Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 September 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< September 29 << Aug | September | Oct >> October 1 >
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 30

[edit] Ayn Rand

Wikipedia's article on Ayn Rand states:

Objectivism states that by the method of reason man can gain knowledge (identification of the facts of reality) and rejects philosophical skepticism. Objectivism also rejects faith and "feeling" as means of attaining knowledge.

Is it just me or this is blatantly contradictory? What could the belief that man can gain knowledge be besides faith? A.Z. 04:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "man" (specifically A.R.) succeeded in gaining knowledge of the fact that man can gain knowledge of the facts of reality by employing a process of emotionless ratiocination.  --Lambiam 04:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for answering my question. I hadn't realized that this belief could be knowledge itself. It could also have been gained by other methods, such as revelation, though this doesn't apply to Ayn Rand, who claims have obtained this knowledge through a rational process, whatever that means. Correction: the article I was referring to is actually Objectivism (Ayn Rand).A.Z. 04:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Did Ayn Rand ever explain how one can gain the knowledge that people can gain knowledge? I would be interested in trying that. Is it too hard? A.Z. 04:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm also curious as to whether Ayn Rand had previous knowledge of the fact that man could gain knowledge of the fact that man could gain knowledge, or it was just a gut feeling, or perhaps faith, or chance, or destiny, that led her to engage in the rational process that led her to this knowledge. A.Z. 04:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
As Descartes said: "I think – therefore I exist". (As an aside, he might as well have said: "I wonder whether I exist – therefore I exist".) This is an example of deducing a fact (the thinker's existence) by the method of reason. I'm not sure how the same thinker could reach the conclusion that anything non-I exists by the method of reason, but that is another issue.
One could speculate what led Ayn Rand to her specific conclusions, but I'm afraid this would hardly rise above the level of idle speculation.  --Lambiam 05:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Another interesting (but equally speculative) question is how she tested her assertion.SaundersW 11:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jabez Balfour and Argentina

i would like to know more about this man and his time in Argentina. TheLostPrince 05:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Jabez Spencer Balfour was arguably one of the greatest frauds and hypocrites in all of English history; and that is really saying something! The creater of the Liberator Building Society in Croydon, he was elected as the Liberal MP for Tamworth in 1880 on a temperance platform. Three years later he became mayor of Croydon, also serving on the board of some seventeen separate companies. By the end of the decade Balfour, now MP for Burnley, had established such a position in the Liberal movement that he was even tipped for a post in the cabinet. The problem-apart from his fondness for alcohol-was that he indulged in some highly creative financing, vastly overestimating the assets of the Liberator, at a time when building societies were still imperfectly controlled. His manipulation of the figures worked for as long as the economy was buoyant; in the depression of the early 1890s it began to sink. In 1892 all seventeen of Balfour's companies collapsed. Facing the prospect of action for fraud, he disappeared, later turning up in Argentina, a country where no extradition agreement with Britain was in force.
Feraing that the British authorities in Argentina might kidnap him and take him to Uruguay-where an extradition treaty was in place-Balfour left his home in Buenos Aires for the more remote city of Salta, where he became a partner in the local brewery, an irony no lost on the Express and Advertiser in Burnley. His presence in Salta, despite his notoriety, was not unwelcome because of the wealth he brought with him. El Pueblo, the local newspaper, predicted that he would make the city famous.
In the meantime British officials were attempting to speed up the ratification of an extradition treaty with the Argentine government. When President Pena finally agreed that a warrant could be issued for Balfour's arrest, Ronald Bridgett, the British consul in Buenos Aires, was sent to Salta to execute the order. But if the Argentine government was prepared to co-operate the provincial authorities in Salta were not, placing all sorts of obstacles in Bridgett's way. It was only in April 1895, and after an abortive rescue attempt, that Balfour was finally extradited. In his subsequent trial at the Old Bailey he was sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment on several counts of fraud.
If you wish to take this further, LostPrince, and to explore a little more deeply the whole course of Anglo-Argentine realations at the time, I would suggest having a look at H. S. Fern's Britain and Argentina in the Nineteenth Century. Clio the Muse 00:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Brava, Doctor Clio. Corvus cornix 16:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, ever so! Clio the Muse 01:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unionist in the Confederacy

Who can tell me about Cyrena Stone and her experiences in the wartime Confederacy? There does not seen to be a Wikipedia page about her. He who must be obeyed 07:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of her and had to look her up. There's a useful book review in the Journal of American History, December 2000. Cyrena Bailey Stone was originally from Vermont. In 1854, she moved to Atlanta with her Southern husband, Amherst Stone, who was an attorney, and they were part of Atlanta society. During the American Civil War, Cyrena's brother-in-law Chester Stone fought for the Confederacy, but her husband Amherst got out of Atlanta, leaving Cyrena in their house there. She joined and was one of the leaders of a Unionist underground movement which spied for the Union and aimed to help its prisoners of war. Cyrena was arrested as a suspected spy, but she wasn't charged. Ironically, her house in Atlanta was destroyed by Union shells during the fighting for Atlanta in September, 1864. After the city's surrender, she stood on a street corner for several hours waving a Union flag for Sherman's troops. Then, in November, for the purposes of his March to the Sea, Sherman decided to leave Atlanta without a garrison, and before his army left on 15 November Cyrena got out, understandably anxious about what might happen to her without Sherman's protection. She left a diary which is an important source for Thomas G. Dyer's Secret Yankees: The Union Circle in Confederate Atlanta (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999) and is included as an appendix to it. (The book was originally planned as the publication of the diary, but it grew into a wider study.) Cyrena's half-sister Louisa Bailey Whitney wrote a novel about her called Goldie's Inheritance: A Story of the Siege of Atlanta (1903). Xn4 23:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I can add one or two additional points to Xn4's summary here. Cyrena was one of the guiding figures if the little pro-Union circle in Atlanta. Among her possessions she kept a small Stars and Stripes, hidden from place to place, and brought out when Union sympathisers came to call. Her loyalties were known, and she was kept under more or less constant observation by the Confederate authorities. Several attempts were made to trap her into acts of sedition. Her diary records her efforts and those of her fellow Unionists to maintain an optimistic outlook on the progress of the war in the face of Confederate propaganda. She was perceptive enough to see through government anouncements, giving accounts of victory after victory for the South, which only seemed to locate the Confederate army even deeper into the home territory. On this she notes, "The vandals were mowed down without number. No loss on our side. One man killed and three men slightly wounded...History will probably show the truthfullness of these so-called 'official reports'"
She also makes note that the closer Sherman drew to the city, the more friendly people became to the known supporters of the Union. One of her friends was told by a Confederate woman "I know you can protect me when the Yankees come." Towards the end of May 1864 Cyrena heard the northern artillery for the first time-"The sound wakened the wildest joy I have evern known...the first notes of our redemption anthem." Large numbers of slaves were impressed to shore up the city's defencess. Some escaped rather than do this work, four of whom were hidden for a time in her house. Living through the worst of the Battle for Arlanta, she finally met up with a cousin from Vermont, a Union officer, who sought her out in the ruins of the city. She had, she told him, "endured all for rightousness sake." And who can say better than that! Clio the Muse 00:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The original crucification cross

What was the WOOD type used to make the cross that Jesus was crucified on?11:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)11:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)~~Leigh

This article states that it might have been dogwood. GreatManTheory 12:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
More precisely, the article states that there exists a fable that proclaims that the cross was constructed of dogwood. The fact is that we don't know.  --Lambiam 16:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Change the question around. If you were a Roman what timber would you specify for a crucifixion cross ? The upright would need to be straight and solid as it would be out in the elements and need to take a weight. The cross piece that criminals were attached to had to be carried to and from the site so could have been a different lighter or cheaper wood. I leave the question open for others to complete. Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.166.234 (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a mass of legend. In the fourth century, St Helena believed she had recovered the True Cross, and dozens of churches venerate relics said to be fragments of it. Jacopo de Voragine's Golden Legend (c. 1260) states that the Cross was made from a tree grown from a seed of the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden. Piero della Francesca's History of the True Cross depicts the Cross in that light. Xn4 22:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Given the number of pieces of the True Cross in existence, it ought to be possible to identify the species. </tongue in cheek> —Tamfang 01:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Given the number of pieces of the True Cross in existence, it was probably an entire forest. Corvus cornix 16:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Oddly, no. Someone identified all the claimed relics of the True Cross of any size, reckoned in a figure for the number of other small pieces and then a figure for their average size (most of them are tiny) and found the total came to less than one Cross. I'm sorry I can't remember where I read about this, but it sounded like a respectable piece of work. No doubt with modern dendro-technology it would be possible to fix the date of some of the pieces and see whether they are consistent with each other... If you remember all the trouble there was with the Turin Shroud, it seems rather unlikely that anyone with a relic of the True Cross would subject it to that. Also, where would it leave us? Most of the relics may well come from the timbers recovered by St Helena, and if so they'll be of about the right age and origin. Xn4 20:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I can prove that doubt exists

I can prove that doubt exists... Here goes

I doubt that doubt exists.
Therefore doubt exists.

220.239.107.201 11:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

So is there a question that goes along with that? Dismas|(talk) 12:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it.martianlostinspace email me 12:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you doubt that doubt exists? 81.240.113.172 16:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that 220 has seen our article on self-reference. -- JackofOz 21:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure? I mean, are you sure you doubt that? DirkvdM 07:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
What about
I'm certain that certainty exists.
Therefore certainty exists.
That's even more lame. DirkvdM 07:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration in the Netherlands

Many nations occupied by the Nazis like to focus on resistance, ignoring collaboration. France and Poland spring to mind, though I think collaboration far greater in the first case than the second. I have a particular interest in the history of collaboration in the Netherlands, and would be pleased to have any pointers. Many thanks. Egmont 11:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A lot about this has been written, but most of it is (obviously) in Dutch. A few examples: "Een leven lang gezwegen. Getuigenissen van voormalige NSB'ers en hun familie" by Alie Noorlag; "Voor volk en vaderland. Vrouwen in de NSB 1931-1948" by Zonneke Matthée; "Fout geboren. Het verhaal van kinderen van foute ouders" by Bas Kromhout; and "Potgieterlaan 7" by Sytze van der Zee. An organisation known as "Makaske Historische Producties" has made a bibliography of the National Socialist Movement in the Netherlands. AecisBrievenbus 11:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You might also be interested in Category:Dutch Nazi collaborators and History of the Netherlands (1939-1945), specifically the paragraph History of the Netherlands (1939-1945)#Collaboration. AecisBrievenbus 12:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Contact the Centre for the Study of Dutch Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem via their e-mail address, dutchjew@cc.huji.ac.il (You might try the website's new address, though it isn't functioning at present.) -- Deborahjay 15:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You might also wanna try the Dutch Institute for War Documentation in Amsterdam. Two books I should have mentioned above are "Ondergang. De vervolging en verdelging van het Nederlandse Jodendom 1940-1945." by Jacques Presser, which focuses mainly on the fate of Dutch Jews, and "Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog" by Loe de Jong. One warning: with 14 17 parts, the latter may take some time before you've read it. AecisBrievenbus 16:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting area, Egmont, which raises some uncomfortable truths. The process of collaboration between the the Netherlands and Nazi Germany actually predates the occupation of 1940; and I am thinking here specifically of joint action taken against refugees, some Jewish and others simply political dissidents. Co-operation against what was officially described as 'Marxist and Jewish elements' began as early as 1935 at the time of the plebiscite in the Saarland, which decided in favour of union with Germany, causing many to seek refuge in the Netherlands. Three days after the vote, Baron von Harinxma thoe Slooten, the attorney-general in Amsterdam, wrote to the Minister of Justice, on the instigation of the Gestapo, in the following chilling terms;

In my opinion the establishment of concentration camps where all undesirable communist elements could be sheltered who, in spite of the actions already taken by Your Excellency, will yet enter the Netherlands from the Saar and who are highly dangerous, not only with regard to internal peace but also because if less pleasant complications abroad, seems inescapably necessary.

A fort south of Utrecht was then fitted up for the purpose. The point of this is that some of those in authority saw Hitler as a positive asset in the struggle against 'subversion'. K. H. Broekhoff, the police commissioner in Amsterdam, even reported to the Gestapo in person that the Dutch Ministry of Defence would co-operate against 'Communist and Marxist machinations." Information was passed to Berlin on over two hundred German refugees living in Holland, all of whom were subsequently arrested by the Sicherheitsdienst. Pro-German and pro-Nazi sympathies of much of the Dutch elite was especially evident in the marriage of Princess Juliana to Prince Berhard in 1937. This attitude was later confirmed by the diplomat, Wolfgang zu Putlitz, who later wrote;

In England I had never come across officials in leading agencies who expressed their sympathy for the new Germanism as enthusiastically as in the Netherlands. The National Socialists of Anton Mussert had supporters in almost all ministries and even among the royal household. There were chiefs of police who, summarily...deported German emigrants at any time of day or night, and handed them over to the Gestapo...I have never heard that the Dutch government asked for a single document concerning such arbitrary acts, which were known to us by the dozen.

During the First World War it is estimated that as many as a million Belgians found a refuge in Holland. When Kristallnacht came in November 1938, fearful of 'complications abroad', no official support was offered to Jewish refugees. Even Dutch Jews who offered private assistance often found obstacles in their path. In all, up to the eve of the Second World War, only some 7000 people were allowed to cross the frontier. Most were sent back as 'undesirable aliens.'

In the end this 'positive attitude', this particular variety, it might be said, of Dutch appeasement, did not stop the country from being yet another victim of Nazi aggression. Collaboration proceeded thereafter on a number of levels, not least in ecomomic terms. There was little in the way of disruption in trade between the two countries; and by 1943 the Dutch were fulfilling almost 85% of German orders, a far higher rate than the Vichy regime in France. After the war of over 32,000 cases of reported economic collaboration most were ignored. In the end only some 500 or so appeared before the courts set up for the purpose.

But by far the worst example of collaboration-and, I am sorry; I know this is uncomfortable- came with the Holocaust, which the post-war celebration of Anne Frank only serves to disguise. The Dutch civil service participated actively in the deportation of Jewish people, as did the Dutch police. It was Dutch security officers who supervised Westerbork and Dutch railwaymen who took people to the east. In September 1942 Hans Rauter, in charge of SS and police in the Netherlands, wrote to Himmler on the expulsion of the Jews, "The new...Dutch police do an excellent job in the Jewish question and arrest the Jews by the hundreds day and night. In doing so the only risk that occurs is the fact that in places some policemen step out of line and enrich themselves out of Jewish property." Himmler noted 'very good' on this report. It gets worse. In 1945, after liberation, German Jews, previously granted asylum in the Netherlands, were detained on returning from Belsen as 'enemy aliens'.

Dutch resistance, such as it was, and courageous as it was, in no way compensated for the sheer magnitude of collaboration. Yes, an uncomfortable truth. Clio the Muse 02:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the deportation of Jews, there was also the February strike. Maybe my Dutch upbringing causes me to know only that side of the story. But it should be noted that there were so many Jew-deportations from the Netherlands because there were so many Jews there in the first place, and an important reason for that is that for hundreds of years Jews had fled to the Netherlands, not because they were treated so well there, but because it was not as bad as in other countries (they weren't massacred for one, and were even allowed to practice Jewish religion, as long as they did it out of view, similar to the Catholics). And concerning the detainment of returning German Jews, might that have something to do with Operation Black Tulip?
For a different angle, after the war, collaborators (which included girls who had German soldier boyfriends) were put into concentration camps and only recently has a guilt-feeling started to arise over how they were treated there. Especially concerning their children, who were totally innocent, but also put into special camps where they were treated like they were some sort of filth. Ironically, something similar happened to women who had babies from allied soldiers after the war, but that's a different story. DirkvdM 07:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You talked about active collaboration, Clio, but there was also a lot of passive collaboration. Dutch mentality has been influenced, and is still being influenced, by calvinism. Many people helped, assisted or worked with the occupation regime (sometimes knowingly and sometimes unknowingly), simply because they were the authority, and "the authority is to be respected." They didn't necessarily take sides in the war and in the occupation; they remained neutral on political issues and worked with whoever was in charge. Another common practice was for members of the resistance to work for the Nazis on some minor issues, like storing coals for instance. In doing that, they were important to the Nazis, so they wouldn't be arrested and they had a cover story in case they were. AecisBrievenbus 11:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
We have an article on Collaboration during World War II with little on the Netherlands. Also War_children#Children_of_German_soldiers_in_the_Netherlands mentions another point. Rmhermen 15:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You're right about the calvinist respect of authority. Nowadays that fanaticism is only found in the Dutch bible belt, but it may well have been more widespread back then. But not in the traditionally catholic south, of course. Another possibly important aspect here is that in the east, they must have been quite used to the presence of Germans (be it shoppers or immigrants). At least that was the case in the south east where my mother grew up (Heerlen). There, and in the rest of Dutch Limburg, people even felt closer to the Germans than to the bloody foreigners in the North (the 'Hollanders' - allochtoon we would say these days :) ). DirkvdM 18:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
That is another point: the Dutch had always been focused on Germany. The antipathy that we see nowadays (although it is, thankfully, becoming more harmless in recent years) started during and after WW2. Prior to that, the Dutch were very close to Germany. There was still some antipathy in the Interbellum and early WW2 towards Britain, part of which stems from the Dutch Wars and part of which stems from the Boer Wars.
With regards to the Catholics in the Netherlands: it is my experience and interpretation, that Dutch catholics are more calvinist than catholics in many other countries. That calvinism may have been stronger among Catholics 'above the rivers' than among Catholics 'below the rivers' though. AecisBrievenbus 22:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Makes one wonder. Is it calvinism that created the Dutch way of thinking or the other way around? DirkvdM 07:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not very likely that the Dutch way of thinking created calvinism, because John Calvin was a Frenchman who lived and worked in Switzerland, and to the best of my knowledge, he never went to the Netherlands. It's highly likely though that a certain preexisting mindset in the Netherlands made it easier to embrace calvinism than in other countries. It's likely that Calvinism became so influential because it was consistent with what people were already feeling. AecisBrievenbus 10:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continental banners of the Magi

Some of the medieval images of the Biblical Magi portray them with banners which I think represent the three continents of the Old World from which they supposedly came from. I could only find one online example, but I've seen more in churches and the banners are pretty consistent across various paintings:

Magus Continent (?) Banner
Caspar Europe Gold stars in a blue field
Melchior Asia A gold crescent and a star in a dark field
Balthazar Africa A Negro holding a banner in a gold field

My first question is: is my assumption that these banners represent continents correct? If so, what is the origin of these banners? And finally, is it possible that there's a link between Casper's banner and the modern-day European flag? — Kpalion(talk) 12:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is a red herring, but blue with gold stars is associated with the iconography of Mary, especially as Queen of Heaven. SaundersW 13:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I know, but is there a link between Her and Europe? Apart rom the fact that in the Middle Ages, Europe was virtually synonymous with Christianity. — Kpalion(talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The following quote is from Adoration of the Magi:
Occasionally from the 12th century, and very often in Northern Europe from the 15th, the Magi are also made to represent the three known parts of the world: Balthasar is very commonly cast as a young African or Moor, and old Caspar is given Oriental features or, more often, dress.
This suggests that Europe and Asia should be swapped in your table.  --Lambiam 17:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
While the names "Caspar of Tarsus, Melchior of Persia and Balthasar of Saba (or Sheba or Ethiopia)" seem to be consistent between sources (that is when the three are not all described as Persian kings, or given entirely different names), the relative ages are not: some say that Caspar is young and Balthasar old, and some vice versa.SaundersW 19:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
If what Saunders wrote is right, then Caspar of Tarsus (Europe, sort of) and Melchior of Persia (Asia) would confirm that my table is correct. So does the image I linked to. It could be that the Wikipedia article is wrong (info is not sourced anyway). To make matters worse, German Wikipedia says Caspar was a Moor. Norwegian Wikipedia says Melchior was from Nubia and Balthazar from Saba (both Africans?). Dutch and Portuguese Wikipedias confirm Saunders's version. — Kpalion(talk) 20:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
After another look at the image I linked to, it seems that it's actually Caspar's dress, especially headgear, that looks most Oriental. So maybe my assumption that the star-spangled banner he's holding represents Europe is wrong. I'm only getting more and more confused. — Kpalion(talk) 21:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Here I read that "Melchior was Asian, Balthazar was Persian and Gaspar was Ethopian [sic]". If we search long enough, we may find all six permutations.  --Lambiam 21:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Heheh, that's possible. But what I'm actually more interested in is not the correspondence between the names of the Magi and the countries or continents they supposedly came from, but the correspondence between the banners and the continents (second and third columns of my table). In other words, did the Europeans of the 15th century come up with heraldic symbols for the whole continents? — Kpalion(talk) 22:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I can tell you more about the Magi, Kpalion, but not, sadly, about their banners! Incidentally, on a point of information, 'Ethiopian' was a generic term in Medieval Europe for black Africans. Clio the Muse 02:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The actual heraldic charges depicted on banners in a painting are most unlikely to have been specified by the commissioning body or individual, and so to have been left up to the painter's imagination. --Wetman 04:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't suppose they would have been specified by some formal body, but I don't think it was entirely up to the painter's imagination either. There was no formal body who decided that Saint Peter should be depicted as a bearded man with two large keys or that Saint George should be a mounted knight slaying a dragon on all paintings. Yest these depictions were pretty consistent across nations and centuries. It'a similar case with the Magi's banners, I've seen them on different painting in different churches, most probably painted by various artists. And there must be some reason why they were depicted with such banners. — Kpalion(talk) 09:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FCC regulations

Is there FCC regulations prohibiting bars and restaurants from having the volume from T.V.'s audible to customersMmaybe 15:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)mmaybe

I don't have a source to cite, but I've heard that this is done to avoid violating the copyright on the TV broadcasts.
If you buy a magazine, it doesn't give you the right to make photocopies of it and sell them. Similarly, if you receive a TV show and you own a TV station, you aren't allowed to just hook up your own transmitter and rebroadcast the show. Well, what I've heard is that just playing a TV set in a public place is considered a form of rebroadcasting, and is likewise prohibited by copyright law (unless, of course, you have specifically arranged permission for it, by paying whatever fee the broadcaster requires). Personally I think that's just silly, but unfortunately the law is not based on what I think.
The idea, then, is that if the sound on the TV is turned off, people can't really follow the show, so it's not really rebroadcasting, and the TV stations won't object. In places like sports bars where watching the game, with sound, is an attraction of the place, they do arrange permission and pay the fees required (or else they run the risk of being sued).
I heard this in a Canadian context, but I'd expect the law to be the same in the US. Anyway, if this is correct then it's not an FCC thing (or CRTC here), it's a copyright thing.
--Anonymous, edited 16:26 UTC, September 30, 2007.
It's certainly not FCC. I doubt the bar or restaurant owner is even thinking of copyright. Do you really want to be in a bar or restaurant trying to have a conversation with your friends with a TV blaring in the background? —Nricardo 18:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You may doubt it, but part of what I heard is that broadcasters have people who go to bars/restaurants and check up on copyright violations of this type, so it's something the owners would indeed know and care about. As for blaring TVs, there certainly seem to be people who would want exactly that. --Anonymous, 21:34 UTC, September 30, 2007.
Certainly in the UK bar owners have to pay to show sports events that are shown on satellite/cable - this is because standard contracts specify that the service provided by the satellite/cable company is for personal & private use only. So they'd be breaking the contract by broadcasting it in their bar without prior agreement. Not sure what the deal is with terrestial tv is, but the TV license might need to be a commercial one. Exxolon 21:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course, in the original US context (indicated by "FCC" in the question), TV licenses are irrelevant since they don't exist. But cable company rules do; that's another good point. --Anonymous, 21:34 UTC, September 30, 2007.

I have been to restaurants around the world to watch my favorite NFL team, and I've never been to one where they require all of the TVs to be at zero volume during a game. I don't think the NFL's lawyers would buy a "But we didn't have the sound on" excuse if you, say, were trying to show an out-of-market game to 50 people in a bar with a residential NFL Ticket package. -- Mwalcoff 02:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reason

What was the reason that the British colonize North America? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.132.105 (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You should be able to find an answer in our article British colonization of the Americas. AecisBrievenbus 16:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I doubt it. Our colonization series articles are more on "when" than "how" or "why". See British Empire and European colonization of the Americas for a little more. But the short answer is: prestige and wealth. (also religious freedom, elbow-room (to avoid the tainted German term) and power.) Rmhermen 14:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King James Bible and other versions

Is the King James Version named after King James I of England?If not then who is it named after? Also, why are there so many versions, and which is easier to understand for beginner readers?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.14.240.230 (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick answer: yes. He commissioned a translation that could be read in all churches in the Church of England, shortly after coming to the throne of England in the early 17th century. There are lots of versions because the language in translations becomes dated after a while and people think they can improve on it. My recommendations for a beginner are the Good News Bible or the New International Version if you like a slightly more literary style. Both use clear modern English and are reckoned to be without very horrible errors.SaundersW 21:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest going to http://www.biblegateway.com where you can read verses of the Bible in many different versions. Then, you can decide which of the versions appeals to you the most. It is also useful for working out the meaning behind the words by seeing how different versions translate the text. -- kainaw™ 21:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Is Good News the one that modernizes "lutes and flutes" to "pianos and saxophones"? —Tamfang 22:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
No. Good News uses modern language, but it doesn't change the meanings of words. Plus, it puts footnotes in the old testament when there are different versions or translations of a phrase. It really wouldn't be the sort to talk about saxophones. 79.65.119.193 23:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Memory returning – I think that one was called The Way. —Tamfang 01:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether there's a Bible of that name; there is The Message (Bible), which is certainly a paraphrase, but which does seem usually to be a legitimate interpretation of the original texts at each step. This could be worth considering, or the Contemporary English Version, which is based on research into simple English patterns and (I learn from our article) has won an award from the Plain English Campaign. I don't care for this degree of simplification myself (part of the content of the original involves its access to higher registers), but these are realistic options for those whose English is simply not expected to rise to the level needed to understand a more traditional translation of these ancient books. Then again, the original questioner, while posing a very easy question about James I, did not seem particularly illiterate, so perhaps he or she will either read the beautiful King James version or will read the Bible in a reasonably eloquent & sound modern version like the New Jerusalem Bible. Wareh 02:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The New Living Translation also attempts to rank highly in terms of readability. Another editor mentioned biblegateway.com to compare translations. I really like that site, and usually go there for quick reference, but that's because I have the translation I'm looking for (usually NIV). You can compare different translations there, but it's a pain to do. Much more convient is the Online Parallel Bible which is much more user-friendly to compare translations, although it's not quite as comprehensive (it doesn't even include NIV!)--YbborTalk 02:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: Bible in Basic English seems to also strive for simplicity, although personally, shrinking the entire Bible down to the use of 1000 words seems a little extreme. --YbborTalk 02:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Would this make me a paedophile?

I guess this comes under law, but do correct me if I'm wrong.

Hypothetically, if I were around 15 years old, and dowloaded nude pictures of girls of a similar age, am I peadophile? By "pictures" I refer not the the abusive images which most think of when the term "child porn" is mentioned, but the kind of self-taken pictures uploaded by many girls into their own Myspace or Photobucket accounts. I cannot see how this would be covered by the clause on digital media of the child abuse laws, as I cannot imagine how any "abuse" would be being done. Would it be considered natural for a boy of that age to want to see "pornography" (using that term loosely) of girls of the same age? Or would this make me a paedophile? -Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.116.41.5 (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There are various definitions of pedophile, but a common one is: "an adult who is sexually attracted to young children".[1] A person who is 15 years old would not be considered an adult in most cultures that care about such things, so whatever this young person does, they would not thereby be a pedophile. However, that young person can still do things that are against the law, and possession of child pornography is a crime in most countries. The theory behind this is that the abuse took place in the production of the pornographic material, and customers of such material create the demand that fuels the abuse, and are therefore also culpable of the abuse. A certain pleasure in seeing attractive age mates in various stages of undress seems by itself quite normal to me; an addiction to viewing such material that becomes an obsession and interferes with your normal functioning is unhealthy.  --Lambiam 21:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I’m sorry, Wikipedia cannot give legal advice. As for whether it is natural for a boy of 15 to WANT to see nude members of the opposite sex (or same sex depending), I would say that that is perfectly natural. See also Age of consent and Adolescent sexual behavior. --S.dedalus 21:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that, technically, being attracted to 15-year-olds would make you an ephebophile, rather than a pedophile. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 21:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
One I've often wondered about is whether you could be arrested for owning a picture of yourself, naked, as a child. I'm guessing you could, unless laws have some legal exception for this case. StuRat 00:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
"I know it when I see it." Isn't that how a US Supreme Court Judge defined pornography? Wrad 02:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
If this were true, you could be arrested for printing this Wikipedia article. A.Z. 02:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Just having a forbidden image on your hard disk (like in your browser's cache after visiting a web page with that image) qualifies as possession and has led to convictions.  --Lambiam 11:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You could get arrested, sure,[2] even though the case would probably be dropped.  --Lambiam 11:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I just want to clarify something, especially to those of you who think I am talking about child pornography. I doubt anyone would ever in any way support the sort of thing depicted by CP, even by just viewing it; the thought would disgust me. By pictures, I'm talking only about the self taken nude pictures found on some people's own Myspace accounts. I can't see how the case of "abuse" could be made for those sorts of pictures (who would be the perpetrator, and who would be the victim?). So being in possesion of such material would not make me a paedophile? -Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.116.41.5 (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what your concerns are. Perhaps you should stop using the word "pedophile" and be more clear what you are worried about. Are you worried that you have a disease, that you'll go to jail, that people will see what you're doing as wrong, that you are abusing someone? If you don't specify, people won't be able to give their personal opinions about it. More importantly, I think you should specify whether you are concerned about the legal or moral aspects of the issue. They are totally different things, in my opinion, although one can influence the other: for example, sometimes it can be immoral to do something due to the fact that it is illegal.
Child pornography and photographs of naked children also are two completely different things. You can have any of them without the other. It's common and, in my opinion, it can be perfectly OK to have photographs and paintings of naked children. A.Z. 00:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
There seem to be two different legal theories for making kiddie porn illegal:
1) It may harm the children who pose for such pictures.
2) Viewing such pictures may cause someone to abuse children.
Generally, laws don't seem to specify the reason, which would be quite important for implementation. For example, if the reason is only number 1, then computer generated kiddie porn should be legal, since no actually children pose for the pics. However, using the 2nd standard, not only should those be illegal, but perhaps even fully clothed pics of attractive children. This is getting close to the Sharia law theory that men who see attractive women are compelled to rape them, so women must be covered at all time while in public. StuRat 18:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned about both the legal and moral aspects of this issue. Specifically, Could it really be said that once would be abusing someone by downloading photos which were taken and distributed by the subject? I gather from what User:A.Z. said that this would not be considered child pornography. Would I be doing harm if there is no abuse to exacerbate through the "consumption" of this sort of material? Would someone at 15 be considered abnormal or mentally ill for seeking out this sort of thing? I would hope that someone in this situation could be at least morally sound.
From a legal perspective, if the pictures are self taken, and hence do not depict any form of abuse or coercion, and I were also underaged, would this constitute a felony? Could I, if I were 15, and in light of previous arguments, be sent to jail for possession of these kinds of images? Would the person who took the pictures also be guilty of a crime? If so, against whom?
If someone at 15 could not give consent because they are not an adult, how could they be held responsible for it and tried as an adult (which it would have to be)? Could I, as a minor in such a position, be sentenced to jail time for this?-Anonymous

[edit] Overweight shields

I know that people writing fiction tend to overstate the weight of swords; how far from reality are the 40-60 pound weights given for everything from bucklers to the Roman scutum? --67.185.172.158 22:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not ask the people that do Ancient reenactment (its in Wiki) for their views. They march with them, fight with them etc. Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.166.234 (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be asking about shields (per your heading and the word scutum) and not swords? According to A. K. Goldsworthy's The Roman Army at War 100 BC - AD 200 (OUP, 1996) the Roman scutum weighed "between 5.5 and 10 kg (12–22 lb.)". Swords, on the other hand, need to be much lighter. The heaviest swords actually intended for fighting weigh about four or five pounds, but a sword like that wouldn't be much use in a swordfight. The present-day swords still worn (especially by officers) in some armed forces weigh about a pound and a half, without the scabbard. Xn4 02:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was wondering about the shields. None of Wikipedia's articles on shields in general or in particular gives any indication of how much they weighed, only that some (buckler, target) weighed less than others (scutum, kite). --67.185.172.158 03:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The standard Roman legionaries had short swords for close-quarter fighting, which necessarily weighed less than other types of swords from other eras and cultures/societies. However, the Roman infantry shield was very large indeed in comparison with others from history and disproportionately heavy. And don't forget, the "classic" Roman infantryman would have also carried his javelin (and other kit). --Dweller 11:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too much reading causes loss of imagination?

The other day my teacher was telling us about a 18/19th century philosopher who said something along the lines of "too much reading diminishes the elasticity of the mind", something like that. I'm the type of student that likes getting involved and asking questions, for whatever reason, I stayed quiet to think about it myself.

I can understand someone who chooses not to think critically about a subject, and prefer to read a book, looking for a direct answer due to lazyness. What I dont understand is whether this is really true for all cases of people (that reading diminishes imagination), or just a few. And I tried to think of people who read a lot and still did good things to progress the world, but I couldnt think of anyone at the moment. Can anyone help cover the things I said here? PitchBlack 22:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Who's this philosopher, exactly? I wonder if he's referring to the difference between book-learning and hands-on learning. I personally think that both have their strengths and weaknesses. Also, I would say that some people don't learn well by reading, but are amazing with hands-on learning. Wrad 22:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
It could be that she/he was referring to Arthur Schopenhauer. He wrote, in Parerga und Paralipomena, something resembling that. I'm going to look for it, but I am going to post this here now so people know I was the first to come up with his name. A.Z. 23:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if the expression "to come up with his name" is the most appropriate here. Tell me if it's wrong. Anyway, here is the relevant essay by him. This is just a part of it. He goes on. Project Gutenberg has the whole thing. The following was copied from there.
Essay removed because it's too long. It can be read at [3] (though there are other essays on that page). It's called Thinking for Oneself.
A.Z. 23:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thats him, and thats the essay. Now does anyone think he has/had a point considering what he said about much reading deprives the mind? I figure he means critical thinking and imagination, yes? I'm just having a hard time understanding it; what evidence is out there to support or challenges what he said? PitchBlack 00:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to think about it before giving opinions. A.Z. 00:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I wrote 3 paragraphs and now theyre lost forever. Ill just sum up what I said.

I just want peoples thoughts (and evidence) about the claim that was stated in my last post.

Just pretend I started a new topic asking, "Does much reading diminish the imagination and critical thinking of a person? PitchBlack 00:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not Schopenhauer, clearly! He was a voracious reader. Clio the Muse 00:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I have had this thought myself, in one particular context. I play chess, but am completely self-taught. I feel that if I read chess books, they would teach me to imitate the masters, but I would still never be more than a pale imitation of them. Instead, I would prefer to develop my own strategies. I don't pretend that they will be better than those of the masters, but at least they will be mine. Does that make any sense ? StuRat 00:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
For chess, no. There are only a finite number of reasonable strategies, and they've been analyzed to death, there's very little chance you can avoid following in somebody's footsteps. At the very least, all those computer programs, e.g. Deep Blue, have made sure that finding some original strategy is pretty close to impossible at this point. In other areas, this may be a valid point. I'm thinking of Richard Feynman, the Nobel physicist, who got his early mathematics training from a non-standard textbook he read on his own. As a result, he had a different set of "tools" to attack problems. How much this actually contributed to his originality is of course unmeasurable. Clarityfiend 08:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Even if I come up with the same strategy as others, if I develop it independently I still feel more of a sense of accomplishment than if I just copy it out of a book. Also, computers don't take psychology into account. Therefore, strategies like attacking in one area to distract from the real attack you are building elsewhere can't be thought of by computers. StuRat 13:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is from memory, it may not be verbatim, but Walter Savage Landor said "My children shall be carefully warned against literature. To swim, to fence, to speak French, are the most they shall learn." I should add that he was in a fury with his publisher at the time. Xn4 00:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

In the 'poker of the quotes' I will see you and raise you, Xn4, with my own favourite from Joseph Addison-"Reading is to the mind what exercise is to the body". And we all understand the value of exercise, do we not? Clio the Muse 01:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Saul Bellow: "People can lose their lives in libraries. They ought to be warned." Xn4 01:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Henry Fielding "Read in order to live." OK, OK; this is getting silly! Clio the Muse 02:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I am the last person who will argue against the reading of thousands upon thousands of books. But as the parent of a two-year-old, who is illiterate but displays an astonishing memory in comparison to his parents (recalling all the details of long stories or poems, never forgetting the title of a book that passes through his hands—yes it's odd that the toddler is imbued with an oral culture from books), and as a reader of the great Homeric poems probably composed by an illiterate poet, not to mention other early Greek authors who had smaller supplies of books to draw upon, I do sometimes reflect on paths lost to the hyperliterate or even just literate. Ultimately, the tradition of speech and song, together with nature, imagination, and reason, can be pretty formidable on their own Wareh 02:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, indeed they can. Clio the Muse 02:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Francis Bacon - "Reading maketh a full man, conference a ready man, and writing an exact man" (hoping Clio will excuse the non-inclusive language). Gandalf61 10:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't suppose she has got much choice! Clio the Muse 01:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Some recent feminist icon (I've forgotten exactly who) remarked: "writing ... keeps me from believing everything I read." —Tamfang 22:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Gloria Steinem. —Tamfang 19:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I can definitely see his point. Many people read opinions, then offer them uncritically as their own. They haven't arrived at the thought themself, so they don't really understand where it came from or fully understand what it is based on. As such, they can't adapt the thought or see where it does and doesn't apply. I also notice this sort of thing when discussing philosophy with people who have 'studied' it; they just want to label and classify each thought, they reply to everything with what someone else said, and they fail to apply their own thoughts or experiences. For God's sake, it's not hard to demonstrate that thinking something is true doesn't make it true! This doesn't mean I 'hold an object-lead view', any more than I hold a Newtonian 'view' over an Aristotelian one. Skittle 13:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
For another example, if you are to write a book, but first read a book similar to the one you intend to write, the book you write tends to be "variations on a theme", with that theme being the book you read, instead of an imaginative, new book. The same can be true of jokes, songs, movies, etc. While improving on an existing work has it's place, it's not the same thing as an original work. StuRat 13:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)