Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 August 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous Archives

The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions at one of the pages linked to above.

< August 16 Humanities desk archive August 18 >

Contents 1 street prostitutes 2 Mandatory retirement age 3 Wearing white after US Labor Day 4 black sheep 5 Katrina prison 6 Book sales 7 americans- more dollars than sense? 8 Queen Anne's Revenge 9 Kissing on the cheek 10 Activism 11 Tickle Torture 12 Serjeant 13 wikiversity 14 Israel 15 Is there a name for this architecture? 16 NY Times Crosswords 17 Understanding Nietzsche 18 Wikiversity

[edit] street prostitutes

Is a street prostitute a good person to have "practice sex" with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.72 (talk • contribs)

• Could you please stop asking stupid questions from AOL? It makes the entire Internet Service Provider look bad--205.188.117.12 00:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of 'good'. A prostitute is probably going to be fairly experienced, but whether that makes them a good teacher is another matter. The increased risk of STDs brought about by their increased frequency of sex with multiple partners is a bit of a risk. Oh, and don't forget that depending on your locality, it's probably illegal to pick one up. Have you tried chatting to women at bars? Mnemeson 00:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a reference desk, not an opinion desk. So, checking... Nope, no references in our library about the "goodness" of "practice sex" with "street prostitutes". Looks like you'll have to do your own scientific study. --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well there is at least an anecdotal connection between men whose first sexual experience was with a street prostitute and premature ejaculation, because the combination of performance anxiety, anticipation, fear of being discovered (because sex with street workers usually takes place in a car), physical discomfort due to location, and the impatience of the sex worker trying to get the man to 'get it over with' habituates fast ejaculation without attention to the signals that indicate imminent ejaculation.

Also, and I say this as someone who fully supports the freedom of people to exchange money for sexual services, most street workers are there by necessity, not choice. Many are drug addicts, many are HIV or Hepatitis carriers, most are controlled by pimps, etc etc etc. And frankly (I'm speaking from intimate knowledge, if not direct experience) have NO respect for you, may even HATE YOU and hate the experience of having sex with you. Is that the kind of person you want your first time (or any time) to be with? Practice is great, but being with someone who isn't dying of impatience for you to be done, who is healthy and happy, who doesn't have a pimp, drug dealer or boyfriend standing 20 feet away from your car waiting to take his cut, and with whom you can at least share mutual respect is better. Anchoress 01:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Edited to add: My answer does not reflect a worldwide view. I live in Vancouver Canada, which, despite supposedly being one of the best places in the world to live, a) is anecdotally known as the sex-trade capital of North America, and b) statistically (in one neighbourhood at least, Vancouver's 'skid row) has one of the highest HIV and Hepatitis infection rates in the whole world, so the particularly dire circumstances of our street sex workers may not be reflective of the norm. However, since there are better ways for people to make their money on their backs so to speak (in massage parlours or as escorts), it still holds true that street workers are the most marginalised and desperate segment of the sex trade, irrespective of nationality. Anchoress 05:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mandatory retirement age

what is the mandatory retirement age for British Generals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.72 (talk • contribs)

Could you please stop asking wildly random questions and start signing your posts? DirkvdM 06:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

yes, and if you're going to keep doing it, could you please try to avoid using AOL proxies, they're assigned per page, not per user, which means all our contributions get lumped together--152.163.100.72 17:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wearing white after US Labor Day

What does "don't wear white after (US) Labor Day" mean?

That means it is only considered fashionable to wear white until the end of summer. StuRat 07:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought it may have had a more "cultural" meaning so cheers, I will try not to be unfashionable on my trip :-).

Strange thing though. --Proficient 22:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fun quote: In the movie Never Been Kissed, 25-year-old Josie (Drew Barrymore) wore white jeans to her first day of class, and spilled chocolate milk on them.

Josie: Guess I shouldn't have worn white after Labor Day.

Bitchy Girl: I didn't know people wore white jeans after 1983. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 08:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] black sheep

my accent is totally different from anybody around me, people ask if I am a foreigner. I have no speech inpediment.why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mearom (talk • contribs) 07:35, August 17, 2006 (UTC).

Try chewing gum while speaking. --193.56.241.75 07:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you live where you grew up? --Lambiam^Talk 08:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Accents vary a little from settlement to settlement, social class to social class, race to race, but I doubt even the accent of a neighbouring village or town could be called foreign! That's quite strange. You don't have foreign accent syndrome, perchance? -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 13:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It is possible the way you have learned to use your mouth and other vocal mechanisms differs significantly from the way most people use them, thus giving you a different speech pattern than most people. May not a speech "impediment", but a difference of speech technique? - Rainwarrior 23:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

THank you~~

[edit] Katrina prison

During Hurricane Katrina in a New Orleans prison inmates were locked up in cells with rising water and an uprising resulted. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/5241988.stm (is there nothing about this on Wikipedia?). Some who have been locked up for months were there for a minor offence (jaywalking even!?) or don't even know why they were locked up. According to the documentary, in the aftermath of the disaster, the police were too busy to deal with simple fines, so their money ran out (??) and pro deo lawyers couldn't be payed. This sounds weird, to put it mildly (and we're talking about the country that has 70% of the world's lawyers). But also, evidence was destroyed or the labels rendered illegible. For some this meant that evidence that might have gotten them off the hook was no longer available. But others were kept in prison despite a lack of evidence. As they said in the documentary, 'guilty until proven innocent'. Is this legally possible in the US? DirkvdM 09:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That article said some were in prison for minor offenses, while others were murderers and rapists. It also said some had their cases delayed for months. It did not say that jaywalkers were imprisoned for months. StuRat 14:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume it is left out because it is news - important news, but just news. There will be more about it in the American press once the journalists are able to spin it nicely into "Bush hates blacks, so he left prisoners to die after Katrina". You'll then find it on the Bush page, on the Republican page, on the Katrina page, on the Patriot Act page, on the Iraq War page, on the Haliburton page... There are a lot of important news items that never hang around in Wikipedia because they lose significance over time and, all in all, a lot of people simply don't appear to want to know anything about the past. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so "guilty until proven innocent" is right - I always thought it as "innocent until proven guilty". That's odd. -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 13:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Congrats, you got the point the documentary was trying to make... ;-) --Fastfission 15:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 17:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The money for public defenders and the money for the police are not in the same pool. It is entirely possible that the county could run out of money for public defenders, though, especially if many of them had fled. Though this would be highly irregular I could see an appeals court upholding it based on the sheer uniqueness of the situation—it was not a conscious attempt to deny rights to prisoners, it was instead the side-effect of a natural disaster which killed and displaced thousands of people. In such situations it is not unreasonable to expect that the proceedings of the courts would be delayed a bit. There would of course be a line between what is excuseable and what is not—the police would not be authorized to start executing the prisoners, for example, or to use the hurricane as an excuse to deny proceedings for months after things had stabilized a bit. I don't know where a court would draw that line but I imagine it would be a judgment call. --Fastfission 16:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the article, New Orleans is unique in funding public defenders with traffic fines. Also, New Orleans was messed up in many ways before the hurricane hit. For example, I recall a story on a woman filing a police brutality charge. The people she filed it with then gave the police officer her info, and he went and killed her. Needless to say, this is not how complaints are handled in other cities. StuRat 16:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's an article on murders committed by New Orleans police: [1]. StuRat 17:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that's not generally how they are handled in New Orleans, either. I have, of course, much sympathy for stories of police brutality (and certainly do not believe they are saints), but I am also pretty suspicious of some of the stories of them on that page, none of which seem to have any evidence involved with them and are based on family members—who were not there—assessing the situation in a post hoc fashion ("he should have just immobilized him", "he surely couldn't have done that, he was such a nice guy"). I have sympathy for their loss but I also have sympathy for the dangers one encounters while working on the police force in a major American city, and doubt their ability to assess the situation objectively. Some of those cases on that page are ridiculously spurious—i.e. the 14 year old boy who stole a car, ran a stop sign, and while fleeing the police, crashed it. I don't know how one is supposed to blame the police for that. --Fastfission 19:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I was wondering about that case, myself. I'm guessing that was included accidentally. Still, compare with the cases listed for my state, Michigan (1 case), and the numerous cases listed in the less populous state of Louisiana lets you know something is going on there. Also, bear in mind that the families are afraid to report incidents of police brutality there, because they risk be killed, if they do. StuRat 19:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about Michigan, but I am guessing that the numbers in New Orelans are probably comparable to other urban cities with relatively high crime rates (i.e. Oakland, New York, etc.). I am guessing—and this is totally unverified—that police brutality issues correlate somewhat with the nastiness of the general job. Which again does not condone anything, or get anyone off the hook. --Fastfission 16:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, police brutality doesn't much correlate with crime rates. Detroit, for example, has a high crime rate and low police brutality rate. On the other hand, some almost all-white, low crime suburbs have high police brutality rates, particularly aimed at minorities. New Orleans has a much higher rate of police brutality than would be expected, based on the population or any other factor. StuRat 07:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

In the documentary, someone was interviewed who was kept in prison for months (close to a year even, if I remember correctly) without knowing what he was charged with - he assumed it had something to do with an outstanding fine. One may assume that most people in that prison will have been guilty of something serious enough to keep them there for months, but the problem is that if the evidence is missing, how long can you keep someone in prison until you find some?

Also, I asked about the US, but I suppose US states have more autonomy than, say, provinces in other countries. In most countries the applicable law will probably be the same throughout the cou try, but I understand from the abopve that in the US it will be different between states. DirkvdM 11:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book sales

172.132.140.199 14:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)What are the most frequently purchased book genres? Romance, mystery, suspense, self-help, fantasy, science fiction, erotica, literary, satire,or amthologis of short stories?

In which country? According to romance novel "Romance novels are most popular in the United States and Canada, where it is the best-selling genre."--Shantavira 15:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

When I worked at a book store the children's section was actually the highest selling section. Children's books are big, big sellers in the US (aside from being much more expensive per page, I think people are more motivated to try and get their children reading than they are in reading themselves), though I don't know the exact numbers of them or if you call them a "genre". --Fastfission 15:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] americans- more dollars than sense?

hi, (firstly apologies for the pun, its sounds better than its 'looks'..) anyway, i've lsot count of how many times i've seen characters in american sit-coms and films reach into their wallets and bring out huge amounts of cash (for illustraion purposes, last night i watched 'how to lose a guy in ten days' (i know, i'm sorry) where matthew mcgonahey (sp?) pulls $300 (thats 150 pounds!!) out of his wallet to pay for marriage counselling). basically my question is two fold: 1) Is this hollywood taking liberties with the plot or do (wealthy) americans really carry around such vast amounts of money on a day to basis? 2) Don't you guys have debit cards? thanks! 201.9.15.123 16:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think if you will ask around you will find that many people don't consider 150 pounds the least bit excessive to carry. I worry if I drop below £100. Notinasnaid 16:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are rich, you have a Centurion Card, not a debit card. Anyway, movies don't want product placement unless it is paid for. So, they won't use a Master Card or Visa unless the companies pay for the placement of their product in the film. Then, if they do, the camera will zoom in so you can see the logo easily. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Americans certainly have debit cards, credit cards, checks, etc. I don't carry much cash, personally. But I also have easy access to ATMs—if I need $20, it is not hard to get it. My father, on the other hand, generally carries around $200 on him at all times, because he doesn't like having to go to ATMs and he likes to pay for things in cash (less hassle, less paper trail, less opportunity for someone to steal your card number, etc.). There are some places where paying with cash is a lot easier, because they have minimum purchase requirements for using a card (i.e. bars, some restaurants). In any case, pulling out a large amount of cash always looks cooler than pulling out a card, I guess. There is some functional reason for having cash with you (a lot of places don't take cards), but I imagine a lot of it is either for style, a feeling of convenience (however subjective), and habit (it has not been too long that everything was wired). --Fastfission 16:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I prefer cash for many reasons:

1) It's almost always quicker to pay with cash, especially if you have exact change.

2) Nobody can steal the PIN number off your cash, then make fraudulent charges against it.

3) Nobody tracks your purchases, if you use cash.

4) Credit card machines go down from time to time.

5) Credit card companies have ways of ripping you off royally, like putting the due date on a weekend then refusing to accept payments made on said date.

6) You don't have to "pay the bill by the end of the month" when you pay with cash.

7) You don't have to worry if each business accepts your particular version of cash (unless you carry foreign currency).

8) When paying in cash, it does seem like you are spending "real money", unlike with credit cards. $5 cash for a cup of coffee seems like a lot, but $5 on a credit card, that's nothing.

9) Having to go to the bank to get cash before making a large purchase forces a level of thought that's entirely absent when using credit cards. "Hmmm, if I have to go to the bank first, maybe I don't need to spend $500 on that giant stuffed Smurfette doll after all ?".

10) Your cash doesn't stop working during a power failure.

There are some advantages to credit cards, but I don't think they outweigh those disadvantages. In summary, "paying with credit cards, $1000 a year in penalties and interest; paying with cash, priceless". StuRat 16:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There is the paradoxical observation that "wealthy" people, may carry very little cash and "poor" people may carry a lot. I know a "wealthy" couple with two well paid professionals and sizeable investments who may go a week without spending much cash. They may rarely carry more than $50. If they need cash, there are ATMs everywhere. Plastic pays for shopping, or for a parking garage, and for doctors. A smart card pays for mass transit, lunch at the club is signed for. I know "poor" people, with far less income or assets, who work for cash so as to be able to and avoid paying taxes or to hide assets from a spouse in a divorce. They wind up spending less per week, but they have all their money in their purse or wallet. Everything is paid for in cash.Edison 18:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how the system works there, but here you normally have 55 days to pay for your credit card purchases without accruing any interest. It's only if you don't pay for what you've bought (which is often 55 days longer than you have if you pay cash), that interest kicks in. Or if you make only the minimum monthly payment (or less), rather than the whole balance. Some would say that if you can't afford to pay for what you buy, you shouldn't use a credit card, and they're to be used only to avoid carrying around cash, and only an idiot would ever pay even a cent in credit card interest. On the other hand, they make getting a quick no-questions-asked loan extremely easy, and they come in handy when the mechanic shows you the unexpectedly large bill for those repairs he did and you're short of cash to pay for it. If you're prepared to wear the interest, you can have more stuff than if you pay cash. (Until they come and repossess it ...). JackofOz 20:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In the US there are very few laws to protect credit card customers, and the laws that do exist aren't enforced (some states have tried to enforce them, only to have the Feds step in and block them !). The grace period is ever shrinking, now down to under a month on many cards. And the credit card companies can just conveniently "lose" your payment, then charge you massive interest and penalties. StuRat 20:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I carry hardly any cash, I use two credit cards and a debit card for specific reasons, and I never pay interest or penalties on the credit cards. If one doesn't carry a balance on a credit card, knowing the cycle date makes it possible to have 50 or more days before payment is due. --LarryMac 21:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever gone somewhere and pulled out cash only to have them say, "I'm sorry, but we don't accept cash?"67.172.248.207 21:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Twice:

1) Car rental places simply do not want to deal with cash.

2) I had to get a chest X-ray once (for pneumonia), and they were completely unprepared to handle cash. They had no cash box, cash register, etc. When I pulled out a $20 to pay, they looked at me like I wanted to give them a pair of live chickens in payment. They did eventually agree to take cash (as I had no other means of payment on me), but the receptionist had to dig thru her purse for change, LOL. StuRat 22:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a little bit of trivia about TV/Movies and cash: I'm sure you've all seen plenty of times in plenty of movies/tv shows some scene where some guy has a million dollars US in cash in a briefcase, and hands it to another character in exchange for whatever. Well Hollywood is definitely taking liberties here. The highest denomination of American currency is the $100 bill. If you do the math, 1,000,000 / 100 = 10,000. That means that a million dollars US in cash would require 10,000 $100 bills. That amount of paper would clearly not fit into some slim briefcase. Rather, you'd probably need at the very least an enormous duffle bag or something even larger to carry $1 million US in cash. Of course sleek little attaché cases are much cooler, so Hollywood goes with those, no matter how unrealistic it may be. As a matter of fact, I believe the largest amount of money in one bill is the Canadian $1,000 bill (worth about $900 American). For quite a while the US government has been pressuring Canada to do away with the $1,000 bill, as apparently it's the bill of choice in organized crime. Loomis 22:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I really wonder what there is attractive at all about living in the USA. The police brutality, the constant fear of terrorist bombings, the credit card companies that rip off their patrons, the completely hopeless health system ... and these are the good bits.  :--) JackofOz 22:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Jack! I'm shocked! I always thought that I was the outrageous confrontational nutjob and you were Wikipedia's completely serene, unperturbable answer to the Dalai Lama. You've been acting quite feisty lately! I like that! Loomis 01:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There you go then. Whatever you think I'm like, that's pretty much exactly what I will make sure I am not. (It's called being pathologically rebellious.) But I must say you are very astute to liken me to the Dalai Lama. He even stole his catchphrase from me (Kindness is my religion). I'm not pressing charges, I'll get my own back in the next life, when I'm the Pope and can pull rank on his new incarnation. God bless all of you.  :--)

That's very forgiving of you, not to press charges. However should you change your mind there appears to be this brilliant and articulate lawyer floating around here who just recently offered his services free of charge to another user. I'm sure if you got on his good side he'd help you out too. I'd offer you my services for free as well, but clearly this other lawyer is infinitely more competent than I could ever wish to be. :-) Loomis 14:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• There isn't any police brutality, people always say that, but they never site any sources

"Katrina prison", 2 threads above, seems to have some information about this, at least in New Orleans. JackofOz 01:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never personally had any trouble with credit-card fraud (or police brutality or terrorist bombings for that matter). I think movies tend to feature characters like mobsters, vigilantes and the like, who probably deal in cash, rather than normal people. I doubt most people don't carry around more than $100. There are a lot of people, though, who can't get a credit card because they've wrecked their credit history. I was shocked when I went to a shipping place and they had a sign on the desk that said "NO CASH ACCEPTED." -- Mwalcoff 23:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the original questioner seems to think that movies present the reality of life in the United States, I have now decided to base my perception of Great Britain completely on what I've seen while watching Wallace and Gromit. Any more problems with those evil penguins, then? --LarryMac 13:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queen Anne's Revenge

Queen Anne's Revenge.

Why did Blackbeard the Pirate name his flagship the Queen Anne's Revenge? He supposedly fought as a privateer in that war. Revenge on the French?

--Roy Grubbs

Arrr, matey, pirates not be needed good reasons. But our article on Queen Anne's Revenge says the followin':

Her name may have come from the War of the Spanish Succession, which was known in the Americas as Queen Anne's War, and in which Blackbeard was known to have fought. Arrrr, matey, and fought well he did.

Hopefully that'll be helpin' ye out. We be preferin' to be called buccaneer-Americans, by the way. --Fastfission 19:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd much rather have Queen Anne's Revenge than Montezuma's Revenge. :-) StuRat 22:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

He (or a previous owner) likely named his boat this in order to honor the recently deseased leader of his nation Queen Anne. Such can be said because it was not originally named the Queens Annes revenge but named that after her death. It was the equivalent now of naming a vessel Reagan's revenge.

Actually I think that one is called the USS Ronald Reagan. ;-) Rmhermen 16:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kissing on the cheek

I've noticed all Australians, when kissing on the cheek, do it on the left, the same side we drive on. Is this a universal trend, ie. do Americans kiss on the right? The Mad Echidna 16:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The French kiss both cheeks - does that mean they drive on both sides of the road? It's probably just coincidence. Or something to do with the dominant hand. -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 17:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe there are quite a few Frenchmen who go both ways. :-) StuRat 19:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Coincidence. At least in the US it would be. — [Mac Davis] (talk)

What coincidence? JackofOz 20:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

See Coriolis effect Edison 18:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be to do with the fact that you shake hands with a person with your right hand, so it is an easier motion to lean forward on the left. That way your hands can "collapse" between you, whereas the other way your hands would get in the way somewhat. BenC7 00:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In Limburg we kiss three times, alternating between the cheeks. So we don't shake hands while we do that, but grab each other by the shoulders.

By the way, the French do use both sides of the road. Ever driven a car in Paris? It's nerve-wrecking (possibly worse than Los Angeles). DirkvdM 11:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Activism

Why are extremist activists, notably the animal rights activists that have risen to the attention of the public in britain in the last few days, not dealt with as severely as other terrorists, I have heard of no press coverage and no convictions associated with some of the things these sick people have been doing, including, letterbombing and firebombing people that are associated with animal testing, and some activists have even been trying to infect these researchers with AIDs by bombing them with HIV+ needles as an added ingredient, surely if a muslim activist did this, there would be uproar, and he would be in jail for a long time. Why aren't they locked up with all the other screw ups. Philc _T^E_C^I 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Because the examples you have provided are quite rare. Also very important is the fact that extreme animal rights activists make poor headlines. Don't forget that normal ppl are really afraid of radical muslim terrorists because they are felt to be from a foreign culture and which are becoming more plentifull at our home. This vision is sold by the a eager press under the logic = fear sells. Flamarande 19:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC) Flamarande 19:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Some extremist activists have been dealt with as terrorists. See, for example, the Earth Liberation Front, which was labeled a top terrorist threat in the US before the 9/11 attacks, or Theodore Kaczynski, the letterbomb writer. I haven't heard about the "AIDS bombs", personally, but I imagine if such rumors were credible the police would take them as seriously as any other terrorist threat. They probably take "ecotage" less seriously on the whole because usually people are not injured in it (and all of the places destroyed are usually well insured anyway). --Fastfission 19:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If animal rights activists killed as many people as in 9-11, the Madrid train bombings, the London bombings, the African embassy bombings, the USS Cole bombing, the Beslan school attack, the Moscow theater attack, the Dagestan hospital attacks, or the Bali night club bombing, then they would be treated as harshly as the Muslim terrorists who did those things. StuRat 19:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

But even terrorists who just blow themselves up in countries you dont live in make headline news, whereas bombings in the country you do live in does? I'm not trying to say these people are as bad as the worst, but there as bad as some. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be making an interesting point, Phil, yet I've read it over several times and I can't seem to make any sense of what you wrote. I'm still curious. Could you perhaps clarify what you're trying to say? Loomis 00:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tickle Torture

In the article of tickle torture, what sight did you guys get that picture from? Which website?

Click on the picture and you can see the username of the person who uploaded it and his or her description of where the picture came from. Wow! It wasn't ripped from a website!? Is it actually possible for someone to take a picture with a camera and upload it? --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well i don't know but something's telling me that this guy is a torture person.

The picture is from http://www.frenchtickling.com/

[edit] Serjeant

In the middle ages what was serjeant, was it the same as a knight? —Yet another unsigned question brought to you by 152.163.100.72 (talk • contribs) 20:51, August 17, 2006 (UTC).

Isnt Sergeant a military term, whereas as knight was a one recieved as an honour, in middle ages, generally for being of noble birth. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Knight has its origins as a military term: a medieval knight is a mounted man-at-arms serving a feudal superior: a profession, if you will, rather than an accident of birth or an honorary award. A serjeant would, I think, be an officer who enforces the orders of a court or other authority; it's not synonymous with knight. - Nunh-huh 21:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

We have an article about Serjeanty if that helps (but it seems to be confined to England). I know the military orders like the Hospitallers and Templars also had serjeants, they were sort of lesser knights, with less armour and no squires. So it's not exactly the same as a knight, but it's between a foot-soldier and a knight. Adam Bishop 23:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Such seems what sergeant is now a grade between the cannon foder and the officers (whose role is at least in directly descedent from the knight).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.72 (talk • contribs)

Serjeant could also refer to a large number of non-military roles; England had Serjeants-at-Law for about six hundred years. Shimgray | talk | 14:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikiversity

Will wikiversity grant degrees? —Yet another unsigned question brought to you by 152.163.100.72 (talk • contribs) 20:57, August 17, 2006 (UTC).

No. They aren't even close to being a college. See Wikiversity. — [Mac Davis] (talk)

[edit] Israel

I was reading a article of Israel yesterday and it says that the official languages of Israel of Hebrew and Arabic. How many people in Israel speak Arabic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.148.100 (talk • contribs) 21:05, August 17, 2006 (UTC).

About 20% of the Israeli population is Arab, so they'd definitely speak Arabic. Add to that the fact that Israel has a policy of compulsory universal military duty (not just the men, but the women too), and understanding the fact that it would seem to be impossible to be capable of serving in the military without at least some knowledge of Arabic (to communicate with Arabs at checkpoints, etc...), although I couldn't give you a precise answer to the question, all these factors would lead me to believe that a rather large majority of Israelis have at least a working knowledge of the basics of the Arabic language. Loomis 21:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, there are many jobs in the Israeli military that don't require face to face interactions with Arabs, like dropping bombs on them (at least on those who support terrorism). StuRat 22:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, we have an article all about it, Languages of Israel Nowimnthing 22:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe all children in Israeli public schools are supposed to learn Arabic. Some Israeli Hebrew slang comes from Arabic. -- Mwalcoff 22:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, Stu. Yet it would seem to reason that those IAF personnel assigned the task of printing up all those leaflets dropped from IAF planes saying, essentially, in Arabic of course: "All civilians, for your own safety, please leave this area. This area is populated by a great deal of terrorists and will be bombed shortly. Please leave this area as soon as possible as we have no wish to harm you" would seem to be required to be pretty fluent in Arabic. Loomis 00:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It only requires one person who knows Arabic to write them, and perhaps 1000, who don't need to know Arabic, to copy and distribute them. StuRat 00:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Another good point Stu. The decision to devote an entire sortie to dropping these leaflets can very possibly have been decided by Israelis with no knowledge of Arabic. Similarly the pilot who dropped them at the risk of AAA fire (not that that was much of a risk in the recent conflict, but it certainly was in many similar scenarios) could also have no knowledge of Arabic either. Actually, Nowimnthing seems to have found an entire article to answer this question, and having checked it out, it seems to be a rather good article. Loomis 01:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a name for this architecture?

Does the style of architecture visible on the following images have a name? Here goes: [2] [3] [4] Image:Monuments for Killed in Action (Seoul War Memorial).jpg

All four are photos of the War Memorial (Seoul). Now, in the place I live, the only remotely comparable buildings I can think of are these and this, so you will understand I was fairly shocked and amused by the War Memorial's shameless display of oversizedness, fugliness, and nationalistic pathos, outside as well as inside the building.

Apart from a vague sentence in the #Construction section, the Memorial's article does not mention its creepy appearance, which for me is the first thing that comes to mind when I think of the the building and its surroundings. So I was going to write a few words into the article like “somewhat resembles Nazi architecture”, but when I had a look at the Nazi architecture article in the hopes of finding a less offensive word for this kind of thing, I found therein no sexier term to describe the style than “a squared-off version of neo-classical architecture” – however, the building pictured over at the neo-classicism article doesn't resemble the Seoul Memorial at all, except both have columns. So what's its style called? There must be some word for it. Thanks in advance – Wikipeditor 22:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno but if a name was up for grabs I'd go with Legousian MeltBanana 01:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the New Main Library (built after the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989) in San Francisco, California. —Tamfang 02:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Brutalist perhaps? Adam Bishop 07:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it brutalist, it has too many rounded edges. Anchoress 07:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NY Times Crosswords

I've actually got a pretty uncontroversial question for a change: Would anyone be aware of any websites that contain both NY Times Crossword puzzles as well as their solutions? Loomis 23:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

All New York times crosswords made before 1923 are copyrighted, so the answer is likely no. However the new york times company does put out some books with such.

The current Times crosswords are available as an online subscription (I think it's about $50/year). - Nunh-huh 00:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you can usually go to a local bookstore (at least in the US) and pick up books of NY Times crosswords. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Understanding Nietzsche

I have long seen the quote:

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster, and if you stare long into an abyss, the abyss also stares into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche.

But I have never been able to understand what Nietzsche meant by it, can anyone explain it in simplier terms. why do you have to see that the abyss stares back at you what does this mean? --mexaguil 00:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I always thought of it as a more elegant form of "to catch a criminal you must think like a criminal" with the added warning that to do so will cause you to become a criminal. Nowimnthing 00:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Or "he who fights fire with fire, frequently gets burned". StuRat 01:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Taking Nietzsche's philosophy out of context is both easier than with other philosophers' ideas and also more likely to distort his ideas. Perhaps you should read Beyond Good and Evil; I mean the original work not this rubbish article. After that warning. The abyss is a reference to nihilism, a profound and persuasive concept, but one Nietzsche spent much of his work trying to think his way out from. MeltBanana 02:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the latter part of the quote (MeltBanana's comment is very interesting, and I'll think about it v/v 'the abyss'), but I'd always thought the first part has to do with the damage done by indiscriminate (or even well-considered) cultural and social divisions and the dehumanisation it can cause. For instance, if I call myself a human being and you a human being, and we are fighting, it's a human struggle and we both have the opportunity to rise above 'monstrousness' and reach for the best in ourselves and each other. But if I decide that because we disagree you are a monster, then I am no longer fighting a human being, I am fighting a monster. In a black and white world, my side is human and your side is monstrous. But nihilism questioned and even rejected the 'artificial' institutions that fostered such simple, absolute social divisions. I think the idea could be that by codifying my struggle as one against a monster, it actually makes the struggle and both combatants more monstrous, or it could be that - given the way human beings think - while I'm so certain I'm the human and you're the monster, you're thinking the same about me. Anchoress 07:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: to summarise, I think that to follow Nietzsche's advice is not to state on January 1, 'I resolve not to fight monsters', but rather to choose not to see one's enemies as monsters. That by deciding the quality of our opposition, we are either elevating or lowering ourselves. Anchoress 07:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• I used this quote also in essays about the brutalising effects of war;if you're "wasting gooks" you are not murdering a human being.Because they are "monsters" you may commit attrocities on them becuase they are not human ,attrocities on both sides escalate and before you know where you are,you are WORSE than the enemy and have become monsters

hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 09:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC))

Not only do you affect your surroundings, but your surroundings effect you. Every thing you feel is relative to your surroundings, and what they impose on you as a normal state. You grow accustomed to your surroundings, and as you become a part of them, they become a part of you. If your surroundings are horrific, however shorter time you spend in them, they will not leave you. And you will be changed by them. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Which means your surroundings affect you. I can't imagine how they might effect you. JackofOz 23:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, but does anyone have the original German version handy? I've looked for it in the past and not had any success. The reason I ask is that I've seen several versions of the translation and I'm curious to see what he originally wrote. For example, I've seen "Battle not with monsters, lest you become a monster; and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." which is not *quite* the same meaning as the quote up top. Matt Deres 15:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiversity

Seriously, is the wikifoundation looking for volunteer teachers for the wikiversity?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengurion (talk • contribs)

• Seriously, sign your posts, all it takes is --~~~~--205.188.117.12 00:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)