, I would be making a personal copy of it for my own use. The fact that I would not be making a copy of my own copy, but of someone else's copy, is neither here nor there. But I'm well aware that the RIAA would probably not see things my way... --Richardrj talk email 19:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, they wouldn't see it that way, but personally I wouldn't lose much sleep over it. The RIAA, it can be sure, does not lose sleep over ethical quandries that stand in the way of its making money. --Fastfission 03:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
"I know the technology exists to make mp3s out of vinyl tracks, but I don't have any of that stuff." Erm, you have a turntable, and you evidently have access to a computer. What you need now is a cable. TheMadBaron 07:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Fastfission, you already addressed the problem I wanted to mention. The price one pays for a cd is partly for the physical medium, but that is pretty negligible. Mostly, one pays for the music. So if I have brought a lp some time ago I have already paid for the royalties. If I want a new copy (on cd or whatever) I should only have to pay for the cd and distribution, which shuold be a fractionof what cd's cost. Of course, I'd have to prove I've already paid the royalties and for that I might need to hand in the lp. Or maybe I would have to have the receipt. I suppose, legally, that's how record companies get away with letting people pay royalties twice (or more, whenever a new medium is marketed). DirkvdM 08:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Downloading a copy from a file-sharing network would probably mean you're handling (as in buying stolen property). Even if it's legal for you to listen to your files in any form you wish after buying it, downloading an illegal copy to do so could still get you in trouble. - Mgm|(talk) 09:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say that the above response is both right and wrong. The fact is, that technically speaking, the more that I think of it, it's probably "technically" illegal. As to the ethics of it, I suppose that's just a matter of opinion, but I tend to agree with Dirk. You've already paid the royalties to the artist, and if it were me, I'd feel justified in dowloading another copy. As for the legal "ramifications" of the whole thing, I couldn't disagree more with the above post. Whether it's "technically" legal or illegal, I've never once in my life ever heard any individual ever getting into any sort of legal trouble for something as minor as that. Loomis 13:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

But Loomis, the RIAA has prosecuted numerous individuals for file-sharing (see RIAA#Criticism). Certainly, downloading copyright music for free is illegal - in the particular circumstance I asked about, it strikes me as being 100% ethical. If I ever felt like doing any downloading myself, I'd be sure to go for IRC or Bittorrent channels. --Richardrj talk email 14:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
As a private body, the RIAA doesn't have the authority to prosecute anyone. Only the state can prosecute. What you likely mean is that they've sued several individuals, not prosecuted them. But the legal lingo isn't very relevant, I get what you're saying. Yes, they have gone after a few indivuduals. But I've looked into it and I've noticed two things: 1) They tend to almost always lose the suit, the court tends to frown on their "abusive" suits, and the defendant tends to almost always have a whole bunch of civil liberties associations such as the ACLU as Amicus curiae to back them up, and 2) These cases seem to be mainly "protest cases", and they only arise when some individual, pissed off by the RIAA's position on the issue, purposely sort of invites the suit, for reasons of principle, to make a point. Sort of like when a group that opposes the criminalization of marijuana decides to camp out in front of a politician's office and openly smoke pot in order to intentionally get arrested for it, in order to bring the public's attention to the issue. I doubt any individual has ever found him or herself in court without actually wanting to go there, just because s/he was "caught" privately downloading a few tunes for his/her iPod. Loomis 21:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Just another note here. I'm a bit hazy on this so forgive me if I'm wrong about this part. But hasn't the RIAA sort of come to a compromise about the whole thing, whereby there are now certain totally legal websites that the RIAA has accepted and come to terms with that offer downloads for a very nominal fee, like 99¢, of which a certain portion they give to the RIAA as compensation for the original artists? If that exists and you're concerned with the whole legality of it, then I'd suggest you spend the buck and get it there. But as I said, I'm a bit hazy about that part, and I'm not familiar with the two terms you mentioned: "IRC" and "Bittorent". Are these the 99¢ type sites I'm referring to? In any case, what I'd like to emphasize most, (as was pointed out by Fastfission,) is that the RIAA is not an unbiased organization, simply out to make sure that the "right" thing is done. On the contrary, they have their own agenda, and their position on the issue should not in the slightest sense be seen as authoritative. As I've mentioned, they usually lose, meaning that according to the "law", their position is wrong. In fact, as Dirk noted, it may be they who are the one's acting unethically, as what they're essentially doing is insisting that you pay royalties twice for the same music. Loomis 22:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Loomis. In response to your first post, you're correct of course that I was using the wrong terminology. But I don't think it's true that the RIAA is only going for 'protest cases'. There have been instances where they have sued teenage girls who were merrily downloading and claim they didn't know what they were doing was illegal. On your second post, the 99c sites you refer to would be things like Apple's iTunes, which is indeed completely legal. IRC is Internet Relay Chat, a chat protocol which also allows files to be shared, and BitTorrent is another kind of filesharing protocol. The point I was making in regard to these is that the RIAA is very unlikely to go after people who use them - the number of people using IRC to share music is very small, and I'm not sure the RIAA has even got to grips with what IRC is yet. BitTorrent is in an interesting legal position because the websites that enable music and video to be shared using it don't actually host any music or video files themselves, they just host small "torrent files" that enable users to download the music/video from other users. --Richardrj talk email 21:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Or you could do it yourself. The only difficult thing would be getting the right connection from your phono amp to your computer (RCA to 3.5mm cable?). Any sound recording program would then work, then convert to mp3. If you want pop/click removal, you'll have to get that software as well. Dysprosia 09:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that even if you are personally convinced that you have an ethical justification for downloading a track you own on vinyl (despite its being technically illegal in most jurisdictions), there are ethical problems involved with certain download methods. For example, when you download a file with BitTorrent, you are constantly uploading as well from the parts of the file you have downloaded. So you are not only making a copy for yourself, but you are giving copies of that copy to third parties, who may well not own the track on vinyl: that is to say, you may in fact be directly assisting other people to perform an act that you yourself consider unethical. The same goes for most peer-to-peer systems. — Haeleth Talk 19:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deaf People in Denmark

Hi! I am trying to find out information about Deaf people in Denmark. They are basic statistical questions which I can not seem to find on the internet or in Wikipedia. Here they are:

1. How many deaf people are in Denmark? (I have found a source that quotes 4,000 but I am not sure as to the validity of this source.)

2. How many Danish children are born deaf?

3. How many people with a hearing loss in Denmark use Danish Sign Language?

4. How many Danish children use hearing aids? And how many use cochlear implants?

These are my questions that I am trying to find the answers to. I had my Danish host family try looking on the internet for a half hour interpreting websites in Danish, but not even they can find the answers. Can you help me? Thanks in advance :)

Since you cannot find this information in any of the news sources online, the only way you can get your queries answered, is by filing an application to the concerned officer invoking the Access to Public Administration Files Act. You might have to pay a small fee for the necessary papper work, however.-- thunderboltz(Deepu) 15:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] number of tourist in Stamford lincs UK

I neeed to find the number of tourists that visit stamdord lincs each year I need the year on yrear number from 1985 to date I have looked on allthe web sites and have contatcted the local tourist board and other organizations but have been unable to find anything that will prove that tourism has increased can you help please

regards alice Essex

If the tourist office doesn't know, then I doubt whether this information exists. Stamford, Lincolnshire is a pretty enough place, but not exactly a tourist magnet. You could try asking a few local hotels, as they will certainly keep records and should be able to give you an objective opinion.--Shantavira 13:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Audrey Hepburn role in "Sabrina"

What did her character study in Paris? 14:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 67.72.98.88

French cuisine, cooking. I remember the scene, clearly. 惑乱 分からん 14:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, the Wikipedia article Sabrina (1954 film) already states "Sabrina attends a culinary school in Paris". 惑乱 分からん 15:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The lesson for the first day was, "How to boil water." --K
Still, the school seemed like a life-changing opportunity for her, it also taught the correct way of cracking an egg: "It's all in the wrist!". ;) Quite good screwball/romcom, actually... 惑乱 分からん 23:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] video and private life of Julian Eltinge

I am currently involved in a writing project about Julian Eltinge. The two things I am having trouble finding are: 1. I can't find many references to his private life (which he evidently kept very private) especially regarding his sexuality. Are there books, etc. that discuss it? 2. It would be great to see a video of his performance. His filmography [2] seems to be mostly filled with unavailable titles. I did dig up "American Masters: Vaudeville" but his appearance was brief and not helpful. I would love a lengthy look at his performance. Thank You! --Cabaretstar 14:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] philosophy of religion

what relogion holds the hummingbird responsible for the universe?

See Aztec mythology. --Shantavira 16:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zeppelins

Why is it in TV shows or films, (and maybe books although none that I've read) if the plot is set in some kind of parrell universe, or in an alternative future, they often feature Zeppelins. From Doctor Who to Kiki's Delivery Service they often crop up! Numbercattle 16:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It may just be that Zepplins spark the human imagination. The idea of Zepplins floating on the clouds may just be appealing to the public at large, or writers in general. --AstoVidatu 16:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

They are big, slow, and menacing. People dig that. It looks cool. They are a recognizable trope. I doubt there is any deeper reason than that. --Fastfission 17:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess, it does sound right. Or maybe there's a Nazi conspiracy behind it all, yeah.. a conspiracy.. [sic] haha xD Just kidding. Numbercattle 17:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible because the writers believe they are a good idea that was never given the chance they deserve due to some major accidents and the rise of fixed wing aircraft. The environmental concerns about jet travel may make them part of our own alternative future. Discuss. MeltBanana 18:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
It also shows a form of alternate history. If I remember correctly, in "Skycaptain and the world of tomorrow", they talked about how the empire state building had originally been built with an optional zepplin docking system.Butterflyvertigo 21:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
It is also has something to do with our perception of beauty and elegance. You will notice that in many forms of fiction swords appear very often because they are beautifull. "This (lightsaber) is the weapon of a Jedi Knight. Not as clumsy or as random as a blaster, but an elegant weapon for a more civilized age.". A zeppelin is considered more beautifull and elegant than a plane by plenty of ppl.Flamarande 19:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Or perhaps it's just because they're obvious. You're presented with a scene that looks utterly familiar, but has one very obvious detail that's different, and you get the point without having to be hammered over the head with explanatory exposition. And what could be more obviously different than great big airships hanging in the sky in an otherwise familar cityscape? --Nicknack009 20:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly not going to be a Nazi conspiracy - the Nazis and airships did not actually get on very well. Hitler never set foot in one; Goering thought they were no military value and ordered the remaining airships destroyed in 1940. Hugo Eckener made broadcasts for the Zentrum Partei in 1930 specifically attacking the Nazis. Airship development did not stop in the 1940s and they have considerable value in being able to stay airborne without the use of much power. David | Talk 21:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Zeppelins are simply too slow. In wartime they are fatally vulnerable. Flamarande 19:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poverty

The main cause of long-term poverty and dependence on the welfare system is the birth of children outside marriage. Mandatory birth control, by injection, surgery or "the patch" would be a tremendous weapon against this terrible social problem. But could mandatory birth control ever happen in the USA? How could the resistance of the ACLU, the race hustlers and the whining liberals be overcome? Perhaps more importantly, would the courts rule that people have a right to have as many children as they want, even if they can't support them? DeWayne . In answer to your comments, what causes bad education, which causes dependence on welfare? Millions of children in school (they cannot be called students) have absolutely no interest in any academic subject. They want to "get out" of school as soon as possible, as if school were prison. Their backgrounds include no graduates from high school or college. Their living areas contain no books or magazines, and no one they know ever visits the library or reads for enjoyment. If they show any interest in school work, they will be beaten or killed by their peers. Thus, no education. Then, welfare. DeWayne:—The preceding unsigned comment was added by USER:66.213.33.2 • contribs)

Being poor is better than not existing. Have there not been poor people living in happiness? Have not many of the poor risen from their social class? Should we erradicate those who are impoverished, or choose to help them? AdamBiswanger1R.I.P. Steve Irwin 18:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
That's an odd way to view things, Adam. If one concludes that all sperm and ova have a right to become people, you end up with hundreds of children per couple and a population explosion that would destroy the Earth in one generation. StuRat 17:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Your basic reasoning is completly wrong. The main reason for poverty is unemployment largely due to bad education. Your reasoning is terribly flawed, I would be in favour of mandatory birth control for religious fanatics though (joke :). Flamarande 18:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC) SIGN YOUR STATEMENTS
Yes, but those aren't the root causes. The reason for the lack of available resources to invest in children is the ratio of children to adults. If you check out that stats, those countries in extreme poverty have the highest ratios and the wealthiest nations have the lowest ratios. StuRat 18:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Many countries are poor because the local govement is corrupt, incompetent, and expends its money (obtained through taxes) in weapons and needless megalomaniac constructions (aka showpiece) to show their granduer and power. Never forget to blame the Imperial West who is guilty of everything (we are guilty of plenty but not of everything :) Flamarande 19:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Boy, what a modest proposal. --Mr. Billion 18:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
If you want to answer to our critics then please do it below our statements to keep it simple. Soo now you changed your mind. The fault is in the schools who are unable to educate the kids correctly besides peer presure and bad neighbourhoods? Well, none of the things are directly linked to births outside of matrimony, these are the results of the quality of the schools and therefore of the system of education (funding and organization). I´ll assume that you are from the USA (but even if you are not it is the same problem everywhere).
Do you know that the quality of the schools depend upon funds provided by the county (or state)? A rich county with plenty of resources (read: cash) who expends a lot of money in the local schools will definitly have more success in encouraging and educating its youth, than a poor county (state) which does not expend as much due of fewer funds. This will also reflect itself upon peer pressure, as the average child in the first county will be pressured by its collagues to study and achieve better grades, which will also reflect itself later in life. This will be achieved by good teachers who want to teach there because of better paychecks and good working conditions. This will also be (hopefully) encouraged by the parents.
The child of the second county having to go to a bad school will first get worse teachers, worse school material (books, laboratories, computers , gyms, but also smaller things like chairs and desks, school cantine, security, toilets, etc). As the school will not be a nice place to be, the child will regard the school as a useless prison and a complete waste of time (as you pointed out). This will also reflect itself upon its peers and upon peer-presure and upon the neighbourhood as a whole.
Now for the solutions. I seriously advise parents to do everything possible to send their kids to the best school possible, even if it is farer away. If at all possible go live in a better county. Don't trust the system (state) with the education and the future of your children as the material is far too precious. Always encourage your children to study, but more with the carrot than with the stick. Expend time with the homework of your kids instead of watching the Super-bowl. If you don't care to help your kids don't get mad if he brings bad grades, your are also to blame. The state should expend more money and more energy to improve the schools and the whole system of education. Don't be fooled, more effort is wasted in party-politics to gain your vote by blaming the other party than in hard work. Vote for the canditate that is more CAPABLE (not nice) even he is not of "your" party (I am speaking of county elections but you can do it in all levels). Avoid politicians who promise easy solutions and blame it all upon others. If it were truly easy then the problem(s) would have been fixed allready (if only for the gain of votes for the current goverment party). As always: Nothing is as easy as it appears, I certainly know that. The world is very complicated. Flamarande 19:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Aside from all of the discussion related to the origin of the problem, I find it shocking and stunningly merciless to claim that the solution to poverty is eliminating the poor; by preventing them from reproducing, as if they are parasites that need to be squashed. Ethically speaking this is an absurd proposal, both because the a human life is valuable even with torn clothing and a poor education, and because our first reaction should be to help the poor rather than eliminate them. Dewayne addresses the ACLU as if they are an annoying pest, standing in the way of this perfectly good idea-- I'm afraid this is not the case. AdamBiswanger1R.I.P. Steve Irwin 20:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The value we give to a human life is quite variable (as the article death penalty clearly shows) and USER:66.213.33.2 is intitled to his opinion. I also disagree with him, but I prefer someone who is honest and hopefully open to debate. Better than someone who is always political correct and believes in a rightous pink rosa world (this is not a critic against Adambiswanger1, it is simply a statement of opinion). Flamarande 20:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I can assure you that I, being a philosophy major, am quite open minded, and I am not stating my belief in the value of human life as a regurgitation of common sentiment. It is a philosophically feasible and defensible viewpoint, and I stand by it. Also, as to your comment regarding the variability in the value of each human life (this is beginning to sound silly) I agree with you, but to enforce birth-control would be a prediction or guess as to the "value" of that life. AdamBiswanger1R.I.P. Steve Irwin 03:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the premise of this statement is wrong. If we were to use a birth control assessment, then there would be no poor people in China, since they impose restrictions on births. I think that it might be a better thing to educate rather than restrict.Butterflyvertigo 21:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it has more to do with society's view of education than the amount of money that is put into the education system. If there is an inherent belief that paying attention in school and doing homework is not important, then it will not be done, no matter how much money is spent. --AstoVidatu 22:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

And to argue semantics, even if your proposal was modest, the US would not be the place to enact it. Population in the US is nearly static, and in most European countries it's actually shrinking slightly naturally. It is true that especially poor countries have the greatest ratio of children to mothers and therefore the greatest population growth. So if you ever bring this lovely idea into fruition, Niger would statistically be the best place to do it. 8 kids per mother there. Not to say that it's a remotely humanitarian (or even plausible) idea. 70.108.185.102

Let me go on record as one of the few people here to more or less agree with the question poster. Having children you can't support virtually guarantees that they will live in poverty. This is a minor problem in most wealthy nations, but is the single major cause of poverty in much of the Third World. China realized this, and implemented their One Child Policy accordingly. This is a major cause of their recent prosperity, as their meager economic resources could be focused on a relatively small number of kids (4 grandparents and two parents all investing in one child). Countries which still have uncontrolled birth rates, like many in Africa, still are stuck in a cycle of poverty and going nowhere fast, however. StuRat 07:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally think we need a way to delay the onset of puberty until people have finished their education and gotten a good job, so they are then ready to raise kids. Long ago, people hit puberty maybe around 15 and died at maybe 45, on average. Now, since people live to be around 75 or so, it might make sense to delay puberty until 25. How to do this, is, of course, completely unknown. StuRat 07:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Could puberty seen as only a short period of accelerated aging? You act like controlling the age structure of a populus is easy. I think far more complications and other factors would arise and be noticed. — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)17:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I certainly think this would cause huge changes in society, but I've yet to come up with any negatives:
  • It would limit the number of abortions.
  • It would limit youth aggression, largely due to testosterone levels.
  • It would similarly limit excessive risk-taking behavior in teens, like drugs, alcohol, and crime.
  • It would reduce population growth.
  • It would reduce AIDS and other STDs.
  • It would reduce conflict between teens and parents.
  • It would eliminate teen pregnancy and all it's associated negatives, like teens dropping out of school, living in poverty, and raising their kids in poverty.
I also think that puberty now occurs earlier than nature "intended", due to our high fat diets and possibly hormones ingested with our food. StuRat 17:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I heard that long ago, the population increase was steady because so many people died before they got to reproduce. Today, in several countries there still is a tradition to give birth to many children, although better healthcare is the reason for many more surviving. It will take a few generations to adjust. =S 惑乱 分からん 11:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Ultimately, the Earth can only support a certain population. There are two possible ways to control population:
  • Birth control.
  • Death, typically of excess children from disease, starvation, or violence. Many conflicts, such as the Rwandan genocide, can be viewed as a predictable outcome of overpopulation.
Given this choice, birth control seems infinitely preferable. StuRat 18:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't have the quote in front of me, but I read a few years ago that, statistically, the most significant improvement to economic, educational and health outcomes for given populations are derived from women having total (percieved and actual) control over when and if they reproduce. In that regard, the US is backsliding. Anchoress 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that the conversation has strayed from the topic again (hehehe, no prob though). The proposal was to intruduce mandatory birth control (obviously state-controlled) to fight poverty. Let me remind you all that USER:66.213.33.2 somehow believes (believed ?) that children outside marriage was the main culprit in that problem. First of all, I hope we can all agree that the sanctity of marriage never prevented poverty anywhere. Now we can agree (or not) that fewer children in poor households will lead to better living conditions. But does anyone here seriously wants to give the state and the goverment the power to decide how many children we can have or not? They would surely never abuse of such power, right? It isn't that every state on the face of this planet has abused of its power to lie and decieve its citizens allready. Don't trust the state too much and never give them too much power.

The one child policy in China has been achieved through a great number of abortions (state-encouraged). As women are worth less (in chinese culture and plent of others also) a gender-imbalance is the result. This also happened to a lesser extent in other countries. To finish, let's give you all a horror scenario. A goverment decides to prepare itself for a war, and obviously needs cannon-fodder. Through deception they encourage its citizens to have more children until the state feels itself able to overrun its enemy. This scenario is not even very far-fetched, this policy was encouraged by some dictators like Nicolae Ceauşescu and Adolf Hitler. Never ever give them that amount of power.

If you really want to prevent overpopulation in some countries then consider facilitating condoms, the pill, etc. If you also raise the living conditions and improve the average education you will very quickly dimish the birth ratio. An educated couple with access to the pill, etc wants have a good home, to travel abroad, two cars, and two kids (three at most). This happened in the USA, Europe, and Japan. The WEST in general. Your grandparents (if you live in the West that is) had plenty of brothers and sisters, just ask around. Flamarande 19:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutly. If you agree with these two statements then give your goverment as little power as possible and only if really needed.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you are a troll, or you are unbelievably fucking clueless. When you stated "How could the resistance of the ACLU, the race hustlers and the whining liberals be overcome?" to support your thesis, you lost all credibility. It is not the ACLU, or liberals (no matter how they whine), or, um, 'race hustlers', whatever those are, that are behind the resistance to birth control.
Rather, at least in the U.S. (where I assume you are from) it is the conservative Christian right that would prefer that both birth control and sexual education not be taught to impressionable young people. The ACLU and most liberals generally believe that education trumps dogma, and in this specific case education regarding birth control will do far more to prevent pregnancy than any sort of dogma-based wishful thinking.
If you want mandatory birth control to happen in the U.S., your first course of action will be to overturn thousands of years of dogma promulgated by the Christian right, and good luck with that. Rather than go to that extreme, I suggest rational education and discussion of birth control methods and the consequences of sex would do a lot to reduce birth rates, much to the horror of the 'abstinence only' crowd.

[edit] Who painted "Visage en Rouge"?

An impressionist, a woman, who committed suicide I think, did an amazing painting called "Visage en rouge". I'm 98% certain of the title, but google can't find it and I've forgotten her name. The name is french, I think something like Mimi or Pacin or something short like that. Any ideas? Thanks... --21:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)70.253.83.75

Leonor Fini http://jenni11.myweb.uga.edu/ ? MeltBanana 23:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Martyrdom of St. Sebastian, but which one?

In the film "Mishima" about the life of writer Yukio Mishima the narrator, playing Mishima narrates a scene in which a young boy is looking through an art book and discovers this painting and is compelled to masturbate for the first time. Does anyone know which version of the painting this is? I think it's the same that inspired R.E.M.'s "Losing My Religion" video. Also, why is this painting considered homoerotic? I'm not gay, so I don't have a clue. Billy Blythe 23:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

According to our article on Sebastian it is supposed to be this painting by Guido Reni. --LambiamTalk 23:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! Billy Blythe 00:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Btw, it's considered homo-erotic because the man is near-naked, has a suggestive pose and expression, and his lower body covering is partially slid down... Would you need a further explanation? ;) 惑乱 分からん 11:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/f/Wikipedia%7EReference_desk_archive_Humanities_2006_September_24_5623.html"