Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 September 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< September 10 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 12 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk 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 on one of the current reference desk pages.


Contents

[edit] September 11

[edit] Computer Virus Attacks

Hello. Why is someone unsuccessfully attacking my computer with the same virus several times in a row each day? My anti-virus software blocks all their attacks. Thanks in advance. --Mayfare 00:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Answer #1: It is probably a virus running on a zombie computer. The virus is trying to spread itself. Don't take it personally.
Answer #2: Are talking about some sort of attempt to get through your firewall? Or does your virus scanner say you have a virus detected on the machine? If it's the former, then #1 probably applies, but if it is the latter, you probably have a virus, and your a/v software is not actually eliminating it. --72.83.173.248 00:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you take your question to the computer reference desk? Wonderful as us historians etc are at the study of computer virusesology (I am sure there is a wonderful history, legal system and philosophy etc to them) you may get a more detailed answer over there.martianlostinspace email me 10:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project Help!!!

I am a scholar at Baltimore Polytechnic Institue, and I have a world history project that is due on Dec.17,2008. My topic is on the Cuban Revolutionary War. Before i can begin to work on my project, I must answer a few questions. The only question I need help on is:How is this topic tied to the national theme which is "conflict and compromise"? It may sound really simple but when I tried to answer nothing came to my mind. I dont want the answer because that would be cheating. I just need someone to rephrase it to make it sound more understandable. Thank you. 71.166.2.154 01:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

HI, 71.166. This is an excellent topic and I will help you in any way I can. However, what you have submitted here is, in my reading, just a tad too ambigious. Which Cuban Revolutionary War do you have in mind; that of Jose Marti and others against Spain, or that of Fidel Castro against Fulgencio Batista? By 'national theme' do you mean that all students have to structure their work around the same general heading? OK, on the assumption that we are talking about Castro I would reverse the two elements, looking at the conflict as a consequence of the failure of compromise; the failure, in other words, of the forms of compromise allowed for in representative democracy. Here the important thing to look at is Batista's coup of 1952, in which he overthrew President Sacarras and cancelled the planned elections. But that is as far as I go, because I now suspect you are going to tell me that your topic is on the earlier anti-colonial war! Clio the Muse 02:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People's unwillingness to reveal their salary figure

Why do people hate it when a person ask them what's their salary or how much money they make? Oidia (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll gladly answer this question if you tell us how much you make. --Nricardo 03:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't speak for everyone in the world, but my sensibility is it is a mix of various factors. Salary is to some extent linked with worth for many people, so it's very touchy. A person may be embarrassed for themselves if they are making too little, and they may be embarrassed or uncomfortable for the questioner if they think their salary is larger than the questioner's or others within earshot. Not knowing which of these scenarios will be revealed adds a whole new layer of ambivalence. Then too, they may not be embarrassed at all, but just leery of jealousy if the questioner makes much less, or condescension if the opposite is the case. That just scratches the surface I think.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

To Nricardo, I'm a high school student and work part-time. I make about AU$4,000 a year which is about US$3,320. Oidia (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't have put it better than Fuhghettaboutit. In my strange little world, this has always been one of those questions one "simply doesn't ask" other people - others include their political preference, their religion, their sexual practices, their sexual orientation, or whether they wipe their ass from the front or the back. If they want to tell you, they'll tell you soon enough. Cultural practices determine which subjects are OK to ask about and which are off limits, and cultural practices differ from place to place and from time to time. So, as always, society is to blame. -- JackofOz 07:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The strangest behavior is when a boss flashes the figure of your rise/raise on a card, as if he were showing you a pornographic picture. Also, the word "thousand(s)" isn't spoken. $1,500, or 1.5k, becomes one fifty, which as a juvenile would be $1.50.69.201.141.45 13:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In some places, such as India, there is less of a taboo about this. I think that we in the West live in societies in which people are supposed to be equal. Revealing that one is paid much more or less than another destroys the cherished illusion of equality. In societies such as India that may be more accepting of inequality and in which people want to know their place relative to others, it may be more acceptable to discuss pay. Incidentally, the taboo on discussing salary can work to the advantage of employers. A few years back, one of my company's competitors set up shop in the same city and began hiring away staff at my company. There were offers and counteroffers. In this context, my colleagues began discretely discussing their salaries with each other. This was in most people's interest, as it allowed us to go to management and say that people at the same rank were making, say, $8,000 more per year. This enabled those with lower pay to demand raises or else look into opportunities with the competitor. By sharing information on our pay, we were able to "bid up" our salaries. It was interesting to see the effect of breaking this taboo. Marco polo 13:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It's worth noticing that this social stigma benefits employers because they can negotiate everyone's salary separately. APL 19:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have worked for companies where the contract of employment stated that it was a sackable offence to reveal one's salary to anyone. Needles to say, the pay was crap. DuncanHill 20:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.162.228.107 (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Dilbert has it right!DuncanHill 21:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
There's been the opposite effect in Australia, with the advent of Australian Workplace Agreements. Now, two people working in the same place and doing virtually the same job can be paid quite different salaries, depending on their smarts with negotiation. That's supposed to be a fair system. In places like the Commonwealth Public Service, previously everyone knew what everyone else was paid because the pay scales were set by legislation and there was no capacity to alter them. Now, it's very different, and my experience was that nobody on an AWA ever discusses their salary with anyone except their boss. -- JackofOz 21:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] attribution of well known quote

"Life is what happens to you while your busy making other plans." or "Life is what happens to you while your planning something else."

I was sure this was one of Mark Twain's gems that was borrowed and altered a little by John Lennon to fit the rhyme and meter of a song. I've tried to track this down but found no authoritative definitive attribution (complete with source) and no mention of Mark Twain in this connection. The people at the reference desk always seem to be able to do better than me.

Can you find this for me? GrahameKing 07:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it attributed to various people, including Henry Ford and John Lennon (now there's a great pairing!). Others can possibly come up with an authoritative source. -- JackofOz 07:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
(Note that you'll have a better time searching if you use the grammatically correct you're rather than the possessive your.) --72.83.173.248 11:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
John Lennon wrote it in his song Beautiful Boy (Darling Boy). -- kainaw™ 12:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to all. I do have a bad habit of putting "your" for "you're". But correcting that hasn't helped. I guess I will have to put this in the too hard basket and let good old John get the credit. GrahameKing 16:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Quick googling shows it may be uncertain, but I'd always thought it was Margaret Millar - it is mentioned in the preface to an old (1950's?) book I have by her hubby so she certainly said it, the question is was she first. More if I ever find the book.John Z 06:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Millar's quote is similar to Lennon's: "Life is something that happens to you while you're making other plans." However, there are claims that she adapted it from other people's quotes (ie: Betty Talmadge). After being sued for "Come Together", John became rather protective of his reputation and made it clear when he adapted someone else's work (as he did with "Imagine" - based on Yoko Ono's poetry). I have never seen anything where he states that he used someone else's quotation directly. -- kainaw™ 12:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gender Differences

Hi, I'm writing a piece on gender differences and need a few facts and statistics. Before I get the nolle prosequi of Gender differences - I've looked through the article and it didn't really have the info I wanted. Furthermore a google comes top lists men vs women jokes - not what I'm after. What I'm after is the extremes if you like - how do men and women compare in sport, science, arts and literature. Who has the most emmys/nobel's etc. And I'd also like, if possible, some of the "worsts" - crime, obesity, illiteracy, drug abuse, suicide. Thanks for any info and/or links! --Fir0002 10:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Be careful; facts and statistics only tell part of the story. If you look at something like Nobel prizes, or athletic achievements, you will find differences in performance between men and women - but what does that tell you about gender differences? If more men than women have won Nobel prizes for literature, does that mean men are better writers? Are men more able to devote themselves to literary careers? Or are Nobel juries biased towards men? What about athletic performance? Does the fact that the men's world record for the 100m sprint is faster than that for women mean that men are more fit? Are there inherent differences in maximum physical potential? What about crime - if men commit the worst crimes, does that mean men are inherently more violent, or is this a result of socialization or economic factors? In gender studies, determining the causes of disparate performances is the real challenge. If you want more than just a surface treatment of these issues, you will probably need to leave the Internet and dig into some more academic references and journals studying sex differences and gender studies. - Eron Talk 12:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Some of these differences are narrowing or have narrowed over time, so beware of that too. If you're considering an area of human activity that has antiquity to it (say art) the discrepancy may appear enormous because of the relative recency of women's "emancipation". Compared to, say tennis, which has a modern era of just a few decades, in which huge strides have been made. Tennis also gives you a good illustration - see The Battle of the Sexes --Dweller 13:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah maybe I should have made it clear at the start that I'm not writing a serious scientific study - we just need to do a persuasive piece for english (so we can twist facts to our hearts content :). Oh and for the record I don't think there's much in the question either, what I intend to do with my piece is to examine the strengths and then weaknesses of males and conclude with that the are equal in average (kind of like the concept here) --Fir0002 22:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I once took a Psychology of Gender class in 2002 and the professor said that pretty much the only difference that held up to rigorous testing was that males tended to masturbate more frequently. Charming I know. Vranak 19:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
With respect to those commenting on sports, I find it interesting that while on average men tend to be stronger than women and so their sports records in strength related fields tend to be better than those of women, recently as more women have been competing in extreme endurance type sports such as ironman competitions, it looks like women's records are likely to surpass men's. Crypticfirefly 04:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romania

please account for weakness of romania in time 1918 to 1940 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carol the King (talk • contribs) 12:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Strength or weakness is relative. One obvious reason for Romania's weakness was that it was one of the least economically developed regions of Europe. Therefore, it could not afford to equip its armed forces as well as more affluent nations such as Germany. Also, it could not hope to equal the strength of its much larger neighbor, the Soviet Union. Marco polo 13:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • A good article to read would be Romanian Campaign (World War I), which gives you a feel for just how devastated the Romanian people and infrastructure were after WWI. --M@rēino 13:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a fairly common misconception that the Peace settlements of 1918-19 saw the end of the polyglot empires and the rise of the nation state. It would be truer to say that in place of a few large empires came several smaller ones, each with their own minority problems. Romania more than doubled the size of its territory at the end of the Great War, but in the process acquired minorities that made up close on 30% of its total population: Hungarians and Germans in Transylvania; Ukranians and Russians in Bukovina and Bessarabia. Romania, like Czechoslovakia and Poland, exposed the weakness and contradictions of the whole Versailles process. The country was weak because the peace settlement was weak. For so long as Germany, Hungary and Russia remained quiescent, and for so long as forms of international security and alliances, like the Little Entente, remained in place, and only for that long, the country could contain its internal problems. The illusion was shattered in 1938 with the Munich Agreement and in 1939 by the Nazi-Soviet Pact.

Beyond the problem of security, there were other factors contributing to Romanian weakness. Its territorial expansion belied deep internal problems; rich in some ways, disastrously poor in others. In 1930 some 80% of the population lived in villages, poorly served by the transport and communications network. Infant mortality, moreover, was the highest in the whole of eastern Europe. Land reform proved elusive and the political system was dominated by corruption and patronage. The onset of the Great Depression deepened these underlying problems, giving rise to new waves of xenophobia, particularly acute in the anti-semitism of the Iron Guard. Oil, the one asset that the country possessed in great quantities, was, paradoxically, the source of even deeper problems, because it caught the eye of Hitler and a resurgent Germany.

By 1940 the circle was complete: collective security and French guarantees were gone. Romania now had a choice between surrendering to Hitler or surrendering to Stalin. Stripped of terrritory by Hungary and the Soviet Union, in 1940 German troops were allowed passage to the oil fields of Ploesti, as the country was tied in to an aggressive Axis war machine. Clio the Muse 03:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explaining Average Annual Growth Rate and Percentage Change

I have to present budget trend numbers and I need to find a simple way to explain the difference between the Average Annual Growth Rate of the budget across 12 years and the Percentage Change of the budget across the same timeframe to decision makers who don't understand complexity. Can you give me simple definitions of the two concepts? 207.225.131.10 13:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstand your question, the difference is easy to explain. The percentage change over 12 years is the difference between the last budget total and the first budget total (of 12 years ago), as a percentage of the first budget total. The average annual growth rate in the budget is simply the average of the percentage changes from year to year during that period. Marco polo 13:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
There are several notions of average, the most common of which is the arithmetic mean, which however may not be the most appropriate choice here. For example, consider two budgets each growing over two years:
  1. start of year 0: 10K, year 1: 20K, year 2: 100K;
  2. start of year 0: 10K, year 1: 34K, year 2: 119K.
Then budget 1 grew by 100% over the first year and 400% over the second year, giving an arithmetic mean for the average annual growth of 250%. Budget 2 grew by 240% over the first year and 250% over the second year, giving a smaller arithmetic mean, namely 245%. Yet the actual growth of budget 2 was more. It may be better to use the geometric mean of the ratios, which (converted to a percentage) is the same as the constant annual growth (constant percentage) that would have resulted in the same percentage change over the total time period. For budget 1 that is about 216%, for budget 245%.  --Lambiam 14:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You might try to explain it to them in terms of the stock market, which most people like to think that they understand. If you're doing well, you can get 10% average annual growth on your stock portfolio. After 12 years, all those 10% gains multiply up nicely (not add up! tap 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1... into your calculator), and your portfolio is 3.1 times larger. If you've only been getting 8% average annual growth (1.08 x 1.08 x 1.08 ...), then after 12 years your portfolio is only 2.5 times larger. --M@rēino 13:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Annual growth rate is

AGR = (T[n+1]-T[n])/T[n] annual growth rate for year n

Percentage change is

PC = (T[last]-T[first])/T[first] * 100%

202.168.50.40 00:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the population of Southern Asia, and the population density?

I would like to know what the population and population density of Southern Asia? I need to know for school. I have serched and could not find the answer. I need to know asap so I can get my work done. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.46.12 (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This depends on how your class defines Southern Asia. South Asia typically includes the following countries: Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Sri Lanka. Afghanistan is also often included. Conceivably, "southern Asia" could include still more countries. What you need to do is go to the article for each country in the region as it is defined in your class. You can click on the countries I have listed above to get to their articles. If you need more countries, you can find them using the search box at the left side of the screen. For each country in the region, write down its population and its area. Then add up all of the populations and all of the areas. You now have the population of the whole region. To find the population density, divide the population of the region by the area of the region. This will give you the population per square kilometre (or per square mile). Marco polo 17:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a good source to check as well. Although you cannot define the countries you want all at once, you can get numbers specifically for a region called 'South Asia.' Just click on Data (left nav bar) and then select South Asia from the dropdown. Good luck. World Bank Stats -BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.8.221 (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The World Bank defines South Asia as the countries that I have listed above, including Afghanistan. You can use their website to get population and area totals for South Asia. If your class's definition of "Southern Asia" includes countries that I haven't listed, then you will need to add the population and area numbers for those countries to the totals for South Asia. Marco polo 19:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rochester, MN 2007 Population

What is the Population of Rochester, MN for the year 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.7 (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Only estimates can be given until after the results of the 2010 census, which will be reported in 2012. Corvus cornix 03:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] folded cloth

I heard on BBN that if a cloth was walded up and placed on the table it meant the serveant could clean or take the items from the table. If the cloth was folded and placed on the table it meant that the men were not though with the meal and would return thus the serveant not removing anything.So in 1John 20 verse 4 it says the cloth that was around jesus head was folded up and place in the same area where his head would of been.Is this ture and where can one find or read about in the bible.It meant jesus was returning from the dead and the cloth was in the tomb of jesus and where he was layed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.167 (talk • contribs)

It Ain't Necessarily So.--Shantavira|feed me 08:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Was service at the Last Supper à la russe or à la française? When they sat down, were the napkins folded in a bishop's mitre and standing up on the cover plates? One always wants to know these things... --Wetman 06:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what does Koninia mean other then to be together or love one another.

I believe the word you have in mind is Koinonia ( Κοινωνία ). -- AnonMoos 20:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DOES ONE HAVE TO BE BAPTISE IN ORDER TO GO TO HEAVEN.lIKE TO KNOW YOUR TAKE ON THIS QUESTION.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.167 (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot give advice regarding the state of your immortal soul. Please contact a licensed religious professional. - Eron Talk 20:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you read the article on Baptism yet? That may give you a starting point. ◄Zahakiel► 20:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Luckily "Heaven" doesn't exist so don't worry about Baptism. Being worm food is equal opportunity. Beekone 21:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
There is as much evidence that God/Heaven doesn't exist as there is that it does. A.Z. 05:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Not true, A.Z. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. -- JackofOz 05:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hold on, mate. You don't have to believe in these things, but a lot of people do. Heaven did not cease to exist for them on the day you became an atheist. -- JackofOz 21:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with the first guy. Don't put your immortal soul in the hands of anonymous wikipedia enthusiasts. Go to a more authoritative source: God, the Bible, a preacher, something. Wrad 21:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Jewish people generally discount the need for baptism. Edison 23:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The questioner is obviously asking from a non-atheistic, baptism-compliant viewpoint... if we're going to actually try to "help" on this reference desk, rather than just speaking to hear our own typing, it might be good to answer in the spirit with which the question was actually asked. If a question comes in about Wiccan beliefs and practices, we should answer in that setting. Same goes for Islam, Judaism, Agnosticism, etc. etc. ◄Zahakiel► 23:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't sweat it either way. If you don't get around to being baptized this time around, the Mormons will do it on your behalf once you expire. Eat, drink and be merry.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Clarification here, though I realize it might have been a joke. Mormon baptisms for the dead are dependent on the readiness of the person they are being baptized for. So, technically, "Eat, drink, and be merry" does not apply in that case. One would have to prepare for and accept the ordinance, just as with a living baptism. Wrad 23:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
As well as reading the baptism article linked to earlier, you might want to read the articles on salvation, heaven and the afterlife. Skittle 23:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My initial response was flippant, I agree, but in spirit I was quite serious: we can't answer this question. The existence of Heaven, the efficacy or necessity of baptism - these are all questions of faith that are not susceptible to our analysis. And debates over the "correct" answer to questions such as these have probably led to more bloodshed than any others. We can answer a question regarding the attendees of the Council of Trent, or the tenets of Stoicism. We can even explain the particular views on baptism held by various religions. But we can't answer the original question; all we can give are opinions. - Eron Talk 00:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is precisely what the user asked for... our opinions. In any event, those who gave serious answers did just the right thing, linking the questioner to articles already written that can give some fairly NPOV answers, unless those articles had the misfortune of being vandalized recently. ◄Zahakiel► 04:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
My take is no. A.Z. 05:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
First up, I can't understand how Zahakiel knows the questioner comes from the background she assumes. Second up, the questioner is asking for our take on the question of the existence of a heaven and the need for baptism to attain entry to aforementioned 'location'. This seems to me to open the book to a wide range of opinions. Maybe the questioner has been raised in a strict environment which has not previously permitted her/him a comprehensive view of the religious world and all its options and is now looking over the parapet to check out the 'real' situation.
I think I recall from somewhere that God, in the Christian sense, ultimately forgives everyone, this being the case I can't quite see the value of baptism as a means to reserving a place in the paradise of the hereafter.
I am an atheist. So my answer is no. Richard Avery 10:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I am male, so there seem to be assumptions going on on several sides here. I should like to point out, however, that there are such things as educated assumptions. In other words, from the very wording of the question, we can gather a lot of information without having to ask explicitly. Your statement was, "I can't understand how Zahakiel knows the questioner comes from the background [s]he assumes." I didn't assume any particular background for the individual, only what the question he or she asked was intending to get at. Let's look at the question itself: "DOES ONE HAVE TO BE BAPTISE IN ORDER TO GO TO HEAVEN." It seems to me a reasonable assumption that the user believes there IS a Heaven to which one might go, otherwise why ask? At the risk of over analyzation, my reading of the question was the obvious one. A Jewish person, or one asking from a Jewish perspective, would not even think to ask that question. One who was entirely unfamiliar with the Christian belief system wouldn't have it occur either, so yes, we can tell basically what the most likely angle is from which to approach helping the individual here. If we've somehow misread the question, the user can re-post and correct us, that's fine... but it's still no excuse for soapboxing or saying, "Well, I'm a this-or-that, so I don't even think the question is valid," or some such polemic. You yourself have given a perfectly valid take on the matter, by the way.
It bears mentioning, also, that I am not singling out any particular post in my above statements. It just seems to me that we should keep our focus tightly on what we're actually at the reference desk to do. ◄Zahakiel► 15:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well in the hypothetical case that the questioner is asking from a Baptist perspective, the answer is no. Acts 16:31: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.", which I think is fairly unambiguous. It doesn't say "Believe and be baptisted...". Whilst baptism is something Christians are commanded to do, failure to do so does not, in itself, mean you don't get to Heaven.martianlostinspace email me 10:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC) See also Eron's link Baptism#Comparative_summary also.martianlostinspace email me 10:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My take is that those who write in capitals have no chance of going to Heaven. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The questioner absolutely does not restrict the question to a particular Christian sect or even to Christianity, The article Heaven will provide an overview of the views on various Christian and non-Christian movements.In the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican (Episcopal) and Methodist churches, baptism is considered to have supernatural power and to effect a miraculous change [2]. In some other Christian churches it is symbolic. The Heaven article says "The Catholic Church teaches that only those baptized by water (symbol of purification/internal cleansing), blood (symbol of martyrdom), or desire (explicit or implicit desire for purification) may enter heaven and those who have died in a state of grace may enter." Catholic and other historically related churches by logical necessity allowed for the entry to heaven of the good people of the Old Testament, who did not receive the rite of baptism introduced in the New Testament. Modern Christian movements have sometimes claimed that unbaptized people could enter heaven, such as babies who died without baptism and with no sin other than Original sin. In many Christian traditions baptism was done to infants; in others, it was a choice made by an adult, and it has seemed illogical that a loving God would create a church in which a faithful young adult, not yet baptized, would have no hope of heaven if they fell to violence, accident or disease. Some Christian writers of the 1600's (one of the Mathers, I believe) would have unbaptized babies writhing forever in the hottest pit of hell because of original sin, on the grounds that their suffereing for no fault of their own was the other side of the coin of the eternal unearned bliss they would have enjoyed if Adam had not sinned. Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) famous hellfire and brimstone sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God " has a great likelihood of hell and a difficult path to heaven. Another Christian Protestant church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, says "For ELCA Lutherans, the resurrection that completes the victory of Christ over sin and death is not intended for Christians alone" [3]and thus baptism would not seem to be required for entry to heaven. U.S Southern Baptists "consider Christian baptism to be an ordinance for believers only, by immersion only, and as a symbolic act, not having any power in itself." [4] so that it should not be a strict requirement for admission to heaven. A Presbyterian church says "For Presbyterians, Baptism is an initiation into the church community, as ordered by Christ. It is a public confession, not a private one, of faith made in the presence of others and does not guarantee access to heaven. Un-baptized people are not denied salvation."[5]. There you have statements about Roman Catholic and 3 Protestant bodies. Edison 16:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's correct... and all from the Christian tradition, so while it is true that the questioner does not restrict the answers to the Christian view, it is obvious (as I mentioned above) that this is the most likely angle being sought, and your reply properly reflects that understanding. Buddhism and Hinduism (for example) do have concepts of Heaven, but they are not connected to a baptism-ritual in any way resembling the Christian view. So you do have to look at the entire statement to see what is being asked. ◄Zahakiel► 17:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in the question, it was in the hypothetical case. In a question with such an enormous range of opinionated answers, you can't assume anything.martianlostinspace email me 22:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell knows? If you're too worried about it go for a Pascal's wager type of reasoning. I assume the service is free (probably incorrectly); quick splash of water and you got it covered just in case. If my advice helps put in a good word when you get up there will ya? 38.112.225.84 17:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beethoven/Public Domain

Is Beethoven's music in the public domain. If so, when did it become public domain. If not, will it ever and when? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidm617617 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is in the PD. bibliomaniac15 15 years of trouble and general madness 21:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
However, specific performances and recordings of his music often aren't. --Carnildo 21:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1898

What was the political impact of the Spanish defeat?Rodrigo II 20:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, see William Graham Sumner's essay "The Conquest of America by Spain", lamenting the end of healthy neutrality. —Tamfang 22:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

For the United States the impact of the 'splendid little war' was quite clear: it joined the club of imperial nations. For the people of the Philippines and Cuba, directly or indirectly, it had simply substituted one colonial power for another; or as Jose Marti put it "To change masters is not to be free". But the greatest impact of all was on Spain itself.

For the Spanish the final loss of what reamained of their once huge overseas empire brought on a deep mood of national introspection. It was El Disastre, a 'time of lies and infamy', so said Antonio Machado, one of the Generation of 98. Over 60,000 men had died in the conflict, mostly of disease; and as the troops arrived home one weekly newspaper declared that "...they bring us something more terrible than the plague, anamemia, dysentery or tuberculosis. They bring with them the truth." Some retreated into what was called 'Regenerationism', which on the one had called for a new emphasis on old Spanish 'values', of home, of church and of fatherland, while on the other denouncing the perceived moral and 'racial' failures of the Spaniards. The whole tendency was condemned by Miguel de Unamuno, amongst others, as 'morbid and masochistic.' But there were positive solutions put forward in answer to the 'problem of Spain', solutions that looked towards reshaping attitudes and institutions. Ortega y Gasset declared that Spain "Should create, not just absorb from abroad."

I suppose in the end the real problem comes down to one simple fact: Spain became an Empire before it became a Nation. The final loss of the Empire began a new quest for the Nation, an exploration of political and cultural identity. But there were huge problems, gaps in the political fabric too wide to be mended. Unamuno predicted "With the empire lost and confined within our own home, we will soon have to confront two social problems that would will absorb all of the rest: that posed by the working-class movement and that posed by the regionalist movement." The regionalist movement became pronounced in Catalonia, the most economically advanced part of the country, forward-looking and optimistic; a place that began to think of itself as 'the nation' and of Spain merely as 'the state'. But the state, and the the monarchy remained tied to worn-out dreams. Having learned little or nothing from the disasters of '98, Spain joined France in a colonial campaign in Morocco, whose long-term consequences were to be equally bad. It deepend the fissures within Spanish society, increasing working-class hostility towards the army, with bloody consequences in the Tragic Week of 1909. Just over the horizon of history an even greater tragedy was beginning to take shape. Clio the Muse 02:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

One could say the impact on the world was eventually greatest (for good or bad I won't dare say). Every superpower will crumble after a few hundred years or so, and Spain's time was up, one might argue. The bigger issue was which power was going to take over. Given that the US was already in a serious expansion mood - they had gained their independence, 'conquered' the southern states (not really the right word) and 'won' the west (or lost, from a Spanish point of view) in a very short period of time (a century being rather short for such a huge amount of land). So now I actually wonder why they stopped there. They took Cuba and the Philippines, but why not Mexico? That would have been a logical continuation of the western conquests - especially when Spain crumbled. Or Canada? I believe they tried that, but failed. Instead they bought Alaska and Hawaii (for a nickle and a dime), which made strategical sense, I suppose. DirkvdM 19:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The British Empire was still strong at the time, so going after Canada was not an option. --Carnildo 23:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
They did try, though, in the American war of 1812, so they seemed to think it was an option. After all, they had already won their independence war against Great Britain, so the idea wasn't too strange. And then a century later they took on Spain and won. So some sensations of megalomania would seem appropriate (if that is linguistically possible :) ). DirkvdM 18:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Note, by the way, Articles of Confederation XI: Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States. —Tamfang 05:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Ann Hargreaves Murder

I'm looking for information on the full story of the murders committed by a Joseph Lawrence and the victims, and the court outcome of the trial of his own murderer, Billy Hargreaves, who was the father of Joseph's most well-known victim, Jessica Ann Hargreaves. I've searched Wikipedia, The Court TV Crime Library, and countless other sites, but found minimal information on Jessica's murder and none whatsoever on the other murders committed by Joseph Lawrence, and the murder of Joseph himself is only mentioned in a single sentence along the lines of "Joseph Lawrence was murdered by the father of Jessica Hargreaves." I want to know more than just how many were killed or the alledged hauntings of the Wheatsheaf pub where Jessica was killed, I want to know who else fell victim, how, why, and other such key facts that are needed for me know the full story. can you help?

~A Curious Individual

--71.88.110.162 20:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It may help us to help you if you could say when and where this happened. DuncanHill 21:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
In England, Jessica was murdered at the wheatsheaf pub. sometime in the early 1900's.

--71.88.110.162 22:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wheatsheaf is a very common pub name in England, do you know which village, town or county? DuncanHill 22:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have found this website, which says the murder took place in 1908, and that the Wheatsheaf is in West Boldon. DuncanHill 22:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest contacting local newspapers from the area (West Boldon is in Tyne & Wear, but was formerly in County Durham), as they may have archive material on the case. The public library service in the area may also have information. DuncanHill 23:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I live in the U.S. and became interested after seeing a short article on the alleged hauntings, so, I wouldn't know any of the local paper names, or anyone with remotely helpful knowledge...

--71.88.110.162 23:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The library service is run by South Tyneside Council, and their webpage is here [6]. I feel sure that if you were to contact the library then someone would be able to at least give you some better pointers to help you in your research - librarians tend to enjoy a bit of historical detective work! DuncanHill 23:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
ok, i'll try that. thanks for the help!

--71.88.110.162 23:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

South Shields Museum may also be a good place to ask, you can find them here [7]. DuncanHill 23:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can't find something

I've never done this, anyways, I can't seem to find anything upon the subect of Pacific Islands Clothing. Is there anything On this? I can't find anything!75.143.216.241 21:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be an article on such clothing in general, but you can look at the pages listed in Category:Polynesian Clothing for specific items, like Muumuu or Lava-lava. - Eron Talk 21:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palmyra and Rome

What impact did Palmyra have on ancient Rome? Gothicus 22:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it had an impact far beyond the confines of Rome, Gothicus; and next time you celebrate Christmas Day, if you do celebrate Christmas Day, you might care to give passing thanks to Palmyra and Queen Zenobia!
A rich trading centre, Palmyra was also vital to the defence of Rome's eastern provinces, especially after Ardashir created a new Persian Empire on the ruins of the Parthians. It was Prince Odenathus of Palmyra who drove back the Persian invasion of 262AD, for which he received the title of of totius Orientis imperator from the grateful Gallienus in Rome. But Zenobia, his wife and successor, was altogether more ambitious. Mindful of the decline of Roman power, she constructed the Palmyrene Empire, an echo of that of an earlier Arab queen, Semiramis. Palmyra under Queen Zenobia was the centre of many cults and religions; but standing above all was Sol Invictus-the Unconquered Sun. This cult had previously come to Rome in the form of Elagabalus Sol Invictus. It was discredited, to some degree, by association with the decadent Emperor Heliogabalus, though it never entirely went away. After Aurelian defeated Zenobia he built a huge temple to Sol Invictus on his return to Rome, a celebration both of his triumph and a way of harnessing the power of this supreme God. It was the first serious attempt to create a unifying religion for the whole Empire, a way of binding the fragments together after the prolonged Crisis of the Third Century. Aurelian was god on earth and the Sun was god in heaven. In 274AD the Emperor declared that the annual festival of Sol Invictus would fall on the winter solstice-25 December. And it was thus that Christmas came on a star, from the east and in the company of a Queen! Clio the Muse 00:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
See also Palmyra. If you have Gibbon's Roman Empire, he deals with Palmyra at the time of Zenobia and Aurelian in his Chapter on the reigns of Claudius Gothicus and Aurelian and refers us in a footnote to Edmund Halley in Philosophical Transactions, meaning Some Account of the Ancient State of the City of Palmyra, with Short Remarks upon the Inscriptions Found there (Philosophical Transactions, Vol. 19 (1695-1697), pp. 160-175). Clio gives us signs of knowing even later works, too. Xn4 01:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)