Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 September 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< September 6 << Aug | Sep | Oct >> September 8 >
Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions at one of the pages linked to above.


Contents

[edit] September 7

[edit] Babies with .com/.org/.net/etc. in their names...

After reading about the GoldenPalace.com Monkey, I find myself wondering if anyone has ever named one of their children after a website, either for financial gain or simply because they wanted their kid to be called "kevin-smith.com" or something. Anyone know? --Kurt Shaped Box 00:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Check out List of unusual personal names. There may be some there. Anchoress 02:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
That would be quite funny indeed if there are such names. --Proficient 05:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think there's laws prohibiting such a name. - Mgm|(talk) 07:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
There are laws limiting personal names in some countries (eg Germany) but not in others (eg, AFAIK, the UK) 22:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

KentuckyFriedCruelty.com it isn't a baby, but it is still pretty interesting. Viva La Vie Boheme!

[edit] Survey--do you believe in aliens?

My friend wants to conduct a survey: do you believe that extraterrestrial beings have visited Earth? Is so, please state why or why not. Thanks! --Bowlhover 00:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You probably won't get a great sample here, but here are some former surveys' results, people can still give their opinion if they want:
University of Connecticut survey: 60% of Americans believe in existence of aliens
Reader's Digest poll: 81% believe in intelligent life elsewhere, roughly 60% believe they are currently monitoring us, also finds older people more likely to believe
1997 Canadian poll: Almost 10% believe they have seen a UFO, 78% believe there is life elsewhere, 57.5% say there is a government cover-up of UFOs, also found the higher the education, the less they believe in life elsewhere.
There's just some mass data already collected, personally I don't believe any have landed here, but I don't have any reason, especially. I hope that helps. -KingPenguin 02:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Bowlhover, I noticed you changed the title of your section. I think it's important to be clear about what you're (or were originally) asking. The question was, do we believe ETs have visited Earth. Whether or not we believe that intelligent life (or any life) has existed elsewhere in the universe during the 9-16 billion years it's been around is a very different question. Anchoress 03:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
My question is whether you believe ETs have visited Earth. Sorry, the section name is misleading (I haven't changed it though). --Bowlhover 03:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
There are two distinctly different questions here:
  • Do you believe that somewhere in the universe intelligent life exists (besides on earth)?
Most NASA scientists would answer, Very likely yes.
  • do you believe that intelligent alien life visits earth as "UFOs"?
Most NASA scientists would answer, Pfft, and then avoid further conversation with you. Durova 04:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
If your friend wants a good sample, he/she should try to ask a wide variety of people in a few different public places. A mall (being sure to check that this sort of activity isn't prohibited), a park, anywhere with a high number of people coming from different backgrounds. Unless the idea was to survey a particular type of person, say, teenagers, or parents, or college students vs. faculty memebers, in which case you would go specifically somewhere that would find a large number of these people. -Russia Moore 18:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Poll (Do you believe aliens have visited Earth)

NO

  • KingPenguin no (copied from above)
  • I don't believe ETBs have ever visited our solar system; the reason is because I find Einstein and the Rare Earth hypothesis compelling. Anchoress 02:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You find Einstein compelling? You're a bit to late then , lassie. :) DirkvdM 14:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Another Dutch joke I don't get! Is it just me, or ... :) Loomis 21:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to think that such things have ever visited Earth, as per Occham's Razor. But nor do I accept the Rare Earth hypothesis, and think it highly probable that something deserving to be called life exists beyond this solar system. Bhumiya (said/done) 02:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Anchoress--however, I do believe there are intelligent alien life on another planet. (Regardless of whether the rare earth hypothesis is true, there are 7 x 1022 stars in the universe (which is 150 times more than the number of milliseconds that have passed since the beginning of the universe). --Bowlhover 03:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • My father was a career NASA scientist who dedicated his life to explorating outer space. The most excited I ever saw him was when he described the slim possibility of life on Jupiter's moon Europa. If intelligent aliens ever visited earth, he certainly had never seen credible evidence for it, and he he could barely restrain his disgust at UFO enthusiasts. Durova 04:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Without good evidence, I cannot have belief. --Fastfission 14:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Without good evidence you need belief (but then there's babel fish#Existence of God). DirkvdM 18:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Or, where there is good evidence, there is no need for belief. JackofOz 22:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence to support that claim? :) DirkvdM 07:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I hold this truth to be self-evident. JackofOz 23:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

YES

Your signature forms an appropriate continuation of that sentence. :) DirkvdM 14:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Dammit, my cover's blown! Zargon, call a cab, quick! Tony Fox (arf!) 16:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Ja, the aliens are here. Russian F 14:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

MAYBE/DON'T KNOW

I think it's possible, but the hard evidence is lacking. What I think is much more likely is that a race of non-human sentient beings has co-inhabited Earth for a very long time, and their appearances are often misinterpreted as being from beyond Earth. Just don't ask me to prove it. JackofOz 02:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
My fence is that it's difficult to arrive at a direct answer. There can be life elsewhere, but I don't think they have visited Earth. But the chance is always there. --Proficient 06:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by "my fence"? JackofOz 06:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Probably that he's "on the fence" about it.
Oh. I see. JackofOz 22:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Per Occam's razor I believe it's likely that there's other life in the universe, whether they have visited earth, I don't know. - Mgm|(talk) 07:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how Occam's razor applies. If there was some sort of unexplained evidence of alien life, you could claim Occam's razor tends towards their existance, but since we have zero indisputable evidence at present, Occam's razor seems to imply that that means there's nothing else out there.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  14:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Proteins form in space. Some life-forms may have formed. And some of that may have 'fallen down' on Earth somewhere in the last 5 billion years (and probably died in the process). Not 'little green men' of course. More like 'little green slime' or something. Maybe they even managed to form a symbiosis with us in the form of snot. :) DirkvdM 14:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Btw, If I were an alien visiting Earth, Id take the piss out of the Rare Earth notion by singing "twiddley dee, twiddley dum, look out baby 'cause here I come". DirkvdM 14:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • yes they did then fixed our minds so we can't remember it-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 20:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Name of a garment

I am wondering if this particular garment has a name: it's a type of women's trousers, often calf-length, usually but not exclusively black, generally floppy or perhaps elastic in texture, and extremely wide, almost resembling hakama. I see them mostly on young women. Does anyone know what they're called? Bhumiya (said/done) 02:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Culottes? MeltBanana 13:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd guess (well, my wife guesses) you're referring to gaucho pants. Note that this link redirects to "gaucho", and provides no pictures of said pants. But a google image search seems to match your description. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Gauchos... Thank you! That's what I was trying to remember when I saw this thread. Don't know if it's what the poster is thinking of, but it's what I thought of when I read it (just couldn't remember the name). Anchoress 15:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's precisely what I was thinking of. Thanks. Bhumiya (said/done) 03:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of humans that have ever lived

I recently read this phrase in an interesting article in "Discover":

"Something like one fifth of all the people who have ever lived are alive today."

Is this true, that we are currently around 20% of all humans that have ever existed?? (I found it surprizing, though credible, but don´t know how to calculate the total number of homo sapiens that have existed). Thanks for any info. ==Joel==

The same question was asked a couple of days ago; see #Number of Humans Since the Beginning. --LambiamTalk 03:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It depends on what you consider humans, since they evolved from the past and it might be ambiguous as to what the 20% is referring to. --Proficient 06:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slanted and wrong info on Judith Reisman

I have received many legitimate complaints about the false statements and bias in Wikepedia about both me and my research.

Since basic research would have corrected some of your factual distortions this suggests that bias is an inherent problem Wikipedia has with my study findings.

Kindly correct the falsehoods and try to locate a more objective editor.

Judith A Reisman, PhD, President The Institute for Media Education

If there are any specific factual inaccuracies in the article, please point them out on its discussion page. We are always trying to improve our articles, but it is hard to act on a non-specific allegation of "distortions". --LambiamTalk 03:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Dr. Reisman. Would you care to enumerate these falsehoods, if not here then on the relevant discussion page? From your comment, it is difficult to know precisely what you would like to see corrected. Incidentally, the article doesn't have a single editor, nor does any editor wield special power over its content. Like every Wikipedia article, it is collaboratively written and edited and content must be sourced. If you'd like, you could become an editor. If someone has been sending you complaints, that person might wish to become an editor himself and correct the problems. Bhumiya (said/done) 03:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've dropped a link to the above diff on the Judith A. Reisman discussion page so editors there have a heads-up. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Why can't you correct them yourself? Wikipedia has millions of editors throughout the world-which one would be objective enough for you? Lemon martini 09:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abstract universal currency

Virtually every standard of measurement has been incorporated into a global standard, e.g. the SI system. Why has no one contrived a standardized "measure of cost", in whose terms every currency/commodity could be measured? I'm not speaking of a world currency, merely an abstract point system. For instance, "today the US Dollar stands at fifteen credits, the Euro at twenty-six, the Yen..." and so on. If any currency can be converted into any other currency, it seems to follow that a standard "moneygram" (or perhaps "kilobuck"), abstracted from actual fluctuating commodities such as gold, could be worked out in some way. Has this ever been attempted? Or has my ignorance of finance caused me to miss something obviously wrong with the idea? Bhumiya (said/done) 03:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought this already existed. Wasn't the unit called a Big Mac? --LambiamTalk 15:47, 03:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say there are a number of complications that would make such a unit of little value:

1) Rather than being one exchange rate between any pair of currencies, there are many, one you might get when trading large volumes via a bank, and another when doing an exchange at a retail shop, for example. In extreme cases, where the currency is held artificially low, for example, the official exchange rate can be far different than the black market rate.

2) The exchange rates aren't necessarily compatible with each other. In a fictional example, if a twazzle is worth 2 fpibits, and a fpibit is worth 3 smorfs, one might conclude that a twazzle is worth 6 smorfs, but it isn't necessarily true. Since there are costs to doing the exchanges, the actual twazzle/smorf exchange rate may not be quite the same.

3) Costs of things relative to other things change over time, so, while you can buy 10 computers for the price of a car, now, it would have been just the reverse a few decades ago.

4) Inflation would change the value of your universal currency, too, just as it does normal currencies.

5) You would get the odd situation where 1 unit of universal currency would buy a different number of loaves of bread, depending on the which currency it was converted into, and where the loaves were purchased.

So, a universal currency wouldn't really be all that universal, and would just complicate things further. Note, however, that the US dollar is a de facto universal currency, with many countries using US dollars directly, and many others pegging their currency to the dollar. The remainder tend to define their currency in terms of the US dollar, as well. StuRat 04:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

gold can be used to compare the price of bread today with the price of bread 2000 years ago. I challenge you to do this comparison with any other form of currency. Ohanian 05:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. This has given me some ideas, but it seems like StuRat is far more knowledgeable than me, so I don't expect to refute him. The first point, for me, is the most serious, and I don't know how it could be settled except by extensive and continuous research and adjustment, which would be pointless since this is supposed to be a clever little convenience, not a massive ongoing project. However, I'm not so sure about the second point. The cost of exchange is just another factor, capable of being statistically determined and then calculated into the rate. The abstract currency would exist independently of all actual banking, so such matters would be independent and could be objectively assessed. If it cost X-percent to transfer Y-currency into Z-currency, that would simply be another determinant of the value of Y in the abstract currency. As for point three, I agree, but I don't see why it would pose a problem. I'm not proposing that every commodity be assigned an absolute value, merely that each currency be assigned a value corresponding to its relative purchasing power within its "homeland", foreign currencies being treated for this purpose as commodities. The cost of a given commodity in any other currency could then be determined by multiplying its price in its native currency with that currency's value in the abstract currency and then dividing it by the abstract currency-value of the target currency (deep breath). As for point four, I don't see why inflation would change an abstract currency, which is based on ratios and may be adjusted. Inflation in a real-world currency would simply devalue that currency in terms of the abstract currency, no? But intuitively, to me, it still seems like it ought to be possible, at least in theory. I suppose as long as governments exist, so will economic discontinuities, and these seem to be at the root of the dilemma. It would simply require too much calculation and analysis to be worth it. I suppose this is why I'm not likely to end up in economics. And it would seem my original question is answered: why hasn't this been done? Bhumiya (said/done) 06:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
On the Big Mac approach: Ron Neil, "A Matter of Economics – Calculating Exchange Rates". The actual rates (as of now, those of March 25): The Economist, "FXBigMac - World economics based on the hamburger standard". --LambiamTalk 07:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Something like the abstract unit of exchange that you describe already exists. It is called the Special Drawing Right. Here is the IMF factsheet on the SDR and a table of conversion rates for most currencies. Marco polo 14:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The French equivalent to the LETS system, les Sel, has a monetary unit tending to be universal : a hour of work must be worth the same everywhere. Does it work ? -- DLL .. T 19:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The other unit of currency used for price comparison over long periods of time is the hour of physical labor: how many hours of work does it take for someone to be able to buy a loaf of bread? --Serie 20:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
For comparing living costs in different countries the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, United Nations have a system called "Purchasing Power Parity" (PPP) to assess the variation. If you want to work out each country (therefore national currency)'s score compare the figure in dollars for a given country on these two lists List of countries by GDP (PPP) and List of countries by GDP (nominal). Where the former is higher than the latter, then, on current exchange rates, an American living there for a month will find it cheaper than back home, and vice-versa. Jameswilson 23:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Then it looks like something somewhat along the lines of an abstract currency exist, though perhaps it confuses the situation to try to think of it as a currency. Thanks for all the responses. Bhumiya (said/done) 03:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
There was a 'beer rule' I believe, proposed in wargaming in the early eighties. Rentwa 05:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] when it rains it pours

On a Morton salt box is a picture of a girl with a box of salt with the caption "When it rains it pours". The box that she is carrying has the same picture of herself with the sae caption and of course on that box would be the same caption and picture etc. There is a name for such an occurance or situation. I would greatly appreciate if anyone coul inform me of that word. Thanks.

Recursion? Skittle 11:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
A saying or perhaps one of the disambiguations thereof? --Proficient 06:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It's the Droste effect.-gadfium 06:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never understood that saying, why would you pour salt on the ground when it rains ? I only pour salt on the ground when there is ice to melt. StuRat 06:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it a saying? My interpretation is this little narrative: When it rains, the girl puts up an umbrella. That leaves her only one free arm to carry the box. As the oversize box is too large for her to hold in one hand, she then puts it under her arm, which is only possible if she tips the box -- with the unintended effect that the salt pours out. When it stops raining, she'll fold the umbrella, put it under her arm, and carry the (now lighter) box again with two hands. Here is a bonus poem for those in love with the Morton salt girl. --LambiamTalk 07:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The only problem with that interpretation is that you can turn one of their salt canisters upside down, and it still won't pour out (unless you pull the spout out first). You'd think that would be a selling point, rather than suggesting that their salt leaks out if you tilt the container. StuRat 09:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I figured it just meant that the salt would still pour freely even when it was a bit damp. But it is also an allusion to the saying "It never rains but it pours," meaning that not one but several disasters will arrive at the same time. --Shantavira 07:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You are correct, at least according Morton's own web site. "The company developed a salt that would be free-running even in damp weather." --LarryMac 13:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baroque architecture

Hi - this might be a naive question - but can anyone tell me how an educated French person would have described Baroque architecture? Did they use the term 'Baroque', or has it arisen since then? Also, if anyone can point me to a glossary of Baroque architectural terms, I'd be grateful. Thanks Adambrowne666 08:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The word "baroque" was originally used in a disparaging sense by late-19th-century art critics, in a time when rich ornamentation was not en vogue. You don't specify from what period your educated French person is, but if it is over a century ago, then it is not clear they would have had a term for it that would have been understood by others as referring to a particular architectural style. See also our articles Baroque, Baroque architecture, and French Baroque. --LambiamTalk 09:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Good answer, thanks, Lambiam - I was thinking of a person in the late 1600s, if that makes any difference, though it seems clear from your answer that they might not have had a term for it at all - so, is the notion of there being 'schools' of architecture and art etc, like Baroque, Classical, Neoclassical, a recent one? Adambrowne666 12:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Our article claims that it is not the original term but says that it was rehabilitated from its derogatory use in the late 19th-century (1888) so maybe it was orginally used earlier than Lambian suggests. Anyone know how early it was in use? Rmhermen 14:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Although used earlier, it was not used as a designation of a specific style. It was used in its ordinary dictionary meaning of adorned, bizarre, convoluted, extravagant, florid, frilly, frou-frou, gaudy, grotesque, ornate, ostentatious, overdecorated, rich, rococo, showy, sumptuous. If the austere art critics, in talking about these buildings, had criticized them for being "grotesque", then perhaps now we would be talking about "the Grotesque period", "neo-Grotesque", and so on. --LambiamTalk 17:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Great, thanks all - I liked your list of adjectives, Lambiam, though you left out 'meretricious' Adambrowne666 03:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henry 'Harry' Miller

Does anyone (probably Australians would know this more than anyone else)know any information about Henry 'Harry' Miller?He was a promoter at Sydney Stadium and he commited suicide.There is currently an article in Wikipedia about Harry M Miller but he is not the same person.Any help would be greatly appreciated.Serenacw 10:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't he the one who wrote "The topic of cancer". Ohanian 11:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that's the American writer Henry Miller, and it's "Tropic of Cancer", not "The topic of cancer". I've heard of the Australian boxing promoter Harry Miller. He was very well known for his collection of outlandish ties. That's about the extent of my knowledge of him. I hadn't heard he suicided. JackofOz 12:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe Henry Miller also wrote an entire book on the topic of capricorns. I still don't have the slightest idea why he was so obsessed with those born between December 22 and January 19. :-) (Also, Jack, I had no idea that suicide was a verb as well as a noun, but I checked the dictionary, and you're right! I suicide, you suicide, s/he suicides, we suicide, they suicide. Bizzare, but true! I learned a new thing today. Thanks!) Loomis 21:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. Just don't try this at home.  :--) JackofOz 23:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
"I'd like to write a mathematics textbook someday, because I have a title that I know will sell a million copies: I'm going to call it Tropic of Calculus." Tom Lehrer (quoted here by Tamfang 04:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Intertextuality

I have an asignment on intertextuality. My theme is war. Can you help me. I've got some information already I just need some more.

Thank you! --144.138.77.107 12:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

See War --Mnemeson 15:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
...and intertextuality. StuRat 17:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Law of Pakistan

"Can somebody help me in finding free E Resources about the Law of Pakistan?" <-- This question was asked at Wikiversity. So far I found Media laws of Pakistan.
--JWSchmidt 12:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Consult Category:Pakistani law. --LambiamTalk 17:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of Human Rights

Hello

My name is Joseph Jarvis U.S. Citizen, I was seriously injured in an auto accident in Mexico, on September the third 2002, The driver was convicted for causing the accident, and the Company PROMOTORA AMBIENTAL DEL SURESTE, S.A. DE C.V., was fined for ilegally hauling toxic waste, which also resauled in the cancelation of their permits, we sued the company who the driver worked for at the time of the accident, after four years of fighting in court, the judges all the way to the Federal Court of Appeals have absolved the Companies involved, favoring the very CORUPTED ALBERTO E. GARZA SANTOS, from there penal and civil anLiabilities, Including the Insurance Company.

The reasoning that the first Instance Judge gave for dismissing the company from their legal liability was that Joseph Emmanuel Jarvis did not prove his legal status in the country at the time of the accident. Basing his decision on that fact declaring that Joseph Does no have any Civil Rights.

The First Court of Appeals, based their decision on the assumption that Joseph did not prove his exact losses for the Injuries he received. Which is totally untrue. Due to the fact that Mr. Jarvis did in fact prove all of his losses, with business contracts, medical expenses, bank accounts, and IRS records.

The Federal Court of Appeals, based their decision on the assumption that Joseph did not prove that the company was at fault. Which is also totally untrue. Due the fact that Mr. Jarvis did prove the company was acting negligently for illegally transporting Toxic materials without permits and in vehicles totally inadequate for transporting semi-liquid materials, and was in fact Sanctioned by the Secretary of Transportation and Communications, and the Environmental Protection Agency, which was totally ignored by all three courts.

Now for my question:

The companies we have been fighting are very corrupted, they have played many games with the courts, Including illegally demanding Mr. Jarvis and his wife penalty for many different things including soliciting the Immigration Department to deport Mr. Jarvis, however unsuccessfully.

My civil rights have been violated.

How do I find out if my case qualifies, for the International Tribune?

I have over 20,000 pages of evidence against the company which the authorities here in Mexico have profusely ignored to favor the Company who ran me over with their illegal truck, it is completely obvious that they have been paid off to the point where I have no where to turn in this country for Justice.

Sincerely

Joseph Emmanuel Jarvis

[e-mail removed - see rules at top]

phone [number removed, see above]

Address [address removed, see above]

You should contact a Lawyer. Any advice you get from this desk on your situation will be worth exactly how much you're paying for it - nothing. --Mnemeson 15:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I´m not looking for advise I need to know what are the requirments to have my case heard by the International Tribune

And for that, you should really contact a lawyer, particularly since you'll need to flesh out a lot of your terminology -- I find far more references to newspapers than legal courts when searching "international tribune", and I'm not aware of any sort of international court for personal tort suits. — Lomn | Talk 17:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets recap; Joseph Jarvis, was seriously injured in an auto accident in Mexico, on September the third 2002, The driver was convicted for causing the accident, and the Company PROMOTORA AMBIENTAL DEL SURESTE, S.A. DE C.V., was fined for illegally hauling toxic waste, which also resulted in the cancellation of their permits and license, Mr. Jarvis sued the company who the driver worked for at the time of the accident, after four years of fighting in court, the judges all the way to the Federal Court of Appeals have illegally absolved the Companies involved, favoring the very CORUPTED ALBERTO E. GARZA SANTOS, of there penal and civil and Liabilities.

The very corrupted Judges based their decision for dismissing the company from their legal liability was that Joseph Jarvis did not prove his legal status in the country at the time of the accident; therefore unlawfully declaring that Mr. Jarvis does no have any Civil Rights, violating INTERNATIONAL LAWS.

The First Court of Appeals, based their very corrupted decision on the assumption that Mr. Jarvis did not prove his exact losses for the Injuries he received. Which is totally incongruent with the evidence presented, such as business contracts, medical expenses, bank accounts, and IRS records.

The Federal Court of Appeals, based their very corrupted decision on the assumption that Mr. Jarvis did not prove that the company was at fault, Ignoring systematically the fact that the company had been sanctioned for illegally transporting toxic waste. Therefore Mr. Jarvis did prove the company was acting negligently and illegally wile transporting Toxic waste without permits and in vehicles totally inadequate for transporting semi-liquid toxic materials, totally ignoring the evidance to favor ALBERTO E. GARZA SANTOS, THE VERY CORRUPTED OWNER OF PROMOTORA AMBIENTAL, S.A. DE C.V.,

Mr. Jarvis’s Civil Rights have obviously been maliciously violated, violated by the Mexican Authorities.

Alberto Eugenio Garza Santos obviously paid the Mexican Authorities to aviod the demand, and obviously the mexican authorities were very happy to take his money... to cheat Mr. Jarvis out of Justice...


Due to the evidence presented, Mr. Jarvis does have the right to pursue his demand against the Mexican Authorities, for their corrupted acts against his rights to have his damages repaired, for more details on how and where to file the criminal and civil demand against the Very corrupted Mexican Authorities, and the very corrupted Alberto Eugenio Garza Santos, please visit the web site for the United Nation, Human Rights Division, to present charges against the Mexican Authorities, as follows.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights


http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/

[edit] Miss Swinson

What is Jo Swinson MP's exact position on the monarchy? I think she's said that she doesn't favour its abolition, but favours much-reduced powers. Is that even possible? Her Majesty has very little power as it is. Would Jo have her be like a hereditary British Idol with her face on everything? Because, as a Lib Dem supporter and a liberal monarchist, I think that would actually be pretty nifty. 12.76.68.183 15:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The queen has enormous power, not to mention wealth. It's a common misconception that the monarch has a largely ceremonial role, possibly encouraged by monarchist sympathisers who can quote any number of facts to support this position. Guards regiments exist specifically for the defense of the monarch, for instance.
If you want to know her specific views on reform of the monarchy (assuming she has actually stated any) a google search like '" jo swinson" queen' or '"jo swinson" monarch bbc' might give you some answers. Most MPs have there their (edit:I shall tendering my resignation shortly) own websites, and an email enquiry (especially if it seemed to attribute some view to her, which she or an aide may confirm or deny depending on what it was) may be enlightening. Rentwa 06:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is he black?

The U.S., probably more so than other nations, is obsessed with race. That's understandable, given our history of slavery. We classify people by race for so many reasons, some of which are with the best intentions, such as insuring fair hiring, diversity and promotion. So how would the pro golfer Vijay Singh be classified? He was born in Fiji and is of Indian descent. His skin is very dark, almost black. He is much darker than millions of African-Americans, yet his features appear Caucasian, not "Negroid" (to use a term from years ago). Would he be considered black in America simply because of his skin color? Beth

Yes.

12.76.67.63 18:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually most questionnaires include a category called "Asian/Pacific islander." Durova 18:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This depends heavily on the classification. If you show someone who doesn't follow golf a picture and say "is this man black?", then the answer is probably "yes" -- but that's a horrible example of a loaded question. If you take a standard "list your race here" government form and ask Singh to fill it out himself, the answer is "no". Also, I doubt strongly that the US is significantly more obsessed with race than the rest of the world at large. (added after edit conflict) — Lomn | Talk 18:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the United States is fairly uncaring about race compared to some of the countries I've been to. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

Based on his pic: [1] I would say he looks black, yes. However, if I knew his name and ethnic background, I would conclude that he isn't black, but only appears to be black. StuRat 18:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess perception of race will vary from individual to individual. I saw his picture and instantly recognized him as South Asian, which to me is different from black. I think that the cultural construction of race is changing in the United States. It used to be that everyone was classified as either "white" or "black," or maybe "white," "white ethnic," or "black," with the middle category lumping together Italians and Mexicans. It may still be like that in less metropolitan parts of the United States. But I think that in much of the United States, there is a growing awareness of people who do not fit the white-black dichotomy. Even the word "black" is not so meaningful any more when there are important distinctions among, say, Haitians, Anglophone West Indians, African Americans, and African immigrants. Marco polo 19:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It's awfully ignorant to lump Europeans in the same category as Amerindians. --Nelson Ricardo 23:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
If you're talking about Italians vs. Mexicans, many Mexicans are primarily of Spanish descent, so do look somewhat similar to Italians. StuRat 05:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say he's black at all. To me, a "black person", for lack of a better term, is a person who's ancestry (or perhaps some part thereof) can be traced back to the indiginous peoples of sub-Saharan Africa. These people were once considered to be "Negroes", which, despite the pejorative connotations it seems to have mysteriously accumulated, simply refers to the Spanish and Portuguese term for the colour black. In fact the stigma concerning the use of the term "Negro", ironically, seems to be stronger among non-blacks than blacks. For example, The United Negro College Fund doesn't seem to have ever felt the need to change its name. Same goes for the term "Coloured". The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, a group dedicated to the goal of increased equality for blacks in the US, has likewise apparently seen no need to change its name.

The bizzare aspect of it all is the fact that "black people", as I've defined them above, even those who have absolutely no "non-black" ancestry, are actually not the darkest skinned of people. Many ethnic groups in India, certain Pacific Islanders like Singh, as well as Australian Aborigines can actually have skin much more resembling the colour "black". Yet they are not considered, racially speaking, as "black". In fact most "black" Americans are quite a bit lighter skinned than these other people, mostly due to some inevitable caucasian ancestry. For example, Bill Cosby is "black", yet he's far lighter skinned than Singh. "Black" features are more than simple than skin colour, but include a variety of facial features.

As perhaps the most bizarre example I can think of, once I remember coming across an extremely pale skinned, white haired, pink eyed albino man. He hadn't the slightest bit of pigment in his skin; pale as a ghost. Yet because of certain features, such as tight curled hair, a broad nose and distinctive lips, he was clearly of "black" ancestry. Loomis 23:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Indigenous Australians are self- and community-identified as black. The article Black people investigates some of the different views in regard to this question. Natgoo 08:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
In Britain Vijay Singh's Indian ancestry (ie not African) would make him brown not black. Actual skin colour doesnt matter. Jameswilson 23:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think he would be considered Black by most Americans. Those who hadn't been exposed to South Asians or Pacific Islanders might lump him into a larger category but anyone who had could tell that he is not of African ancestry. In the United States, while "Black" can be a very wide-ranging term, it is usually restricted to people with features which resemble those of African ancestry, skin color only being only component of that. --Fastfission 18:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] request to reach individua user <Jossi> re Chief Arthur Two Crows flute

Hello,

I found an article about a 1987 native american flute created by Chief Arthur Two Crows and listened to a sound clip on the same page of that flute played by ?< Jossi >. I would really like to speak to him because I have just found 2 flutes by the same maker ( made in 1988) languishing in a store cupboard. There is a small problem with the birch bark spacers on the flutes.

I'd like to ask him if he has had to replace the one on his flute and if so who did it. I think these might be grandfather tunings. If that is the case most modern flute makers cannot do this for me. He is the only other flute owner (for this maker) for whom I have been able to find reference.

I can't find any other reference for the maker other than this one. Aslo would love to know what the written designation, U.N.A.i on the flute, beside the written name, stands for, I am hoping Jossi will be able to help me out with this.

Would you please give me contact info for ? user: Jossi I odn't seem to be abble to figure out your system I am new to computers.

I can be reached at [email removed]

You can contact Jossi at User talk:Jossi. — Lomn | Talk 19:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conditions in Wuerttemberg, Germany in the period 1700-1740

I know that this area was badly hurt during the war of Spanish Succession 1701- 1713. I would think that conditions would improve significantly after the treaty. My ancestors left there in 1736 along with many other German people. What economic conditions woulg force so many to leave in a period of relative peace? You may email direct to <Email addy gratefully recieved by mail order viagra companies>if you chose. Martin Essick

There was in fact a series of wars in western and southern Germany during the early 18th century. You mention the War of the Spanish Succession. But the War of the Polish Succession brought fighting to western and southern Germany from 1733–1738, the period when your ancestors left. At the outbreak (1740) of the later War of the Austrian Succession, my own maternal ancestors fled the nearby Palatinate region to avoid conscription. These wars ravaged western and southern Germany, not only because young men were forced into duty as cannon fodder, but also because armies tended to raid local farms to supplement their rations (and to subject farmers' daughters to other appetites). In addition, western and southern Germany was divided into scores of petty states. The Duchy of Württemberg was one of the larger of these. Each of these states imposed a grinding and economically depressing tax burden on its peasants and townspeople to support its armies and the conspicuous consumption of its aristocracy. Also, during this period, the region's population was growing. If they survived the risk of death in wars waged purely to advance the claims of rulers, young people faced the prospect of paying heavy taxes and trying to eke a meager living from farms that had been divided into tiny portions among the previous generation's sons. Instead, many young men sold their small inheritance to pay for the cost of marrying and migrating to colonial America to start over in a land that offered better chances. Marco polo 13:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silver service etiquette

Silver Service (waiting) says that the guest to the host's left is served first, whilst this website says it's the guest at the right (under 'serving etiquette') - which is it? [2] --Username132 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but since our article is a barely literate stub, and since the guest to the host's right is likely to be somebody important, I would be much more inclined to trust that website.--Shantavira 11:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC
According to my American etiquette manual, written by Jacqueline Kennedy's protocol secretary, service begins at formal dinners with the lady to the hostess'right. Larger events service starts simulatenously with the ladies to the hostess' left and right. ≈75Janice≈14 September 2006

[edit] Diversity

Would it be safe to say that the US is the most Diverse country in the world?

It would depend on the criteria, but I'd say probably not. There was a discussion about this a couple of months ago, and it was determined that there are many countries that are, for instance, much more culturally/racially diverse than the US. Anchoress 21:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Such as?
Like I said, the conversation was a couple of months ago. Perhaps someone else remembers better than I. I am not in the mood to go look stuff up again. Off the top of my head I'd say probably Malaysia, maybe some of the Southern and Eastern African countries with large white and South Asian populations South Africa, Kenya, Uganda for instance. Depending on what is meant by diversity, which hasn't been clarified yet. The UK, Canada and Australia could give the US a run for its money on total number of different countries/cultures represented, but there are lots of countries with more languages spoken, more distinct cultures (although not necessarily as widely diverse as some Western countries). India and China both have lots of different langugages, some African and South American countries have dozens of distinct cultures.
BTW could you please sign your posts? Anchoress 21:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Anchoress' points about UK/Canada (and maybe Australia) being exceptionally diverse. I would point out that China is not especially ethnically diverse (and most of the language variation is down to different dialects of the same language) Bwithh 21:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC) .
From Identification of the varieties of Chinese:
...Internal diversity in Chinese, with respect to grammar, vocabulary, and syntax, is comparable to the Romance languages, and greater than the North Germanic languages and East Slavic languages...
In other words, you can't claim they're more similar than the examples given in the article. The only reason most people claim they're "more similar" is because China has a standardised written language system. (All of this, of course, is ignoring the ethnic diversity in the country - how they're treated is another story, but that's not the issue at hand.) ColourBurst 15:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming that by "diverse" you mean "ethnically diverse". Even then, it depends on what you mean by "ethnically diverse". If you're simply asking for the country that is made up of the largest number of ethnic communities, the US would probably be at least on par with all the others mentioned. But if you're talking about actual ethnic diversity (i.e. the degree to which foreign cultures and values are embraced by both government policy and society at large), Canada would clearly be a more "diverse" society. It may be trite, but the US is known as a "melting pot", meaning that wherever you come from, you're expected to "melt into" (and contribute somewhat to) American culture. Canada, on the other hand has a "multiculturalism" policy written into its constitution. Less assimilation is expected of newly arrived immigrants. On the contrary, to a certain extent, these newly arrived ethnic groups are encouraged to maintain their cultural identity and values. Note though, that I'm not necessarily saying that this is a good thing. Many Canadians, myself included, think the whole "multiculturalism" policy is not the best idea. Too much deference to certain "cultures" (which I will leave unnamed) can at the very least provide for a very weak national identity (one that Canada clearly suffers from), and at the very worst, in my opinion at least, can lead to a rather perverse level of tolerance for the rather illiberal values that certain ethnic groups inevitably import into Canada. Loomis 22:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The phrase melting pot was never meant to apply to "non-whites" when it was first conceived (as non-whites were never meant to be U.S. citizens). Even modern sociologists tend to reject the term, not to mention that "melting into the culture" means conformity and non-individuality. ColourBurst 15:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
India is indeed very diverse culturally, religiously, linguistically and geographically. But note that many of the countries mentioned so far are big ones. If you'd take Europe as a whole it would probably be more diverse than any of those big ones (except maybe India). DirkvdM 07:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
There is an economic index which is sometimes used for expressing cultural diversity, known as the Ethnolinguistic Fractionalization Index, and also an Ethnolinguistic and Religious Fractionalization Index. There are a lot of questionable assumptions which go into them, but as economic models I believe they're the most popular way to quantify "diversity", for better or worse, though there are many ways to define diverse (I think the EFI would treat a country with two large but different groups as being more diverse than a country with many small and different groups). The US ranks pretty high on these, but not as high as places like Brazil.[3][4] --Fastfission 18:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
This site has a great map charting genetic lines. The most genetic diversity would of course be in Africa. One of my anthropology profs once mentioned the diversity in between two next door neighbors in one village in Africa would be similar to the diversity between an Englishman and a Native American. But I don't know what his sources were. Nowimnthing 20:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry source: "theorbo"

There is, I think, this couplet in English or American literature: "Non veniente occurite morbo / With which moral I drop my theorbo." Who wrote that? Sounds like Browning to me; but I haven't found it there. Grateful for help. --4.245.203.1 21:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND. Anchoress 21:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophical Argument: God

I am working on an argument for my philosophy class (My position is just the existence of evil type). It's purpose is to disprove the existence of the Judaeo-Christian God without having to cite the theory of evolution or specific biblical fallacy, since both would potentially require me to have a vast amount of evidence in the form of text, or to batter away at my opposition with long winded hypothetical situations attempting to demonstrate natural selection and evolution, etc...

Here is what I have so far. The list immediately below is a set of characterists which I will/have presumedly forced them to accept and the ensuing argument from me. Please pose any and all defenses.

God is omnibenevolent. God is omnipotent. God is omnipresent. God is omniscient. Humans have free will.

If God is omniscient, then he knows what we will do. If God knows what we will do, he knows our destiny. If God set our lives in motion, he is responsible for causing that destiny. If we do evil things, God is responsible for them since he had the foreknowledge of the events and still caused us.

(If I point a gun at your head which I know is loaded and pull the trigger, I, not the bullet, am the cause of your death.)

This is NOT intended to create a debate here. I will NOT rebut any defenses presented here. If you find the above offensive, flame my user talk page.

After re-reading this, It sounds a lot like homework. It isn't, I'm just preparing for the in class discussion that we will be having.

-Razma Dreizehn

Well, here's the (joking) argument presented by The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, you can decide if it would really work for you or not.
If you can get them to concede that God requires prayer and faith from His followers, then point out that faith cannot exist if something is proved to be true, therefore if God is proved to be real then he is not in fact the god, for he exists with the support of faith. (This is all in the form of a little dialogue, but that's basically it.)
Sure, it was a joke in the book, but it's all up to you on whether or not it would work. -KingPenguin 23:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we have some evidentialist theist's in the class though. -Razma Dreizehn
Read Metaphysics and browse what some of the great philosophers such as Descartes have had to say on the subject. Then to challenge yourself try Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian for the other side of the debate. Durova 00:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Another topical page: Existence of God. Durova 00:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The best evidence to "disprove the existence of Judaeo-Christian God" is that HE only exists where and when Jews and Christians exists. ie. HE does not exists in China , Japan or Australia prior to the arrival of Jews or Christians. In fact, if Jews and Christians does not exists at all, it's hard to see how Judaeo-Christian God could exist.

The main idea being that God only exists when his followers exists. Ohanian 00:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that like saying a falling tree only makes a sound if someone hears it? -- Mwalcoff 02:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
That was basically what my quote was trying to get at, but may have required an extra step, i.e. proving he exists (despite foreknowledge that proving He exists is disproving his existence.) -KingPenguin 00:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You should read "The Unbearable Lightness of Being." Near the end, Kundera uses the existence of shit and human shame over shitting to offer a pretty powerful disproof of god's existence. It's worth reading and really quite compelling. Sashafklein 03:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that your (Razma Dreizehn's) argument, as well as others put forward above, successful or not, only aim to disprove the possibility of a deity having the attributes commonly ascribed to the Judaeo-Christian God. A defense against extending such arguments to the existence of the godhead by itself is that God by His very Nature defies confinement by humanly comprehensible attribution. That might even be said to apply to the attribution of "existence" as ascribed to God. --LambiamTalk 06:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
An overview of various arguments is given in our article on Atheism. You may also want to read Problem of evil. --LambiamTalk 06:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
If you want the argument to be scientific (what else might you want it to be?) then you approach it the wrong way around. It's the existence of God that needs proving. If no such proof can be given you win by default. DirkvdM 08:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
See also Falsifiable#Theism. DirkvdM 08:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The original poster asked for help in disproving the existence of the Judaeo-Christian God. This is much much easier than disproving the existence of God. Ohanian 09:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

One response to the original argument would be that God is not responsible for anything before anyone. Job is pretty much all about this question. If we accept that, though, there doesn't seem to be much possibility of any philosophical argument about Him. Anyway, Job is strong stuff compared for instance to the gormless whining about the beaks of Galapagian finches that I just read in the Watch Tower. Unfortunately, I doubt any of your opponents will have the backbone to stand up like Elihu and declare God, as the creator and keeper of the universe, to be simply as unimpeachable as He is unfathomable. His existence, then, would have to be assumed, which for Job came naturally when God spake to him directly from a whirlwind, sort of knocking the wind out of Job's rant against Him. (For the record, I am not a Christian.)--Rallette 12:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As for your original argument, it only works if you make very specific assumptions about God, and when appealing to infinities you are often going to just run into definitional problems (see Irresistible force paradox as another example). For example, omnipotence and omniscience may not even be compatible (if you can do anything, could you not negate any knowledge about the future?), and omniprescence and omnipotence might not work either (if you are required, by definition, to be everywhere, could you choose not to be everywhere?). In the end these look more like logical sophistry than real theology or philosophy.
In my opinion the argument from evil works best when you talk about things completely outside of the human realm, things which would be presumably be quite easy for even a non-omnipotent God to render, if they were interventionist (that's a big if there). For example, when they were trying to look for victims of in the wreckage of 9/11, they were hampered by rain. Now, how hard would it have been for God to have made it so that it didn't rain right at that specific time? One would imagine this to be well within the powers of even a reasonably weak God. It makes me feel compelled to conclude that either 1. God doesn't care, 2. God doesn't intervene in the daily affairs of the world, or 3. God doesn't exist. Any of those taken individually presents a challenge to the traditional interpretation of the Judeo-Christian God. --Fastfission 18:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)